Labor & Employment Insights

The federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) mandates that employees be paid one and one-half times their standard hourly rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a given workweek. There are several exceptions to that overtime requirement, including an exemption for “white collar workers” – – those classified as Executive, Administrative and Professional employees. Pursuant to its rulemaking authority, the United States Department of Labor (DOL) adopted a two- part test that must be met before an employee can be properly categorized as Executive, Administrative and Professional employee exempt from overtime requirements. . Under the test, the employee must meet both a “duties test” and a “salary basis test” to satisfy one of the white collar exemptions. On May 16, 2016 the DOL finally issued long-anticipated new regulations that substantially increase the salary basis requirement to meet the white collar exemptions, resulting in many employees being stripped of their previously exempt status and now making them eligible for overtime compensation.

In the 1970s the DOL adopted regulations mandating that all Executive, Administrative and Professional employees had to earn a minimum of $455 per week, or $23,660, per year to satisfy the salary basis test for a white collar exemption, a salary level that remained untouched for decades. However, under the new regulations that will take effect on December 1, 2016, the salary basis test has been essentially doubled to $913 per week, or $47,476 per year. Regardless of whether the employee can satisfy the duties test for a white collar exemption, if the employee’s compensation falls below this increased salary basis, the exemption from overtime requirements is not met.

Another target of the new regulations is the Highly Compensated Employee exemption. Presently, certain highly-compensated employees were exempt from the overtime requirements so long as they were paid at least $100,000 and satisfied a less-stringent duties test. Under the new regulations, the minimum salary basis test for that exemption has been substantially increased to $134,004.

In light a recent decision of the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, in Sheridan v. Egg Harbor Township Board of Education, it certainly is.

The Facts: Barbara Sheridan, an obese individual, was employed for eight years as a custodian by Egg Harbor Township Board of Education (the “Board”). After observing Ms. Sheridan breathing heavily and turning red while performing her custodial job duties, her supervisor became concerned that she might be unable to climb ladders, would have trouble climbing stairs, and could injure herself or others while attempting to complete her job duties. In response to these concerns, the Board required Ms. Sheridan to undergo a fitness for duty examination (“FDE”) administered by an independent physician. In conducting the FDE, the physician relied upon a job description provided by the Board detailing the physical tasks required of all custodians in the district, including a requirement to lift and carry 75 pound objects a distance of 50 yards. Ms. Sheridan failed several portions of the FDE, prompting the Board to conclude that she was physically incapable of performing the duties of school custodian and terminated her employment. Ms. Sheridan filed suit alleging she was discriminated against because of her obesity in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et seq. The trial court concluded that the Board was justified in relying upon the results of the FDE in reaching its termination decision and dismissed the case. Ms. Sheridan appealed.

The Appeals Court’s Decision: In reversing the favorable decision for the Board and sending the case back for trial, the Appellate Division concluded that while an FDE could provide a legitimate, non-discriminatory basis for the Board’s termination decision, the FDE had to be based upon a “fair and realistic” job description for the position in question. In this case, the court held that “reasonable jurors could conclude that the more strenuous exercise of lifting seventy-five pounds for fifty yards, as was tested in the FDE here, is not a fair or realistic physical expectation to have for a school custodian.” In addition, the Board’s principal witness testified that the only time she could recall custodians lifting 75 pounds was twice a year to lift paper deliveries, which were then loaded directly onto carts. Finally, while the Board pointed to concerns about Ms. Sheridan’s ability to climb ladders, the FDE did not assess her ability to do so. The Appellate Division reasoned that when an employer chooses to rely upon an FDE as a legitimate reason for terminating an employee, the job description used to conduct the FDE must accurately correspond to the day-to-day job duties and physical demands of the position, factors the court found lacking in this case. Moreover, the FDE must also assess the physical requirements relied upon by the employer as a basis for its termination decision.

In a recent published decision, the New Jersey Appellate Division clarified the circumstances under which an employer’s directive that an employee submit to a psychological for fitness-for-duty examination serves a “legitimate, job-related business purpose” as required under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and the EEOC’s Enforcement. The case, In re Paul Williams, Township of Lakewood, involved a Township of Lakewood truck driver who was sent for a psychological fitness-for-duty examination eight months after the Township received an anonymous letter from an alleged co-worker complaining that the employee was mentally unstable and a threat to other co-workers. Without the employee’s consent, the Township scheduled the psychological examination and a follow-up meeting, and threatened the employee that if he failed to attend both appointments he would be disciplined. The employee refused to comply, claiming that the examination was not job-related or a business necessity and thus was in violation of his rights under the ADA. Following a hearing, the Township terminated the employee.

The employee appealed to the Office of Administrative Law (“OAL”), which reinstated the employee to his former position because the evidence showed that: (1) the employee’s work performance was satisfactory; (2) the truth of the allegations in the anonymous letter could not be verified; and (3) the Township’s demand for a psychological fitness-for-duty exam was not related to his work performance or to any specific allegation of psychologically disruptive behavior. Following an additional appeal, the matter ultimately ended up before the New Jersey Appellate Division, which affirmed the OAL and held that, under the ADA, an employer cannot require an employee to undergo medical tests unless they are job-related and consistent with legitimate business necessity. Here, the Appellate Court faulted the Township for ordering the employee to undergo a psychiatric examination based solely upon information contained in an anonymous letter, precisely the kind of “innuendo and rumor that the EEOC has advised employers is insufficient to support a mandatory evaluation.” The Williams holding makes clear that employers must be careful and judicious in demanding that employees submit to fitness-for-duty examinations. Such examinations may only be required when the employer has a reasonable belief, either through direct observation or reliable information from credible sources, that the employee’s mental state or physical condition will either affect his or her ability to perform essential job functions or pose a direct threat to others. Employers must engage in a complete and objective assessment, untainted by general assumptions about the employee’s medical condition, prior to requiring the psychological examination.

