New York Labor and Employment Law Report : New York Employment Lawyer & Attorney : Bond Schoeneck & King Law Firm : NY Labor Relations, Employee Benefits

Too often employers take for granted that their anti-harassment policies are sufficient to prevent and remedy inappropriate workplace conduct, as well as mitigate legal liability. But failure to regularly update those policies can create significant (and expensive) problems down the road. To limit the risk presented by stale and outdated anti-harassment policies, employers should periodically review them to ensure that they are legally compliant and accurate. When conducting that review, consider in particular three important questions:

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In recessionary times like these, employers often rely more heavily on independent contractors to avoid the personnel costs associated with hiring regular employees. Doing so, however, creates risks. Now is a good time to make the effort to determine whether your independent contractors are really independent contractors. Just don’t expect the answer to come easily.

The issue of who is properly classified as an independent contractor (as opposed to employee) has been giving employers headaches for decades. As the United States Supreme Court noted over 60 years ago: “Few problems in the law have given greater variety of application and conflict in results than the cases arising in the borderland between what is clearly an employer-employee relationship and what is clearly one of independent entrepreneurial dealing.” N.L.R.B. v. Hearst Publication, 322 U.S. 111, 121 (1944). It is little wonder that even the Supreme Court is troubled by this legal issue given the difficulties involved in the analysis. For starters, courts and government agencies (both state and federal) use different legal tests to make this determination. As a result, a single set of facts can produce different legal conclusions. Moreover, none of the tests utilized relies on definitive factors. As the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) states on its website, “[T]here is no “magic” or set number of factors that “makes” the worker an employee or an independent contractor, and no one factor stands alone in making this determination. Also, factors which are relevant in one situation may not be relevant in another.”

Although the issue is old, it has continued vitality. There has been a significant increase in litigation, government enforcement and legislation over the misclassification of independent contractors in recent years. It is equally clear that the focus on independent contractor misclassification, far from slowing down, will only continue to pick up steam. The remainder of this blog summarizes some recent developments demonstrating that employers need to be very careful when using independent contractors.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On December 21, 2009, the President signed H.R. 3326, which includes the COBRA subsidy changes discussed in yesterday's blog entry. The enactment of this law means that by February 19, 2009, administrators of group health plans must issue a notice describing the COBRA changes to individuals who were eligible for the subsidy or who experience(d) a COBRA qualifying event at any time on or after October 31, 2009. This notice should describe:

• The extension of the maximum COBRA subsidy period from 9 months to 15 months;
• The extension to February 28, 2010, of the qualifying date for an involuntary termination entitling the COBRA qualified beneficiary to the COBRA subsidy as an "assistance eligible individual";
• The right of qualified beneficiaries whose COBRA terminated after October 31, 2009 (due to failure to pay the higher COBRA premium) to reinstate coverage retroactively by paying the subsidized premium (the 35% amount) by February 19, 2010, or by 30 days after the notice is provided, whichever is later;
• The right of assistance eligible qualified beneficiaries who paid the unsubsidized premium for COBRA for periods after October 31, 2009, to receive a refund or obtain a credit of the overpaid amount. (The administrator can choose the option it prefers: refund or credit).

Watch the U.S. Department of Labor website, www.dol.gov/cobra, for more information and, possibly, a model notice.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On Saturday, the Senate passed the 2010 Defense Appropriations Bill, which contains an extension of the ARRA subsidy for COBRA continuation of health coverage. The Senate Bill is identical to the House Bill, and the President is expected to sign the bill this week. That signature date is important because it is the "enactment date," which drives some of the payment and notice requirements described below.
 

The Appropriations Bill does the following with respect to the 65% COBRA subsidy:

• Individuals who are involuntarily terminated through February 28, 2010, will be eligible for the subsidy (the previous date was December 31, 2009);
• The maximum subsidy period is extended to 15 months from the original 9 months; 
• Individuals whose subsidized COBRA coverage has already ended (some may have ended during November, 2009) have 60 days from the date of enactment (or 30 days after the notice discussed in the next bullet point, if later) to pay the 35% subsidized premium amount and obtain retroactive coverage by the subsidized COBRA. If the full premium was already paid, the "overpayment" amount can be refunded or credited towards future coverage;
• Within 60 days of the enactment of the law, Administrators of group health plans must provide a notice describing the foregoing to individuals who were eligible for the subsidy or who experienced a COBRA qualifying event at any time on or after October 31, 2009;
• The bill also "fixes" a problem recently identified in Department of Labor Q&As: The subsidy will be available to individuals who have a COBRA qualifying event (involuntary termination) through February 28, 2010. The previous law said that a terminated employee had to be eligible for COBRA by the expiration date. This is a subtle difference, but it caused an earlier termination of the subsidy than had been contemplated by Congress.
   

