Thursday, July 31, 2008

Department of Labor Opinion Examines Whether Restaurant Must Pay For Shoes

The Department of Labor has released a new opinion letter in which it examines a restaurateur’s policy specifying employee shoes.  The questions posed are: (1) Are the shoes part of a uniform, such that the employer must pay for them? (2) May the employer arrange for the purchase of the shoes and deduct the cost from the employee’s pay?

The DOL considered the following facts:

The Employer operates restaurants and requires employees to wear “dark-colored” shoes without prescribing any particular quality, brand, style, model, or type. Aside from color, the only other requirements are that they not be open-toed and that, for safety reasons, they not have a slippery sole. Employees may wear shoes they already own when hired or may purchase shoes from any vendor they may choose. Employees are free to wear the shoes outside of work.
The Employer has arranged a program through which employees may, solely at their option, purchase shoes from a shoe manufacturer. The manufacturer offers over 60 different slip-resistant shoes in a broad spectrum of styles and in numerous dark colors. If an employee chooses to purchase shoes from this vendor, the employee may either pay the vendor directly or the Employer will pay the vendor and deduct the amount of the payment from the employee’s paycheck over a number of weeks. In some instances, the deductions may cause the remaining amount of the employee’s paycheck to fall below the minimum wage for each hour worked during that pay period. If the employee requests that the Employer pay for the shoes through a deduction, the employee must do so by submitting a request in writing describing the shoes to be purchased, requesting the Employer pay for the shoes, and authorizing the Employer to withhold future wages in an amount sufficient to reimburse the purchase costs. Neither the Employer, nor any person acting in its interests, realizes any profit or other benefit from the purchase program,

The DOL opined that the footwear was not a uniform. Quoting its Field Operations Handbook the opinion letter states: “If an employer merely prescribes a general type of ordinary basic street clothing to be worn while working and permits variations in details of dress, the garments chosen by the employees would not be considered to be uniforms.” More restrictive policies may lead to the opposite conclusion. “[W]here the employer does prescribe a specific type and style of clothing to be worn at work, e.g. where a restaurant or hotel requires a tuxedo or a skirt and blouse or jacket of a specific or distinctive style, color, or quality, such clothing would be considered uniforms.”

The DOL also examined whether the Employer may offer to advance the money necessary for employees to voluntarily purchase shoes from the shoe manufacturer and recoup the advance through payroll deductions where those deductions may cause the employee’s paycheck to fall below the minimum wage for each hour worked in the pay period.

The DOL determined that such a practice was acceptable under the FLSA. The FLSA includes as part of “wages” the “reasonable cost” to the employer for furnishing any employee with board, lodging or other facilities. The DOL opined that the shoes qualified as “other facilities.” “[A] deduction for the actual cost of the shoes is allowed under [the FLSA], even if it reduces the amount of the employee’s cash wages below the minimum wage, so long as the employer does not profit or include any administrative costs.”

The DOL letter notes that the rule would be no different for tipped employees.

To review the DOL opinion letter, click here.

Submitted by:
Christopher W. Olmsted, Esq.
Barker Olmsted& Barnier, APLC

Friday, July 25, 2008

Week In Review (July 25, 2008)

Most Popular Federal Law Article

[url=“http://www.elinfonet.com/headcount.php?ID=14224”>Election of Remedies Provision Does not Violate Title VII.</A>
Creating a split among the federal appeals courts, the Second Circuit recently held that including an election of remedies provision in a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) is not unlawful retaliation in violation of Title VII. See Richardson v. Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (July 7, 2008). The clause at issue in this case provided that disputes over unlawful discrimination would be subject to the CBA’s grievance procedure but would not be arbitrable if the employee filed a discrimination charge with the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO) (the state civil rights agency, who was also the employer in this case).
Located On: Ford & Harrison LLP

Most Popular State Law Article

<a >New Hampshire Amends Overtime Law to Encompass Many Route Sales Drivers.</A>
On July 9, 2008, New Hampshire enacted “An Act Relative to the Minimum Hourly Rate of Compensation.” This new law has significant implications for New Hampshire employers, as it broadens the scope of the state’s overtime requirement by eliminating the “motor carrier” exemption to New Hampshire’s overtime law for delivery drivers and sales merchandisers. The new law also revises the manner in which employers must calculate the overtime rate of pay for delivery drivers, sales merchandisers, and all employees paid on a salary and commission basis. The Act becomes effective on September 7, 2008.
Located On: Littler Mendelson, P.C.

Most Popular Headlines

<a TARGET=“_blank”]Go Ahead, Insult the Boss (Everyone Will Be Doing It)[/url]
Journal Now - July 18, 2008

Thursday, July 24, 2008

EEOC Issues New Compliance Manual On Religious Discrimination

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued a new Compliance Manual Section regarding workplace discrimination on the basis of religion on July 22, 2008.

