Hospitality Labor and Employment Law Blog

Hospitality Labor and Employment Law Blog

Philadelphia’s Salary History Law Temporarily Stayed Pending Lawsuit

LinkedIn Tweet Like Email Comment

Amid challenges regarding Philadelphia’s upcoming law prohibiting employers from requesting an applicant’s salary history, the City has agreed not to enforce the upcoming law until after the court has finally resolved the injunction request.

The law, which was set to become effective May 23, 2017, has been challenged by the Chamber of Commerce for Greater Philadelphia (the “Chamber”). The Chamber’s lawsuit alleges that the pending law violates the First Amendment by restricting an employer’s speech because, among other reasons, “it is highly speculative whether the [law] will actually ameliorate wage disparities caused by gender discrimination.” It is also alleged that the law violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and Pennsylvania’s Constitution as well as its “First Class City Home Rule Act” by allegedly attempting to restrict the rights of employers outside of Philadelphia.

On April 19, a judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania stayed the effective date of the law, pending the resolution of the Chamber’s motion for a preliminary injunction. Prior to resolving the injunction, the parties will first brief the court on the Chamber’s standing to bring the lawsuit. This issue, regarding whether the Chamber is an appropriate party to bring this lawsuit, will be fully briefed by May 12, 2017, before the law is set to become effective. However, there are several other issues to be resolved as part of the lawsuit. The City’s decision to stay enforcement of the pending law until all issues are resolved is intended to help employers and employees avoid confusion during the pendency of the lawsuit.

Although the City of Philadelphia will not enforce this law in the interim, employers with any operations in Philadelphia should review their interviewing and hiring practices in case the lawsuit is decided in favor of the City. Further, employers in Massachusetts and New York City will also be subject to similar restrictions on inquiring about an applicant’s salary history when those laws go into effect. Massachusetts’ law is scheduled to become effective in July 2018, and New York City’s law will become effective 180 days after Mayor de Blasio signs the law, which may occur as soon as this week.

 

Do Companies Aid and Abet Discrimination by Conducting Background Checks on Independent Contractors?

LinkedIn Tweet Like Email Comment

Our colleagues Patrick G. Brady and Julie Saker Schlegel, at Epstein Becker Green, have a post on the Retail Labor and Employment Law blog that will be of interest to many of our readers in the hospitality industry: “Beyond Joint Employment: Do Companies Aid and Abet Discrimination by Conducting Background Checks on Independent Contractors?

Following is an excerpt:

Ever since the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) issued its August 2015 decision in Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc., holding two entities may be joint employers if one exercises either direct or indirect control over the terms and conditions of the other’s employees or reserves the right to do so, the concept of joint employment has generated increased interest from plaintiffs’ attorneys, and increased concern from employers. Questions raised by the New York Court of Appeals in a recent oral argument, however, indicate that employers who engage another company’s workers on an independent contractor basis would be wise to guard against another potential form of liability, for aiding and abetting acts that violate various anti-discrimination statutes, including both the New York State (“NYSHRL”) and New York City Human Rights Laws (“NYCHRL”) and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“NJLAD”).

Read the full post here.

Chipotle Exploits Wide Variation Among Plaintiffs to Defeat Class and Collective Certification

LinkedIn Tweet Like Email Comment

A New York federal court recently declined to certify under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Rule 23”) six classes of salaried “apprentices” at Chipotle restaurants asserting claims for overtime pay under New York Labor Law (“NYLL”) and parallel state laws in Missouri, Colorado, Washington, Illinois, and North Carolina, on the theory that they were misclassified as exempt executives in Scott et al. v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. et al., Case No. 12-CV-8333 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2017).  The Court also granted Chipotle’s motion to decertify the plaintiffs’ conditionally certified collective action under Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), resulting in the dismissal without prejudice of the claims of 516 plaintiffs who had opted in since June 2013.

The putative class and collective action of apprentices working in certain of Chipotle’s 2,000-plus restaurants nationwide were provisionally employed while being trained to become general managers of new Chipotle locations. The Scott action challenged Chipotle’s blanket exempt classification of the apprentice position, claiming that the duties plaintiffs actually performed during the majority of their working time were not managerial, and therefore, as non-exempt employees they were entitled to receive overtime pay.

According to their motion papers, the named plaintiffs’ work experience was common to all apprentices in each of the six state-specific classes they sought to certify. While the Court acknowledged that certain factors supported class and collective treatment of plaintiffs’ claims – such as a singular job description and corporate policies that applied nationwide and Chipotle’s classification of all apprentices as exempt – a number of factors impacting apprentices’ daily activities rendered a class and collective action certification of plaintiffs’ state and federal wage and hour claims inappropriate.

Denial of Rule 23 Class Certification

Applying Rule 23(a), the Court held that there was commonality and typicality among the plaintiffs and their claims. First, the question of whether apprentices were misclassified could be answered with common proof, particularly as Chipotle uniformly classified all apprentices as exempt, used a company-wide job description, and expected that their core duties would be the same regardless of the market in which the apprentice worked. The predominance requirement was also satisfied because the plaintiffs’ claims were based on the same legal theory and factual predicates, i.e., that Chipotle misclassified apprentices, depriving them of overtime pay to which they would otherwise be entitled.  The parties did not dispute the numerosity and adequate representation prongs of Rule 23(a) were met.

Rampant differences among the named plaintiffs and the opt-in plaintiffs led the Court to conclude that plaintiffs could not satisfy the predominance and superiority requirements of Rule 23(b). For example, of the six named plaintiffs, no two had like experiences in terms of what managerial duties they performed and how frequently they performed other non-exempt tasks on a daily basis.  The testimony of the opt-in plaintiffs also “rang dissonantly from the record” when it came to their performance of managerial tasks.  Factors like store structure, sales volume, staff size and managerial style affected the amount of time apprentices spent making personnel decisions, scheduling, supervising, and training, resulting in wide divergence among opt-in plaintiffs across the country.

The Court found that these differences were fatal to plaintiffs’ motion for class certification because: (1) plaintiff’s entitlement to relief would require individualized proof; and (2) the significant variation between the state laws under which the plaintiffs’ claims were brought would effectively require the court to conduct numerous “mini-trials” to determine whether Chipotle misclassified each individual apprentice as exempt. The Court therefore denied the motion for class certification under Rule 23.

Section 216(b) Decertification of Collective Action

Turning to Chipotle’s motion to decertify the FLSA collective action, the Court drew on its comparison of the named plaintiffs and opt-ins and concluded that apprentices had “vastly different” levels and amounts of authority in exercising managerial tasks. According to the Court, such disparities in job duties “seem[ed] axiomatic” given that the 516 opt-in plaintiffs worked in 37 states across Chipotle’s nine geographic regions.  In light of such differences, it would be difficult for Chipotle to rely on representative proof while asserting its defenses based on the “executive” and “administrative” exemptions from overtime pay.  For these reasons, the Court granted Chipotle’s motion to decertify the conditional collective action.

As shown in Scott, the question of whether misclassification claims may be certified to proceed on a class and collective action basis under Rule 23 and Section 216(b) will not be answered definitively by generic job classifications and/or job descriptions.  Rather, courts will assess the individualized work experiences of the named plaintiffs and opt-ins to determine whether generalized proof will be conducive to a class-wide resolution of those claims.  Employers and practitioners defending against such motions should focus their opposition on identifying differences and variation among the named plaintiffs and opt-in plaintiffs, and using outliers to highlight divergence among individual plaintiffs.  Otherwise, a court could find that the proposed class is homogeneous enough to warrant class and collective action certification.

Take 5 Newsletter: A Full Menu of Potential Legal Issues for Hospitality Owner/Operators

LinkedIn Tweet Like Email Comment

A Full Menu of Potential Legal Issues for Hospitality Owner/OperatorsIn the new issue of Take 5, our colleagues examine important and evolving issues confronting owners, operators, and employers in the hospitality industry:

Read the full Take 5 online or download the PDF.

Hospitality Labor and Employment Law Blog Ranks in Top 75

LinkedIn Tweet Like Email Comment

We were pleased to see that Feedspot has ranked our blog in its “Top 75 Employment Websites and Blogs for Employees and Employers.”

The ranking is based on Google reputation and search ranking; influence and popularity on Facebook, Twitter, and other social media sites; quality and consistency of posts; and Feedspot’s editorial team and expert review.

Thank you for reading our blog!  If you aren’t receiving email notifications when we post, please add your email to the Subscribe form, in the right-hand margin, and watch for the confirmation email. We appreciate your support.

Immigration Update: Travel Ban and Other News for Employers

LinkedIn Tweet Like Email Comment

The Immigration Law Group at Epstein Becker Green released a Special Immigration Alert that will be of interest to our readers.

Topics include:

  1. President Trump Issues Revised Executive Order on Travel
  2. USCIS Suspends Premium Processing for H-1B Petitions Starting April 3, 2017: All H-1B Petitions, Including H-1B Cap Petitions, Are Affected!
  3. Use of New Form I-9 Is Now Mandatory
  4. IRS Announces That Delinquent Taxpayers Face Revocation/Denial of U.S. Passports
  5. DHS Issues Two New Memos on Enforcement/Border Security

Read the full alert here.

Employers: How to Prepare for “A Day Without” Actions

LinkedIn Tweet Like Email Comment

A new post on the Management Memo blog will be of interest to many of our readers in the hospitality industry: “‘A Day Without’ Actions – How Can Employers Prepare?” by our colleagues Steven M. Swirsky and Laura C. Monaco of Epstein Becker Green.

Following is an excerpt:

[T]he same groups that organized the January 21, 2017 Women’s March on Washington – an action participated in by millions of individuals across the county – has called for a “Day Without Women” to be held on Wednesday, March 8, 2017. Organizers are encouraging women to participate by taking the day off from paid and unpaid labor, and by wearing red – which the organizers note “may be a great act of defiance for some uniformed workers.”

