Equal Pay Is Coming Your Way

Less than a handful of states do not have laws that prohibit gender-based compensation discrimination, and the federal pay equity laws have been on the books for years. California, New York and Massachusetts seem to be competing to have the most aggressive pay equity laws, with other states in the race. While this alert focuses on Massachusetts, we are happy to answer questions about your state’s equal pay laws or the federal law.

Is your company covered by the new Massachusetts pay equity law? Yes, all employers in Massachusetts with the noted exception of the federal government are covered by the new law: for-profit; not-for-profit; large and small; in all industry sectors. Unlike most employment laws, the number of individuals employed is not relevant – your company is covered.

The assessment of gender-based pay inequity in Massachusetts has changed significantly. The standard is different. The definitions are different. Exposure is different. Potential corrective measures are different. Defenses are different. The conversation about salary history and employee wages will be significantly different.

Many find that the guidance recently issued by the Massachusetts Attorney General raised as many questions as it answered. The good news is that the Attorney General’s guidance includes a basic self-evaluation tool for employers. We recommend using outside counsel as part of this process to protect your findings under the attorney-client privilege. Think of our Pay Equity Audit as a protective cloak: it shields any pay inequities you may discover, and will allow your team to make reasonable progress eliminating pay disparities without creating other distractions.

In less than four months, the Massachusetts law goes into effect and your company must be in compliance. We have been advising our clients for over a year to conduct gender-based pay equity audits to protect their organization against the new exposure and litigation from this law: Several have used our innovative Pay Equity Audit already. The Attorney General’s guidance has made it very clear that there are very few clear answers implementing this law– and that all employers should make compliance a top priority.

Our Pay Equity Audit is designed to help your Massachusetts team achieve compliance with the new law and create a rolling affirmative defense to a gender-based pay equity claim. No worries, if you are not located in Massachusetts, we have other state specific Pay Equity Audits. We stand ready to help and can be reached at questions@foleylawpractice.com or 508-548-4888.

New Year, New Laws, New Website

   

Hope your 2018 is off to a great start! We have a robust new website which we updated to change those awful pictures make it easier to use our resources. Please take a minute and check it out? http://www.foleylawpractice.com

Remember those laws we wrote about months ago — Pay Equity Act and the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act? They’re finally here. We break it down with action steps below, including, of course,  sexual harassment:

Massachusetts Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (MPWFA): This law will require all Massachusetts employers to update handbooks and policies; provide reasonable accommodation to pregnant and breastfeeding employees; and provide written notice to all employees about their right to be free from discrimination under this Act no later than April 1, 2018.

The law amends Massachusetts anti-discrimination laws to specifically prohibit retaliation and discrimination against pregnant employees, creating a new protected class to include:  “pregnancy or a condition related to pregnancy, including, but not limited to, lactation, or the need to express breast milk for a nursing child.” While Massachusetts and Federal laws already prohibit pregnancy discrimination, the new law creates an obligation for employers to engage in an interactive dialogue,  provide accommodations to pregnant and breastfeeding employees and provide new, existing and newly pregnant employees with notice of these new rights.  With the creation of a new  protected class comes familiar language and obligations: reasonable accommodation, interactive process and undue hardship.

Reasonable accommodation might include more frequent rest breaks; seating or modified equipment; paid or unpaid time off to recover from childbirth; a private space to express breast milk that is not a bathroom; job restructuring; or a modified work schedule. The interactive process mandate requires employers and employees (or prospective employees) to engage in a timely and good faith interactive process to determine a reasonable accommodation to perform the essential functions of the job. An employer is not required to provide and accommodation that would cause an undue hardship, defined as an accommodation “requiring significant difficulty or expense.” Finally, an employee may not be forced to take a leave of absence if a reasonable accommodation could be made to stay on the job.

Next Steps

• Update handbooks and personnel policies to reflect the increased obligations under the new law, including the adoption of a specific policy outlining and documenting the interactive process;
• Train human resources personnel and managers regarding the requirements of the Act;
• Ensure proper measures are in place to provide written notice in all instances required under the Act; and

Contact us with any questions and assistance in compliance. This law is a big deal.

