Happy New Year!! Check out this month's issue for news and updates related to Wage & Hour Woes; Justice Delayed; Thank YOU - Great 8 Best Seller 7th Year in a Row; and more...
|
|
Recent headlines tell us that the current Administration may be no less diligent is seeking out and remedying wage and hour violations. A January 3rd
headline reports
one employer paid more than $255,000 in back wages to 71 employees. Not impressed? How about $1.6 million? I suspect you remember the debacle at the end of 2016 when the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) final overtime rule did not go into effect. That was the rule that would have dramatically changed how we properly classify an employee as exempt or non-exempt. The rule would have converted many employees who are currently classified as exempt to non-exempt, requiring employers to pay those workers overtime for every hour worked over 40 in a work week. Well, we cannot rest easy. Since then no less than nine states have taken the lead and proposed or enacted legislation that would have or now has had the same or a similar effect. In addition, there are a number of other states, in addition to those nine that already have regulations in place that define exempt employees differently and stricter than the federal regulations. So, as the New Year begins ensure your wage and hour classifications comply with your state (and local) minimum wage, overtime and classification laws and regulations.
Why worry
? In 2016, there was a reported decrease in the number of wage and hour claims filed. With the new Administration, some may think that trend will continue for 2018. Now for the half-empty story. Remember the $1.6 million settlement referenced above? Add to that another $36,000 in civil money penalties. But don't stop there. The DOL
announced
January 2, 2018 that it is increasing civil monetary penalties for wage and hour violations. Getting it right is more important that ever; getting it wrong may cost you even more.
|
|
A SHRMStore
Great 8 Best-Seller
7 Years in a Row
!
|
|
Upcoming Events, Seminars & Presentations
|
Wednesday, January 24th - "
When Social Media Becomes Anti-Social
," 10:00 - 11:15 ET Click
here
for more information.
Click
here
for more upcoming events!
|
|
Justice Delayed = Justice Denied?
|
|
|
In the October 2017
edition
of this newsletter, I touched on the quandary employers may face when dealing with a charge or claim of unlawful discrimination or harassment based on sexual orientation. What's the quandary? Courts and agencies of the federal government cannot seem to decide or agree as to whether sexual orientation is or is not a protected status under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. So, if they can't figure this out, how are employers supposed to? But the good news is, at that time we believed relief was on the way. We anticipated the proverbial law of the land would be set by our U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) as it was tentatively scheduled to hear a related case. But alas, it was not to be.
On December 11, 2017 SCOTUS
announced
that it declined to hear the case. So we're right back where we started. Is sexual orientation a protected status under Title VII? Answer? Two words...it depends. Upon what? It depends upon the jurisdiction in which you happen to be doing business or where the charge or claim arises. As of this writing, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (covering IL, IN & WI) has ruled the answer is, "Yes." Other circuits have ruled otherwise or not yet addressed the issue. And, like the article above, keep in mind that many states and local jurisdictions do prohibit discrimination and harassment based on not just sexual orientation, but gender identity and/or gender expression. As for states that do not, consider the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District. While the state law does not prohibit discrimination in employment based on sexual orientation, that court just
ruled
that disparate treatment based on sexual orientation could still create a legal claim of sex discrimination under that state's law as a result of sex stereotyping.
So, until we get a definitive answer limit your liability, reduce your risk and ask what difference an individual's sexual orientation makes to his or her ability to successfully perform the job. If you think that status would adversely impact your business operations or job performance, then bounce your concerns off your company's employment counsel before making a decision on that basis.
|
|
This publication does not constitute the rendering of legal advice. You should consult your company's legal counsel for guidance on any particular matter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
