Our colleagues , at Epstein Becker Green, have a post on the Retail Labor and Employment Law blog that will be of interest to many of our readers in the financial services industry: “New Jersey’s Appellate Division Finds Part C of the “ABC” Independent Contractor Test Does Not Require an Independent Business

Following is an excerpt:

In a potentially significant decision following the New Jersey Supreme Court’s ruling in Hargrove v. Sleepy’s, LLC, 220 N.J. 289 (2015), a New Jersey appellate panel held, in Garden State Fireworks, Inc. v. New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development (“Sleepy’s”), Docket No. A-1581-15T2, 2017 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2468 (App. Div. Sept. 29, 2017), that part C of the “ABC” test does not require an individual to operate an independent business engaged in the same services as that provided to the putative employer to be considered an independent contractor.  Rather, the key inquiry for part C of the “ABC” test is whether the worker will “join the ranks of the unemployed” when the business relationship ends. …

Read the full post here.

Featured on Employment Law This Week: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit may consider ruling that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) protects sexual orientation.

On its face, Title VII prohibits discrimination only on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, and courts have been unwilling to go further. In this case, the Seventh Circuit has granted a college professor’s petition for an en banc rehearing and vacated a panel ruling that sexual orientation isn’t covered. Also, an advertising executive who is suing his former agency has asked the Second Circuit to reverse its own precedent holding that Title VII does not cover sexual orientation discrimination. We’re likely to see more precedent-shifting cases like these as courts grapple with changing attitudes towards sexual orientation discrimination.

Watch the segment below and read our recent post on this topic.

Our colleague Peter A. Steinmeyer—co-leader of our Non-Competes, Unfair Competition, and Trade Secrets service team at Epstein Becker Green—has a Trade Secrets & Noncompete Blog post that will be of interest to many of our readers: “Ambiguous Allegations, Lack of Imminent Harm, and a Delay in Taking Action Doom Request for a Temporary Restraining Order.”

Following is an excerpt:

In Bridgeview Bank Group v. Meyer, the Illinois Appellate Court recently affirmed the denial of a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) against an individual who joined a competitor and then, among other things, allegedly violated contractual non-solicitation and confidentiality obligations. …

Practitioners can take several lessons from this case.  First, when it comes to requests for injunctive relief, time is of the essence.  Second, when drafting a complaint, even though a plaintiff must take care not to unwittingly publish trade secrets or other confidential information, enough detail must be provided to establish the necessary elements for injunctive relief.  Finally, to justify the powerful remedy of an injunction, the requesting party must be able to demonstrate imminent harm, and its claims must be supported by competent evidence.

Read the full post here.

Our colleague Frank C. Morris, Jr., a Member of the Firm in the Litigation and Employee Benefits practices, in the firm’s Washington, DC, office, was quoted in “Retaliation, ADA Charges Rise” by Allen Smith.  The article discusses the uptick in retaliation charges which have been filed and includes tips for employers on how to reduce the likelihood that they will get hit with those types of charges.

Following is an excerpt:

ADA cases today are more often about what took place in the interactive process for identifying a reasonable accommodation than about whether a disability is covered by the law. So, employers should have protocols in place on how to respond to accommodation requests and should document those efforts. This is “incredibly important” if there is litigation, Morris said.

If there is an agreement on an accommodation, put it in writing and have the employee sign the document, he recommended.

Remember that under the ADA, the accommodation obligation is ongoing. “Just because you’d done everything right in 2015 doesn’t mean you don’t need to do everything right in 2016,” he said. Things change, and the employer should be ready to start the accommodation conversation on fresh footing if the employee requests a new accommodation.

Employment Law This Week – Epstein Becker Green’s new video program – features an interview with attorney John Fullerton, a founding contributor to this blog.

Mr. Fullerton discusses the lack of clarity on what constitutes a whistleblower. Marketing firm Neo@Ogilvy has decided not to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court in a case that would have tested the definition of a whistleblower under the Dodd-Frank Act. At issue is whether an employee can be eligible for anti-retaliation protection under the Dodd-Frank Act even if he or she does not provide information of corporate wrongdoing directly to the SEC. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit says “no,” but the Second Circuit disagrees.

Click below to view the episode and also see our earlier post “2nd Circuit Expands Dodd-Frank Anti-Retaliation Protection to Cover Internal Whistleblowing.”

On Monday, June 29, 2015, Mayor Bill de Blasio signed into law the bill passed by the New York City Council “banning-the-box.” The law goes into effect on Tuesday, October 27, 2015. As discussed in our earlier advisory, the ban-the-box movement removes from an employment application the “box” that requests criminal conviction history. New York City’s law also imposes additional requirements upon the employer when making an adverse employment decision on the basis of criminal conviction history.

Our colleague Steven Swirsky at Epstein Becker Green wrote an advisory on an NLRB ruling that affects all employers: “NLRB Holds That Employees Have the Right to Use Company Email Systems for Union Organizing – Union and Non-Union Employers Are All Affected.” Following is an excerpt:

In its Purple Communications, Inc., decision, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) has ruled that “employee use of email for statutorily protected communications on nonworking time must presumptively be permitted” by employers that provide employees with access to email at work.  While the majority in Purple Communications characterized the decision as “carefully limited,” in reality, it appears to be a major game changer.  This decision applies to all employers, not only those that have union-represented employees or that are in the midst of union organizing campaigns.

