Human Resources and Workplaces

Subscribe to Human Resources and Workplaces via RSS

A nationwide restaurant chain is in a “sticky” situation, and not because of the barbeque sauce on its ribs.  Rather, it faces a trial in a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alleging years of pervasive age discrimination in its hiring of hourly, “front of the house” employees.  The EEOC alleges  that the company failed to hire applicants over 40 for public, visible positions such as servers, hosts, and bartenders, and instead instructed managers to hire younger applicants for those positions at its hundreds of locations.

Last Fall’s election, where so much was said about hacked emails, should serve as a reminder to employers that cyber security is of the utmost important.  Cyber crime continues to rise across the globe.  In some European countries it even outpaces traditional crime.  A single data breach can cost a company millions of dollars in lost revenue, fines, and corrective action, not to mention the damages to its reputation and brand loyalty.  So what are the biggest cyber threats and how can businesses best defend against them?

Out with the old and in with the new?  Not so fast.  For California employers, it’s more like keep the old and add the new.  And, as so often happens, the new year brings new concerns.  While this list is not exhaustive, California employers should keep their sights on the following new state and local regulations or requirements for 2017:

Summary

A nationwide junction was issued Tuesday evening blocking implementation of the U.S. Department of Labor’s new rules increasing the minimum salary levels required for most white collar exemptions. These new rules had been scheduled to go into effect on December 1, and would have raised the minimum annual salary level for most exemptions from $23,660 to $47,476. The injunction halts enforcement of the rule until the Department of Labor receives a contrary order from the issuing court or an appellate court. But, since Texas is in the Fifth Circuit, which is a traditionally conservative court, the Department of Labor faces an uphill climb and it is unlikely that the new rules will go into effect in the foreseeable future.

As we near the end of this election season, employers should be ready for requests from employees for time off to vote. Polling places are expected to be crowded and employers in many states must accommodate their employees’ right to vote if an employee’s work schedule prevents that person from going to the polls.  (Even in states where it is not legally mandated, considering this election year, and the general feelings around fundamental right to vote, all employers should strongly consider a plan to enable employees to vote if at all possible.)

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals (which handles federal court appeals from Georgia, Florida and Alabama) recently issued a surprising and first of its kind decision holding that applicants may not bring a disparate impact claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”).  The ADEA prohibits employers from intentionally discriminating against employees 40 or older due to their age.  Any such “disparate treatment” (another way of saying intentional discrimination) violates the ADEA.  But the ADEA is also usually understood to also prohibit unintentional discrimination on the basis of employees’ age (over 40), such as a rule or policy or practice that while non-discriminatory on its face has the real, if unintended, effect of discriminating against older workers.  This concept is known as “disparate impact” discrimination.  As the ADEA (and most employment discrimination laws) applies to both employees and applicants for employment, most assume that the disparate impact theory of discrimination also applies to applicants as it does to employees.  The Eleventh Circuit, however, said it does not.

Troutman Sanders invites in-house counsel, HR professionals and other executives charged with labor and human resources responsibilities to join us for our 2016 Annual Workplace Challenges Update on Thursday, November 10 starting at 8:00 a.m. until 2:00 p.m. at IHG’s Crowne Plaza Hotel (590 West Peachtree Street, Atlanta, 30308).

Do you do business with the federal government?  If you do, you (hopefully!) know that keeping up with the rules and regulations of being a federal contractor are no easy task.  But we are here to help!

Lawyers at our firm, including HRLawMatters contributor Jim McCabe, have written an incredibly helpful article to help federal contractor employers comply with recent changes to their obligations. This article was recently published on the DirectEmployers Association website – and you can see it at this link here. 

As discussed in Part I (posted earlier this week), a number of states and local municipalities have enacted paid sick leave legislation mandating paid time away from work for employees. While some of these laws are already in effect, others are coming soon.  Employers with operations in the following areas should revisit their policies and make adjustments as needed to plan for these upcoming changes:

A number of states and local municipalities have recently enacted paid sick leave legislation mandating paid time away from work for employees. Unfortunately for employers, many of these laws contain provisions that conflict with already-enacted paid sick legislation and require an adjustment of current policies, leading to confusion about requirements and entitlements.

Employers with operations in the following areas should revisit their policies and make adjustments as needed to remain current or to plan for upcoming changes: