Source: http://thelejer.wordpress.com/author/laborlawadmin/
Timestamp: 2013-12-08 11:14:57
Document Index: 385079041

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1324', '§ 1324', '§ 274', 'in Fine', '§ 274', '§ 20', '§ 20', '§ 20']

Hofstra Labor & Employment Law Journal | The L•E•Jer
Author Archives: Hofstra Labor & Employment Law Journal	Nov 30 2013
Our own Editor in Chief, Meredith Kurz, was published on The Jurist! Click to link below to read her article discussing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and its effects on ERISA benefits.
http://jurist.org/dateline/2013/11/meredith-kurz-erisa-aca.php
OCAHO Slides Back on Employer Sanctions for I-9 Violations
By: Yuwei Ji
The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (“IRCA”) requires employers to verify that every new employee has proper authorization to work in the United States.[1] The IRCA and its implementing regulations subject employers to responsibility not only for knowingly hiring an unauthorized worker, but even for failing to properly complete an employment eligibility verification form, also known as Form I-9.[2]
The Obama administration has opted to pursue a new immigration enforcement strategy by increasing employer audits and sanctions in order to create an economic disincentive for employers to escape from their Form I-9 obligations under the IRCA.[3] Fortunately for many employers, however, an employer may request a review before the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer (“OCAHO”) if they believe a finding of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) is in error.[4] OCAHO has recently decided on many cased directing the ICE to reduce penalties deemed unfair or excessive.[5]
Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) states that, when determining the penalties for I-9 paperwork violations, “due consideration shall be given to,” among other factors, “the size of the business of the employer” and “the good faith of the employer.”[6] In U.S. v. Taste of China,[7] the OCAHO reduced penalty by more than 60 percent for a restaurant with 10-14 employees, where it found no bad faith since all of the employees were authorized to work in the U.S. although the I-9 forms were problematic.
The OCAHO interprets “bad faith” narrowly when faced with struggling, small businesses. In U.S. v. La Hacienda Mexican Café,[8] even when the Form I-9 violation was so serious that the employer failed to complete any I-9 forms for the employees, with a concern of its reluctance to cripple small businesses, the OCAHO found no bad faith because the employer was not aware of the I-9 requirement, and substantially reduce the fine.
As a take-away, employers should pay more attention about their Form I-9 obligations as the ICE is taking I-9 compliance very seriously. Also, employers of small businesses need not be too intense about this issue since they can expect OCAHO to go sympathetic and lenient on them if they handle their responsibilities carefully and professionally.
[1] See Immigration Reform and Control Act, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1324a (a) (1).
[2] See 8 U.S.C.A. § 1324a (b) (1) (A); Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 C.F.R. § 274a.2 (a) (2).
[3] See Allen Smith, I-9 Audits on the Rise in Obama Administration, SHRM (Jan. 11, 2011), http://www.shrm.org/legalissues/federalresources/pages/i9auditsobamaadministration.aspx. (“the Obama ICE has increased administrative fines and paper audits”; also quoting an attorney’s words that the Obama administration has imposed higher fines for form I-9 violations and that “[e]mployers and their managers also can face criminal prosecution if they deliberately neglect their legal responsibilities in this area.”).
[4] Fact Sheet: Form I-9 Inspection Overview, ICE (June 26, 2013), http://www.ice.gov/news/library/factsheets/i9-inspection.htm.
[5] See Trends in Fines Assessment for I-9 Paperwork Violation OCAHO Update, FOLEY (Aug. 19, 2013), http://www.foley.com/trends-in-fines-assessment-for-i-9-paperwork-violations–ocaho-update-08-19-2013 (introducing a trend of the OCAHO administrative law judge finding ICE’s fines assessment to be unduly harsh).
[6] See 8 C.F.R. § 274a (e) (5).
[7] 10 OCAHO no. 1164 (2013).
[8] 10 OCAHO no. 1167 (2013).