In an era of increasing workplace violence, this decision places employers in a difficult position. However, employers who receive anonymous tips or other information suggesting that an employee is not mentally stable must resist knee-jerk reactions and secure the necessary observations and information that will justify requiring the employee to undergo an medical examination. Moreover, employers are encouraged to consult legal counsel for guidance on whether the examination will pass muster under the ADA.

To escape the economic and administrative burdens of the employer-employee relationship, employers increasingly turn to “shared employee” arrangements with Professional Employee Organizations (PEOs), staffing agencies, independent contractors and other third party vendors to supply temporary workers. In doing so, employers typically assume that the third-party provider is the “employer” of the temporary worker, and therefore the obligations arising under wage and hour, family/medical leave, discrimination and other employment laws will be borne solely by the third-party provider. Such assumptions may prove costly, as courts and administrative agencies often look past efforts to alienate the employer-employee relationship to find both businesses are the employer with joint responsibility for compliance with employment laws.

In two prior posts we discussed the respective tests adopted by the NLRB and the Third Circuit for determining when two or more entities can be deemed “joint employers” equally liable for violations of employment laws. You can read about the Third Circuit’s Darden Test here and the NLRB’s “joint employer” standard here. Now the United States Department of Labor (DOL) has issued new guidance on when a joint employer relationship – with attendant joint responsibilities – exists under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). These recent pronouncements are the latest efforts by governmental agencies and the courts to grapple with the shared worker trend in the modern workplace.

THE DOL’s INTERPRETIVE GUIDANCE ON JOINT EMPLOYER STATUS UNDER THE FLSA

With the advance of mobile technologies, employers are faced with the growing probability that employees are utilizing these devices to record conversations or other conditions in the workplace. Currently, approximately 38 states, including New York and New Jersey, have laws which permit a party to surreptitiously record a conversation if one party to the conversation has given permission to be recorded while other states including Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and Florida, require all parties involved in the recording to consent. These laws do not, however, touch upon an employer’s ability to regulate recordings in the workplace, and employers have generally assumed they were free to enact policies prohibiting or limiting recordings by employees. However, in a recent decision the National Labor Relations Board (the “NLRB” or “Board”) held that it is a violation of Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (the “Act”) for an employer to maintain a policy that restricts or prohibits employees from recording conversations with management without prior management approval. Section 7 gives employees the right to freely discuss terms and conditions of employment and to act in concert with one another for their mutual aid and protection.

The decision, Whole Foods Market, Inc. and United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 919, et al, arose out of a policy in Whole Foods Market’s General Information Guide prohibiting employees from recording “phone calls, images, and company meetings with any recording device…” unless prior approval was received from management, or unless all parties to the conversation consented to the recording.  Whole Foods’ no-recording policy was aimed at eliminating the “chilling effect” on the free expression of views that would otherwise arise if employees believed or suspected that they were being recorded on a device.

The NLRB took the opposite view, concluding that policies prohibiting employees from recording in the workplace without prior approval by management violate the Act because that policy has a “chilling effect” on the employee’s rights to engage in protected concerted activity under the NLRA.  According to the NLRB, protected conduct that might be negatively affected by prohibitions on recording include, for example, recording of images of protected picketing, documenting unsafe workplace equipment or hazardous working conditions, documenting and publicizing discussions about terms and conditions of employment (such as a meeting to discuss potential discipline), documenting inconsistent application of employer rules, or documenting evidence for later use in judicial or administrative actions.  The NLRB determined that photography and recording in the workplace is an “essential element” in preserving and vindicating labor rights under the Act. Whole Foods was thus ordered to withdraw its policy and post notice of its violation.

Recent changes to OSHA’s posting requirements have narrowed the list of employers required to report the occurrence of significant injuries in the workplace.  Among the list of newly covered industries that were once previously exempt from posting requirements are tire stores and service centers; automobile dealers; bakeries; beer, wine, and liquor stores; specialty food stores; lessors of real estate and activities related to real estate;, certain professional, scientific, and technical services; ambulatory health care services; performing arts companies; certain event promotors; amusement and recreational industries; and specialty food services, among other industries.

OSHA’s posting requirements mandate that covered employers post summaries of serious workplace injuries and illnesses using OSHA’s Form 3300A between February 1, 2016 and April 30, 2016.  Form 3300A informs employees and others of the number of fatalities, injuries, poisoning, skin, and respiratory disorders and conditions, hearing loss instances, and other illnesses and conditions experienced by the employees at the workplace.  The form must be posted in a common, visible area where notices are generally posted each year.

Under OSHA’s reporting requirements, covered employers must report to OSHA all work-related fatalities within eight hours and all work-related inpatient hospitalizations, amputations, and all losses of an eye within 24 hours. Covered employers must post Form 3300A annually, even when no work-related injuries or illnesses occurred during that year.