Wise employers know that a single severe act can be enough to satisfy the standard of “severe or pervasive” and be sexual harassment. But how severe does the act have to be?
A recent 6th Circuit ruling gives some assistance. In Ault v. Oberlin College, the Court discussed why a single physical incident was sufficiently severe. The ruling is likewise informative because it also discusses why several infrequent but boorish comments were not sufficiently severe or pervasive. Continue Reading
Yesterday my colleague Todd Overman and I presented an hour-long webinar discussing how to prepare for and navigate the “Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces” proposed rule and accompanying guidance.
On May 28, 2015, the Obama Administration published the much anticipated proposed DOL guidance and accompanying Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) proposed rule implementing EO 13673, Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces (July 31, 2014). In the webinar we highlighted key elements of both publications and their impact on government contractors, including:
The new “labor law violation” disclosure requirements and resulting contracting officer responsibility determinations
Unique role of “Labor Compliance Advisors”
Paycheck transparency and independent contractor notice requirements
Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Stephanie Roth authored an article outlining the details of the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) proposed rules to increase the salary level threshold for those employees eligible for overtime pay. In addition, according to Stephanie, “the DOL has left open the possibility of changing the job duties test, which could have more far-reaching implications for workforce structure than the proposed salary level increase.” The proposed rules are open to a 60-day comment period in which individuals can voice concerns over the increased salary guidelines and the effectiveness of the current job duties test.
Can employers enter into pacts not to “poach” each other’s employees? That is the question at the center of a recent case claiming that two universities conspired to depress compensation for faculty members in violation of federal antitrust law. A radiologist at Duke University School of Medicine filed the suit after applying and being rejected as an applicant at the University of North Carolina. The applicant was told the universities had agreed to block lateral moves of faculty between the universities. What are the legal concerns regarding employee poaching behavior?
Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Michael Moschel was quoted in a Modern Healthcare article that outlined the details of a Supreme Court case (Friedrichs vs. California Teachers Association) in which the court will decide whether unions can continue to collect fees from non-members as long as those fees are not used for political purposes. In the current case, the teachers association is asking the court to essentially overturn a longstanding precedent established in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education in which the court ruled that unions have the right to collect fees from non-member because the non-members ultimately benefit from any union negotiations. According to Michael, “[i]f Abood is reversed, the court would essentially create a ‘right-to-work’ law for public sector employees.”
While the ruling applies to only one driver in San Francisco and does not set a precedent for how Uber compensates its 200,000 drivers, it is one of a growing number of decisions that may have far-reaching implications for service oriented businesses in the “sharing” economy. Uber says that its drivers are independent contractors and not employees, which means Uber does not consider itself responsible for paying drivers’ job-related expenses such as mileage and insurance. Moreover, as contractors, drivers are responsible for paying 100% of the federal payroll tax (FICA/FUTA).
The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) recently granted a claim sponsored by the prime contractor for its subcontractor’s employee severance costs under a fixed-price contract. Appeal of Government Contracting Resources, Inc., ASBCA No. 59162 (March 12, 2015).
Government Contracting Resources, Inc. (GCR), sought additional compensation for severance costs it incurred, along with its subcontractor, upon expiration of its service contract with NASA for the distribution of mail at the Kennedy Space Center. A collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between GCR subcontractor Creative Management Technology Inc. (CMT) and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAMAW) granted severance pay to CMT bargaining unit employees who were not rehired by a successor company at the end of the service contract. The provisions of the CBA had been incorporated, through a modification, into GCR’s service contract with NASA.
On April 16, 2015, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) issued proposed regulations on the application of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) to wellness program incentives. The release was followed closely by FAQs and a fact sheet. Other agencies similarly provided guidance, including joint FAQs from the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services (“HHS”), and Treasury, and individual FAQs from HHS. Continue Reading
Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Stephanie Roth wrote an article on the pressure employers are facing to forgo inquiring about applicants’ criminal convictions during the initial stages of the hiring process. Stephanie notes that the legal landscape is rapidly changing and the requirement of applicants to disclose their criminal conviction records when first submitting an application for employment is being banned (“banning the box”). Further, Stephanie asserts that healthcare providers should not assume that the nature of work provides an exemption to compliance with these laws. She encourages all employers to revise applications to remove “the box” unless its inclusion is required by law.
A Maryland-based construction company required to pay “prevailing wages” under a Federal government contract recently settled for $400,000 claims that it had violated the False Claims Act (“FCA”) by failing to properly supervise lower-level contractors in the payment of prevailing wages to their workers. The case serves as a reminder that government contractors who fail to ensure compliance with wage requirements – whether under the Davis-Bacon Act (“DBA”), Service Contract Act (“SCA”), or Walsh-Healy Public Contracts Act (“PCA”) – can face significant liability. It also highlights the ongoing expansion of the federal government’s battle against procurement fraud. Continue Reading
6th Circuit confirms that only one act can be sufficiently severe to constitute sexual harassment. More here: http://t.co/2khT8yciWN
1 day ago
#FridayTimism RT @TimKGarrett: The only thing that exceeds right-doing is right-being. - O. Chambers #motivesmatter.
5 days ago
62,000 A&F employees are claiming they had to wear A&F clothes to work but weren't reimbursed for “uniform” expense. #ClassAction
6 days ago
Last week, a CA federal judge certified class of 62,000 Abercrombie & Fitch employees who are challenging “look” policy.
6 days ago
#EEOC rules that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is unlawful under #TitleVII as associational discrimination based on sex.
1 week ago
About Bass, Berry & Sims
With more than 220 attorneys representing numerous publicly-traded companies and Fortune 500 businesses, Bass, Berry & Sims PLC has been involved in some of the largest and most significant business transactions and litigation matters in the country. For more information, visit www.bassberry.com.