Blog Posts
Labor and Employment
EEOC Investigates 20 Private Law Firms Questioning Their DEI-Related Employment Practices
On March 17, EEOC Acting Chair Andrea Lucas sent letters to 20 large law firms requesting information about their diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) related employment practices. The letters express the EEOC’s suspicions that the firms’ employment practices, including those labeled or framed as DEI, are, in fact, discriminatory based on race, sex, or other protected characteristics, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII). The suggestion is that the firms are treating various groups in different ways regarding the terms, conditions, and privileges of employment, or that they may be limiting, segregating, and classifying employees according to a protected characteristic. Lucas wrote: “The EEOC is prepared to root out discrimination anywhere it may rear its head, including in our nation’s elite law firms.” Lucas continued, “No one is above the law—and certainly not the private bar.” You can read the letters here. Moreover, the EEOC has established an email where whistleblowers can submit information to the EEOC about potentially unlawful DEI practices at law firms: lawfirmDEI@eeoc.gov. Private employers should carefully re-examine their employment practices, including hiring practices, determining if they are allocating more resources to promote one group of employees, whether all employees are welcome to participate in all programming (for example, a women employees’ support group), and whether pay practices are consistently equal pay for equal work.
March 18, 2025
Labor and Employment
The Healthy Delaware Families Act: What Employers Should Know
In recent years, Delaware has taken significant steps to support its workforce through progressive employment legislation, including the Healthy Delaware Families Act. This act introduces paid leave benefits, aims to enhance work-life balance, and supports employees during critical life events. Here’s what employers need to know about this important initiative: Coverage and Eligibility Employees who have worked for their employer for at least 12 months and clocked in at least 1,250 hours during the last year are eligible for benefits under the Healthy Delaware Families Act, mirroring the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Coverage Requirements: Most businesses in Delaware are covered under the act and must provide eligible employees with paid leave. Exceptions: Certain businesses, such as seasonal ones and those with fewer than ten employees, are exempt. Employers with 10-24 employees are only required to participate in parental leave. Alternative Benefits: Businesses offering more generous paid leave benefits or those providing a state-approved alternative paid leave insurance plan meeting minimum standards may opt out of the program. Types and Duration of Leave Under the Healthy Delaware Families Act, eligible workers can take the following types of leave with pay: Parental Leave: Up to 12 weeks. Medical Leave: Up to six weeks, including care for a family member. Military Deployment: Up to six weeks. Intermittent Leave: Employees can use leave intermittently (not consecutively) if medically necessary, provided they take leave at least one day per week. Combined Parental Leave: If both parents work for the same employer, they can take up to 12 weeks combined. Benefits and Contributions Wage Replacement: Workers receive approximately 80% of their usual weekly wages while on leave, based on their average weekly wage over the last 12 months. Maximum Benefit: Currently set between $100 and $900 per week, adjusted annually for inflation. Contribution: Starting in 2025, participating businesses will contribute up to 0.8% of their payroll towards the program. Employees may also contribute up to 0.4% of their wages annually. Job Protection and Rights Job Security: Employees are entitled to retain their health insurance benefits and return to their previous position after taking leave. Protection from Retaliation: Employees who have been with their employer for at least 90 days are protected from retaliation for requesting or using leave. Administration and Compliance Administration: Delaware’s Department of Labor oversees the program, ensuring education, claims processing, financial stability, and compliance. Enforcement: The Department investigates violations and reports regularly to the Governor and Legislature on the program’s effectiveness. Conclusion The Healthy Delaware Families Act represents a significant step forward in supporting Delaware’s workforce with comprehensive paid leave benefits. For employers, understanding the act’s requirements and benefits is crucial for compliance and fostering a supportive workplace environment. By embracing these changes, businesses can enhance employee satisfaction, retention, and overall productivity. Please contact me for further information on the Healthy Delaware Families Act or similar legislation in Maryland. I am also available to present to large groups interested in understanding these important employment laws.
June 21, 2024
Labor and Employment
Navigating Overtime Regulations: Plaintiffs Challenge Department of Labor's New Overtime Rule
On May 21, 2024, a significant event unfolded in the legal landscape as several plaintiffs filed a lawsuit challenging the Department of Labor’s (DOL) new overtime rule. This rule, which raises the salary threshold for professional and highly compensated employee exemptions, is scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2024. The rule, in essence, stipulates that a worker can only be exempt from overtime under the professional or highly compensated exemptions if they are paid at least $43,888 annually. For a highly compensated employee, the threshold is set at$132,964. These thresholds are set to increase over three years, beginning in January 2025. The lawsuit was filed in the Eastern District of Texas, the same court where plaintiffs successfully challenged the Obama-era overtime rule in 2016. That rule sought to raise the salary threshold for executive, administrative, and professional exemptions to $47,476. Plaintiffs argue that this rule’s “new salary threshold is so high that it is no longer a plausible proxy for delimiting which jobs fall within the statutory terms ‘executive,’ ‘administrative,’ or ‘professional.” It also maintains that the DOL’s planned three-year automatic increase to the salary is illegal. Moreover, the Trump-era overtime rule is currently under review by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. If the Court of Appeals finds in the plaintiffs’ favor, the 2024 DOL rule would also be overturned. Businesses should still assume that the new rule will go into effect on July 1, 2024. There is no telling whether either court will decide these lawsuits before that date. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
June 5, 2024
Labor and Employment
U.S. Department of Labor Announces Proposed Rules Designating More Workers as Non-Exempt from Overtime
Today, the U.S. Department of Labor announced a proposal to “Define and Delimit the Exemptions for Executive, Administrative, Professional, Outside Sales, and Computer Employees” that would “restore and extend overtime protections” to millions of salaried workers if finalized. The proposal is currently publicly available on its website: https://www.dol.gov/newsroom/releases/whd/whd20230830. The Department of Labor’s proposed rule would, among other things: Increase the FLSA regulations’ standard salary level from $684 per week ($35,568 per year) to $1,059 per week ($55,068 per year). Automatically update earnings thresholds every three years to keep pace with changes in worker salaries. Increase the total annual compensation requirement for highly compensated employees from $107,432 to $143,988 per year in order to designate such workers as exempt. Revising definitions of the executive, administrative, and professional exemptions from overtime. Restore overtime protections for workers in U.S. territories. After the proposed rule is published in the Federal Register, individuals will be able to submit comments for a period of time to be determined by the Department. Employers, if so inclined, should submit comments opposing the new rules to potentially avoid these coverage exemptions. However, in the meantime, it is critical that employers correctly classify workers as exempt or non-exempt. The DOL takes no prisoners and demands double payments of unpaid overtime to all misclassified workers for three years prior to a complaint and fines employers. I have recently identified many expensive mistakes by several sophisticated employers. As always, please reach out to me if you have any questions.