The new section defines “religion,” religious discrimination and harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It identifies discriminatory practices in the recruiting and hiring process, the terms and conditions of employment, and with respect to discipline and termination. The EEOC also describes its policies regarding the employer’s requirement to accommodate religious beliefs and practices.

The section explains how to apply the law to the workplace with numerous factual illustrations. For example, in explaining that accommodation does not necessarily mean acceding to the employee’s preference, the section states: “Tina, a newly hired part-time store cashier whose sincerely held religious belief is that she should refrain from work on Sunday as part of her Sabbath observance, asked her supervisor never to schedule her to work on Sundays.  Tina specifically asked to be scheduled to work Saturdays instead.  In response, her employer offered to allow her to work on Thursday, which she found inconvenient because she takes a college class on that day.  Even if Tina preferred a different schedule, the employer is not required to grant Tina’s preferred accommodation.”

To further assist employers, the EEOC also issued a companion question-and-answer fact sheet and best practices booklet.

The question-and-answer sheet includes answers to common questions, such as: “Does an employer have to grant every request for accommodation of a religious belief or practice?” “What if co-workers complain about an employee being granted an accommodation?” “What are common methods of religious accommodation in the workplace?”

The best practices booklet includes a number of compliance suggestions. Some of the suggestions are generic and obvious. For example: “Employers can reduce the risk of discriminatory employment decisions by establishing written objective criteria for evaluating candidates for hire or promotion and applying those criteria consistently to all candidates.” Other suggestions are more practical and helpful. For example: “Employers should consider adopting flexible leave and scheduling policies and procedures that will often allow employees to meet their religious and other personal needs. Such policies can reduce individual requests for exceptions. For example, some employers have policies allowing alternative work schedules and/or a certain number of ‘floating’ holidays for each employee. While such policies may not cover every eventuality and some individual accommodations may still be needed, the number of such individual accommodations may be substantially reduced.”

According to the EEOC’s press release, “the EEOC issued this section in response to an increase in charges of religious discrimination, increased religious diversity in the United States, and requests for guidance from stakeholders and agency personnel investigating and litigating claims of religious discrimination.”

The EEOC reports that religious discrimination charge filings with the EEOC nationwide have risen substantially over the past 15 years, doubling from 1,388 in Fiscal Year 1992 to a record level of 2,880 in FY 2007.

Submitted by:
Christopher W. Olmsted, Esq.
Barker Olmsted & Barnier, APLC
San Diego Employment Law Attorneys

Friday, July 18, 2008

Week In Review (July 18, 2008)

Most Popular Federal Law Article

[url=“http://www.elinfonet.com/headcount.php?ID=14174”>Joint Commission Alert Targets Intimidating/Disruptive Behavior: Aims to Stamp Out the “Equal Opportunity Harasser”.</A>
Recognizing that intimidating and disruptive behavior can compromise the delivery of quality healthcare, the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO) on July 9, 2008, issued a Sentinel Event Alert focusing upon its new requirements to address such behavior. The Sentinel Event Alert suggests what healthcare organizations must do to address all kinds of harassing and disruptive behavior, not just conduct made illegal under workplace discrimination and harassment laws.
Located On: Fisher & Phillips, LLP

Most Popular State Law Article

<a >Missouri Enacts Tough New Immigration Law, Targets Employers.</A>
Missouri Governor Matt Blunt has signed into law H.R. 1549, a stringent new bill targeting illegal immigration. As of January 1, 2009, employers of unauthorized workers will face potential loss of state contracts and/or tax breaks, suspension or even revocation of their right to do business in the state, and possibly a civil trial in Missouri state court.
Located On: Fisher & Phillips, LLP

Most Popular Headlines

<a TARGET=“_blank”]Not Just a Ladies’ Room[/url]
Wall Street Journal (via Google) - July 15, 2008

Thursday, July 17, 2008

Wage and Hour Division Criticized

The U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division has failed to effectively enforce federal wage laws, according to a Government Accountability Office report issued on July 15th, 2008.

From fiscal years 1997 to 2007, the number of WHD’s enforcement actions decreased by more than a third, from approximately 47,000 in 1997 to just under 30,000 in 2007. The WHD defended the trend. It stated that it decided to enforce fewer, but more time-consuming comprehensive claims. It also states that the decrease resulted from more careful screening out of unmerited claims at the intake stage. WHD admits that part of the decrease is attributed to a 20% reduction in investigative staff.

The GAO found that the WHD rarely imposed statutory penalties on employers. WHD assessed penalties for 6 percent of the enforcement actions conducted between 2000 and 2007.

The GAO cited several examples where the WHD found violations of federal labor law, but failed to follow through with enforcement.

In one case, a homeless woman receiving free room and board while working as a night attendant at a nursing home alleged her employer had failed to pay her wages for an entire year. According to the WHD, the employer admitted it had failed to pay any wages to the night attendant and considered the room and board to be pay, but stated it did not have any money to pay the back wages. The WHD dropped the case and advised the night attendant of her right to file a private lawsuit. The employer was still in business as of June 2008.

