Several U.S. Supreme
Court decisions in their 2006 term which ended
this Spring either directly or indirectly impact
employment law. As always, some cases are narrow
in their applicability while others have broad
implications. The following is a summary recap
of cases decided in 2006 and others pending for
consideration in 2007:
2006 Supreme
Court Decisions
Limits on
Punitive Damages: In a case that involved
punitive damages, the Court limited
consideration of damages to the parties to the
lawsuit. Damage awards cannot consider damage to
others when determining the amount of an award.
While the case in question was not employment
law issue, the decision will be applied to
punitive damage considerations of all kinds.
Thus, the award of punitive damages in a lawsuit
on behalf of a single plaintiff for sexual
discrimination can only consider the damage to
that single party to the case even if it can be
shown that many others were similarly damaged by
the defendant business.
Termination
of Defined Benefit Plans: The Court upheld
the provisions of ERISA which give employers two
(2) options for terminating defined benefit
plans. A business may either purchase annuities
to replace an employee’s interest in a
terminated plan or make lump-sum distributions
liquidating the plan. Other options do not
qualify under ERISA.
Timely Filing of
Discrimination Charges: The Court held that
the actual occurrence of a discrete
discriminatory event starts the clock for
determinations of timely filing of charges under
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and
the clock isn’t restarted every time the
employee experiences the results of the initial
discriminatory event. hus, a charge of pay
discrimination based upon sex must be filed
within 180 days (300 days in some states) of a
payroll action deemed discriminatory by the
employee and a new event does not occur with
every subsequent pay check issued to the
employee.
DOL Rule-Making Authority
Upheld: In 1974 Congress gave the Department
of Labor the authority to make regulations
defining and delimiting provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA). However, this
authority to make rules interpreting provisions
of the FLSA was challenged by a lawsuit that
found its way to the Supreme Court. The Court
upheld DOL’s authority to issue such
regulations.
Limitations on Union Use
of Non-Member Fees: Under provisions of the
National Labor Relations Act states are
permitted to regulate their relationships with
public employees. Many states have enacted laws
that allow unions to collect fees from non-union
employees represented in collective bargaining.
However, the First Amendment prohibits unions
from using such fees for purposes not directly
related to collective bargaining. The Court
validated state laws that require affirmative
consent of non-union employees prior to spending
their fees for such purposes as political
activities.
Railroad Liability
Determination Standards: The Federal
Employer’s Liability Act (FELA) makes railroads
liable for employee injuries resulting in whole
or in part from railroad negligence. It provides
railroad employees with benefits normally
obtained under workers’ compensation. In a case
of narrow applicability the Court ruled that in
cases subject to the provisions of FELA, a
railroad’s liability for workplace injury must
be determined by applying the same causation
standards to both railroad negligence and
contributory negligence on the part of the
injured employee.
2007 Supreme Court
Cases Pending
The Court has thus far
agreed to hear three (3) cases in the term
beginning in October of this year. Other cases
may be added between now and October.
Sufficiency of Filing Age
Discrimination Charges: Under the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) a
plaintiff must file a charge of age
discrimination with the EEOC prior to proceeding
with a lawsuit. The Court will consider what
actions constitute a sufficient filing in a case
to be heard in its next term.
‘Me-Too’ Evidence of
Discrimination: It frequently strengthens a
discrimination charge if it can be shown that
many others were subjected to the same
discriminatory action as the plaintiff even if
the others are not parties to the case at trial.
Such evidence, known as ‘me-too’ evidence, is
most frequently not admissible or of limited
admissibility by a trial court. The Supreme
Court has agreed to consider a case where a
Circuit Court of Appeals excluded the admission
of ‘me-too’ evidence of age discrimination.
Court Powers in Cases of
Arbitration: The Court has agreed to hear
arguments in a case that is not specifically an
employment law dispute, but it will establish
the power of courts to change arbitration
decisions generally and could thus greatly
impact employment law disputes in arbitration.
Under the Federal Arbitration Act awards may
only be vacated or modified in very limited
circumstances such as fraud and arbitrator bias.
In its next term the Court will consider a case
to determine if an arbitration agreement can
broaden the power of courts to change
arbitration decisions. Click here for
MORE
|
| |
| The results of a major
study of drug abuse in the U.S. have been
released by the Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Administration. In a study of over
128,000 workers, one in 12 workers reported
using illicit drugs within 30 days of being
surveyed. The highest rates of illicit drug use
were found among food service workers (17.4%)
and construction workers (15.1%). What does this
cost employers? Twice as many drug users missed
one or more days work in the past month compared
to non-drug users and the number who reported
having three (3) or more employers over the
prior year was also nearly three (3) times
greater than among non-users. Approximately
thirty percent (30%) of workers reported their
current employer used random drug testing.
Workers in transportation (62.9%) and protective
service (61.8%) occupations were most likely to
experience random testing. Click
here for a copy of the full
report. |
| |
| If you sometimes feel
like you are the only one at work who really
cares, you may be close to right. A Gallup study
of ‘employee engagement’ for 2005 found that 70%
would not be classified as highly committed to
what they do! This number inspired Terry Bacon,
CEO of Lore International Institute an HR
consulting company, to study the reasons for
this high level of workplace disengagement. By
his estimates workplace disengagement could cost
business as much as $350 billion annually. His
survey of 500 workers concludes that ‘people
don’t quit bad companies, they quit bad bosses’.
What is the #1 attribute of a good workplace?