Tagged Administrative law judge, Audit, i-9, Obama, Obama administration, OCAHO, Office of Chief Administrative Hearing Officer, United States	Nov 06 2013
An End to the BART Dispute to Give Relief To Bay Area Commuters
By: Brittany Uslaner
The commuting nightmare of numerous San Francisco citizens will hopefully be over this coming week as it appears a deal has been reached to settle the contract dispute between the management of Bay Area Rapid Transit, known as BART, and BART employees. BART employees are largely represented by two unions, Service Employees International Union Local 1021 and Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1555.[1] These workers are responsible for “carrying 400,000 passengers daily between the East Bay and San Francisco”.[2] In July, the failure between the unions and BART to reach a contract resulted in a four and a half day walkout by BART workers.[3] The walkout ended when California Governor Jerry Brown “called for a 60 day-cooling off period”.[4] With the cooling off period over on October 10, negotiations resumed between the union and BART.[5]
On the night of October 17, after 28 straight hours of negotiations, union leaders and BART management still had not reached a deal.[6] With no deal in place, BART employees were to begin what would turn into a four-day strike.[7] As commuter frustration and anger towards both sides increased, the pressure to reach a deal greatly increased.[8] On October 19, a trainer operated by an employee in training killed two BART workers in the East Bay area.[9] Finally a four-year deal was reached over the terms of the new contract thereby leading to the end of the strike and the resumption of BART service on October 22.[10]
Under the terms of the deal, BART maintenance workers, station agents, and train operators will get a 15.4 percent wage increase over the next four years.[11] Employees who had previously been paying nothing towards their pensions will start contributing four percent.[12] The amount employees are to pay into their health coverage will rise from $92 per month to $130 per month.[13] This contract will put a cap on, but not eliminate overtime rules for sick pay and extra shifts.[14] Fifteen station-agents booths will have bulletproof glass installed in them.[15] Additionally, BART will make various technological upgrades to its facilities.[16] By Friday November 1, 2013, both unions had voted to approve the contracts.[17] However, BART board members still need to vote on the new deal with the unions at a future meeting.[18]
The ramifications of the BART strike are yet to be seen. With election day approaching, one if left to wonder if the voters of the Bay Area will blame those in office for not putting enough pressure on the unions and BART to end the strike. Perhaps the citizens of the Bay Area will place blame on the unions leading to the diminishment of union power in the area. The consequences for those directly involved in the strike may be uncertain, but at least the commute of 400,000 passengers will hopefully be a lot less unpleasant this coming week.
[1] BART unions ratify labor deals that ended four-day rail strike, Los Angeles Times, http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-bart-unions-ratify-labor-deals-20131102,0,7298606.story#axzz2jbyi3EE0
[2] San Francisco Area Transit Strike Stymies Commuters, The New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/19/us/bart-labor-dispute-san-francisco-commute.html?_r=0
[3] BART unions ratify labor deals that ended four-day rail strike, Los Angeles Times, http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-bart-unions-ratify-labor-deals-20131102,0,7298606.story#axzz2jbyi3EE0
[4] Id. [5] San Francisco Area Transit Strike Stymies Commuters, The New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/19/us/bart-labor-dispute-san-francisco-commute.html?_r=0
[6] Id. [7] Id. [8] Id. [9] BART Unions Ratify Contract That Ended Strike, ABC News, http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/bart-union-ratifies-contract-ended-strike-20763533
[10] BART contract deal a loser for all concerned, SF Gate, http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/editorials/article/BART-contract-deal-a-loser-for-all-concerned-4921073.php
[11] Id. [12] Id. [13] Id. [14] Id. [15] Id. [16] Id. [17] BART unions ratify labor deals that ended four-day rail strike, Los Angeles Times, http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-bart-unions-ratify-labor-deals-20131102,0,7298606.story#axzz2jbyi3EE0
[18] Id. Tagged Amalgamated Transit Union, BART, Bay Area Rapid Transit, East Bay, Jerry Brown, San Francisco, San Francisco Bay Area, Service Employees International Union	Nov 04 2013
