Labor & Employment Insights — Lindabury, McCormick, Estabrook & Cooper, P.C. Firm News & Events

New York Employment Law Roundup: Recent Changes That Employers Must Know

Published on: August 14, 2023 | by Lindabury, McCormick, Estabrook & Cooper, P.C.

Mandatory Sexual Harassment Policy Requirements

Since October 2018 New York has mandated employers to adopt written sexual harassment policies and provide yearly sexual harassment training. The State developed a Sexual Harassment Model Policy and model harassment training materials that employers can use, or employers can develop their own policy and training materials so long as they meet the State’s minimum standards for compliance.

In April 2023 the New York Department of Labor updated its Sexual Harassment Model Policy (the “Model Policy”), model harassment complaint form, and model training materials, which can be found here. The updated Model Policy

New Jersey Court Rules That the “ABC” Test Does Not Apply to Fully-Commissioned Real Estate Salespeople

Published on: August 1, 2023 | by Lisa Gingeleskie

In a recent published decision, Kennedy v. Weichert, the New Jersey Appellate Division addressed the proper classification of fully commissioned real estate salespeople as employees versus independent contractors. The court ruled that these individuals are not subject to the “ABC” test for purposes of determining their classification under the New Jersey Wage Payment Law (“WPL”).

The “ABC” Test:

Under the “ABC” test, workers are presumed to be employees unless the business can show that: (1) it neither exercised control over the worker nor had the ability to exercise control in terms of the completion of the work; (2) the services provided were either outside the usual course of business or performed outside of all the places of business of the enterprise; and (3) the individual is customarily engaged in an independently-established trade, occupation, profession or business. A business’s failure to satisfy any one of the three criteria results in the worker being classified as an “employee” for wage payment and wage and hour purposes.

SCOTUS Imposes More Stringent Standard For Employers Managing Requests for Religious Workplace Accommodations

Published on: July 7, 2023 | by Joshua L. Weiner

On June 29, 2023, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Groff v. DeJoy, clarifying employers’ obligations to accommodate employees’ religious practices under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The Court reinterpreted the meaning of “undue hardship” and held that Title VII requires an employer who denies an employee’s request for a religious accommodation to show that the burden of granting an accommodation would result in “substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.” In doing so, the Court rejected a commonly applied, employer-friendly interpretation that an undue hardship exists if an employer can show that the accommodation would result in “more than a de minimis cost.”

The More Lenient “Undue Hardship” Standard Applied by the Lower Courts:

Under Title VII, employers are required to accommodate an employee’s religious practices unless doing so would impose an “undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.” In Groff, a postal carrier who was unwilling to work on Sundays because of his religious practices sued his employer (the United States Postal Service), alleging that it could have accommodated his Sunday Sabbath without undue hardship. Initially, Groff’s position did not include Sunday work. This later changed, however, causing Gross to transfer to a small postal station that did not make Sunday deliveries. Once this station began making Sunday deliveries, however, Groff’s Sunday deliveries were redistributed to other workers. He was disciplined for failing to work on Sundays, and he eventually resigned. The trial court granted the employer summary judgment, which the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that exempting Gross from Sunday work resulted in more than a de minimis cost, as the exemption had “imposed on his coworkers, disrupted the workplace and workflow, and diminished employee morale.”

New York Joins the Non-Compete Ban Wagon

Published on: June 29, 2023 | by Lindabury, McCormick, Estabrook & Cooper, P.C.

Following through on Governor Hokhul’s promise in her 2022 State of the State address, New York lawmakers passed a blanket ban on all non-compete agreements, thus joining the growing federal and state efforts to curb their use. However, the bill imposes greater restrictions than those implemented in other jurisdictions, including California, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Colorado, Illinois and Maryland. The bill will take effect 30 days after it is signed by the Governor.

The Broad Scope of the Ban:

The bill prohibits all employers, regardless of industry, from seeking, requiring, demanding or accepting a non-compete agreement from any “covered individual,” defined as any person who performs services on such terms that the individual is economically dependent on the other. Thus, unlike other laws that include a carve out for highly compensated employees, the ban extends to all workers across the board, including workers hired as independent contractors.

NLRB Decision: New Standard for Independent Contractors

Published on: June 28, 2023 | by Kelsey Gorman and Lindabury, McCormick, Estabrook & Cooper, P.C.

On June 13, 2023, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) reverted to its prior employee friendly independent contractor test to find that makeup artists, wig artists, and hairstylists (“the stylists”) working for the Atlanta Opera were employees rather than independent contractors. This revived independent contractor test will significantly impact employers who will now face a higher bar when seeking to classify workers as independent contractors excluded from the protections of federal labor laws.

The Discarded SuperShuttle Standard: Since 2014 the NLRB applied the following non-exhaustive list of factors to determine independent contractor status:

The extent of control the employer exercises over the work

DOL Issues Clarification on Calculating FMLA Leave During a Week with a Holiday

Published on: June 12, 2023 | by Kelsey Gorman and Lindabury, McCormick, Estabrook & Cooper, P.C.

