Photo of Alison Frimmel

Alison Frimmel

Subscribe to Alison Frimmel's Posts
Follow: Read more about Alison FrimmelAlison's Linkedin Profile

The NYC Pay Transparency Law will go into effect this week. Starting November 1, 2022, employers with four or more employees advertising jobs in NYC must include the minimum and maximum salary that the employer believes in good faith at the time of the posting they are willing to pay for the advertised job, promotion, or transfer opportunity.

Employers can access the City’s most recent and complete guidance here, but below are a few highlights:

  • Employers should comply with the new requirements when advertising for positions that can or will be performed, in whole or in part, in NYC, whether from an office, in the field, or remotely from the employee’s home.
  • “Good faith” means the salary range the employer honestly believes at the time they are listing the job advertisement that they are willing to pay the successful applicant(s).
  • Salary includes the base annual or hourly wage or rate of pay, regardless of the frequency of payment, and does not include other forms of compensation or benefits (e.g., health insurance, severance pay, or 401(k)).
  • An “advertisement” is a written description of an available job, promotion, or transfer opportunity, regardless of the medium by which the description is disseminated (e.g., internal bulletin boards, internet ads, printed flyers).

…
Continue Reading Compliance Reminder – NYC Pay Transparency Law Takes Effect November 1, 2022

With the recent expansion of pay transparency laws in Colorado, New York City, and Washington, it should come as no surprise to employers that California has also opted to expand its existing pay transparency laws.

On September 27, 2022, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed SB 1162, which broadens the state’s pay transparency laws by requiring employers to provide pay scale information and expanding pay data reporting obligations for certain employers.

The earliest of the law’s changes go into effect on January 1, 2023, but employers should now begin the process of updating their existing organizational policies and procedures to ensure timely compliance with the new regulation when it takes effect.  Here’s a brief overview of existing law and the new requirements set forth in SB 1162.

Pay Transparency

Prior to the enactment of SB 1162, under the current law, employers are required to provide an applicant for employment with the pay scale information for the position the applicant is seeking, upon reasonable request.  Current law does not require employers to provide existing employees pay scale information for their current positions.  SB 1162 now affords California employees the right to request pay scale information and adds the additional mandate that employers must include pay scale information in job postings.  The term “pay scale” is defined as “the salary or hourly wage range that the employer reasonably expects to pay for the position.”  Effective January 1, 2023, California employers must comply with the following requirements:

  • Employers must provide their employees with pay scale information for their current positions, when the information is requested.
  • Employers with 15 or more employees must include in any job posting the pay scale information for the position sought to be filled; and
  • Employers must maintain records of a job title and wage rate history for each employee for the duration of his or her employment, plus 3 years after the end of the employment in order for the Labor Commissioner to determine if there is a pattern of wage discrepancy.

…
Continue Reading Pay Transparency Expansion in California

On September 7, 2022, the NLRB issued a notice of proposed rulemaking seeking to replace the Trump-era final joint employer rule, which provided that an employer would be considered a joint employer under the NLRA only where it exercised “substantial direct and immediate control” over the essential terms and conditions of another company’s employee.…

Concerning the ongoing assault on mandatory arbitration agreements, we recently blogged about the passage of the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (P.L. 117-89), colloquially the “MeToo” law. The MeToo law formally amended the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) to ban mandatory arbitration agreements for sexual assault and harassment claims. The MeToo law is “partially” retroactive: it bars mandatory arbitration of sexual harassment claims arising from conduct that occurred after the law went into effect, but not of claims where the alleged conduct occurred before the law’s passage.

On March 17, 2022, a mere two weeks after the MeToo Law’s passage, the U.S. House voted to advance the Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal, or FAIR Act (H.R. 963), a bill which could effectively void all pre-dispute mandatory arbitration agreements in employment, antitrust, consumer and civil rights disputes as well prohibit waivers of joint, class, or collective action in such matters. So from an employment perspective, the FAIR Act, if enacted, would go far beyond the MeToo law’s prohibition against arbitration of sexual harassment claims—it would bar mandatory arbitration of all employment-related claims.
Continue Reading The FAIR Act: A New Bill Banning Mandatory Arbitration Agreements

Updated October 21, 2021.