 

Pay Equity–It really is on the horizon.

One of the strongest state laws in the country addressing equal pay for comparable work will take effect in Massachusetts on July 1, 2018.

The sweeping Act makes many changes including how to determine comparable work, and prohibiting salary and benefit inquiries before hire, to name a few. Employees will not be required to file a claim with MCAD as before but can go directly to court.

The silver lining of these new obligations is the Act provides an affirmative defense to employers who perform a good faith evaluation of pay practices. Over the past several months many of our clients have utilized out Pay Equity Audit  which creates a rolling affirmative defense for your company. We strongly advise employers to take advantage of this comprehensive and valuable service before July 1, 2018.

 

Sexual Harassment

The standard sexual harassment compliance advice has been to implement a well-written sexual harassment policy and invest in sexual harassment training. Yet many of the workplaces rocked by recent claims—including the Weinstein Company in California, home to the country’s strictest anti-harassment laws—had a policy and training in place. What can be done?

In response to the changes in climate and the new EEOC guidelines, we have developed a Sexual Harassment Tool Kit. For a flat fee we will provide:

1.    A digital copy of Attorney Angela Snyder’s No More #MeToos webinar that can be shared with your entire leadership team, serving as the first level of effective sexual harassment training for leadership and HR;
2.   A comprehensive outline for creating a sexual harassment strategy for your organization;
3.   A model sexual harassment policy and/or review of your existing sexual harassment policy;
4.   Sample Letter from Leadership in Word that sets forth your organization and leadership’s commitment to addressing sexual harassment in the workplace that can be modified to meet your specific needs;
5.    A sample “pulse” survey to send to employees that will help uncover underlying cultural erosions; and
6.   One hour of attorney time to uncover your unique risks based on demographics and culture. During that discussion we will provide a punch list of action items that will help you finalize a customized sexual harassment strategy.

 

We believe strongly in proactive advice and want to make this service as accessible as possible. We are offering the Tool Kit for a very reasonable flat fee. Please contact us.

 

 We can help! Reach out to us at questions@foleylawpractice.com or (508) 548-4888.

 

 

What the devil is Massachusetts doing to employer health care contributions?

