The appeal regarding the validity of the federal overtime rule will not be fully briefed until May 1, 2017, according to an order issued by the Fifth Circuit on February 22, 2017, granting an unopposed request by the Department of Justice for an extension.
When the Department of Labor first appealed the nationwide injunction issued by a Texas district court blocking the federal overtime regulation, it requested the Fifth Circuit to expedite the appeal. But that was before the election. Since the election, the Department of Justice (representing the DOL) has requested just the opposite. In January 2017, the DOJ asked for an additional 30 days, until March 2, 2017, to submit its final brief in support of the appeal. And on February 17, 2017, the DOJ asked for an additional 60 days, until May 1, 2017, to submit its final brief. In a short unopposed motion, the DOJ requested the additional time “to allow incoming leadership personnel adequate time to consider the issues.”
The request may have resulted from the withdrawal of Andrew Puzder from consideration as Secretary of Labor. The additional time will presumably allow Alexander Acosta, the current nominee for Secretary of Labor, to assess the government’s position on the appeal, if confirmed.
Meanwhile, back at the district court, a motion by the Texas AFL-CIO to intervene in the action is still pending, as is the motion for summary judgment filed in the case brought by various business groups, which was fully briefed on November 21, 2016, and which the State Plaintiffs moved to join. The district court subsequently denied a motion to stay proceedings pending the appeal on January 3, 2017. It is possible, therefore, the district court could issue a ruling on the summary judgment before the appeal is decided.
On January 23, 2017, Philadelphia Mayor Kenney signed the Wage History Ordinance into law, making Philadelphia the first major U.S. city to make it illegal for employers to inquire about a potential employee’s salary history. Employers have 120 days to comply as the bill will be effective as of May 23, 2017. As discussed here, the Philadelphia City Council passed the bill in December 2016, however, the City’s Law Department has spent the interim period analyzing concerns about the applicability and effect of the bill raised by both Philadelphia businesses and the City’s chamber of commerce. Despite challenges from the business community about the legality of the bill and potential First Amendment violations, Mayor Kenney, upon signing, conveyed his confidence in the City’s ability to defeat any challenges to the law and noted that the Philadelphia City Council passed it by unanimous vote.
In October 2015, New York amended its equal pay law making it unlawful for an employer to prohibit employees from inquiring about, discussing, or disclosing their wages or the wages of other employees. N.Y. Lab. Law § 194(4). The law reflects the belief that if employees can openly discuss their wages (including knowledge regarding the wages of co-workers performing similar work), the equal pay law would be more fully implemented. “Policies adopted by employers that discourage or prohibit employees from sharing information about their earnings can contribute to unjust wage disparities going undetected,” according to the memorandum submitted in support of the law.
But not every employee wants his or her wages discussed among co-workers. The law recognizes this, and permits employers to establish a written policy to set “reasonable workplace and workday limitations on the time, place and manner for inquiries,” including limitations on the ability of an employee from discussing or disclosing the wages of other employees without their “prior permission.” The law also contains an exception for those employees who, based on their job functions, have access to the wages of other employees (e.g., Human Resources professionals).
NYSDOL regulations effective February 1, 2017 (published in the NYS Register the same day as the effective date) implement these provisions. While largely parroting the statute, the regulations do explain that the law applies to all employees and explain that while an employer is permitted to issue a written policy prohibiting employees from discussing the wages of other employees without their prior permission, that “permission” means an “express, advance, authorization given voluntarily by the employee,” which need not be in writing. Thus, although an employer may implement a written policy prohibiting employees from disclosing or discussing the wages of other employees without their prior permission, a co-worker may verbally provide such permission.
Employers should consider all applicable laws before implementing any written policy limiting employee discussion of wages as employees covered by the National Labor Relations Act already have the right to discuss terms and conditions of employment including wages for mutual aid and protection.
Before the election the Department of Labor asked the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to expedite its appeal regarding the validity of the DOL’s Final Rule, which increased the salary level for the white collar exemptions. Earlier this week, however, following the inauguration of President Trump, the Department of Labor made the opposite request, asking the Court to slow down the process. The DOL asked the Court for additional time to submit its reply brief, currently due January 31, 2017, “to allow incoming leadership personnel adequate time to consider the issues.” The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals granted that request on January 26, 2017, extending the due date for the reply brief to March 2, 2017.
The confirmation hearing for President Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Labor, Andrew Puzder, is currently scheduled for February 7. Puzder will likely be questioned at the hearing about his intentions regarding the overtime rule. He has previously expressed his disapproval of the regulation.
