Tag Archives: Florida

Another Business Resolution: Conduct a Pay Audit in 2019

Pay Audits are different from wage and hour audits. A wage and hour audit looks at whether employees are being paid in compliance with state and federal wage and hour laws. A pay audit reviews whether there may be discrimination in pay practices within an organization. With the #metoo movement and a renewed focus on pay gaps, an internal review of pay practices could save a business from liability under the primary statutes used to combat discriminatory pay gaps – Title VII, the Florida Civil Rights Act, and the Equal Pay Act.

As with other types of claims brought under state and federal discrimination statutes, a claim of disparate pay based on any protected characteristic is subject to the same administrative filing requirement and provides the same remedies as a wrongful termination case. On the other hand, under the Equal Pay Act (which only covers disparities based on gender), there is not an administrative filing requirement, and the definitions and statute of limitations for an employee to bring a claim is the same as those in place for the Fair Labor Standards Act. Further, Equal Pay Act claims do not require proof of intent to discriminate on the part of the employer. And, not having intent as a requirement makes it easier for an employee/former employee to establish a prima facie case. Under the Equal Pay Act, an employee need only show that she works at the same location, performs substantially equal work (regardless of job title), works under substantially equal working conditions, and is paid less than a male counterpart.

In a perfectly competitive labor market, the value an employee contributes to a business should determine that employee’s wage. However, in the real world, there are disparities of income that may be due to differences in labor productivity, and there are wage disparities across genders and ethnicities. When it comes to gender, disparities may be due to:

  • Compensating wage differentials: men may be employed in more dangerous or “dirty” jobs that pay more
  • Choice of college major and choice of career
  • Time constraints: mothers may have only limited time to pursue career advancement
  • Different negotiating skills of men and women
  • The number of years of work experience
  • The number of years in continuous employment
  • The number of hours spent at work
  • Employer discrimination

As set forth above, employer discrimination is only one of several reasons why a gap may exist and employers may have pay gaps that are based on non-discriminatory reasons.  Both the civil rights statutes and the Equal Pay Act provide several defenses to claims of discriminatory pay. Employers can avoid liability by proving the pay differential is due to one of the following reasons:

  • Seniority System
  • Merit Pay System
  • System that measures quality or quantity of work
  • Factor based on any factor other than sex  (this is considered a “catch all” defense)

It is good for employers to be aware of any gaps that exist in its pay practices and understand why they exist. When an employer does not have an explanation, that is when litigation and potential liability can ensue. Below are a few ways that businesses can help prevent (and if necessary defend) discrimination in pay claims:

  • Evaluate all forms of compensation (starting salary, benefits, bonuses, shift differentials, overtime, training opportunities, separation pay, etc.) at least annually for potential pay disparities based on race/ethnicity and gender
    • Evaluate how pay raises and bonuses are determined to ensure that decisions are made in a non-discriminatory manner.
    • Evaluate how you assign your employees to specific jobs.
    • Focus on job recruitment, placement and how pay is assigned to job classes.
  • In addition to an annual assessment, throughout the year conduct periodic “spot” checks for potential compensation problems.
  • Correct problems as soon as they are discovered.
  • Evaluate how women and minorities are placed in your workforce. Do not make assumptions about what they can or cannot do.
    • Does your hiring process seek diversity in the qualified applicant pool?
    • Do you offer career training or opportunities for both genders?
    • If starting salaries and signing bonuses are negotiated, ensure that such a practice does not have an adverse impact on women or minority workers.
    • Evaluate whether all workers have equal opportunity for advancement. Placing one gender in areas that lead to greater advancement could be a violation of law.
  • Periodically review your performance evaluation process and the ratings given to each employee to determine whether the process or the ratings unfairly disadvantage women, or any other protected classes.

This post is part of a series of business resolutions to consider for the new year. In case you missed them, our previous posts in the series discussed Florida minimum wageemployee performance management, and employee handbook/wage audits.

Jennifer Fowler-Hermes
jfowler-hermes@williamsparker.com
(941) 552-2558

Business Resolutions: Ensuring Your Business Starts the New Year Off Right

When was the last time that your business had a wage audit to evaluate whether your employees are properly classified under the Fair Labor Standards Act, or had your employee handbook reviewed and revised to bring it up-to-date with the law and current company practices? If it has been a few years, then this may be the year that your business resolves to invest in a wage audit and/or handbook review.

