May 7, 2014

Keith Weddington

PARKER POE ADAMS & BERNSTEIN LLP

EMPLOYMENT LAW UPDATE

AGENDA

I. Judicial Decisions

• U.S. Supreme Court

• 4th Circuit

• N.C. Appellate Courts

II. Legislative and Regulatory Update

2

Supreme Court Decisions

3

WHO IS A “SUPERVISOR”?Vance v. Ball State University

(Decided June 24, 2013)

Definition of “supervisor” determines those individuals for whom employers may be held strictly and vicariously liable.

Supervisors = management level employees who are empowered to take tangible employment actions – not those who merely oversee or direct employees’ daily activities.

4

WHO IS A “SUPERVISOR”? Vance v. Ball State University

(Decided June 24, 2013)

Tangible employment action: “A significant change in employment status, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a decision causing a significant change of benefits.”

Supervisory status can “usually be readily determined, generally by written documentation.”

5

WHO IS A “SUPERVISOR”? Vance v. Ball State University

(Decided June 24, 2013)

Significance: Bright line test/definition Rejected EEOC’s definition Status can be determined at SJ stage – or earlier

Review job descriptions and clearly specify whether employee is empowered to take tangible employment actions.

6

ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS – CLASS ACTION WAIVERS

American Express v. Italian Water Colors(Decided June 20, 2013)

Class action waivers in arbitration agreements are enforceable under the FAA.

Even if the cost of arbitrating a federal statutory claim individually exceeds the potential recovery.

7

AUTHORITY OF ARBITRATOR TO ORDER CLASS ARBITRATION

Oxford Health Plans v. Sutter(Decided June 10, 2013)

Arbitrator did not exceed his powers under FAA by determining arbitration agreement permitted class arbitration.

Agreement silent as to class actions Parties stipulated that arbitrator should

decide if agreement authorized arbitration on a class-wide basis.

Narrow decision Key: Arbitration agreements should

include express class waivers

8

STANDARD OF PROOF FOR TITLE VII RETALIATION

Univ. of Texas SW Med. Ctr. v. Nassar(Decided June 24, 2013)

Plaintiffs must prove protected activity was “but for” cause

Rejected lower standard of

“substantial motivating factor”

“But for” standard will help courts dismiss “dubious claims at the summary judgment stage”

9

DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT (“DOMA”)U.S. v. Windsor

(Decided June 26, 2013)

§ 3 of DOMA required that in determining the meaning any federal statute, regulation or ruling of federal agencies,

“marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman

Held unconstitutional – violated equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause

10

DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT (“DOMA”)U.S. v. Windsor

(Decided June 26, 2013)

FMLA leave to care for a legally married same sex spouse with a serious health condition or for qualifying military leave

Tax treatment of employer provided insurance coverage to same sex spouse

Multi-state employers face varying state law definitions of “spouse”

Spousal privilege in federal proceedings Examine benefit plan definitions of

“spouse”

11

LIMITATIONS PERIODS FOR ERISA BENEFIT CLAIMS

Heimeshaff v. Hartford Accident Ins. Co. et al.

(Decided December 16, 2013)

Here, limitations period began when “proof of loss” was due under the plan, even though lawsuit could not be filed until plan’s internal claims review process had been exhausted.

Held: OK to start “shot clock” on limitations period in ERISA benefit plan before participant’s cause of action even accrues, if period is reasonable.

12

LIMITATIONS PERIODS FOR ERISA BENEFIT CLAIMS

Heimeshaff v. Hartford Accident Ins. Co. et al.

(Decided December 16, 2013)

Court again emphasized importance of enforcing plan terms.

Review plan documents, including SPD’s, to insure that plan limitations periods are reasonable under Heimeshaff.

Consider amending plan documents to add reasonable limitations period if current plan has no limitation period.

13

“CHANGING CLOTHES” AND THE FLSASandiffer v. U.S. Steel Corp.

(Decided January 27, 2014)

Limited ruling affecting unionized employers.

Issue: Definition of “Changing Clothes” under FLSA provision allowing employers and unions to agree to exclude from compensable time the time employees spend changing clothes.

Time spent donning and doffing protective clothing – as opposed to equipment – may be excluded by CBA.

14

SOX WHISTLEBLOWERSLawson v. FMR LLC(Decided March 4, 2014)

SOX whistleblower provisions apply to private companies providing products or services to publicly traded companies.

Open question: Do SOX whistleblower protections apply to contractor’s employees only if the whistleblowing relates to the contractor’s work as a contractor for the public company?