September 1, 2023
Labor and Employment
What You Should Know About the New Pregnant Workers Fairness Act
There’s another new federal law providing additional protections to pregnant employees. The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) requires employers with 15 or more employees to provide “reasonable accommodations” to a worker’s known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, unless the accommodation will cause the employer an “undue hardship.” It becomes effective on June 27, 2023. Beginning on that date, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) will accept charges based upon violations of this law. To date, the EEOC has issued no proposed regulations, although it will do so. It offers some guidance here. Your state may already have a similar law, but even if it does, the EEOC guidance may be helpful. The PWFA adopts the familiar ADA interactive process in order to determine if the limitations may be accommodated without undue hardship. The EEOC defines “undue hardship” as “significant difficulty or expense for the employer.” The House Committee on Education and Labor Report on the PWFA provided some examples of accommodations, including the ability to sit or drink water; receive closer parking; have flexible hours; receive appropriately sized uniforms and safety apparel; receive additional break time to use the bathroom, eat, and rest; take leave or time off to recover from childbirth; and be excused from strenuous activities and/or activities that involve exposure to compounds not safe for pregnancy. It’s sometimes difficult to determine whether a request for accommodations is reasonable or an undue hardship. Don’t assume that the request is a hardship. Remember that a leave of absence may be a reasonable accommodation; consult your employment attorney, who can provide the latest court guidance on the issue.
May 3, 2023
Labor and Employment
The Power of Mediation: Mediator Settles Fox News v. Dominion Voting Systems During European River Cruise
Mediator to the rescue again! Mediator Jerry Roscoe was called in by counsel for Fox News and Dominion Voting Systems at the eleventh hour the night before the trial began. A huge amount of money and public images were at stake in the defamation trial. After attorneys failed to broker a deal over the weekend, Judge Davis had ordered the parties to attempt again to settle. At the time of the call, Mr. Roscoe was celebrating his birthday on a cruise ship sailing from Budapest to Bucharest. Notwithstanding this situation, he accepted the surprise job and reportedly estimated that he conducted as many as 50 calls with the parties from Sunday night through Tuesday afternoon (when the jury was selected and sworn in). CNN quoted Mr. Roscoe driving home the point: “Presence in the courtroom often tends to crystalize the focus of the risks and benefits of litigation. “Once the jury sits down and you’re looking at people who are going to decide your fate, it’s an awakening experience.” The moral of the story: don’t pay astronomical court and attorneys’ fees only to roll the dice with a jury in the public eye. Instead, save time, money, and reputation by agreeing to privately mediate disputes between employers and employees. Put it in writing and make sure it’s a legally enforceable agreement. Moreover, other commercial disputes include a mediation clause. Agree to settle arguments with your neighbors, even without a written agreement. I’ve mediated those, too. This is another example of the wisdom of calling a mediator. Sometimes, we perform what seems like an impossible task. Kudos to Mr. Roscoe for settling a case for one of the largest defamation awards in history.
April 27, 2023
Labor and Employment
PUMP Act Changes Protections for Working Mothers
Congress passed the bipartisan Providing Urgent Maternal Protections (PUMP) for Nursing Mothers Act as part of the omnibus budget bill for the fiscal year 2023. The PUMP Act is an extension of the Break Time for Nursing Mothers Act (the pumping break time law), which is part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The ACA requires employers to provide reasonable break time to nurse or pump and a private place to pump. Employers must provide “a place, other than a bathroom, that is shielded from view and free from intrusion from coworkers and the public, which may be used by an employee to express breast milk.” Also, employers must give “reasonable break time” to their employees to pump for up to one year after the birth of their child. Women whose positions were exempt from overtime were not entitled to these ACA protections; the PUMP Act applies to all working mothers. In addition, the PUMP Act outlines legal remedies if an employer has violated any aspect of the Act or retaliated against an employee for behaving according to the Act. Employees may immediately file suit if employers ignore the break time requirement or have indicated that they don’t intend to provide private space to pump or if they were fired for requesting break time or a private location to pump. As a practical solution, short of court, employees must notify their employers if they have not provided a space to pump, and the employer then has ten (10) days to provide an appropriate space. Keep in mind the specific requirements and take note that putting an employee into a room with a camera (even if it’s turned off) or a private room where she may be viewed through a window or door will not comply with the law. Pumping breaks may be unpaid time and scheduled at employees’ regular break time.
