CLOSE X
RSS Feed LinkedIn Instagram Twitter Facebook
Search:
FMG Law Blog Line

Archive for the ‘Employment Law Blog – GA’ Category

Employers Should Consider “Prevailing Party” Language In Arbitration Clauses

Posted on: March 13th, 2019

By: Ken Menendez

Employers seeking to discourage frivolous claims by employees may wish to consider utilizing a “prevailing party” clause as part of their agreement to arbitrate.

Many employers utilize arbitration as a means of avoiding the generally greater cost and uncertainty of litigation in employment cases. Agreements to arbitrate are even more prevalent in employment agreements with highly compensated or professional employees.

One of the advantages of arbitration is the ability of the parties to the agreement to establish the rules governing the arbitration and arbitration award. In addition to procedural and logistical guidelines, the parties to an arbitration agreement may also authorize the arbitrator or arbitrators to award the costs, including attorney’s fees, of the arbitration to the prevailing party in the arbitration.

Such a clause might read as follows:

The arbitrators shall award the costs and expenses of the arbitration, including attorney’s fees, to the prevailing party as determined by the arbitrators in their discretion.

A “prevailing party clause” such as the foregoing may reduce the number of baseless claims against an employer, as potential claimants will have to weigh the risk of paying the employer’s costs in the event that the arbitrators rule that the employer was the prevailing party.

The foregoing arbitration clause requires the award of costs to the prevailing party. The drafters of the clause could, if they wished to do so, also make the award of costs discretionary simply by changing the word “shall” to “may.” It is also important to note that the foregoing clause requires the arbitrators to determine which party is the prevailing party. Because many employment cases contain both claims and counterclaims, placing the responsibility for identifying the prevailing party on the arbitrators eliminates subsequent disputes between the parties regarding which party was the prevailing party.

If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Ken Menendez at [email protected].

Department of Labor Unveils Its Long-Awaited Proposed Overtime Rule

Posted on: March 11th, 2019

By: Brad Adler

On March 7, 2019, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) released its long-awaited proposed rule that would revise the white collar overtime exemption regulations.  In its proposed rule, the DOL proposed raising the minimum annual salary for exempt status from $23,360 to $35,308 (an increase in the weekly rate from $455 to $679).  This is a significantly smaller increase than the increase that had been adopted by the DOL in 2016 ($47,476 per year) while President Obama was in office.  Of course, a court blocked that increase from taking effect.

Like the 2016 final rule, the DOL’s new proposal would allow employers to satisfy up to 10% of the $35,308 minimum salary requirement by the payment of nondiscretionary bonuses, incentives and commissions.  Notably, however, while the 2016 rule required that the bonuses be paid at least quarterly, the new proposal contemplates that they can be paid annually (or more frequently if desired).  Specifically, employers would have one catch-up period at the end of a 52-week period to make up any shortfall in the employee’s salary to bring it up to the required minimum.

As a result of this proposed provision, the employer could pay the employee a guaranteed minimum salary of $611.10 per week (90% of the weekly salary) and, if bonus and incentive compensation do not bring the person up to the minimum salary level by the end of the year, the employer would have one chance to make up the difference.

In addition to increasing the minimum salary, the DOL also proposed increasing the minimum annual compensation to qualify for the FLSA’s “highly compensated employee” exemption, from $100,000 to $147,414 (of which, at least $679 per week must be paid on a guaranteed salary or fee basis).

The public will have 60 days to submit comments on the proposed rule, but the rule ultimately is expected to take effect on January 1, 2020.

If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Brad Adler at [email protected].

EEO-1 Reporting Is Coming and There Are Some Things You Should Know

Posted on: March 11th, 2019

By: Hillary Freesmeier

Employers with 100 or more employees are no stranger to the EEO-1 Report. The EEO-1 Report requires all employers with 100 or more employees, or federal contractors with 50 or more employees awarded a contract of $50,000 or more, to report employee demographics by gender, race, and ethnicity each year. Typically, the report must include data from any pay period from October to December and must be filed by March 31 of the following year. However, in light of the government shutdown, the EEOC has delayed the opening of the EEO-1 reporting period to March 18, 2019 and has extended the deadline to May 31, 2019.

Additionally, a federal court has reinstated previous expansion to the EEO-1 Report, which requires employers to also track and report compensation and hours worked within 12 pay bands based on employees’ gender, race, and ethnicity.

