A Hostile Regulatory Environment: l i d i idDOL Regulations and Interpretive Guidance,
2010‐2011
Brought to you by Winston & Strawn’s
Labor and Employment Relations Practice Group.
© 2011 Winston & Strawn LLP 2
Today’s eLunch PresentersToday s eLunch Presenters
Gregory JacobLabor and Employment Relations
Washington, D.C.
gjacob@winston [email protected]
© 2011 Winston & Strawn LLP 3
Key DOL LeadershipKey DOL Leadership
Secretary of LaborSecretary of LaborHilda Solis
D t S tDeputy SecretarySeth Harris
Solicitor of LaborPatricia Smith
Wage and Hour Administrator Lorelei Boylan (withdrawn)
Assistant Secretary for OSHA David Michaels
Assistant Secretary for Employee Benefits
Security Administration
Deputy Assistant Secretary for OFCCP
Patricia Shiu
© 2011 Winston & Strawn LLP 5
Security AdministrationPhyllis Borzi
Patricia Shiu
DOL’s Policy OrientationDOLs Policy Orientation
“[T]here is a new sheriff in town.” —Sec. Solis[ ] ff
Stepped‐up enforcement
Less emphasis on compliance assistance
Very aggressive from the top down in pushing legal interpretation and authority
Withdrawal of and overruling of many wage & hour opinion letters Withdrawal of and overruling of many wage & hour opinion letters
Regulatory attempts that have been struck down or have had to be withdrawn
il d d i h d d f i d l b Tilted toward meeting the demands of organized labor
© 2011 Winston & Strawn LLP 6
Overtime Exemptions: The Power of DOL Guidance DOL efforts account for less than 10% of total wage & hour enforcement,
but DOL has tremendous power to influence federal courts on exemption issues
Courts will defer to DOL positions even when newly announced in amicus briefs (See Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997))
DOL has even succeeded in reversing the decision of a federal Court of Appeals based on a guidance memorandum it issued after the court’s decision (See Long Island Care at Home Ltd v Coke 551 U S 158 (2007))decision (See Long Island Care at Home, Ltd. v. Coke, 551 U.S. 158 (2007))
Where the fact pattern is within the four corners of an opinion letter, “good faith reliance” protection may apply
Otherwise DOL can retroactively change the rules simply by issuing new Otherwise, DOL can retroactively change the rules simply by issuing new interpretive guidance
But in a mortgage loan officer case, DOL recently disclaimed retroactive application where they explicitly overrule a previous position
© 2011 Winston & Strawn LLP 8
application where they explicitly overrule a previous position
Overtime ExemptionsOvertime Exemptions
DOL has been taking much narrower positions on: Administrative exemption
Outside sales exemption
DOL’s recent Second Circuit amicus brief in Novartis opined that ppharmaceutical sales reps are non‐exempt:
Not outside sales because no good or service is actually sold
Not administratively exempt because specific instructions were provided for y p p peach aspect of the job, and the “nature and level” of decisions was too low to qualify as “matters of significance”
But note that deference to DOL on this particular issue was rejected by the Ninth Circuit in Christopher v. Smithkline:
History of non‐enforcement by DOL on pharma sales reps
DOL’s regulation merely parroted the statutory language, such thatl l l f d f l d h
© 2011 Winston & Strawn LLP 9
a lower level of deference applied to the interpretation
Overtime Exemptions (continued)Overtime Exemptions (continued)
“Administrator’s Interpretations” have replaced Administrator s Interpretations have replaced opinion letters as the primary vehicle for guidance
Administrator’s Interpretation 2010‐1: Mortgage p g gloan officers “typically” not administratively exempt
Primary duty (looking at description, qualifications, training, and t th d) i l A k l i d dipayment method) is sales. Any work analyzing and recommending
options in light of customer needs is merely incidental to the sale.
Resurrects production vs. administrative dichotomy.
States that perform work that aids the general business operations of a customer can still qualify for the administrative exemption, but only if the customer is a company. Work performed to aid the personal interests of individual customers cannot qualify as administrative
© 2011 Winston & Strawn LLP 10
interests of individual customers cannot qualify as administrative.