April 20, 2023
Labor and Employment
Highly Paid Employee Awarded Overtime
You can’t make enough money to be exempt from overtime. In a surprising decision, the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that an employee who made over $215,000.00 per year was entitled to overtime payments. In Helix Energy Solutions Group v. Hewitt, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Mr. Hewitt, a former employee, was eligible for overtime pay because he was paid on a daily basis, not a guaranteed salary basis. Mr. Hewitt’s daily pay varied. So, regardless of the fact that he earned $248,053 in 2015 and $218,863 in 2016, Helix Energy Solutions should have been paying him overtime, per the Court. According to the Court, “salary” as used in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) “connotes a steady and predictable stream of pay” and must be paid by the week or longer period. Why mention this decision? To highlight that the Court reads the FLSA regulations in a very technical way, and accordingly, employers must educate themselves about the requirements. Employers have to prove in court that employees are exempt from overtime. It doesn’t matter if the payment is very generous. I’ve had a number of clients investigated for violations, even when the pay was more than fair. Shock value. I want to meet the attorney who agreed that Mr. Hewitt should sue and pursue overtime payments all the way to the Supreme Court. Let me know if this raises any FLSA questions about classifying people as exempt or non-exempt and compliance with the overtime law.
April 6, 2023
Labor and Employment
A Dose of Education Law: Supreme Court Rules Disabled Students May Sue Under ADA After Settling with School District
As you may know, I represent students in education matters (as well as educators in some employment matters.) I help elementary and secondary students with everything from attaining special education services, accommodations, and payment for private schools when public schools aren’t serving students’ needs, provide bullying help to victims, and I defend disciplinary matters such as expulsions. For post-secondary (including graduate) students, I defend Title IX complaints, appeal disciplinary actions and school or program dismissals, and enforce my clients’ Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) rights to accommodations (enforceable in every post-secondary program that accepts federal student loan money or federal grants). So I am, of course, interested in a recent Supreme Court case on an ADA action brought by a deaf student. Students and parents must proceed with an administrative process before seeking court relief in special education cases for failure to provide a free appropriate education under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Money damages are not available under the IDEA; courts may order school districts to pay for tutoring or private education as a remedy for failure to provide a proper education, however. The question arose whether, if a special education student settled a complaint against a school district for violating their ADA rights, they may sue in court for monetary damages without going through the administrative process regarding the ADA claim. Mr. Perez, a deaf man, alleges that the district provided him with aids who didn’t know sign language to translate for him and misled the family about the amount of progress he made. The unanimous Court allowed the case under the ADA for money damages to move forward even after Mr. Perez had received a settlement for his violation of IDEA claims. This decision is a game changer, as many students with disabilities will have a threat of an ADA claim hanging over the school district in addition to the threat of an administrative hearing under IDEA. In fact, Justice Gorsuch wrote that the case “holds consequences not just for Mr. Perez but for a great many children with disabilities and their parents.” The case is Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools, et al., No. 21-887, U.S. (2023). Many parents and students don’t know the extent of their rights under the ADA nor the IDEA and don’t know where to get assistance. Education specialists give legal guidance and help students navigate the process of attaining relief for students who were denied education via legal violations. Reach out if you have questions.
March 30, 2023
Labor and Employment
Time to Review Settlement and Severance Agreement Templates
In a surprising decision that reveals the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) position on perceived threats to employees’ right to organize under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the Board held in McLaren Macomb, 372 NLRB No. 58 (2023), that even if an employer (with a unionized or non-unionized workplace) merely offers a severance agreement containing broad confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions, it is illegal. Note: The Board’s ruling only applies to nonmanagerial, nonsupervisory employees with Section 7 rights under the NLRA. The current Board’s view is that agreements are unlawful on their face if they contain terms with a “reasonable tendency to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights” under the NLRA. As such, if an employee files a complaint, the NLRB will now review severance agreements for language that’s too “broad or coercive.” In McLaren Macomb, the NLRB found that asking an employee to agree to keep terms of an agreement confidential (even with exceptions for spouses, lawyers, and tax advisors, and as ordered by a court or agency) violated the NLRA because the former employee would be unable to discuss it with current employees, who might want to organize. The Board also decided that a non-disparagement agreement was illegally overbroad when it required the employee not to make statements that could disparage or harm the image of the “employer, its parent and affiliated entities and their officers, directors, employees, agents and representatives.” Note: This restriction has no time limitation and covers other entities and persons, not just the employer. Courts don’t have to follow the rulings of the NLRB. The courts always look to whether a non-disparagement agreement is “reasonable under the circumstances,” and I believe that a non-disparagement clause limited to the company would be reasonable as long as the non-disparagement clause doesn’t purport to last forever and cover too many entities. Would a court agree that it’s illegal to promise not to disclose the agreement’s terms? The ability to require confidentiality serves as the important public policy of encouraging settlements outside of court. That said, having your template severance and settlement agreements with employees reviewed for compliance with the Board’s rationale and holding it is not very time-consuming. I’m recommending this to my clients — tweaks would not be difficult. If you have questions, please reach out.
March 23, 2023
Labor and Employment
Adhering to Laws of Every State in Which Employees Are Working Remotely Part II
As I’ve written before, the employment laws of the states where an employer hires employees are applicable to the employment relationship. If you missed those blogs, you may access them here and here. I am listing more types of laws to consider here. If you’re bored by this topic, I promise this is my last blog on the subject. Prior wages inquiries: The employer can’t do any or all of the following under some state laws: Require, as a condition of employment, that an employee refrain from inquiring about, discussing, or disclosing information about either the employee's own wages or about any other employee's wages (also violates federal law); Seek the wage or salary history of a prospective employee from the prospective employee or a current or former employer or to require that a prospective employee's prior wage or salary history meet certain criteria; provided, however, that: If a prospective employee has voluntarily disclosed such information, a prospective employer may confirm prior wages or salary or permit a prospective employee to confirm prior wages or salary; and A prospective employer may seek or confirm a prospective employee's wage or salary history after an offer of employment with compensation has been negotiated and made to the prospective employee. Employers can’t retaliate against employees who report violations. Wage payment: Employers must pay wages earned by employees within different time periods of a termination; the definitions of “wages” and penalties for failing to pay on time vary from state to state. Medical assistance & family medical leave contributions: Employers in some locations must pay into an account set up by the state, similar to the unemployment insurance fund. Workers’ compensation and unemployment insurance premiums: Employers must pay these, in every state, for each employee performing any work in that state. Contribution to a workforce training fund program: Where a state has such a fund or similar, the employer must contribute. The list is not exclusive. There are other employment-related laws in some states that are not common, so I’ve omitted them here. Please ask if you have questions.
