Workforce Bulletin

By Elizabeth Bradley

With Election Day tomorrow, employers must be prepared to respond to employees’ request for time off to vote.  While there are no federal laws that require such leave, many states require that employees be provided with leave to vote.  Some states, such as California, Maryland and New York, require this leave to be paid.  Failing to comply with these requirements could result in financial penalties. 

As illustrated below, state requirements vary greatly with regard to whether the leave must be paid, when employees are eligible for the leave, the length of the ...

By Michael Kun and Aaron Olsen

Agreeing with the recent federal district court opinion in our case Alonzo v. MAXIMUS, Inc., 832 F.Supp.2d 1122, 1126 (2011), the California Court of Appeals has confirmed in a case against See’s Candy that California employers may round employees’ time entries so long as the employer’s rounding policy does not consistently result in a failure to pay employees for time worked.

In Alonzo, a federal district court granted summary judgment in favor of our client MAXIMUS, Inc. on the plaintiffs’ time rounding claims. The Alonzo Court explained that ...

Kara M. Maciel, contributor to this blog and Member of the Firm at Epstein Becker Green, has released the "HR Guide for Responding to Natural Disasters."  Following is an excerpt:

Natural disasters such as hurricanes, earthquakes, and tornadoes have posed unique human resource challenges for employers. While many employers are working around the clock on recovery efforts, other employers find themselves unable to function for extended periods of time because of damage or loss of utilities.

The economic effects of a natural disaster will have long-term consequences on businesses ...

By Eric J. Conn, Head of the OSHA Practice Group

Back in September, we posted an article critiquing OSHA’s Severe Violator Enforcement Program (“SVEP”) in general, and the newly announced “exit criteria” in particular.  Since that time, in the beginning of October, OSHA updated its embarrassing SVEP Log that it maintains for public consumption on the OSHA website.  With the new data included on the SVEP Log, we thought this would be a good time to provide an update about the SVEP, including:

• The types of employers and industries that OSHA is most frequently qualifying for the ...

By: Kara Maciel

Hurricane Sandy is approaching this weekend, so hospitality employers along the East Coast should refresh themselves on the wage and hour issues arising from the possibility of missed work days in the wake of the storm.

A few brief points that all employers should be mindful of under the FLSA:

• A non-exempt employee generally does not have to be paid for weather-related absences. An employer may allow (or require) non-exempt employees to use vacation or personal leave days for such absences. But, if the employer has a collective bargaining agreement or handbook ...

Back in March of this year, we answered five frequently asked questions related to OSHA inspections.  We received positive feedback from that post along with several requests to address new OSHA-related questions.  Accordingly, we started a new, monthly OSHA FAQ series last month, with the first FAQ post addressing potential triggers for OSHA inspections.

In this post, the second in the regular OSHA FAQ series, we focus on two common defenses to OSHA citations – “Lack of Employer Knowledge” and “Unpreventable Employee Misconduct,” and again, we have provided both a text ...

Please join us for OSHA-related briefings in Columbus, OH (November 14, 2012) and Cincinnati, OH (November 15, 2012).  The events cover half a day, with breakfast and lunch included.  A copy of the detailed invitation is below.  Clink on the links above or contact us to RSVP for the upcoming briefings.

By Frank C. Morris, Jr. and Jordan B. Schwartz

An employer's wellness program—despite certain "penalty" provisions—was recently held not to be discriminatory under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Seff v. Broward County.  The Eleventh Circuit found the wellness program, sponsored by Broward County, Florida ("County"), was established as a term of the County's insured group health plan and, as such, fell under the ADA's bona fide benefit plan "safe harbor" provision.  This ruling is welcome news for employers with or considering wellness programs.

However, if the County's wellness program had not been found to be a part of the County's health benefits plan, then potential plaintiffs or the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") would likely have argued that the wellness program runs afoul of the EEOC's views on "voluntariness" requirements for employer-sponsored wellness programs.

The ADA's Impact on Wellness Programs

Wellness initiatives seek to boost employee productivity and reduce both direct and indirect medical costs, which are desirable outcomes for employers.  Employer-sponsored wellness programs have grown exponentially over the past decade, as employers have increased their focus on controlling health care costs and improving the overall safety and health of employees.  According to recent studies, approximately 46% of participating employers had implemented wellness programs.  Despite the growing popularity and positive aspects of wellness programs, legal uncertainties surrounding these programs—including restrictions imposed by the ADA, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act ("GINA"), and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act ("HIPAA")—have presented obstacles to their implementation and growth.

Certain ADA restrictions have contributed to many employers declining to start wellness programs. Specifically, the ADA prohibits employers from making disability-related inquiries or requiring medical examinations of prospective or current employees unless they are job-related or subject to a business necessity exception. On the other hand, voluntary medical exams are permitted so long as the information obtained is kept confidential and not used to discriminate. There is little guidance, however, either from the courts or the EEOC, analyzing whether an employer-sponsored wellness program that encourages participation by providing incentives, or penalizes non-participation, can be considered "voluntary" and therefore permissible under the ADA.

