Employment & Labor Blog

Discrimination

Do you know who your employees are? The NLRB clarifies its joint-employer standard

You probably think that your employees are limited to the people listed on your payroll. But under the joint-employer standard, one business’s employees can be imputed as another business’s employees for the purpose of employment laws and regulations. Earlier this week, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) announced its final rule for determining joint-employer status under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). The new rule provides welcome clarity for businesses involved with employees represented by labor unions. Under the NLRA, if two businesses are joint employers, both must bargain with the union representing the jointly-employed employees. They face joint liability for each other’s unfair labor practices as well as the threat of disruption from labor disputes. The NLRB’s new rule returns to the traditional standard for determining joint-employer status that guided the analysis for decades prior to the disruptive 2015 decision in Browning-Ferris. Browning-Ferris relaxed the standard for establishing a joint-employer relationship. Under Browning-Ferris, a business could become a joint-employer even if it did not exercise direct and immediate control over essential terms of employment. A joint-employer relationship could arise even if a business’s involvement with employment-related decisions was indirect, limited and routine, or contractually reserved but never exercised. The NLRB’s new rule provides that a joint employer must possess and actually exercise substantial direct and immediate control over essential terms and conditions of employment. Substantial direct and immediate control requires a regular or continuous consequential effect, as opposed to a sporadic, isolated, or de minimis effect. Essential terms and conditions of employment are: • Hiring • Firing • Discipline • Supervision • Direction • Wages • Benefits • Hours of work. The rule provides businesses with greater certainty in structuring their business relationships, particularly ones that utilize staffing agencies or other contract labor. It also provides unions with clarity about who they must negotiate with regarding the terms and conditions of their members’ employment. Employers should not assume, however, that a joint-employer relationship can never arise. Indirect control can still be a relevant factor in determining whether direct control is substantial, even if indirect control is insufficient by itself to establish a joint-employer relationship. Businesses must continue to exercise care and consult with their attorneys about how to avoid inadvertently establishing substantial direct control over others’ employees. By adopting the rule, the NLRB joins the Department of Labor who issued a similar rule earlier this year for determining joint-employer status under federal wage and hour laws. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commissions (“EEOC”) is also expected to follow suit later this year for determining joint-employer status under federal anti-discrimination laws.