Such expansion dates back to a January 2016 Obama-era proposal that required employers to also provide W-2 earnings and hours worked with their EEO-1 Report in an effort to increase pay transparency and equal pay compliance. Such proposal was approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in September 2016 and was titled “Component 2.” Before Component 2 could be implemented, the OMB decided to review and stay the collection of Component 2 data.

Shortly after the stay was effected, the National Women’s Law Center and the Labor Council for Latin American Advancement sued to reinstate the Component 2 reporting requirements. On March 4, 2019, U.S. District Judge Tana J. Chutkan in the District of Columbia vacated OMB’s stay and ordered that the Component 2 revisions go into effect.

Although the EEO-1 reporting period is just days away, employers don’t be alarmed. It is unlikely that the EEOC will require Component 2 reporting for 2018 on such short notice. Additionally, it is currently anticipated that the government will appeal the ruling. Therefore, employers’ best course of action is to monitor the EEO-1 reporting requirements closely. FMG will continue to watch the EEO-1 Report developments and provide updates to keep employers informed.

If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Hillary Freesmeier at [email protected].

NLRB Decisions are Trending Pro-Employer

Posted on: February 27th, 2019

By: Amy C. Bender

The National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) under the Trump administration is showing a return to more conservative, employer-friendly interpretations of the laws regarding employees’ rights to engage in concerted activity to improve wages and working conditions. As a reminder, these protections apply to almost all private-sector employees, regardless of whether they belong to a union.

Independent Contractors – The NLRB recently issued a decision returning to the pre-Obama era, employer-friendly “common law agency” test for determining whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor. This ruling makes it easier for employers to classify workers as independent contractors, which benefits employers since independent contractors do not have certain rights that employees have, such as the right to unionize (and employers do not have to pay taxes or insurance on independent contractors, among other distinctions).

Joint Employers – The NLRB recently closed the period to submit comments on its proposed rule regarding the standard for when two entities are considered joint employers. Under the proposed rule, an entity will be deemed a joint employer only if it has and exercises substantial, direct, and immediate control over the essential terms and conditions of employment and has done so in a manner that is not limited and routine. The current standard from the Obama administration allows a finding of joint employment if an entity exercises indirect control or merely has the contractual right to exercise control, which can result in increased liability for businesses.

Employee Handbook Rules – The NLRB recently issued guidance on when an employer’s workplace policy interferes with employees’ rights to engage in protected concerted activity. The guidance provides that a policy will be placed into one of three categories (generally lawful, warrants individualized scrutiny, or unlawful) and be subject to a balancing test between the policy’s negative impact on employees’ ability to exercise their rights and the policy’s connection to employers’ right to maintain discipline and productivity in their workplace. This guidance provides employers more clarity and detail on how to craft lawful policies and also makes clear that policies will be analyzed to determine the impact they would have (and not just conceivably could have) on employees’ rights.

These developments signal good news for employers, and let’s hope this trend continues.

For questions or assistance in reviewing or preparing your workplace policies, contact Amy Bender at 770-818-1421 or [email protected]

Eleventh Circuit Again Rejects Claim That Title VII Prohibits Discrimination On The Basis Of Sexual Orientation

Posted on: July 23rd, 2018

By: Bill Buechner

In Bostock v. Clayton Co. Bd of Comm’rs, 723 F. App’x 964 (11th Cir. 2018), the Eleventh Circuit again held that Title VII does not prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.   In doing so, the panel relied on prior circuit precedent in Evans v. Ga. Reg’l Hosp., 850 F.3d 1248 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 138 S.Ct.  557 (2017) and Blum v. Gulf Oil Corp., 597 F.2d 936 (5th Cir. 1979).    Jack Hancock and Bill Buechner are representing the County in the case.

Last week, the Eleventh Circuit issued an order denying a request from a member of the Court for rehearing en banc.  Bostock v. Clayton Co. Bd. of Commissioners, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 19835,  2018 WL 3455013 (11th Cir. July 18, 2018).   The order was notable because it was accompanied by a dissent by two circuit judges sharply criticizing their colleagues for not agreeing to rehear the case en banc.

The plaintiff in Bostock had already filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court, and the County will be filing a response to that petition in the next few weeks.   The employer in Zarda v. Altitude Express, Inc., 883 F.3d 100 (2d Cir. 2018) (en banc) also has filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court seeking review of the Second Circuit’s ruling that Title VII does prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

We will report on the outcome of these pending petitions for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court.

If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Bill Buechner at [email protected].