Wage audits include an evaluation of your job positions, pay and overtime policies, as well as payroll records of each position within an organization or department. Sometimes, audits can also include interviews with employees to ascertain if there are any issues that management should be aware of. Audits can reveal if a business has any issues with, not only misclassification of employees as exempt when they should be non-exempt, but whether managers are following the organization’s policies regarding overtime. As a company grows and changes, often the duties of its employees also change. Sometimes these changes are significant enough that a change in classification is in order and a failure to adjust the classification could result in liability. Further, a wage audit can often help to determine if an organization’s accountant or payroll company is calculating overtime in accordance with the applicable regulations. Many a lawsuit are filed against employers who believe that since they have enlisted the assistance of a third party, employee overtime is being calculated appropriately. That is not always the case.

Employee handbooks should be reviewed every couple of years, not only to ensure that the handbook reflects the current state of the law, but also that it reflects the actual practices of a company. Businesses grow and change, and actual practices can start to diverge from what is reflected in the handbook. It is always better to have a handbook that provides policies and procedures that the company is currently using and enforcing. It is never recommended for a company to have policies that it does not follow.

This post is part of a series of business resolutions to consider for the new year. In case you missed them, our previous posts in the series discussed Florida minimum wage and employee performance management.

Jennifer Fowler-Hermes
jfowler-hermes@williamsparker.com
(941) 552-2558

Another Business Resolution: Ensure Your Business Implements Florida’s New Minimum Wage

The next suggested resolution in our series of business resolutions is one that all businesses in Florida should implement, as it is legally required. On January 1, 2019, Florida’s minimum wage will increase from $8.25 to $8.46 an hour. Employers should be prepared to make appropriate pay adjustments for their minimum wage earners. Failing to pay non-exempt employees Florida’s statutory minimum wage can result in claims against employers pursuant to Section 24, Article X of the State Constitution and Section 448.110, Florida Statutes. The maximum tip credit ($3.02) that can be taken by Florida employers with tipped employees will remain the same, but the direct wage paid to tipped employees will increase from $5.23 to $5.44 an hour.

In addition to raising the minimum wage, Florida employers are required to post a minimum wage notice in a conspicuous and accessible location. You can download the 2019 Florida Minimum Wage Notice from the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity’s website. This notice requirement is in addition to the requirement that employers post regarding the federal minimum wage (which has not been increased). There will also be commercially available Florida-specific “all-in-one posters” that satisfy both the federal and state notice requirements.

In case you missed it, our first business resolution of this series covered employee performance management.

Jennifer Fowler-Hermes
jfowler-hermes@williamsparker.com
(941) 552-2558

What Are Your Company’s Business Resolutions for the New Year?

As 2019 approaches, many companies reflect on the year that has gone by, remembering both the triumphs and missteps. As this year comes to a close, many businesses will be making business resolutions for the new year. You may already have some goals set, but if you do not, this post will be the first in a series designed to provide insight into areas where companies may want to focus in the year ahead.

We will start this series off with our colleague John Hament’s recent article from our Requisite X publication, “Adapting to Change: Reinventing Employee Performance Management.” As explained in this article, for some employers there can be downsides to the traditional annual performance evaluation system. Recognizing these downsides, and ascertaining if a different approach is good for your organization, may be a worthwhile business resolution.

Stay tuned for more resolutions to consider in 2019.

Jennifer Fowler-Hermes
jfowler-hermes@williamsparker.com
941-552-2558

Nonprofits Misuse of Volunteers During the Holidays Can Be Frightful

Although every penny saved may help support a valuable cause, it is important that an organization not let its use of volunteers lead to legal liability. Volunteers are the foundation upon which many successful nonprofits are built. Properly utilized, volunteers enable a nonprofit to devote valuable capital and resources elsewhere in the organization, allowing it to have a greater impact on its desired cause. Although the work of volunteers is valuable to a nonprofit’s mission, an organization’s management must exercise caution in engaging volunteers to ensure the nonprofit does not inadvertently misclassify individuals as volunteers when they may be considered employees under applicable law. With the holidays upon us, nonprofit organizations often rely more heavily on volunteers. Consequently, they should take extra care that its volunteers are not in fact employees.