Eighty-seven percent (87%) of those surveyed
responded that they wanted to be ‘trusted’ and
recognized for their competence. Bacon points to
the lack of people skills in managers as the
major factor contributing to worker
dissatisfaction with their job. Again,
generational differences surfaced in Bacon’s
study. He found that the ‘millenials’, the ‘Gen
Y’ the workers born since 1980, tended to want
rewards and recognition while their predecessor
generation of ‘boomers’ focused on trust and
respect. |
| |
| The EEO-1 Report is
due on September 30, 2007. All employers with
100 or more employees, and federal contractors
with 50 or more employees that have federal
contracts totaling at least $50,000 must
complete the EEO-1 report (formally know as the
Employer Information Report) annually. This
report includes statistical information about
the number of employees within the various job
categories, and then by ethnicity, race, and
gender. The form must be submitted to both the
EEOC and the Department of Labor, Office of
Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP).
Companies may use employment numbers from any
pay period between July 1 and September 30 of
this year. Please be aware that employers must
use the newly revised EEO-1 report for their
September 30 filing. There are a number of
changes being made to the race and ethnic
categories, as well as changes to the job
categories. Click
here for details on these changes. It is
recommended that EEO-1 reports be submitted
through the EEO-1 Online Filing System or as an
electronically transmitted data file. Click
here for instructions on how to file from
the EEOC’s website. |
| |
| A new twist in
healthcare insurance will reward individuals who
succeed in getting and staying healthy not those
who just try. One such plan now available to
employers for their employees works like this.
The employer pays for a high deductible policy
at significantly lower cost. The enrolled
employee then pays the first $2,500 in medical
cost each year. The employees can then have
basic tests performed annually to determine
whether they smoke and meet specified goals for
blood pressure, cholesterol and a healthy
height/weight ratio. As each goal is met, the
deductible is reduced by $500 so a person
meeting all four goals would only pay a
deductible of $500 yearly. This innovative
approach is being attacked by some who say it is
just another attempt by employers to switch more
of the cost of healthcare to
workers. |
| |
Last month’s HR Exec
outlined what are now termed the ‘workforce
generations’ and noted some of the
characteristics of each. Workers now coming into
the workplace are known as ‘Generaton Y’. They
represent about 15% of the current workforce and
are expected to comprise 22% in just four (4)
years. Fully one-third of these new workers are
non-Caucasian and they value social
relationships. They work well in teams and are
comfortable with technology while preferring
voice and e-mail as their primary means of
communication. They are goal-oriented and seek
assignments that expand their knowledge and
skills. To capitalize on the opportunities
offered by this new generation of workers
companies should consider the following:
Compensation: The package should
provide a balance of work and personal time and
innovative deferred compensation and investment
opportunities.
Development: Technology, training and
education should be incorporated into the
personal development plan of the ‘GenY’ worker.
Workplace: A flexible workplace is
important to retaining these workers including
job-sharing, and telecommuting in a team
environment.
Management: An interactive management
environment that offers the opportunity to work
in collaboration with others toward the success
of the business is important to workers of this
generation.
Click
here for more on Generation
Y. |
| |
MEAL PERIODS AND BREAKS – WHAT’S
REQUIRED?
Q. Is
there an Illinois law that requires breaks?
A. There is no
Illinois or Federal law that requires breaks
other than the meal period that is required
under the One Day of Rest in Seven Act. Under
this act, an employee who is scheduled to work
at least 7 ½ consecutive hours or more must be
given a meal period beginning no later than the
end of the 5th hour.
Q. How long
must this meal period be, and is it paid or
unpaid?
A. Under Illinois
law, a meal period must be at least 20 minutes
to be unpaid. However, Federal law requires that
a meal period must be at least 30 minutes in
length before it can be unpaid, therefore any
breaks or meal periods under 30 minutes must be
counted as paid time.
Q. Can an
employee choose to work through their meal
period, and get paid for it?
A. An
employer may not permit an employee to skip
their meal period or eat at their workstation
while performing work. In fact, if an employee
receives more than a minor interruption from
their lunch break to perform any kind of work,
that meal period should start over, granting the
employee a new meal period.
Q. How
many hours must an employee work to receive
additional breaks or meal periods?
A. If an employee
is scheduled to work two shifts of 7 ½ hours
each, consecutively, he is entitled to an
additional meal period. No extra breaks beyond
the meal periods are required. Although
employers should consider the possible benefits
of increased productivity of employees who are
given additional rest breaks.
Q.
Is there a limit on the number of hours an
employee can work per day?
A. There
are generally no restrictions on the number of
hours an employee can work per day. However, be
aware that Illinois Child Labor Law does
restrict working hours for 14 and 15 year olds.
Also, Department of Transportation (DOT) has
restrictions on the number of hours drivers can
work. |
| |
| Knowing what you can
and can't do will help you prevent costly
mistakes. Call our staff of HR experts. Let Pam
Holleman help you deal with problems safely and
avoid disputes. You can reach the Helpline
toll-free at 800-322-4722. |
| |
| Your membership in the
Illinois Chamber pays! We offer valuable
programs and services to our members at special
discounts. Click
here for our growing list of outstanding
seminars, workshops and programs that will help
you with your everyday business needs.
|
| |
The Chamber urges all
Illinois employers to recognize their Guard and
Reserve employees by signing and displaying the
ESGR Statement of Support. To get yours, simply
complete an online
form and you will receive a personalized
certificate that demonstrates your support. Also
visit the SBA Veteran's Business Development web
site for assistance to small business owners
that have employees activated in the Guard or
Reserves. Click MORE
|
| |
The
HR Exec - Copyright © 2007 The Illinois
Chamber
Wood
S. McComb, Editor
Pam
Holleman, Manager, Human Resource
Information
|