Best Practices

Are you covered? Employment Practices Liability Insurance

Employment practices liability insurance (EPLI) is a popular product for employers of all sizes. Many companies obtain EPLI coverage by purchasing a package of insurance policies covering a variety of management risks, such as directors and officers liability, professional liability, and cyber security. Once the policies are in hand, reviewing your company’s voluminous insurance terms and conditions might not be at the top of your to-do list. It is important, however, to take the time to understand your EPLI coverage before you need it. Doing so will help avoid costly reporting mistakes and maximize your benefits. Here are some common questions and answers about EPLI coverage: What does EPLI typically cover? EPLI provides coverage for specified employment-related claims that are listed and defined in the policy. Covered types of claims usually include employment discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, wrongful termination, and workplace torts like defamation, invasion of privacy, and negligent employment. Coverage is usually also afforded to certain breach of contract claims. EPLI offers protection from both the risk of paying claims as well as the cost of defending them. As discussed below, your policy will either require the insurer to assume the defense of the claim by appointing counsel of its choice (a “duty to defend” policy), or to reimburse the expenses that you incur in defending the claim with counsel of your choice (a “defense expenses” policy). Your EPLI policy may provide coverage for amounts that you become legally obligated to pay as a result of a claim, such as compensatory damages, back pay, or front pay, but there are also amounts that are not covered. What does EPLI typically exclude? EPLI policies usually exclude coverage for risks covered by other types of insurance, such as directors and officers liability or unemployment insurance, as well as bodily injury and property damage covered under commercial general liability or workers’ compensation policies. EPLI policies also usually exclude coverage for intentional acts, labor disputes, and the cost of complying with injunctive relief. Most EPLI policies exclude coverage for wage and hour claims unless the insured purchases a separate endorsement (i.e., an amendment) that expands coverage to include them. Many EPLI policies will cover the defense of claims for breach of contract, wrongful termination, and loss of benefits, but they will often exclude coverage for amounts that you become legally obligated to pay as a result of such claims. An exception to this exclusion for breach of contract damages are amounts that you would be liable for even in the absence of the contract. In these circumstances, the insurer may agree to defend you subject to a reservation of rights to deny coverage for the claim, and as discussed below, this circumstance requires you to carefully consider your rights under the policy and the risks associated with the lawsuit in order to maximize your insurance benefits. What is “claims made” coverage? EPLI policies typically provide “claims made” coverage, which means that the claim must be made against you during the policy period in order to trigger coverage under the policy. This is different from general liability insurance, which is “occurrence” based, providing coverage so long as the damage occurred during the policy period even if a claim does not arise until later. Many EPLI policies that provide claims-made coverage also contain an important additional requirement: that the insured report the claim to the insurer as soon as practicable during the policy period or during a specified extended reporting period after the policy’s expiration. This requirement is often enforced by insurers and many courts if the late notice causes the insurer prejudice, so it is critical that you timely report claims. Insurers will deny coverage for costs incurred and settlements agreed to by the insured prior to receiving notice of the claim. What is the difference between the insurer’s defense and indemnity obligations? Liability insurance policies place two obligations on the insurer: the duty to defend (or alternatively, to reimburse defense expenses) and the duty to indemnify. The former is triggered if the claim merely alleges any facts regardless of merit that are “arguably” within the scope of the policy’s coverage, while the latter is triggered only if the actual facts ultimately establish coverage. This means that an insurer may be obligated at the outset to defend you from claims even if it may not ultimately be obligated to pay any judgments or damages resulting from them. In such cases, the insurer will typically issue a “reservation of rights” letter, agreeing to provide you with a defense, but reserving the right to withdraw from it and deny coverage for any resulting judgments or damages if the facts ultimately do not establish coverage. This is particularly common under EPLI where employees allege many facts, plead alternative causes of action, and request a variety of forms of relief. A duty to defend is triggered if at least one claim is arguably covered under the EPLI policy, but its many exclusions, such as those for intentional acts, loss of benefits, breach of contract, wrongful termination, and injunctive relief, may ultimately eliminate the insurer’s obligation to indemnify you from any resulting judgments or damages. If you are receiving a defense subject to a reservation of rights, it is important to consult with independent counsel about your policy’s coverage because it may affect your litigation and settlement strategies. An insurer’s reservation can also, at times, entitle them to seek to recoup defense costs paid if the policy holder does not properly respond. You should not assume that your insurer-appointed defense counsel will be willing, interested, or capable of providing you with objective advice about your policy’s coverage. An insurer providing a defense subject to a reservation of rights may have interests that do not align with yours and this could affect how it controls the defense, its willingness to contribute to a settlement, and its expectation that you will do so as well. Am I covered? Unlike commercial general liability policies, there is very little uniformity among EPLI policies, meaning that the terms and conditions of each policy often vary from insurer to insurer. Endorsements to the policy may add, remove, or modify the scope of EPLI coverage. EPLI policies often have claim-specific limits, which is particularly common for wage and hour claims, and the limits may or may not be eroded by defense expenses. Depending on your particular business, it is important to consider who qualifies as an “insured” and an “employee,” whether the EPLI policy provides coverage for claims made by third-parties, whether exclusions for “intentional acts” apply before a judicial finding is made, and how your EPLI coverage works with other insurance that may be available to you. You can contact us if you have more questions about your EPLI coverage. We are experienced in assisting our clients with choosing the right EPLI coverage options, explaining the scope of coverage afforded by their EPLI policies, reporting claims to insurers, and evaluating your options if your insurer is providing a defense subject to a reservation of rights or has denied coverage for your claim.

