Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives

The Ninth Circuit recently overturned a district court’s grant of class certification on a wage statement claim under California Labor Code §226 because there were no “real-world consequences” stemming from the alleged misidentification of the employer’s name on the wage statement. Lerna Mays, a former Wal-Mart employee, brought a putative wage and hour class action alleging various claims, including a claim that Wal-Mart violated Section 226 because her employer was Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., but her pay stubs listed “Wal-Mart Associates, Inc.” The district court granted certification of plaintiff’s wage statement claim, and Wal-Mart appealed.

As detailed in our previous alert on this issue, on August 1, 2019, Dallas joined a host of states, cities and counties across the country when it implemented the City of Dallas’s Paid Sick Leave Ordinance No. 31181 (the “Ordinance”). Under the Ordinance, employers were required to provide paid sick leave to all full-time and part-time employees. While legal challenges effectively stopped the enactment of other cities’ ordinances, the Dallas Sick Leave Ordinance remained unchallenged – until recently, that is.

On March 27, President Trump signed into law the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (“CARES”), an unprecedented $2 trillion economic rescue plan in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.  Our firm has previously summarized the CARES Act’s tax and health and retirement benefits provisions here and here.  Below, we summarize additional aspects of the Act that impact the workplace.  It is important to note that there are a number of open questions presented by this legislation, which could impact employers’ structure for layoffs, furloughs, and pay reductions.  We anticipate the various governmental agencies charged with implementing the CARES Act will be issuing guidance soon, and we will provide updates as appropriate.

The Families First Coronavirus Response Act (the “Act”) is set to take effect on April 1, 2020.  As we previously reported, the Act requires that employers with fewer than 500 employees provide two new forms of paid leave.  First, covered employers must provide up to 80 hours of emergency paid sick leave to employees who are unable to work because of certain COVID-19 related reasons.  Second, covered employers must provide up to 10 weeks of paid FMLA leave (in addition to the 80 hours of emergency paid sick leave) to eligible employees who are unable to work or telework because they need to care for a child whose school or daycare is closed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Department of Labor released posters that employers with fewer than 500 employees must use to meet the notice posting requirements of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act.

The DOL issued two posters, one for federal employers, available here and one for all other covered employers, available here.  The DOL also provided a questions and answers page regarding the notice posting requirement here.

The Department of Labor (“DOL”) released guidance Tuesday regarding the implementation of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, including details on how employers can determine whether they are covered by the Act.

500 Employee Threshold

One of the most common questions among employers regarding the Families First Act, which Congress passed last week to provide up to 12 weeks of paid leave for coronavirus-related reasons, involved how to count employees towards the 500 employee threshold for coverage under the law.  If an employer has 500 or more employees, then it is not covered by the law.  The DOL provided three key pieces of guidance to help employers determine whether they are covered.

As reported on the Hunton Andrews Kurth Business Immigration Insights blog, as employers throughout the United States increasingly move to remote work arrangements for employees, they are confronted with challenges in completing Form I-9.  An employer must inspect an e employee’s original identity and employment authorization documents in the physical presence of the employee within 3 business days after employment begins.  For remote hires, and for reverification of current employees working remotely, government agencies have relaxed some I-9 requirements ...

Employers in California continue to grapple with how to interpret Governor Gavin Newsom’s Executive Order directing all California residents to stay home, except as needed “to maintain the continuity of operations of the federal government critical infrastructure sectors.”  Since the Order came out, the state has issued and updated its list of “Essential Critical Infrastructure Workers” who are exempted from the stay-at-home restrictions for purposes of reporting to work.

As reported on the Hunton Andrews Kurth Business Immigration Insights blog, Employers nationwide are implementing work reductions, closures and furloughs in order to reduce costs during the COVID-19 economic slowdown in the United States.  When employees are put on reduced hours or furloughed, employers face changing legal obligations in multiple areas of labor and employment law.  Companies that employ nonimmigrant workers should not overlook the additional legal obligations they have toward these employees, especially those who are on visas that have prevailing wage ...

