Tag Archives: adam gersh

The Department of Labor Goes to Church – Tips for Employers with Charitable Components

Tips for Employers September 20, 2018 Leave a comment

Adam Gersh Provides Tips for Employers with Charitable ComponentsThe U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit sided with a church operating the Lord’s Buffet and against the Department of Labor (“DOL”) in a case testing the reach of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). In Acosta v. Cathedral Buffet, Inc., the appellate court reversed a trial court ruling and held that volunteers who staffed a church-operated buffet are not employees and the Grace Cathedral Church did not run afoul of the FLSA by failing to pay the volunteers minimum wage.  The DOL claimed the church and its televangelist pastor illegally used unpaid labor by staffing its buffet with volunteers from the congregation.  In this case, the church operated the buffet restaurant for a religious purpose: to allow church members to proselytize to patrons.  Its operations relied heavily on church volunteers who worked alongside paid employees performing the same work. While the work performed was comparable to that of an employee, the Sixth Circuit held the DOL overstepped the bounds of the FLSA by applying it to the volunteer workforce.  In part, the Court’s decision relied on a determination that the volunteers had no expectation of payment and were not economically reliant on the work of the church.  

Savvy employer takeaways: Employers with charitable missions and those who support charities must be careful to delineate work from volunteer activities to avoid claims that the volunteers should have been paid for their activities.

Questions? Let me know.

 

Not-So Silent Partner May Have Individual Liability Under the FLSA

Fair Labor Standards Act September 17, 2018 Leave a comment

restaurant employees.jpgIn Malee v. Anthony & Frank Ditomaso, Inc., the Court served a surprise to a shareholder of a corporation that owned a restaurant, who sought to be dismissed from a FLSA case brought by employees of the restaurant.  The shareholder alleged he did not participate in the business on a day-to-day basis and, therefore, was not an “employer” within the meaning of the FLSA.  The Court refused to dismiss the claims, finding that the shareholder’s attendance at staff meetings, and advice on operating the business created a triable issue of fact as to whether the shareholder was, in fact, an employer within the meaning of the FLSA.

Savvy employer takeaways: The FLSA and overlapping state wage and hour laws often impose individual liability on officers, owners, and others involved in decisions to deprive employees of wages owed.

Questions? Let me know.

Severance Agreement Requirements for Older Workers

Severance Agreement Requirements May 1, 2018 Leave a comment

During a layoff or non-voluntary reduction in force, the topic of how much time employers need to give employees to consider severance packages and what disclosures must be made creates considerable confusion in the media, with much being made of employers’ supposed failure to make required disclosures (see example). Here is the deal: if employers are subject to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) (generally, private employers with 20 or more employees), and ask employees who are 40 years of age or older to release ADEA claims in exchange for a severance package that is part of a termination, then they must abide by specific regulations. Those regulations are meant as safeguards for employees protected under the Older Worker Benefit Protection Act (“OWBPA”) which amended the ADEA. That means covered employers may need to give employees up to 21 days to consider the severance offer, or 45 days in the case of a layoff of more than one employee, and a seven-day period after signing to revoke the release of the ADEA/OWBPA claims. Also, employers have a duty to disclose the age and title of the workers who are chosen for layoff and the selection criteria. The OWBPA has additional requirements and there are other best practices an employer’s counsel can and should use when drafting a release to help guard against challenges, so it is always best to consult an attorney familiar with these types of matters so that the employer gets the broad release they are seeking in exchange for severance. Employers who are not covered by the ADEA and employers who are conducting a layoff of employees who are not protected by the ADEA do not have to rigidly adhere to these requirements. In the case of a separation that is not part of a reduction in force, (for instance, a termination for cause) the employer may not need to abide by these rules either. Even if the ADEA/OWBPA rules do not apply, employers are wise to give employees a reasonable period of time to consider a severance package to help protect against arguments that the waiver of claims should be unenforceable because of coercion or other reasons.

Savvy employer takeaways: Employers should know what is and what is not required to make their separation agreements and releases enforceable and should use reasonable means to give employees enough time to thoughtfully consider them.

Questions? Let me know.

Quitters Sometimes Win? New Jersey Court Deems Former Employee Eligible for Benefits

Employee Benefits, Employee Relations in the Workplace April 23, 2018 Leave a comment

In a ruling that challenges the adage that quitters never win, the New Jersey Appellate Division determined that an employee who resigned her job was eligible for benefits reversing a decision of the Unemployment Appeals Tribunal.  In re Cottman, the applicant was denied unemployment benefits on the basis that she voluntarily resigned her employment.  Cottman did not dispute that she resigned her employment when her babysitter cancelled and she had no child care available for her child. When Cottman tried to call out of work, her former employer did not dispute that Cottman was told by her supervisor she may be terminated if she did not appear for work or find a replacement to cover for her shift.  While the Appellate Division acknowledged that leaving work for personal reasons, no matter how compelling, ordinarily disqualifies an applicant from receiving benefits, the Court held Cottman was not disqualified because she only resigned under the threat of being terminated.  The Court found her violation of her employer’s policy would have led to termination based on its past practice even though her supervisor used the word “may.”  Since the Court found Cottman would have been qualified for benefits if she were terminated and she only resigned under the threat of termination, it reversed the Appeals Tribunal’s decision denying benefits.

Savvy employer takeaways: Employers should not threaten employees with termination unless they really mean it, and they should understand that employees who react to such threats by resigning may, under the right circumstances, be eligible to collect unemployment.

Questions? Let me know.