New York City Rule’s Mandatory Paid Sick Days
By: Jordan Silber
As flu season rolls around each year, over 40 million American workers throughout the country are reminded of the fact that there are no laws, which protect them by requiring their employers to provide paid sick leave.[1] However, over this past summer, it will now be much easier for New Yorkers to take a sick day from work as New York City joined several other jurisdictions in enacting legislation, which will require certain businesses to revamp their policies regarding time given to employees for sick leave. Despite Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s efforts to veto the legislation because of the potential negative effects it may have on small businesses,[2] the New York City Council overruled the mayor’s veto and passed the Earned Sick Time Act,[3] and adopted it into law in June 2013.[4]
The Act was enacted to combat a significant problem facing many New York City workers, who would have to take off work and thus lose their compensation for that days work, or worse, risk getting fired, in order to care for themselves or a loved one.[5] Many employees simply cannot afford to take these risks, so instead they remain at work and stick it out.[6] This decision has several negative impacts. According to a 2009 study, workers who do not take care of their illness at its onset, often take more time off as the conditions worsen.[7] Additionally, workers are potentially putting themselves at risk of getting injured on the job or exposing their illness to their co-workers, which will increase absences and low productivity.[8] Recognizing this issue, City Council Speaker Christine C. Quinn, has advocated that “[p]eople who are sick or who need to care for a loved one should be able to take time off without the fear of losing their job or not having money to pay the bills.”[9]
Under the new legislation, an estimated one million New York City private-sector employees, whom do not currently have access to paid sick time when they or their family members are ill, will be provided with paid (and in some cases unpaid) days off.[10] The Act, which will be implemented on scheduled intervals, is expected to go into effect April 1, 2014, depending on the financial stability of the city’s economy.[11]
The first phase of the program, beginning in April 2014 will require employers with 20 or more employees to provide workers with five paid sick days a year, while smaller businesses will receive job protection for up to 40 hours (5 days) of unpaid sick time per year.[12] The next phase of the program will go into effect in October 2015 and will reduce the threshold to 15 employees, while workers of smaller businesses will still be provided unpaid sick time.[13] Employees will earn one hour of sick time for every 30 hours worked.[14] Employee coverage under the Act is broad. The Act generally applies to any person employed for hire within New York City for more than 80 hours in a calendar year who performs work on a full-time or part-time basis.[15] Almost all non-governmental employees who work in New York City are covered under the Act, however there are some exemptions, including independent contractors, and work study students.[16]
In order to permissibly utilize their sick leave benefits, the Act maintains that employees are entitled to take sick leave for their “mental or physical illness, injury or health condition.[17] Additionally, employees are entitled to take time off if they or their eligible family members: (1) need a medical diagnosis; (2) require care or treatment of a mental or physical illness, injury or health condition; or (3) need preventative medical care.[18] The Act defines a “family member” as an employee’s spouse or registered domestic partner, parent, parent-in-law or parent of a domestic partner, and child or child of a domestic partner, including a biological, adopted or foster child, a stepchild, a legal ward, or a child of an employee standing in loco parentis.[19]
Due to its large population, New York City’s enactment of the Act has advocates of the benefit program increasingly optimistic that more cities will follow suit and implement similar programs with the hope that such laws will be the norm throughout the country in the near future.[20] This movement is gaining even more notoriety as Jersey City, the second largest city in New Jersey, passed a similar legislation in late September.[21] Therefore, it would be wise for employers in anticipation of these laws taking effect in major city’s, to review the new legislation and revise their current leave polices to provide paid or unpaid time off that is just as or more generous than legislation currently being implemented.
