Final EEOC Regulations Map Out ADA, GINA compliance for employer wellness programs

stroud_thumb2

In May 2016, the EEOC released two final rules mapping out how employers may offer inducements and incentives for participation in wellness programs without being in violation of the Americans’ with Disabilities Act (ADA) or the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA).

The final ADA rule provides that wellness programs that are part of a group health plan and that ask questions about employees’ health or include medical examinations may offer incentives up to 30 percent of the total cost of self-only coverage.

The final GINA rule provides that the value of the maximum incentive attributable to a spouse’s participation may not exceed 30 percent of the total cost of self-only coverage, the same incentive for the employee.  No incentives are allowed in exchange for the current or past health status information of employees’ children or in exchange for specified genetic information.

For help with employment law questions or other civil litigation issues, call Tracy Stroud, Attorney with Colombo Kitchin Attorneys in Greenville, NC, at 252-321-2020.

Title VII Prevailing Party and Award of Attorneys’ Fees

stroud_thumb2

In Title VII employment discrimination cases, the statute allows award of attorneys’ fees to the prevailing party in the case. In a case interpreting that provision of the statute, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a defendant does not have to obtain a favorable judgment on the merits in order to be a prevailing party.  For more information, see CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. EEOC, May 19, 2016.

For more information on changes in employment law, contact Tracy Stroud at 252-321-2020.

Misuse of Personal Data? Injury Alleged Must Be Concrete

stroud_thumb2

Standing to sue in Fair Credit Reporting Act violation must allege concrete injury

Employers rely on consumer reporting agencies to run criminal background checks; therefore, the employer must comply with the Fair Credit Reporting Act and must follow the Act’s notice requirement about adverse employment actions taken related to the criminal background check. There have been many class actions which have arisen out of employers’ failure to comply with the notice requirements. The United States Supreme Court may have provided a little relief in that it stated the injury alleged must be concrete for a plaintiff to have standing under the Act.

In Supreme Court case, Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, the Supreme Court found the Ninth Circuit erred in whether the plaintiff had standing. The Supreme Court held that not only must the injury be particularized but also the injury must be concrete. Bare procedural statutory violations will not automatically confer standing under the statute.

If you have questions about employment law or other civil litigation issues, please call Tracy Stroud at 252-321-2020.

Time-Limited Non-Enforcement Exception to FLSA New Rules

stroud_thumb2

As you are by now aware the Department of Labor’s Final Rule updates the salary level required for exemption from overtime. These changes go into effect December 1, 2016 and the result is that millions of employees will have to be reclassified as non-exempt.

The salary threshold change sets the standard salary level at $913 per week or $47,476 annually for a full-year worker.

However, the Department of Labor has issued one time-limited non-enforcement exception to be aware of. For providers of Medicaid-Funded services for individuals with intellectual or development disabilities in residential homes and facilities with fifteen or fewer beds, the Department of Labor will not enforce the update salary thresholds until March 17, 2019 against these provider employers.

If you have questions about employment law or other civil litigation issues, please call Tracy Stroud at 252-321-2020.

 

Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 and Employment Agreements

stroud_thumb2

On May 11, 2016, President Obama signed the Defend Trade Secrets Acts of 2016 (DTSA) into law and the law took effect immediately. It provides federal civil remedies for misappropriation of trade secrets and aligns the definition of trade secrets with the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, which most states have adopted.

The Act prohibits a wide range of conduct from theft to violation of a preexisting duty owe by the defendant or even by some third party. Such a preexisting duty may be express, arising from a contract or implied, such as the duty of employees to protect the trade secrets of their employers.

There are two ways a person or company may be found liable in a civil action for misappropriation of trade secrets under the DTSA: (1) acquisition of a trade secret of another by a person who knows or has reason to know that the trade secret was acquired by improper means; or (2) disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express or implied consent.

Employment agreements needs to be updated if they include language about misappropriation of trade secrets. It makes sense to review your agreements to preserve all rights and to make sure employees are aware of their rights under the new law. For example, the DTSA does provide protections to employees divulging trade secrets for whistleblowing purposes. DTSA cannot be used to restrict employees from moving to jobs with competitors. Companies will still have to look to state law and restrictive covenants to protect them in that arena. State law is not pre-empted by the DTSA.

Please call Tracy Stroud with questions about employment law or other civil litigation issues at 252-321-2020.