Employers should be prepared to address any difficult questions that might arise in connection with the upcoming “Day Without Women” strike: Do I have to give my employees time off to participate in Day Without events? Can I still enforce the company dress code – or do I need to permit employees to wear red? Can I discipline an employee who is “no call, no show” to work that day? Am I required to approve requests for the day off by employees who want to participate? As we explained in our prior blog post, guidance from the National Labor Relations Board’s General Counsel suggests that an employer can rely on its “lawful and neutrally-applied work rules” to make decisions about granting requests for time off, enforcing its dress code, and disciplining employees for attendance rule violations. An employer’s response, however, to a given employee’s request for time off or for an exception to the dress code, may vary widely based upon the individual facts and circumstances of each case. …

Read the full post here.

Fifth Circuit: Outsourcing Violated the NLRA – Employment Law This Week

LinkedIn Tweet Like Email Comment

Featured on Employment Law This Week:  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit backs the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in an outsourcing dispute.

The NLRB found that a management company violated the National Labor Relations Act when it outsourced the cleaning staff of a hotel that it managed. The NLRB found evidence that the outsourcing decision was related to the worker’s interest in union representation. The NLRB rejected the company’s argument that the decision was due to declining guest satisfaction, concluding that the decision was at least, in part, motivated by anti-union animus. The Fifth Circuit has now rejected an appeal by the company, noting that the court was obligated to pay “special deference” to the NLRB’s credibility findings in cases with conflicting evidence, like this one.

Watch the segment below and see our previous blog post.

Changes to NLRB Election Rules and Employee Handbook and Email Standards Are Likely Under Miscimarra

LinkedIn Tweet Like Email Comment

Our colleague Steven M. Swirsky, a Member of the Firm at Epstein Becker Green, has a post on the Management Memo blog that will be of interest to many of our readers in the hospitality industry: “NLRB Acting Chair Dissents Point to Likely Changes to Board Election Rules and Employee Handbook and Email Standards.”

Following is an excerpt:

NLRB Acting Chair Philip Miscimarra has given the clearest indication to date of what steps a new Republican majority is likely to take to reverse key elements of the Labor Board’s hallmark actions of the Obama administration once President Trump nominates candidates for the Board’s two open seats and the Senate confirms. In each of these cases, Miscimarra highlighted his earlier opposition to the majority’s changes in long standing precedents and practices. …

Read the full post here.

Fifth Circuit Pays Special Deference to NLRB’s Determination that Hotel Management Company Acted with Anti-Union Animus in Outsourcing Housekeeping Department

LinkedIn Tweet Like Email Comment

Fifth Circuit Pays Special Deference to NLRB’s Determination that Hotel Management Company Acted With Anti-Union Animus In Outsourcing Housekeeping DepartmentA recent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit illustrates the potential pitfalls of outsourcing in the face of a union campaign, as well as the steep hurdle employers face in overturning a decision of the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”). In Remington Lodging & Hospitality, LLC v. NLRB, the Fifth Circuit enforced an NLRB order holding that a hotel management company’s decision to outsource the hotel’s housekeeping department was motivated at least in part by anti-union animus and therefore violated Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act (“the Act”).

In late 2011, Remington Lodging & Hospitality, LLC (“the Management Company”) was hired to manage the Hyatt Regency Long Island hotel (“the Hotel”). At the time the Management Company took over management, the Hotel’s housekeeping functions had been outsourced to a staffing company. Consistent with its general preference to directly employ its workers, the Management Company brought the housekeeping function back in-house, and terminated the Hotel’s contract with the staffing company.

Unfortunately, the Hotel’s guest-room component score – its primary indicator of housekeeping effectiveness – continued to decline, and by June of 2012 had hit its lowest level. That month, the Management Company contacted the staffing company about re-outsourcing the Hotel’s housekeeping department, and in August entered into a new agreement with the staffing company to do so.

The NLRB held that this second outsourcing was at least partially motivated by a desire to discourage membership in a union that had begun making efforts to unionize the housekeepers around the time the Management Company elected to re-outsource the department.

On appeal, the Fifth Circuit rejected the Management Company’s argument that to prove a violation of Section 8(a)(3) of the Act, the NLRB must produce evidence that the discrimination “in fact caused or resulted in a discouragement of union membership.” As the NLRB had failed to introduce such evidence, the Management Company argued the NLRB’s order was not supported by substantial evidence.

In rejecting this argument, the Fifth Circuit noted that requiring actual evidence of discouragement was “completely inconsistent” with Fifth Circuit precedent. The court stated flatly the NLRB “need not prove discouragement as a matter of fact.”

While the Management Company asserted that the decline in guest-room component scores explained its decision, the court upheld the NLRB’s resolution of this contested issue of fact. The court noted that the NLRB had relied on evidence of two union-related conversations between housekeepers and Hotel supervisors prior to the outsourcing decision, as well as the statement of another supervisor that the outsourcing decision was “because of the union.” Together these constituted substantial evidence of an unlawful motive. Stating that it must pay “special deference” to the NLRB’s resolution of conflicting evidence, the court upheld the NLRB’s order.

The lesson for employers is a familiar one – be mindful of the potential repercussions of outsourcing decisions, and careful when considering and articulating the underlying motivation. Conflicting evidence is enough to find illegal motivation.

.