Texas Employment Law Update

Texas Employment Law Update

A Resource for Texas Employers

Don’t Forget to Consider Whether Year-End Bonuses Trigger Overtime Adjustments

Posted in Wage & Hour

As we get to the end of the year, management committees and corporate boards are in the process of approving year-end bonuses for employees.  A frequently overlooked wage and hour mistake is failing to include non-discretionary bonuses in the regular rate of pay for non-exempt employees.

In calculating the regular rate of pay on which employer’s must pay overtime, the employer must generally include all remuneration paid to the employer.  Excluded from the regular rate of pay are, among a few other things, discretionary bonuses, gifts, Christmas and special occasion bonuses.

Discretionary bonuses are those where the employer retains the discretion over the payment and amount of the bonus until a time near the end of the period over which the bonus is paid.  If the bonus is promised to employees or is made pursuant to an agreement or contract, the bonus is not discretionary and must be included in the regular rate of pay for overtime purposes.  Gifts, Christmas and special occasion bonuses are those bonuses that are paid as a reward for service and the amounts are not measured by or dependent on hours worked, production or efficiency.

If a year-end bonus is one that must be included in the regular rate of pay, the employer must pro-rate the bonus over the prior year when it was earned and then recalculate the overtime due to employees as a result of the higher regular rate of pay.  This rarely results in significant overtime adjustments but such payments are required, nonetheless, to be in full compliance with the law.

For example, if an employer pays a $2,000 year end, non-discretionary bonus to a non-exempt employee, the employer allocates 1/52 of the bonus into each workweek over the prior year (i.e., $38.46 per week).  Assuming an employee worked 50 hours in a workweek, the employer would have to recalculate the overtime that was due during that workweek based on the increase in earnings caused by the bonus payment. 

$38.46 ÷ 50 hours = $0.77 (increase in the regular rate)

$0.77 x ½ = $0.39 (increase in the additional half-time premium)

$0.39 x 10 hours of overtime worked = $3.90 (increase in overtime earnings due to the bonus)

The resulting additional overtime that would be required to be paid because of the $2,000 bonus payment is $3.90 for that workweek.

If you have questions about whether your year-end bonuses should be included in the regular rate of pay, be sure and call you labor and employment lawyer.  Or better yet, call me.

Follow me on Twitter @RussellCawyer

Congress Should Provide Employers with Immunity to Identify and Correct Wage and Hour Mistakes

Posted in News & Commentary, News & Commentary, Wage & Hour, Wage & Hour

One of the many problems with the Fair Labor Standards Act (the federal law that requires most employee be paid at least a minimum wage and overtime) is that it provides little incentive for employers that discover honest wage and hour mistakes such as a misclassification or a failure to correctly calculate overtime to fix those mistakes.  In many cases, where an employer discovers it has made an honest violation (usually through a wage and hour audit) and fixes the mistake, the employer is then subjected to lawsuits over the mistake for an additional year of pay, liquidated damages and attorney’s fees.

Rather that potentially subjecting the employer to potential wage and hour collective actions, lawsuits and attorney’s fees, employers should be incentivized to identify and correct wage and hour mistakes.  Doug Hass at Wage and Hour Insights proposed earlier this week that the Secretary of Labor should provide employers with a safe harbor “for those employers who want to remedy a wage or hour violation committed under a good faith belief that they were complying with the law. . . [and] pay any wages lawfully owed within a reasonable amount of time.”  I like Doug’s idea but think it is unlikely that a democratically appointed Secretary of Labor will provide any safe harbor for employers.  Building on the idea of a safe harbor provision, I suggest that Congress should act to provide a statutory safe harbor or immunity from collective action lawsuits for employers that discover, and unilaterially fix, wage and hour mistakes by correcting the pay practice on a going forward basis and paying back pay.  Indeed, Congress could further incentivize employers to identify and make these voluntary corrections by providing that safe harbor immunity would exist for employers that self-report violations to the DOL and provide voluntary back pay to employees for some period short of the limitations period (e.g., one year) that would exist if the violation were discovered and a lawsuit was filed by private plaintiffs’ attorneys or the DOL itself.  Providing the employer an economic benefit in self-disclosing and remedying the violation rather than sitting back and hoping the violation is never discovered would increase the likelihood that employers would engage in self-audits and make voluntary corrections.  Moreover, it would provide back pay to employees for honest mistakes that might otherwise go undiscovered (albeit for a shorter limitations period than if the employer didn’t self-report and voluntarily correct).

Just an idea.

