Workforce Bulletin

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we take a closer look at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s decision to strike down the Department of Labor’s (DOL’s) tip credit rule but to uphold the agency’s authority to set a minimum salary threshold for overtime exemptions.

The Fifth Circuit recently struck down the DOL’s tip credit rule, finding that the agency had exceeded its authority under the Fair Labor Standards Act. However, that same court later upheld the DOL’s authority to set a minimum salary threshold for overtime exemptions.

Epstein Becker Green attorney Paul DeCamp, who represented the restaurant plaintiffs in the tip credit case alongside Kathleen Barrett, offers his interpretation of these significant court decisions and what they mean for employers.

The widespread availability of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools has enabled the growing use of “deepfakes,” whereby the human voice and likeness can be replicated seamlessly such that impersonations are impossible to detect with the naked eye (or ear). These deepfakes pose substantial new risks for commercial organizations. For example, deepfakes can threaten an organization’s brand, impersonate leaders and financial officers, and enable access to networks, communications, and sensitive information.

In 2023, the National Security Agency (NSA), Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), and Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) released a Cybersecurity Information Sheet (the “Joint CSI”) entitled “Contextualizing Deepfake Threats to Organizations,” which outlines the risks to organizations posed by deepfakes and recommends steps that organizations, including national critical infrastructure companies (such as financial services, energy, healthcare and manufacturing organizations), can take to protect themselves. Loosely defining deepfakes as “multimedia that have either been created (fully synthetic) or edited (partially synthetic) using some form of machine/deep learning (artificial intelligence),” the Joint CSI cautioned that the “market is now flooded with free, easily accessible tools” such that “fakes can be produced in a fraction of the time with limited or no technical expertise.” Thus, deepfake perpetrators could be mere amateur mischief makers or savvy, experienced cybercriminals. 

We previously wrote about a Michigan Supreme Court decision to reinstate two voter initiatives – the Wage Act and the Earned Sick Time Act (ESTA) – and state agency responses to that decision (the “Original Order”), which included the filing of a motion asking the court to clarify the Original Order. On September 18, 2024, the Michigan Supreme Court responded, granting the request for immediate consideration and issuing a thirteen-page Order (the “Clarification Order”).

New Details on Coming Adjustments to Michigan Wage Rates

Tip Credit Phase Out

The substantive portion of the Clarification Order re-writes a lengthy and important footnote in the Original Order, including an extension of the gradual phase-out of the tip credit and a clearer definition of the annually increasing percentage amount. Instead of merely saying “The tip credit will be [XX]% of minimum wage,” the Clarification Order provides that “tipped workers’ minimum hourly wage rate must be at least [XX]% of the general minimum wage rate, and the tip credit can be used to satisfy the balance owed to such workers.”

In other words, the Clarification Order spells out that, for example, “80%” means that tipped workers must be paid a base rate that is at least 80% of the general minimum hourly wage rate.

In recent years, advocates and lawmakers have been pushing to expand the reach of “ban-the-box” measures designed to remove job barriers for individuals with criminal convictions. “Ban-the-box” laws, also called “fair chance laws,” are designed to prevent employers from excluding applicants based on their criminal history alone, by prohibiting employers from immediately inquiring into an applicant’s criminal history before evaluating their qualifications.

Ban-the-box laws have been adopted federally (for federal agencies and federal contractors acting on their behalf) and in numerous states and local jurisdictions. These laws generally contain broad carve-outs for employers or positions where background checks are required, including within the financial services industry. Some changes are coming to narrow those exemptions. On December 23, 2022, President Biden signed into law the Fair Hiring in Banking Act (FHBA), which substantially revised Section 19 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDIA) to reduce hiring barriers within the financial services sector.

Over the past several years, the number of states with comprehensive consumer data privacy laws has increased exponentially from just a handful—California, Colorado, Virginia, Connecticut, and Utah—to up to twenty by some counts. Many of these state laws will go into effect starting Q4 of 2024 through 2025.

We have previously written in more detail on New Jersey’s comprehensive data privacy law, which goes into effect January 15, 2025, and Tennessee’s comprehensive data privacy law, which goes into effect July 1, 2025. Some laws have already gone into effect, like Texas’s Data Privacy and Security Act, and Oregon’s Consumer Privacy Act, both of which became effective July of 2024. Now is a good time to take stock of the current landscape as the next batch of state privacy laws go into effect.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday: This week, on our Spilling Secrets podcast series, our panelists delve into the implications for employers following the recent blockage of the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) non-compete ban.

On August 20, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas invalidated the FTC’s non-compete ban, deeming it arbitrary and capricious and beyond the scope of the agency’s statutory authority.

In this episode of Spilling Secrets, Epstein Becker Green attorneys Peter A. Steinmeyer, Erik W. Weibust, and Paul DeCamp tell us more about the court’s decision to block the ban, what legal challenges remain, and the key considerations for employers moving forward. 

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we’re highlighting a few state-level employment issues, including the legal challenges faced by Staples Inc. regarding the Massachusetts lie detector ban; New Jersey’s implementation of a gender-neutral dress code for businesses; and the varying voting leave policies across states in preparation for the November election.

The Tenth Circuit recently reaffirmed that employers may lawfully enforce a policy against surreptitious recordings.

In Spagnolia v. Charter Communications, LLC, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit unanimously affirmed a District of Colorado order granting employer Charter Communications, LLC’s (“Defendant”) summary judgment on claims filed by plaintiff Heather Spagnolia (“Spagnolia”), who asserted that she was fired in retaliation for making reasonable requests for lactation accommodations. The issue before the appellate court was whether Defendant’s proffered reason for terminating Spagnolia (secretly recording meetings with her supervisors in violation of company policy) was pretextual. 

Both courts agreed that Spagnolia’s violation of the policy against surreptitious recordings was a lawful basis for termination, and that Spagnolia failed to show that this was pretextual.

Background

In 2017, Spagnolia moved to Colorado to work for Defendant as a Regional Operations Center Specialist. From April to July 2019, Spagnolia took leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act to give birth to her second child. When she returned to work in July 2019, Spagnolia’s supervisor mistakenly permitted her to take paid lactation breaks, even though Defendant’s written policy provided for unpaid lactation breaks. During that time, Spagnolia’s lactation breaks lasted for an average of two hours per day, and sometimes up to three hours—in addition to her lunch break and regular paid breaks.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we’re examining the repercussions for employers of a recent court decision that set aside the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) nationwide non-compete ban:

On August 20, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas blocked the FTC’s ban on non-compete agreements nationwide. What does this mean for employers?

Epstein Becker Green attorney Peter A. Steinmeyer tells us what employers should be doing now and outlines the implications of this decision on existing and future non-compete agreements.

A growing number of states and municipalities have passed “fair chance” laws that, to varying degrees, prohibit employers from inquiring into a job applicant’s criminal background during the hiring process or restrict employers from using certain criminal conviction information in connection with their hiring decisions. Recently, Los Angeles County joined this group and New York City is posed to again amend the rules for its existing law. The Los Angeles developments create new intricacies for employers, while the New York actions may be best understood as clarification of existing law. In either case, keeping up with the changes is important for employers who are hiring in those locations. 

Los Angeles County’s New Law

The Los Angeles County Fair Chance Ordinance for Employers (“FCO”) was adopted by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors on February 7, 2024, and becomes operative on September 3, 2024. The FCO was designed to complement California’s “Ban-the Box” law, called the Fair Chance Act (“FCA”), and introduces additional compliance requirements for covered employers, including, but not limited to, mandatory language for job postings and solicitations, and written notice requirements in connection with the extension of a conditional offer of employment.