Businesses are constantly challenged by the ever-evolving landscape of labor and employment law, with new legislation and judicial developments occurring almost daily fueling a seemingly never-ending stream of litigation. For companies operating in multiple states, complying with this patchwork of federal, state, and local laws and developments can be daunting. Knowing these issues are a top concern for management and in-house counsel, Morrison Foerster keeps pace with this rapidly evolving landscape. MoFo ELC equips our clients with the most up-to-date and relevant information on employment and labor law issues covering key judicial, litigation and legislative developments, their implications for employers, and strategies to ensure compliance and avoid lawsuits.<h2>ABOUT MORRISON FOERSTER</h2>Morrison Foerster is a leading global law firm that transforms complexity into advantage for its clients. Our clients include some of the largest financial institutions, banks, consulting and accounting firms, and Fortune 100, technology, and life sciences companies. Highlighting the firm’s commitment to client service, leadership in market-changing deals and impact litigation, and values-based culture, Morrison Foerster has been repeatedly recognized as one of the top 10 firms on The American Lawyer’s A-List. Year after year, the firm receives significant recognition from Chambers and The Legal 500 across their various guides, including Global, USA, Asia‑Pacific, Europe, UK, Latin America, and FinTech Legal. Our lawyers passionately care about delivering legal excellence while living our values. Morrison Foerster has a long-standing commitment to creating a culture that respects and celebrates differences, while providing an inclusive environment. The firm has achieved Mansfield Certification Plus since 2018 as a result of successfully reaching at least 30 percent women, communities of color, and LGBTQ+ lawyer representation in a notable number of current leadership roles and committees. The firm also has a long history of commitment to the community and society through providing pro bono legal services, including litigating for civil rights and civil liberties, improving public education and fostering the wellbeing of children, advocating for veterans, promoting international human rights, enforcing the right to asylum, and safeguarding the environment.

Social

Search

Editors

turnbull_andrew_blog_150x150.png

turnbull_andrew_common_640x280.jpg

turnbull_andrew_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

turnbull_andrew_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

turnbull_andrew_social_600x600.jpg

Co-Chair, Global Employment and Labor Practice

Partner

Andrew Turnbull represents companies on a broad range of labor and employment litigation and counseling matters. He has successfully defended clients in complex employment litigation before federal and state courts and administrative agencies. A primary focus of his practice involves helping companies navigate the unique employment issues that arise when doing business with the federal government, including advising on all aspects of OFCCP compliance, creating and implementing affirmative action plans, defending OFCCP audits and onsite investigations, conducting mock pay equity audits, drafting and developing business ethics policies and programs, and complying with the Service Contract Act, E-Verify, and the Drug Free Workplace Act.

Andrew Turnbull

favicon.ico

favicon-16x16.png

favicon-32x32.png

apple-touch-icon.png

MoFo Favicons

MoFo ELC equips our clients with the most up-to-date and relevant information on employment and labor law issues, covering key judicial, litigation, and legislative developments, their implications for employers, and strategies to ensure compliance and avoid lawsuits. To learn more about our capabilities, please visit the <a href="https://www.mofo.com/capabilities/employment-labor" target="_blank">Employment + Labor</a> practice page and read about our <a href="https://www.mofo.com/people?practices=Employment%20%2B%20Labor" target="_blank">Team</a>.

Welcome to the MoFo ELC Blog

elcblog-header-image.jpg

Welcome to the MoFo ELC Blog

elcblog-header-image

MoFo ELC equips our clients with the most up-to-date and relevant information on employment and labor law issues covering key judicial, litigation and legislati

Announcements

Blog - Terms of Use

Blog - Cookies

Blog - Privacy Policy

Blog - Blog Disclaimer

Blog - Attorney Advertising

morrison-foerster-blog-logo.png

Provides insights and reports on the most current class actions lawsuits and product liability issues that affect consumer-facing companies.

Class Dismissed Blog

Class Dismissed

In-depth analysis of developments and trends impacting government contracting.

Government Contract Insights Blog

Government Contract Insights

Looks behind the headlines to explore the trends, identify the opportunities, analyze the issues, and provide guidance for science and technology-based companies.

MoFo Tech Blog

News and thought leadership from lawyers whoa re adding value to the legal profession and the communities we call home.

 MoFo+ Blog

MoFo+

Read our Employment Law Commentary blog for the latest insights in employment and labor law, covering issues from ADA compliance to trade secrets protection.

Employment Law Commentary

MoFo ELC | Latest Employment Law Developments and Commentary

  Linkedin

MoFo LinkedIN

ELC Blog - RSS

Stay Connected

By submitting your data to subscribe to this blog, you approved Morrison & Foerster LLP to email you future information about MoFo news and events. You may opt-out at any time by sending a request to <a href="mailto:mofonews@mofo.com" target="_self">mofonews@mofo.com</a>. To learn more about how Morrison & Foerster LLP uses and protects your personal data, please view our <a href="https://www.mofo.com/about/privacy-policy.html" target="_self">Privacy Policy</a> at <a href="https://www.mofo.com/">www.mofo.com</a>.

Never miss a post from MoFo ELC. Enter your email below to stay up-to-date.

Subscribe

Practical Answers to Employment Law Issues

Morrison Foerster - Footer

Blogs -  Home Button

Home

Blog - Topics

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

Artificial Intelligence

Coronavirus (COVID-19)

Department of Labor (DOL)

Discrimination

EEOC

European Union

Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA)

Immigration

Intellectual Property

Leaves of Absence

Legislation

NLRB

Non-Compete

OFCCP

PAGA

Paid Sick Leave

Pay Equity

Privacy & Data Security

Reductions in force (RIFs)

Trade Secrets

Wage and Hour

Workplace Misconduct

Topics

Blog - Editors

Blog - About

About

Blog - Subscribe

Andrew R. Turnbull

More

The “Preventative Duty”: New Law Places Active Duty on Employers in the UK to Prevent Sexual Harassment in the Workplace

Good News for Employers: Texas Court Blocks FTC’s Non-Compete Ban

Potential Exceptions Under FTC’s Non-Compete Ban

FTC Issues Final Rule Banning Non-Competes

Maryland Poised to Continue Trend of Jurisdictions Mandating Pay Transparency in Job Postings

