Workforce Strategies

Subscribe to Workforce Strategies via RSS

In response to the nation’s opioid epidemic, the Department of Transportation (DOT) amended its testing program requirements to require inclusion of four semi-synthetic opioids, hydrocodone, oxycodone, hydromorphone and oxymorphone, to the required drug testing panel. DOT also added methylenedioxyamphetamine (MDA) to the panel and removed methylenedioxyethylamphetaime (MDEA) as a confirmatory test analyte as redundant since…

Porter Wright is pleased to announce that it is now offering customized audits of the specific HR policies and practices you select at custom, fixed-cost or other fee arrangements that will give you certainty about the expense before the audit even begins. Simply choose from the menu of HR audit services we offer and work…

Well known asset management company State Street Corporation will pay $5 million to settle allegations of pay inequity raised by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) in an audit. OFFCP alleged that the company paid female executives less than men and black executives less than whites at its Boston headquarters. The landmark settlement agreement is the largest back pay settlement collected by OFCCP since 2015.

By way of background, OFCCP audits federal contractors and subcontractors for compliance with workplace affirmative action and nondiscrimination requirements. OFCCP conducted a compensation analysis of State Street’s downtown Boston office in December 2012. According to OFFCP, that analysis revealed that, since at least December 2010, there were “statistically significant” disparities in compensation between male and female workers and black and white workers even when “legitimate factors affecting pay” such as performance, experience and education were taken into account.
Continue Reading The OFCCP strikes, puts State Street’s pay inequity problem out on Front Street

In an opinion issued this week, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee) affirmed dismissal of a case alleging same-sex sexual harassment primarily based on the prompt and effective action taken by the employer in response to the plaintiff employee’s complaint.

Plaintiff (Hylko) and the alleged harasser (Hemphill) worked closely together at U.S. Steel. Hemphill trained Hylko and assigned his duties. Both reported to an area manager.

Hylko claimed that Hemphill harassed him as soon as they started working together, that Hemphill regularly asked Hylko about his sex life and that Hemphill grabbed his buttocks and private parts.

Hylko complained to management, who offered him a transfer to a different area of the plant, which he accepted. Management then met with Hemphill, who admitted some of the harassment. They then gave him a verbal warning, one week suspension and demotion to shift manager and made him take a leadership class. No harassment occurred again after that.

The standard for employer liability for hostile work environment harassment that does not result in a tangible adverse employment action depends typically on whether or not the harasser is the victim’s supervisor. An employer is vicariously liable for a hostile work environment created by a supervisor unless it can prove that (a) the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any harassment; and (b) the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise. By contrast, an employer is liable for hostile work environment harassment by employees who are not supervisors only if the alleged victim can prove the employer was “negligent in failing to prevent harassment from taking place.” In assessing such negligence, the court will look to such factors as the nature and degree of authority wielded by the harasser and evidence the employer did not monitor the workplace, failed to respond to complaints, failed to provide a system for registering complaints or effectively discouraged complaints from being filed. In essence, the supervisory status of the alleged results in a shifting of the burden of proof with respect to whether the employer has taken necessary steps to prevent and respond to allegations of harassment.Continue Reading When can an employer be found liable for ‘supervisor’ harassment?

Many thanks to Arslan Sheikh for his assistance in preparing this post.

Presume your workplace is non-union. You are interviewing an employee about facts that might lead to disciplining her. She tells you she wants a co-worker to sit in on the interview as her representative to advise her. The lawyers that advise the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) are taking the position that you have to allow it.

Last week, the office of the general counsel to the NLRB issued an advice memorandum that has significant implications for all non-union employers. The memo concludes that an employee in a non-union workplace should be entitled to co-worker representation during an investigatory interview by the company. This is contrary to existing NLRB precedent which holds that representation rights like this do not apply where there is no union representative. As explained below, whether the general counsel’s advice becomes law remains to be seen. But in the meantime, employers are wise to be aware of this advice memo because it will likely influence the way NLRB regional offices act in enforcement proceedings at least for now. Refusing an employee’s request for representation in an interview might result in a local NLRB office issuing a complaint and forcing the employer to fight it out in a hearing.
Continue Reading Non-union employers may have to allow employees “representation” in some investigation interviews

Many thanks to Arslan Sheikh for his assistance in preparing this post.