Follow me on Twitter @RussellCawyer

Proper Planning Now Can Lead to Complaint-Free Company Holiday Party

Posted in Human Resources, News & Commentary, Uncategorized

Xmas 2012I’m sitting here trying to come up with an idea for this year’s family holiday card.  Last year’s theme was “Silent Night”.  But while I think about what I need to be doing to prepare for the holidays, I’m reminded that many employers are also planning their company end-of-year parties.  So, from the archieves are 9 tips to consider when planning the company Christmas party (and I violated one of those tips in the last sentence).  While you ponder the 9 ways I suggest you keep you company holiday party from turning into an internal harassment investigation or EEO charge, if you think of any ideas for my family’s holiday card, send them to me in the comments.

Follow me on Twitter @RussellCawyer

 

Texas Supreme Court Provides Defendants with Halloween Discovery Treat; Not Trick

Posted in Case Summaries, Discrimination, News & Commentary

Last Friday, Halloween, the Texas Supreme Court delivered defendants a “treat” in the form of a mandamus opinion articulating the standard for when discovery requests seeking information related to claims other than the plaintiff’s claims crosses the line from seeking relevant information into an impermissible fishing expedition.

In In re National Lloyds Insurance Company, the Supreme Court considered whether a trial court abused its discretion in ordering the insurance company to produce information on claim files and claims other than the plaintiff’s claim.  This mandamus (mandamus is a fancy word that effectively means to appeal) proceeding arose in the context of a suit over the insurance carrier’s payment of a homeowner’s claim following the storm damage to her property.  The plaintiff sought discovery on:

  • All claim files from the previous six years involving six individual adjusters;
  • All claim files from the past year for properties located in Dallas and Tarrant Counties involving the two adjusting companies that handled Plaintiff’s claims;
  • A listing of the names, addresses, phone numbers, policy numbers and claim numbers associated with the requested files.

The insurance company objected to the requested discovery and the trial court ultimately ordered it to produce the files for the claims handled by the two adjusting companies and for all claims related to properties in Cedar Hill, Texas (a single municipality in Dallas County).  Despite the fact that the trial court narrowed the plaintiff’s requests before ordering production, National Lloyds filed a mandamus proceeding of the discovery order.

In quashing the ordered discovery, Supreme Court notably stated that:

[W]e fail to see how National Lloyd’s overpayment, underpayment, or proper payment of the claims of unrelated third parties is probative of its conduct with respect to Erving’s undervaluation claims at issue in this case. . .  . Scouring claim files in hopes of finding similarly situated claimants whose claims were evaluated differently from Erving’s is at best an ‘impermissible fishing expedition’  Without more, the information sought does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of evidence that has a tendency ‘to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable.’

. . .

Because the information Erving seeks is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, the trial court’s order compelling discovery of such information is necessarily overbroad.

How is this discovery case in an insurance dispute relevant to discovery disputes in employment cases?  Plaintiffs in employment litigation frequently ask for all charges, lawsuits and claims of discrimination, retaliation or harassment that have been filed against the employer over the past several years.  Since individuals in companies, not companies, make employment decisions, I’ve always thought that, at most, these types of requests should be limited to charges, lawsuits and claims of discrimination involving the same decision maker as was involved in the plaintiff-employee’s case.  In re National Lloyds Ins. Co. supports that position and provides an employer with authority to utilize in seeking mandamus relief from a court of appeals from discovery orders that compel production of information that go beyond the plaintiff’s claim. 

You can download the full opinion in In re National Lloyds Insurance Company here.

Follow me on Twitter @RussellCawyer.

Light Duty Policies Limited to On-the-Job Injuries Going the Way of the Dinosaur

Posted in Human Resources, News & Commentary

As I wrote several months ago, light duty programs limiting participation to employees recovering from on-the-job injuries are being increasingly scrutinized by the EEOC (See post here) and that we have likely seen the end of those polices.   The Washington Post reports today that UPS, despite having a case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court over whether pregnant employees are entitled to reasonable accommodation in the form of light duty, has announced that it is expanding its light duty program to allow pregnant employees to participate and take light duty assignments.  According to the Post,

[S]tarting January 1, the company will offer temporary light duty positions not just to workers injured on the job, which is current policy, but to pregnant workers who need it as well.

UPS’s shift illustrates that light duty policies limited to employees recovering from on-the-job injuries are being phased out in corporate America.  If your company still has a light duty policy or program that limits eligibility solely to workers who had an on-the-job injury, you should reevaluate the eligibility factors for that policy (or whether the company should offer light duty at all) in light of the developments requiring employers with such policies to make them more broadly available.

