Source: https://blog.eplaceinc.com/epl/archives/tag/connecticut
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 01:02:44+00:00

Document:
Connecticut | ePlace Solutions, Inc.
Using a third party to inquire into an applicant’s salary history.
Is The Minimum Required Salary For Exempt Employees Increasing In Your State In 2019?
While the FLSA minimum salary requirements for “white collar” employees (executive, administrative, or professional employees) is not changing in 2019 (at least not until/unless the Department of Labor announces a new Overtime Rule), there are several states where the minimum salary requirements for exempt employees is increasing in 2019 (December 31, 2018 for New York employers).
These increases (i.e. in Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, New York, and Oregon) are occurring because the minimum exempt salary rates for these employees (as established under state law) are scheduled to increase in 2018 (December 31st for New York employers).
The below table sets forth the changes to the minimum salary requirements for exempt employees in these states. In those instances where the state minimum salary requirements are lower than the above-listed FLSA requirements, the higher salary threshold applies for employers who are subject to FLSA in order for employees to qualify for an exemption under the FLSA.
Applicable Law: An individual employed in a bona fide executive, administrative, or professional capacity shall be compensated on a salary or fee basis at a rate of not less than two times the state minimum wage for the first 40 hours of employment each week, exclusive of board or lodging that is furnished by the individual’s employer. Alaska Stat. § 23.10.055(b).
Applicable Law: Overtime-exempt executive, administrative and professional employees must earn a monthly salary equivalent to at least two times the state minimum wage for full-time employment. IWC Wage Orders.
Applicable Law: Exempt executive/supervisory employees must be a salaried employee earning in excess of the equivalent of the minimum wage for all hours the employee worked in a workweek. Colorado Minimum Wage Order.
Note: The administrative and professional exemptions only require that an employee be a “salaried individual” and does not provide a minimum salary requirement.
* These numbers are based on the employee working 40 hours per week. If the employee works more than 40 hours per week, the required pay will be greater.
** In order for an executive employee to meet the minimum salary requirement under the FLSA, the employee will need to be paid the FLSA minimum salary. However, once that employee works over 41 hours in a week, the state minimum wage salary requirement will apply.
Applicable Law: The minimum salary requirement to qualify for an executive, professional or administrative exemption is 3,000 times the Maine minimum hourly wage or the minimum salary required by the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, whichever is higher. 26 M.R.S 663(3)(K).
Currently, the state threshold is higher than the FLSA threshold; therefore, the state threshold applies.
Applicable Law: Exempt executive and administrative employees must be paid at least the minimum salary set forth in the applicable New York Wage Orders.
Note: There is no salary basis test for professional employees under New York law.
Applicable Law: The minimum salary requirement to qualify for an executive, professional or administrative exemption is the applicable minimum wage multiplied by 2,080 hours per year and then divided by 12 months. Or. Rev. Stat. § 653.010(9).
NOTE: Currently, only employers in the Portland metropolitan area must pay the state salary in order for to qualify for an executive, professional or administrative exemption. All other employers in Oregon must pay the FLSA minimum salary in order for to qualify for an executive, professional or administrative exemption.
Applicable Law: The minimum salary requirement to qualify for an executive, professional or administrative exemption is $475 per week. Regs., Conn. State Agencies § 31-60-14.
Applicable Law: The minimum salary requirement to qualify as a “high-salaried” executive, professional or administrative employee (and qualify for an exemption from overtime if the duties test is also met) is $500 per week. 875 Iowa Admin. Code 218.1-218.3.
It is recommended that employers in these states verify that their exempt employees are receiving at least the minimum salary requirement to qualify for the exemption.
Also, please remember that meeting the salary requirement is just one element needed to qualify for an exemption from overtime. The employee in question must also meet the duties test and the salary basis test.
On May 22, 2018, Connecticut enacted its own version of the salary history ban, making it the most recent example of this recent legal trend. Similar laws were previously adopted in California, Delaware, Massachusetts, Oregon, and Vermont. Connecticut’s ban will take effect on January 1, 2019.
Prohibiting an employee from inquiring about the wages of another employee.
Prohibiting employees from voluntarily discussing their wages with other employees.
Requiring employees to sign a waiver that denies them the right to voluntarily disclose the amount of their wages or the wages of another employee.
Requiring employees to sign a waiver (or other document) that denies them their right to inquire about the wages of another employee.
Discharging, disciplining, discriminating, retaliating or otherwise penalizing employees who disclose the amount of their wages to another employee.
Discharging, disciplining, discriminating, retaliating or otherwise penalizing employees who inquire about the wages of another employee (neither the employee nor the employer is required to disclose the amount of wages paid to any employee).
Attention Connecticut employers — There are three new employment laws going into effect on October 1, 2017, which will affect your workplace. Are you ready to comply with the following new laws?
The most significant new law going into effect is the Act Concerning Pregnant Women in the Workplace. This law amends the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (CFEPA) to add additional protections for pregnant employees.
Fail or refuse to reinstate the employee to her original job or to an equivalent position with equivalent pay and accumulated seniority, retirement, fringe benefits and other service credits upon her signifying her intent to return unless, in the case of a private employer, the employer’s circumstances have so changed as to make it impossible or unreasonable to do so.
