On January 5, 2016, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio signed a bill that added “caregiver” to the list of protected classifications under the New York City Human Rights Law. The law, which takes effect on May 4, 2016, seeks to protect employees and applicants from discrimination because of their status or perceived status as a caregiver. Carmelyn Malais, the Commissioner of the New York City Commission on Human Rights vowed that “the Commission will vigorously enforce this much-needed protection” for “every parent and family member caring for a loved one.”
Lisa Lupion, an associate in Orrick’s New York office, has experience litigating a broad range of employment issues, including discrimination, harassment, wrongful discharge and compensation claims before state and federal courts and administrative agencies.
Lisa also has significant experience defending wage-and-hour class and collective action claims under state and federal laws, including claims for overtime, minimum wage, meal and rest break penalties and expense reimbursements. She regularly conducts internal wage-and-hour audits and advises on misclassification issues in a variety of sectors including financial services, media and publishing, nonprofit entities and startup companies, among others. Recent wage-and-hour engagements include:
- Advising clients facing claims of independent contractor misclassification before the Department of Labor, both in the context of individual claims and Department of Labor audits.
- Defending off-the-clock claims in national FLSA collective actions in federal court and in arbitration.
In addition, Lisa has significant experience defending clients before AAA, JAMS and FINRA. Recent arbitration experience includes:
Successfully defending global investment banking firm against claims for allegedly unpaid bonus based upon purported oral promise for formulaic bonus compensation.
- Representing global financial institution in a nine-day hearing before a FINRA Panel that rejected claims for unpaid compensation.
Lisa regularly advises clients on a variety of employment-related issues, including human resources policies and procedures, offer letters, severance agreements and employee termination. As part of her counseling role, she creates and conducts training programs for her clients. Lisa also has significant experience conducting internal investigations.
Prior to joining Orrick, Lisa served as a law clerk to the Hon. Peter Leisure in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
From coast to coast, as the calendar turned to 2016, a host of new employment laws became effective. States and local government are imposing broad obligations on employers well above what federal law requires. This patchwork of legal requirements will continue to bedevil employers. As you begin implementing your resolutions for 2016, here’s our take on the major changes that went into effect across the nation last week:
In the latest in a series of laws directed at New York City employers, effective January 1, 2016 non-governmental employers with 20 or more full-time non-union employees in New York City are obligated to provide full-time employees with the opportunity to use pre-tax income to purchase qualified transportation benefits. The law will be enforced by the Department of Consumer Affairs (“DCA”), which is the same agency responsible for enforcing the New York City Paid Sick Leave Law. The DCA’s published Frequently Asked Questions on the Commuter Benefits Law are available here.
After more than 30 years, the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) has concluded that it was time to change the standard for determining when companies are to be considered joint employers under the National Labor Relations Act. On August 27, 2015, with its much-anticipated decision in Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc., the Board issued a new joint-employer standard that will examine whether an employer has the potential to exercise control over employees’ working conditions and reversed the previous requirement that a joint employer must exercise direct and immediate control over the employees in question.
In Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., the Second Circuit held that without the approval of a district court or the U.S. Department of Labor, parties cannot secure a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice of an FLSA claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). In practice, this holding will prevent parties to an FLSA litigation – where there is a bona fide dispute as to liability – from reaching a privately negotiated settlement that includes a joint stipulation of dismissal of the case.
The Second Circuit revived an FLSA collective action filed by Michael Lola, an attorney licensed to practice law in California, who for fifteen months performed document review services for Skadden Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP (“Skadden”) though a staffing agency while living and working in North Carolina. Lola alleged that these services did not constitute the “practice of law,” and that he was therefore eligible for overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Rejecting Lola’s arguments, a Southern District of New York judge dismissed the complaint on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion on the grounds that Lola was exempt from overtime. However, the Second Circuit held that when accepting all of Lola’s allegations as true for purposes of a motion to dismiss, his work might not constitute the practice of law.
In its June 26 split decision in American Baptist Homes of the West d/b/a Piedmont Gardens and Service Employees International Union, United Healthcare Workers- West, 362 N.L.R.B. No. 139 (Case No. 32-CA-063475) (“Piedmont Gardens”), the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) adopted a new standard for union access to employers’ witness statements in discipline cases. In so doing, the NLRB overruled the 37-year-old standard articulated in Anheuser- Busch, 237 NLRB 982 (1978), that provided a blanket exemption for the disclosure of witness statements. Instead of a blanket rule, the majority followed the Supreme Court’s 1979 decision in Detroit Edison v. NLRB, 440 U.S. 301 (1979), which requires a case-by-case balancing of the union’s need for the witness statements against the employer’s “legitimate and substantial confidentiality interests.”
In addressing a matter of first impression, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals set out a new standard to determine when an unpaid intern is deemed an employee for purposes of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and thus entitled to compensation, including minimum wage and overtime, under the FLSA. Two appeals were argued in tandem on this issue with the Second Circuit issuing an Opinion on July 2, 2015 in Glatt v. Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc., and a Summary Order in Wang v. Hearst Corp.
After months of talk and speculation about new overtime regulations, on June 30, 2015, the United States Department of Labor (“DOL”) issued its proposed rule and request for comments on its “white collar exemption” regulations. The so-called “white collar exemptions” – the executive, administrative and professional employees exemptions – were last revised in August 2004. Assuming the regulations are revised in accordance with the DOL’s proposal, the DOL estimates that 4.6 million workers exempt under the current regulations would become entitled to overtime under the FLSA. In addition, an estimated 36,000 employees who were previously considered “highly compensated” employees under the FLSA would no longer satisfy that definition. Read More
As employers in New York were gearing up for distribution of the annual wage notices in January 2015, Governor Andrew Cuomo finally signed the amendment to New York’s Wage Theft Prevention Act that was passed by the legislature back in June and repeals the annual wage notification provision. While the other amendments to the Act will not take effect for 60 days, the Governor’s December 29, 2014 signing statement and the New York Department of Labor make clear that employers are not required to distribute wage notices to their employees this January. The amendment, however, does not relieve employers of their obligation to provide all newly hired employees with wage notices at the time of hiring. In addition, although not specifically addressed in the amendment to the Act, it would be prudent for employers to distribute a revised wage notice when an employee receives a new position with a different compensation structure during his or her tenure with the employer.