Employment

Calling it “a more-punitive approach toward getting its workforce vaccinated against Covid-19,” the Wall Street Journal recently reported that Delta Airlines will require its unvaccinated workers to pay a $200 monthly health insurance surcharge.

As new developments occur with the Delta variant, employers must adapt their return to office (RTO) plans to comply with fluctuating CDC guidance, state and local requirements, and employee expectations.

In this episode, we speak with Krista D'Aloia, Vice President and Associate General Counsel at Fidelity Investments, about the role of the 401(k) retirement plan “platform provider.”

The Biden Administration yesterday unveiled its Path out of the Pandemic – a six-pronged plan designed to further combat COVID-19.

Employers implementing mandatory Covid-19 vaccination programs must manage, and in some cases accommodate, exemption requests. Legal exemptions from mandatory vaccination include medical exemptions under the Americans with Disabilities Act and exemptions based on sincerely held religious beliefs pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (and equivalent state laws for both federal statutes).

CDC’s updated guidance suggesting facial coverings be worn in “public indoor settings” adds a new but hopefully surmountable barrier to returning the workforce to the office (though undefined, we presume this means any indoor location where two or more individuals are working). At the outset, the CDC guidance does not create a Federal workplace mandate but rather provides a baseline for the creation of safety standards grounded in scientific data – data we recognize is not static given the nature of the Coronavirus pandemic. The latest guidance has frustrated some employers who are attempting to develop sensible policies to return their workforce to offices. We offer some practical guidance regarding the changes, if any, employers might consider in response to the latest CDC guidance.

The NYC Commission on Human Rights (the Commission) has released updated enforcement guidance regarding the Fair Chance Act. New York City amended the Fair Chance Act last year and those changes will go into effect on July 29, 2021.

The New York State Department of Labor (NYSDOL) has released its HERO Act minimum standards and template policies related to airborne infectious disease prevention. Employers now have 30 days after the standards’ publication – until August 5, 2021 – to either: (1) adopt one of the model standard exposure prevention plans applicable to their industry, or (2) develop and establish an alternative prevention plan that meets or exceeds the minimum standards.

In this video, Mintz Employment Member, Jen Rubin, discusses a few important issues employers need to know with respect to vaccination programs.

Whether or not a business has returned fully to a physical workplace, partially with a hybrid arrangement, or has remained remote, there are a few key areas of focus for a successful return. In this video, Mintz Employment Member, Jen Rubin, highlights important issues employers should consider.

Cal/OSHA has approved revised Emergency Temporary Standards (ETS) and Governor Newsom has issued an executive order waiving the usual 10-day legal review and approval process by the Office of Administrative Law (OAL). This revised ETS (the third version since late May) more closely aligns with the CDC and California Department of Public Health (CDPH) guidelines on face covering restrictions and physical distancing.

Once an employer has committed to returning its workforce in some form or fashion to the physical workplace, what are some best practices relating to that process? In this video, Mintz Employment Member, Jen Rubin, discusses unique issues employers should consider relating to workforce surveys and gathering information from employees.

The CDC’s latest guidance lifting many restrictions for most fully vaccinated individuals has forced employers to consider whether and how to implement workplace vaccination policies. During this webinar, our speakers explored the current workplace vaccine compliance landscape and offered best practices for implementing vaccination policies aimed at making workplaces safe and while accounting for jurisdictional, political, philosophical and physical divides.

Now that widespread vaccination appears to be slowing the pandemic, and in light of the CDC’s guidance regarding measures fully vaccinated individuals can take, returning to the office has become a priority for employers across the nation. In this video, Mintz Employment Member, Jen Rubin, discusses some concepts employers should consider as they plan to return employees to the office. 

It’s been a long road to recovery for employers since New York first issued its NY Forward reopening requirements for offices and other similar environments back in May 2020.  Today, as New York reached a key vaccination metric – 70% of adults have now received at least one vaccine shot – Governor Cuomo announced that New York businesses will no longer be required to abide by the current industry-specific guidelines in order to reopen.  Accordingly, the current NY Forward guidelines on capacity restrictions, social distancing, cleaning and disinfection, health screenings, contact tracing, and other virus-related restrictions are now lifted in most commercial settings. 

It’s been a busy month (year?) for New York employers – one that has brought several important updates with respect to employers’ reopening plans. On the heels of the State’s May 19th adoption of the recent CDC guidance outlining increased privileges for fully vaccinated individuals, New York State updated its NY Forward COVID-19 reopening guidance on June 8, 2021, including its guidance geared toward office environments. As a reminder, New York businesses opting to reopen during the COVID-19 pandemic must do so consistent with the State’s industry-specific reopening guidelines, found here; affirm their compliance with same prior to reestablishing in-person operations; and implement a written safety plan governing its workplace safety protocols.

Bonuses and their impact on an employee’s “regular rate of pay” have long been a proverbial thorn in the side of California employers.  The nondiscretionary nature of most bonuses (even those bonuses employers attempt to characterize as “discretionary”) makes them part of a non-exempt employee’s regular rate of pay for purposes of determining the appropriate overtime rate. Cal. Labor Code § 226 requires all hourly rates of pay to be reflected in employees’ pay statements.  The ambiguity surrounding the extent to which this “hourly rate of pay” includes bonuses in all of their various forms and the related overtime adjustments can sometimes leave employers feeling uncertain as to how to ensure compliant paystubs when nondiscretionary bonuses are paid to non-exempt employees. A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals offered some clarity. 

Cal/OSHA has relaxed some of its COVID-19 Prevention Emergency Temporary Standards (ETS) for fully vaccinated individuals to better align with the California’s June 15, 2021 goal to end most mask and physical distancing requirements. But the proposed revisions stop short of fully adopting the May 13, 2021 CDC guidance for fully vaccinated individuals and do not (yet) provide guidance on several important issues, including the enforcement of documentation for vaccine verification and how employers can demonstrate that physical distancing is not feasible.

Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker recently signed legislation requiring employers to provide COVID-19 emergency paid sick leave (“COVID-19 EPSL”) to employees who are unable to work for COVID-19-related reasons. In this post, we summarize and answer some frequently asked questions.

According to Bloomberg Law, class actions challenging 401(k) plan fees are increasing at a record pace. The underlying claims in these class action suits fall into predictable categories that are all too familiar: excessive fees, poor fund choices, poor plan design, fiduciary neglect, and prohibited transactions. Khan v. PTC, Inc. fits the pattern. The plaintiffs claim that the fiduciaries of the PTC, Inc. 401(k) plan: