E.E.O.C. Announces September 30, 2019, Deadline for 2018 EEO-1 Submissions Including Component 2 Data

Brief History

Annual EEO-1 survey data must be reported (a) by employers that are covered by Title VII and have more than 99 employees and (2) by federal contractors and their immediate subcontractors that are covered by E.O. 11246 and have more than 49 employees and a relevant contract of at least $50,000.

In 2016, the E.E.O.C. expanded the kinds of data that  should be reported in the EEO-1. The expanded data, “Component 2 data,” included compensation data analyzed by pay tier, category, age, race, sex, and ethnicity.  

In 2017, the O.M.B. revoked its Paperwork Reduction Act approval of the E.E.O.C.’s 2016 expansion of required EEO-1 data. The National Women’s Law Center and others challenged the validity of O.M.B.’s action. The court sided in part with the plaintiffs, and invalidated O.M.B.’s stay. E.E.O.C. suggested that employers and the agency itself might need substantial time to prepare their procedures to submit and to accept the Component 2 data. The Court required an accelerated response.

Recent Development

On April 3, E.E.O.C. filed its response to the Court’s efforts to move the process along more expeditiously. The Agency has rescheduled the EEO-1 submission deadline for 2018 data, including Component 2 data, to September 30, 2019.

The EEO-1 reporting portal is not yet capable of receiving the Component 2 data. Presumably, E.E.O.C. will issue instructions over the coming months, as the reporting enhancements come on line.

Court Vacates Wellness Program Incentives

A federal district court has vacated parts of the E.E.O.C.’s 2016 rules on employer wellness programs. Prior to the court’s action, wellness programs that were part of a group health plan and that included inquiries into an employee’s health or included medical examinations were permitted to offer discounts to the cost of self-only and spousal coverage. The court’s order vacates those incentive provisions. For detailed information, see the judge’s memorandum.

Note that wellness programs can lawfully report the employees’ health information only in an aggregated form that does not include personally identifiable information.

Revised F.M.L.A. Forms Now Available

The U.S. Department of Labor has revised its approved forms for various stages of the F.M.L.A. process. The new forms, which are valid for the next three years, can be found here.

Go Beyond Compliance To Minimize Claims

Joe Nierenberg recently presented at the 2017 Minnesota Society for Human Resource Professionals state conference. The title of the presentation was, “Two (Relatively) Simple Ways to Reduce Risk.” The slide deck is presented here. Speaker notes are provided for each slide that has a comment icon in the upper left corner; just hover your cursor over the icon. (Note that the comments layer may not be visible on mobile browsers.)

Although there are notes, this was an hour-long presentation, and the discussion and robust Q&A session were not recorded. If your organization would like to host or attend a presentation on this subject, please contact us.

Using the Uber Report
To Improve Your Organization

There is probably no plaque hanging in the headquarters of Uber Technologies Inc. with P.T. Barnum’s adage, “There’s no such thing as bad publicity.”  The upstart ride sharing service has come into its own share of disruption following allegations of law avoidance software, a culture of sexual harassment, wage-related lawsuits, and regulatory scrutiny of its core business model. Recent allegations about its frat-house culture resulted in its Board of Directors hiring former Attorney-General Eric Holder to engage in a sweeping review of its workplace culture and complaint-handling systems. 

The Uber Report

Holder’s full report is not publicly available as of this writing, but Uber has released a twelve page set of recommendations. Although they derive from interviews and focus groups with the company’s employees, the recommendations follow best practices for organizational effectiveness, respectful workplaces, and a diverse workforce.

Some of the recommendations refer to particular circumstances within Uber, but most of them are nevertheless applicable to all other organizations. Even those portions of the recommendations that are most specific to Uber, such as recommended changes to its senior leadership, include core principles that should be considered by other organizations, such as holding senior leaders accountable with “metrics that are tied to improving diversity, responsiveness to employee complaints, employee satisfaction, and compliance.”

In addition to the section on senior leadership, there are multipart sections on Board oversight, internal controls, review of cultural values, training, improvements to the HR and complaint-handling process, diversity and inclusivity enhancements, changes in employee policies and practices, review of employee retention factors, and review of compensation practices.

Using Their Recommendations as Your Checklist

These areas should be viewed as a checklist by other organizations: areas to review in a deliberative way to ensure regulatory compliance, market relevance, and employee engagement. Organizations, whether public or private, large or small, can achieve sharper focus and manage their employment-related risks by having organizational values that are consistent and modeled by leadership; holding persons accountable for achieving, or failing to achieve, value-based objectives; designing effective systems for reaching organizational goals, and supporting them with sufficient skills and resources; and developing practices that promote and fulfill a sense of fairness.

The Holder-Uber recommendations provide a window into some of the granular steps necessary to accomplish those goals. We recommend that executive leadership review the report and assess their organization’s related strengths and deficiencies.

