Workforce Bulletin

Our colleague Julie Saker Schlegel at Epstein Becker Green recently posted “Supreme Court Holds That Only Employees Who Have Authority to Take Tangible Employment Actions Constitute Supervisors for the Purpose of Vicarious Liability Under Title VII” on the Retail Labor and Employment Law blog, and we think financial services employers will be interested. Following is an excerpt:

In a 5-4 decision the dissent termed “decidedly employer-friendly,” the Supreme Court held on June 24, 2013 that only employees who have been empowered by the employer to take tangible ...

By:      Kara Maciel and Jordan Schwartz
As discussed in prior blogs, due to confusion surrounding FLSA tip pool requirements, the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) Wage and Hour Division enacted a strict rule in 2011 related to proper tip pooling and service charge practices. This rule was met with swift legal challenges, and earlier this week the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon concluded that the DOL had exceeded its authority when implementing its final rule. See Oregon Rest. and Lodging Assn. v. Solis, No. 3:12-cv-01261 (D. Or. June 7, 2013).

Inconsistent ...

By James P. Flynn

In February 2013, the Justice Department announced a federal trade secret enforcement initiative that rested in large part on encouraging American businesses to adopt best practices in the area and diligent pursuit of civil remedies, and on parallel criminal law enforcement. As noted in the initiative outline, "The Department of Justice has made the investigation and prosecution of corporate and state sponsored trade secret theft a top priority."

Over the last ten days, events unfolded in New Jersey that showed this new policy initiative to be one involving real ...

By Jennifer A. Goldman

As the summer internship season gets underway, unpaid interns are continuing to file a spate of lawsuits claiming violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and state wage and hour laws.  On May 29, 2013, fashion designer Norma Kamali was slapped with a lawsuit from a former apprentice filed in New York federal court.  This lawsuit continues a trend of unpaid interns suing employers including the Hearst Corporation, Fox Searchlight Pictures, Elite Model Management, and the Charlie Rose Show.

According to the Complaint, former apprentice ...

by Lisa M. Watanabe

In recent years, retailers, grocery stores and banks have been hit with a wave of lawsuits over California’s suitable seating requirements set forth in §14 of the Industrial Welfare Commission’s Wage Orders.  (See http://www.dir.ca.gov/iwc/wageorderindustries.htm for § 14 in 16 of the 17 industry-specific Wage Orders).  Despite the surge in lawsuits, there continues to be several unanswered questions regarding the interpretation of subsections (A) and (B) to §14 which state the following:

1. All working employees shall be provided with suitable seats when ...

By Paul Friedman and Meg Thering

Most prudent employers have begun efforts to ensure compliance with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”), which is bringing about myriad changes with which employers must comply.  Many employers are evaluating their employee populations, deciding whether it makes economic sense to continue offering coverage, and performing self-audits to ensure compliance.  Employers should also be aware that the Department of Labor has already started auditing employers for compliance.  What many employers may not be aware of, however, is that employees may bring whistleblower claims for violations of the ACA – and these claims will be policed by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”).

The ACA prohibits retaliation against employees (as defined by the Fair Labor Standards Act) for receiving cost sharing reductions or tax credits on a Health Insurance Exchange (or Marketplace), and it prohibits retaliation against employees who report alleged violations of Title I of the ACA.  Employees who believe they have been retaliated against in violation of these rules can file a complaint with OSHA within 180 days of the alleged violation.  Here is a link to OSHA's Fact Sheet providing more information about these provisions.

OSHA's Fact Sheet explains: "To further these goals, the Affordable Care Act’s section 1558 provides protection to employees against retaliation by an employer for reporting alleged violations of Title I of the Act or for receiving a health insurance tax credit or cost sharing reductions as a result of participating in a Health Insurance Exchange, or Marketplace."

The period just closed (on April 28, 2013) for comments on the interim final rule published by OSHA of “Procedures for the Handling of Retaliation Complaints Under Section 1558 of the Affordable Care Act.”

By:  David Poppick

Saylavee, LLC v. Hunt demonstrates the willingness of courts, in this case Connecticut, to enforce restrictive covenants that are reasonable in length of time and geographic scope.

The defendant Rhonda Hunt worked as an exercise instructor for an exercise studio called Bodyfit, with whom she signed an agreement restricting her for two-years from becoming involved as an employee “in any business which engages in the same or similar business of the company or otherwise competes with the business of the company within a ten mile radius of any exercise studio owned ...

By: Barry A. Guryan

In a case recently decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (National Labor Relations Board v. Harman and Tyner Inc., d.b.a. Mardi Gras Casino, Hollywood Concessions, Inc., 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 7555), the Court affirmed a District Court’s decision to reject the National Labor Relations Board’s (“NLRB”) petition to obtain temporary injunctive relief seeking to reinstate six discharged employees pending the outcome of an administrative hearing brought as a result of a NLRB Complaint brought against Mardi Gras.  This is one of a ...

By Eric J. Conn, Head of the OSHA Group at Epstein Becker & Green

Introduction

OSHA recently issued a White Paper analyzing the first 18 months of its controversial enforcement initiative known as the Severe Violator Enforcement Program ("SVEP").  Despite mounting evidence to the contrary, the White Paper somehow concludes that the SVEP is “off to a strong start,” and that it “is already meeting certain key goals,” including:

1. Successfully identifying recalcitrant employers who disregard their OSH Act obligations; and
2. Effectively allocating OSHA's follow-up enforcement resources “by targeting high-emphasis hazards, facilitating inspections across multiple worksites of employers found to be recalcitrant, and by providing Regional and State Plan offices with a nationwide referral procedure.”

A candid review of the publicly available SVEP data, however, exposes SVEP's underbelly, and casts doubt on the Program’s effectiveness.  Most notably, SVEP:

1. Disproportionately targets small employers;
2. Provokes 8x as many challenges to the underlying citations as compared to the average OSHA enforcement action;
3. Encounters significant obstacles in executing follow-up inspections of SVEP-designated employers; and
4. Finds virtually no systemic safety issues when follow-up and related facility inspections are conducted.

SVEP Background

We have written quite a bit about the SVEP previously on the OSHA Law Update Blog, but here is some background about what it is, who is being targeted, and what the consequences are.  On June 18, 2010, OSHA instituted SVEP to focus its enforcement resources on recalcitrant employers, whom OSHA believes demonstrate indifference to their employees' health and safety.  SVEP replaced the much-maligned Enhanced Enforcement Program ("EEP"), a George W. Bush era enforcement program also intended to target wayward employers.  The EEP was criticized as ineffective and inefficient because its broad qualifying criteria created so many cases that OSHA struggled to conduct follow-up inspections.  OSHA, therefore, scrapped the EEP and instituted SVEP with narrower qualifying criteria and a better infrastructure for pursuing follow-up inspections.

Employers qualify for SVEP if they meet one of the following criteria:

1. Any alleged violation categorized by OSHA as "Egregious";
2. 1+ Willful, Repeat or Failure-to-Abate alleged violations associated with a fatality or the overnight hospitalization of three or more employees;
3. 2+ Willful, Repeat or Failure-to-Abate alleged violations in connection with a high emphasis hazard (e.g., falls, amputations, grain handling, and other hazards that are the subject of an OSHA National Emphasis Program); or
4. 3+ Willful, Repeat or Failure-to-Abate alleged violations related to Process Safety Management (i.e., avoiding the release of a highly hazardous chemical).