EEOC Lawsuits and LGBT Employment Rights

stroud_thumb2

No federal law explicitly bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation; therefore, LGBT employees can still face discrimination in the workplace. The EEOC issued guidance several years ago that discrimination against an individual because of sexual orientation is discrimination because of sex and therefore is prohibited under Title VII.

On March 1, 2016, the EEOC filed two federal cases, one in Maryland and one in Pennsylvania, challenging discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation as sex-based discrimination.

The lawsuit against Scott Medical Health Center is a harassment lawsuit. It alleges that the manager of a gay male employee repeatedly used anti-gay epithets and made other offensive comments about the employee’s sexual orientation. The clinic’s director refused to stop the harassment after the employee complained.

The lawsuit against IFCO Systems is a harassment and retaliation lawsuit. A lesbian forklift operator was fired after she complained she was being harassed by her supervisor.

Sexual discrimination charges filed with the EEOC based on sexual orientation are also on the rise. In fiscal year 2015, ending September 30, 2015, the EEOC has received 1,412 charges that included allegations of discrimination based sexual orientation, gender identify or transgender status. That is a 28% increase from fiscal year 2014.

Even though federal law does not explicitly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, best practice for employers is to include sexual orientation status as a protected classification in its employment handbook. Further best practice is to treat discrimination and harassment on the basis of sexual orientation as the employer would any other form of discrimination.

If you have questions about employment law or other civil litigation issues, please call Tracy Stroud at 252-321-2020.

An Act to Restore the State Tort Claim for Wrongful Discharge

stroud_thumb2

The General Assembly adjourned the 2016 short session late in the evening on Friday, July 1, 2016.  Before they adjourned, they added language to House Bill 169 to restore state claims to sue for wrongful employment discharge for discrimination that HB 2 took away.  The bill, HB 169, was an effort to address that one concern with HB 2.  However, this is only a partial restoration in the way that the statute of limitations for wrongful termination in NC was cut from 3 years to 1 year.  Further, the State’s public policy as set forth in N.C.G.S. s 143-422 still only provides for discrimination based on ‘sex’ (like HB 2’s “biological sex”) and not ‘gender.’  You can read HB 169 here: http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2015/Bills/House/HTML/H169v7.html

If you have questions about employment law or other civil litigation issues, please call Tracy Stroud at 252-321-2020.

Employee Misappropriation or Disclosure of Sensitive Information and the North Carolina Computer Trespass Statute

stroud_thumb2

Employees must have access to confidential and proprietary information in the workplace, most often in electronic format. The problem is when employees leave the employment, it is easy enough for them to misappropriate the electronic information to the detriment of the employer.

One potential cause of action against the employee is violation of the North Carolina Computer Trespass Statute (N.C. General Statute Section 14-458), which states “it shall be unlawful for any person to use a computer or computer network without authority and with the intent” to remove computer data or make an unauthorized copy of the data. Violation of the statute is a criminal offense ranging from a Class 3 Misdemeanor to a Class I Felony; however, a person may also bring a civil suit to recover damages and costs N.C.G.S. 14-458(c). “Without Authority” is defined in the statute as “exceeding right or permission.” Therefore, in the employment context, even if the employee had permission to access the information on the computer or the network, using it in a way detrimental to the employer, such as taking the information when departing, or using it to solicit the employer’s clients or to compete with the employer, is clearly defined as “without authority.”

A federal case from the Eastern District of North Carolina (Spirax Sarco, Inc. v. SSI Engineering, Inc.) has interpreted the North Carolina statute to apply to employees misappropriating information in employment situations because the employee took the information without authority.

Please call Tracy Stroud with questions about employment law or other civil litigation issues at 252-321-2020.

Changes to FLSA and How to Prepare Your Employees

stroud_thumb2

Please call Tracy Stroud with questions about employment law or other civil litigation issues at 252-321-2020.

Changes to FLSA and How to Prepare Your Employees

This Final Rule changes to the Fair Labor Standards Act updates the salary level required for exemption. These changes go into effect December 1, 2016 and the result is that millions of employees will have to be reclassified as non-exempt.

The changes are as follows: (1) It sets the standard salary level at $913 per week or $47,476 annually for a full-year worker; (2) It sets the total annual compensation requirement for highly compensated employees (HCE) subject to a minimal duties test to $134,004; (3) It establishes a mechanism for automatically updating the salary and compensation levels every three years to maintain the levels at the above percentiles and to ensure that they continue to provide useful and effective tests for exemption; and (4) It amends the salary basis test to allow employers to use nondiscretionary bonuses and incentive payments (including commissions) to satisfy up to 10 percent of the new standard salary level.