March 9, 2023
Labor and Employment
Adhering to Laws of Every State in Which Employees Are Working Remotely
As I’ve written before, the employment laws of the states where an employer hires employees are applicable to the employment relationship. If you missed that blog, you can access it here. I am listing more types of laws to consider. Sexual harassment policies: It may be legally required to adopt a policy against sexual harassment and provide notice of the policy at certain times. Workplace safety laws: Enough said. Non-competition agreements in an employment relationship: Severely limited or forbidden in some states and may soon be federally banned. Please look at my previous blog on this topic and the proposed legislation. Mini-COBRA laws: There are some state laws applying the COBRA requirements to employers with less than 20 employees. Voting leave: In certain cases, employers are required to provide leave to vote for a certain length of time and be paid for this. Lie detector tests: Requiring or requesting one is unlawful in some locations. Requiring the use of certain surnames: In some states, it’s illegal for employers to require employees to use, because of such individual's sex or marital status, any surname other than the one by which such individual is generally known. Veterans’ Day & Memorial Day leave: Employers in some locations must grant unpaid leave to a veteran or a member of a Department of War veteran who desires to participate in a Memorial Day exercise, parade, or service in the employee's community of residence. Volunteer emergency responders’ leave: Employers can’t take any disciplinary action against any employee of some states because they fail to report for work at the commencement of their regular working hours, where such failure is due to his responding to an emergency in their capacity as a volunteer member of a fire or ambulance department. This list is not exhaustive. I will continue the list in my next blog. I’m able to advise on employment laws applicable in other states, as needed.
March 3, 2023
Labor and Employment
Consider Labor Laws When Hiring in Other States
Please be aware that the employment laws of the states where an employer hires employees are applicable to the employment relationship. Many companies continue to hire remotely without this consideration. Some states have very complex laws favoring employees, and employers should be alert to this issue. I am mentioning some types of laws to consider so that employers can review this list when considering hires in other states. This is a rather lengthy list to be continued. Written notices: This is a commonly overlooked legal requirement. Check to be sure which legal notices must be provided in each state. Anti-discrimination laws based on protected status: There are various classifications on which an employer may not legally discriminate. These might include the classes protected by federal law or exceed them. For instance, it is illegal in Delaware to discriminate against an employee because they are a firefighter. Disability accommodations: In some states, it’s illegal for an employer to require documentation from an appropriate health care or rehabilitation professional in certain situations, such as a request to lift less than 20 pounds. Pregnancy accommodations: In some states, employers must grant reasonable accommodations requested by employees for their pregnancy or related conditions unless employers can show that these accommodations would impose an undue hardship on their business. Parental leave & sick leave: Some states’ laws grant employees parental leave, unpaid sick leave, or paid sick leave. To be continued next blog. In the meanwhile, if you have questions, please reach out.
February 24, 2023
Labor and Employment
New Federal Workforce Mobility Act Would Further Limit Non-Compete Agreements
Last week, politicians reintroduced the federal Workforce Mobility Act, a bipartisan bill intended to limit the use of non-compete agreements with U.S. employees. As the bill states, “economists now estimate that 1 in 5 workers is covered by a non-compete agreement.” It further finds that non-compete agreements are “blunt instruments that crudely protect employer interests and place a drag on national productivity by forcing covered workers to wither idle for long periods of time or leave the industries in which the workers have honed their skills altogether… [they] also reduce wages, restrict worker mobility, impinge on the freedom of a worker to maximize labor market potential, and slow the pace of innovation in the United States.” TheWorkforce Mobility Act would: Limit the use of non-competes to business sales and dissolution of partnerships; Require most employers to post a notice of the law for employees; Allow the Federal Trade Commission to bring an action to enforce the act according to the Federal Trade Commission Act; Direct the Department of Labor to investigate violations – confidentially - and allow it and state attorneys general to bring legal action against the employer who uses a non-compete; and Provide that employees may sue their employers or former employers to enforce the act, recovering both actual damages and attorney’s fees and costs. If this act passes, it will expose employers to a minefield of liabilities and enforcement actions. At this point, given both the proposed FTC rule banning non-competes, discussed in my previous blog, companies need to meet with their attorneys regarding protecting information, assets, and business by means of other agreements. Prediction from this litigator/ agreement drafter: if this bill passes, a great deal of litigation is coming. This bill doesn’t allow employees to agree to arbitrate any of these disputes. Employees will have little disincentive to file because they will recover their attorney’s fees and costs if they win the lawsuit. Looking forward, it will be more important than ever to craft an up-to-date agreement with employees to protect a business and its trade secrets.
