Tagged: Compensation

FFCRA Benefits Become Optional and Unemployment Benefits Change With New Stimulus Package

On December 27, 2020, President Donald Trump signed the fourth major COVID-19 response bill into law. The stimulus package includes focused relief in a variety of areas (see our December 21, 2020 post), but two important elements are worth highlighting for employers. First, there have been several changes to pandemic-related unemployment insurance benefits since guidelines were first provided last spring. Second, the emergency paid sick leave and expanded family and medical leave benefits provided under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA), explained here, expired on December 31, 2020 and were not extended, but employers who opt to offer them remain eligible for tax credits. Unemployment Insurance (UI) Benefits Supplement and Extension The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (“CARES Act”) provided eligible recipients of state unemployment benefits with an additional $600 per week in federal benefits, which expired in July 2020. The new stimulus package provides eligible individuals who are already collecting state-provided unemployment benefits with an additional $300 per week in federal benefits ($300 less than the last stimulus relief package) for up to 11 weeks through March 14, 2021. These payments, however, are not retroactive to July 2020. The new stimulus package also extends the Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) and Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Compensation (PEUC) programs. PUA provides benefits to individuals...

The U.S. DOL Issues Updated Guidance on CARES Act Unemployment Programs

Since our March 28, 2020 post, “Phase Three COVID-19 Response Bill Now Law: What it Means for Businesses and Employees,” the United States Department of Labor (DOL) has issued three additional Unemployment Insurance Program Letters (UIPL), No. 15-20, No. 16-20, and No. 17-20, to provide additional guidance to states on the administration of the three unemployment insurance programs available under the CARES Act. UIPL No. 15-20 UIPL No. 15-20, issued on April 4, 2020, addresses Section 2104 of the CARES Act—Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation (FPUC) benefits—which provides “eligible” individuals who are already collecting state-provided unemployment benefits an additional $600 per week in federal benefits through July 31, 2020. Who is eligible for the additional $600 FPUC payments? Individuals collecting regular unemployment compensation under state programs, Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Compensation (PEUC), Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA), Extended Benefits (EB), Short-Time Compensation (STC), Trade Readjustment Allowances (TRA), Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA), and Payments under the Self-Employment Assistance (SEA) program. FPUC is not available, however, for those receiving “additional benefits” (referred to as “extended benefits” by state UC programs) that extend the duration of benefits during high unemployment to those in approved training programs who have exhausted benefits, or for several other reasons. Individuals must be eligible for and receiving benefits under the above programs in order to be...

New Jersey Division on Civil Rights Issues Guidance on the Diane B. Allen Equal Pay Act

On March 2, 2020, the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights (“DCR”) issued a Guidance Memorandum on the Diane B. Allen Equal Pay Act (“the Act”), which took effect in July 2018 and is widely considered to be one of the most employee-protective equal pay laws in the nation. In a statement made on the day of the Guidance Memorandum’s (“guidelines”) release, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy reaffirmed his administration’s intention to eliminate discriminatory pay practices throughout the State that have historically prevented women and other minority groups from earning equal pay. The guidelines include a legal overview, with specific attention paid to the Act’s changes to the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”), and provide answers to Frequently Asked Questions (“FAQs”). The first section of the guidelines offer an overview of the Act’s main provisions and provide details on how the Act modifies the LAD. As a refresher, the overview outlines the DCR’s position as to the five most important provisions of the Act: Expanded Remedies for Pay Discrimination: The Act amended the LAD to implement a six-year “lookback” period which allows employees who prove pay discrimination to recover up to six years of back pay if the discrimination was continuous and a violation occurred within the LAD’s two-year statute of limitations. The Act...

2019 Rings in Further Protections for Delaware and Philadelphia Employees

Before 2018 wrapped up, the year of the #MeToo movement, the Delaware and Philadelphia legislatures worked to ensure the passage of employee-friendly legislation. While Delaware’s new law focuses on sexual harassment,  Philadelphia has turned its focus on the work schedules for those employed in service industries. Delaware, like many other states in 2018, passed legislation to strengthen workplace harassment laws. The legislation was signed into law in August 2018, and went into effect on January 1, 2019. Delaware’s Discrimination in Employment Act has now been amended to include provisions specifically dedicated to sexual harassment that apply to employers with at least four employees in the state. It should be noted that Delaware’s law includes unpaid interns, applicants, joint employees and apprentices within its definition of employee. In addition to defining sexual harassment, the law provides that employers will be liable for sexual harassment if: (1) A supervisor’s sexual harassment results in a negative employment action of an employee; (2) The employer knew or should have known of a non-supervisory employee’s sexual harassment of an employee and failed to take appropriate corrective measures; or (3) A negative employment action is taken against an employee in retaliation for the employee filing a discrimination charge, participating in an investigation of sexual harassment, or testifying in any proceeding or...

New Fair Credit Reporting Act – Summary of Rights Forms

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”), the Federal agency that administers the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), just issued new Summary of Rights forms. An employer conducting a background check on an employee or applicant through a consumer reporting agency must provide such employee or applicant a Summary of Rights notice when first obtaining consent to conduct the background check — together with a written disclosure about the use of the background check — and when taking adverse action based on the background check. Starting today, September 21, 2018, the new Summary of Rights form must be used. The CFPB also issued forms called Summary of Consumer Identity Theft Rights that must be provided to consumers by credit reporting agencies when the subject of an identity theft. A new law also requires credit reporting agencies to implement a “national security freeze” at no cost to a consumer that restricts prospective lenders from access to a consumer’s credit report. Other changes include a one year (instead of 90 days) notification of a fraud alert in a consumer’s file. The notification informs a lender that the consumer may have been the victim of identity theft, for which the lender must take additional steps to verify the identity of anyone attempting to obtain credit in the consumer’s name....