15

SOX WHISTLEBLOWERSLawson v. FMR LLC(Decided March 4, 2014)

Private employers should:

Determine what products or services are provided to publicly traded companies – and which employees serve those customers.

Be sure anti-retaliation policy covers whistleblowing activity.

Train supervisors regarding SOX whistleblower provisions and the impact on your company.

16

SOX WHISTLEBLOWERSLawson v. FMR LLC (Cont’d.)

(Decided March 4, 2014)

Encourage employees to raise concerns of suspected fraud, especially at public companies they serve.

Remember that employers face a higher standard of proof in defending SOX whistleblower claims— “clear and convincing” evidence that employee would have faced same action regardless of protected activity

17

FICA TAX ON SEVERANCE PAYU.S. Quality Stores, Inc.

(Decided March 25, 2014)

Severance pay = wages and is subject to FICA withholding tax.

Employers that have not withheld FICA on severance payments may need to file amended returns.

Open question: Whether supplemental unemployment benefits (paid via SUB plans) linked to receipt of state unemployment benefits are subject to FICA.

18

STILL PENDINGNLRB v. Noel Canning

Issue: validity of recess appointments of NLRB commissioners

Impacts lots of NLRB actions, which may have been taken without a quorum if the recess appointments are held to be invalid

19

FOURTH CIRCUIT DECISIONS

20

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE FOR EMPLOYERCrockett v. Mission Hosp., Inc.

(Decided May 30, 2013)

Upheld SJ for employer on sexual harassment claim

Keys: Sound anti-harassment policy and

complaint procedures Prompt investigation Plaintiff’s refusal to cooperate in

investigation established her unreasonable failure to avoid harm

21

NLRB NOTICE POSTING RULEChamber of Commerce of U.S. v. NLRB

(Decided June 14, 2013)

NLRB exceeded its authority by issuing rule requiring employers to post notice of employee’s NLRA rights

NLRB serves statutorily defined reactive roles—conducting representation elections and resolving ULP charges

NLRA does not grant NLRB authority to issue notice posting rule sua sponte

22

SPINNING WAL-MART v. DUKES?Scott et al. v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc.

(Decided October 16, 2013)

Wal-Mart v. Dukes: allegations regarding manager discretion over employee pay were insufficient to satisfy commonality requirement for class actions.

Allegations distinguishable from Dukes:

specific company-wide practices re: employee pay

discretionary authority exercised by high-level managers

23

SPINNING WAL-MART V. DUKES?Scott et al. v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc.

(Decided October 16, 2013)

Amendment was not futile--reversed district court’s denial of motion to amend

Vigorous dissent challenging majority’s interpretation of Dukes

Stay tuned--we haven’t seen the last of this case

24

TEMPORARY IMPAIRMENTS UNDER ADASummers v. Altarum Inst., Corp.

(Decided January 23, 2014)

Temporary impairment may be a covered disability under ADA Amendments Act.

Must be sufficiently severe to limit a major life activity

Makes no difference if impairment is due to temporary injury vs. permanent condition

Mitigating measures are irrelevant to determination of disability

25

TEMPORARY IMPAIRMENTS UNDER ADASummers v. Altarum Inst., Corp.

(Decided January 23, 2014)

Employers should: Make sure HR and supervisors

understand that temporary impairments can trigger protection.

If in doubt, err on side of assuming condition is a disability

Engage in interactive process to determine if reasonable accommodation is available without undue hardship

26

LIABILITY FOR 3RD PARTY HARASSMENTFreeman v. Dal-Tile Corp., et al.

(Decided April 29, 2014)

Claims for Title VII harassment by third parties are subject to same standard for employer liability as claims for coworker harassment.

Employer is liable if: Knew or should have known of

harassment, and Failed to take prompt remedial

action reasonably calculated to end the harassment

27

LIABILITY FOR 3RD PARTY HARASSMENTFreeman v. Dal-Tile Corp., et al.

(Decided April 29, 2014)

Supervisor failed to act, despite having witnessed 3rd party’s offending behavior and receiving complaints from plaintiff

After 3 years, plaintiff complained directly to HR, which investigated and barred communication with plaintiff by 3rd party harasser

Held: employer knew or should have known and failed to act promptly.

28

LIABILITY FOR 3RD PARTY HARASSMENTFreeman v. Dal-Tile Corp., et al.