February 9, 2023
Labor and Employment
New Harvard Wage Study Shows Employers Are Inflating Titles to Illegally Dodge Overtime
I am constantly reminded of employers’ mistakes in determining that their workers are exempt from overtime payments under the Fair Labor Standards Act. I recently came across a report of a new study from researchers at Harvard Business School and the University of Texas at Dallas. This study, covering 2011 – 2018, examined “title inflation,” misclassification of employees to avoid paying overtime, and the risk of U.S. Department of Labor/ USDOL suits. The report states, in part, "Our evidence indicates that firms strategically use job titles to exploit regulatory thresholds to avoid paying for overtime work … We find that [this practice] is also strongly associated with the usage of fake managerial titles and … thus can be used as a timely indicator of potential FLSA violations." The law requires that in order to classify an employee as exempt from overtime, the employee must earn a certain amount of salary, as well as perform the job duties of a non-exempt worker (for instance, managing others, professional duties based on a higher degree, and computer programming.) During the study’s time period, there was a 485% increase in managerial titles and pay that barely bumped workers over the minimum salary required to classify workers as exempt. Inflated titles are used to justify salary: researchers saw a barber called a “grooming manager” and a front desk clerk labeled as a “director of first impressions.” Overtime — or lack thereof — is prevalent in issues of wage theft. Nearly two-thirds of wage theft violations that resulted in fines involved overtime issues, according to the study's analysis of U.S. Department of Labor data from 2010 to 2021. Of all back wage fines levied by the agency, over 80% were for overtime. The USDOL has recovered millions of dollars in back pay for unpaid overtime. If just one employee blows the whistle – it costs employers dearly. Review the employee’s primary duties and then classify them correctly. If concerns arise about retention, know that the employee can retain the title (and salary); but watch hours closely to ensure overtime isn’t owed and set a policy requiring management’s permission to work overtime. Consult an experienced attorney for help to determine classification.
January 25, 2023
Labor and Employment
Federal Trade Commission Proposes Rule Banning Non-compete Agreements Between Employers and Workers
As I mentioned in a 2022 post, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has been considering a rule banning non-competes for a while now; President Biden has publicly voiced his support for the ban. The current proposal is based on the FTC’s belief that non-competes violate anti-competition laws. The rule would supersede all state, local, and federal laws on this subject. The rule has a sweeping definition of a non-compete: “a contractual term … that prevents the worker from seeking or accepting employment with a person, or operating a business, after the conclusion of the worker’s employment.” The rule outlaws other provisions which are not labeled “non-competes,” too: if an agreement not to solicit the employer’s customers or not to disclose the employer’s information functions as a non-compete, it is illegal. The FTC rule also intends to forbid employee promises such as repayment of the employer’s training costs if the employee worked for less than a certain period of time, where the repayment is not “reasonably related” to the employer’s actual training costs. The proposed rule would become final 60 days after it’s published in the Federal Register. Employers would have 180 days after publication to comply. The rule states that employers would have until that time to rescind any existing non-competes (including those applicable to ex-employees). This rule would upend centuries of state common law. Many of my clients have agreements that would disappear or change drastically. Drafting agreements to protect business and confidential information would become a whole different game. If you are in Delaware and would like to attend an in-person roundtable at which I’ll speak about this topic, please reply to this email, and I will send you an invitation. If you can’t attend, I am planning to record it; contact me for a copy of my remarks.
January 18, 2023
Labor and Employment
New Federal Contractor Rule
The question of who’s an employee with protections and benefits under labor law and who is a contractor not covered by those laws has always been important for many reasons. New trends favoring more flexibility to classify workers as contractors have highlighted the issue even more. The Department of Labor has now proposed a new rule designed to favor the classification of workers as employees. Secretary of Labor Marty Walsh said, “misclassification deprives workers of their federal labor protections, including their right to be paid their full, legally earned wages.” There is a comment period (make your organization’s position known); then, the DOL reviews them and prepares to finalize the rule. The new proposal from the Department of Labor would change the current test to determine worker status, which had been greatly simplified and had the effect of permitting more workers to be classified as contractors. This proposed rule uses a six-factor test to determine the working relationship. The test is consistent with the analysis federal courts use in making the decision. The proposed DOL test considers the nature and degree of the worker’s control over the work; the worker’s opportunity for profit or loss; investments by the worker and the employer; the degree of permanence of the working relationship; the extent to which the work performed is an integral part of the employer’s business; and the degree of skill and initiative exhibited by the worker. What are the problems if workers are falsely designated as independent contractors? Businesses have to face multiple types of potential claims, including failure to pay employment taxes, failure to provide unemployment and workers’ compensation insurance, Obamacare issues, and the biggie: failure to pay overtime and provide breaks if the worker would have been entitled to overtime and break laws. So this is worth some serious consideration.
November 10, 2022
Labor and Employment
Delaware Non-Compete Update
As you may know, I provide employment law advice to our teams here at Offit Kurman, assisting our clients in company sales. In that capacity, and because I also draft restrictive covenants for businesses, I try to update my business clients on the latest news regarding non-competition clauses. The Delaware Court of Chancery recently gave us some good information regarding limits that buyers may place on sellers in terms of competing with the sold business. Many deals across the United States are written in accordance with Delaware law, so it has a wide-ranging impact. Recently the Court of Chancery clarified that non-competes which try to prevent a seller from competing with a buyer’s pre-existing business are not enforceable. Kodiak Building Partners, LLC v. Adams, C.A. No. 2022-0311 (Del. Ch. Oct. 6, 2022). Such promises are only enforceable to the extent that they protect the buyer’s interest in the assets or company purchased in the deal. Even more interesting because of its larger potential effect on employment agreement non-competes is the Court’s holding that a seller’s promise in a purchase agreement not to challenge the reasonableness of a restrictive covenant means nothing. It is up to the Court to determine the reasonableness of the terms according to Delaware law. If your company wants a binding agreement, it is worthless to have a party promise that the non-compete is reasonable. I’d argue that this decision extends to employment agreement non-competes because the Court made the ruling based on public policy, which applies to all areas of law. Consult a Delaware lawyer with up-to-date non-compete knowledge to draft your sales and employment agreements. The Court continues to move in favor of allowing free competition.