Last week, Governor Baker signed the awkwardly named, “An act further regulating employer contributions to health care,” which has raised many excellent questions. Once again we think about Bismarck’s quote: laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made. Except when laws are passed without regulation or key details, you have to dive into the sausage factory… . Where did this bill come from? Short answer: Governor Baker wanted spending cuts to MassHeath along with an increase in the employer contribution. The House and Senate decided to just implement the increased employer contribution without reforms or regulations. The Governor signed that bill. Surprise! On July 19, Governor Baker issued recommendations for amendments to the State’s Fiscal 2018 budget. A short attachment suggested an increase in the employer medical assistance contribution (EMAC) and introduced the 5% employer fine. Governor Baker indicated that these two changes “must not be considered in isolation of other measures needed to manage spending in the MassHealth program. Absent other reforms, this proposal imposes an unfair burden on Massachusetts’ employers without making the structural reforms essential to MassHealth’s long-term sustainability.” On July 26, the Massachusetts House and Senate both rejected the Governor’s amendments, reenacted the bill, and added an “emergency preamble” that stated: “Whereas, The deferred operation of this act would tend to defeat its purpose, which is to establish forthwith certain employer healthcare contributions, therefore, it is hereby declared to be an emergency law, necessary for the immediate preservation of the public convenience.” There was hopeful speculation from the business community that, given the rejection of his recommendations, the Governor would not sign the reenacted bill. Therefore, many were surprised that the Governor signed the bill after indicating that these changes, without other reforms, imposed an unfair burden on employers was unexpected. The “emergency” adoption of this bill contributed to the lack of information employers are now facing. Questions? You bet! Here are some questions we received last week. We hope this provides clarity, based on the limited information still available: Q: In your email, you said “All Massachusetts employers who have more than five employees must pay a fine – 5% of the employee’s wages – for every employee who receives his or her insurance through MassHealth.” Does this mean that if an employee elects MassHealth instead of the employer-sponsored insurance, the employer has to pay a 5% fine? A: Yes – the employer will pay a 5% fine for each employee who receives health care through MassHealth or subsidized coverage instead of through the employer-sponsored plan. Q: How can the employer know if the employee receives his or her insurance through MassHealth? A: The Governor’s recommendations included some details about employer reporting and tracking. Baker’s recommendations indicated that employers: 1) would need to respond to ad hoc requests from the state; and 2) would need to complete, annually, a “Health Insurance Responsibility Disclosure” form.” However, none of this detail was carried forward into the enacted bill.The bill does not specify what obligations the employer will have with regard to tracking and reporting employee coverage. According to the bill, the department of unemployment will create and publicize regulations that address details including how many days of non-employer coverage will trigger the fines and how the fines will be paid. It is possible that the regulations will also clarify any employer obligations with regard to tracking and reporting employee coverage. We will monitor the developments of the regulations and communicate details as they become available. The fines will be implemented January 1, 2018 – that’s less than five months away. Therefore, employers may not have much time between the publication of the regulations and the effective date of the new law. Employers may wish to start gathering data now to get a sense as to the size of the fines they may face. They may wish to poll employees who are not enrolled in the company-sponsored plan to understand the outside coverage the employee has elected. Q: Does the employer still pay a fine if the individual is covered under MassHealth for free? A: Very few individuals are eligible to receive MassHealth at no cost. We have included a chart that reviews eligibility and premiums. Note, too, that most individuals who are otherwise eligible for MassHealth will be required to take their employer’s plan if the plan meets the basic coverage criteria and the employer pays at least 50% of the premium. Therefore, if your company pays at least 50% of premiums, you will generally not be subject to the fines.The bill does not currently address whether employers would be subject to fines for individuals who receive MassHealth at no cost. We do know that the fines are paid for non-disabled workers. If an employee receives MassHealth due to his/her disability, the employer would not be subjected to the fine for that employee. Q: I read there is a $750 cap on the fine per employee. Is this true? A: Yes, this is true. The bill indicates that the fine is 5% of an employee’s wages. However, it defines wages in this context as the “unemployment insurance taxable wage base,” which is $15,000. $15,000 * .05 = $750 Q: I understand that the fines are effective January 1, 2018. Will Massachusetts employers be subject to them year after year? A: The bill contains “sunset” language, which indicates these fines will be repealed as of 12/31/19. It’s quite possible that, between now and 12/31/19, the sunset language will be removed or modified to push the date further out. However, as of now, these fines are effective for a two-year period only. Q: Can I question any fines? Is there an offset? A: Yes, The Department of Unemployment Insurance (DUI) will levy the fines and there is procedure to request a hearing. The bill also calls for DUI rates to remain the same to offset the increases in employer contributions for the 2 years the bill is in effect. Q: What makes an individual eligible for MassHealth? A: First, the applicant or member must be a resident of Massachusetts. Second, all those applying in the household must have a social security number or be applying for an SSN. After those basic requirements are met, eligibility is then assessed using a number of factors including citizenship, age, disability, income level, and the availability of other health coverage. We have included a chart that reviews eligibility for the different types of MassHealth coverage. We will continue to communicate with you as we learn more about this bill. In the meantime, please reach out to us with any of your questions!

© 2017 FOLEY & FOLEY, PC, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Workplace Posters are Free. Really.