As Ryan Portugal explains in our latest edition of Requisite, which focuses on issues related to the operation, management, and sustainability of nonprofit organizations, circumstances in which a volunteer will be treated as an employee under wage and hour laws can have costly legal ramifications for nonprofit organizations.

Read the full article. 

For more articles, giving data, and an interview with A.G. Lafley, view the digital version of Requisite X – The Nonprofit Edition.

Office Holiday Parties: Avoid Adding Your Company to the Naughty List

Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, Michael Oreskes, Brett Ratner, Louis C.K., Charlie Rose, and Matt Lauer are a few well-known names that have already appeared on the naughty list for 2017. Although the Mad Men days of the sexy secretary sitting on Santa’s lap (the boss’s lap) with his arms wrapped around her while both are drinking a dry martini SHOULD be a vestige of the past, there are those that believe that “keep your hands to yourself” does not apply to them.  And, there are those that understand the “hands-off” rule, yet when under the influence of alcohol, find their inhibitions on the copy room floor.

This year, with stories of sexual harassment and abuse dominating the news, it is more important than ever for employers to consider the potential risks associated with any planned celebration. Employers should keep in mind that office policies that are generally recognized in the workplace sometimes are forgotten when there is a party, especially a party with libations. A holiday office party can embolden inappropriate behavior, from simple innuendos to unwelcome touching that could lead to claims of sexual harassment. The office holiday party can be a quagmire of potential employment issues, even beyond sexual harassment. These issues can include claims due to on-the-job injuries (workers compensation), unpaid wages for attending the party (the Fair Labor Standards Act), or other types of workplace harassment or discrimination (e.g. religion).

As you prepare for your office party, consider whether alcohol should be available, as most issues arise due to someone bending the elbow a bit too much. If you do decide to provide spirits make sure you have someone (a designated responsible adult) that is watching to ensure that your workforce does not get too “relaxed” and cross the line. Possibly limit how much alcohol is served and make sure any employee that drinks a little too much has a ride home. Evaluate in advance whether the party is going to be mandatory or not. If its voluntary and employees do not feel compelled to attend, then employers are not required to compensate employees for their attendance. Review the plans for the party in advance to see if there are any activities that could be considered inappropriate or offensive to members of any protected class.  Finally, make sure that employees understand that the company’s policies and procedures, especially those related to conduct, are still in effect at the party. Most parties are benign and conclude with no real issues to speak of, but you don’t want to be the exception to the rule. You do not want your CEO or VP added to the naughty list.

Jennifer Fowler-Hermes
jfowler-hermes@williamsparker.com
941-552-2558

A Clue to the NLRB’s Future Focus?

In regulatory action last week, the current board of the National Labor Relations Board not-so-subtly identified several areas where the Board wants to reverse course. Specifically, on October 16, 2018, the Board’s General Counsel released four advice memorandums issued during the Obama administration addressing several topics, including dress codes, replacement of striking employees, and video recordings of workplace strikes.

It is uncommon for advice memos to be released, especially those from prior administrations.  Most times, such releases happen after a matter has been resolved or the General Counsel has directed a region to dismiss a case. When memos are released, it is because the Board wants to draw attention to a trending topic or point of emphasis. In this instance, the Board released advice memos that were quite favorable to labor unions and workers:

  • In two advice memos involving Walmart dating to 2013, the Board’s General Counsel at that time recommended that the regional director bring unfair labor practices when the retailer (1) told a plainclothes security guard that he could not wear union clothing while undercover; and (2) prohibited workers from wearing union insignia shirts and then disciplined them for engaging in a work stoppage (which the General Counsel opined was not an unprotected sit-in strike);
  • In a different 2013 memo, the General Counsel found that Boeing acted unlawfully when it recorded union solidarity marches that happened on its property while it also had a rule in its employee handbook that blocked employees from using cameras on its property; and
  • In another advice memo issued in early 2017, the then-General Counsel concluded a California fishery committed an unfair labor practice when it unlawfully replaced striking employees by giving temporary employees permanent positions.

