Wage & Hour, Individual & Collective Actions

For the second time in as many years, California Governor Jerry Brown has vetoed “wage shaming” legislation that would have required employers with 500 or more employees to report gender-related pay gap statistics to the California Secretary of State on an annual basis beginning in 2019 for publication on a public website. Assembly Bill 1209 (“AB 1209”), which we discussed at length in last month’s Act Now advisory, passed the Legislature despite widespread criticism from employers and commerce groups.  This criticism included concerns that publication of statistical differences in the mean and median salaries of male and female employees without accounting for legitimate factors such as seniority, education, experience, and productivity could give a misleading impression that an employer had violated the law.  Opponents also decried the burden the bill would place on employers to do data collection and warned that it would lead to additional litigation.  In vetoing the measure, Governor Brown noted the “ambiguous wording” of the bill and stated he was “worried that this ambiguity could be exploited to encourage more litigation than pay equity.”

However, the same pen that vetoed AB 1209 signed another pay-equity law last week: Assembly Bill 168 (“AB 168”).  AB 168 precludes California employers from asking prospective employees about their salary history information.  “Salary history information” includes both compensation and benefits.  Like similar laws passed recently in several other states and cities, the policy underlying the inquiry ban is that reliance upon prior compensation perpetuates historic pay differentials.  Opponents have argued that such a ban will make it more difficult for employers to match job offers to market rates.  Go to our Act Now Advisory on AB 168 for a comprehensive review of this new law.

Click above or watch via YouTube, Vimeo, MP4, or WMV.

Employment Law This Week (Episode 88: Week of September 25, 2017) has released bonus footage of its interview with Michael McGahan, a Member of the Firm at Epstein Becker Green.

As Mike discusses, New York home care agencies typically pay sleep-in home health aides for 13 hours per day, relying on a 2010 opinion from the state Department of Labor. Two home health attendants who claimed they did not “live in” the homes of their clients filed suit against their employers, claiming that their patients’ need for 24-hour supervision required them to be working or on call for all 24 hours. They argued that they should have been paid the minimum wage for each hour. A state appellate court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that the 13-hour rule violates the state’s minimum wage law. The Department of Health is currently reviewing the decision.

See also Mike’s recent post on this blog: http://www.ebglaw.com/eltw88-heal

In New York, State Department of Labor (“DOL”) regulations provide that the minimum wage must be paid for each hour an employee is “required to be available for work at a place prescribed by the employer.” (12 NYCRR § 142-2.1(b)) (“Wage Order”). Exception is made for a “residential employee,” defined as one who lives on the premises of the employer, during his or her sleeping hours or any time he or she is free to leave the place of employment. Id.

On March 1, 2010, the DOL issued an Opinion Letter advising that sleep-in employees, whether or not they are residential employees, who work a twenty-four hour shift must be paid not less than for thirteen hours for a twenty-four hour period provided they are afforded at least eight hours for sleep, actually received at least five hours of uninterrupted sleep and are afforded at least three hours for meals. (NYS St. Dept. of Labor OP. No-09-0169 at 4 (March 11, 2010)). The Opinion Letter was a reiteration of the DOL’s long standing interpretation of the Wage Order as applied to home health care attendants, and agencies assigning attendants to twenty-four hour shifts have long followed it in paying the attendants for this shift.

In recent decisions, New York appellate courts have declined to defer to the DOL’s Opinion Letter because, according to those Courts, the letter conflicts with the plain language of the Wage Order. The Appellate Division First Department was the first to so rule in Tokhtaman v. Human Care LLC, 149 A.D. 3d 476 (1st Dept. 2017). Then, last week, the Appellate Division Second Department in Andryeyeva, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. New York Home Attendant Agency, __ A.D. ___ (2nd Dept. 2017) and Moreno v. Future Care Health Services, Inc., ___ A.D. ___ (2nd Dept. 2017), adopted the First Department’s ruling.

The plaintiffs in Andryeyeva and Moreno were home health care attendants employed by the defendants to care for the elderly and disabled clients. They were assigned to twenty-four hour shifts in the client residents’ homes but claimed that they did not “live in” the homes. In Andryeyeva, they were paid an hourly rate for 12 hours of the shift and a flat rate for the 12 night hours. In Moreno, they were paid a flat fee for the entire shift. Plaintiffs in both cases argued that under the Wage Order they were entitled to the minimum wage for all twenty-four hours of the shifts. Defendants argued that plaintiff attendants were paid in accordance with the DOL Opinion Letter.

In Andryeyeva the Second Department acknowledged that it was required to uphold the DOL’s interpretation of the Wage Order as set forth in the Opinion Letter if it was not irrational or unreasonable. However, the court ruled that the DOL’s interpretation was neither rational nor reasonable because it conflicted with the plain language of the Wage Order. The court found that the plaintiffs were required to be at the client residences for the shift and were required to perform services if called upon. In reaching this decision the Second Department relied on the First Department’s decision in Tokhtaman, supra. The court also found that the plaintiffs met the prerequisites to class certification, thus allowing a class of over 1,000 attendants to proceed. The court in Moreno arrived at the same conclusion, noting that the DOL Opinion Letter conflicted with the plain language of the Wage Order because it failed to distinguish between “residential” and non-residential employees.

The state, trial and appellate court decisions in Andryeyeva, Moreno and Tokhtaman stand in contrast to the decisions in the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, Severin v. Project OHR and Bonn-Wittingham v. Project OHR, which gave deference to the DOL’s interpretation of the Wage Order as set forth in the Opinion Letter and held that home health aides need only be paid for 13 hours of a 24-hour shift based on the 2010 DOL opinion letter.

The decisions in Andryeyeva and Moreno may be appealed to New York’s highest court, the Court of Appeals. If upheld there, the decisions present a serious challenge to the home health care industry. By declining to embrace the DOL’s opinion letter, the courts are opening the door to significant wage claims by New York’s tens of thousands of home health care attendants. Combined with the six-year statute of limitations on such claims in New York, this may lead to substantial back pay liability for the employing agencies, which could lead to a restructuring of those agencies and the services they provide.

What To Do

Home healthcare providers must pay close attention to all developments on this issue.

The Andryeyeva and Moreno cases may well be appealed, however, that process will likely take some time and there is no guarantee of a favorable outcome.

Given the potential adverse financial impact of the ruling on the home care industry as a whole, industry groups are likely to seek regulatory and/or economic relief from the New York State Departments of Labor and Health, and revisions to reimbursement rates for the 24 hour shifts.

When: Thursday, September 14, 2017 8:00 a.m. – 4:30 p.m.

Where: New York Hilton Midtown, 1335 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10019

Epstein Becker Green’s Annual Workforce Management Briefing will focus on the latest developments in labor and employment law, including:

  • Immigration
  • Global Executive Compensation
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Internal Cyber Threats
  • Pay Equity
  • People Analytics in Hiring
  • Gig Economy
  • Wage and Hour
  • Paid and Unpaid Leave
  • Trade Secret Misappropriation
  • Ethics

We will start the day with two morning Plenary Sessions. The first session is kicked off with Philip A. Miscimarra, Chairman of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

We are thrilled to welcome back speakers from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Marc Freedman and Katie Mahoney will speak on the latest policy developments in Washington, D.C., that impact employers nationwide during the second plenary session.

Morning and afternoon breakout workshop sessions are being led by attorneys at Epstein Becker Green – including some contributors to this blog! Commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Chai R. Feldblum, will be making remarks in the afternoon before attendees break into their afternoon workshops. We are also looking forward to hearing from our keynote speaker, Bret Baier, Chief Political Anchor of FOX News Channel and Anchor of Special Report with Bret Baier.

View the full briefing agenda and workshop descriptions here.

Visit the briefing website for more information and to register, and contact Sylwia Faszczewska or Elizabeth Gannon with questions. Seating is limited.

Since 2000, the number of wage and hour cases filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) has increased by more than 450 percent, with the vast majority of those cases being filed as putative collective actions.  Under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), employees may pursue FLSA claims on behalf of “themselves and other employees similarly situated,” provided that “[n]o employee shall be a party plaintiff to any such action unless he gives his consent in writing to become such a party and such consent is filed in the court in which such action is brought.”  Despite the prevalence of FLSA collective actions, the legal implications and consequences of being a “party plaintiff” in such an action continue to be addressed.  The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently examined this issue, in an opinion that may prove useful to defendants seeking to obtain discovery from all opt-in plaintiffs in a putative collective action.

In Halle v. West Penn Allegheny Health System, Inc. et al., the named plaintiff filed a putative collective action alleging defendants violated the FLSA by failing to properly pay employees for work performed during meal breaks.  The district court dismissed the collective action allegations based on a related case that had previously been decided, and dismissed the opt-in plaintiffs’ claims without prejudice to re-filing individual actions.  After the named plaintiff subsequently settled his individual claim, three opt-in plaintiffs sought to appeal the district court’s decision.