Clients often receive pressing, official-looking notices urging the purchase of mandatory employment law postings. While you do have to post, you do not have to buy. Although some states also try to sell posters which is really cheap, all required postings are available free of charge (keep scrolling).  Please see the links below, from the federal government and states where we practice:

Federal: United States Department of Labor – Wage and Hour Division

Massachusetts: Labor and Workforce Development – Massachusetts Workplace Poster Requirements

California: http://www.taxes.ca.gov/payroll_tax/postingreqbus.shtml

Connecticut: https://www.ctdol.state.ct.us/gendocs/Labor_Posters.htm

Georgia: https://dhs.georgia.gov/department-labor-required-workplace-posters

Illinois: https://www.illinois.gov/idol/Employers/Pages/posters.aspx

Kansas:  http://www.dol.ks.gov/Laws/Posters.aspx

Maine: http://www.maine.gov/labor/posters/

Maryland: https://www.dllr.state.md.us/oeope/poster.shtml

Minnesota:  http://www.dli.mn.gov/ls/posters.asp

Missouri: https://labor.mo.gov/posters

New Hampshire: https://www.nh.gov/labor/forms/mandatory-posters.htm

New York: https://labor.ny.gov/workerprotection/laborstandards/employer/posters.shtm

North Carolina:  http://www.nclabor.com/posters/posters.htm

Oregon:  http://staging.apps.oregon.gov/boli/TA/Pages/Req_Post.aspx

Pennsylvania: http://www.hrm.oa.pa.gov/workplace-support/required-postings/Pages/default.aspx

Texas: http://www.twc.state.tx.us/businesses/posters-workplace

Utah: https://laborcommission.utah.gov/divisions/UOSH/RequiredPosters.html

Vermont: http://labor.vermont.gov/

Wisconsin:  https://dwd.wisconsin.gov/dwd/posters.htm

As always, should you have any questions including information for additional state postings, please contact us. We can help. Mike@foleylawpractice.com or 508-548-4888

Why Many Executive Orders are Hot Air

On May 4, 2017, President Trump signed an Executive Order Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty.  Could this order allow discrimination against LGBTQ individuals and women, as feared?   Will this impact the workplace? No. Here is the line to remember: Existing laws cannot be overturned by Executive Orders.

Let’s take a look at this Order as a good example. The portion of the Order that pertains to Federal law is:

_Sec_. _4_. _Religious Liberty Guidance_. In order to guide all agencies in complying with relevant Federal law, the Attorney General shall, as appropriate, issue guidance interpreting religious liberty protections in Federal law.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions can issue guidance until the cows come home: The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) does not answer to him.  The EEOC is an independent federal agency charged with enforcing federal laws against illegal discrimination in the workplace. Laws like the ADA, ADEA, FLSA, FMLA and Title VII are under the purview of the EEOC for enforcement and guidance. Congress may make changes to the laws and the courts can overrule, clarify or uphold the laws.

Executive Orders might be good optics but cannot impact the rule of federal. state or local law in the workplace.

MA Wage Act is mightier than your commission plan

 

Last month, a Massachusetts US District Court judge held that a former employee who quit was still eligible for $32,000 in sales commissions despite a commission plan that provided otherwise.  (Israel v. Voya Institutional Plan Services, LLCI)  Voya’s commission plan specifically stated that an employee who resigns is not eligible for further commission payments.  The plan was clear and on point.  How did the judge get to yes on the commission?

Voya’s plan could not override the Wage Act requirement that sales commissions be paid promptly once the amount is “definitely determined”–at that point the commission becomes “due and payable.” The judge distinguished a sales commission, as a share of sales revenue generated by an employee, from other types of variable compensation– like a bonus.  Because the amount of commission was known and earned based on sales, it fell under the Wage Act’s strict payment requirements.

Massachusetts employers who provide commissions as part of their pay structure are advised to review their commission plans in light of this decision.  As we all know, the MA Wage Act, with its costly provisions for damages and attorney’s fees, is not to be taken lightly.

WORKPLACE COMPLIANCE IN THE TRUMP-ERA: IT IS NOT ABOUT TWITTER

 

It has been noted politicians campaign in poetry and govern in prose.  That may sound too lofty to describe current times, but the sentiment remains: promises made on the campaign trail do not easily translate into law. We have a Republican President and a Republican Congress, which historically has meant a more business-friendly regulatory environment.  Yet as the first 100 days will show, unwinding is neither quick nor easy. The Affordable Care Act has not been repealed and little is on the horizon. The President’s Budget Blueprint for 2018 proposes to slash the Department of Labor’s (DOL) budget by 21%. What does this mean for employers right now, or even over the next year?