November 4, 2022
Labor and Employment
Monitoring Employee Email for Unionization Activity
We’re all noticing that increased unionization is the national trend. With new Democratic-appointed National Labor Relations Board members, the Board is no longer all Republican, and employers are closely watching the effects of this political shift in favor of unionization rights. On September 30, a panel of two Republican members and one Democratic member decided that T-Mobile US, Inc. broke the National Labor Relations Act by disciplining a customer service worker for sending a union-related email following a court battle appealing its initial decision. This reversed a 2020 decision by an all-Republican panel that T-Mobile had the right to discipline the worker for using its email for non-business-related purposes. The Board found that T-Mobile had broken labor law by “selectively and disparately” using company policies to silence the pro-union worker. However, this finding was specific to the facts of this case. Other employees had been permitted to use T-Mobile’s email for non-business purposes without being disciplined. Other employees sent mass emails about non-work issues such as hockey tickets, bowling parties, and “Nacho Day” in the cafeteria—but weren’t punished, said the decision. T-Mobile appeared to be targeting the worker who was promoting unionization. Employers may still restrict workers’ email use for non-work issues, including union organizing, as long as they don’t target union communications specifically. So, if employers want to prevent unionization emails on their servers, they need to monitor the servers for other uses and shut them down, too.
October 3, 2022
Labor and Employment
Preparing for Potential Union or Organizing Activity
U.S. labor unions are becoming increasingly popular among Americans after years of relative indifference by rank-and-file employees. Approval ratings for unions and unionization efforts are at the highest point since 1965, according to a recent Gallup survey. Organizing activity is bubbling up in unexpected areas like gaming and the broader technology industry and in global organizations like Starbucks and Amazon. This workplace trend created an unsettling development for all employers as they contemplate their relationships with employees heading into 2023. Offit Kurman’s Labor & Employment group offers an informative 60–90-minute virtual presentation for business owners, HR professionals and managers, providing information crucial to mitigating risk and avoiding unionization in their organizations. The presentation covers applicable labor laws and regulations governing union activity, compliance requirements, proactive strategies to identify organizing warning signs, best practices for union-related communications and how to address organizing activity before it gains steam. There is also ample time allotted for Q&A. The presentation is directed only to management-level employees, not rank-and-file employees. If you would like to schedule a presentation or receive more information, please feel free to reach out.
September 22, 2022
Labor and Employment
The Turning Tide: How Americans Currently View the Supreme Court
Not too shocking: about half of Americans’ ratings of the Supreme Court are now as negative as – and more politically polarized than – at any point in three decades. According to the Pew Research Center’s report published September 1, the share of Democrats or Democrat-leaning participants who say they have a favorable opinion of the Court has dropped from 67% in 2020 to 28% in August 2022. Almost half of the respondents indicated their belief that the Court has too much power. In contrast, Republican and Republican-leaning approval ratings were very similar to 2020 at over 70%. The justices were once proud to say that they are apolitical, citing the fact that many of their decisions are unanimous, 8-1, or 7-2. But the percentage of those opinions dropped from 49% in 2016 to 28% in 2022, according to the authoritative empirical SCOTUS blog. I have been to the Supreme Court twice: once in 2015 and once in 2019. Our 2015 opinion was unanimously decided, and in 2019, the Court declined to review the lower court’s decision. This indicates – from my very small sample – cohesive views. Pew’s survey was much larger. It polled 7,647 adults, including 5,681 registered voters, from Aug. 1-14, 2022, using a national, random sampling of residential addresses. What do you think? Has the 6-3 “conservative” majority been that divisive? And isn’t it sad that we now commonly refer to the “factions” as “conservative” and “liberal”?
September 7, 2022
Labor and Employment
CDC Speaks Again: How Does it Affect Employees?
New COVID guidance from the CDC throws some of what we’ve learned about safe returns to work and prevention out the window. The CDC’s recommendation is now that anyone exposed to COVID is safe to be around others by wearing a well-fitted and high-quality mask for ten days. I’d suggest that the “well-fitting and high-quality mask” is a big factor. Employers should still require that employees inform them of exposure and intent to test and, at that time, let them know the new standard and that they may report in person. Keep a stock of KN95 or other tight-fitting masks on hand. Delaware still requires employers to provide masks, and these are readily available. All persons should still seek testing for active infection when they are symptomatic or if they have a known or suspected exposure to someone with COVID. Symptomatic or infected persons should isolate promptly, and infected persons should remain in isolation for at least five days (day 0 is the day of exposure) and wear a well-fitting and high-quality mask if they must be around others. Infected persons may end isolation after five days, only when they are without a fever for at least 24 hours without the use of medication and all other symptoms have improved. They should continue to wear a mask or respirator around others at home and in public through day 10. Don’t forget: employees at high risk for severe illness and those in contact with them (such as caregiving recipients and household members) may want to minimize risk if they learn they’ve been exposed. They may still ask to quarantine while they await test results. This may either be handled by telework, isolating onsite, or taking available paid or unpaid time off. Be cognizant of reasonable accommodations for workers with disabilities; this may fall into that basket. On another note, I am really happy to announce that I was voted into Best Lawyers in America for employment law. I joined 59 of my colleagues at Offit Kurman, who were included in the listing of the top 5% of American lawyers. Sincerely, thank you for your trust in me.