On May 30, 2023, the Department of Labor (“DOL”) issued an opinion letter clarifying how to calculate leave taken under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) during a week containing a holiday. It is important for employers to properly calculate employee FMLA leave time because a miscalculation could be considered an interference with an employee’s FMLA rights.

The FMLA requires covered employers to provide eligible employees up to twelve workweeks of unpaid leave within a twelve-month period for qualifying family or medical reasons or twenty-six workweeks of unpaid leave within a twelve-month period for caretaking of qualifying service members. Employees may take FMLA leave intermittently by taking leave in separate blocks of time or by working shortened weeks or days. The amount of FMLA leave taken by employees is calculated as a fraction of the employee’s actual workweek. For example, an employee who normally works forty hours a week but takes off eight hours for FMLA reasons, would use 1/5 of a week of his or her FMLA leave entitlement.

Full Workweek of FMLA Leave

Another Nail in the Coffin For Non-Competes? NLRB General Counsel Issues Memo Claiming That Most Non-Competes Violate The NLRA

Published on: June 1, 2023 | by Lindabury, McCormick, Estabrook & Cooper, P.C.

On May 30, 2023 Jennifer Abruzzo, General Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board , sent a memorandum to all Regional Directors expressing her view that except in limited circumstances, non-compete provisions in employment and severance agreements constitute unfair labor practices under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) because they “tend to chill employees in the exercise of Section 7 rights” which protect employees’ rights to take collective action to improve working conditions. While many mistakenly believe the NLRA’s reach only extends to unionized workplaces, both unionized and nonunionized employers are liable for unfair labor practices that violate employee Section 7 rights.

More specifically, the memorandum claims that non-competes interfere with employees’ ability to:

Concertedly threaten to resign to secure better working conditions;

EEOC Issues Guidance Highlighting the Risks to Employers Using AI In Employment Selection Procedures

Published on: June 1, 2023 | by Lindabury, McCormick, Estabrook & Cooper, P.C.

BACKGROUND

Title VII prohibits employers from using neutral selection procedures that disproportionately exclude individuals on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin unless the employer can show the procedures are “job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity.” In 1978, the U.S. Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC) adopted Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures providing guidance for employers to determine whether selection procedures commonly used in making employment decisions ran afoul of Title VII’s protections.

In response to the increased use of algorithmic decision-making tools (commonly referred to as artificial intelligence or “AI”) to assist in making a wide array of employment decisions, in May 2023, the EEOC issued new guidance entitled “Assessing Adverse Impact in Software, Algorithms, and Artificial Intelligence Used in Employment Selection Procedures Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.” While the EEOC’s guidance does not have the force of law and is not binding upon employers, it serves as a warning that the EEOC will be monitoring AI use to ensure that these decision-making tools do not adversely impact protected groups in violation of Title VII.

Terminated Employee Who Tested Positive for Marijuana After a Workplace Driving Accident Can Pursue His Wrongful Termination Claim

Published on: May 3, 2023 | by Lindabury, McCormick, Estabrook & Cooper, P.C.

A recent decision from the New Jersey District Court illustrates the extraordinary job protections for recreational marijuana users under the New Jersey Cannabis Regulatory, Enforcement Assistance, and Marketplace Modernization Act (“CREAMMA”).

THE LEGAL BACKDROP

The job protection provisions of CREAMMA prohibit employers from disciplining employees “solely due to the presence of cannabinoid metabolites in the employee’s body fluid.” Although CREAMMA expressly permits workplace reasonable suspicion, post-accident and random testing for marijuana, it also mandates a physical evaluation be conducted “by an individual with the necessary certification” to determine the employee’s current state of impairment before discipline can be imposed. The physical evaluation requirement was included because current tests can only determine recent marijuana use, not current impairment. However, the physical evaluation requirement was temporarily waived by regulation until such time that the NJ Regulatory Cannabis Commission (the “Cannabis Commission”) develops standards for a Workplace Impairment Recognition Expert (“WIRE”) certification. Thus, for the time being a physical evaluation is not a prerequisite for taking action against an employee who tests positive for cannabis.

New Jersey Court Ruling: Private Social Media Posts Are Subject To Discovery

Published on: March 23, 2023 | by Lisa Gingeleskie

On March 16, 2022, the New Jersey Appellate Division concluded in Davis v. Disability Rights of New Jersey that a plaintiff-employee’s privacy interests in her social medial posts and personal cell phone bills did not restrict her employer’s right to the production of these records when defending against claims that the plaintiff’s termination violated New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination (the “NJLAD”) and caused her to suffer emotional distress. This decision is the first in New Jersey to detail the scope of discovery regarding a litigant’s private social media posts.

The Background

In Davis, the plaintiff filed a NJLAD complaint against her former employer alleging wrongful termination and emotional distress. In its discovery requests, the employer demanded that the plaintiff produce copies of all her social media content “concerning any emotion, sentiment or feeling of [p]laintiff, as well as events that could reasonably be expected to evoke an emotion, sentiment, or feeling.” The employer also sought the production of the plaintiff’s personal cell phone bills on the grounds that she had used her personal cell phone to perform work duties remotely.