We are here to assist the effort. We have engaged in workplace climate assessments and strategic discussions around the same issues addressed in the report. If you would like to discuss your options, please call or contact us.

Minneapolis Minimum Wage Ordinance-Update

Here is an update, current as of June 14, on the Minneapolis City Council’s movement toward an increase in the minimum wage for employees working within the city of Minneapolis (Council File Number: 17-00723).

  • A draft ordinance has been presented to the City Council (technically to the Committee of the Whole). The draft is available here.
  • A slide presentation on the proposed ordinance is available here. Note that the ordinance will cover employees who normally work within the City for at least two hours in a given workweek.
  • A public hearing will be held on Thursday, June 22, 2017, at 3:30pm. Comments can be submitted before that time by e-mail to this address.
  • The final draft ordinance will go before the Council’s Committee of the Whole on Wednesday, June 28, 2017, at 10:00am. The Council is expected to act on the matter on Friday, June 30, at it’s 9:30am meeting.

The City’s staff has prepared a report on the issues, which is available here. Among its many important points is a comparison of buying power. See paragraph a on page 21.

Note also that there has been no traction to date on changing the State’s law that bars tip credits toward the minimum wage. (For mid-priced restaurants, which present relatively affordable options served by employees who receive customer gratuities, the increase in minimum wage without a tip credit is likely to result in cuts to already slim profit margins, and/or increased wage disparities between customer-facing staff (front of house) and those supporting the efforts behind the scenes (back of house), and/or higher prices for consumers.)

Information on Minnesota’s current minimum wage laws can be found here, here, and here.

If you have questions concerning this or other employment-related laws, please call or contact us.

Court Enjoins New Overtime Rule

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on November 22 issued a nationwide injunction against the implementation of the U.S. Department of Labor’s Final Rule on, among other things, increasing the minimum salary threshold for an employee to be exempt from overtime. State of Nevada vs. U.S. Dept. of Labor. The Rule had been scheduled to become effective on December 1, 2016.

There remain several ways the saga might continue to unfold. The appellate court could stay the injunction pending resolution of an appeal. The appellate court could also keep the injunction in place while the appeal proceeds. As of this writing, the chances appear unscientifically to be about fifty-fifty. (The appellant would be the Secretary of Labor, but note that the next Secretary would not be obligated to continue an appeal begun by the current Secretary.)

If you have already restructured your compensation and/or staffing in order to comply with the new rule, you have the choice between retaining the new structure, which most organizations are likely to do, or reverting to the previous structure, which carries the risk that you will have to change once again if the injunction is stayed or the rule is reinstated after appeal.

The District Court’s reasoning for issuing the injunction is sound. The Court decided that the new rule had the effect of making an employee’s salary as important as their duties when determining whether the person should be exempt. Raising the importance of an employee’s salary to the level of their duties was contrary, the Court ruled, to the intent of Congress.

Still Using Old F.M.L.A. Forms?

Many employers covered by the federal Family and Medical Leave Act are still using forms from the U.S. Department of Labor that expired in 2012. Newer forms, which are good through May 31, 2018, are available from Labor’s web site.

There are several reasons to use the current forms. Perhaps the most important reason is that the current F.M.L.A.-related forms include “safe harbor” text to avoid inadvertently violating the Genetic Information Nondisclosure Act (“GINA”). That law prohibits an employer’s discriminating against an employee “because of genetic information with respect to the employee….” The safe harbor text, incorporated into the newer F.M.L.A. forms, precludes liability under GINA from an employer’s unintential receipt of an employee’s genetic information during the interactive process or other F.M.L.A.-related activities.

If you’re not already using the current Department of Labor forms or other forms revised to include the GINA safe harbor provided at 29 C.F.R. §1635.8(b)(1)(i)(B), it would be prudent to update soon.

Bargaining with Unions that Represent a Minority of Employees

Generally, a private-sector employer that is not in the construction industry has an obligation to bargain with a union only when that union represents a majority of employees in the relevant unit. Sometimes the union is recognized voluntarily by the employer; sometimes they are certified by the National Labor Relations Board (“N.L.R.B.”), a federal agency. Either way, that union becomes the “exclusive bargaining representative” for covered employees. Now, though, employers may soon receive demands to bargain with unions that do not represent a majority of employees.

In the recent case of Children’s Hosp. of Oakland, 364 N.L.R.B. No. 114 (2016), the National Labor Relations Board held that an employer was required “to  arbitrate pending grievances arising under an expired collective-bargaining agreement with the union that was party to that agreement, even if the union has been superseded by another union….” That part is important, but there was another piece of the case that may prove to be more difficult to implement.