Follow me on Twitter @RussellCawyer

I Quit! Constructive Discharge Serves as Substitute for Adverse Employment Action

Posted in Age, Case Summaries, Discrimination

An essential element of most employment discrimination claims is that the employee suffered an adverse employment action. An employee who resigns often has difficulty making out a prima facie case of discrimination. An exception to this general rule is where the employee suffers a constructive discharge. Stated another way, where the employee can prove that the employer, because of the employee’s protected category, made the work conditions so intolerable that a reasonable person would feel compelled to resign, a resignation may constitute an adverse employment action.

Because an employee’s resignation and claim of constructive discharge allows the employee to substitute his decision to quit for an employer’s decision to take advise action, the threshold for proving a claim of constructive discharge is, and should be, quite high.

A recent case from the Fifth Circuit exemplifies this high standard. In Perret et al. v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, two employees sued the company in race and age discrimination suits (arising under the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act) after they resigned following their placement on a performance improvement plan.  One employee resigned after he was placed on a PIP and was thereafter denied a quarterly bonus (that he had otherwise apparently earned) because of a company policy denying bonuses to employees on PIPs.  The second employee resigned several months after taking a leave of absence which was immediately preceded by the company’s placing the employee on a PIP.  A jury found in favor of the employees but the Fifth Circuit reversed the judgment in their favor.

The Fifth Circuit identified the factors an employee can utilize to establish that the working conditions have become objectively intolerable.  Those factors include:

  • a demotion;
  • a reduction in salary;
  • a reduction in job responsibilities;
  • a reassignment to menial or degrading work;
  • badgering, harassment, or humiliation by the employer calculated to encourage the employee’s resignation;
  • offers of early retirement that would make the employee worse off whether the offer was accepted or not;
  • an ultimatum from the employer that the employee quit or be fired.

In reversing the judgment for the employees, the Court acknowledged that one plaintiff had a quarterly bonus withheld because he was placed on a PIP, but noted the absence any other factors to support of constructive discharge.  As to the second plaintiff who was only placed on the PIP (and did not suffer a missed bonus), the Court found significant, that following the PIP, the employee took two months of leave of absence where he was away from the work area.  Under those circumstances, the Court stated that it was difficult to conclude that he was placed under intolerable working conditions.  Finally, the Court found significant that there was no evidence that Nationwide Mutual’s PIP process inevitably led to the termination of employees and therefore a reasonable employee would not have been compelled to resign following placement on a performance improvement plan –even when coupled with a bonus denial.

The takeaway from Perret is that to establish a constructive discharge claim, merely placement of the employee on a performance improvement plan, even would coupled with a bonus denial, is insufficient as a matter of law to establish a constructive discharge.

You can download a full copy of Perret et al. v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., here.

Follow me on Twitter @RussellCawyer.

Texas Employee Awarded $11.6M by Austin Jury in Defamation Case

Posted in News & Commentary

It’s a rare day in Texas where a single-plaintiff employment case results in a seven or eight figure jury verdict.  However, as the Austin Business Journal recently reported,Microsoft was hit with an $11.6M jury verdict in a defamation case filed by a former employee falsely accused of sexually harassing a Microsoft contractor.

Defamation cases can be particularly dangerous for employers and individual supervisors alike.  Good reputations are valuable and difficult to quantify.  Additionally, defamation claims are one of the few claims where individual managers and supervisors can be held personally liable. Consequently, when it comes to discussing information about former employees with third parties, Thumper’s father was right.  "If you can say something nice, don’t say nothing at all."

A copy of the Mercieca v. Microsoft complaint can be viewed here.

Follow my on Twitter @RussellCawyer.

Ebola Discovered in Texas: What Employers Need to Know

Posted in Human Resources, News & Commentary

As every national news program has announced, the Ebola virus has been diagnosed in a North Texas patient. This is the first diagnosed case of Ebola in the United States.  According to reports, the Liberian national traveled from Liberia through Brussels, Washington D.C., to Dallas, Texas where he was eventually diagnosed with the virus.  Given that the virus has now crossed the Atlantic to the United States, here are a few things employers should know.  

What is Ebola and how is it transmitted?

Ebola, a/k/a hemorrhagic fever, is a deadly virus with no known vaccine (although several experimental treatments are being tested).  The virus has a high fatality rate between 59 and 90 percent.  Symptoms include the sudden onset of fever greater than or equal to 101.5°F, malaise, headache, diarrhea, weakness and vomiting. Symptoms tend appear between two days and three weeks after exposure.  Patients are not contagious if they do not have symptoms.  Ebola is not transmitted through the air or through casual contact.  It is transmitted through contact with infected blood or bodily fluids.