The DOL’s position on the rule may affect a separate motion filed by the Texas AFL-CIO to intervene in the action, filed due to fears the DOL will not defend the rule, which is still pending before the district court. Stay tuned…
Earlier today, the Department of Labor filed an unopposed motion to extend the deadline for its next submission in support of its appeal of the salary basis rule injunction. The motion for extension requested until March 2, 2017 to submit the Department’s reply brief to the Fifth Circuit, and expressly stated that the extra time is “necessary to allow incoming leadership personnel adequate time to consider the issues.” Stakeholders, including proposed intervenors AFL-CIO, have have expressed concern that President Trump’s nomination of Andrew Puzder for Labor Secretary reflects the administration’s clear intent to quash the salary basis initiative commenced in 2014 by President Obama. The extension request came even as centrist republicans — including Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee member Susan Collins — fielded questions regarding Puzder’s nomination. Watch this space for further coverage of the appeal handling, and the new administration’s other labor initiatives.
In the latest round in the litigation between 21 States, led by the State of Nevada, and the Department of Labor regarding the Final Rule, the State Plaintiffs filed their appeal brief today with the Fifth Circuit, urging the Court to affirm the district court’s order, which issued a nationwide injunction blocking the rule. “As the District Court held, and the United States Supreme Court precedent confirms, the terms in Section 213(a)(1) are defined functionally and cannot be swept aside by a rule that imposes a cutoff based on salary alone,” the States argued. The State Plaintiffs explained the salary level requirement has been controversial from the date the requirement was imposed (contrary to the DOL’s assertion), but that it was set so low that there was no incentive to challenge it. The Final Rule, however, changes that, as it will result in millions of workers no longer being covered by the exemption, even though their duties would otherwise qualify for the exemption. “[T]he DOL is openly transforming the salary threshold into a de facto minimum wage mechanism that deliberately excludes many bona fide EAP employees from an overtime exemption,” the State Plaintiffs said.
The case should be full briefed by the end of the month and oral argument will likely be scheduled in February. The State Plaintiffs have asked for additional time for oral argument (30 minutes each side) in light of the complexity and importance of the issue. The oral argument before the district court lasted 3.5 hours.
Earlier today, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA, Case No. 16-307, Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, Case No. 16-285 and Ernst & Young LLP v. Morris, Case No. 16-300, consolidating them for argument. The three cases present the question whether class action waivers in employment arbitration agreements violate the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). The Supreme Court’s action promises the much-anticipated resolution of the circuit split on the issue.
Arbitration agreements that require employees to pursue claims in arbitration rather than in court have long been enforced pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). Due to a series of Supreme Court decisions, employers increasingly have included class and collective action waivers in such agreements. However, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) has taken the position that employers violate the NLRA when they make such waivers in arbitration agreements a condition of employment.
Disagreeing with the NLRB, in D.R. Horton, Inc. v. NLRB, 737 F.3d 344 (5th Cir. 2013) and Murphy Oil USA, Inc. v. NLRB, 808 F.3d 1013 (5th Cir. 2015), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit generally held that class and collective action waivers do not violate the NLRA. Since then, the Second and Eighth Circuits followed the Fifth Circuit and enforced arbitration agreements requiring employees to submit their employment claims to individual arbitration. (Click for more information on the D.R. Horton case.)
Last May, the Seventh Circuit created a circuit split in Lewis v. Epic Systems Corp., 823 F.3d 1147 (7th Cir. 2016), holding that arbitration agreements that prohibit employees from bringing or participating in class or collective actions violate the NLRA. Most recently, in Morris v. Ernst & Young, No. 13-16599, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 15638 (9th Cir. Aug. 22, 2016), the Ninth Circuit agreed with the Seventh Circuit and the NLRB. (Click for more information on the Epic Systems Corp. case and the Ernst & Young case.)
In September 2016, the employers in Epic Systems Corp. and Ernst & Young and the NLRB in Murphy Oil each petitioned the Supreme Court to decide the issue once and for all. Reflecting the state of uncertainty on the issue, cases presenting this same question are currently before several other Courts of Appeals.
On January 9, 2017, New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo issued an executive order aimed at ensuring pay equity. The executive order prohibits the State from asking job applicants about their current or previous compensation history until a conditional offer of employment with compensation has been extended.
Such measures have become increasingly popular in employee-friendly states and localities. Effective January 1, 2017, California employers are prohibited from relying on an employee’s prior salary to justify a disparity between the salaries of similarly situated employees. And beginning July 1, 2018, Massachusetts employers will be prohibited from screening job applicants based on their salary histories, requiring applicants to provide their salary history before receiving a formal job offer, and seeking the salary history of prospective employees from current or former employers prior to extending an offer of employment. Other jurisdictions, including Philadelphia, New York City, and New Jersey, are considering barring similar pre-hire inquiries of salary history.
New York employers should expect these types of measures to soon affect the private sector, too. Employers generally should anticipate similar legislation to spread to other employee-friendly jurisdictions.