The Rocky Mountain Employer

The United States Department of Labor (“DOL”) has proposed new regulations which would allow employers who do not take a tip credit to open tip pools to non-tipped employees.  Employers use tip credits to pay the tipped minimum wage (an amount lower than federal or state minimum wage) and rely upon the tips employees receive to cover the difference between the employees’ tipped minimum wage and the state or federal minimum wage.  Under current federal law, employers can require tipped employees to pool or share tips only among employees who regularly and customarily receive tips (i.e., servers, bartenders, and bussers).  At the federal level, the current restriction applies regardless of whether the employer claims a tip credit.  The DOL proposal would still prevent employers who use tip credits from pooling tips with non-tipped employees. 

The National Labor Relations Act’s (NLRA) test for determining whether multiple businesses are joint employers has been restored to its traditional interpretation by the Republican-Majority National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).  In Hy-Brand Indus. Contractors, Ltd., the NLRB overruled Browning-Ferris Indus., one of the Obama-era NLRB’s more contentious rulings, in a 3-2 decision, calling the Browning-Ferris decision “a distortion of common law as interpreted by the Board and the courts.”

The newly Republican-majority National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) has wasted no time setting aside controversial Obama-era Board decisions. This week’s blog focuses on last week’s decision in The Boeing Company, which concerns the legality of employee handbook rules.  Next week we will discuss the Board’s reversal of the Obama-era rule governing joint employer status.

In 2018, the federal minimum wage will remain at $7.25 per hour, which has been the rate since 2009. Numerous states, cities, and municipalities have minimum wage requirements that exceed the federal rate. In 2018, the minimum wage rates in 19 states, including Colorado, and the District of Columbia, will increase.

As companies evaluate their year-end performance, many will decide to close plants or lay off employees in unprofitable divisions. Before doing so, companies should pay close attention to the requirements of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988 (“WARN Act”).

Employers who hire foreign workers are now likely to undergo additional scrutiny.  The United States Department of Justice Immigrant and Employee Rights Section (“DOJ/IER”) and the State Department’s Bureau of Consular Affairs (“DOS/CA”) have teamed up in a new effort to combat visa fraud and discrimination against U.S. workers.  The aim of the partnership is to protect U.S. workers from discrimination by an employer preferring to hire foreign workers.  The agencies will share information about employers that may be engaging in unlawful discrimination, such as by making misrepresentations in their use of employment-based visas.

A Denver federal court rejected a company’s argument that it was entitled to summary judgment on wage claims because the plaintiff was an independent contractor. Although plaintiff’s title was Director and Business Analyst for the defendant company (“Company”) and he at times described himself as a “1099 employee,” he signed an “employment agreement” with the Company, but the Company did not pay plaintiff directly. Instead the company made payments to the plaintiff’s limited liability company. After the work relationship ended, plaintiff claimed that the Company failed to pay his earned, vested wages at the time of his termination, in violation of the Colorado Wage Act (the “CWA”), and failed to pay minimum wage, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).

Last week, the American Association of Retired Persons (“AARP”) won a challenge to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (“EEOC”) rules regarding employee wellness programs. This post discusses the legal challenge, the EEOC rules at issue, and practical takeaways for employers.