|
Check out this month's issue for news and updates related to Paid Leave Lawsuit; Form I-9 and VETS-4212 Filing Deadlines; EEO-1 & FLSA Updates; & Upcoming Events!
|
|
|
Maternity Leave:
Reverse Discrimination?
|
|
|
|
I must say, I've been calling this for a few years now, waiting to hear of the first case to be filed. I am not a fan of the phrase, "reverse discrimination." It either is or is not. I do ask though, does a maternity leave policy that provides leave for female employees discriminate against men who are not eligible for comparable time off from work for the same or a similar reason? I have certainly pondered this for years and likely several of you reading this have heard me advise against this type of policy for this very reason.
On August 30th the US EEOC
announced
that it filed a lawsuit alleging Estee Lauder violated federal law when it implemented and administered a paid parental leave program that automatically provides male employees who are new fathers with two weeks of leave for men to bond with their newly born child and six weeks for women. The EEOC alleges the employer violated not just Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 but also the Equal Pay Act.
Tips? The EEOC reminds us:
- "It is wonderful when employers provide paid parental leave and flexible work arrangements, but federal law requires equal pay, including benefits, for equal work, and that applies to men as well as women."
- "Addressing sex-based pay discrimination, including in benefits such as paid leave, is a priority issue for the Commission."
So be proactive. Review your employee handbook. Re-read your leave, compensation, benefits and related policies. And, consider whether they expressly or in practice might adversely impact certain employees.
|
|
|
A SHRMStore
Great 8 Best-Seller
6 Years in a Row!
|
|
|
Upcoming Events, Seminars & Presentations
|
|
Tuesday, September 26th
, "
Top 10 Trends That Keep HR Pros at Night
" presented for the members and guests of the
Eastern Shore SHRM
chapter, 8:00 - 9:30 a.m., Salisbury, MD
Thursday, September 28th
, "
Up in Smoke: Marijuana in the Workplace
" presented 3 times during the 29th annual
IEHRA conference
, Denver, CO.
Friday, September 29th
, "
Pressure, Pain & Politics: What Keeps HR (and Biz) Pros Up at Night
" a Keynote Presentation presented during the 29th annual
IEHRA conference
, Denver, CO.
|
|
|
Pete & Repeat...Not This Year:
Changes in EEO-1 & Form I-9 but not VETS 4212
|
|
|
|
If you have been reading this newsletter for a few years you know the September edition has often had the story of Pete and Repeat as I applied it to the annual filing of certain government reports, specifically the EEO-1 and now the VETS 4212. Not so this year.
Form I-9
- Effective September 18th employers must begin using the new Form I-9. Click
here
for the new form. US CIS is hosting a teleconference on September 13th from 2-3 pm EDT to provide an overview of "the latest enhancements." Click
here
for more information or to register.
EEO-1 Report
- A reprieve! Covered employers likely knew the EEO-1 report was deferred from its usual September 30th filing date to March 2018 to allow time for the new reporting requirements, including hours worked by and wages paid to your employees.
But, on August 29th the current Administration
issued
a notice of "review and immediate stay of effectiveness." So, until a determination is made, covered employers should plan to file the good 'ole EEO-1 to which they are accustomed by March 31, 2018. Click
here
for more information and updates.
VETS 4212
- No changes here! If you are a covered government (sub)contractor, remember to file this report by September 30th. Click
here
for more information.
|
|
|
FLSA Update: To be or not to be Exempt
Quick recap. So, we all recall the new overtime rule that
did not
take effect December 1, 2016, as scheduled. This was the rule that would have raised the minimum salary threshold for an employee to be properly classified as exempt from the current level of $455/week or $913/week. And that rule did not take effect because on November 22, 2016 a judge issued a preliminary injunction temporarily blocking the rule. In part, the judge questioned whether the US Department of Labor (DOL) had the authority to unilaterally impose a minimum salary test. The US Department of Labor, under the Obama Administration then filed an appeal to the US Court of Appeals 5th Circuit.
Now fast forward and on August 31st the judge who issued the preliminary injunction ruled that while the federal agency may have the authority to establish a minimum salary threshold, it did not have the authority to unilaterally impose a more than 100% increase. A few days later, on September 5th the DOL asked the Court of Appeals to dismiss its appeal.
What next
? There are still several moving parts here. On July 26th, the DOL issued a
Request for Information (RFI)
on the overtime rule. The deadline for submitting comments is September 25th. Now is the time for your HR and business voice to be heard. How would the proposed rule have impacted your business? What increase to the minimum salary is reasonable and how should it be determined? By what mechanism should it be adjusted and when? Click
here
to submit your comments. In the interim, it's business as usual. Continue to classify your employee as exempt or non-exempt using the same three factors (minimum salary, salary basis and duties test) that applied prior to December 1, 2016. And remember to consider applicable state regulations, where applicable. There are at least 16 states that have their own overtime regulations that are different from the federal.
|
|
|
This publication does not constitute the rendering of legal advice. You should consult your company's legal counsel for guidance on any particular matter.
|
|
|
FiveL Company | info@FiveL.net | www.FiveL.net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