On March 18, 2020, President Trump signed into law the <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/6201/text" target="_blank">Families First Coronavirus Response Act</a> (“FFCRA”). The new law expands the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) to provide up to 12 weeks of paid family leave for employees who must care for a minor child due to a school or caregiver closure as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The FFCRA also provides employees up to 80 hours of paid sick leave that they may use for self-care or family-care in response to the pandemic. A number of key changes were made to <a href="/topics/After-Striking-Deal-with-the-President-the-House-of-Representatives-Passes-Federal-Relief-Bill.html">the earlier version of the bill passed by the House of Representatives on March 14, 2020</a>, including eligibility for leave, leave caps, and removal of the provision prohibiting employers from revising their own sick leave policies.The FFCRA is the first federal law requiring private employers with fewer than 500 employees to provide paid sick leave or paid family leave to employees. The law does not address whether employees at related entities, such as subsidiaries, parents, or affiliates, might be aggregated to be exempt from coverage. If covered under the FFCRA, employers must provide: (1) paid family leave to employees who have been employed for 30 or more days if they are unable to work because their minor child’s school is closed or childcare is unavailable due to COVID-19; and (2) paid sick leave to all employees for certain qualifying emergencies related to COVID-19. Covered employers are entitled to a tax credit each quarter equal to 100 percent of the wages they pay for leave required by the FFCRA. Employers can face civil penalties for taking adverse action or retaliating against employees who use FFCRA-required leave or complain about violations of the law.The new paid family and sick leave will take effect on April 2, 2020 and expire on December 31, 2020. The United States Secretary of Labor is expected to issue a model notice of the requirements for emergency paid sick leave for employers to post by March 25, 2020, and to issue additional guidance on or before April 2, 2020.We provide further details below about the new paid leave, financial assistance, and tax credits available to employers.Emergency Family and Medical Leave ExpansionThis provision expands FMLA to provide for paid family leave referred to in the FFCRA as “public health emergency leave” as follows:<ul><li>Covered Employers:<ul><li>The public health emergency leave applies to employers with “fewer than 500 employees” rather than “50 or more employees” applicable for other qualifying FMLA absences.</li><li>Employers with employees who are “health care providers” or “emergency responders” may elect to exclude those employees from being eligible for public health emergency leave.</li><li>The U.S. Department of Labor can exempt employers with fewer than 50 employees in certain circumstances.</li></ul></li><li>Eligible Employees:<ul><li>Employees must have been employed for at least 30 calendar days at the time that they need to take the “public health emergency” leave.</li><li>“Qualifying need related to a public health emergency” is defined as: <ul><li>The employee is unable to work (or telework) due to a need for leave to care for the employee’s child (under 18 years old) if the school or place of care has been closed, or if the childcare provider for the son or daughter is unavailable due to a public health emergency.</li></ul></li><li>A “public health emergency” is “an emergency with respect to COVID-19 declared by a Federal, State, or local authority.”</li></ul></li><li>Amount of Leave:<ul><li>Employees are entitled to take up to 12 weeks of leave for “a qualifying need related to a public health emergency.” </li></ul></li><li>Required Compensation:<ul><li>The first 10 days of paid family leave may consist of unpaid leave. Employees may substitute other paid leave that they might have available, such as accrued vacation, personal leave, or other paid sick leave.</li><li>After the initial 10 days, employers must provide paid leave for each day an employee takes paid family leave.</li><li>Employers must provide paid family leave at the greater of the following rates: (1) two-thirds (2/3) of the regular rate of pay for the number of hours usually worked by the employee; or (2) the minimum wage applicable to the employee.</li><li>Paid family leave is capped at $200 per day, or $10,000 in the aggregate, for the full 12 weeks of leave.</li><li>Employers are not required to pay for unused paid family leave upon termination of employment.</li></ul></li><li>Job Restoration:<ul><li>Covered employers with 25 or more employees must restore employees returning from paid family leave to their same or equivalent position. Employers with fewer than 25 employees are exempt from this requirement if: <ul><li>the employee’s position no longer exists because of economic or other changes to the employer’s operations related to the COVID-19 crisis;</li><li>The employer makes “reasonable efforts” to restore the employee to an equivalent position; and</li><li>If no positions are available, the employer makes additional reasonable efforts to contact the employee if an equivalent position becomes available.</li></ul></li></ul></li></ul>Emergency Paid Sick LeaveThis provision creates a new federal-level paid sick leave, as follows:<ul><li>Covered Employers:<ul><li>Employers employing fewer than 500 employees. </li><li>Employers with employees who are “health care providers” or “emergency responders” may elect to exclude those employees from the paid sick leave provisions.</li><li>The U.S. Department of Labor can exempt employers with fewer than 50 employees in certain circumstances.</li></ul></li><li>Eligible Employees:<ul><li>Employees are eligible for paid sick leave if they are unable to work (or telework) because:<ol><li>They are subject to a federal, state, or local quarantine or isolation order related to COVID-19</li><li>They have been advised by a healthcare provider to self-quarantine due to concerns related to COVID-19.</li><li>They are experiencing symptoms of COVID-19 and are seeking a medical diagnosis.</li><li>They are caring for individuals who are subject to an order as described above in (1), or have been advised as described above in (2).</li><li>They must take care of their children if their children’s school or childcare provider is closed, or unavailable, due to COVID-19 precautions.</li><li>They are “experiencing any other substantially similar condition, specified by the Secretary of Health and Human Services in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of Labor.”</li></ol></li><li>Use of paid sick leave must be available immediately for any of the reasons described above, regardless of how long the employee has been employed by the employer.</li></ul></li><li>Amount of Leave:<ul><li>Full-time employees can take up to 80 hours of paid sick leave.</li><li>Part-time employees are eligible for paid sick leave equivalent to the number of hours that they work, on average, over a 2-week period.</li><li>Paid sick leave is not carried over from year to year.</li></ul></li><li>Required Compensation:<ul><li>Employers must pay employees at their regular rate of pay, up to $500 per day, or $5,110 total, for all qualifying leave related to a quarantine or isolation order, advice by a health care provider to self-quarantine, or seeking medical diagnosis due to experiencing COVID-19 symptoms.</li><li>Employers must pay employees two-thirds (2/3) of their regular rate of pay, up to $200 per day, or $2,000 total, for all qualifying leave related to family-care or childcare, or if the employee is experiencing another substantially similar illness (as specified by HHS).</li><li>Paid sick leave is in addition to other legally required sick leave.</li><li>Employers are not required to pay for unused paid sick leave upon termination of employment.</li></ul></li><li>Additional Requirements:<ul><li>Employers must post a notice of the paid sick leave requirements for employees. The notice must be posted in conspicuous places on the premises of the employer where notices to employees are customarily posted.</li><li>Employers cannot condition paid sick leave upon an employee finding or searching for another employee to replace the employee while he or she is using sick leave.</li><li>Employers cannot require employees to use other paid leave provided by the employer before using paid sick leave under the FFCRA.</li></ul></li></ul>Tax Credits and Financial Assistance<ul><li>The FFCRA provides financial assistance to employers to pay for these new benefits. Specifically, Division G of the legislation provides employers with quarterly tax credits for wages they pay employees for providing paid family and sick leave required by the FFCRA. </li><li>The FFCRA also provides $1 billion in 2020 for emergency grants to states for activities related to processing and paying unemployment insurance benefits, interest free loans to states to pay regular unemployment insurance benefits, and technical guidance to states that would set up work-sharing programs, in which employers reduce hours instead of laying off employees. Employees would receive partial unemployment benefits to offset the wage losses. Finally, the FFCRA provides for 100% funding of extended unemployment benefits to states with higher than normal rates of unemployment.</li></ul>As we all know, the situation is developing rapidly, seemingly by the minute. Please keep checking our blog for employment-related developments.

President Trump Signs the Families First Coronavirus Response Act into Law, Creating Paid Family and Sick Leave for Employees

Andrew co-chairs the firm’s Global Employment and Labor Group. He represents companies on a broad range of labor and employment litigation and counseling matters, successfully defending clients in number complex matters before federal and state courts and administrative agencies.