New York Employers Fall Review

In 2018, employers in New York encountered several important changes, including in the areas of anti-harassment and scheduling, warranting a Fall review of current employment practices and preparation for next year’s developments. Employers should take the time now to review current practices and prepare for the imminent future. NEW YORK CITY’S TEMPORARY SCHEDULE CHANGE LAW New York City’s Temporary Schedule Change Law (“TSC Law”) became effective July 18, 2018, and requires private employers to provide eligible employees with an allowance of a “temporary change” to their usual work schedule for certain qualifying “personal events” for up to two occasions per year (i.e., one business day twice per year or two business days on one occasion). Eligible employees are those who work at least 80 hours a year in New York City and have been employed by their employer for 120 or more days, with limited exceptions, including employees covered by collective bargaining agreements waiving the law. Temporary schedule changes may include paid time off, use of short-term unpaid leave, permission to work remotely, or working hour swaps or shifts. Qualifying “personal events” include: (a) an employee’s need to: (i) care for a minor child or care recipient (i.e., a person with a disability who is a family or household member and relies on the employee...

NYC Paid Sick/Safe Time Law Expands

New York City’s Sick Leave Law was expanded on May 5, 2018, to include additional reasons for eligible employees to use NYC paid sick leave (called “safe leave”) including: to obtain services from a domestic violence shelter, rape crisis center, or other shelter or services program for relief from a family offense matter, sexual offense, stalking, or human trafficking; to participate in safety planning, temporarily or permanently relocate, or take other actions to increase the safety of the employee or employee’s family members from future family offense matters, sexual offenses, stalking, or human trafficking; to meet with a civil attorney or other social service provider to obtain information and advice on, and prepare for or participate in any criminal or civil proceeding, including but not limited to, matters related to a family offense matter, sexual offense, stalking, human trafficking, custody, visitation, matrimonial issues, orders of protection, immigration, housing, discrimination in employment, housing or consumer credit; to file a complaint or domestic incident report with law enforcement; to meet with a district attorney’s office; to enroll children in a new school; or to take other actions necessary to maintain, improve, or restore the physical, psychological, or economic health or safety of the employee or the employee’s family member or to protect those who associate or work...

Governor Murphy Signs New Jersey Pay Equity Legislation

Yesterday, Governor Murphy signed the Diane B. Allen Equal Pay Act. The new law will go into effect July 1, 2018. For a description of the law and how it will affect New Jersey employers, please see our previous blog post. If you have any questions regarding how to comply with New Jersey’s new pay equity law, please feel free to contact any of the attorneys in the Gibbons Employment & Labor Law Department.

Ninth Circuit Holds Salary History Does Not Justify Wage Differences Between Male and Female Employees

In a precedential en banc opinion, Rizo v. Yovino, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit determined that an employee’s prior salary cannot justify a wage differential between male and female employees under the Equal Pay Act. Significantly, this decision overrules established prior Ninth Circuit precedent that an employee’s prior salary constitutes a “factor other than sex” under the Act upon which a wage differential may be based. Background The Plaintiff, Aileen Rizo, was hired by the Fresno County Office of Education in 2009 as a math consultant. At the time of her hire, her starting salary was determined in accordance with Fresno’s standard operating policy which provided that the salary for all new hires would be set by adding five percent to their previous salary. In or about 2012, Rizo learned that male colleagues who were hired after her were earning more than she. In 2014, Rizo filed a lawsuit against Jim Yovino in his official capacity as the Superintendent of the Fresno County Office of Education alleging violations of the Equal Pay Act, Title VII, and California law. At the District Court, Fresno admitted that it paid Rizo less than her male colleagues for the same work, but argued that the pay differential was permissible based on the Equal Pay Act’s...

Supreme Court Holds FLSA Overtime Exemptions Not to be Construed Narrowly

On April 2, 2018, in Encino Motorcars, LLC, v. Navarro, the Supreme Court held that auto service advisors – those who “interact with customers and sell them services for their vehicles” – are exempt from the overtime pay requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“the FLSA”). The Court’s decision will certainly affect auto service advisors, but its impact will not be limited to the auto dealership industry. The crux of the Court’s decision centered around Section 13(b)(10)(A) of the FLSA, which states that “any salesman, partsman, or mechanic primarily engaged in selling or servicing automobiles” is exempt from the FLSA overtime requirement. In a 5-4 decision, the majority found that a service advisor is “obviously a salesman” under the ordinary meaning of salesman, given that a salesman sells goods or services and service advisors “sell [customers] services for their vehicles.” The Court also found that service advisors are “primarily engaged in . . . servicing automobiles” due to their integral involvement in the servicing process. Thus, the Court held that sales advisors are exempt from the FLSA overtime pay requirement under Section 13(b)(10)(A). Significantly, in reaching its conclusion, the majority departed from the Supreme Court’s longstanding principle that FLSA exemptions should be narrowly construed against employers, and, instead, held that the exemptions should be...