The ADA has certain safe harbors for insurers and bona fide benefit plans that exempt such programs from ADA restrictions. Under these safe harbors, employers, insurers, and plan administrators are permitted to establish a health insurance plan that is "bona fide" based on underwriting risks, classifying risks, or administering such risks that are based on or not inconsistent with state law. Thus, if a wellness program qualifies for the ADA's safe harbor provision, an employer need not worry whether such program otherwise would have been considered voluntary. Notably, the EEOC has not addressed wellness programs and the ADA's safe harbor provision.

Seff v. Broward County

In October 2009, the County adopted a wellness program for its employees as part of its health plan open enrollment. The wellness program consisted of three parts: (1) a biometric screening consisting of a "finger stick" to measure glucose and cholesterol; (2) disease management for five specified conditions; and (3) an online Health Risk Assessment ("HRA"). Participation in the program was not required as a condition of participation in the County's health plan, but employees who did not undergo the screening or complete the HRA incurred a $20 bi-weekly charge subtracted from their paychecks.

In response to this program, current and former County employees who enrolled in the County's health insurance plan and incurred the $20 bi-weekly fee filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. They alleged that the wellness program's biometric screening and online HRA violated the ADA's prohibition on non-voluntary medical examinations and disability-related inquiries. The County argued that its wellness program was part of its health plan and, as such, fell under the ADA's safe harbor provision.

The primary question addressed by the district court was whether the wellness program was a "term" of a bona fide benefit plan, which would allow it to come within the ADA's safe harbor provision for such plans. In granting summary judgment to the County, the district court determined that the program was indeed a "term" of the County's group health plan based on the following three factors:

1. The health insurer offered the wellness program as part of its contract to provide insurance, and paid for and administered the program;
2. The wellness program was available only to plan enrollees; and
3. The county presented a description of the wellness program in at least two employee benefit plan handouts.

by Allen B. Roberts, Frank C. Morris, Jr., and Michael J. Slocum

In what has been reported to be the first decision permitting a retaliation claim under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (“Dodd-Frank”) to survive dismissal, the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut (“Court”) has adopted a broad view of who qualifies as a “whistleblower” under that law. The Court rejected an employer’s request for a literal construction of Dodd-Frank’s definition and protection of whistleblowers, and instead relied upon what it saw as an ambiguity in the statutory language to endorse the Security and Exchange Commission’s (“SEC” or “Commission”) Final Rule implementing the whistleblower provisions of Dodd-Frank (“Final Rule”) that liberally expands protections to individuals who do not fit within the statutory definition of “whistleblowers.” In Kramer v. Trans-Lux Corp., 11-cv-01424 (D. Conn. Sept. 25, 2012), the Court declined to dismiss the lawsuit of an employee who claimed a “reasonable belief” of a “possible” securities law violation governed by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act but did not follow explicit statutory procedures for reporting it.

Kramer’s broad interpretation of Dodd-Frank’s whistleblower protection provisions may not carry the day upon review by a Circuit Court of Appeals and in other district courts, but for now, it can be anticipated that employees claiming retaliation under Dodd-Frank will point to Kramer (and to two other supportive district court cases that themselves did not advance for other reasons) in an effort to survive motions to dismiss.

Kramer Claimed That He Was Fired in Retaliation for Disclosing Alleged Violations of Trans-Lux’s Employee Pension Plan to the Company’s Board and the SEC

Richard Kramer had been the Vice President of Human Resources and Administration of Trans-Lux Corp. (“Trans-Lux”) for nearly two decades. Among his responsibilities were managing his employer’s relationship with the firm, overseeing the company’s ERISA-governed employee pension plan, ensuring compliance with applicable laws and regulations, and serving as plan fiduciary.

According to Kramer’s lawsuit, starting in March 2011, he began to voice a number of alleged concerns regarding composition of the pension plan committee, potential conflicts of interest in the administration of plan investment funds, and required approval and filing of plan amendments and reports. After raising his concerns with the CFO to whom he reported and the CEO, Kramer notified the audit committee of Trans-Lux’s board of directors in May 2011, and followed that with a letter to the SEC. Kramer claims that he began receiving letters of reprimand within hours of sending his communication to the audit committee and that a loss of support and stripping of job responsibilities followed. In July 2011, Trans-Lux announced that July 22, 2011, would be the last day of employment for all human resources personnel, including Kramer.

Kramer sued under, among other statutes, Dodd-Frank’s whistleblower protection provisions, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 78u-6, alleging that he had been terminated in retaliation for reporting his concerns about the company’s pension plan.

By Paul Burmeister* 

The National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) has ruled that negotiations between the Hotel Bel-Air and UNITE HERE Local 11 were not at impasse when the employer implemented its last, best final offer, which included severance payments to union employees. Hotel Bel-Air, 358 NLRB 152 (September 27, 2012). The NLRB upheld the ALJ’s order for the employer to bargain with the Union and to rescind all the signed severance agreements containing a waiver of future employment with the Hotel Bel-Air.

The Hotel Bel-Air is a luxury hotel located in Los Angeles. The Hotel ...