A new state law imposing stringent notice requirements on Iowa employers engaging in business closings or mass layoffs goes into effect Thursday, July 1, 2010. Near the end of the 2010 session, the Iowa Legislature passed a state version of the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act. Often referred to as a “mini” WARN Act, the new state law actually imposes tougher requirements on employers than the federal law.

Under the federal WARN Act, employers with at least 100 employees are required to provide 60 days’ advance notice of a plant closing or mass layoff of 50 or more workers at a single site.

read more…

by Julie K. Athey

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has released a new “administrative interpretation” (AI) that clarifies the circumstances in which an employee may take leave to care for a child for whom they act as a parent but aren’t legally recognized as such. As has been pointed out in numerous press reports over the last couple of days, the ruling appears to grant expanded Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) rights to gay and lesbian employees.

Although initial reports made it seem that the administrative interpretation would allow employees to take leave to care for a same-sex partner, the actual ruling is far less dramatic. The DOL explains that its intent is to assist employees and employers in understanding “how the FMLA applies when there is no legal or biological parent-child relationship.” In short, it addresses much broader issues than the circumstances in which an employee may take leave to care for a same-sex partner’s child.

read more…

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) is expected to issue guidance on Wednesday that will grant expanded Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) rights to gay and lesbian employees. The development, however, may not be as dramatic as it sounds.

Initial overnight reports made it appear that the Obama administration was expanding the FMLA to allow employees to take leave to care for a same-sex partner. However, it appears that isn’t the case. Several new outlets are now reporting that the expansion will apply only to the limited situation when an employee requests leave in relation to the birth or adoption of a same-sex partner’s child.

read more…

Today, in a 5-4 opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court outlined a new rule that employers must consider in disputes over the validity of arbitration agreements. More specifically, the Court had to determine whether under the Federal Arbitration Act, an arbitrator or a court has the authority to determine whether an arbitration agreement is enforceable, and the Court’s answer was both, depending on the circumstances.

In this case, Rent-a-Center required Antonio Jackson to sign as a condition of his employment an arbitration agreement that prohibited him from pursuing employment claims in court. (They would instead be subject to arbitration.) Later, he filed an employment discrimination suit in district court again Rent-A-Center, and the company asked the court to dismiss the proceedings and compel arbitration. The district court did so, but the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed on the question of whether a court or an arbitrator had the authority to decide whether an arbitration agreement is enforceable.

read more…

This morning, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a surprising 5-4 decision holding that the previously short-staffed National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) acted without authority over the two years it had only two members. As a result, more than 500 opinions decided by that Board are now invalid and will need to be readdressed.

In addition to administering the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which regulates labor relations in the private sector, the NLRB regulates union elections and union-related conduct, develops labor policies for decisionmaking, and polices labor-management relations through the prosecution of unfair labor practice proceedings. By statute, the NLRB is designed to have five members and is usually balanced with two Democrats, two Republicans, and one Independent.

read more…

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a public employer did not violate an employee’s constitutional privacy rights by searching his personal (and often sexually explicit) text messages that were sent and received on his employer-issued pager.

The Backstory
The City of Ontario, California, issued pagers that could send and receive text messages to Ontario Police Department (OPD) SWAT Team members, including Jeff Quon. When the OPD was charged with overage text message fees, it looked at the transcripts of text messages sent during a two-month period by Quon and another employee who had exceeded the text allowance. Much to the OPD’s surprise, it discovered a plethora of messages on Quon’s pager that were not work-related, including some that were sexually explicit. The matter was referred to OPD’s internal affairs division, and Quon was allegedly disciplined.

read more…

Continuing the recently established practice of issuing broadly applicable “Administrator Interpretations” in lieu of wage and hour opinion letters, U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) Deputy Administrator Nancy Leppink has released the second Administrator Interpretation of 2010. The interpretation, issued June 16, clarifies the definition of “clothes” under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), addressing some inconsistency among prior opinion letters and case law on the topic of donning and doffing protective equipment.

Specifically, the FLSA provides that time spent “changing clothes” at the beginning of the workday isn’t considered compensable time; however, there had been a difference of opinion as to whether “clothes” also included mandatory protective equipment required in some industries — for example, meatpacking and processing. In Administrator’s Interpretation No. 2010-2, Deputy Administrator Leppink examined the FLSA’s statutory language and legislative history to determine that “clothes” refers to apparel, not to mandatory protective equipment such as face shields, sanitary and safety equipment, protective gloves, and arm and belly guards. That means employees who are required by safety laws to don and doff protective gear must be compensated for the time it takes to do so.

read more…

On June 14, the U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS), Labor, and Treasury issued new regulations addressing grandfathered plans under health care reform and how such plans can keep their grandfathered status. Although the new health care reform legislation (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010) requires health plans to provide new benefits, the legislation “grandfathers” plans that existed on March 23, 2010, by exempting them from certain new requirements.

According to a fact sheet released by the departments, the regulations clarify that grandfathered plans will be able to make certain routine changes to their plans without losing their grandfathered status. Such changes include: read more…

It appears the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has started to lay the groundwork for off-site Internet elections for employees to determine whether they wish to be represented by a union. The first sign of this development was a Request for Information (RFI) published by the NLRB on June 9, 2010.

In the RFI, the NLRB seeks proposals from the information technology industry regarding the establishment of “secure electronic voting services,” which it describes to include telephone, Web-based, and/or on-site electronic voting. Specifically, the Board says it is “seeking industry solutions regarding the capacity, availability, methodology and interest of industry sources for procuring and implementing secure electronic voting services both for remote and on-site elections.” It appears the Board is looking for information regarding the feasibility, secrecy, observability, accountability, and auditability of electronic elections before implementing any sort of rulemaking process.

read more…

Big changes are coming to E-Verify that will enhance its usability, security, accuracy, and efficiency. The newly redesigned E-Verify features a clean and modern design, easy and intuitive navigation, and clear and simple language. Additionally, a new home page, improved case management, and a streamlined tutorial are among the dozens of improvements coming to the online system.

E-Verify is a free online program that electronically verifies the employment eligibility of newly hired employees. It is jointly operated by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Social Security Administration (SSA) and is overseen by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).

read more…