FMLA Leave & Nursing BreaksFMLA Leave & Nursing Breaks
Administrator’s Interpretation 2010‐3: FMLA Leave is pavailable for non‐biological children of domestic partners
DOL notes that the current regulations allow “in loco parentis” FMLA coveragecoverage
To squeeze in domestic partners in, DOL sweepingly interprets “in loco parentis” to include anyone who provides day‐to‐day care or financial support with the intention of assuming parentalfinancial support with the intention of assuming parental responsibilities
Nursing mother breaks under PPACAh f b k f “ bl ” “ Fact sheet requires provision of breaks of a “reasonable time,” “as
frequently as needed,” in a place other than a bathroom
Departing from the normal rule, nursing breaks are expressly made bl f h h
© 2011 Winston & Strawn LLP 11
non‐compensable even if shorter than 20 minutes
Technology & Off‐the‐Clock IssuesTechnology & Off the Clock Issues
DOL and plaintiffs’ attorneys are beginning to focus on p y g gcompensation issues created by advancing technology:
Computer log‐in
Blackberries and home e mail Blackberries and home e‐mail
Associated commuting and travel issues
The core set of issues to be considered: Has the employer suffered or permitted the employee to work
beyond scheduled work hours?
How does the concept of the continuous workday apply?p y pp y
Does the “de minimis” doctrine apply?
Did the employer have no means of knowing that the employee was performing uncompensated work?
© 2011 Winston & Strawn LLP 12
performing uncompensated work?
Technology ChecklistTechnology Checklist
Are any of your non‐exempt employees required to wait at the beginning of their shifts for a computer or other similar device to “boot up” so that they can perform their job duties?
If so, this is almost certainly compensable time!, y p
The clock generally starts the moment the employee turns the computer or other similar device on.
However, once the employee is on the clock, the employer is entitled to control what the employee does with his or her time. Generally, it is a good practice for employers to minimize waiting time as much as possible, and to attempt to fill the waiting time with other productive work.
T i i i d ti iti ti l h f d it To minimize unproductive waiting time, some employers have found it efficient to assign one employee to turn on many computers each day.
© 2011 Winston & Strawn LLP 14
Technology Checklist (continued)Technology Checklist (continued)
Do any of your non‐exempt employees have access to:y y p p y BlackBerries or Personal Data Assistants?
Take‐home laptops?
Remote e mail? Remote e‐mail?
Cell phones?
If you answered “yes” to any of the above, giving the non‐exempt employees access to such technology outside their normal working hours implies they are expected to use that technology at some point for the employer’s benefittechnology at some point for the employer s benefit.
Proceed to the next step.
© 2011 Winston & Strawn LLP 15
Technology Checklist (continued)Technology Checklist (continued)
Are either of the following remedial measures Are either of the following remedial measures feasible? Stop providing access to such technology to non‐exempt employees.
Require non‐exempt employees to pick up the remote work devices at the beginning of each shift and turn them in atdevices at the beginning of each shift, and turn them in at the end of each shift.
If not, proceed to the next step.
© 2011 Winston & Strawn LLP 16
Technology Checklist (continued)Technology Checklist (continued)
Establish a clear, written remote work policy!, p y Have employees record all work‐related time spent using remote
work devices, and compensate them for all of that time.
There are a few options: There are a few options: Establish a daily or weekly de minimis threshold for remote work, and
require employees to record their time whenever it is exceeded. (See ERLJ article for the risk associated with various thresholds )ERLJ article for the risk associated with various thresholds.)
Require employees to secure advance supervisory approval for all remote work. Make it clear that all such work will be paid for, with or without pre approval but that failure to secure pre approval will bewithout pre‐approval, but that failure to secure pre‐approval will be treated as a disciplinary issue.
© 2011 Winston & Strawn LLP 17
Independent ContractorsIndependent Contractors
There are no federal wage and hour regulations in this area (yet), but DOLhas initiated a major enforcement initiative in conjunction with the IRS
Misclassification of employees as independent contractors is not itself an FLSA violation, but DOL is looking for ancillary opportunities to weigh in
Consequences can be significant:
Overtime and recordkeeping violations, liability for failure to include in benefit plans, tax liability, unemploymentp , y, p y
Every agency and every state uses a different multi‐factor test, but FLSA“economic realities” test is broadest
Some key factors: Right to control manner and means or Some key factors: Right to control manner and means or performance, personal investment in equipment, other clients?, is work part of employer’s core business?, previous employee?, length of employment, right to terminate at will, basis of payment (per job?)