02_28_elc_blog_600px_v210.jpg

President Trump Signs the Families First Coronavirus Response Act into Law, Creating Paid Family and Sick Leave for Employees

02_28_elc_blog_600px_v29.jpg

02_28_elc_blog_600px_v29

On March 18, 2020, President Trump signed into law the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (“FFCRA”). The new law expands the Family and Medical Leave Act (

In response to the ongoing disruption caused by the growing coronavirus pandemic, California Governor Gavin Newsom issued Executive Order N-31-20 (the “Executive Order”) temporarily suspending the 60-day notice requirements and liabilities under the California Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (“Cal-WARN”) for layoffs caused by COVID-19. The Executive Order is subject to certain conditions, but employers struggling to respond to the evolving COVID-19 crisis will not trigger liabilities under Cal-WARN if they have to conduct layoffs or furloughs without providing the full 60-day advance notice.Q:  When Does Cal-WARN Apply?Cal-WARN applies when an employer has a mass layoff, termination, or relocation at a “covered establishment” in California with 75 or more employees. <ul><li>A “mass layoff” occurs when an employer terminates at least 50 employees at the covered establishment within a 30-day period due to lack of funds or work.</li></ul><ul><li>A “termination” occurs when there is a “cessation or substantial cessation of industrial or commercial operations in a covered establishment.”</li></ul><ul><li>A “relocation” occurs when an employer moves all or substantially all of its operations at a covered establishment to a different location 100 miles or more away. </li></ul>When Cal-WARN is triggered, employers must provide at least 60-days’ advance notice to affected employees and certain state and local officials before conducting the mass layoff, termination, or relocation. Failure to provide the mandated notice exposes employers to liability for back pay (up to 60 days), the value of benefits for affected workers, civil penalties of up to $500 per day (which can be recovered under PAGA), and attorney fees.Under Cal-WARN (unlike the federal WARN Act) there is no minimum period for the layoff. Courts have found that even a “brief” layoff is sufficient to trigger the notice obligations under Cal-WARN. In other words, if an employer furloughs 50 employees or more at a “covered establishment” even for a few days or weeks, the 60-day notice obligation would be triggered unless one of the limited exceptions to Cal-WARN applies. Because there is no temporary grace period under Cal-WARN, employers have been scrambling to figure out whether they need to provide Cal-WARN notices in light of the increasing number of businesses being forced to temporarily close their doors or furlough employees. The only possible exception under Cal-WARN that could apply to the closures caused by the coronavirus is the exception for layoffs “necessitated by a physical calamity.” However, it is far from clear whether the current COVID-19 emergency would qualify as a “physical calamity.”Q:  How Does the Executive Order Affect Cal-WARN’s Requirements?The Executive Order temporarily suspends the Cal-WARN obligation to provide 60-day prior notice of a mass layoff, relocation, or termination “caused by COVID-19-related ‘business circumstances’” and relieves employers of the Cal-WARN liabilities for damages and civil penalties. Although employers covered by the Executive Order need not provide 60-days’ advance notice, they must still:<ul><li>Provide “as much notice as is practicable,” including a brief statement of the basis for reducing the notification period; and</li></ul><ul><li>Ensure their written notices contain the following statement: “If you have lost your job or been laid off temporarily, you may be eligible for Unemployment Insurance (UI). More information on UI and other resources available for workers is available at labor.ca.gov/coronavirus2019.”</li></ul>The Executive Order applies retroactively to March 4, 2020, and extends through the end of the current COVID-19 emergency, which remains undetermined. The Executive Order also requires the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency to provide additional guidance on the order by March 23, 2020. Q:  What Should My Business Do Now?California employers now have some much-needed breathing room to assess the rapidly evolving situation without incurring liability for not immediately providing Cal-WARN notices. Businesses who need to conduct layoffs or furlough employees due to COVID-19 pandemic should first assess whether those actions would trigger the 60-day notice requirements under Cal-WARN. If Cal-WARN is triggered, employers should consider taking the following steps:<ul><li>Document the action is due to “COVID-19 related ‘business circumstances’”;</li></ul><ul><li>Provide the required Cal-WARN notices as soon as reasonably practicable to the affected employees, their union if they are represented, the California Employment Development Department, the chief elected official of the city and county government where the termination, relocation, or mass layoff occurs, and the applicable local workforce investment board; and</li></ul><ul><li>Ensure the notices contain the language required by the federal WARN Act, a brief statement of the reasons for reducing the notification period, and the statement above concerning employee eligibility for unemployment insurance.</li></ul>For more information about how employers should respond to of the growing COVID-19 pandemic, please refer to our prior client alert on this topic, available <a href="https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/200131-coronavirus-employers.html?utm_source=publication&utm_medium=email">here</a>. If you need more specific guidance, feel free to contact one of the members of our <a href="https://www.mofo.com/capabilities/employment-labor.html">Employment and Labor Group</a>.

Employers Get Temporary Relief From the California WARN Act

02_28_elc_blog_600px_v28.jpg

Employers Get Temporary Relief From the California WARN Act

02_28_elc_blog_600px_v27.jpg

02_28_elc_blog_600px_v27

In response to the ongoing disruption caused by the growing coronavirus pandemic, California Governor Gavin Newsom issued Executive Order N-31-20 (the “Executiv