Retaliating against an employee in the terms, conditions or privileges of her employment based upon such employee’s request for a reasonable accommodation.
To new employees upon commencing employment.
The poster is available in English and Spanish on the Connecticut Department of Labor website.
Claims taking extra time to reach the benefits administrator and delaying a company’s response.
Provide the designated mailing address to the Connecticut Department of Labor (which will then list the address on its website) and provide any updates to the address.
If the employer follows the above process, then the 28-day period only begins on the date that the notice of a claim is received at that address (in other words, if the employee sends to a different address, the countdown does not start).
Employees must mail the notice of claim for workers’ compensation benefits to their employers by certified mail.
The benefit for employers, these drivers will not accrue unemployment benefits for their service, and businesses using these drivers are not required to pay unemployment taxes.
In a recent decision (Southwest Appraisal Group, LLC v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act), the Connecticut Supreme Court has provided employers additional guidance on when an individual can be considered an independent contractor – this time in the context of an “independent contractor” working for only one company. Specifically, the Court held that an individual can be considered an independent contractor even if he or she provides services to only one employer.
Southwest Appraisal Group is an automotive damage appraisal business that regularly contracts with independent appraisers for a flat fee.
Upon conducting an audit of Southwest Appraisal Group’s taxes, the Connecticut Unemployment Compensation Act Administrator found that Southwest had misclassified some individuals as independent contractors instead of classifying those individuals as employees. In making this determination, the auditor used the three-prong “ABC test,” which is the test Connecticut uses to determine whether a service provider is an employee or independent contractor.
The worker is customarily engaged in an independently established business of the same nature as the services performed.
Here, the auditor found (and, later, the trial court), that the workers were improperly classified as independent contractors because the company could not satisfy the third prong of the test because the workers in question did not perform work for any companies other than Southwest Appraisal Group during the relevant time period. The fact that workers each owned their own equipment, utilized registered business names, and had business cards with their own contact information and licenses did not change the determination.
Southwest Appraisal Group ultimately appealed the auditor’s finding to the Connecticut Supreme Court. The sole issue before the Court – Does the ABC Test require proof that a worker classified as an independent contractor perform services for multiple companies.
Whether the performance of services affects the goodwill of the individual rather than the company for which he or she is performing services.
What Does This Mean for Connecticut Employers?
This case provides valuable guidance for employers who engage the services of independent contractors. It is recommended that Connecticut employers regularly audit their independent contractor relationships to ensure that the totality of the circumstances supports the classification of the worker as an independent contractor.
Connecticut Employers – Do You Consider Your Delivery Drivers Eligible for a “Tip Credit”?
If you do, you must cease this practice immediately. In a recent case (Amaral Brothers, Inc. v. Department of Labor), the Connecticut Supreme Court found that employers cannot take advantage of a “tip credit” for delivery drivers in order to meet the state minimum wage.
Under Connecticut wage and hour law (Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-60(b)), a tip credit may be taken for “persons, other than bartenders, who are employed in the hotel and restaurant industry . . . who customarily and regularly receive gratuities.” This law allows certain businesses (e.g. hotels and restaurants) to pay their “service employees” an hourly rate below the state minimum wage and “credit” a portion of the tips earned by the employee towards the required minimum wage.
In this case, a group of pizza delivery drivers had filed a class action lawsuit against their employer claiming that the employer improperly took a “tip credit” from their wages and, as a result, failed to pay them minimum wage in accordance with the law.
The employer, on the other hand, claimed that the employees were “service employees” and, as a result, eligible for the tip credit.
Connecticut law defines “service employees” as “any employee whose duties relate solely to the serving of food and/or beverages to patrons seated at tables or booths, and to the performance of duties incidental to such service, and who customarily receive gratuities.” The employer argued that delivery drivers were service employees because their job duties were similar to that of a waiter carrying food to a customer at a table.
For those employers who employ delivery drivers, this ruling may impact how those employees are paid. If your company currently applies a “tip credit” to these employees, that practice must stop immediately. In addition, to the extent that your waitstaff also perform delivery services, the time spent performing those services is not eligible for a tip credit.
Thirty-five states have agreed to “team up” with the US Department of Labor to investigate worker misclassification. Is your state one of them?
In 2015, Department of Labor launched an initiative to combat the misclassification of employees as independent contractors. As a part of this initiative, the Department of Labor sought to partner with the state agencies and agree to share information and conduct joint investigations regarding independent contractor misclassification. To date, 35 states have entered into a memorandum of understanding regarding worker misclassification issues.
What does this mean for employers in these states?
Employers in the above-listed states should expect collaborative efforts between their state agencies and the Department of Labor during a investigation into potential employee misclassification as the state and the Department of Labor will share information. This could lead to simultaneous, multi-agency investigations into worker classification. It is recommended that companies have qualified legal counsel review any existing independent contractor arrangements. In addition, before entering into an independent contractor relationship, speak with an HR Professional or qualified legal counsel to verify that the worker truly is an independent contractor.
