Employer Law Report

Ohio statutory amendments impacting joint employment claims against franchisors will go into effect on March 20, 2019

By Brian Hall on

Nationwide, many states are amending their employment laws to address the uncertainty of the joint employment doctrine under federal law, as evidenced by the apparent conflict between the recent D.C. Circuit decision in Browning-Ferris Industries of California Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board and the Board’s proposed rules on the subject. In an effort to address this uncertainty, Gov. Kasich, before leaving office in December, signed H.B. 494 into law. Effective March 20, 2019, H.B. 494 amends the definition of “employer” in several Ohio employment statutes to provide that franchisors are not the employers of their franchisees or the employees of their franchisees unless:

  • they have agreed to assume that role in writing, or
  • a court of competent jurisdiction determines that the franchisor exercises a type or degree of control over the franchisee or the franchisee’s employees that is not customarily exercised by a franchisor for the purpose of protecting the franchisor’s trademark, brand or both.

The specific laws amended were the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, the Bimonthly Pay statute, the Ohio Workers’ Compensation Act and the Ohio Unemployment Compensation Act.

While the outcome of the federal joint employer doctrine controversy undoubtedly will go a long way towards determining the long term significance of the Ohio statutory amendments related to minimum wage and overtime under the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Law, the amendments may have continued vitality as it relates to the bimonthly pay, workers’ compensation and unemployment compensation laws, which do not have comparable federal counterparts. These amendments also only relate to the franchising industry and do not impact any of the numerous other scenarios in which joint employer issues may arise.

Does your workplace foster a culture of safety? New OSHA memo relaxes rule on drug testing policies and incentive programs

By Jourdan Day on

In 2016 we reported on OSHA’s anti-retaliation rule related to the reporting of illnesses and injuries. The rule prohibited employer retaliation against employees reporting workplace injuries and illnesses, and implementation of policies that discourage accurate reporting. At the time the rule was finalized, OSHA clearly indicated it would be interpreted strictly and would affect employer incentive programs and post-accident drug testing policies.

On Oct. 11, 2018, OSHA published a memorandum changing its position, taking a significantly more relaxed approach on this anti-retaliation rule. OSHA states that it “does not prohibit workplace safety incentive programs or post-incident drug testing.” Continue Reading

New tax credit rewards companies that offer paid FMLA leave in 2018 and 2019

By Arslan Sheikh on

The federal Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 contains an often-overlooked tax credit for employers that provide qualifying types of paid leave to their full- and part-time employees. The credit is available to any employer, regardless of size, if:

  • The employer provides at least 2 weeks of paid family and medical leave annually for employees who have been with the company for at least 12 months
  • The paid leave is at least 50 percent of the wages normally paid to the employee

The IRS has issued a set of frequently asked questions and a notice to help employers understand the tax credit, which is only available for wages paid in 2018 and 2019. The notice, entitled Notice 2018-71, is effective as of Sept. 24, 2018, and similarly only applies to wages paid in 2018 and 2019. Here are some of its highlights: Continue Reading

Voluntary abandonment doctrine strengthened by Ohio Supreme Court

By Rebecca Kopp Levine on

On Sept. 27, 2018,the Ohio Supreme Court took the unusual step of overturning two prior decisions in an attempt to clarify a confusing aspect of workers’ compensation law. A long-standing tenet of workers’ compensation law, temporary total disability compensation, is intended to compensate an injured worker when they are unable to work due to a work-related injury. To be entitled to temporary total disability compensation, an injured worker must be medically unable to work and the inability to work must be caused by the work injury.

One exception to this rule, and a defense routinely used by employers, is the voluntary abandonment of employment doctrine. In essence, when relying on this defense, the employer argues the injured worker’s own actions caused his or her loss of compensation rather than the work incident and therefore they would not be entitled to compensation. Previously, the Supreme Court limited the scope of this defense by holding that if an injured worker was disabled due to the work injury at the time of the separation of employment, the injured worker remained entitled to temporary total disability compensation. Continue Reading

Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection issues revised FCRA summary of rights form

By Brian Hall on

Section 301 of the federal Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act, which was signed into law on May 24, 2018, amended the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), effective Sept. 21, 2018, to require consumer reporting agencies (such as those that employers use for applicant and employee background check purposes) to include new language on the Summary of Rights form that explains a consumer’s right to obtain a security freeze to protect against identity theft. The statutory language states that “a security freeze shall not apply to the making of a consumer report for use of the following: … (I) Any person using the information for employment, tenant, or background screening purposes.”

