Employment Law Alerts & Articles

Jul 24

Fox OFCCP Report: What To Do in an Uncertain World…As the World Turns at OFCCP

Business demands predictability and abhors uncertainty. General Counsels want to know “likely outcomes” and timetables. Vice Presidents of Human Resources want to know what to do to comply and what not to do to unnecessarily increase the Company’s legal risk. I was just about to decide on this theme of regulatory agency predictability and reliability for this month’s column when I saw a Blog entry from Chris Lindholm (with Outsolve in its offices outside New Orleans) festering about the lack of predictability issue now emerging with OFCCP. Chris has his finger on the pulse of federal contractors, so that cinched it for me: I had to write about the problems that regulatory and investigatory change bring to regulatory compliance programs, especially when combined with a lack of contemporaneous transparency. But, I also want to write about possible solutions, and to not just decry the situation. Whining is very therapeutic, but it does not solve the challenge at the end of the day. The problem of predictability raises its ugly head, of course, because federal agency managers want to do whatever they want to do, whenever they feel like doing it…

Read more.

THIS COLUMN IS MEANT TO ASSIST IN A GENERAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE CURRENT LAW AND PRACTICE RELATING TO OFCCP.  IT IS NOT TO BE REGARDED AS LEGAL ADVICE.  COMPANIES OR INDIVIDUALS WITH PARTICULAR QUESTIONS SHOULD SEEK ADVICE OF COUNSEL.

Jun 19

The Fox OFCCP Report: What Happens If The Batter Steals First Base?

At the risk of igniting explosive Blog threads written by those who despise sports analogies in ANY context, or setting off counter-Bloggers who insist on using ONLY football analogies, the perplexing question of what to do if a batter in baseball just up and steals first base is now arising often in the context of OFCCP audits.

There is nothing in the Code of Rules governing the playing of baseball games by professional teams of Major League Baseball which addresses what should happen if …

Read more.

THIS COLUMN IS MEANT TO ASSIST IN A GENERAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE CURRENT LAW AND PRACTICE RELATING TO OFCCP.  IT IS NOT TO BE REGARDED AS LEGAL ADVICE.  COMPANIES OR INDIVIDUALS WITH PARTICULAR QUESTIONS SHOULD SEEK ADVICE OF COUNSEL.

Jun 08

The Fox OFCCP Report: The Frito-Lay ARB Decision: Trouble Ahead for Contractors

OFCCP v. Frito-Lay, Inc., ARB Case No. 10-132 (May 8, 2012), Appeal to Federal District Court coming…

ISSUE: “This case involves the question whether *** OFCCP has authority to request certain data relating to *** Frito-Lay, Inc’s *** AAP as part of a 2007 Desk Audit.”

ALJ HAD HELD: On July 23, 2010, “[e]ssentially, the ALJ concluded that there was a temporal scope to the 2007 Desk Audit that precluded OFCCP from requesting 2008 and 2009 AAP data.” …

Read more.

THIS COLUMN IS MEANT TO ASSIST IN A GENERAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE CURRENT LAW AND PRACTICE RELATING TO OFCCP.  IT IS NOT TO BE REGARDED AS LEGAL ADVICE.  COMPANIES OR INDIVIDUALS WITH PARTICULAR QUESTIONS SHOULD SEEK ADVICE OF COUNSEL.

May 03

In This Election Year, OFCCP And Federal Contractor Community At War

April 23rd, 2012  |  Cynthia L. Hackerott

The OFCCP is on a war footing with federal contractors, OFCCP expert John C. Fox stated during an OFCCP update webinar presented on April 19, 2012, by the National Employment Law Institute (NELI).  He noted that he has not seen the federal contractor community at war with the OFCCP to such an extent since the late 1970s. The “battle stations” in this war include the agency’s pending regulatory revisions, litigation, audits, and action on Capital Hill.  Read more.

Apr 24

The Fox OFCCP Report: The FedEx Story: Several Important Developments To Note About OFCCP’s Compliance Processes

Maybe I can shed a little light on the FedEx (Ground) Conciliation Agreement (i.e. settlement) with OFCCP since there seems to be much confusion and much interest among federal contractors. While this is a small settlement, it is nonetheless important to teach many different lessons about the Obama OFCCP.

First, I did not represent FedEx…the company had asked me many years ago to represent it, but I had then a conflict because one of my then retired partners (now deceased), we discovered, sat on the Board of FedEx rendering my then law firm ineligible to provide services to the company – an Ethics/Corporate Governance rule FedEx imposes on its Board members.

LESSON 1: Bundled Settlement Press Release

Read more.

THIS COLUMN IS MEANT TO ASSIST IN A GENERAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE CURRENT LAW AND PRACTICE RELATING TO OFCCP.  IT IS NOT TO BE REGARDED AS LEGAL ADVICE.  COMPANIES OR INDIVIDUALS WITH PARTICULAR QUESTIONS SHOULD SEEK ADVICE OF COUNSEL.

