DOL

Another One Bites the Dust: DOL Rescinds Obama’s Persuader Regulations

Collective bargaining- boss and worker with thumbs up and down Another One Bites the Dust: DOL Rescinds Obama’s Persuader Regulations

Earlier this month, the United States Department of Labor (“DOL”) announced its intent to rescind the Obama-era regulations regarding persuader activity and reporting requirements pursuant to Section 203(c) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (“LMRDA”).  Under the Obama administration, persuader activity was considered activity by anyone engaged to help management discourage employees from forming or joining a labor union, including lawyers hired to advise management on how to discourage union organizing activity. The official rescission of the Rule was published in the Federal Register on June 12, 2017.

READ MORE

Withdrawn: DOL Nixes Guidance on Independent Contractors and Joint Employment

Effective June 7, 2017, the Department of Labor (“DOL”) has withdrawn informal guidance on independent contractors and joint employment. The guidance on independent contractors came from an Administrator’s Interpretation released in 2015 and was the result of the DOL’s renewed focus on worker misclassification. In it, the DOL seized upon a broad definition of “employ” under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”)—“to suffer or permit to work”—to conclude that “most workers are employees under the FLSA.”  The DOL’s guidance on joint employment was released in 2016 and also came from an Administrator’s Interpretation.  The guidance provided a broad interpretation of joint employment in the wake of the NLRB’s Browning-Ferris decision. It also distinguished between “horizontal” joint employment, which occurs when the employee has an employment relationship with two or more sufficiently related employers, and “vertical” joint employment, which occurs when the employee has an employment relationship with one employer (such a staffing agency or subcontractor), but economic realities show that he or she is economically dependent upon another entity.

In a press release announcing the withdrawn guidance, the DOL noted, “Removal of the administrator interpretations does not change the legal responsibilities of employers under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, as reflected in the department’s long-standing regulations and case law. The department will continue to fully and fairly enforce all laws within its jurisdiction, including the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act.”

From Swimsuits to Grass Fed Beef: A New Direction for Labor?

The United States Senate is slated to consider Andrew (Andy) Puzder, CEO of CKE Restaurants, as the next Secretary of Labor (“DOL”). Although his confirmation hearing which was set for February 7, 2017 has been delayed reportedly to give Mr. Puzder additional time to complete government ethics disclosures, Mr. Puzder has stated that he is fully committed to becoming Secretary of Labor and says that he is “looking forward to [his] hearing.”[1]

CKE Restaurants operates “fast food” restaurants known as Carl’s Jr. west of the Rockies and Hardee’s in the east. The restaurants, perhaps better-known for their commercials featuring women models in skimpy swimsuits, began a new advertising campaign last fall focusing on its employees talking about the quality of the food offerings — burgers made with grass fed beef, hand-breaded chicken tenders, hand-scooped ice cream, and scratch made biscuits.  If confirmed, Mr. Puzder in all likelihood, would also steer the DOL in a new direction with a decidedly more business-friendly approach than his predecessor, Tom Perez.  We consider what would a Puzder DOL would likely focus on. READ MORE

President Trump Says “Not So Fast” — The Future of Overtime, Fiduciary, and Pay Reporting Rules Remains Uncertain Under the Trump Administration

On January 20, 2017, shortly after Donald Trump became the 45th President of the United States, his Chief of Staff, Reince Priebus, issued an Executive Memorandum mandating a 60-day freeze on published federal regulations that have yet to take effect to allow Trump’s appointees time to review the regulations. Although such action is fairly standard during a change of administration, the impact could be significant if certain regulations set to take effect in 2017 are delayed or ultimately replaced.  Regulations potentially affected by the 60-day freeze include the Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) overtime and fiduciary rules, and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (“EEOC”) EEO-1 pay reporting requirements. READ MORE

Top Ten Employment Regulations or Initiatives Employers Want Trump to Dump or Fix

After the Obama administration’s employee friendly policies, employers will have a wish list of changes they believe a Trump administration would favor.  Here are ten items that should be at the top and why employers want to see action. READ MORE

DOL’s Final Rule on Sick Leave Takes Effect: Contractors Have Until Year’s End to Comply

On September 29, 2016, the DOL released a final rule requiring federal contractors to provide seven days of paid sick leave annually.  The rule implements a 2015 executive order from President Obama that we covered in greater detail here.  More than 35,000 individuals and organizations submitted comments on the DOL’s proposed rule.

READ MORE

Pay Raises Across the Nation? Not So Fast Say Several States and Business Groups: 21 States and 55 Business Groups Challenge New Federal Overtime Rule

On Tuesday, September 20, 2016, twenty-one states filed a complaint in federal court in Texas challenging the new overtime rule finalized by the Department of Labor (“DOL”) in May of this year.  The States seek to prevent implementation of the new rule, which is scheduled to become effective on December 1, 2016.  That same day, fifty-five business groups, including several chambers of commerce, filed a similar lawsuit in Texas federal court to block the rule.

READ MORE

To Free or Not to Free: The DOL’s New Overtime Regulations May Give Employees the Ability to “Unplug”—But at What Cost?

Today, mobile technology allows many exempt employees to work remotely and perform work outside traditional working hours.  Some commentators assert that the smartphone has stretched the traditional 9-to-5 workday into a 24/7 on-call period, where employees are expected to respond to work-related communications long after they leave the office and late into the night.  The expectation that employees will be available to respond on evenings and weekends, however, has sparked pushback, causing some employees to call for more work-life separation and the ability to “unplug.”  In France, this push to unplug recently resulted in a new law that gives employees a “right to disconnect.”  Under that law, many French employers soon will be required to implement rules governing work-life balance and reasonable use of digital tools.

READ MORE

Digging Into the New Overtime Regulations

In 2015, the Department of Labor (“DOL”) proposed substantial changes to the minimum salary level requirements, sought input on whether bonuses and incentives should be included in meeting the salary level test and considered changing the duties test to establish overtime eligibility. Taken together, these proposed changes would have had a drastic effect on the obligation of employers to pay overtime. On May 18, 2016, DOL issued its Final Rules and employers have until December 1, 2016 to comply. Overall, the changes strike a middle ground as DOL declined to adopt the more restrictive California 50% duties test. However, doubling the salary level threshold and other changes present significant economic and compliance challenges for employers. Below is a summary of key takeaways and steps employers should consider to address these changes and ensure compliance.

READ MORE

Not So Fast: Administrative Review Board Vacates Discrimination Finding Sought by OFCCP

A recent decision from the Department of Labor’s Administrative Review Board serves as a warning to federal agencies against overreaching in their efforts to identify alleged employment discrimination.  It also serves to highlight the heavy burden that plaintiffs—whether government agencies or private litigants—must carry in cases alleging a pattern or practice of disparate treatment.

READ MORE