(Decided April 29, 2014)

Per Vance v. Ball St. Univ., make clear who is a supervisor—may impact whether knowledge is imputed to employer

Train supervisors re: 3rd party liability and importance of promptly escalating complaints and observations

Employer’s response must be prompt and reasonably calculated to end the harassment

29

North Carolina State Court Decisions

30

BONUSES—NC WAGE & HOUR ACTMorris v. Scenera Research, LLC

(Decided August 20, 2013)

Jury’s award of bonus compensation turned on questions of when bonus was “earned” and whether bonuses were “calculable” at time of separation

No written agreement or bonus plan specifying: When bonus was earned Whether payment conditioned on

continued employment31

BONUSES—NC WAGE & HOUR ACTMorris v. Scenera Research, LLC

(Decided August 20, 2013)

Use written bonus and commission plans to clearly define terms and conditions

Give timely written notice of changes

Employer will bear the risk of ambiguities or lack or clearly written plans or agreements

32

CONTINUED ASSAULT ON NONCOMPETES

Two N.C. Ct. of Appeals cases deny enforcement of noncompetes due to scope of activity exceeding what was necessary to protect employer’s legitimate business interests.

CopyPro, Inc. v. Musgrove (Feb. 4, 2014)

Horner Intl. Co. v. McKoy (March 4, 2014)

33

CONTINUED ASSAULT ON NONCOMPETES

Court could have easily denied enforcement due to other factors—3 year term, no geographic limitation—yet chose to focus on scope of activity

Caution for employers!! Revisit your existing noncompetes to

reexamine them through the lens of these cases and amend as needed

Amendment may require new consideration

34

Legislative and RegulatoryActivity

35

NLRB THE CONTINUED QUEST FOR

RELEVANCE

Section 7 of the NLRA:

“other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.”

36

NLRB

Social Media Policies Confidential and Proprietary

Information

“At will” statements in handbooks Challenges to termination of

employment

37

EMPLOYER POLICIES HELD UNLAWFUL BY NLRB

Policy prohibiting gossip about company, employees and customers

Dress code prohibiting insignias or message clothing

Confidential information, defined to include “personal or financial” info or “any non-public” info

38

EMPLOYER POLICIES HELD UNLAWFUL BY NLRB

Policy prohibiting use of company logo on social media sites

“At will” clause in handbook that says at will relationship cannot be amended or modified

39

EMPLOYER POLICIES/ACTIONS UPHELD BY NLRB

Prohibition on recording conversations during working time

Prohibition of display of negative attitude toward customers and coworkers

Termination of employees for Facebook chatter suggesting they would ignore management’s directions and run teen center’s operations as they saw fit.

40

EMPLOYER POLICIES/ACTIONS UPHELD BY NLRB

Termination for Facebook comments of personal contempt for supervisor—not comments re: shared concerns re: terms and conditions

Statements limiting to certain officers the authority to modify “at will” relationship

Statements requiring modification of

“at will” relationship to be in writing41

NLRB

Fact specific/case-by-case Policy in question often not used as

basis for adverse action Use disclaimers emphasizing policy is

not intended to interfere with rights to engage in concerted activity

But—NLRB now says disclaimer in acknowledgment may not suffice. Instead, disclaimer may need to be proximate to the policy in question.

74

EEOC GUIDANCE ON ACCOMMODATION OF RELIGIOUS DRESS AND GROOMING

EEOC’s default position: absent other compelling circumstances, employers are expected to modify usual dress and grooming policies to accommodate religious beliefs.

Limited circumstances rise to undue hardship: main exception is workplace safety

Customer preference ≠ undue hardship

Image or brand ≠ undue hardship43

EEOC and FTC—BACKGROUND CHECKS

Joint guidance re: background checks

Two publications: one for employers, one for applicants and employees

Both agencies consider background checks affecting employment to be a priority

EEOC and FTC may share information

44

FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACTHome Care Services

DOL has finalized regs to apply FLSA to workers employed by businesses providing home care services

Exemption for certain companionship

services is limited to family members and similar caregivers

Due to take effect January 1, 2015.

45

FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACTPotential Changes Re: OT Exemptions

DOL to consider changing FLSA regs re: executive, administrative and professional overtime exemptions

Potential increase of current minimum salary level of $455/week

Potential changes to the duties test

Changes would have to be made via formal rulemaking process

46

47

Office Locations• Charleston, SC• Charlotte, NC• Columbia, SC• Raleigh, NC• Spartanburg, SC

Keith Weddington Direct Dial 704-335-9035 keithweddington@parkerpoe.com