In the wee hours of Saturday, March 14, 2020, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 6201, the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, three days after its introduction. Of primary interest to employers, if enacted, the bill would expand the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to include emergency FMLA leave to employers with 1 to 500 employees. The bill would also create emergency paid sick leave, provide tax credits to employers to finance these benefits, and provide additional federal funding to the states for unemployment insurance benefits. To become law, the House bill must also pass the Senate and be signed by the president. Although the White House worked with the House on the final version of the bill and President Trump has endorsed its enactment, as of Monday morning, March 16, the Senate had not yet scheduled a time to take up the bill. The final version of the bill – introduced just one half-hour before its passage – does not include the payroll tax suspension that the president wanted. The Democrats also did not get all that they wanted in the bill; it omits the permanent paid sick leave mandate for public health emergencies that was contained in the original version and, instead, provides paid sick leave only for the current COVID-19 pandemic.Although the bill includes relief beyond employment issues, here, we analyze only the employment-related provisions.Division C – Emergency Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act This act would amend the FMLA as follows:<ul><li>Employees would be entitled to 12 weeks of leave for “a qualifying need related to a public health emergency.” The provision expires on December 31, 2020.</li><li>Paid sick leave may be provided for certain periods of leave related to a qualifying need related to a public health emergency. (See discussion of paid sick leave below.)</li><li>To be eligible for this public health emergency leave, employees would have to have been employed for at least 30 calendar days.</li><li>The employer size threshold public health emergency leave would be “fewer than 500 employees” rather than “50 or more employees” applicable for all other FMLA leaves.</li><li>“Qualifying need related to a public health emergency” is defined as: <ul><li>Complying with a recommendation or order of a public official or healthcare provider on the basis that: <ul><li>The physical presence of the employee on the job would jeopardize the health of others because of either exposure to the Coronavirus or exhibition of symptoms of Coronavirus by the employee; or</li><li>The employee is unable to both perform the functions of his or her position and comply with the applicable recommendation or order.</li></ul></li><li>To care for a family member where a public official or healthcare provider determine that the presence of that family member would jeopardize the health of other individuals in the community because of either exposure to the Coronavirus or exhibition of symptoms of Coronavirus; or</li><li>To care for the son or daughter under 18 years of age of such employee if the school or place of care has been closed, or the childcare provider of such son or daughter is unable to care for the child due to a public health emergency.</li></ul></li><li>A public health emergency is an emergency with respect to Coronavirus declared by the federal, state, or local authority.</li><li>Relationship to paid leave: <ul><li>The first 14 days of leave may consist of unpaid leave.</li><li>Employees may substitute other leave for unpaid leave.</li><li>Employers shall provide paid leave for each day of leave related to coronavirus after the initial 14 days of leave.</li><li>Paid leave is equal to 2/3 of the regular rate of pay for the number of hours usually worked. </li></ul></li></ul>Division E – Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act<ul><li>This act would require employers to provide paid sick leave for: <ul><li>Self-isolation due to diagnosis of Coronavirus;</li><li>To obtain a medical diagnosis or care if the employee is experiencing the symptoms of Coronavirus;</li><li>To comply with a recommendation or order by a public official or a healthcare provider on the basis that the physical presence of the employee on the job would jeopardize the health of others because of: <ul><li>Exposure of the employee to Coronavirus; or</li><li>Exhibition of symptoms of Coronavirus by the employee</li></ul></li><li>To care for or assist a family member of the employee: <ul><li>Who is self-isolating because the family member has been diagnosed with Coronavirus;</li><li>Who is experiencing symptoms of Coronavirus and needs to obtain medical diagnosis or care; or</li><li>With respect to whom a public official or healthcare provider makes a determination that the presence of the family member in the community would jeopardize the health of other individuals in the community because of: <ul><li>Exposure of the family member to the Coronavirus; or</li><li>Exhibition of symptoms of Coronavirus by such family member: or</li></ul></li></ul></li><li>To care for the child of the employee if the school or place of care has been closed, or the childcare provider is unavailable, due to Coronavirus. </li></ul></li><li>Duration of paid sick leave: <ul><li>Full time employees – 80 hours.</li><li>Part-time employees – number of hours equal to the number of hours that the employee works, on average, over a 2-week period.</li></ul></li><li>No carryover from year to year.</li><li>Employers with existing paid sick leave policies: <ul><li>Paid sick leave under this act would be in addition to previously available sick leave.</li><li>Employers may not change their sick leave policies to avoid providing this additional sick leave.</li></ul></li><li>Use of paid sick leave must be available immediately for any of the reasons described above, regardless of how long the employee has been employed by the employer.</li><li>Employers may not require employees to use other paid leave provided by the employer before using paid sick leave.</li><li>Employers must post a notice of this act.</li><li>This act expires on December 31, 2020.</li><li>Covered employers are those employing fewer than 500 employees (for private entities or individuals) and those employing 1 or more employees (for public agencies or any other entities that are not private).</li><li>Required compensation: <ul><li>Except for when taking care of a family member or child (where the employee shall be compensated at 2/3 of the employee’s regular rate of pay), the employee shall receive his or her regular rate of pay or minimum wage (whichever is greater).</li></ul></li></ul>Additional Provisions<ul><li>If enacted, the bill would provide financial assistance to employers to pay for these new benefits. Specifically, Division G of the bill provides tax credits to employers for the paid sick and paid family and medical leave created by the bill.</li><li>The bill would provide $1 billion in 2020 for emergency grants to states for activities related to processing and paying unemployment insurance benefits, interest free loans to states to pay regular unemployment insurance benefits, and technical guidance to states that would set up work-sharing programs, in which employers reduce hours instead of laying off employees. Employees would receive partial unemployment benefits to offset the wage loss. Finally, the bill would provide for 100% funding of extended unemployment benefits to states with higher than normal rates of unemployment. </li></ul>

After Striking Deal with the President, the House of Representatives Passes Federal Relief Bill, the Families First Coronavirus Response Act

02_28_elc_blog_600px_v26.jpg

After Striking Deal with the President, the House of Representatives Passes Federal Relief Bill, the Families First Coronavirus Response Act

02_28_elc_blog_600px_v25.jpg

02_28_elc_blog_600px_v25

In the wee hours of Saturday, March 14, 2020, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 6201, the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, three days after its i