In short, not a lot. Meanwhile, state and local governments are legislating like mad to fill the gaps that could be created by proposed budget cuts and executive orders. President Trump is an active Twitter user but as detailed below, that communication belies the actual activity of the federal government. #Realtalk

Are employers off the hook for federal mandates? Not so fast. Most of the federal regulations that govern the workplace remain in place and, given the inability to repeal the much lamented ACA, may not change at all.

Below is a quick overview of the current federal landscape under President Trump. Without actual policy as a guide, we are using the President’s proposed budget as a crystal ball. Please note that many states, including Massachusetts and California, have stricter mandates than the federal laws:

THE FUTURE OF DOL/OSHA/EEOC ENFORCEMENT

The President has proposed $2.5 Billion in cuts to the U.S. Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) operating budget. Because Congress has to approve the budget this is only an outline of the actual budget.  The blue print is short on details, but does expressly call for reduced funding for grant programs, job training programs for seniors and disadvantaged youth, and support for international labor efforts.  It also proposes to eliminate the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (“CSB”) – an independent, federal, non-enforcement agency that investigates chemical accidents at certain facilities.  These cuts account for $500 million dollars of the DOL budget. The blueprint does not specify where the other $2 billion in cost savings will come from, except to say more funding responsibility will go to the states.  If approved by Congress—a big if–the cuts will involve a loss of funds that could be distributed heavily through DOL’s enforcement programs. This will include the EEOC and OSHA. Yet the process by which these agencies collect fines is a valuable revenue generator and unlikely to end easily.

At this point, the likelihood of the final budget looking like the proposed one is total conjecture. Furthermore, even with the expected cuts to the DOL’s enforcement and regulatory programs, it is important to recall that under the last Republican administration—no fan of regulation– the DOL still enforced the law. Moreover, as the federal government delivers more labor enforcement responsibility to the states, employers will increasingly be forced to work to achieve compliance on two fronts, instead of one.

RIGHT NOW

Every administration has used the media as a means of furthering and communicating its chosen agenda, and the Trump administration is no exception.  The choices the administration makes in what it chooses to publicize likely signal the administration’s direction; but also shape the public’s perception of what it is actively doing.  The Trump administration and President Trump in particular use social media and news reports for the purpose of shaping the public’s understanding their activity.  From a compliance standpoint, this actually creates risk for employers.

Despite the President’s proposed budget and awaited confirmation of a new Labor secretary, the New York Times reported  that DOL enforcement actions continue.  In a departure from past practice, the department has stopped publicizing fines against companies. As the New York Times points out, the Obama administration used the announcements as an enforcement tool, and a means to influence employers.  However, the announcements also served as an important window for employers into the DOL’s current position on important compliance issues such as wage and hour or OSHA safety enforcement.  If a company in the same industry was recently fined for a practice, that action provided others in the industry with important notice to examine their practice.  Employers no longer have this benefit.  Furthermore, those who believe that the lack of information surrounding DOL enforcement means they no longer have to worry about the threat of an audit do so at their own peril.  At the present, and until the new budget is confirmed months from now, agency enforcement has not changed.  For those inclined to believe the confirmation of the new Labor secretary will change that should keep in mind that DOL audits are a money-maker for the agency.  There seems to be little reason for them to stop.

WHAT TO DO

The last few years have seen a seismic change in the number of employment laws on both the state and federal level.  If it has been a few years since your organization has updated its employee handbook, you have a compliance problem on your hands.  Updating your handbook and policies is an important step to mitigate risk.

And remember, statutes, regulatory guidance and case opinions published by the courts are what impact compliance obligations, not the news. What happens on Twitter does not reflect the actions of the agencies of the federal government. #Really

Landmark decision: A federal appeals court rules Title VII bars sexual orientation bias in the workplace

“..[I]t is actually impossible to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation without discriminating on the basis of sex…” wrote Chief Circuit Judge Diane P. Wood of the 7th Circuit Appeals Court,  wiping away prior ambiguity surrounding Title VII protections based on sexual orientation. The 8-3 decision, held in a rare en banc hearing, arose out of Indiana professor Kimberly Hively’s lawsuit against her former employer Ivy Tech Community College. Hively claimed her denial of promotions, tenure and her eventual termination were because she is a lesbian.