[1] Working While Sick, N.Y. Times (August 4, 2012), http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/05/opinion/sunday/working-while-sick.html?_r=2
[2] Tina Moore & Erin Durkin, City Council Overrides Mayor Bloomberg’s Veto of paid sick-leave Bill in Early Morning Session, N.Y. Daily News (June 27, 2013), http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/city-council-overrides-bloomberg-veto-paid-sick-leave-bill-article-1.1383764
[3] N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 20-911
[4] Jennifer Peltz, New York City Passes Paid Sick Time Law, Huffington Post (June, 27, 2013, 3:59 AM), http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/27/nyc-paid-sick-time_n_3507814.html
[7] Jena McGregor, New York Diners Relax. Paid Sick Leave is Now the Law, Wash. Post (June 27, 2013), http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-leadership/wp/2013/06/27/new-york-passes-paid-sick-leave-law-but-u-s-still-far-behind/
[9] Dominique Debucquoy-Dodley, New York City Council Approves Paid Sick Time Act, Bloomberg Vows Veto, CNN (May 9, 2013), http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/08/us/new-york-worker-sick-time/
[10] N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 20-911
[11] New York City Statute Grants Employees New Sick Leave Rights, Business Management Daily (October 21, 2013, 2:00 PM), http://www.businessmanagementdaily.com/36322/new-york-city-statute-grants-employees-new-sick-leave-rights# (noting that the implementation date of the act can be postponed if the economy underperforms)
[15] Jonathan S. Hershberg & Laura Sack, Mandatory Paid Sick Leave Arrives in New York City (September 10, 2013), http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=40ead30a-2ebd-47c7-b191-a0987d7a0788
[16] Chris Bragg, The Paid Sick Leave Amendment, in Full, Crain’s Insider Blog (March 1, 2013), http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20130301/BLOGS04/130309991
[17] N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 20-911
[20] New York City to Require Businesses to Offer Paid Sick Leave, CNBC (June 27, 2013), http://www.cnbc.com/id/100848622
[21] Jersey City Council Passes Bill to Require Paid Sick Leave, ABC Local (September 26, 2013), http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/local/new_jersey&id=9262380
Tagged Christine Quinn, City Council, Michael Bloomberg, New Jersey, New York City, New York City Council, New Yorker, Sick leave	Nov 04 2013
Leveling The Playing Field For Criminal Offenders
By: Vincent Valente
Ban the box.[1] It is a campaign to give people with past convictions a fair chance at getting a job.[2] The campaign began by a national civil rights organization of formerly-incarcerated people and their families called All of Us or None.[3] People with past convictions face a huge barrier with job and housing discrimination when trying to reintegrating into society.[4]
There is an underlying premise that employers do not choose their candidates based on job skills and qualifications but on past convictions when the box is checked.[5] This group believes that by removing the box, an employer will select the candidate based on skills and qualifications because the box that tells the employer, “Hey, I was convicted of a crime”, is no longer there.[6] Now, the group does not think that past convictions should be hidden entirely, but that it should be brought up later on in the job selection process, such as in the interview.[7] Thus, allowing them a foot in the door.
The first phase of this campaign focused on Public Employers and has been met with approval and success.[8] Minnesota, for example, has banned the box for public employment applicants and is introducing a bill to further expand upon it.[9] Over forty-five cities and counties, including NY, have removed the box from their employment applications. In addition, other states, such as California, have changed their hiring practices in public employment to reduce discrimination based on arrest or conviction records.[10]
Even the EEOC has clarified and strengthened its policies in regard to using criminal history in making employment decisions.[11] For example, the EEOC has begun prosecuting employers who have a blanket ban on hiring people with felony convictions.[12] In other words, employers can no longer automatically deny people jobs based on arrest or conviction records.
Another victory for the campaign came when Target announced that it will remove the question about criminal history from its job applications throughout the country.[13] It didn’t come without effort. Target’s actions are in response to comply with the new Minnesota law and a two year campaign which consisted of public action at Target’s headquarters, hundreds of rejected applicants that have past records visiting Target’s shareholder meeting, and numerous emails and phone calls with target executives.[14] However, having such a large retailer such as Target remove the box isn’t news to the campaign.[15] Wal-Mart removed their criminal history box from its applications back in 2010.[16] These retail giants are helping level the playing field for those with a criminal history.