In a concurrence, Member Hirozawa wrote with approval about a doctrine that many labor lawyers thought had been put to rest. He articulated the basis for an employer’s duty to bargain with a union on behalf of that union’s members, even if the union does not represent a majority of the unit employees. Noting that a covered employer’s statutory obligation to bargain is “subject to the provisions of” Section 9(a) of the National Labor Relations Act , he wrote, “I think it is also useful, however, to consider what the subject-to-Section-9(a) clause does not mean.  It does not mean that for an employer to have a duty to bargain with a union on behalf of its employees, the union must be a Section 9(a) exclusive representative.”

That non-exclusivity doctrine, which had been argued by, among others, Charles Morris, a well-respected author and law professor, appeared to have been struck down for good after the N.L.R.B.’s Office of General Counsel issued an “Advice Memorandum” ten years ago. Now, though, Member Hirozawa’s concurrence has breathed into it new life, and Prof. Morris, sensing that the doctrine might once again be stirring, has posted a comment on the topic.

What does it all mean? It means that employers may soon be receiving demands to bargain from unions which concede that they represent only a minority of employees. How to respond depends, as always, on an assessment of each employer’s values, situation, goals, and options.

Please let us know if you would like additional information or assistance.

Guidance on Implementing the New Overtime Salary Threshold

When a new development arises in employment or labor law, our clients often learn about it from their newsletter subscriptions. Then they come to us for guidance on implementation: the implications of various options, managing conflicts with other policies or procedures, harmonious drafting, etc. That pattern does not appear to be working for the recent change in federal overtime regulations.

While the newsletters did a good job of announcing the change, our clients and others have been left asking many questions. Fortunately, those questions have answers.

How Should the Rule Change Be Implemented?

One of the questions concerns the fundamental issue of how to implement the change for currently exempt employees whose compensation is below the new threshold. In Minnesota there are four ways to manage this, when increasing the worker’s salary to retain the exemption is not practical. Some states do not allow all of these options.

The simplest way is to compute the person’s average hourly wage based on their current schedule and compensation; work backward to determine what the hourly rate should be, given the specific frequency of overtime hours; pay them as nonexempt, including overtime at the 1.5 rate. This approach, which would work in most situations, entails the least disruption.

A second way is to continue paying them a fixed salary, which would compensate them for a workweek of fluctuating hours. This approach still requires that overtime be paid, but at the reduced rate of 0.5 their regular rate. Again, there should be a preliminary computation of the current average hourly rate, factor in the frequency of overtime, and calculate a new weekly salary. The regular rate in these cases must be recalculated weekly, and there are several preconditions necessary for this approach to be lawful.

The third approach is still to pay a fixed salary for a fluctuating workweek, but the salary includes all overtime (up to an aggregate of sixty hours worked per workweek). This third approach requires more preconditions in place than the second approach, and therefore applies to the fewest situations.

Finally, the only approach which does not involve overtime is to reduce the affected employee’s hours to forty per week, and to hire or assign a different person to work the balance of hours necessary to accomplish the job’s requirements. This approach is the most disruptive, because it reduces the affected employee’s compensation, inserts an additional person into the mix, and risks increasing the employer’s non-wage benefit costs.

Selecting which approach to use in restructuring an affected employee’s compensation depends on several factors, including the requirements of the specific jobs; the employer’s budget, in terms of both dollars and flexibility; the terms of any applicable contracts; retention issues; and the employer’s objectives. Implementing the first and fourth approaches may not require an attorney’s assistance. The second and third approaches should be undertaken only after consulting with a knowledgeable attorney or other specialist in wage and hour law.

What Effect Will the Rule Change Have On Labor Costs?

Another concern being voiced frequently is how to fit the rule change into an existing personnel cost structure. The budget is one of the drivers in selecting one of the four options above. If the appropriate preconditions exist, implementing the rule change could be cost-neutral; otherwise, there will be a change to the labor cost. Selecting an implementation option, therefore, involves understanding the alternatives, defining the relevant factors noted above, and ranking them.

How Can These Changes Be Communicated With Least Disruption?

Another question heard frequently is how to communicate these changes. The first step in addressing this issue is to determine whether the possible problem is one of prestige or money. Some employees may bristle at no longer being considered exempt. Most employees would bristle at a decrease in compensation, particularly if their overtime hours and associated wages will be given to a different person. Changes in label from exempt to nonexempt are easier to manage, although the emotional aspect of a classification change should not be underestimated. Communicating financial changes is more difficult. In those cases, it is often advisable to explain the problem with the affected employee and to solicit ideas; again, the emotional piece is important.

Additional issues are discussed in another article on this site. See “Trade Secrets, Overtime, and Other Priority Developments.”

Do you have questions or solutions not discussed above? We’re interested to hear them. You can add a Comment or send us an e-mail. And, of course, we’re available to answer questions and to assist with the transition.

Please read the Terms of use and legal notices for this blog.

Archives