Under this decision, which applies to both unionized and non-union workplaces alike, if an employer allows employees to use its email system at work, use of the email system “for statutorily protected communications on nonworking time must presumptively be permitted . . . .” In other words, if an employee has access to email at work and is ever allowed to use it to send or receive nonwork emails, the employee is permitted to use his or her work email to communicate with coworkers about union-related issues.

Read the full advisory here.

By Stuart M. Gerson

While by most accounts the current term of the Supreme Court is generally uninteresting, lacking anything that the popular media deem to be a blockbuster (the media’s choice being same-sex marriage or Affordable Care Act cases), the docket is heavily weighted towards labor and employment cases that potentially affect employers in all industries including  retail, health care, financial services, hospitality, and manufacturing.  In chronological order of argument they are as follows.

The Court already has heard argument in Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk, No. 13-433, which concerns whether the Portal-to-Portal Act, which amends the Fair Labor Standards Act, requires employers to pay warehouse employees for the time they spend, which in this case runs up to 25 minutes, going through post-shift anti-theft screening. Integrity is a contractor to Amazon.com, and the 9th Circuit had ruled in against it, holding that the activity was part of the shift and not non-compensable postliminary activity. Interestingly, DOL is on the side of the employer, fearing a flood of FLSA cases generated from any activity in which employees are on the employers’ premises.  This case will affect many of our clients and should be monitored carefully.

On November 10th, the Court will hear argument in M&G Polymers USA,  LLC v. Tackett, No. 13-1010, which I see as an important case, though most commentators don’t seem to realize it. The question involves the so-called “Yard-Man Presumption” in the context of whether the courts should infer that silence as to the duration of retirement health insurance benefits established under a CBA are meant to apply for the lifetimes of covered retirees.

In two other cases involving an issue of discretion and judicial review set for argument on December 1st, Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass’n, No. 13-1041; and Nichols v. Mortgage Bankers Ass’n, No. 13-1052, the Court will decide whether DOL violated the Administrative Procedure Act by not affording notice-and-comment rulemaking to a reversal of a wage and hour opinion letter issued in 2006.  The DC Circuit ruled against DOL in both cases (one in which DOL is the petitioner; another in which affected loan officers are petitioners), rejecting DOL’s contention that the policy change was an “interpretive rule” not subject to APA notice-and-comment strictures. The case at bar itself doesn’t involve much, but as a precedent concerning how free agencies like DOL (a particular worry to employers during this administration), are to regulate unilaterally, free of judicial oversight it will be important, especially in the DC Circuit where there are so many agency cases.

On December 3rd, the Court will hear argument in Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc., No. 12-1226, which poses whether the Pregnancy Discrimination Act requires an employer to accommodate a pregnant woman with work restrictions related to pregnancy in the same manner as it accommodates a non-pregnant employee with the same restrictions, but not related to pregnancy. The 4th Circuit had ruled in favor of the company, which offered a “light duty program” held to be pregnancy blind to persons who have a disability cognizable under the ADA, who are injured on the job or are temporarily ineligible for DOT certification. Ms. Young objects to being considered in the same category as workers who are injured off the job. This case, too, will create a precedent of interest to at least some of our clients. Of  note, last week United Parcel Service sent a memo to employees announcing a change in policy for pregnant workers advising that starting January 1, the company will offer temporary light duty positions not just to workers injured on the job, which is current policy, but to pregnant workers who need it as well. In its brief UPS states “While UPS’s denial of [Young’s] accommodation request was lawful at the time it was made (and thus cannot give rise to a claim for damages), pregnant UPS employees will prospectively be eligible for light-duty assignments.”  The change in policy, UPS states, is the result of new pregnancy accommodation guidelines issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and a growing number of states passing laws mandating reasonable accommodation of pregnant workers.

In a case not yet fully briefed or set for argument, Mach Mining LLC v. EEOC, No.13-1019, the Court will  decide whether the EEOC’s pre-suit conciliation efforts are subject to judicial review or whether the agency has unreviewable discretion to decide the reasonableness of settlement offers. The Seventh Circuit has ruled in favor of the EEOC in the instant case, but every other Circuit that has considered the matter has imposed a good-faith-effort standard upon the EEOC.

On October 2nd, the Supreme Court granted cert. in a Title VII religious accommodation case, EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., No. 14-86. The case concerns whether an employer is entitled to specific notice, in this case  of a religious practice – the wearing of a head scarf —  from a prospective employee before having the obligation to accommodate her.  In this case, the employer did not hire a Muslim applicant. The Tenth Circuit ruled that the employer was entitled to rely upon its “look” policy and would not presume religious bias where the employee did not raise the underlying issue. Retail clients and others will be affected by the outcome.