Employers implementing mandatory COVID-19 vaccination programs are no doubt starting to feel the pressure resulting from an influx of religious and disability accommodation requests. In all the internal commotion (and resulting strain on human resources departments), employers must remember that failing to implement an adequate process for evaluating and responding to accommodation requests can have real legal consequences.

An action just filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts illustrates just this point. See, Together Employees et al. v. Mass General Brigham Inc., case number 1:21-cv-11686. Mass General, the hospital network employer in that case, implemented a mandatory vaccination program, announcing that employees who failed to receive the vaccination would be placed on unpaid leave and, ultimately, could be terminated. The hospital network, as the EEOC recommends, invited employees to apply for medical and/or religious exemptions.

According to the complaint, the lawsuit arises from the hospital’s decision to deny the exemption requests of 229 employees. The plaintiff Together Employees, an unincorporated association of the impacted employees, seeks injunctive relief, claiming that the hospital did not really analyze their requests, and engaged in a wholesale denial of accommodations without any showing of undue hardship by Mass General. The employees allege that the hospital network’s accommodations process was designed to hinder employees from adequately supporting their requests for an accommodation, resulting in denials for almost all who applied. Among other issues with the process, the employees claim that the forms did not give them space to explain the need for the exemption, or allow them to attach supporting documentation.…

Continue Reading The Accommodation Process Requires More Than Lip Service

U.S. employers have known for a while that they can require their employees to get an FDA-approved Covid-19 vaccine. As recently as a couple of months ago, however, most employers weren’t doing that, with a few exceptions in healthcare and on Wall Street that were either celebrated or notorious, depending on your view.

The balance has clearly shifted now.

One survey in February 2021 found that almost 80% of employers chose not to mandate vaccination because their employees were personally opposed to it. As one of our clients put it: “If we mandated, half our workforce would quit.” So the initial stance taken by most employers was essentially an employee relations choice, and employers “strongly encouraged,” but didn’t require, vaccination.

It looks like months of “strong encouragement” didn’t move the needle one way or the other. Our unscientific guess (but one generated by endless discussions with our clients) is that employees who were personally inclined to get vaccinated with or without a mandate got vaccinated, and those who were opposed didn’t—which is to say that, arguably, few were “encouraged” to do anything they weren’t going to do anyway. Result: only about 50% of the US population has been fully vaccinated, according to the CDC.
Continue Reading Vaccination: To Mandate or Not to Mandate?

Sending a clear message to employers and employees alike on the prickly subject of mandatory vaccination programs, Texas federal Judge Lynn N. Hughes just dismissed outright a lawsuit brought by 117 employees of a Houston hospital, challenging their terminations for refusal to be vaccinated. The court rejected the employees’ wrongful termination claims under Texas state law as well as their arguments that the Hospital’s policy violated federal law.

It’s also not just the result, but the strong language of the decision, which should give employers comfort that a mandatory vaccination program is lawful.

Background

On April 1, 2021, the Houston Methodist Hospital announced a policy requiring all employees be vaccinated against COVID-19 at the Hospital’s expense by June 7, 2021. As that date approached, Plaintiff Jennifer Bridges and 116 other Hospital employees who had refused that vaccine, filed suit in the Southern District of Texas to block the Hospital’s vaccination requirement and their terminations, arguing that the Hospital’s mandatory vaccination program was unlawful.

Plaintiffs argued that the vaccination program constituted wrongful termination under Texas law and that the injection requirement also violated public policy. The Court rejected these arguments because the Plaintiffs did not establish the essential elements of the wrongful termination claim and because Texas does not recognize a public policy exception to an at-will employment relationship. Among the more absurd arguments advanced by the plaintiffs were that under the Hospital employees were being treated as participants in a human trial in violation of the Nuremburg Code. …
Continue Reading Judge Holds that a Hospital can Fire Employees Who Refuse the Vaccine

On January 21, 2021, President Biden enacted the Executive Order “Protecting Worker Health and Safety” which tasked OSHA with developing safety measures to help protect workers as the nation continued its post-pandemic reopening. On June 10, 2021, in response to that direction, OSHA issued an emergency temporary standard (“ETS”) focused on healthcare settings where workers are most likely to have contact with individuals infected by the virus.