An another case, the an employee alleged he was not paid for overtime. The WHD investigator did not perform any actions for 15 months citing a backlog of cases. Investigation was dropped after 15 months when the investigator saw a news article showing that the business in question had closed

The GAO further criticized the WHD for focusing on too narrow a range of industries. “WHD focused on the same industries from 1997 to 2007. The agency primarily targeted four industry groups: agriculture, accommodation and food services, manufacturing, and health care and social services.” The WHD did not react to information from its commissioned studies on low wage industries in which FLSA violations are likely to occur. The GAO concludes “WHD may not be addressing the needs of workers most vulnerable to FLSA violations.”

WHD’s data tracking hides its inefficiencies. “The extent to which WHD’s activities have improved FLSA compliance is unknown because WHD frequently changes both how it measures and how it reports on its performance,” reports the GAO.  “When agencies provide trend data in their performance reports, decision makers can compare current and past progress in meeting long-term goals.” WHD did just the opposite. “While WHD’s long-term goals and strategies generally remained the same from 1997 to 2007, WHD often changed how it measured its progress, keeping about 90 percent of its measures for 2 years or less.”

As quoted in the New York Times, a Labor Department press release highlighted the pay it has recovered for employees. Recovery of wages “more than doubled to $220,613,703 in 2007 from $96,719,108 in 1997.” The DOL said that 341,624 employees received back wages in 2007, up from 189,244 10 years earlier.”  The DOL added: “The “Wage and Hour Division is delivering pay for workers, not a payday for trial lawyers.”

To view the GAO reports, click here and here.

To view the New York Times article, click here.

Submitted by:
Christopher W. Olmsted, Esq.
Barker Olmsted & Barnier, APLC

Friday, July 11, 2008

Week In Review (July 11, 2008)

Most Popular Federal Law Article

[url=“http://www.elinfonet.com/headcount.php?ID=14085”>Education Labor Letter: New Requirements for 403(b) Plans.</A>
403(b) plans are tax-qualified retirement plans maintained only by nonprofit organizations and public school systems. Plan assets are invested in annuity contracts or custodial accounts instead of a tax-exempt trust, like 401(k) plan assets. Historically, 403(b) plans were subject to very little regulation by the IRS and DOL.
Located On: Fisher & Phillips, LLP

Most Popular State Law Article

<a >How Does California’s Same-Sex Marriage Decision Impact Employers?</A>
As most affected employers are aware, California recently became the second state (after Massachusetts) to recognize same-sex marriages. In In re Marriage Cases, the California Supreme Court held that denying same-sex couples the right to marry violates the California Constitution’s equal protection clause and is a form of unconstitutional discrimination based on sexual orientation. The law also invalidated California’s Proposition 22, which provides that only a marriage between a man and a woman is recognized in California.
Located On: Ford & Harrison LLP

Most Popular Headlines

<a TARGET=“_blank”]What job interviewers shouldn’t ask[/url]
Star Telegram - July 07, 2008

Thursday, July 10, 2008

CA Labor Commissioner Cites Company For Not Providing Lactation Accommodation To Employee

In 2002, the California legislature amended the Labor Code to mandate that employers provide “lactation accommodation.” Yes, we cover it all here in the Golden State. In the six years following enactment of the law, no known enforcement actions had been initiated. Hopefully the reason is because employers have been complying with the law. 

Apparently at least one employer did not take note of the law. The California Labor Commissioner, Angela Bradstreet, has announced the issuance of a citation to a Santa Clara-based International Security Services, Inc. for failing to provide private accommodations for an employee to express breast milk for her newborn.  The citation is the first of its kind since the law took effect in 2002. A fine of $4,000 has been assessed.

“Under the law, employers are obligated to accommodate employees who wish to provide breast milk for their infant children,” Bradstreet said. “This employer failed to provide a reasonable amount of break time and a private room for an employee to express milk for her baby as required.”

The labor commissioner received a complaint—the first lodged as a result of the 2002 legislation—from the employee on March 4, which prompted an investigation. The investigation revealed that the employee was not provided an appropriate, designated room. Initially the room that was provided was computer server room with security cameras. This offered an inadequate level of privacy needed to perform the milk expressing process.

Labor Code sections 1030-1033 became law in 2001 and mandates every employer, regardless of size, to provide a reasonable amount of time to accommodate expressing of breast milk and to make reasonable efforts to provide the employee with the use of a room or other location, other than a bathroom, in close proximity to the employees work area to express milk in private.

Bradstreet urged women who are not being provided appropriate accommodations for milk expressing to contact her office and file a complaint.

“This is not the type of law that we can address with enforcement sweeps and filing a complaint is important so that we can correct the violation and educate the employer,” added Bradstreet.

Find the press release here.

Posted by:
Christopher W. Olmsted
Barker Olmsted & Barnier, APLC