The Third Circuit held the opt-in plaintiffs lacked the right to appeal, because they were no longer “parties” after the collective action claims were dismissed. The opt-in plaintiffs retained the right to pursue their own individual claims, but they had no right to pursue an appeal from the named plaintiff’s individual final judgment.  The court held that, “[b]y consenting to join Halle’s collective action, these opt-in plaintiffs ceded to Halle the ability to act on their behalf in all matters, including the ability to pursue this appeal.”

In reaching this decision, the Third Circuit engaged in an extensive analysis of the “fundamental question arising from the procedural history of this case: just what is a ‘collective action’ under the FLSA?” Unlike a class action brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, where all putative class members are bound by the court’s ruling unless they affirmatively “opt out” of the case, “the existence of a collective action depends upon the affirmative participation of opt-in plaintiffs.”  As the Third Circuit noted, “[t]his difference means that every plaintiff who opts in to a collective action has party status, whereas unnamed class members in Rule 23 class actions do not,” prompting “the as-yet unanswered question of what ‘party status’ means in a collective action.”

The court’s analysis of this issue, while tangential to Halle’s holding, highlights the tension inherent in the language of FLSA § 216(b), which, according to the Third Circuit, “raises more questions than it provides answers.  While the first sentence [of § 216(b)] sounds in representational terms (to proceed ‘in behalf of’ others ‘similarly situated’), the second sentence refers to those who file consents as ‘party plaintiffs,’ seeming to imply that all who affirmatively choose to become participants have an equal, individual stake in the proceeding.”  This tension is particularly significant with regard to defendants’ discovery rights in a collective action.

Under Rule 33 and Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in the absence of any court-imposed limits, a party may serve interrogatories and document requests “on any other party.”  Based on this language, and FLSA § 216(b)’s designation of individuals who opt in to a collective action as “party plaintiffs,” arguably a defendant in a collective action should be entitled to serve discovery requests on each individual who opts in to the litigation, unless the court orders otherwise.  Despite this fact, the Third Circuit noted that, “[f]requently,” discovery in collective actions “focuses on the named plaintiffs and a subset of the collective group,” a limitation that may hinder defendants’ ability to present individualized defenses that may not be applicable to all opt-in plaintiffs.

While the Third Circuit did not fully resolve the question of what it means to be a “party plaintiff,” two aspects of the Halle decision may prove helpful to defendants seeking to assert their right to obtain discovery from all opt-in plaintiffs in a collective action.  First, as noted above, the Third Circuit emphasized that each opt-in plaintiff “has party status.”  This language, when read in conjunction with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure regarding the scope of discovery, should support defendants’ right to seek discovery from “any other party,” including all opt-in plaintiffs.

Second, in holding that the opt-in plaintiffs had no right to appeal a final judgment involving the named plaintiff, the court emphasized the importance of “the language of their opt-in consent forms, which handed over all litigation authority to named plaintiff.” The Third Circuit noted that courts often rely on the language of the opt-in consent form “to determine which rights opt-in plaintiffs delegated to the named plaintiffs.”  Based on this guidance, defendants may wish to propose including language in the opt-in consent form stating that individuals who join the collective action may be required to provide documents and information, sit for depositions, and/or testify at trial.  Such language may help demonstrate that the opt-in plaintiffs were meant to be treated as active parties to the litigation, with the same rights and obligations as named plaintiffs.

While a court may ultimately exercise its discretion to impose limits on the scope of discovery, particularly in collective actions with a large putative class, the Third Circuit’s analysis in Halle may prove useful to defendants seeking support for their argument that they should be entitled to obtain discovery from each opt-in plaintiff.

Paid Leave_shutterstock_371740363The state of Maryland appears poised to join seven other states and various local jurisdictions (including Montgomery County, Maryland) already requiring employers to provide paid sick and save leave. On April 5, 2017, the Maryland House of Delegates approved a bill previously passed by the Maryland Senate that would require most employers with at least 15 employees to provide up to five paid sick and safe leave days per year to their employees, and smaller employers to provide up to five unpaid sick and safe leave days. Although the bill contains an effective date of January 1, 2018, the actual effective date will depend on action by Governor Larry Hogan.

The following employees are not covered by the bill:

  • Employees who regularly work less than 12 hours a week;
  • Employees who are employed in the construction industry;
  • Employees who are covered by a collective-bargaining agreement that expressly waives the requirements of the law;
  • Certain “as-needed” employees in the health or human services industry.

Under the bill, an employer may not be required to allow an employee to:

(1) earn more than 40 hours of earned sick and safe leave in a year;
(2) use more than 64 hours of earned sick and safe leave in a year;
(3) accrue a total of more than 64 hours at any time;
(4) use earned sick and safe leave during the first 106 calendar days the employee works for the employer.