On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization officially declared the worldwide outbreak of the novel coronavirus, COVID-19, a pandemic. As the ripple effects from COVID-19 continue to grow, employers are increasingly facing difficult questions about how to address temporary workplace closures as well as possible furloughs and reductions in force due to the looming economic impact of the spreading pandemic. When addressing these challenging issues, employers must be mindful not to inadvertently create wage and hour liabilities, fail to provide legally required notices to employees, or unilaterally change working conditions for unionized workers without bargaining with their union reps. Join us on March 13, 2020, at 12:30 PM (ET) / 9:30 AM (PT) for a webinar during which we will discuss practical strategies for dealing with these and other risks employers face due to the growing coronavirus pandemic. Register for the webinar <a href="https://www.veracast.com/webcasts/mofo/mcle_programs/53144044837.cfm">here</a>.Wage and Hour ConcernsMust employers continue to pay employees who are not coming to work for COVID-19-related reasons?If the employee is non-exempt, then the answer is “no.” Non-exempt employees need only be paid for actual hours worked. If the employee is exempt, then the answer is more complicated. Exempt employees must be paid on a salary basis, which is currently $684 per each seven-day workweek under federal law. With limited exceptions, employees must be paid the full salary for the entire workweek where they perform any work during any portion of that workweek. In other words, if an employee checks emails, participates in work calls, or generally works in any capacity, then he or she must be paid the full salary for that week. There are exceptions for: (i) full-day absences during which the employee is voluntarily absent (such as when the employer is open for business but the employee decides to stay home and performs no work during that day); and (ii) absences covered by a bona fide sick leave policy. If an exempt employee does not perform any work at all during a workweek, regardless of whether the absence is voluntary or involuntary, the employer need not pay the employee his or her salary for the week. Thus, if employees are furloughed for full workweeks, there should be no issue. The problem arises when the furlough starts or stops in the middle of a workweek.If an employer violates the rules and fails to pay full salary for a workweek during which a non-exempt employee performed work, then the employee’s exempt status may be jeopardized. If the violation is inadvertent and isolated, the exemption will not be lost as long as the employer reimburses the employee for any improper deductions. If the employer exhibits an intent not to pay exempt employees on a salary basis – as evidenced by a pattern of deducting wages from salary for individual days not worked – the employee can lose his or her exempt status for the period during which improper deductions were made. In addition, other employees in the same job classification who work for the same manager who made the improper deduction will also lose their exempt status.For any period during which an otherwise exempt employee is deemed non-exempt, the employer is liable for overtime pay at the premium rates normally enjoyed by non-exempt employees for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. The employer could also be liable for civil penalties – including treble damages for willful violations of the FLSA – and could expose itself to class action lawsuits, which remain popular with plaintiffs’ lawyers who may recover statutory attorneys’ fees if successful.When considering any pay stoppage or forced usage of accrued vacation or PTO, employers should also think about the possible retention, employee morale, or public relations impacts of such actions and weigh those concerns against the economic risks. May employers reduce employees’ pay or work hours due to economic effects from COVID-19?Employers may implement prospective wage reductions and work hours for non-exempt employees, as long as those reductions keep employees’ wages above the applicable minimum wage requirements. However, these wage reductions are made across the board for similarly situated employees in the same positions to avoid potential discrimination issues. In addition, certain state and local laws may require some advance notice period.For exempt employees, reductions to the weekly salary are generally not permissible because they must be paid the same minimum weekly salary for any workweek in which they perform work, regardless of the number of hours worked that workweek. There is a limited exception where employers can prospectively reduce an exempt employee’s future salaries and working hours because of a bona fide reduction in the amount of work. However, this practice must be occasional and related to long-term business needs or economic slowdown. What constitutes “occasional” remains an open question. Employers must also remain aware of any payment obligations arising under employment contracts or collective bargaining agreements (further discussed below).Potential WARN Act ImplicationsAre employers required to comply with the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (“WARN”) Act for temporary furloughs or closures related to COVID-19?If an employer is covered by WARN and the layoff or closure is one that would qualify for the notices required under WARN, then yes, the employer would need to comply with WARN, regardless of the reason for the layoff or closure.  Generally, employers with 100 or more full-time employees who implement a “plant closing” or “mass layoff”[1] must provide at least 60 calendar days’ advance notice to employees affected by those closings or layoffs as well as their union reps (if any) and certain government entities. Violations of the WARN Act can result in harsh consequences, with employers being liable for up to 60 days of back pay and benefits as well as civil penalties of $500 per day.However, as may be the case for temporary furloughs or closures related to coronavirus, WARN notice is usually not triggered if employees are going to be laid off for less than six months because those employees have not suffered an “employment loss” requiring notice under WARN. It can be hard to know, however, whether a layoff will indeed only last six months or if the employer will become liable for not providing the necessary notices six months down the road.Employers may also not have to provide WARN notice if they can show that the layoff or closure is due to “unforeseeable business circumstances,” which can include an unforeseen, dramatic major economic downturn. It is possible that the effects of COVID-19 could create such circumstances. Even if the unforeseeable circumstances exception applies to this situation, employers relying on the exception must still provide “as much notice as practicable” as soon as the triggering event is foreseeable and provide a statement explaining the circumstances of why more extensive notice was not provided. Given that application of the exception tends to be highly fact-specific and the situation with coronavirus remains highly fluid, it might be less risky for an employer to simply provide the required notices.Employers should also be mindful that some states, such as California and New York, have their own mini-WARN laws that have different requirements and circumstances that may trigger or relieve providing advance notices.Unionized WorkforcesMust an employer give notice to the union if it wants to make changes to its unionized employees’ working hours or rate of pay due to the effects of COVID-19?Employers with unionized workers may have to bargain with the union before making changes to any terms or conditions of employment. The National Labor Relations Act requires employers to bargain in good faith with the union on mandatory subjects of bargaining, such as wages, schedules, temporary closures, and layoffs.  Making unilateral changes to those terms without first notifying the union and offering to bargain in good faith could lead to the union filing unfair labor charges. This duty to bargain in good faith can apply even in emergency circumstances, unless there are “compelling economic exigencies” or the parties have agreed to such changes in their collective bargaining agreements. Employers should check their collective bargaining agreements to see if there are any rights reserved in those agreements, such as in the management rights clause or a “force majeure” clause, which may give the employer more flexibility to act unilaterally. Employers should carefully interpret those provisions to see if the current coronavirus situation actually gives them the right to act unilaterally. Whether the coronavirus presents a “compelling economic” circumstance will depend the particular circumstances affecting each employer.  The safest route may be for employers to give the union notice and offer to bargain quickly on such terms.  [1] A plant closing is a permanent or temporary shutdown, resulting in an employment loss for at least 50 employees during a 30-day period, of either (i) a single site of employment; or (ii) facilities or operating units within a single site of employment. A mass layoff is a reduction in force that must both (i) not be the result of a plant closing; and (ii) result in an employment loss at a single site of employment during any 30-day period for either (a) 50 employees who comprise at least 33% of active employees; or (b) at least 500 employees. An employment loss is a (i) termination of employment that is not (a) discharge for Cause; (b) voluntary departure; (c) retirement; (ii) a layoff exceeding six months; or (c) a reduction in work hours of more than 50% during each month of a six-month period.

