Workforce Bulletin

By Jason Kaufman

The Dodd-Frank Act created a comprehensive whistleblowing program by amending the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to include Section 21F, entitled “Securities Whistleblower Incentives and Protection,” and establishing the “Office of the Whistleblower” to enforce its provisions.  Individuals who voluntarily provide the SEC with original information that leads to a successful SEC enforcement action resulting in monetary sanctions greater than $1 million are entitled to an award of between 10 and 30 percent of the total sanctions collected.  According ...

By Alka N. Ramchandani and Michael D. Thompson

In recent years, Cal-OSHA has taken an aggressive stance against exposing employees to potential heat illness, often citing employers and proposing significant penalties for failing to provide to employees who work in high heat conditions with adequate drinking water, shade, training, and/or cool-down periods.  Furthermore, as noted by the California Supreme Court in Brinker v. Superior Court, monetary remedies for the denial of meal and rest breaks “engendered a wave of wage and hour class action litigation” when added to the California Labor Code more than a decade ago.

The California Legislature has brought these two trends together by  amending California Labor Code Section 226.7 to include penalties for employers’ failing to provide “Cool Down Recovery Periods” (“CDRPs”) to prevent heat exhaustion or stroke.  The requirement to provide CDRPs kicks in January 1, 2014, after which California employers will be required to pay a wage premium for failing to provide CDRPs to employees.  This premium pay is akin to the premium pay already required for violations of California’s meal period and rest break laws.  The amendment is sure to trigger substantial litigation in California, and cross over into Cal/OSHA enforcement as well.

California’s Heat Illness Prevention Statute

California employers have long been aware of California’s Heat Illness Prevention statute, Title 8 Section 3395(d), which obligates employers to provide training and access to shade and adequate drinking water for employees who work outdoors in high heat conditions.  Pursuant to the Heat Illness statute, employers have also been required to maintain one or more shaded areas, with either open-air ventilation, forced ventilation, or forced cooling, and employers are required to allow employee access and encourage employees to access these shaded or cooled areas for cool down periods of no less than five minutes or as employees feel the need to do so.  Historical Cal-OSHA Board decisions and Standard Board committee notes have refused to characterize these cool down periods as work-free breaks; i.e., employers may require employees to continue working during periods when they are in shade or air conditioned locations.

Although heat illness has been an enforcement focus across the country, Cal-OSHA is the only OSHA scheme that has its own Heat Illness specific standard.  While federal OSHA has increased its use of the General Duty Clause to cite heat illness issues, Cal-OSHA has led the way in this enforcement space.

California Labor Code Section 226.7

Pursuant to California Labor Code section 226.7, employers are already required to pay a penalty of one hour of pay for any failure to provide a non-exempt employee with a meal period and an additional hour of pay for any failure to provide a non-exempt employee with a rest break.  This law has produced numerous class action lawsuits throughout California.  Under the recent CDRP amendment, any failure to provide a cool down recovery period will obligate the employer to pay the employee one additional hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate of compensation for each workday that a recovery period is not provided.  Employers now face more than just serious citations under Section 3395(d), but also cited or sued by employees (or classes of employees) for failure to provide CDRPs pursuant to California Labor Code Section 226.7.

Pursuant to this statute, California employers have suffered through a barrage of wage and hour single plaintiff and class action lawsuits related to California’s meal and rest break requirements under Section 226.7.  This recent history has shown that compliance with these work-free periods is difficult, and demonstrating compliance is even more so.  More importantly, the potential penalties and civil judgments are extremely high.

The Amended Statute

On October 10, 2013, that changed.  The California Legislature joined Cal-OSHA’s cause and signed a new bill into effect amending California Labor Code Section 226.7 to include penalties for failure to provide CDRPs.  Section 226.7 provides in pertinent part:

If an employer fails to provide an employee a meal or rest or recovery period in accordance with a state law, including, but not limited to, an applicable statute or applicable regulation, standard, or order of the Industrial Welfare Commission, the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board, or the Division of Occupational Safety and Health, the employer shall pay the employee one additional hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate of compensation for each workday that the meal or rest or recovery period is not provided.

Employment Law360 ran an article last week about the addition of Kathryn M. McMahon, a prominent Washington, D.C. OSHA and environmental attorney, to the national OSHA Practice Group at Epstein Becker & Green, a leading labor & employment and health law firm.  Ms. McMahon focuses her practice in the areas of occupational safety and health (OSHA) law as well as environmental law.   She has extensive experience and expertise in handling complex OSHA rulemakings, and regularly assists clients in accident and fatality investigations, workplace hazard assessments, and a broad range ...

By Nancy L. Gunzenhauser

With the Supreme Court’s influential decision in June, declaring the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional, the tides are moving in favor of federal legislation on gay, lesbian, and transgender workplace rights.  On November 7, 2013, the Senate passed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (“ENDA”), prohibiting employment discrimination on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender identity.

ENDA has quite the history in Congress; it has been introduced in every legislative session since 1994, except for one year.  Throughout the ...

 By Nancy Gunzenhauser, Susan Gross Sholinsky and Jeff Landes

With the Supreme Court’s influential decision in June, declaring the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional, the tides are moving in favor of federal legislation on gay, lesbian, and transgender workplace rights. On November 7, 2013, the Senate passed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act ("ENDA"), prohibiting employment discrimination on the basis of both sexual orientation and gender identity.

ENDA has quite the history in Congress; it has been introduced in every legislative session since 1994, except for ...

I recently coauthored a Client Alert, “IRS Chips Away at the FSA 'Use-or-Lose' Rule” with Jeffrey Lieberman, one of my colleagues in the Employee Benefits practice at Epstein Becker Green.

The following is an excerpt:

Under new guidance issued by the Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service, Section 125 cafeteria plans can be, but are not required to be, amended to allow up to a maximum of $500 of unused amounts remaining at the end of a plan year in a participant’s health flexible spending account to be carried over to the next plan year and used to reimburse the plan ...

By Lindsay A. Smith

Last month, OSHA unveiled its List of the 10 Most Frequently Cited Standards for fiscal year (“FY”) 2013 (i.e., October 1, 2012 through September 30, 2013).  The announcement came at the 2013 National Safety Council Congress and Expo.

Here is the full list for FY 2013:

1. 1926.501 – Fall Protection (cited 8,241 times during FY 2013)
2. 1910.1200 – Hazard Communication (cited 6,156 times during FY 2013)
3. 1926.451 – Scaffolding (cited 5,423 times during FY 2013)
4. 1910.134 – Respiratory Protection (cited 3,879 times during FY 2013)
5. 1910.305 – Electrical ...

On Tuesday, December 3, 2013 at 3 PM (Eastern) / 2 PM (Central), Eric J. Conn, Head of the national OSHA Practice Group at Epstein Becker & Green will conduct a free webinar focused on OSHA’s enforcement landscape as it relates to work on top of rolling stock (specifically railcars) at grain elevator facilities.  This is the second in a series of OSHA law related webinars for the grain industry in conjunction with Grain Journal.

Whether it’s prepping cars down track away from the elevator, helping to guide a load out spout into a railcar, or allowing state or federal grain inspectors ...