Proving Sexual Harassment May Become Much Easier

The Minnesota legislature has once again taken up proposed legislation that would add language to the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) eliminating the U.S. Supreme Court’s standard for actionable sexual harassment, which requires it to be “severe or pervasive.” House File No. 10 and its companion Senate File No. 1307 propose adding the following sentence to Minn. Stat. § 363A.03 subdiv. 43, “An intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment . . . does not require the harassing conduct or communication to be severe or pervasive.” The MHRA establishes important standards for Minnesota workplaces that protect employees’ civil rights. The trend towards a heightened awareness of inappropriate sexual behavior is improving the workplace and there is more training, policy implementation, and other work that can be done. Advocates of a different standard for evaluating whether offensive conduct is actionable as sexual harassment point to several cases where courts have summarily denied claims notwithstanding facts that many of us would consider extreme. On the other hand, there are also types of behavior that, while certainly inappropriate and condemnable, might not warrant a lawsuit, such as tactless jokes, off-color remarks, and ignorant stereotypes. Isolated instances of these types of conduct may be worthy of counseling, reprimand, reassignment, and even termination long before they reach the level of actionable sexual harassment. Courts are tasked within drawing these difficult lines every day and there is a developed body of case law interpreting and applying the “severe or pervasive” standard to that end. Regardless of how courts are applying the standard, the proposed legislation would not provide an acceptable solution because it eliminates the standard without replacing it with a different one. The resulting lack of clarity will guarantee only one thing: a flood of expensive litigation and a judiciary who is in a worse position to sort out the meritorious claims. The proposed legislation will also fail to measurably improve workplace civility, with courts and employers likely to continue their existing practices in the absence of alternative legal guidance. Simply eliminating the current standard and then expecting the enterprising and aggressive plaintiffs bar to police the workplace is an expensive and inefficient path to social change. The better solution is more thoughtful and carefully drafted legislation. The legal universe is full of different standards and safeguards that could be codified. Before Minnesota embarks on a journey to change the standard for sexual harassment, the legislature should first define the destination, and the proposed legislation fails to do that. Minnesota would be the first state in the country to adopt legislation like House File No. 10 and Senate File No. 1307. The same proposal failed in the Minnesota legislature last year. This year, the House Judiciary Committee unanimously approved House File No. 10 in early February, sending it to an upcoming vote on the House floor. Senate File No. 1307 has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, with its first deadline on March 15th. The committees should keep working on this legislation, because it is still not ready for serious debate.

General Matters

Another Sick and Safe Leave Ordinance- Duluth’s Entry into the Field

  Earlier this year, Duluth passed its Earned Sick and Safe Time Ordinance, joining Minneapolis and St. Paul in requiring employers to provide their employees with paid sick and safe time leave, which the employees accrue over time and carry forward from year-to-year. Duluth’s ordinance goes into effect on January 1, 2020. Well before then, Duluth employers will need to understand the ordinance’s requirements and develop written policies implementing them for inclusion in their employee handbooks. To Which Employers Does the Ordinance Apply? The ordinance applies to all employers with five or more employees, defined as including any person who: “[P]erforms work within the geographic boundaries of the city [of Duluth] for more than 50 percent of the employee’s working time in a 12 month period,” or “[I]s based in the city of Duluth and spends a substantial part of his or her time working in the city and does not spend more than 50 percent of their work time in a 12 month period in any other particular place.” Technically this means that the ordinance applies to employers located outside Duluth’s boundaries who have a sufficient number of employees working within Duluth’s boundaries. However, a decision earlier this year by the Hennepin County District Court held that Minneapolis’s ordinance was limited to employers located within Minneapolis’s boundaries, and this decision could provide guidance for similarly limiting the territoriality of Duluth’s ordinance in the future. Like the Minneapolis and St. Paul ordinances, Duluth’s ordinance does not apply to construction industry employees who are paid the prevailing wage rate. What is the Rate of Accrual? Under the ordinance employers must provide their employees with paid sick and safe time earned at a rate of one hour per 50 hours worked, for a maximum of 64 hours earned per year, and allow them to carry forward at least 40 hours from year-to-year. Employees begin accruing sick and safe time on their first day of employment, or once the ordinance goes into effect for existing employees, and after 90-days of employment they may use up to 40 hours of sick and safe time per year. Alternatively, employers can satisfy the ordinance by providing their employees with 40 hours of sick and safe time up-front after 90-days of employment, and an additional 40 hours of sick and safe time up-front at the beginning of each subsequent year. Employers do not need to pay out accrued sick and safe time upon their employees’ separation. Of course, nothing in the ordinance prohibits employers from providing more generous benefits to their employees, and if an employer chooses to provide its employees with paid vacation or paid time off, such benefits may already satisfy the ordinance’s requirements. For What Purposes Can Employees Use Their Accrued Sick and Safe Time? Employers must allow their employees to use their sick and safe time for absences resulting from the effects, treatment, care, prevention, or diagnosis of mental or physical illness, injury, or health conditions, as well as domestic abuse, sexual assault, or stalking, and for the care of family members suffering from the same conditions. Employers may require employees to comply with their customary notice and procedural requirements for absences and requesting sick and safe time so long as they do not interfere with the purposes for which the employees need the leave. For absences of more than three days, employers may require reasonable documentation to establish that the sick and safe leave is for a covered purpose. Employers Must Track Employee Accrual and Use of Sick and Safe Time The ordinance requires employers to track their employees’ sick and safe time balances and provide them their earned and used sick leave balances upon request. The ordinance further requires employers to provide employees with notice of their right to paid sick and safe leave. Although the ordinance does not specify whether this notice must be posted on employers’ premises, or set forth in their employee handbooks, we recommend that at a minimum employers prepare written policies implementing the ordinance’s requirements and include the policies in their employee handbooks.