Last week, President Trump nominated Peter Robb, a management-side labor attorney, to serve as general counsel to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). As the top lawyer for the NLRB, the general counsel has a great many responsibilities, which include giving advice to the regional offices of the NLRB concerning enforcement issues. The advice is often communicated in advice memoranda. These advice memos are critical because they advise the regional offices on how to interpret and to enforce labor law. It is the regional offices that process unfair labor practice charges and union representation petitions. As a result, the office of the general counsel can have a significant influence on what employers can expect to face in NLRB enforcement proceedings.

If Robb is confirmed by the Senate, which is likely, he will take over when current General Counsel Richard Griffin’s four-year term expires on Oct. 31, 2017. Based on his professional background and experience, there is reason to expect that Robb will take a more employer-friendly position on many labor law issues than his predecessors did during the Obama administration. For example, Robb has been critical of the NLRB’s efforts to shorten the timeframe in which an employer can react to a union election petition.
Continue Reading President Trump nominates Peter Robb to serve as general counsel to the National Labor Relations Board

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is again releasing a new and updated version of Form I-9, the Employment Eligibility Verification document. Since November 1986, all U.S. employers have been required to complete and retain the I-9 for new employees. The most recent version of the form went into effect on Jan. 22, 2017, but, for some unknown reason, USCIS is now issuing another version. This new version will be mandatory as of Sept. 18, 2017. The easiest way to identify the new form is by the date (07/17/17) noted in the bottom left corner; the prior version was dated 11/14/2016.

A couple of points to bear in mind:

  1. The new I-9 must be used for any new employees hired on or after Sept. 18, 2017. There is no need to complete the new form for any current employees, and employers should continue to follow existing storage and retention rules for all of their previously completed Forms I-9.
  2. The new form has the same expiration date as the prior version—08/31/2019—so employers should be careful to use the proper version of the form with 07/17/17 noted in the bottom left corner.

Continue Reading Employer alert: Revised I-9 form required beginning Sept. 18, 2017

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) announced recently that it intends to delay the initial deadline for compliance with its rule requiring employers to report accident and illness records to OSHA electronically. Under the original deadline, employers with over 250 workers and smaller employers in high hazard industries would have been required to begin electronic filing of certain OSHA-required forms on July 1, 2017. For a more detailed discussion of the electronic recordkeeping rule, go here. That deadline is now off and OSHA has promised a formal notification in the future with more information about revised deadlines.
Continue Reading OSHA delays electronic reporting requirement start date

Governor Kasich has signed Senate Bill 199, which prohibits employers from creating or enforcing any policy that would limit an employee with a concealed carry license from storing a firearm in the employee’s locked vehicle while on the employer’s premises. The new law, found at O.R.C. 2923.1210 states:

A business entity, property owner, or public or private employer may not establish, maintain, or enforce a policy or rule that prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting a person who has been issued a valid concealed handgun license from transporting or storing a firearm or ammunition when both of the following conditions are met:

(1) Each firearm and all of the ammunition remains inside the person’s privately owned motor vehicle while the person is physically present inside the motor vehicle, or each firearm and all of the ammunition is locked within the trunk, glove box, or other enclosed compartment or container within or on the person’s privately owned motor vehicle;

(2) The vehicle is in a location where it is otherwise permitted to be.

Thus, so long as an employee keeps his or her firearm and ammunition in a locked compartment of the vehicle while the employee is away from the vehicle, employers may not take any action against the employee for bringing the firearm or ammunition on the employer’s property. The law takes effect on March 19, 2017.
Continue Reading Annie get your gun: Expanded rights for Ohio gun owners