Tag Archives: DOL

Second Circuit Adopts “Motivating Factor” Causation Standard for FMLA Retaliation Claims

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently clarified that the “motivating factor” standard of causation applies to Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) retaliation claims, instead of the “but for” causation standard applied in Title VII and ADEA retaliation cases. The “but for” standard is more onerous for the plaintiff, who must demonstrate that discrimination or retaliation was the determining factor for the adverse employment action, not just one reason among others. The less burdensome “motivating factor” causation standard requires the plaintiff to show only that the action was motivated at least in part by discriminatory or retaliatory animus.  In Woods v. START Treatment & Recovery Ctrs., Inc., the Second Circuit vacated and remanded the jury verdict where the district court incorrectly instructed the jury to apply the “but for” causation standard to Plaintiff’s FMLA retaliation claims.  Specifically, the court held that the “motivating factor” standard applies to FMLA retaliation claims actionable under 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(1), which prohibits “any employer to interfere with, retrain, or deny the exercise of or the attempt to exercise” rights under the FMLA.

Read full article

House Committee Seeks to Force the NLRB to Jettison “Indirect Control” Standard in Determining Joint Employer Status

Since the National Labor Relations Board’s (“NLRB” or the “Board”) 2015 decision in Browning-Ferris Industries, 362 NLRB No. 186, in which it adopted a new, far less stringent test for determining joint-employer status under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”),  employers have been left wondering whether they may be held to be a joint employer of temporary or contract workers that they retain through staffing and temporary agencies.

Read full article

Employers Who Do Not Take Tip Credit Own Employees’ Tips

Our colleague at Epstein Becker Green, has a post on the Wage and Hour Defense Blog that will be of interest to many of our readers in the retail industry: “Tenth Circuit Rules Tips Belong to the Employer If Tip Credit Is Not Taken.”

Following is an excerpt:

When an employer pays the minimum wage (or more) instead of taking the tip credit, who owns any tips – the employer or the employee? In Marlow v. The New Food Guy, Inc., No. 16-1134 (10th Cir. June 30, 2017), the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held they belong to the employer, who presumably can then either keep them or distribute them in whole or part to employees as it sees fit. This directly conflicts with the Ninth Circuit’s decision last year in Oregon Restaurant and Lodging Ass’n v. Perez, 816 F.3d 1080, 1086-89 (9th Cir. 2016), pet for cert. filed, No. 16-920 (Jan. 19, 2017) and likely sets up a showdown this fall in the U.S. Supreme Court. …

Read full article

U.S. Department of Labor Not Defending Obama Administration Overtime Threshold, But Wants Rulemaking Authority to Establish Its Own Threshold Continue Reading…

In a much anticipated filing with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal in State of Nevada, et a. v. United States Department of Labor, et al, the United States Department of Labor has made clear that it is not defending the Obama Administration’s overtime rule that would more than double the threshold for employees to qualify for most overtime exemptions. However, the Department has taken up the appeal filed by the previous Administration to reverse the preliminary injunction issued blocking implementation of the rule, requesting that the Court overturn as erroneous the Eastern District of Texas’ finding, and reaffirm the Department’s authority to establish a salary level test. And the Department has requested that the Court not address the validity of the specific salary level set by the 2016 final rule because the Department intends to revisit the salary level threshold through new rulemaking.

Read full article

Tenth Circuit Rules Tips Belong to the Employer If Tip Credit is Not Taken Continue Reading…

When an employer pays the minimum wage (or more) instead of taking the tip credit, who owns any tips – the employer or the employee? In Marlow v. The New Food Guy, Inc., No. 16-1134 (10th Cir. June 30, 2017), the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held they belong to the employer, who presumably can then either keep them or distribute them in whole or part to employees as it sees fit. This directly conflicts with the Ninth Circuit’s decision last year in Oregon Restaurant and Lodging Ass’n v. Perez, 816 F.3d 1080, 1086-89 (9th Cir. 2016), pet for cert. filed, No. 16-920 (Jan. 19, 2017) and likely sets up a showdown this fall in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Read full article

OSHA: Union Representatives May No Longer Participate in Work Place Safety Walkarounds at Non-Union Facilities

Our colleague Steven M. Swirsky, a Member of the Firm at Epstein Becker Green, has a post on the Management Memo blog that will be of interest to many of our readers in the health care industry: “OSHA Withdraws ‘Fairfax Memo’ – Union Representatives May No Longer Participate in Work Place Safety Walkarounds at Non-Union Facilities.”

Read full article

OSHA Withdraws “Fairfax Memo” – Union Representatives May No Longer Participate in Work Place Safety Walkarounds at Non-Union Facilities

On April 25, 2017, Dorothy Dougherty, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) and Thomas Galassi, Director of OSHA’s Directorate of Enforcement Programs, issued a Memorandum to the agency’s Regional Administrators notifying them of the withdrawal of its previous guidance, commonly referred to as the Fairfax Memorandum, permitting “workers at a worksite without a collective bargaining agreement” to designate “a person affiliated with a union or community organization to act on their behalf as a walkaround representative” during an OSHA workplace investigation.

Read full article

DOL Delays Fiduciary Rule

Advisers and financial institutions that provide fiduciary investment advice have an additional 60 days before having to comply with the final regulations defining who is a fiduciary under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (the “Fiduciary Rule”).  On April 4, 2017, the Department of Labor (“DOL”) issued a final rule (the “Final Rule”), which delays the applicability date of the Fiduciary Rule until June 9, 2017 and also extends for 60 days the applicability dates of the Best Interest Contract Exemption (the “BIC Exemption”) and the Class Exemption for Principal Transactions in Certain Assets Between Investment Advice Fiduciaries and Employee Benefit Plans and IRA (the “Principal Transaction Exemption” and collectively, the “Exemptions”).  Advisers and financial institutions relying on the Exemptions as of June 9 need only comply with the impartial conduct standards (as explained below), as the remaining conditions of the Exemptions will not become effective until January 1, 2018, if not withdrawn or revised.  The 60-day delay was proposed by the DOL on March 2, 2017, in response to a directive from President Trump to review the Fiduciary Rule (the “President’s Memorandum”), as explained in this article.

Read full article

Delayed: DOL’s Fiduciary Rule

Sharon L. LippettThe Department of Labor (“DOL”) has issued a proposed rule (the “Proposed Rule”) that would delay for 60 days (the “60-Day Delay”) the April 10, 2017 applicability date of the DOL’s new fiduciary rule (the “Fiduciary Rule”). Given the potential change in the applicability date, financial services institutions will need to determine if they will continue their work toward implementation of the Fiduciary Rule or if they will delay their efforts.

Read full article

OFCCP Sues Tech Giant Oracle Alleging Discrimination in Compensation and Hiring Practices and Failure to Produce Requested Records and Data

The United States Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (“OFCCP”) on January 17, 2017, just days before the inauguration of President Donald Trump, filed a lawsuit against Oracle America, Inc. (“Oracle”), alleging discrimination in its compensation and hiring practices, and its refusal to produce requested records and data. See Complaint. The lawsuit, filed with the Office of Administrative Law Judges, stems from a compliance review initiated by the OFCCP on September 24, 2014 at Oracle’s Redwood Shores headquarters in California, housing 7,000 employees.

Read full article