Coronavirus (COVID-19) for Employers: Leaves, Furloughs, and the WARN Act

02_28_elc_blog_600px_v22.jpg

Coronavirus (COVID-19) for Employers: Leaves, Furloughs, and the WARN Act

02_28_elc_blog_600px_v21.jpg

02_28_elc_blog_600px_v21

On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization officially declared the worldwide outbreak of the novel coronavirus, COVID-19, a pandemic. As the ripple effect

Following the publication of our January 31, 2020 Client Alert, “<a href="https://elc.mofo.com/topics/coronavirus-steps-employers-should-be-taking.html">Coronavirus: Steps Employers Should be Taking</a>,” the Centers for Disease Control (“CDC”) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) have issued new guidance for employers about how to respond to the recently discovered coronavirus, COVID-19.In addition, the mayor of San Francisco has declared a local emergency, announced <a href="https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/-jefC1wBEMs04X83FygJSE?domain=sf.gov">here</a>. It also appears that California has a confirmed case of community transmission (someone who caught the virus locally from an unknown infected person). Although the number of confirmed cases in the U.S. remains small, the situation is fluid and employers should stay abreast of developments and guidelines as they are issued.  The latest recommendations follow.CDC UpdateThe CDC notes that for “the general American public, such as workers in non-healthcare settings and where it is unlikely that work tasks create an increased risk of exposures to COVID-19, the immediate health risk from COVID-19 is considered low.” Nevertheless, the CDC advises that employers take the following steps to reduce the risk of exposure:<ul><li>Encourage sick employees to stay home. <ul><li>In particular, those with respiratory illness are recommended to stay home until they are fever free for at least 24 hours. </li><li>To encourage employees to stay home when needed, employers should maintain flexible policies that permit employees to stay home when sick.</li><li>Symptom-free people with low-risk exposures are advised to self-observe until 14 days after their last potential exposure. </li><li>Employers may recommend that employees with low-risk exposures check their temperature before arriving at the workplace.</li></ul></li><li>Separate sick employees when possible, and encourage employees to practice good hand hygiene and coughing and sneezing etiquette. <ul><li>Posters, in particular, can be a helpful tool for informing employees about hygiene etiquette.  </li><li>Educational materials developed by the CDC, including fact sheets, posters, checklists, planning guides, videos, and podcasts, can be found online.</li><li>In addition, employers should provide disposable wipes so that employees may wipe down regularly used surfaces.</li></ul></li><li>Perform routine environmental cleaning, although no additional disinfection beyond routine cleaning is recommended at this time. </li><li>Be mindful of employee travel, and advise employees to check the CDC’s online health notices, check themselves for symptoms, and notify their supervisors if they travel to high-risk areas or become sick during travel.  <ul><li>Traveling employees should contact their healthcare providers if they need healthcare services while abroad and may contact consular offices for additional assistance finding healthcare resources abroad.</li></ul></li><li>Inform employees that if they live with individuals who have contracted COVID-19, they should inform their supervisors and refer to CDC guidance on how to conduct risk assessments.</li><li>Inform employees of possible exposure if those with whom they work have confirmed cases of COVID-19, and conduct risk assessments as needed, but maintain employee confidentiality as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act. </li></ul>Perhaps most importantly, the CDC specifically advises that employers “do not make determinations of risk based on race or country of origin, and be sure to maintain confidentiality of people with confirmed coronavirus infection.”The CDC further recommends that employers develop an Outbreak Response Plan. In doing so, employers should be mindful of the objectives of such plans, which typically include:<ul><li>Reducing transmission;</li><li>Protecting high-risk individuals;</li><li>Maintaining operations; and</li><li>Minimizing adverse effects on other businesses and consumers.</li></ul>When developing Outbreak Response Plans, the CDC recommends:<ul><li>Involving employees in the development and review of the plan;</li><li>Communicating with employees about policies and benefits that can be used to implement the plan;</li><li>Conducting focused analyses and exercises using the plan to identify potential gaps; and</li><li>Sharing best practices with other businesses.</li></ul>Effective Outbreak Response Plans should:<ul><li>Analyze exposure and health risks to employees;</li><li>Identify critical functions, roles, and supply chain elements, and prepare for the effects of increased absenteeism;</li><li>Incorporate human resource policies that are consistent with public health recommendations and with state and federal workplace laws;</li><li>Establish processes for communicating to employees and business partners about the Outbreak Response Plan;</li><li>Refer to plans developed by the communities in which the business operates;</li><li>Make note of channels of communication with state and local health departments and methods for disseminating local outbreak information;</li><li>Minimize exposure among employees and between employees and the public when called for by public officials;</li><li>Offer, where feasible and recommended by local health authorities, flexibility in work locations and work hours by, for example, permitting telecommuting or staggering shifts;</li><li>Limit or cancel non-essential travel to or from communities where outbreaks have been detected; and</li><li>Lay out procedures for activating and terminating the Outbreak Response Plan.</li></ul>OSHA GuidanceIn addition to CDC guidance, employers should be mindful of guidance from OSHA. OSHA’s general COVID-19 guidance can be found online. While OSHA has yet to develop standards specific to COVID-19, OSHA’s website identifies several existing standards that may be applicable, available online. Potentially applicable standards include those for:<ul><li>Recording and Reporting Occupational Injuries and Illness;</li><li>Personal Protective Equipment, specifically standards regarding: <ul><li>General requirements;</li><li>Eye and face protection;</li><li>Respiratory protection; and</li><li>Hand protection;</li></ul></li><li>General Environmental Controls, specifically standards regarding sanitation; and</li><li>Toxic and Hazardous Substances, specifically standards regarding: <ul><li>Access to employee exposure and medical records;</li><li>Bloodborne pathogens;</li><li>Hazard communication; and</li><li>Occupational exposure to hazardous chemicals in laboratories.</li></ul></li></ul>Notably, OSHA has stated that, unlike the common cold or the flu, COVID-19 is a recordable illness that should be reported in accordance with OSHA’s Injury and Illness Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements.Employers should also be mindful of potentially applicable state plans, which can be found through OSHA’s website.Key TakeawaysAs with other communicable respiratory illnesses like the flu, employers should encourage sick employees to stay home to limit the risk of exposure to COVID-19. Businesses should also review their policies and develop Outbreak Response Plans that may be implemented in the event of an outbreak as advised by public officials.  Nevertheless, any response should be based upon facts, proportionate to the actual risks, and should be mindful of the need to remain compliant with existing employment and labor laws and regulations.Based on guidance from public health authorities, employers may want to consider temporary changes to their operating protocols, such as:<ul><li>Prohibiting business travel to or from high-risk areas;</li><li>Limiting non-essential travel;</li><li>Postponing large gatherings;</li><li>Reducing non-essential contact with business partners and clients;</li><li>Educating employees about risks and precautions as recommended by public officials;</li><li>Providing employees with tools to improve hygiene, such as hand sanitizers, disinfectant wipes, and tissues;</li><li>Recommending or requiring that employees with elevated risks of exposure to COVID‑19 work remotely for 14 days without symptoms before being permitted to return to the worksite;</li><li>Permitting other sick and high-risk individuals, such as those with other medical conditions, to work remotely, take time off, or work flexible hours as reasonably necessary.</li></ul>All businesses should be mindful of the public health risks associated with COVID‑19. Measured responses can protect employees and employers alike without running afoul of the law. Still, employers must remember that the discovery of the coronavirus does not relieve them of their existing obligations to their employees under the law. Listen to public officials and always be careful not to contravene laws protecting employees, such as prohibitions against discrimination, confidentiality protections, health and safety regulations, and employee leave laws, just to name a few.For more information about how employers should respond to the emergence of COVID-19, please refer to our prior client alert on this topic, available <a href="https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/200131-coronavirus-employers.html?utm_source=publication&utm_medium=email">here</a>. If you need more specific guidance, feel free to contact one of the members of our <a href="https://www.mofo.com/capabilities/employment-labor.html">Employment and Labor Group</a>.

Updated Coronavirus (COVID-19) Guidelines For Employers

02_28_elc_blog_600px_v2.jpg

Updated Coronavirus (COVID-19) Guidelines For Employers

02_28_elc_blog_600px_v2

Following the publication of our January 31, 2020 Client Alert, “Coronavirus: Steps Employers Should be Taking,” the Centers for Disease Control (“CDC”) and the

tate_eric_blog_150x150.png

tate_eric_common_640x280.jpg

tate_eric_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

tate_eric_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

tate_eric_social_600x600.jpg

Eric Akira Tate co-chairs the firm’s Global Employment and Labor Group. He represents technology and other companies in bet-the-company trade secrets and employee mobility cases.

Eric Akira Tate

Eric Tate chairs the firm’s Global Employment and Labor Group. He has represented technology and other companies in the biggest and most highly-publicized trade secrets and employee mobility cases across multiple industries. Eric also represents companies in whistleblower, wage and hour, and other employment litigation.

Eric Tate

elcblog-employment-trends.jpg

Employment Law Trends to Watch in 2020

elcblog-employment-trends

Last year, jurisdictions across the nation issued new laws and regulations further complicating compliance

Employment Law Trends to Watch in 2020

A federal district court found that the new California law barring mandatory employment arbitration agreements is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The court granted the challengers’ motion for preliminary injunction and barred the Attorney General (AG) from enforcing Assembly Bill (AB) 51.[1] The court’s order followed its grant of a temporary restraining order enjoining the AG’s enforcement of AB 51 while the parties litigated the preliminary injunction.[2]The Court’s RulingIn its preliminary injunction order, the court rejected two threshold matters raised by the AG, finding: 1) the organizations that filed the challenge had standing because they alleged that at least some of their members enter into arbitration agreements or require affirmative opt outs as a condition of employment and would be irreparably harmed if AB 51 goes into effect; and 2) the court had subject matter jurisdiction over suits challenging state statutes on federal preemption grounds.[3]Turning to the merits, the court found plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their preemption claim because “AB 51 places arbitration agreements on unequal footing with other contracts.”[4] Although AB 51 purports to bar the waivers of any “right, forum, or procedure,” the court found that “the primary target of the bill is agreements to arbitrate.”[5] The court quoted the Supreme Court in explaining: “AB 51’s prohibition on California employers’ use of ‘right, forum, or procedure’ waivers as a condition of employment ‘oh so coincidentally’ disfavors contracts with the ‘defining features’ of arbitration.”[6] That the law was “artfully crafted” to allow the AG to argue it regulates employer behavior did not avoid its effect of discriminating against arbitration agreements.[7]The court also found that AB 51 “interferes with the FAA’s goal . . . and is subject to preemption on this basis as well.”[8] The FAA, the court explained, reflects a broad federal policy approving of arbitration. But AB 51 will likely deter employers from using arbitration agreements, interfering with federal policy.[9]The court also found plaintiffs had demonstrated their members would experience irreparable harm absent injunctive relief because many businesses will have to choose between the risk of civil or criminal penalties and ending their use of arbitration agreements.[10] Such businesses “will incur immediate costs of redrafting their employment agreements to omit arbitration provisions and be unable to realize the cost and efficiency benefits they say arbitration provides.”[11] They likely cannot recoup those costs in a suit for damages because the AG is “immune from suit under sovereign immunity.”[12]Because the AG would suffer minimal harm – perhaps none, as the state has no interest in enforcing an unconstitutional law – and because Plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm, the court found the balance of equities weighed in favor of granting the preliminary injunction.[13]Impact of the Court’s RulingIt remains to be seen whether the AG will appeal the preliminary injunction,[14] stipulate to entry of final judgment and appeal, or litigate the case to final judgment. In the meantime, employers want to know about the AG’s authority if they continue to enter into mandatory arbitration agreements and the preliminary injunction is later overturned by the Ninth Circuit or the Supreme Court. There is very little case law on the issue, but we believe employers would have a strong argument that even if the preliminary injunction is later overturned, the AG would not be able to pursue an action based on the employer’s entry into a mandatory arbitration agreement while the temporary restraining order or injunction was in effect. Employers would have to reevaluate those agreements on a going-forward basis if an appellate court were to lift the injunction.[1] Chamber of Commerce of the U.S. v. Becerra, No. 2:19-cv-02456-KJM-DB, 2020 WL 605877 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2020).[2] AB 51 provides for AG enforcement and also private rights of action by employees.[3] Id. at *6–9.[4] Id. at *11.[5] Id.[6] Id. at *12 (quoting Kindred Nursing Ctrs. Ltd. P’Ship v. Clark, 137 S. Ct. 1421, 1426 (2017)).[7] Id. at *12.[8] Id. at *13.[9] See id.[10] Id. at *16.[11] Id.[12] Id.[13] Id. at *18.[14] See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).