Finally, also on October 2nd, the Supreme Court granted cert. in Tibble v. Edison Int’l, which raises the issue of whether retirement plan fiduciaries breach their duties under ERISA by offering higher-cost retail-class mutual funds when identical lower-cost institutional class funds are available and the plan fiduciaries initially chose the higher-cost funds as plan investments more than six years (the notional statute of limitations) before the claim was filed. This issue has been around for years and the Court finally will resolve it.   The dueling rationales have been discussed in depth on many financial pages, for example recently in the New York Times. The potential importance of the case relates to whether trustees have a separate duty to reconsider their past decisions under a continuing violation theory that would supersede ERISA’s statute of limitations. The Solicitor General, in an amicus brief, argued on behalf of the United States that trustees of ERISA plans owed a continuing duty of prudence, which they breach by failing to research fund options and offer available lower-cost institutional-class investments during the six-year period prior to the filing of the complaint. The Court apparently took the case on the SG’s recommendation that noted the unresolved split on the issue in the Circuits.  If the Solicitor General proves correct, and the Petitioner prevails, fiduciaries all across the employment spectrum will be exposed to greater risk of scrutiny for their past actions.

More will follow as developments warrant.

At the Firm’s 33rd Annual Labor and Employment Client Briefing, Lauri Rasnick and John Fullerton spoke on the financial services industry panel about the impact of increased compliance obligations on the employment relationship and developments in the areas of applicant screening, whistleblower complaints, internal investigations, and diversity and inclusion.

Here are a few takeaways from that session:

  • Eleven states have enacted legislation prohibiting the use of consumer credit reports in making employment decisions.  There has been a dramatic increase in state and local “ban the box” legislation prohibiting inquiry into criminal history on employment applications, as 13 states and over 70 cities and counties now have “ban the box” laws.  Most of these statutes, however, provide important exceptions for certain types of financial services industry employers, and / or recognize that financial services employers may have certain criminal background screening obligations imposed by federal law or FINRA
  • The pace of monetary awards by SEC under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank”) whistleblower program has increased in 2014; the most recent of which, and the largest to date, was an award of over $30 million to a single whistleblower.  As this incentive program receives increasing attention and publicity, it creates tremendous tension for employers seeking to encourage employees to report any alleged compliance issues or violations internally before reporting them to the SEC, without impeding employees from reporting to the SEC if they so choose.
  • In light of the diversity and inclusion assessment standards proposed in October 2013 by the Federal Reserve Board, CFPB, FDIC, NCUA, OCC, and SEC, pursuant to Section 342 of Dodd-Frank, it is important that financial services industry employers promote diversity and inclusion in the workplace.  There is increasing pressure on employers who do not otherwise have an obligation to do so (as the result, for example, of being a federal contractor) to create concrete diversity and inclusion policies, use metrics to track diversity in their workforces, and incorporate diversity considerations into strategic plans for hiring, retention, and promotion.
  • Complaints from employees or third parties have the potential to lead to costly, protracted litigation.  Accordingly, it is critical that internal investigations are handled properly.  Employers conducting internal investigations should: appropriately define the objectives of the investigation at the outset; select the right investigator (considering the investigator’s relationship to the complainant, relationship to decision-makers, ability to assert privilege against disclosure of information obtained, etc.); control communications among witnesses that could taint the investigation or give rise to more complaints; keep an accurate and complete factual record; and prepare a comprehensive investigative report that takes into account the applicable legal considerations.

For more on the client briefing generally, we welcome you to review the following articles for a summary of the remarks given by guest speakers M. Solicitor Smith, Solicitor of Labor of the U.S. Department of Labor, and Victoria Lipnic, Commissioner of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: 3 Top Labor and Employment Enforcement Priorities – Corporate Counsel; DOL’s Smith Says Proposed OT Rule is Still Months Away – Law360; and Don’t Expect Wellness Program Guidance: EEOC Commish – Law360.

 

Our colleague Amy B. Messigian at Epstein Becker Green recently posted “Supreme Court Decision Sets High Bar for Establishing Retaliation Claims Under Title VII” on the Health Employment and Labor blog, and we think financial services employers will be interested.

Following is an excerpt:

In University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, one of two employment-related opinions issued on Monday by the Supreme Court, a narrow majority held that a retaliation claim brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 must be proved according to a strict but for causation standard. Under such a standard, a plaintiff must present proof that “the unlawful retaliation would not have occurred in the absence of the alleged wrongful action or actions of the employer.”

The underlying facts of the Nassar case are somewhat complicated. The plaintiff, a medical doctor employed as a faculty member of the defendant medical center and staff physician for its affiliated hospital entity, resigned from the faculty claiming that the chief of infectious disease medicine at the medical center was biased against individuals of Middle Eastern heritage such as plaintiff. The hospital entity offered the plaintiff a full time position as staff physician, but later rescinded the offer after plaintiff’s former supervisor protested the job offer. The plaintiff sued, alleging that the medical center retaliated against him for his discrimination complaints by encouraging the hospital to rescind its job offer. A jury returned a verdict in the plaintiff’s favor and awarded more than $3 million in damages.

Read the full post here.