EEOC Update

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has updated last week’s statement, described here, to confirm that in addition to 2018 “Component 2” pay data, it will now also be seeking data for calendar year 2017 by the September 30 deadline.

While EEO-1 compliance for 2019 appears to be a moving target, employers should plan to heed the EEOC’s statement and prepare to comply with the September 30 deadline for Component 2 data for both 2017 and 2018. Continue Reading EEOC Compliance Update: Employers Must Now Also Submit 2017 EEO-1 Component 2 Data by September 30

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission EEOC document and pen on a table.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has issued a statement notifying covered entities to prepare to submit EEO-1 “Component 2” pay data for calendar year 2018 by the end of September. According to the Notice of Immediate Reinstatement of Revised EEO-1: Pay Data Collection, the EEOC expects to start collecting this data in mid-July, and in the meantime, filers must still submit their EEO-1 “Component 1” data for calendar year 2018 by the extended May 31, 2019 deadline. In light of these developments, covered employers should, at a minimum, prepare to file 2018 Component 2 pay and hours data by September 30, in addition to filing Component 1 data by May 31. Continue Reading EEOC Compliance Notice: Employers Must File EEO-1 Component 2 Data by September 30

Yesterday, in a 5-4 decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the United States Supreme Court held that ambiguous arbitration agreements do not provide the affirmative contractual basis required to send a dispute to classwide arbitration. In so ruling, the Court extended previous pro-business decisions holding that consent to classwide arbitration cannot be inferred from a contract that is “silent” on the issue. This decision is a business- and employer-friendly outcome that affirms the use of efficient and cost-effective individual arbitrations. Continue Reading SCOTUS Deals Another Blow to Classwide Arbitration

Overtime, Office Binder on Wooden Desk

On March 7, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) announced its long-awaited Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to increase the salary threshold for the so-called “white collar exemptions” from the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime pay requirements. The proposed rule would raise the required salary level substantially for executive, administrative, and professional employee exemptions from $455 per week ($23,660 per year) to $679 per week ($35,308 per year). According to the DOL, more than one million additional American workers will become eligible for overtime compensation based on this change. The rule does not adjust the duties’ tests for the white collar exemptions. Continue Reading DOL Releases Proposed Higher Salary Threshold for Federal Overtime Exemptions

Above view of businessman walking on tightrope

For several years now, union and non-union employers have been stuck between a rock and a hard place because of dissonance between anti-discrimination laws and the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Consider the following situation: An employer can discipline its employees based on discriminatory or harassing behavior and then face an unfair labor practice charge if the employees claim that their conduct was protected concerted activity under the NLRA. Alternatively, an employer can choose not to discipline its employees for such conduct and then get caught in the crosshairs of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or a state agency for violating a federal or state fair employment law. Continue Reading Companies Walk a Fine Line Between Disciplining Staff and Violating NLRA

GettyImages-1031214170

Last week’s decision in Ward v. Tilly’s Inc. means that California employers with on-call policies are required to pay a minimum of two hours reporting time pay, even if the employee is told there is no need to come in to work that day.

A California Court of Appeal held that a company’s on-call scheduling policy requiring employees to call the employer in advance of a shift to find out if they need to appear for work triggered “reporting time” pay obligations under the California Industrial Welfare Commission’s (IWC) Wage Orders.

Under the Wage Orders, an employee who is required to report for work and does report must be paid for half the employee’s usual or scheduled day’s work, but in no event less than two hours’ pay, nor more than four hours’ pay, at the employee’s regular rate of pay. Continue Reading Reporting for Duty: In California, It’s Compensable, Even When Employees are Told Not to Come to Work

Digital fingerprint on black screen.

On January 25, the Illinois Supreme Court held that a person can seek liquidated damages based on a technical violation of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), even if that person has suffered no actual injury as a result of the violation. Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entertainment Corp. No. 123186 (Ill. Jan. 25, 2019) presents operational and legal issues for companies that collect fingerprints, facial scans, or other images that may be considered biometric information. Continue Reading Six Flags Raises Red Flags: Illinois Supreme Court Weighs In On BIPA

Healthy soy meadow at beautiful sunset

As climate change is integrated more and more into the planning of corporate opportunities and risks, the Fourth National Climate Assessment released last week may be a valuable resource to assess how climate change may impact your business strategy on the horizon. Continue Reading Four Themes from the National Climate Assessment that May Impact Your Business Strategy

Sexual harassment

Both New York State and New York City have recently passed a series of laws that significantly increased the protections against sexual harassment in the workplace. These laws outline additional and specific requirements that employers must comply with over the next year. Continue Reading New York State and City Raise Bar for Employers in Handling Sexual Harassment Allegations