These memos are noteworthy since the current General Counsel, Peter Robb, and the Board at large are unlikely to support the positions espoused in the Obama era memos. For instance, in December 2017, the Board has changed course in the Boeing matter, concluding that the Board’s previous edicts on handbooks gave too much credence to employees’ rights and too little to employers’ interests.

Considering the reversal in Boeing matter, the fact that the General Counsel released the other advice memos on the same day potentially signals those advice memos do not reflect the Trump-era General Counsel or Board’s position. For that reason, employers may wish to challenge similar unfair labor practice findings in other settings.

Still, although these advice memos may be a relic of the Obama-era Board, another administration’s Board could renew the legal theories and positions contained in the advice memos. Thus, at the very least, employers should remain mindful of the views taken in the advice memos and consider potential protective steps.

John Getty*
jgetty@williamsparker.com
(941) 329-6622
*Admitted in Louisiana and Georgia

The NLRB Shifts its Strategy in its Attempts to Change the Joint-Employer Standard

After a failed attempt to change the joint-employer standard through legal decision arising out of a pending case before the NLRB, on September 14, 2018, the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal Register regarding its joint-employer standard. The proposed rule would overturn the standard set by the Board in Browning-Ferris, 362 NLRB No. 186 (2015) to determine if an employer is a joint employer. Under the Browning-Ferris standard, the inquiry turns on whether the alleged joint employer had the potential to control aspects of the workplace, either directly or indirectly, regardless of whether the employer actually exercised that authority.

The proposed rule would revert to the pre-Browning-Ferris standard for determining whether an employer will be considered a joint employer of a separate employer’s employees. Under this proposed rule, an employer may be considered a joint-employer of another employer’s employees only if it possesses AND exercises substantial, direct, and immediate control over the essential terms and conditions of employment and has done so in a manner that is not limited and routine. This would effectively reverse the Browning-Ferris standard and render indirect influence and contractual reservations of authority insufficient to establish a joint-employer relationship.

The 60-day period for public comments on this proposed rule began on September 14, 2018, and continues through November 13. After the Board receives and reviews the public comments and replies, it will issue a final rule regarding the joint employer standard. If issued without substantial changes, this rule would be great news for employers as this stricter standard is clearer, provides more consistency, and reduces the likelihood of an employer inadvertently becoming a joint employer.

Ryan P. Portugal
rportugal@williamsparker.com
941-329-6626

Arbitration Update: Eleventh Circuit Finds in Favor of Florida Employers

Florida employers are beginning to benefit from recent U.S. Supreme Court and National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) rulings.  On June 26, 2018, the federal Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued two decisions in favor of Florida employers in which it rejected NLRB rulings that the employers had violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The cases are Everglades College, Inc. v. NLRB and Cowabunga, Inc. v. NLRB.

Applying the Supreme Court’s Epic Systems decision (for further information on Epic, click here), the Eleventh Circuit held in both cases that the inclusion of class and collective action waivers in these employers’ mandatory arbitration agreements did not violate the NLRA. Additionally, relying on the Board’s Boeing decision (for more information, on Boeing click here), the Eleventh Circuit vacated the NLRB’s holdings that the arbitration agreements were unlawful because employees could “reasonably believe that they were prohibited from filing unfair labor practice charges with the NLRB.”

In Boeing, the NLRB retroactively changed the rationale it used to evaluate the lawfulness of facially neutral employee policies, thus eliminating the broadly applied “reasonably believe” standard that prohibited any rule that could be interpreted as covering protected activity. Without that standard, the Board could not defend its prior decisions in the appeals. Therefore, the Eleventh Circuit remanded the remaining issues in the cases to the NLRB so that it can apply its new Boeing rationale, which does not interpret ambiguities against the drafter and does not ban all activity that could conceivably be included in generalized provisions.

Even with the NLRB General Counsel’s recent memo addressing the application of the Boeing standard (for more on the memo, click here), it is unclear how the Boeing rationale will apply to arbitration agreements. Regardless, employers should remain hopeful as the new standard provides for a more balanced review.

Gail E. Farb
gfarb@williamsparker.com
941-552-2557

[Editor’s Note: Williams Parker attorney Gail E. Farb represented the employer in the Everglades College, Inc. case cited above.]