For the first time in the Ninth Circuit, the Court of Appeals addressed the issue of whether every class member in a class action lawsuit needs “standing” to recover damages at the final judgment stage, and found in the affirmative.  In Ramirez v. TransUnion LLC, No. 17-17244, 2020 WL 946973 (9th Cir. Feb. 27, 2020), a class of 8,185 consumers brought a class action against the credit reporting agency TransUnion LLC (“TransUnion”) pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), alleging that TransUnion, knowing that its practice was unlawful, incorrectly placed terrorist alerts on the front page of consumers’ credit reports and later sent the consumers misleading and incomplete disclosures about the alerts and how to remove them.

Unemployment insurance is a joint federal-state program, administered separately by each state following guidelines established by federal law. On March 12, 2020, the Department of Labor (“DOL”) issued advisory guidance for state workforce agencies, suggesting ways in which the states might relax program requirements and expand benefit eligibility in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.

COVID-19 presents an array of new challenges and an abundance of uncertainty for employers. Notable among them, is the possibility that communities and states will begin to issue mandatory business closures and shelter in place orders. Interpreting and complying with these orders raises a host of issues for employers to consider.

The CDC has recommended temperature checks for workers in some counties.  Governors are beginning to make the same recommendation.  This step already is in place for many healthcare workers.  Now, employers in other industries are considering whether they should conduct temperature checks on employees who are reporting to work and send them home to avoid possible spread of the virus on the employer’s premises.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, New York state enacted a temporary emergency paid sick leave law for workers subject to a “mandatory or precautionary order of quarantine or isolation”.

Yesterday, Governor Newsom issued an Executive Order mandating that all California residents remain at home, except those needed to maintain continuity of operations of the federal critical infrastructure sectors.  The Order is open ended and will continue to be in place until the Governor orders otherwise.

What does this mean for California businesses?

In a press conference today, Governor Cuomo announced his plan to mandate 100% of non-essential workforce in New York stay home.  What does this mean for New York businesses?

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic and in an effort to prevent the spread of the virus, many employers are grappling with the need to immediately shut down operations.  This raises the question whether employers must pay out all wages (including paid time off) when employees are temporarily laid off or furloughed. In California, they might.

As reported on the Business Immigration Insights blog, employers, already dealing with a chaos of urgent-action items caused by COVID-19, must not overlook the stringent posting requirements under US Department of Labor (DOL) regulations for employees in H‑1B, H-1B1, and E-3 status, and for all employees, regardless of status, who are being sponsored for green cards through labor certification (“PERM”).

Read more here.

The United States Senate today passed the Families First Coronavirus Response Act and sent it to President Trump’s desk.  The President is expected to sign the bill into law this week.

The bill, which provides for paid sick leave and expanded family leave for certain employees for coronavirus-related reasons, passed the Senate without substantive changes.  The House initially passed the bill on Friday night, but made technical corrections to it late Monday.

For full details on how the legislation may affect employers, see our previous coverage of the bill here and here.

No doubt recognizing the unprecedented impact on business, Governor Gavin Newsom issued an Executive Order suspending the notice requirements under the California Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act), Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1401(a), 1402, 1403. The Executive Order suspends existing law that could have otherwise required employers to provide 60 days’ notice before instituting mass layoffs, relocations, or terminations, and could potentially have imposed steep penalties on employers who failed to do so.  Certain notice obligations remain, however, under the Executive Order.

Employers in the difficult position of making workplace reductions because of COVID-19-related business losses should spare a moment for consideration of layoff notice obligations under the federal Worker Adjustment Retraining Notification Act of 1988, 29 U.S.C. § 2100 et seq. (“WARN”) and its state counterparts (so-called “mini-WARN” laws). The “unforeseen business circumstances” exception in federal WARN and most analogous state laws may excuse strict compliance with notification requirements, but employers should take the time now to analyze the applicability of this exception rather than make assumptions about it.