On June 7, 2016, Connecticut Governor Dannel P. Malloy signed S.B. 211, Public Act 16-125 (entitled “An Act Allowing Employers to Pay Wages Using Payroll Cards”) into law. As the law’s title suggests, this new law will allow Connecticut employers to pay employee wages via payroll cards – subject, of course, to certain conditions.
A payroll card is a stored value card or other device used by an employee to access wages from a payroll card account and that is redeemable at the employee’s election at multiple unaffiliated merchants or service providers, bank branches or automated teller machines.
A payroll card account is any bank or credit union account that is established through an employer to which transfers of wages, salary or compensation are made and accessed through a payroll card.
An employee voluntarily and expressly authorizes payment of wages, salary or other compensation using a payroll card. Such authorization may be either written or electronic.
The associated costs of payment via payroll cards are NOT passed onto the employees.
The payroll cards used are associated with an ATM network with a “substantial number” of in-network ATMs.
Employees are permitted to withdraw of the full amount of the net wages, salary or compensation for the pay period at a convenient location.
Employees have the ability to check payroll card account balances 24 hours a day, 7 days a week by an automated phone system, teller machine, or electronically — free of charge.
To the extent possible, the payroll card account cannot allow for overdrafts. In addition, no fees or interest may be imposed for any overdrafts or for the first two declined transactions of each month.
While a payroll card may include an expiration date, the funds in a payroll card account cannot expire and employees must be provided with a replacement card free of charge prior to the expiration date.
In addition to the above-listed conditions, employees must also be permitted to change over to another payment method at the employee’s discretion. If an employee requests to change from payment via payroll card to payment via check or direct deposit, the employer must start paying the employee by the requested method within 14 days of receiving the notice.
A statement that third parties may assess fees.
The new law goes into effect on October 1, 2016. If employers intend to implement payment of wages via payroll card in Connecticut, they should familiarize themselves with the new law and insure that any payroll card payment program complies with Connecticut’s requirements.
The worker must be customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession or business of the same nature as the service being provided.
This case involved a dispute as to whether the installers/technicians Standard Oil used to install and service home heating and alarm systems for its residential customers were properly classified as independent contractors.
When this question was brought before the Connecticut Department of Labor (CTDOL), it determined these workers were improperly classified because (a) they performed work that was part of Standard Oil’s usual course of business and (b) they performed work at customers’ homes, which the CTDOL determined constituted Standard Oil’s places of business. As a result, these workers did not meet 2 of the 3 prongs of the ABC Test and were employees of the Company.
The Connecticut Supreme Court disagreed with this ruling and issued clarification on the factors that should be taken into consideration when evaluating prongs A and B of the ABC Test.
Prong B of the ABC Test focuses on whether the worker’s services are performed either (a) outside the usual course of the employer’s business or (b) outside all of the employer’s place of business. In this case, the Court’s focus was on the question of whether a customer’s residence would be considered part of the “employer’s place of business” when the work is performed at the residence.
Prior to this decision, the term “place of business” was undefined in Connecticut’s Unemployment Compensation Act. In looking at the legislative history, the Court found that “the employer’s place of business” meant locations that were “in, on or around premises under such employer’s control” – like the employer’s business offices, warehouses and other facilities. In situations where the worker is working at a customer’s residence unaccompanied by company employees and without company supervision, the Court found that the worker would not be performing work at the employer’s place of business. Instead, because the customers (1) determine when the worker can access their homes, (2) bring the worker to the place(s) on their home/property where equipment was to be installed, and (3) identify problems, the customer is in control of the worksite.
Based on this interpretation of “place of business,” the Court determined that the workers did meet Prong B of the ABC Test.
Analysis of Prong A of the ABC Test requires a weighing of several different factors to determine whether the workers were under the company’s control and direction. Here, while the Court agreed that there were several factors that indicated the company did exercise some control over the workers, those factors were outweighed by other factors, which demonstrated that the company did not have the right to control the means and methods of the work performed by the workers.
The workers paid for their own transportation.
Employers should consider reevaluating the classification of their independent contractors in light of this decision. When doing this analysis, keep in mind that worker classification is an individualized determination based on the specific facts of each worker relationship. While this case may provide helpful guidance for employers in determining whether an independent contractor is properly classified, the individual circumstances of a specific worker relationship will govern.
Connecticut Employers, Are Your Wage Payment Practices Compliant?
A newly effective law gives Connecticut employers reason to audit their wage payment practices and ensure that those practices are in compliance with Connecticut law.
On October 1, 2015, Connecticut’s “Act Concerning an Employer’s Failure to Pay Wages” went into effect. Under this law, unless employers can show that the mistake was made “in good faith” (a term that is not defined in the statute), Connecticut employers will be subjected to mandatory double damages for failure to pay wages, accrued fringe benefits, or an arbitration award, or failure to pay state minimum wage or overtime. In addition, the new law allows a prevailing plaintiff-employee to recover his/her attorney fees.
In light of the steep penalties associated with violations of Connecticut’s wage and hour laws, it is recommended that Connecticut employers consult with a qualified employment attorney to ensure their wage practices and policies are in compliance with Connecticut law.

References: § 23
 § 653
 § 31
 v. 
 v. 
 § 31