August 31, 2022
Labor and Employment
Take Notice: Required Postings
Recently, I was struck yet again by the huge number of laws requiring employers to provide notice to their employees of employment-related laws. Often laws require employers to provide notices over and over, too. For instance, Washington DC has a new law banning almost all non-compete provisions (which takes effect October 1). Not only do employers with one or more employees have to be aware that they may no longer ask their employees to sign non-compete agreements, but they must also remember to provide notice 1) ninety days after the law becomes effective (so they have to track that, too); 2) seven days after hire, and 3) within 14 calendar days of a written request for the text of the law. Who knew? I had to sit down and research this – and I’m an employment lawyer. From this example alone, it’s clear that keeping up with notification requirements is a pain. And it’s extremely burdensome if the company is operating in multiple states. All the remote working has increased this administrative burden on employers. Remember, the employment laws of the state in which employees are working are those applicable to them. I suggest that management – at those employers without HR personnel – take a look at the websites of each state as a beginning point. All of the notices are usually available there in a PDF to be posted. Caution: it seems even the Departments of Labor in some states can’t keep up with their own lawmaking because I’ve noticed some missing on their own websites. It’s a good starting place and also an education in laws applicable, as you’ll see when you read the notices. And, of course, don’t forget your federal law notices, either (DOL.gov)! Post in all brick and mortar sites and email notices to remote employees. Review once per year
August 24, 2022
Labor and Employment
Affirmative Action v.2022
The argument continues on whether affirmative action is legal in the academic admissions setting. In October, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in two cases challenging university affirmative action programs. This is the first affirmative action case heard by the Court since the conservative majority was seated. Management of some major corporations believes that the implications of those decisions could be far broader than their effects on schools’ admissions. It could affect businesses’ hiring, too. The cases are brought by a group called Students for Fair Admissions against Harvard and the University of NC, arguing that the school’s affirmative action admissions policies unconstitutionally harm Asian-American and white students. The universities maintain that race is only one of many factors considered in admissions, including geography, military service, and socio-economic status. Almost 80 companies, including Meta, Apple, Lyft, Uber, Verizon, and Alphabet, filed briefs supporting the schools’ affirmative action programs. Their attorneys assert that corporate diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts “depend on university admissions programs that lead to graduates educated in racially and ethnically diverse environments.” Their position is that only by allowing universities to use affirmative action will there be enough highly qualified future workers and business leaders, especially given the increasingly global nature of the economy. The brief also states that “[E]mpirical studies confirm that diverse groups make better decisions thanks to increased creativity, sharing of ideas, and accuracy.” Do you think workers trained or educated in a racially diverse environment are better employees?
August 15, 2022
Labor and Employment
Please Release Me
I have been dealing with a lot of claims recently from unhappy clients who have either been charged with employment discrimination or threatened with suit by disgruntled former employees. What to do? One word: release. I’m begging you have your outgoing employees sign a release of all claims and promise not to sue. This requires a good form and a payment to the outgoing employee. The payment is required to create an enforceable contract: you pay them, and they release your business from claims. A lot of employers are understandably reluctant to pay severance to people they’ve let go. However, it can be a very small payment. Employees appreciate the gesture as well, and this may decrease the chances that they bad-mouth the business. (A good release also includes a promise not to disparage the business, however.) It can cover all potential claims arising up to the time of signature and can also alert employers to any potential claims (for example, a workplace accident.) A smattering of recent examples: The minority employee who charged the employer with race discrimination (the same person hired and fired the employee, obviously making it far less likely that the decision-maker was biased.) The employee who charged the employer with disability discrimination and failure to accommodate disabilities (the person never reported any disabilities, the decision maker had no knowledge of any, and the person never requested accommodations). The employee who claimed to have reported a financial discrepancy to the employer (they don’t recall this employee ever discussing financial matters), and thus, they claim that they were discharged in retaliation for whistleblowing. The list goes on; these are just a few recent examples. Don’t be afraid to let an underperforming employee go, but give them a week’s severance and get that release signed. Check with an employment attorney to be sure that your release covers all potential legal issues.
July 27, 2022
Labor and Employment
Overturning Roe v. Wade : Potential Effects on the Workforce (Not a Political Speech)
I started thinking of some questions which might occur in the employment context after Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organizationoverturned Roe v. Wade and all cases following it since 1973. Here are a few. Are people protected from employment discrimination if they end or refuse to end a pregnancy? The Pregnancy Discrimination Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 should continue to protect employees of companies with more than 15 employees from reproductive health-related discrimination and harassment even after the Supreme Court’s decision, regardless of their state of employment. Some states also have explicit abortion nondiscrimination statutes and/or a fewer employee number threshold. The Third, Fifth, and Sixth Circuit federal Courts of Appeals have held that an employer can’t discriminate based on the employee obtaining an abortion. The EEOC will continue to take this position. But the best course is not to inquire about employees’ health care decisions in the first place. Can an employer fire a person based on religious grounds for having an abortion? Courts generally have held that private employers can’t discriminate based on sex even if the policy purportedly is based on their religious beliefs. However, an exception to Title VII’s discrimination provision bars clergy members from bringing an employment discrimination claim against religious institutions. Can a pregnant person or one who had an abortion be protected from employment discrimination based on the Americans with Disabilities Act? Pregnancy itself isn’t a disability under the ADA unless the person is experiencing complications or aftereffects of pregnancy that impact one or more “essential life functions”; for instance, the mother develops long-term high blood pressure, affecting her ability to work at a broad variety of jobs. It’s also feasible that the aftereffects of an abortion could be an ADA disability if it impacts those functions. There will be more claims of disability and requests for accommodations due to pregnancy. How will this decision impact our current labor shortage? An immediate reduction in the labor force is a logical conclusion. The more pregnancies there are, the more pregnancy-related health issues will exist – leading to more absenteeism, reduced work hours, and disability leaves. Mothers will be out on maternity leave; paid maternity leave is legally mandated in some states. Workers sometimes leave the workforce because of pregnancy. That’s a few thoughts I’ve mulled over. What questions do you have about the effects of the Dobbs decision?