The US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) recently published Guidance for Preparing Workplaces for COVID-19 (“Guidance”), outlining steps employers can take to help protect their workforce. The Guidance focuses on the need for employers to implement engineering, administrative, work practice controls and personal protective equipment (“PPE”), as well as considerations for doing so. While there is no specific OSHA standard covering infectious disease or COVID-19 in particular, some OSHA requirements may apply to preventing occupational exposure to the virus including OSHA’s Bloodborne Pathogens standard (29 C.F.R. § 1910.20) Personal Protective Equipment (29 CFR 1910 Subpart I) Hazard Communication (29 C.F.R. § 1910.1200) and Recording and Reporting Occupational Injuries and Illnesses (29 C.F.R. § 1904). Also, the General Duty Clause of OSHA which requires employers to provide a “place of employment . . . free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm.”

Thanks to a recent bill signed by Governor Andrew Cuomo on February 6, 2020, striking employees in the State of New York must now only wait fourteen days until they are eligible to receive unemployment benefits. Senate Bill 7310 amends New York Labor Law § 592, reducing the waiting period for unemployment benefit eligibility for striking employees from seven weeks to two weeks.

In an effort to prevent the spread of COVID-19, many employers are permitting, and in some cases requiring, employees to work from home. One unforeseen consequence of requiring employees to work from home is some jurisdictions mandate that employers reimburse their employees for certain expenses incurred as a result of their employment. Accordingly, employers may be required to reimburse employees for reasonable expenses they incur for equipment and services necessary to work from home, such as cell phone, internet, and computer usage expenses.

COVID-19 has disrupted the global economy and employers may soon face the need to reduce expenses associated with exempt employees. Employers can place exempt employees on furlough, or, in some cases, reduce salaries and hours, without jeopardizing the FLSA exemption, but exceptions may need to be made for certain employees on work-authorized visas.

The House amended its Coronavirus Response Bill late on March 16, 2020 and sent it on to the Senate.

Paid Sick Leave Changes

 The sick leave provisions of the bill remained largely intact, and would entitle employees of employers with fewer than 500 employees to take up to 80 hours of paid sick leave for coronavirus-related reasons, including required quarantining, caring for family members with the illness, or for emergency school closings.  To review our initial summary of the bill, which includes discussion of portions of the bill that were unaffected by the technical amendments, click here.  The amendments include a $511 daily cap for leave benefits for employees with their own personal coronavirus-related medical conditions, and a $200 cap for employees caring for others with such symptoms or for school closings.

Importantly, the sick leave amendments also allow the Secretary of Labor to grant exemptions to employers where the secretary determines that imposition of the paid sick leave requirements would “jeopardize the viability of the business as a going concern.”  It also allows healthcare and emergency response employers to apply for exemptions from the Secretary of Labor so that the law would not apply to their employees.

Employers with collective bargaining agreements and union relationships know they generally cannot make unilateral changes to terms and conditions of employment.  But in an unprecedented emergency like the coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak we are all facing, union bargaining obligations may be relaxed, either based on the terms of a collective bargaining agreement, or under National Labor Relations Board law.  As employers are forced to make ever more difficult operational decisions in the face of this emerging threat, here are some issues unionized businesses should consider when contemplating major workplace changes.

Consider Contract Terms First

 It goes without saying that employers with collective bargaining agreements should first examine the language of their contracts to determine whether they provide for any increased flexibility in decision-making during emergencies, such as a public health emergency.  If the terms of a company’s CBA specifically allow for increased operational flexibility during emergency situations, then the CBA should govern, and the employer should proceed accordingly.