The 7th Circuit completely bypassed the issue of Congressional intent of the word “sex” in Title VII. Judge Posner opined that the court was not the “obedient servants of the 88th Congress (1963-1965)” and the court was “[T]aking advantage of what the last half century has taught.”

This case matters beyond Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin. This decision reflects what many state and local government have already done to protect LGBT workers, and similar cases will be heard in other circuits.  Most importantly, it is a best practice to implement policies, procedures and training that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workplace.

We can help. Contact us at info@foleylawpractice.com or call 508.548.4888 to update your handbook and policies. Visit http://www.foleylawpractice.com for more resources.

 

Yes, company email is fair game to communicate worker gripes while watching the Bachelor

The NLRB upheld its blockbuster 2014 ruling in Purple Communications Inc (Purple I), which allows employees to use employer email–even when not working –to conduct union organizing and protected activity. In a 3-2 ruling the NLRB held that workers who are granted access to their employer’s email system must be permitted to use it on nonworking time for protected activity under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).  As we all know, protected activity under the NLRA is fairly broad, often termed “concerted activity for workers’ mutual benefit.”  Purple Communications basically updates the water cooler talk about wages or griping about working conditions into the present via email use during and after work.

What’s an employer to do? Electronic communication restrictions and social media policies and still have a place in the workplace.  The policies must be carefully crafted however in light of the NLRB rulings.  We can help. Contact us to review your current policy for compliance and to draft a new one that works.

 

Charlie Baker as the Taxman: The so-called fair share comes roaring back

If you drive a car, I’ll tax the street,
If you try to sit, I’ll tax your seat.
If you get too cold I’ll tax the heat,
If you take a walk, I’ll tax your feet…

George Harrison, The Beatles

 

Massachusetts Governor Baker has included a new tax assessment on businesses in his 2018 proposed budget and it is a whopper.  The proposed tax assessment would impact businesses with 10 or more employees if the employer does not contribute at least $4,950.00 toward each full time employee’s healthcare and have an 80% participation in its group health plan.  This health related tax assessment would require a payment of $2,000.00 per full time equivalent employee.  Full time employees are defined as those who work 35 hours or more per week.  The proposal revives the “fair share” that was eliminated under the Affordable Care Act (ACA)—with a hefty increase.  The goal is to raise $300 million to offset the costs of the projected 1.93 million enrolled in MassHealth for 2017. Baker is also proposing various caps paid to providers in an attempt to limit costs and close the gap on discordant charges for the same services.

The short version of how this happened: Way back in 2006, before the ACA, Massachusetts employers with 11 or more employees were required to offer health care coverage to full-time workers or pay a fee of $295 per worker. If an employer offered health insurance, employees were ineligible for MassHealth.  To comply with the ACA, the employer fee and the restriction in choosing MassHealth were eliminated.  Moreover, the ACA federal mandates to fine employers were pushed back and some eliminated. In Massachusetts that meant more people enrolling in MassHealth and less money to fund it. Can you say quagmire?

The attempt to shift this enormous burden onto the backs of business has understandable resistance.  The sky rocketing cost of insurance is the central issue and throwing more money at insurance costs makes no sense.  The interplay between the ACA and MassHealth has problems as well– Baker has requested a waiver from ACA provisions that conflict with or add unnecessary costs to the state. And finer points of Baker’s 2018 assessment must be addressed. For instance, what if employees reject employer offered coverage (perhaps in favor of coverage from a spouse) and participation drops below 80%? Under the current provision, the employer will still be required to pay the assessment.

The legislature needs to carefully examine this proposal and its massive potential impact on business.  Did I just write “carefully examine” in the same sentence as the legislature? Desperate times… .We urge you to contact your representatives in the Senate and House. Call if you can, email or write if you cannot. We will monitor the progress of this proposed tax assessment and continue to update our clients on any new developments.