July 14, 2022
Labor and Employment
Revisit Your Non-Disclosure Agreements or Risk #MeToo Issues
As you probably know, non-disclosure agreements signed by employees are legally binding. These may prevent workers from speaking out about workplace practices, including #MeToo issues. Newly introduced federal legislation targets NDAs that silence employees reporting sexual harassment. This is already a matter of law in some states, including California and Washington. Lift Our Voices, a pro-worker policy group headed by former Fox News anchor Gretchen Carlson, has spurred the House introduction by a Democrat of the SPEAK OUT Act (H.R. 8227). As with the last #MeToo related law passed, SPEAK OUT is backed by several GOP representatives already. Lift Our Voices expects an introduction of a similar Senate bill, apparently to be backed by Republican senators, including Lindsey Graham. Lift Our Voices supported another #MeToo-related bill, H.B. 4445, through its passage. That law nullifies provisions that force workers to arbitrate #MeToo claims rather than have their day in court. The SPEAK OUT Act applies to pre-dispute non-disclosure agreements signed before an issue arises. However, if a business is sued by an employee alleging sex discrimination or harassment, it would still be legal to include an NDA in a settlement agreement or release. Take a look at NDAs you’re using. It might be a good time to revise them, given the bipartisan support of this bill and state bills. I’m speculating here, but a court could go on to invalidate other provisions of the NDA if it contains this type of provision.
July 8, 2022
Labor and Employment
Is the Company’s Non-Compete Enforceable?
There’s a lot of fuss nationwide about whether agreements signed by employees not to compete after their employment are allowable. The FTC has now said that it is going to pursue a regulation banning non-competes. I have reviewed and written many non-compete agreements over the course of my career. Many of them are likely unenforceable under existing law. Here are some possible reasons (this list is not exhaustive): Agreements may be overbroad. For example, it may be that an agreement trying to ban someone from working worldwide when they only had a U.S. role is unenforceable. Depending upon where the person lives or is sued, the court might not let the employer revise the scope to make it enforceable. It would simply be thrown out, in that case. Employers: don’t overreach! Agreements may apply to employees who can’t be restricted. If the person is working in a state in which non-competes are void, even if the person is brought into a different state court, they might not be held to the agreement. D.C. passed an ordinance banning non-competes last year. Agreements don’t protect a legitimate business interest. Is there a legitimate business interest in disallowing a person (who has signed a confidentiality agreement) from working in the mailroom of a competitor? Agreements may restrict a person’s right to free speech. Just try to enforce an agreement not to disparage a company (and its employees, services, products, etc.) forever. Agreements don’t offer the employee any type of consideration for signing. In some states, merely letting someone continue to work for an employer is not enough value to the signer to enforce the non-compete. Most employees think nothing of signing these agreements – they want their jobs – or are not allowed to receive valuable things such as stock options if they don’t. But when the employee is moving on, they are faced with this dilemma: will I be sued if I ignore the non-compete? My advice is to consult a lawyer experienced in non-competes and non-solicitation agreements to learn more about yours. And employers, beware of the above common problems with non-competes; the law is changing very quickly on this subject. It’s wise to have your agreements reviewed often, given the number of recent court decisions and many new state laws limiting these provisions.
June 30, 2022
Labor and Employment
Defamation Claims: Johnny Depp Pulled Off a Miracle
Clients very frequently approach our lawyers with a keen interest in suing someone for defamation, a la Johnny Depp. I strongly discourage these claims. It’s a very tough row to hoe. First, defamation (libel is written defamation and slander is spoken defamation) requires a statement of fact, not opinion. For example, “John Doe is a racist” is not a defamatory statement because “racist” is an opinion (versus “John Doe used a racial slur.”) It also requires publication – sharing the statement with others. That means that a person could tell you off when you’re in a room alone, and it’s not defamation. Also, there are exceptions: for example, special standards apply to statements about people in the public eye. Almost anything goes with political figures, for instance. Finally, you have to prove actual damages. It might have hurt your feelings that someone published something very negative about you or your business, but did it lead to monetary harm? More than your legal bill would be if you sued? If the above requirements don’t eliminate the possibility of filing a defamation claim, I still think it’s a very tough one. As clearly revealed at the Depp v. Heard trial, it is “he said, she said” all the way. The plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence (that’s 51%) that the defendant’s statement was defamatory. Looking at the example above, how does John Doe prove that he did not make the racial slur? It’s his word against someone else’s word. Somehow, Depp pulled off this miracle. Defamation suits are only for people who lost a lot of money or suffered a huge indignity via the statements and have money to burn. Depp lost a pirate movie and other commercial opportunities; it’s extremely embarrassing to be labeled as a domestic abuser, and he is very wealthy. I shiver to think what he paid his lawyers for that win – against a person who filed a successful counterclaim for defamation against him; likely can’t pay it because the verdict is so large; and, at the bare minimum, won’t be paid for quite a while during the appeals process. I wonder if he feels it was worth it.
June 22, 2022
Labor and Employment
You Can’t Arbitrate That!
Making an agreement to arbitrate an issue may be a great way to limit expense, save time, and preserve the confidential nature of the dispute. I often consider these when I draft contracts like severance agreements, non-compete agreements, and employment agreements. This has been a tool to keep information that might damage a company’s reputation out of the press. However, a new federal law says that employers can’t force employees to arbitrate claims about workplace sexual harassment or assault, even if they agreed in writing. The Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act had widespread bipartisan support. Employees may now choose (regardless of what they signed) how to bring any sexual harassment or assault claims against a company – in court or through arbitration. They also can’t be forced to waive their rights to join others in a lawsuit claiming sexual harassment or assault, regardless of what they signed. Note that some states also have laws forbidding employers from requiring an employee who’s alleged sexual harassment or assault to sign a non-disclosure agreement. This type of law is pending in a number of states, too. There’s obviously a strong sentiment among lawmakers to discourage an organization’s ability to keep such claims private. For those reasons, employers should consider updating anti-harassment policies and training programs (which are legally required in some states). Employers should also review and revise employment agreements that contain mandatory arbitration clauses and/or joint-action waivers – or just lower expectations of privacy.
May 13, 2022