What should employers do?

First, don’t panic.  The epidemic is primarily limited to West Africa.  Given that there has only been one case of the virus diagnosed in Texas and that instance was an imported infection, there does not appear to be an immediate need for employers to take any action other than to monitor current events and be advised if there is a spread or increase in the number of known U.S. cases.  

If, however, your employees work in certain industries such as healthcare, laboratory workers handling human specimens or international airports or airline operations, there is a greater risk of exposure to early onset Ebola virus than for members of the general population.  Healthcare and laboratory workers should strictly follow their hospital’s infection control protocols when handling human bodily fluids.

Similarly, the CDC has issued guidance on steps air carriers can take to protect their work forces.

Second, if the virus spreads in the United States, employers in non-high risk operations should consider making plans for continuing operations in the event of a mass outbreak.  These can include:

  • Identifying key, critical business functions.
  • Creating clear succession plans for key personnel.
  • Training of employees in Ebola signs, symptoms and avoidance.

The Houma-Terrebonne Chamber of Commerce has information on how employers can make plans for Emergency Preparedness and Business Continuity here.

Third, if employees begin to become apprehensive about the potential for a U.S. outbreak, employers can provide training in Ebola prevention and awareness.  The CDC offers some suggestions on how to avoid contracting Ebola. (here).  Educating employees and offering them steps to take to prevent infection may relieve some of their apprehension.

Finally, if a Texas employer believes that it has knowledge of a potential case of Ebola, it should report that belief to the Centers for Disease Control and Texas Department of Health and Human Services.

Resources

The CDC has a site in its Workplace Safety and Health page on Ebola and employers should bookmark this page for reference in the event a spread of the disease occurs.  A link to the page is here.  

The U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Health and Safety Department also has on-line resources and education about protecting employees from Ebola here.

While it currently appears that most U.S. employers and their workforces have little to fear from the Ebola virus, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Follow me on Twitter @RussellCawyer

Broad Definition of Disability Can Provide Some Advantages for Employers in Disability Suits

Posted in Disability, News & Commentary

The Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act greatly expanded the definition of what constitutes a disability.  Consequently, it increased the number of employees who qualify for the protections of the Act (or as I often lament, we’re all disabled).  A positive consequence of this broad definition of disability for defendant-employers is the increased likelihood that in any disability discrimination case, the facts may allow an employer to argue that the plaintiff was not replaced with someone outside the protected class (i.e., nondisabled). Where the threshold to qualify as disabled is so low, plaintiff employees, and replacements alike, likely to qualify as disabled. Which reminds me of Syndrome statement in the The Incredibles; “everyone’s super, no one will be."

Follow me on Twitter @RussellCawyer.

Adrian Peterson Situation Spotlights Dilemma Employers Face Frequently.

Posted in Human Resources, News & Commentary

Our family has a fantasy football league and my 13 year old son Benjamin drafted Adrian Peterson in the pre-season draft. Earlier this week when the Minnesota Vikings activated Peterson to play this weekend, Benjamin was faced with a decision many employers have to make; whether to allow an employee who has been charged, but not convicted, of a criminal offense will be allowed to perform his craft for the employer.

The options employers most frequently chose from when faced with an employee with a pending criminal charge are allowing the employee to continue to work; suspending the employee with or without pay pending resolution of the criminal proceeding or ending the employment relationship altogether. 

Current EEOC guidance discourages employers from making employment-related decisions based on arrests not resulting in convictions. Similarly, our criminal justice system affords the accused the presumption of innocence until proven guilty (something not binding on employment decisions of the employer).

Because the law does not dictate how these decisions are made, they are often driven by economic, business and public relations considerations rather than legal considerations. Is the employee a solid or marginal performer? Does the employee have a control over significant revenue or key customers? Is the offense charged particularly serious or heinous? Has the crime generated media coverage? Peterson was activated to play this weekend because he is a talented running back that the Viking need to play. He was deactivated following the public outcry and sponsors threating or actually pulling their sponsorships of the team. Only when the financial impact of Peterson’s participation outweighed the benefit he could bring on the field did the Vikings reverse course and deactivate the star.

This week, the Vikings made the choice for Benjamin’s fantasy team. The team deactivated the running back and my son had no choice but to bench him this week. I’d like to have watched to see whether Benjamin would have played Peterson this week if the Viking’s hadn’t deactivated him. 

Follow me on Twitter @RussellCawyer.