Employers often struggle over compliance with state wage deduction laws, and these potential violations carry with them considerable penalties. In Massachusetts, for example, employers face triple damages for violations of wage and hour laws. This post uses hypothetical examples to demonstrate how narrow the range of permissible activity is under California, Massachusetts, New York, and Washington D.C. laws even when a deduction to an employee’s salary appears as a common sense one or otherwise fair to both parties involved. Employers with employees located in these and other states should consult with legal counsel before making any deductions from employee wages, even if the employee authorizes such a deduction.

So, for example, can employers deduct from employee wages for the cost of uniforms? Personal expenses on corporate credit cards? Broken printers? Let’s explore…

Continue Reading Exploring Wage Deductions in California, Massachusetts, New York and Washington, D.C.

Today we continue with our Year in Review segment, which looks at the key labor & employment law developments from 2016 in New York, the DC Metro Area, Massachusetts, and California, while offering our thoughts about 2017.  Today we turn to the DC Metro Area.  In addition, please join us in NYC on April 6, 2017 for Mintz Levin’s Third Annual Employment Law Summit as we address some of the key labor & employment issues impacting employers in 2017.  Register here

——————

The District of Columbia, Maryland (including Montgomery County) witnessed an active 2016 with respect to new and amended workplace laws that impose additional responsibilities on employers, and expand employee rights and avenues of enforcement.  Employers should be aware of these new requirements and take immediate action to comply with them.  We highlight below the most significant updates in both D.C. and Maryland; there were no changes or additions of significance in Virginia.

Continue Reading 2016 DC Metro Area Employment Law Year In Review

As wise employers focus strategic initiatives to enhance diversity and inclusion in the workplace, we periodically receive questions about limitations for proactive approaches in this area.  To be clear, companies that conduct business with the federal government (and the OFCCP knows who you are) likely are subject to regulatory obligation to ensure and, where necessary, take affirmative action regarding the placement of women, minorities, protected veterans and persons with disabilities in relation to their availability for respective positions.  Similarly, companies subject to a consent decree, conciliation agreement with the EEOC or some other legal finding or settlement involving a disparity affecting persons in protected classes would be subject to obligation of proactive steps to remedy such disparity.

But what of the company that engages in a “voluntary affirmative action policy” or merely seeks to put additional teeth to its diversity initiatives by attaching a qualitative scorecard to progress?  The potential concern is that such efforts lead to vulnerability for a reverse discrimination claim.

Continue Reading Mintz Levin 2nd Annual Employment Law Summit – Enhancing Workplace Diversity and Dispelling Myths Regarding Reverse Discrimination Claims

On October 6, 2015, the D.C. Council introduced the Universal Paid Leave Act of 2014.  If enacted, the proposed law will allow employees in D.C. to take up to 16 weeks of paid family and medical leave in a 12-month period, and as reported in the The Washington Post, D.C. “would become the most generous place in the country for a worker to take time off after giving birth or to care for a dying parent[.]”   The law would also set up a system, paid into by employers, under which employees would be able to file a claim for paid family and medical leave benefits, similar to the way individuals file claims for unemployment benefits.

Continue Reading D.C. Council Introduces Legislation That Would Give D.C. Employees Up to 16 Weeks of Paid Family and Medical Leave

The D.C. Mayor’s office recently issued employee pay notices templates that employers may use to satisfy the pay notice requirements under D.C.’s new Wage Theft Prevention Amendment Act.  The Act, which took effect on February 26, 2015, requires employers, among other things, to provide written pay notices to all new employees at the time of hire, and to existing employees by May 27, 2015.  The Department of Employment Services’ website has now made available a template for general employers and a template for temporary staffing firms.  Employers should now move forward with providing notices to all new and existing employees, but they need only do so in English and not in the employee’s primary language unless and until the Mayor’s office releases a template in that language.

On March 3, 2015, the D.C. Protecting Pregnant Workers Fairness Act of 2014 became effective.  The Act provides increased protections for pregnant workers and requires employers to provide reasonable workplace accommodations for workers whose ability to perform job functions are limited by pregnancy, childbirth, a related medical condition, or breastfeeding.  The Act, which applies to all D.C. employers, contains several important components, which are briefly described below.

Continue Reading D.C.’s New Law Protecting Pregnant Workers Is Now Effective

The D.C. Council has passed emergency legislation to address certain ambiguities in and other issues raised by D.C.’s Wage Theft Prevention Amendment Act, which takes effect on February 26, 2015.  As we noted last month, the Act’s language as previously written was unclear on whether exempt employees were subject to the Act’s heightened recordkeeping requirements.  The emergency legislation directly addresses this ambiguity, and makes clear that employers are not required to record the “precise time worked” for exempt employees.  In addition, the emergency resolution clarifies that employers are not required to pay “bona fide administrative, executive, and professional” employees at least twice per month, but rather must pay such employees at least once per month.

Continue Reading Emergency Legislation to DC’s Wage Theft Law Clarifies That Exempt Employees Are Not Subject to Heightened Recordkeeping Requirements

Last October, we reported on DC’s soon-to-be-enacted DC Wage Theft Prevention Amendment Act. This Act, which amends several existing DC wage and hour laws, includes new notice requirements and retaliation protections, increases employer liability for wage and hour violations and introduces a new administrative hearing process — all changes that employers with DC-based employees need to be aware of.

Continue Reading DC’s New Wage Theft Law Imposes Additional Notice, Posting, and Recordkeeping Requirements on Employers

On January 14, 2015, Judge Richard J. Leon of the DC Federal District Court issued another favorable opinion for home care employers by vacating a Department of Labor regulation that would have narrowed the definition of “companionship services.” The decision comes on the heels of another decision by Judge Leon last month in which he vacated another proposed regulation that would have prevented third-party home agencies from applying the companionship exemption to its employees.

Continue Reading The Companionship Exemption Remains: DC District Court’s Most Recent Decision in Home Care Association of America v. Weil Marks Second Victory for Home Care Employers; DOL Appeals