In the early morning hours of March 14, 2020, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill to address concerns related to the spread of COVID-19 (the “Bill”).  The Senate is expected to consider the Bill shortly, and according to media reports, the Bill has the Trump Administration’s support.  Our summary below highlights provisions of the Bill related to leave.  This summary provides information regarding how the bill stands currently, but language changes or substantive amendments may still occur.  We will continue to monitor the Bill as it progresses through the legislative process and update this post accordingly.

UPDATE:  Click here to read our update on revisions made to the Bill.

Note at the outset that, as the Bill stands now, the leave provisions pertain only to employers with fewer than 500 employees.

As the national response to COVID-19 intensifies, states and localities across the country have announced school closures.  Employers should review their state and local laws to determine whether such closings may trigger an employee’s right to take job-protected, or paid leave.

State and Local Leave Allowances for School Closings

Many states have laws that require employers to offer employees paid sick leave. In each state, there are different qualifying reasons that entitle employees to take this leave.  What employers may not realize, is that some states require that employees be allowed to use paid sick leave during certain school closing scenarios.  In at least seven states, school closings caused by a public health emergency are a qualifying reason to take paid sick leave.  Those states are Arizona, Michigan, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.

Workers’ compensation provides the exclusive remedy for injuries and illness that employees suffer arising out of and within the course of their employment.  In the early stages of this pandemic, work-related travel to high impact countries or work-related exposure in a case that was being tracked by public health authorities provided support for work-related exposure.  In healthcare settings, work-related exposure will likely be established when exposure to infected patients occurs.  But in other settings and as the diseases spreads in the United States, the analysis about whether an illness is covered by workers’ compensation will be more difficult.

Workers’ Compensation and “Ordinary Diseases of Life”:  Many states do not authorize workers’ compensation coverage for “ordinary diseases of life.”  Employers should review their own state workers’ compensation laws closely, but an ordinary disease of life is generally defined as an illness to which the general public is equally exposed, and is not a result of the peculiar or unique nature of an employee’s job.  At this stage of the pandemic within the United States, it is possible that state workers’ compensation commissions may view COVID-19 as an ordinary disease of life because untraced community infection is widespread.  In that case, an employee would not qualify for workers’ compensation, and the employer’s workers’ compensation insurance might not apply.

As reported on Hunton’s Business Immigration Insights Blog, employers face many urgent issues in responding to the US outbreak of the novel coronavirus, COVID‑19.  Employers should remain aware that extraordinary workplace actions can have a special impact on foreign employees with work-authorized visas and can trigger additional employer obligations under US immigration law.

Read more here.

Under California law, an employee’s prior salary cannot be used to justify a pay disparity.  Now, the same is true under federal law – at least in the Ninth Circuit.

In Rizo v. Yovino, the Ninth Circuit recently ruled that an employee’s prior pay history is not a “factor other than sex” that can justify a pay gap under the Federal Equal Pay Act (“EPA”).  This outcome may not surprise employers in California, where state law expressly prohibits using prior salary as a basis for a pay disparity.  But unlike California’s statute, the federal law does not directly prohibit consideration of prior pay.  Rather, the Ninth Circuit looked beyond the plain language of the statute and examined the purpose of the “catch-all” exception, which permits pay differentials based on “any factor other than sex.” The Court concluded that this broadly worded exception “comprises only job-related factors.”

On February 26, 2020, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) finalized its rule governing joint employer status under the National Labor Relations Act.

The final rule generally restores the “direct and immediate control” standard that the NLRB applied for decades prior to the 2015 Browning-Ferris decision, but provides additional guidance.

With the age of artificial intelligence (AI) unfolding, products aimed at automating the recruiting and hiring process are hitting the market with increasing frequency.

Companies have been utilizing AI for tasks such as screening resumes, and even interviewing candidates and assessing whether they will be successful employees.  These automated tools range from algorithms that “weed through” resumes to personality assessments and biometric analyses that employ AI to analyze a candidate’s facial expressions, body language, voices, and inflections in video interviews.