These ban the box laws, do not remove the ability for employers to conduct background checks or drug tests,[17] nevertheless, removal of the box helps reduce discrimination among convicted offenders. By not being eliminated at the very beginning of the job search they have a better shot at getting the job.[18] It is leveling the playing field a little more for those with prior convictions; they can now get their foot in the door.
[1] All of Us or None, The Campaign, Ban the Box Campaign, http://bantheboxcampaign.org/?p=20 (last visited Oct. 31, 2013).
[7]Janet Moore, Target to ban criminal history box on job applications, Star Tribune, http://www.startribune.com/business/229310141.html (last visited Oct. 31, 2013).
[8] All of Us or None, supra note 1.
[11] Moore, supra, note 7.
[12] All of Us or None, supra note 1.
[13]Brent Staples, Target Bans the Box, NY Times, http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/29/target-bans-the-box/?hp&rref=opinion&_r=0 (last visited Oct. 31, 2013).
[14] Moore, supra note 7.
[15] Id. [16] Id.
Tagged Application for employment, California, Crime, Criminal record, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Minnesota, Target Corporation, United States	Nov 03 2013
Tagged Fair Labor Standards Act, Hans Christian Andersen, Indiana, Richard Posner, Supreme Court, Supreme Court of the United States, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, US Steel	Nov 01 2013
31st Symposium Posts
Tagged 1993 Family Medical Leave Act, Attachment Theory, Congress, FMLA, Leave of absence, Maryland, Sick leave, United States	Nov 01 2013
Panel 2: Workplace Uncertainties Under the ACA: Preparing the Employer and the Employee for the Road Ahead
By: Caitlin Esposito
Steven Friedman, Shareholder and Co-Chair, Employee Benefits Practice Group, Littler
Play-or-Play Basics:
If employers have over fifty full-time employees, they must provide all of their full-time employees with healthcare coverage that meets the government’s standards. An employee is considered full-time if he/she works a minimum of thirty hours a week. Employers must offer the opportunity to enroll in a minimum essential coverage plan to at least 95% of their full-time employees. If employers do not comply with these governmental standards, they must pay a tax of $2,000 per full-time employee. However, most employer plans satisfy this minimum standard. Mandatory reporting requirements have been delayed one year until January 1, 2015. Ultimately, employers have one year to decide if they are going to pay-or-play.
Marketplaces, also known as exchanges, offer qualified health plans. There are different levels of coverage (bronze, silver, gold, and platinum). Marketplaces help individuals who go to purchase coverage by determining if they are qualified for lower premium costs.
Individuals can enroll to help determine eligibility for other government programs, such as Medicaid, CHIP, QHP, or other federal assistance.
Small group marketplaces offer coverage to all full-time employees in a QHP based on either the employer’s primary place business address or primary worksite. In New York, small businesses are considered employers with at least 50 employees. Employers have a number of benefit and contribution options, they can choose a single plan or offer a variety of plans to employees.
A recent poll of small business employers reveals that a majority of employers (48%) believe that the ACA is going to be bad for their business. Almost a quarter of the employers polled are going to consider dropping health insurance as a result of the ACA. About 20% of employers are considering reducing the hours of employers from full-time to part-time as a result of the ACA. These results show that small businesses are taking a close look at regulations and thinking of taking action.
Employers need to determine if they are in compliance with current and upcoming requirements. Employers should start counting employees’ hours to determine who is a full-time employee to see who falls in the plan. Employers should keep on planning and weigh the cost of paying-or-playing.
Tagged Business, Full-time, Health insurance, Insurance, Marketplace, Medicaid, New York, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act	Nov 01 2013
31st Symposium Posts, Uncategorized
Tagged ADA Amendments Act of 2008, Disability, discrimination, Handicapped, Keith Frank, Kevin Barry, Reasonable accommodation, Recruitment	Nov 01 2013
Forging a Path: Dissecting Controversial Health Legislation in the Workplace
Today is our 31st Anniversary Symposium, titled Forging a Path: Dissecting Controversial Health Legislation in the Workplace. Stay tuned as we will be live blogging the three panels.