Nevertheless, when the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection issued its interim final rule on Sept. 12, 2018, it indicated that employers indeed would have to provide a notice of the right to obtain a security freeze as part of the Summary of Rights. A copy of the revised form is available here. Because plaintiffs’ counsel are constantly in search of any opportunity possible to expand their ability to file class actions alleging FCRA violations, cautious employers will want to use the new form at least until the Bureau decides to shift its position or the courts force them to shift.

Sixth Circuit decision shows similarly situated employees must truly be similarly situated in discrimination cases

By Adam Bennett on

Employers facing workplace discrimination claims in the 6th Circuit should find some comfort in the court’s recent decision in DeBra v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., which endorses a heightened standard for plaintiffs to demonstrate that they were treated less favorably than similarly situated employees outside their protected class.

The plaintiff worked as a bank teller for Chase until she was terminated for on-the-job errors, such as overpaying customers, leaving bank funds unsecured on counters and accidentally failing to return bank cards to several customers. She alleged, however, that the bank’s reliance on these errors for her termination was really a pretext for age discrimination because other, younger tellers committed the same errors yet were retained.

Continue Reading

U.S. Department of Labor issues new opinion letters covering FMLA and FLSA issues

By Brian Hall on

On Tuesday, August 28, 2018, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) announced the issuance of six new opinion letters covering a variety of issues under the FMLA and FLSA. Specifically, the opinion letters address the following issues:

  • “No-fault” attendance policies and roll-off of attendance points under the FMLA
  • Organ donors’ qualification for FMLA leave
  • Compensability of time spent voluntarily attending benefit fairs and certain wellness activities
  • Application of the commissioned sales employee overtime exemption to a company that sells an internet payment software platform
  • Application of the movie theater overtime exemption to a movie theater that also offers dining services
  • Volunteer status of nonprofit members serving as credentialing examination graders

Continue Reading

Sixth Circuit holds that employer was not required to extend lunch breaks for exercise as reasonable accommodation

By Rebecca Kopp Levine on

Many people exercise daily, and for Shannan McDonald, her exercise was prescribed by her physician for her genetic disorder.  McDonald, employed as a receptionist for UAW-GM Center for Human Resources (CHR), regularly exercised in her employer’s on-site gym during her lunch break.  Per the collective bargaining agreement that covered her employment, each year CHR permitted employees to elect annually whether to take a 60 minute lunch break or a 30 minute lunch break with two other 15 minute breaks. The election remained in place for the entire year following election. McDonald chose the 30 minute lunch break. Continue Reading

Sixth Circuit upholds agreement to arbitrate FLSA claims on individual basis

By Brian Hall on

On Aug. 15, 2018, the Sixth Circuit in Gaffers v. Kelly Services, Inc. held that the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) does not render an arbitration agreement that requires claims to be brought individually illegal and unenforceable. Following the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, which held that a federal statute does not displace the Arbitration Act unless it includes a “clear and manifest” congressional intent to make individual arbitration agreements unenforceable, the court rejected the plaintiff’s arguments that FLSA displaced the Federal Arbitration Act simply by providing for a right to “collective action.” Instead, the Sixth Circuit, consistent with Epic, held that the FLSA “gives employees the option to bring their claims together. It does not require employees to vindicate their rights in a collective action, and it does not say that agreements requiring on-on-one arbitration become a nullity if an employee decides that he wants to sue collectively after signing one.” The Sixth Circuit then went on to reject the plaintiff’s next argument that the Arbitration Act’s savings clause permitted the court to refuse to enforce the individual arbitration agreements because they are “illegal” under the FLSA based on Epic. Continue Reading

More news from the NLRB on work rules

By Arslan Sheikh on

The Obama-era NLRB sometimes gave employers fits with decisions and guidance concerning employer work rules. It was common for the Obama-era Board to strike down fairly common, neutral work rules, often based on the idea that employees might interpret the rules to restrict employee rights. It did not take long for Trump-era NLRB appointees, however, to put their stamp on National Labor Relations Act law (see our article about some early actions by Trump NLRB appointees). The current members of the NLRB and the NLRB General Counsel are clearly inclined to give employers more latitude when drafting work rules. Following are some examples of the NLRB’s change in direction. Continue Reading

LexBlog