Check out this month's issue for news and updates related to Worker Misclassification; Criminal Records; Update on Maryland's Healthy Working Families Act; EEO-1 Filing Deadline & Upcoming Events!
|
|
Courts and federal agencies continue to deal with workers' claims that they have been improperly classified as an independent contractor rather than an employee. Here are a few recent examples:
- March 8th - Plaintiff Lawson files an appeal of the California judge's February 8th decision that GrubHub properly classified this driver as an independent contractor. The court found that GrubHub did not exercise sufficient control over the manner and means of how he got the job done. GrubHub did not provide training or any particular script for him to use with customers; did not require him to wear a uniform or control his vehicle; Lawson was completely free to sign up for blocks of times that he wanted to work and decline any shifts offered to him; and he could simultaneously provide similar services for other companies.
- February 15th - California strikes again in favor of the employer, ruling a dentist was properly classified as an independent contractor. The dental practice did not control when or how he cared for his patients; provided him with no training; and did not supervisor him.
- February 15th - The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a Board Decision, announcing that interested parties, including employers may file amicus briefs by April 16th. The issue? "Under what circumstances, if any, should the Board deem an employer’s act of misclassifying statutory employees as independent contractors a violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the Act?" On September 25th the NLRB ruled that an employer violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) when it improperly classified a worker as an independent contractor. Why? Because such misclassification denied the worker his or her rights as an employee protected under Section 7 of the NLRA. But the decision was appealed and here we are. So, stay tuned!
Of course, that's not all. There have been more issues, cases and decisions related to joint employer status and beyond misclassification, wage and hour status. See the listing below and join the March 28th
webcast
, "
Wage & Hour Updates: From Woes to WOWS
!"
|
|
A SHRMStore
Great 8 Best-Seller
7 Years in a Row
!
|
|
Upcoming Events, Seminars & Presentations
|
Wednesday, March 28th
"
Wage & Hour Update: From Woes to WOWs
"
10:00 - 11:15 EDT Click
here
for more information or to register.
Pre-approved by HRCI & SHRM for 1.25 credits.
Click
here
for more upcoming events!
|
|
EEO-1 Reports 2B Filed by 3/31/18
|
|
|
You likely remember last year's back and forth regarding EEO-1 reports. The U.S. EEOC proposed to begin requiring employers to report information on employees' wages plus, hours worked when filing this report. But, on August 29, 2017 the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a
memorandum
informing the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) of its decision to initiate a review and immediate stay of the EEOC's collection of aggregate W-2 pay and hours-worked data on the EEO-1 report. At the same time, OMB expressly permitted the EEOC to continue collecting EEO-1 data identifying the race, ethnicity, and sex of workers, by job categories.
Therefore, for the 2017 EEO-1 reporting cycle, the EEO-1 will not collect data about pay and hours worked from employers. But, the EEO-1 will continue to collect data on the race, ethnicity, and sex of workers, by job category, from private employers with 100 employees or more and federal contractors with 50 employees or more and $50,000 in contract(s). For more information,
click here
.
.
|
|
EEOC's Guidance on Criminal Records Challenged
On February 1st, a Texas judge
enjoined
the U.S. EEOC from enforcing its 2012
Enforcement Guidance
on the "Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment Decisions..." in any action against the state of Texas. Why? A rose is not a rose. Despite being called "guidance," the judge found it is effectively a "substantive rule" for which the agency should have provided public notice and a comment period, as required under the Administrative Procedures Act. The EEOC did not do so. On that basis, the judge rendered his decision. It remains to be seen what the EEOC will do considering this decision if anything.
|
|
Update on Maryland's Healthy Working Families Act
On March 9th, the Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation (DLLR) published updated guidance on this new law requiring most employers to provide most employees with (un)paid sick leave. DLLR reports they have now received more than 2,000 emails regarding the new law, up from 1,300 just three weeks ago. The updated guidance includes:
- Three sample policies: one for employers who front-end load the leave; one for those who accrue it for their covered employees; and one for tipped employees.
- The employee notice has been updated. This author expects we may see at least one more revision, including recommendations that poster expressly notify employees that (1) only those regularly working 12 or more hours per week are eligible; and (2) the leave may be front-end loaded rather than accrued.
- FAQ's have also been updated; look for information marked "*NEW*"
|
|
This publication does not constitute the rendering of legal advice. You should consult your company's legal counsel for guidance on any particular matter.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