The bill also preempts local jurisdictions from enacting new sick and safe leave laws except for amending existing laws enacted before January 1, 2017, i.e. the existing law in Montgomery County.

The bill passed with enough support in both chambers to survive a promised veto by Governor Hogan, who favored an alternative that would require the benefit only for companies with at least 50 workers and make tax incentives available for smaller companies that offered the leave. However, if he still vetoes the bill, lawmakers will not have an opportunity to override the veto until next year’s legislative session beginning on January 10, 2018, which means the bill would not take effect until after January 1, 2018, and could possibly be subject to amendment in the next session.

*Marc-Joseph Gansah, a Law Clerk – Admission Pending in the firm’s New York office, contributed to the preparation of this blog post.

Two stories on the new episode of Employment Law This Week will be of particular interest to our readers in the health care industry:

California Health Care Workers Can Waive Breaks

California health care workers can still waive some breaks. In February 2015, a California appeals court invalidated an order from the Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) that allowed health care workers to waive certain meal breaks. The court found the order, which allowed the workers to miss one of their two meal periods when working over eight hours, was in direct conflict with the California Labor Code. The state legislature then passed a new law giving the IWC authority to craft exceptions going forward for health care workers. This month, the appeals court concluded that its 2015 decision was based on a misreading of the statute and that even waivers occurring before the new law are valid.

Transgender Guidance Withdrawal Impacts the Courts

A multistate lawsuit against the Obama administration’s transgender guidance is coming to an end. The states, led by Texas, have dropped their suit in light of the Trump administration’s decision to withdraw that guidance. The Obama-era guidance allowed students to use the bathrooms of the gender they identify with. The withdrawal has also prompted the U.S. Supreme Court to return a case that it was scheduled to hear on transgender rights in public schools. The appeals court, which based its original decision on the guidance, will now consider the case solely based on the statutory requirements of Title IX.

These stories are featured in the first and third segments of the show – see below:

A New Year and a New Administration: Five Employment, Labor & Workforce Management Issues That Employers Should MonitorIn the new issue of Take 5, our colleagues examine five employment, labor, and workforce management issues that will continue to be reviewed and remain top of mind for employers under the Trump administration:

Read the full Take 5 online or download the PDF. Also, keep track of developments with Epstein Becker Green’s new microsite, The New Administration: Insights and Strategies.

Our colleagues Judah L. Rosenblatt, Jeffrey H. Ruzal, and Susan Gross Sholinsky, at Epstein Becker Green, have a post on the Hospitality Labor and Employment Law Blog that will be of interest to many of our readers in the health care industry: “Where Federal Expectations Are Low Governor Cuomo Introduces Employee Protective Mandates in New York.”

Following is an excerpt:

Earlier this week New York Governor Andrew D. Cuomo (D) signed two executive orders and announced a series of legislative proposals specifically aimed at eliminating the wage gap in gender, among other workers and strengthening equal pay protection in New York State. The Governor’s actions are seen by many as an alternative to employer-focused federal policies anticipated once President-elect Donald J. Trump (R) takes office. …

According to the Governor’s Press Release, the Governor will seek to amend State law to hold the top 10 members of out-of-state limited liability companies (“LLC”) personally financially liable for unsatisfied judgments for unpaid wages. This law already exists with respect to in-state and out-of-state corporations, as well as in-state LLCs. The Governor is also seeking to empower the Labor Commissioner to pursue judgments against the top 10 owners of any corporations or domestic or foreign LLCs for wage liabilities on behalf of workers with unpaid wage claims. …

Read the full post here.

Our colleague Michael S. Kun, national Chairperson of the Wage and Hour practice group at Epstein Becker Green, has a post on the Wage & Hour Defense Blog that will be of interest to many of our readers in the health care industry: “Stop! Texas Federal Court Enjoins New FLSA Overtime Rules.”

Following is an excerpt:

The injunction could leave employers in a state of limbo for weeks, months and perhaps longer as injunctions often do not resolve cases and, instead, lead to lengthy appeals. Here, though, the injunction could spell the quick death to the new rules should the Department choose not to appeal the decision in light of the impending Donald Trump presidency. We will continue to monitor this matter as it develops.

To the extent that employers have not already increased exempt employees’ salaries or converted them to non-exempt positions, the injunction will at the very least allow employers to postpone those changes. And, depending on the final resolution of this issue, it is possible they may never need to implement them.

The last-minute injunction puts some employers in a difficult position, though — those that already implemented changes in anticipation of the new rules or that informed employees that they will receive salary increases or will be converted to non-exempt status effective December 1, 2016. …

Read the full post here.