© 2011 Winston & Strawn LLP 18
p y , g , p y (p j )
Unpaid InternsUnpaid Interns
According to DOL, unpaid interns are not employees (and g , p p y (thus don't have to be paid) if all six apply:
Internship provides training similar to vocational school;
The training is for the benefit of the student; The training is for the benefit of the student;
The interns do not displace regular employees, but rather work under the supervision of employees;
The employer derives no immediate advantage from intern work;p y g ;
The interns are not guaranteed a job; and
There is a mutual understanding that no wages will be paid.
Courts typically apply a more lenient “economic reality” test Courts typically apply a more lenient economic reality test that balances intern and employer benefits.
Key: Set up hallmarks of a real educational program!
© 2011 Winston & Strawn LLP 19
Proposed Plan/Prevent/Protect RegsProposed Plan/Prevent/Protect Regs
“Employers and others must ‘find and fix’ violations — that is, p y f f ,assure compliance — before a Labor Department investigator
arrives at the workplace. Employers and others in the Department’s regulated communities must understand thatDepartment s regulated communities must understand that the burden is on them to obey the law, not on the Labor
Department to catch them violating the law. This is the heart of the Labor Department's new strategy. We are going to replace ‘catch me if you can’ with ‘Plan/Prevent/Protect.’”
– DOL Spring 2010DOL, Spring 2010
© 2011 Winston & Strawn LLP 20
Proposed Plan/Prevent/Protect RegsProposed Plan/Prevent/Protect Regs
NPRM is currently planned for spring 2011, but will likely slipy p p g , y p
The proposed rule is expected to require employers to document and justify in writing the classification of:
All employees considered to be exempt from overtime
All workers considered to be independent contractors
The proposed rule is further expected to require employers to p p p q p yfurnish these documents to employees: A roadmap for the plaintiffs’ bar!
C b i di id l l h d Comments by individual employers on the tremendous burdens that would be imposed by this rule will be essential to efforts to challenge the rule in court
© 2011 Winston & Strawn LLP 21
OFCCP’s New Focus on Compensation Discrimination
Approximately one‐third of OFCCP’s enforcement personnel ll b d dwill now be devoted to compensation cases
Compensation cases are much more subjective than hiring cases, because “similarly situated employee groupings”
i j d t llrequire judgment calls OFCCP will be revoking the 2007 Compensation Standards in
order to limit employer defenses, with no plans to replace themthem
Subjectivity is worst in the early stages of investigations, when OFCCP may apply pay grade or cohort analyses to determine potential liabilitypotential liability
Individual OFCCP auditors thus have a tremendous amount of discretion in seeking conciliation!
© 2011 Winston & Strawn LLP 23
OFCCP’s New Focus on Compensation Discrimination (continued)
OFCCP has hired significant numbers of additional OFCCP has hired significant numbers of additional investigators: audits are coming!
The keys to limiting exposure:y g p Do a self‐audit, document it, and document the steps you took in response to it
Put your own similarly situated employee groupings together, collect data according to your SSEGs, and then submit the data to OFCCP in your format
Establish record‐keeping practices that clearly document all legitimate factors that explain pay disparities, such as work experience
© 2011 Winston & Strawn LLP 24
experience
Veteran Hiring GoalsVeteran Hiring Goals
OFCCP published an NPRM on April 26, 2011. OFCCP published an NPRM on April 26, 2011. Comments are due by June 25, 2011.
The rule would: Require contractors for the first time to establish “hiring benchmarks”
to measure their progress in hiring veterans
Contractors would be required to consult BLS data on veterans, state Contractors would be required to consult BLS data on veterans, state employment service data on veterans, and other information sources in establishing benchmarks
Require contractors to engage in at least three specified types of equ e co t acto s to e gage at east t ee spec ed types oveteran outreach and recruitment efforts each year
Require that all applicants be invited to self‐identify as a “protected veteran” before they are offered a job
© 2011 Winston & Strawn LLP 25
y j
Disability Hiring GoalsDisability Hiring Goals
OFCCP issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking on p p gestablishing additional Affirmative Action Plan requirements for employees with disabilities
127 t i d tl f d l 127 comments received, mostly from concerned employers
Unclear as yet what the substance of an NPRM will look like –but most likely:y
Additional recruiting requirements will be imposed
Additional information collection requirements will be imposed
E l ill b i d t t bli h “ l ” f hi i f Employers will be required to establish “goals” for hiring of persons with disabilities
© 2011 Winston & Strawn LLP 26
Contact InformationContact Information
Gregory Jacobg yLabor and Employment Relations
Washington, D.C.(202) 282-5769
© 2011 Winston & Strawn LLP 30