The NLRB Continues to Retreat on Its Assault of Handbook Policies

In a recently released memo, the NLRB General Counsel confirmed the Board’s December 2017 signal of a shift in how the Board will scrutinize employer personnel policies. In December 2017, the NLRB changed course when it replaced the Lutheran Heritage standard, which had been aggressively used by the Board to invalidate personnel policies, with the Boeing standard (as discussed in our post from December 2017, “The NLRB’s Holiday Gift to Employers”). The Lutheran Heritage standard evaluated whether employees could “reasonably construe” a policy as barring them from exercising their rights under the NLRA. If the answer was “yes,” the policy was improper. The Lutheran Heritage standard was often applied in a manner that gave the appearance that the NLRB thought employees were lacking in intellect or common sense. Thus, the switch to the Boeing standard was generally celebrated by employers.

Even so, many employers felt that although the Boeing standard was a step in the right direction, it was somewhat complicated. In response to these criticisms, on June 6, 2018, NLRB General Counsel Peter Robb issued GC 18-04 “Guidance on Handbook Rules Post-Boeing.” This guidance provides examples of the policies (which he refers to as rules) that would fit into each of the three categories, and also makes it clear that the NLRB will no longer interpret ambiguities in rules against the drafter, “generalized promises should not be interpreted as banning all activity that could be considered included.”

The memo explains that the Boeing standard balances the personnel policy in question’s impact on NLRA-protected rights with the employer’s legitimate business justifications. The Boeing analysis uses three categories to determine the legality of rules:

Category 1: Rules that are Generally Lawful to Maintain

Category 2: Rules Warranting Individualized Scrutiny

Category 3: Rules that are Unlawful to Maintain

The memo goes on to state that Category 1 includes rules that may have been found unlawful under the Lutheran Heritage standard. It also explains that the types of rules in this category are generally lawful because the rules do not prohibit or interfere with the exercise of NLRA-protected rights or because there are business justifications associated with the rule. Rules in this category include:

(a) civility rules;

(b) no photography, no-recording rules;

(c) rules against insubordination, non-cooperation, or on-the-job conduct that adversely affects operations;

(d) disruptive behavior rules;

(e) rules protecting confidential, proprietary, and customer information or documents;

(f) rules against defamation or misrepresentation;

(g) rules against using employer logos or intellectual property;

(h) rules requiring authorization to speak for company; and

(i) rules banning disloyalty, nepotism, or self-enrichment.

The memo provides that charges alleging that rules in Category 1 are facially unlawful are to be dismissed, recognizing however, that special circumstances could render a normally lawful rule in Category 1 unlawful. Facially lawful rules cannot be used to prohibit protected activity or to discipline employees for engaging in protected activity.

Category 2 rules are to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Such rules are not facially lawful or unlawful. If rules in this category restrict NLRA-protected rights, then the question is whether the employer’s business interest in having the rule outweighs the restriction on NLRA-protected rights. Some “possible examples” of Category 2 rules are:

(a) broad conflict-of-interest rules that do not specifically target fraud and self-enrichment and do not restrict membership in, or voting for, a union;

(b) confidentiality rules that encompass employer business or employee information;

(c) rules regarding disparagement or criticism of the employer;

(d) rules regulating the use of the employer’s name;

(e) rules generally restricting speaking to the media or third parties;

(f) rules banning off-duty conduct that might harm the employer; and

(g) rules against making false or inaccurate statements.

Category 3 rules are unlawful to maintain because they prohibit or limit NLRA-protected conduct and the adverse impact on NLRA-protected rights outweigh any justifications for them. Category 3 rules include:

(a) confidentiality rules specifically regarding wages, benefits, or working conditions; and

(b) rules against joining outside organizations or voting on matters concerning.

In light of Boeing and GC18-04, employers should be more confident in their ability to maintain appropriate policies for their workplaces, including those that dictate professional behavior. The new approach is clearer and provides for a balancing of employer justifications with employee rights, resulting in common-sense personnel policies being upheld as lawful. Employers are now better positioned to defend attacks on their well drafted, common-sense personnel policies.

Summer associate Ryan Larson assisted in preparing this blog post.

Jennifer Fowler-Hermes
jfowler-hermes@williamsparker.com
941-552-2558