Employment Law This Week®: DC's Paid Leave Law, NYSDOL Regulations Revoked, Outsourcing Violated the NLRA, HHS Regulations Affect Employers

(1) D.C. Passes Expansive Paid Leave Law

Our top story: The District of Columbia passes the nation’s most expansive paid leave law. The Universal Paid Leave Amendment Act provides for a combined 16 weeks of paid time off for parental, family, and personal sick leave. Despite D.C. Mayor Bowser’s opposition to the law, she returned the bill unsigned. That means it will go into effect this spring unless Congress acts to intervene. Brian Steinbach, from Epstein Becker Green, has more on the new law:

“Starting in July of 2019, employers will have to pay a 0.62% payroll tax to finance this benefit. They don’t have to pay the employees directly; instead, they’ll pay into a fund that will pay the employees. ... Presently, there is, under the D.C. Family and Medical Leave Act, up to 16 weeks of unpaid medical leave and 16 weeks unpaid family leave. This [is] now . . . a concurrent period that would be paid, which suggests it would be more likely to be used.”

For more, click here: http://bit.ly/2meZNwt

(2) IBA Revokes NYSDOL Regulations on Debit Card and Direct Deposit Payments

New regulations on payroll debit card and direct deposit payments in New York have been revoked. The regulations included written notice and written consent requirements, as well as the regulation of fees charged by payroll debit card providers. The New York State Industrial Board of Appeals revoked the regulations, finding that the Commissioner of Labor exceeded his authority by seeking to restrict banking services and financial institutions.

For more, click here: http://bit.ly/2lgHXFi

(3) Fifth Circuit: Outsourcing Violated the NLRA

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.

(4) HHS Proposed Regulations Include New Requirements for Employers

Proposed regulations from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) include new requirements for employers. The new proposed regulations from the HHS are designed to help stabilize the health insurance exchanges. Though the proposals focus on individual coverage, there are some provisions that will impact employers. New requirements would institute stricter verification for mid-year enrollment through the state and federal market exchanges. Individuals claiming loss of employer-sponsored coverage as the reason for special enrollment would need timely, written verification from their employer. The regulations would take effect by mid-2017.

(5) Tip of the Week

Nausheen Rokerya, Associate General Counsel for Visiting Nurse Service of New York, has some advice on leave as a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act, based on guidance from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

“While the document itself didn’t necessarily break any new ground, it did reiterate the EEOC’s position that a simple request for medical leave does constitute a request for a reasonable accommodation that thereby triggers, on the part of the employer, an obligation to go through this interactive process. ... Undue hardship analysis is the other piece of this puzzle. ... [and] whether a qualified disabled individual has a right to reassignment in a vacancy without having to compete with others for that position. The EEOC’s position on this is that a qualified disabled individual does have a right to that vacancy and, further, that an employer cannot require that employee to compete with others. However, we have a recent Eleventh Circuit court decision that cuts the other way. ... At this point, because it remains somewhat of an open question, employers are advised to stay abreast of any developments on this question in their jurisdictions.”