Do You Know Enough About Drug Testing to Test Your Employees?

Navigating the Minnesota Drug and Alcohol Testing in the Workplace Act (MDATWA) can be a complicated task for employers who want to maintain a drug-free workplace. This is especially true for those operating in safety-sensitive industries like transportation, where such testing is often mandated by state and federal regulations. In light of the country’s continuing opioid crisis and trend towards marijuana de-criminalization and legalization for medical use, employers are asking more questions than ever about their drug testing policies. Unfortunately for employees doing business in Minnesota, the MDATWA is one of the country’s more onerous drug testing laws. About the Law The MDATWA governs when and how employers can administer drug tests to both job applicants and current employees. The law has three major components in addition to a host of other reliability, fairness, and privacy safeguards. First, an employer must have a written drug testing policy with specified contents and notice. Second, an employer may only administer drug tests in five categories under specified circumstances: job applicant testing, routine physical examination testing, random testing, reasonable suspicion testing, and treatment program testing. Third, an employer may not discipline or discharge an employee for a positive test result unless it first provides an opportunity to complete a rehabilitation program. Most claims arise under the MDATWA when an employer runs afoul of one or more of the above three areas. For example, many employers draft excellent drug testing policies, only to forget that they must provide repeated written notice of the policy to employees and job applicants before testing, upon hire, and during transfer from unaffected positions, as well as by posting notice on their premises, and making copies available for inspection. Furthermore, the circumstances under which employers may administer drug tests are quite limited, including the timing, frequency, and grounds for cause. Finally, some employers rush to action upon receipt of a positive result, either without understanding their own right to control the terms of the required rehabilitation opportunity, or without sufficient employee interaction about the terms. MDATWA and Marijuana Recently, many employers have been asking questions about the relationship of the MDATWA with Minnesota’s Medical Cannabis Therapeutic Research Act (MCTRA), which allows qualifying patients to use and possess marijuana for medical purposes. The MCTRA contains a provision expressly prohibiting an employer from discriminating against a qualifying patient based on a positive drug test result, unless the failure to do so would otherwise violate federal law. Following a positive result, the MDATWA requires employers to provide job applicants and employees with written notice of their right to explain the result. The MCTRA, in turn, provides that an employee may present verification of their status as a qualifying patient as a satisfactory explanation of the positive result. The MDATWA can be a minefield for employers. Violations permit employees to recover damages for lost wages, reinstatement, emotional distress, and punitive damages, as well as attorneys’ fees for intentional violations. From drafting a compliant drug testing policy, to administering drug tests, and implementing rehabilitation programs, employers should consult with their attorneys about their drug testing practices to minimize their exposure to claims under the MDATWA.