Tip Strip? Exotic Dancers Prevail in Lawsuit Against Strip Club for Employment Misclassification

Independent Contractors April 17, 2018 Leave a comment

In Philadelphia, a federal court judge entered a nearly $4.6 million judgment in favor of a group of exotic dancers and against a strip club, the Penthouse Club. In the class action, the dancers argued they had been mischaracterized as independent contractors instead of as employees and, as a result, the dancers were deprived of minimum wages and tips they earned. The club argued it was not an employer and merely rented space to the exotic dancers, whom the club treated as independent contractors, but the jury rejected that argument and found the club was an employer. In this case, the club was deemed an employer because, among other things, it had the power to ban dancers (or fire them if they were employees) for violating club rules.  The club required dancers to pay “tip outs” to other club employees such as fees to management, the DJ, the “house moms,” the emcee, security workers, and valets.  As a result, the dancers argued their wages and tips, which they were entitled to keep as employees, were diverted.  This fact pattern is increasingly common because dancers from across the country assert similar claims, but it also extends to other businesses that use similar pay models, such as exercise studios.

Savvy employer takeaways: Proceed with the utmost caution when using the independent contractor designation for service providers, ensure tipped employees are paid in accordance with applicable federal and state laws, and impose limits on tip-pooling and other tip-sharing rules.

Questions? Let me know.

Gone Phishing? Employees Sue Worldwide Manufacturer for Invasion of Privacy, Among Other Tort Claims

cyber scams April 13, 2018 Leave a comment

Talk about adding insult to injury! After Schletter Group, a worldwide manufacturer with headquarters in North Carolina, fell for a phishing scam when it sent its employees’ W-2 information in response to a phony email, it was sued by its employees for invasion of privacy and other tort claims.  The employees claimed the company ignored the risks identified in a 2015 FBI warning and a 2016 news article about the scam and did not take appropriate steps to protect its employees’ private data.  While the company initially offered credit monitoring services, the employees sought additional remedies, including monetary damages.  Although the company sought to dismiss the employees’ claims on the basis that the employer had no intent to make the disclosure, the company’s motion failed.  The court ruled, at least at the early stages, that the company’s arguments that it did not intentionally disclose its employees’ data were not enough to toss the suit out of court.  The court accepted the employees’ argument that this was a disclosure and not a breach and therefore, the element of intent was satisfied at the pleading stage.

Savvy employer takeaways: Encrypt employee data, place strict limits on who has the ability to disclose it, train employees on the risks of cyber scams, and pay attention to FBI and news media warnings.

For more information, including news, updates and links to important information pertaining to legal developments that affect businesses ranging from cyber security liability arising from electronically-stored information to evolving issues with employees, subscribe to my blog, or follow me on Twitter @AdamGersh.

Crash Course: The Intersection of Race Relations, Employee Relations, and Social Media

Employee Relations in the Workplace, race relations, social media in the workplace October 5, 2016 Leave a comment

Race relations have taken center stage in our 2016 presidential election and in our headlines, so naturally topics of race relations have permeated the workplace.  This raises important issues for employers, especially when faced with employees who openly protest racial discrimination in society at large because such protests may be controversial and increasingly public due to the proliferation of social media.  Most important, employers need to know federal anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation protections may be interpreted by courts to extend to certain types of employee informal protests of discriminatory employment practices, including making complaints to management, writing critical letters to customers, protesting against discrimination by industry or society in general, and expressing support for co-workers who have filed formal charges.

Specifically, 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (“Section 1981”) was enacted to deter racial discrimination in the formation and enforcement of contracts, and also prohibits retaliation, both in and out of employment.  In interpreting Section 1981, the courts of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware, among others, held that its protections extend to prohibit retaliation that punishes an individual for opposing conduct that violates Section 1981, whether that individual or some third party was the victim of the § 1981 violation.  In other words, an employee who protests discrimination may have anti-retaliation protections even when the forms of protest may be controversial and even if the employee was not individually a victim of the discrimination that is the subject of the protest.

In a recent employment case, L Brands/Victoria’s Secret Stores, LLC (“Victoria’s Secret”) terminated a district manager for what it perceived to be racist Facebook posts.  As an example, the employee used her Facebook feed to repost a picture depicting a person wearing a Ku Klux Klan-reminiscent white, hooded robe with the Los Angeles Clippers logo and the number 42, and was captioned “Game 5 in LA is Free Sheet Night…Donald Sterling Bobble head doll night too!,” a reference to the headlines about racist actions of Sterling, the Clippers’ owner at the time. When Victoria’s Secret was notified about the posts, it investigated and terminated the employment of the district manager.  The district manager brought suit under Section 1981 alleging she was the victim of retaliation for protesting discrimination by Sterling and others on Facebook.  Victoria’s Secret won the case (at least at the trial level) by showing that, irrespective of the district manager’s subjective intent, the message of the post was so unclear that no reasonable jury could find that this image objectively complained about or protested incidents of race discrimination prohibited by Section 1981.  In this case, the court’s decision rested on its finding that there was no clear connection between the alleged protected conduct and a contractual right and, in any event, the court found no reasonable person could have believed that the underlying incident complained about constituted unlawful discrimination.  As the court further explained, an “oblique reference” to or “mere mention of race” or race-based discrimination does not constitute protected opposition to violations of Section 1981, rather it must be an objectively identifiable protest of discriminatory practices in the formation and/or enforcement of contracts.

Employers can take little comfort in Victoria’s Secret’s win, however, because it was essentially based on the Court’s determination that the content of the district manager’s post was not clear enough to trigger anti-retaliation protections.  Arguably, the result would have been much different if the employee were clearer about her own feelings and tied them to a contract, even if her form of protest was offensive to Victoria’s Secret and its customers.

The takeaway:  Employers must be cautious and should consult with counsel before disciplining employees for conduct that could be construed as protesting discrimination, even when the employee’s conduct appears offensive on its face.

Questions? Let me know.