Monthly Archives: June 2015

DOL Announces New Proposed Minimum Salary for Overtime Exemptions

600px-US-DeptOfLabor-Seal_svgThis morning the Department of Labor announced that it is seeking to increase the number of employees eligible for overtime pay by increasing the minimum salary required if an employee is to be considered exempt under the administrative, executive and professional exemptions.  The proposed increase would take the minimum annualized salary from $23,660 to $50,440.  In addition, under the proposed rule the threshold for the FLSA’s Highly Compensated Employee exemption would rise from $100,000 to $122,148.  Both the minimum salary and the Highly Compensated Employee threshold would be indexed for inflation. The DOL also suggested that it may seek other changes to limit the available overtime exemptions.  If this change becomes a final rule, we would expect it to become effective in 2016.

Note that even if employees meet the higher minimum salary requirement, they still must meet the other requirements for exempt status — being paid on a salary basis and satisfying one of the duties tests — to qualify as exempt from overtime requirements.

No action is necessary at the moment as the proposed rule is not final.  We will keep you updated on future developments.

Advertisements

What Does The Supreme Court’s Same-Sex Marriage Ruling Mean For You?

On June 26th, in a ground-breGay_flag_svgaking decision, the Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. Full text of the Court’s decision in Obergefell, et al. v. Hodges, et al. can be found here.

But beyond the general public response, employers need to consider how the ruling will impact employment policies and practices — especially in states that previously have not recognized same-sex marriages.  Following are some of the areas where employers might see Obergefell’s impact:

Employee Benefit Plans

If you offer any employee benefit plans through a separate insurance company, all “spousal” benefits must now be extended equally to same-sex spouses as they are to opposite-sex spouses. You may not be under the same restraints if you are self-insured, but if you deny benefits to same-sex spouses in this instance, you run a high risk of discrimination lawsuits.

It’s a good time to review your employee benefit plans and the costs associated with these plans. You should anticipate that the Court’s ruling may add some new couples — and associated costs — to your plans, especially if you did not previously offer benefits to domestic partners or same-sex spouses.

Equal Employment Opportunity

Marital status is a protected class under many state and local laws. These laws now protect all married people, including those in same-sex marriages.

Family and Medical Leave Act

As we discussed in a previous post, the FMLA has recently been amended to include same-sex spouses in the definition of “spouse.” Given the heightened publicity of the Court’s ruling, be sure to review your FMLA policies and practices to ensure that same-sex spouses are included.

Additional Policies and Practices

We recommend reviewing your employee handbook and any other employment policies to make sure that the policies as written – and in practice – apply equally to employees in same-sex marriages or rely on a qualification other than marriage.

Supreme Court Speaks on Religious Accommodation

supreme court sealYesterday, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., ruling in favor of a Muslim woman who claimed that she was denied employment at an Abercrombie & Fitch (A&F) store because she wore a headscarf.  With this decision, the Supreme Court sent a clear message: an employer may not make a hiring decision based on an applicant’s need for a religious accommodation, regardless of whether the employer had actual knowledge of such a need.

Samantha Elauf (Elauf) is a practicing Muslim who wears a headscarf for religious reasons. Elauf claims that she applied for a job at an A&F store and that, although she was otherwise qualified to be hired, she was ultimately denied employment because her headscarf would violate A&F’s “Look Policy.” The Look Policy prohibits “caps” because they are too informal for A&F’s desired image. Elauf never identified her headscarf as religious to anyone at A&F, nor did she ever communicate a need for any religious accommodation.  The EEOC sued A&F on Elauf’s behalf, claiming that A&F’s refusal to hire her violated Title VII.  In response, A&F argued that it could not be found to have discriminated against Elauf by failing to priovide a religious accommodation unless it had “actual knowledge” of Elauf’s need for a religious accommodation.  The district court disagreed with A&F’s argument and held in favor of Elauf the EEOC.  However, the Tenth Circuit reversed, agreeing with the “actual knowledge” standard put forth by A&F.

The Supreme Court reversed the Tenth Circuit and remanded the case for further consideration, holding that, under Title VII, an applicant only needs to show that her need for an accommodation was a “motivating factor” in the employer’s decision — she need not show that the employer had actual knowledge of the need for an accommodation. In other words, an “employer may not make an applicant’s religious practice, confirmed or otherwise, a factor in employment decisions” [emphasis added]. The Court gave as an example a situation where an employer thinks (but doesn’t know for sure) that a job applicant may be an orthodox Jew who will observe the Sabbath and thus unable to work on Saturdays. If the applicant actually does require accommodation of that religious practice and the employer’s wish to avoid the accommodation is a motivating factor in its decision to not hire the applicant, the employer violates Title VII. The Court was clear in its decision that its ruling only applies to accommodation under Title VII, and not to accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which follows a different framework.

The take away here?  Employers need to avoid basing employment decisions on any protected characteristic — whether confirmed or suspected. Although this case centered on a hiring decision and the anticipated need for an accommodation, it should apply equally to other terms and conditions of employment.

We recommend that managers, supervisors and those involved in the hiring process be trained on the legal requirements surrounding equal employment opportunity and on how to appropriately respond to requests for  — or other information suggesting that there is a need for — an accommodation.

Full text of the EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. decision can be found at:  http://www.supremecourt.gov/