Federal Court Preliminarily Enjoins the Attorney General from Enforcing AB 51, the New California Law Barring Mandatory Employment Arbitration Agreements

shutterstock_1149525053_small1.jpg

Federal Court Preliminarily Enjoins the Attorney General from Enforcing AB 51, the New California Law Barring Mandatory Employment Arbitration Agreements

Not So Fast: Ninth Circuit Resurrects Ban On Mandatory Employment Arbitration Agreements

shutterstock_1149525053_small.jpg

shutterstock_1149525053_small

A federal district court found that the new California law barring mandatory employment arbitration agreements is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA)

IS TIME UP FOR THE SEVERE OR PERVASIVE STANDARD? HARASSMENT CLAIMS IN 2020 AND BEYOND

spinelli_cooper_blog_150x150.png

spinelli_cooper_common_640x280.jpg

spinelli_cooper_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

spinelli_cooper_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

spinelli_cooper_social_600x600.jpg

Cooper Spinelli is a member of the Litigation Department and part of the firm’s Employment & Labor Group. His practice focuses on trade secrets and restrictive covenants, employee mobility and executive disputes, whistleblower claims, and general business litigation.

Cooper J. Spinelli

Cooper Spinelli

02_05_elc_blog_600px_copy1.jpg

IS TIME UP FOR THE SEVERE OR PERVASIVE STANDARD? HARASSMENT CLAIMS IN 2020 AND BEYOND

02_05_elc_blog_600px_copy.jpg

02_05_elc_blog_600px copy

By almost any measure, the #MeToo movement has had a remarkable impact on workplace harassment law.  As of today, five states have extended their statutes of li

The World Health Organization (WHO) has now declared the current outbreak of the new coronavirus first identified in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China as a “Public Health Emergency of International Concern.” As more countries announce quarantine measures for travelers returning from Wuhan, businesses need to ensure that they are prepared to deal with the impact of the coronavirus in the workplace. In this alert, we share our recommendations for employers and answer some of the questions that businesses are likely to be asking. Read our <a href="https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/200131-coronavirus-employers.html?utm_source=publication&utm_medium=email">client alert</a>.

gillham_annabel_blog_150x150.png

gillham_annabel_common_640x280.jpg

gillham_annabel_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

gillham_annabel_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

gillham_annabel_social_600x600.jpg

Managing Partner, London

Annabel is a partner at Morrison Foerster and co-Managing Partner of the London office.

Annabel Gillham

spratt_olly_blog_150x150.png

spratt_oliver_common_640x280.jpg

spratt_oliver_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

spratt_oliver_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

spratt_oliver_social_600x600.jpg

Of Counsel

Oliver Spratt is Of Counsel based in the London office of Morrison Foerster. 

Oliver Spratt

02_28_elc_blog_600px_v24.jpg

Coronavirus: Steps Employers Should Be Taking

Coronavirus: Steps Employers Should Be Taking

02_28_elc_blog_600px_v23.jpg

coronavirus-blog-image

The World Health Organization (WHO) has now declared the current outbreak of the new coronavirus first identified in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China as a “Public H