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Employers forced to implement voluntary separation or early retirement incentives to deal with the recent economic downturn sometimes make a no-rehire policy part of the package. There may be sound business reasons for doing so, for example, to avoid paying a salary to someone who was supposed to leave employment and is receiving separation or retirement benefits. However, employers who include a no-rehire policy as part of a separation incentive package run the risk of having to defend an age discrimination lawsuit if the policy is later applied to prevent a rehire. Recently, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") filed such a suit in federal court in New York. EEOC v. AT&T, Inc., Civil Action No. 09 Civ. 7323 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).

EEOC’s complaint alleges that, among other things, a no-rehire policy violates the Age Discrimination in Employment Act because it has an adverse impact on employees and applicants who are age 40 or older. The theory is that older employees are more likely to be denied employment under a no-hire policy because they are more likely to have accepted a voluntary separation or early retirement incentive.

Whether such a disparate impact claim is even available in the context of a failure to hire is open to question. However, EEOC has obtained a favorable decision on that issue from at least one other court. In EEOC v. Allstate Insurance, Co.,   (8th Cir. 2008), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit considered a similar “no-rehire” policy that applied to “employee-agents” who were terminated as part of a corporate reorganization. Allstate’s policy prohibited the rehire of any terminated employee-agent for one year or for so long as that employee was receiving severance benefits, whichever period was longer. Ultimately, the Eighth Circuit held that the “rehire” policy was an “employment policy” and not a “hiring policy,” and that the policy was therefore subject to a disparate impact challenge under the ADEA. Allstate reportedly settled the case for $4.5 million.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As we reported earlier this year, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has proposed regulations implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (“ADAAA”). The EEOC published its proposed regulations in September, and the period for public comment recently closed on November 23, 2009. The EEOC will now evaluate the comments it has received and then issue final regulations, which may or may not include changes to the proposed rules.

Consistent with the intent of the ADAAA, the EEOC’s proposed regulations would broaden the definition of what constitutes a protected “disability” under federal law. The EEOC believes that this will have the effect of shifting the focus of litigation away from whether a person’s impairment is a covered “disability,” and to the issue of whether an employer has complied with its obligations under the law.

While many aspects of the proposed regulations appear to reasonably interpret the ADAAA, commentators have noted there are some provisions which, at least arguably, constitute overreaching on the EEOC’s part. Among the most controversial of these provisions are the following:

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The recently enacted National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 amends the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), by expanding the availability of “military caregiver leave” and “qualifying exigency leave.” The legislation does not include an effective date, so it is prudent for employers to adjust their workplace practices and policies now in order to comply with the new law. The coverage expansions are explained below.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As calendar year 2009 draws to a close, employers who do business with the federal government should examine whether they are required to have an annual affirmative action plan (“AAP”), and, if so, whether it is up to date. Executive Order 11246 (“EO 11246”) requires federal contractors and subcontractors who have 50 or more employees and at least one contract worth more than $50,000 to have an affirmative action plan, to update that plan annually, and to keep and analyze a wide variety of employment data during each plan year.  Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 create additional affirmative action plan obligations related to veterans and individuals with disabilities. A covered contractor's failure to satisfy its AAP obligations is typically revealed through an audit by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (“OFCCP”).  OFCCP is part of the United States Department of Labor and is charged with enforcing EO 11246. OFCCP selects contractors for audit using its Federal Contractor Selection System, which utilizes a variety of neutral criteria. The ultimate sanction for failing to comply with AAP obligations is debarment from federal contracts.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Without acknowledging that it is doing so, today the New York State Department of Labor ("DOL") changed its position on whether employers are required to use DOL’s form in order to comply with Section 195 of the Labor Law. Effective October 26, 2009, Section 195 requires employers to provide all new hires with notice of their wage rates, pay dates, and, if applicable, overtime rates. The statute also requires that employers obtain written acknowledgments from new employees confirming receipt of this information, which must conform to any "content and form" requirements established by DOL. Shortly after the effective date of the statute, DOL issued a problematic, highly controversial, one-size-fits-all form for providing that information, and mandated its use by employers for all classes of employees. Today, DOL reversed position by posting a notice on its website that states no particular form is required to comply with the statute and that DOL’s form is only a sample.   Employers may create their own forms, use the DOL sample, or adapt the DOL sample form.  The notice also states that DOL plans to come up with several different types of sample forms in the future, including a form for exempt employees.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link