Mar 31

The Fox OFCCP Report: If You Give A Moose A Muffin…OFCCP’s New Style of Compensation Audits…and How Federal Contractors May Defend Against Them

OFCCP is now monthly changing its audit processes. While OFCCP’s audit tone is changing (to become more directive, more wooden, more demanding, and more strident–causing many (very many) contractors to now ruefully label OFCCP a “Bully”), the substance of OFCCP audits is also changing. With a Presidential election nearing, OFCCP has “gone Ollie North:” i.e. OFCCP now just does what it has the physical power to do, regardless whether it has the legal authority to do it. Said another way, OFCCP is just “jamming it through”, while relying on contractor cooperation and goodwill to permit the agency to run roughshod over good-natured contractors.

Despite the defeat of the Pay Check Fairness Act (PCFA) in the Congress, OFCCP is now administratively implementing the PCFA, piece by piece: “PCFA through a Thousand Cuts”…

Read More.

THIS COLUMN IS MEANT TO ASSIST IN A GENERAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE CURRENT LAW AND PRACTICE RELATING TO OFCCP. IT IS NOT TO BE REGARDED AS LEGAL ADVICE. COMPANIES OR INDIVIDUALS WITH PARTICULAR QUESTIONS SHOULD SEEK ADVICE OF COUNSEL.

Feb 15

The Fox OFCCP Report: Why OFCCP Audits of Compensation Are Entirely Different From Those Alleging a Failure of Affirmative Action or a Failure To Hire…and the “Tough Row to Hoe” which lies ahead for Both OFCCP and Federal Contractors as to Compensation Audits

Friends: This is my second column for Local JobNetwork™ discussing OFCCP developments. I appreciate the overwhelmingly generous response to my first column.

This month, I want to discuss why OFCCP’s audits of the compensation federal contractors pay to their employees and of federal contractor compensation systems are very different from OFCCP audits in which OFCCP alleges only a failure of “Affirmative Action” or an unlawful “failure-to-hire” (typically blue-collar unskilled entry-level laborers). The single difference I will identify below, as simple as it is, leads, however, to a totally different mindset among defending federal contractors.  This single difference also exposes two unique problems with which federal contractors have to specially grapple in compensation cases. Unfortunately, too, this difference “raises the stakes” for most federal contractors in a way which will force most contractors OFCCP accuses of unlawful compensation discrimination into uncomfortable, but necessary, confrontations with OFCCP.  And, OFCCP is learning that compensation audits in which OFCCP alleges unlawful compensation discrimination are suddenly almost always hard fought scrimmages as to which it is not going to be a rollick in the park…

Read more.

THIS COLUMN IS MEANT TO ASSIST IN A GENERAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE CURRENT LAW AND PRACTICE RELATING TO OFCCP. IT IS NOT TO BE REGARDED AS LEGAL ADVICE. COMPANIES OR INDIVIDUALS WITH PARTICULAR QUESTIONS SHOULD SEEK ADVICE OF COUNSEL.

Jan 26

New Penalties Seek To Ensure California Employers Properly Understand Independent Contractor Classification

As of January 1, 2012, SB 459 added two new California Labor Code sections addressing employer misclassification of “Independent Contractors.” Given the recent economic downturn, the California legislature has now expressed its concern that more and more companies and businesses are using independent contractors to fill vacant positions to reduce burgeoning administrative costs and which increased workers’ compensation insurance, payroll taxes, and health benefits have driven up.  Accordingly, to help protect employee rights from eroding, California has now increased penalties against businesses that willfully misclassify workers as independent contractors.

Beginning January 1, 2012, California Labor Code sections 226.8 and 2753 established penalties and statutory liability for businesses and their vendors which have intentionally and voluntarily misclassified employees as independent contractors.  The so-called “Job Killer Act”:

    • Authorizes Courts and the State of California to assess fines (penalties) in the amount of not less than $5,000.00 and not more than $15,000.00 “for each violation” of an employer’s “willful misclassification” or unlawful deduction from wages. However, if a Court or the State of California finds the employer has engaged in a “pattern or practice” of “these violations,” it may assess a fine in the higher range of not less than $10,000 and not more than $25,000.00 “for each violation.” Apart from the uncertainty as to what constitutes a “pattern and practice” to know when the higher range of fines will attach, the statute also does not define what it means when it states that both ranges of fines (whether we are speaking of the $5,000-$15,000 not “pattern or practice” fines, or the $10,000-$25,000 “pattern or practice” fines) will attach “for each violation.” For example, does “each violation” mean for each subsequent pay period where misclassification or an unlawful deduction occurred —i.e. $25,000 fine x 52 pay periods=$1.3M per year if the employer pays contractors weekly (employee’s view); or does “each violation” mean (i.e. the employer’s view) for each initial unlawful decision the employer made to either willfully misclassify or unlawfully deduct from wages—i.e. a one-time fine of up to $25,000 for each employee adversely affected in the pattern or practice? Based on prior interpretations of other provisions in the Labor Code as to what constitutes a “violation,” we fear the California Labor Commissioner may seek to assess “pattern and practice” fines for each pay period an employer misclassifies an employee.  Accordingly, if the employer were found to have misclassified 10 employees as independent contractors, the fines could look like this, we fear: $25,000 x 52 weeks=$1.3M x 10 misclassified employees=$13M…per year of misclassification if the employer pays the contractors on a weekly basis. Companies will have to await guidance and interpretation, and possibly litigation, to be further certain what the California legislature meant in passing this broad and inartfully drafted statute.
    • Renders any person who knowingly advises an employer to misclassify an employee as an independent contractor (other than an employer’s agent or legal counsel) jointly and severally liable for the fines.
    • Requires employers found to have willfully misclassified employees as independent contractors to post public notice of the violation either on its website or some other public area for a period of one year.
    • Prohibits companies from charging employees a fee and from making an unauthorized deduction from an employee’s pay.
    • Authorizes additional civil or liquidated penalties the Labor Commissioner may deem appropriate.

The only “positive” aspects of this bill for employers are that (1) only the state of California may enforce these penalty provisions; the bill does not create a “private cause of action” for a plaintiff lawyer; and (2) the new fines attach only to circumstances involving a “willful” or “maliciously intentional” misclassification.  Please also note that the new Labor Code sections do not provide any new guidance to companies to analyze whether a worker is an “independent contractor” or an “employee.”  Accordingly, companies with employees in California are encouraged to familiarize themselves with the existing legal tests to classify a worker as either an “employee,” or other than an “employee.” (For example, Fox, Wang & Morgan provides a major treatise regarding independent contractor classification. See the Publications section of our website). 

NOTE: One potential defense a well-intentioned company might deploy to defeat a finding of “willfulness” should the state determine a company has misclassified, is to conduct an audit to exhibit an employer’s attempt to faithfully comply with the California wage-hour laws. We recommend that companies accomplish any such audit using lawyers who proceed under the Attorney-Client privilege.

Jan 24

The Fox OFCCP Report: 2011: The Year That Was!

John C. Fox is now writing a monthly column about OFCCP developments for the Local JobNetwork™, a local network of employment and diversity sites covering the entire U.S. and focusing first and foremost on local cities and communities.  You may find his latest column at LocalJobNetwork.com.  Mr. Fox was formerly Executive Assistant to the Director of OFCCP responsible for all regulatory, enforcement and policy matters and was liaison to The White House, The Congress and other federal agencies.

Welcome to the first edition of “The Fox OFCCP Report.”  This will be a monthly column commentary on the latest developments at the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (“OFCCP”).

While I have been a reporter and a news editor at various times in my pre-law career, I have never been a columnist.  This will be a new venture for me…

Read more.

THIS COLUMN IS MEANT TO ASSIST IN A GENERAL UNDERSTANDING OF THE CURRENT LAW AND PRACTICE RELATING TO OFCCP. IT IS NOT TO BE REGARDED AS LEGAL ADVICE. COMPANIES OR INDIVIDUALS WITH PARTICULAR QUESTIONS SHOULD SEEK ADVICE OF COUNSEL.

Jan 24

National Employment Law Institute – 2012 ADA & FMLA Compliance Update

Scheduled in April 2012, this program is unique to NELI!  NELI brings together a distinguished panel, including EEOC representatives, to discuss every major aspect of evolving ADA and FMLA law. On Day One, NELI will focus on the latest developments under the ADA Amendments Act and the EEOC’s regulatory changes to the definition of “disability,” including practical training tips for supervisors to avoid “regarding” an individual as disabled, the latest decisions on whether an individual is “qualified,” including whether attendance, shift-work, lifting, and handling stress are “essential functions,” and “reasonable accommodation” issues, including leave, reassignment, and modified schedules, among other things. “Direct Threat” and conduct rules will be addressed as well. Day One will also provide an update by our EEOC faculty on the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), including current implementation of the EEOC’s 2010 Final Regulations.

John Fox Personal Note:  I am not speaking at this program, but David Fram is.  David is without doub the most knowledgeable consultant in the country on the ADA and the ADAAA.

Day Two commences with a session on requesting medical information under the ADA and emerging developments concerning voluntary wellness programs under GINA and the ADA. The FMLA Update will provide practical guidance in light of recent case law developments, including managing the medical certification process, the application of GINA’s safe harbor language to FMLA documentation, practical tips to curb intermittent leave abuse, and more. Issues concerning the interaction between the ADA, FMLA and other leave laws will be covered as well. Day Two will conclude with an interactive ADA/FMLA Case Study.

All program participants will receive a hard copy and searchable CD of NELI’s ADA & FMLA Compliance Manual, which will be newly revised for this program.

For more information and to register, go to NELI ADA & FMLA Compliance Update.