Below are some of the salient points of the ETS:…
Continue Reading OSHA’s Emergency Temporary Standard for Healthcare

On Friday March 12, 2021, Governor Cuomo signed into law legislation which requires that beginning March 12, 2021, all New York employers must provide up to four hours of paid leave per COVID-19 vaccine injection. Below are the salient features of the new law:

Who is covered?

All employees irrespective of employer size or industry.

What amount of leave are employees entitled to?

Up to four hours off per vaccine injection, paid at the employee’s “regular rate of pay.”

The law does not specifically address how much time an employee is entitled to if the vaccine requires two injections, but the law is drafted as permitting leave “per vaccine injection,” thus employees who receive a two shot vaccination could be entitled up to eight hours of paid leave.

When does the law expire?…
Continue Reading NY Employees Granted Up to Four Hours of Excused Leave Per Vaccine Injection

On the heels of the FDA’s approval of the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines, the EEOC updated its Technical Assistance Q & A to help employers navigate the latest pandemic related challenges. The EEOC guidance can be found here.

Below are highlights of the EEOC’s guidance, and our practical advice for employers who are considering rolling out a mandatory vaccination program for their employees.

Before jumping on the mandatory vaccination bandwagon, employers should consider these important questions:

  • Does your company need a mandatory vaccination program? Should you leave it to your employees to make their own decisions?
  • If you decide to implement a mandatory vaccination program, how will you announce it, how will you roll it out, and what is the timing? Have you factored in that vaccines may not be available to all employees at the same time?
  • If you decide to implement a mandatory vaccination program, how will you handle requests for exemptions? What will you do with employees who refuse to be vaccinated?
  • What are the pitfalls of a mandatory vaccination program?

Let’s break this down further.

Can employers mandate that employees receive a COVID-19 vaccine?

The answer is yes.

The EEOC’s updated guidance now addresses issues regarding “mandatory vaccinations” and makes clear that employers can mandate that employees get the COVID-19 vaccination. The justification for mandating vaccination, especially during the pandemic, is based on the premise that unvaccinated employees present a “direct threat” to others in the workplace. (K.5.).

Many employers are already stating that once the vaccine is widely available they may mandate a vaccine before employees can return to the office. However, as will be discussed below, even if a mandatory policy is enacted, employees may nonetheless be entitled to exemptions on the basis of disability or religious accommodation.

Do employers need a mandatory program?

The answer depends on your business.

If you run a business where your employees can safely work remotely or socially distance, you may not need it right away. On the other hand, if you run a retail business, school, a restaurant, or any similar business where employees circulate among each other or deal with the public, a mandatory vaccination program may beneficial to your operation. Many retail and customer facing industries believe that it will be a good advertisement if they can say that their employees are all vaccinated.

Whatever the approach, employers should not jump in without weighing the costs and benefits. Things to consider include administrative costs, challenges to implementing a mandatory program, such as training and legal compliance.

How will you roll it out and when?

Here again, messaging and timing must be carefully considered.  Right now, vaccines are only available to frontline healthcare workers. Thus, if your business does not fall into that category, you will need to wait until vaccines are available to your workforce to institute a mandatory program. Even then, you may have to allow for a vaccine rollout over time, and only make the mandate applicable to those employees who are eligible to receive a vaccine.

In the early months of 2021, practical questions about fairness may arise. For example, if an employee wishes to comply but a vaccine is not available to them, should they be excluded from the workplace? Employers adopting a mandatory program will likely face, and should be prepared to handle a number of similar questions.

Next let’s look at the issues surrounding employees receiving the vaccination.
Continue Reading The EEOC Confirms You CAN Mandate a Vaccine, But SHOULD You?