Practical Effect

The federal government estimates that as many as 4.2 million, the number of currently exempt workers in the United States, will now become non-exempt under the Final Rule on white-collar exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Here are a few tips for employers to make the transition to “new non-exempt” less painful: (from JD Supra)

Let the employees know that the reclassification was the government’s mandate. Let them know the reclassification was required by a change in the law.

Provide training on timekeeping issues. If you decide to let the employees keep their flexibility, they’ll have to understand the importance of accurately documenting their time worked – even if it’s something as “trivial” as taking a business call in the car on the way to work or answering some emails in the evening at home. This is a very hard habit to start.

Communicate that you want them to accurately post time. Many new non-exempt employees are going to want to keep doing their work the way they always have and not write down their time. Persuade the new non-exempt employees that they must post all hours worked. This communication will be an on-going battle.

Do not let the “new non-exempt” take off in the middle of the work day for personal matters, come in late or leave early without accurately posting. Many exempt employees are used to having the freedom and flexibility. If want to let the new non-exempt employees be flexible, that’s great, but they’ll need to accurately record their non-working time, too. If they’re being paid according to the fluctuating workweek method, then you’d normally have to pay them for a full week if they worked any time during that week unless the time off was covered by PTO.

Learn the FLSA overnight travel rules because you’ll need to apply them. The rules during the workday are relatively simple: Commuting time (between home and workplace) is generally not compensable unless work is performed, but all travel time that occurs “in a day’s work” (between worksites) is covered, even if no actual “tasks” are performed. Travel time between home and an off-site assignment may be at least partially compensable, depending on the length of the trip.

But if your new non-exempt has to go out of town overnight, then all kinds of crazy rules apply.  Make sure you know them.

 

EEOC Enforcement Priorities

stroud_thumb

 

Please call Tracy Stroud with questions about employment law or other civil litigation issues at 252-321-2020.

 

These are some of the areas the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has been focusing on for the last several years:

Sexual Discrimination and LGBT Coverage

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not explicitly include sexual orientation or gender identity in its list of protected classes, but the Commission, consistent with case law from the Supreme Court and other courts, interprets the statute’s sex discrimination provision as prohibiting discrimination against employees on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. In 2012, the EEOC held that discrimination against an individual because that person is transgender (also known as gender identity discrimination) is discrimination because of sex and therefore is prohibited under Title VII. See Macy v. Department of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. 0120120821 (April 20, 2012). The Commission has also held that discrimination against an individual because of that person’s sexual orientation is discrimination because of sex and therefore prohibited under Title VII. See David Baldwin v. Dept. of Transportation, EEOC Appeal No. 020133080 (July 15, 2015). The EEOC’s district, field, area, and local offices will accept and investigate charges from individuals who believe they have been discriminated against because of transgender status (or because of gender identity or gender transition).

Americans with Disabilities Act as Amended

EEOC has given breath to the ADAAA, filing and successfully prosecuting cases involving conditions such as diabetes, cancer, intellectual disabilities, and epilepsy, often difficult to cover as disabilities prior to the Amendments. EEOC v. United, 693 F.3d 760 (7th Cir. 2012) “Best qualified” policies do not trump the ADAAA’s reassignment-as-reasonable-accommodation obligation. EEOC v. UPS, 2014 WL 538577 100% return-to-work policy could be job qualification under the ADAAA. EEOC v. Creative Networks, 912 F. Supp. 2d 828 (D. Ariz. 2012): Rigid policy of refusing to provide an ASL interpreter at orientation/training for deaf and hearing-impaired employees is a violation.

Interplay of Pregnancy Discrimination Act and ADAAA

Title I of the ADAAA protects individuals from employment discrimination on the basis of disability and requires that an employer provide a reasonable accommodation for an employee or applicant with a disability. Pregnant workers and job applicants are not excluded from the protections of the ADAAA. Changes to the definition of the term “disability” in 2008 make it much easier for pregnant workers with pregnancy-related impairments to demonstrate that they have disabilities for which they may be entitled to a reasonable accommodation under the ADAAA. Reasonable accommodations available to pregnant workers with impairments that constitute disabilities might include allowing a pregnant worker to take more frequent breaks, to keep a water bottle at a work station, or to use a stool; altering how job functions are performed; or providing a temporary assignment to a light duty position.