As we leave the 2019 Holiday Season, employers may be questioning whether they adequately accommodated various religions practices among their employees. Accommodations for religious practices often arise during the holiday season in two major contexts: (1) time off for religious observances; and (2) religious expressions in the workplace. Unfortunately, there are no bright-line rules to guide employers. With this employment law commentary, we provide some general principles to help employers better understand their obligations to provide religious accommodations.The Right to Religious Accommodation Under Federal LawThe primary federal law requiring employers to accommodate their employees’ religious practices is Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), which applies to all employers in the U.S. with 15 or more employees. Under Title VII, employers cannot discriminate against employees and applicants based on their religious practices or beliefs.[1] Title VII is administered and enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC has promulgated additional regulations further specifying an employer’s obligations to provide religious accommodations[2] and has also produced numerous other publications that further clarify both the act and the regulations.[3]For purposes of Title VII, religion includes “sincerely held” religious, moral, or ethical beliefs related to “ultimate ideas” about “life, purpose, and death,” including those that are not part of a well-known or organized religious tradition and those based on atheist or agnostic beliefs.[4] In addition to prohibiting discrimination, Title VII requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to employees and applicants whose religious beliefs and practices require some variance from the employer’s policies and practices so long as those accommodation do not cause an “undue hardship” to the employer.[5] Common examples of accommodations include time off, schedule changes, transfers to new job positions, or exemptions from certain clothing or appearance policies. Generally, an accommodation causes an undue hardship if it would impose more than a de minimis cost upon the employer’s operations, including monetary costs and other effects on efficiency, safety, and other employees.[6] The standard for undue hardship applicable to religious accommodations under Title VII is lower than, and should not be confused with, the standard for reasonable accommodations for disabilities required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and other state laws.Despite this relatively low standard, employers must make an effort to offer accommodations that are reasonable and not overly burdensome. Employers should not rely upon existing policies alone if an employee expresses concern that those policies do not accommodate their religious beliefs or practices. Employees do not always have to actually request an accommodation for their religious practices or beliefs. Once an employer becomes aware of a conflict between the employee’s religious beliefs and the employer’s work requirements, the employer generally should engage in an interactive process with the employee to determine whether an accommodation can be made.[7]If it believes that an employee’s requested accommodations would cause undue hardship, the employer should identify and offer alternatives to the employee that eliminate the conflict between the employer’s policies and the religious practice or belief. If none of these alternatives are found to suffice, the employer should only reject the employee’s proposals to the extent it can demonstrate that those requests will cause an undue hardship. Employers should document their efforts to identify accommodations and their reasons for rejecting any proposals made by their employees. It is important that the employer, when rejecting a requested accommodation, explain what costs the proposed accommodation would impose or how the accommodation would negatively impact the work environment, other employees, or customers, and the employer should inform the employee of these concerns so that both sides can consider possible alternatives.Time Off for Religious ObservanceOne of the most common accommodation requests for religious reasons is time off for religious observance. Many faiths require that their adherents regularly commit time to certain practices at particular times of day or on particular days of the week. Others may observe annual holidays that entail participation in customary or ceremonial practices that conflict with performing work on those days.Numerous courts have addressed the right to time off in observance of religious practices. Whether providing an employee with time off will cause an undue hardship on an employer varies substantially based on the frequency of the request, the size of the employer, the nature of the work, and the availability of other employees.[8] An employer’s obligations under a union contract may also be a factor in whether a requested accommodation will be unduly burdensome. For example, accommodating an employee’s request that requires giving preferential treatment that conflicts with the rights of other employees based on seniority may not be an accommodation an employer needs to provide.[9] On the other hand, labor organizations are also prohibited from discriminating on the basis of religion and have an obligation to provide reasonable religious accommodations.[10]Typically, employers may attempt to accommodate religious requests for time off through many their policies, such as existing paid time off or vacation policies, permitting employees to trade shifts with other employees, providing alternative shift schedules, or even offering alternative job positions. Generally, failure to accommodate claims are not successful when the employer can show that it has offered an employee a combination of options to comply with the employee’s religious needs that go beyond the employer’s existing policies. In cases where the employer offered only one means of accommodating an employee’s religious practice or has relied only on existing policies, however, the employees’ claims have tended to survive summary judgment.In one case, for example, an employer was able to show undue hardship at the summary judgment stage when an employee sought additional time off because the employer permitted the employee to take more half-day vacations than allowed by a collective bargaining agreement and actively worked to schedule the employee for shifts that would not conflict with the employee’s observation of the Sabbath in addition to vacation days, floating holidays, voluntary shift swaps with other employees, and unpaid leave time provided under existing policies.[11] By contrast, in another case, where the employer would not modify its existing vacation policy to accommodate the employee’s time off request for religious reasons, the court found that the employer could not show either that its offered accommodation was reasonable or that any further accommodation would cause an undue hardship at the summary judgment stage.[12]Religious Expression in the Work PlaceAnother common accommodation issue is the amount and form of religious expression that must be permitted in the workplace. Religious expression can come in many forms, including verbal expressions, office decorations, attire, and grooming. Whether a religious expression must be accommodated depends upon the content and context of that expression; simple religious greetings shared among welcoming employees are more likely to warrant accommodations than lengthy diatribes to unreceptive clients and customers. Although employers may be required to permit some forms of proselytization, religious salutations, or exceptions to their dress code,[13] if other employees or clients are disturbed or feel harassed by such conduct, the employer may be able to deny the request because it imposes an undue hardship.[14] For example, at least one court has held that employers need not grant exceptions to their anti-harassment policies for employees who use religious quotations to advocate anti-LGBTQ views.[15] Another court has also held that permitting employees to use religious salutations with some clients, such as “Have a Blessed Day,” but not with those clients who had expressed discomfort, was a reasonable accommodation.[16]With respect to grooming, employers generally have had to show that an employee’s non-conforming grooming practices pose some sort of safety-related risk, such as violation of a health or safety code. So, for example, employers have been able to show an undue hardship in multiple cases where an employee’s facial hair prevented that employee from being able to properly use face masks as required by applicable health and safety laws for him to perform his job.[17]A Brief Note Regarding State LawIn addition to the requirement to provide religious accommodation under federal law, several states have laws that require religious accommodations. Though many of these laws often follow accommodation standards similar to federal law, some states apply different standards. For example, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), as amended by the Workplace Religious Freedom Act of 2012,[18] applies to employers with five or more employees, rather than only those with 15 or more. Under FEHA, the test for undue hardship requires a showing of “significant difficulty or expense.”[19] California law specifically requires that an employer explore “any available reasonable alternative means of accommodating the religious belief or observance, including the possibilities of excusing the person from those duties that conflict with the person’s religious belief or observance or permitting those duties to be performed at another time or by another person.”[20] California law also specifically states that accommodations that require segregating employees are not reasonable.[21]Given the possible variation among religious accommodation tests, it is important to be mindful of the possible effect of state law when assessing accommodations.ConclusionGiven the complexities and nuances of accommodating religious beliefs and practices for employees and applicants, employers should consider developing well-defined procedures for handling such accommodations. These procedures can take many forms, but generally employers should keep the following points in mind when crafting such procedures:<ul><li>Train managers and human resource personnel on addressing religious accommodation practices of employees.</li><li>Whenever there is a possible conflict between an employee’s or applicant’s religious practices and the employer’s policies, employers should consider engaging in the interactive process to explore possible accommodations; </li><li>Assign designated personnel trained in religious accommodations to handle the interactive process to try to identify reasonable accommodations that will not cause an undue hardship to the employer and that are consistent with other accommodation requests; and</li><li>Create different standards and procedures for states, such as California, that have more stringent tests for religious accommodations.</li></ul>Even with robust accommodation procedures in place, some religious accommodation requests will still perplex employers. In those instances, consider consulting with counsel before rejecting the proposed religious accommodation. [1] 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.[2] 29 CFR § 1605.2.[3] See “Questions and Answers: Religious Discrimination in the Workplace,” available online at <a href="https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/qanda_religion.html">https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/qanda_religion.html</a>; EEOC Compliance Manual, “Section 12: Religious Discrimination,” available online at <a href="https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/religion.html">https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/religion.html</a>.[4] 29 CFR § 1605.1.[5] 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j).[6] Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63, 74 (1977).[7] See E.E.O.C. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 2028 (2015).[8] Opuku-Boateng v. California, 95 F.3d 1461.[9] Virts v. Consolidated Freightways, 285 F. 3d 307.[10] 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(c).[11] See, e.g., E.E.O.C. v. Firestone Fibers & Textiles Co., 515 F.3d 307, 315 (4th Cir. 2008).[12] See Jacobs v. Scotland Mfg., Inc., No. 1:10CV814, 2012 WL 2366446 (M.D.N.C. June 21, 2012).[13] See, e.g., Banks v. Serv. Am. Corp., 952 F. Supp. 703 (D. Kan. 1996); Rivera v. Choice Courier Sys., Inc., 2004 WL 1444852 (S.D.N.Y. June 25, 2004).[14] See, e.g., Wilson v. U.S. West Communications, 58 F.3d 1337 (8th Cir.1995) (holding that requirement that employee cover up graphic images was a reasonable accommodation).[15] Peterson v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 358 F.3d 599, 604 (9th Cir. 2004).[16] Anderson v. U.S.F. Logistics (IMC), Inc., 274 F.3d 470, 476 (7th Cir. 2001).[17] See, e.g., Bhatia v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 734 F.2d 1382, 1384 (9th Cir. 1984); EEOC v. Sambo’s of Georgia, Inc., 530 F. Supp. 86.[18] Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940.[19] Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 12926(u).[20] Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940(1)(1).[21] Cal. Gov’t Code § 12940(l)(2).

Faithful Accommodations: What Employers Should Do When Addressing Religious Accommodations in the Workplace

shutterstock_293590259_small1.jpg

Faithful Accommodations: What Employers Should Do When Addressing Religious Accommodations in the Workplace

shutterstock_293590259_small.jpg

Print

As we leave the 2019 Holiday Season, employers may be questioning whether they adequately accommodated various religions practices among their employees. Accomm