Today's Technology for Tomorrow's Firm.
Issue link: https://cpapracticeadvisor.epubxp.com/i/728133
September 2016 • www.CPAPracticeAdvisor.com 17 THE LABOR LAW ADVISOR expanding upon their own equal pay laws. On January 1, California's Fair Pay Act took effect. Under the new law, employers have a far greater burden to prove that their pay prac- tices aren't discriminatory. New York has passed a similar law. Along with state laws, employers can al so face pay d i scr iminat ion claims under laws such as the Equal Pay Act of 1963, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in E m p l o y m e n t A c t o f 1967, the Lilly Ledbeer Fair Pay Act of 2009, and Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commis- sion ("EEOC"), " The law against compensa- t i o n d i s c r i m i n a t i o n includes al l pay ments made to or on behalf of employees as remunera- tion for employment. All forms of compensation are covered, including s a l a r y, ov e r t i m e pay, bonuses, stock options, profit sharing and bonus p l a n s , l i f e i n su ra n ce, vacation and holiday pay, c l e a n i n g o r g a s o l i n e allowances, hotel accom- modations, reimburse- ment for travel expenses, and benefits." Union issues The U.S. Supreme Court has always been an unknow n factor w hen it comes to deciding cases involv ing unions, but the situation has only grown more uncertain with the death of Justice Antonin Scalia and gridlock i n Wa s h i n g to n t h at h a s l e f t t h e nation's highest court with only eight justices. That gridlock was on clear display in a recent ruling for California Teachers Association that handed a major victory to public-sector labor unions. W hen the case was argued in Jan- uary, many observers thought Scalia would stand with the majority and find that forcing public workers to f i na n c i a l l y su p p o r t u n i o n s t h e y refused to join v iolated their First Amendment rights. However, with Scalia's death, the court deadlocked 4-4. at meant that the ruling from the U.S. Cour t of A ppeals for the Ninth Circuit upholding the fee col - lect ions remained in effect. Beyond California, a ruling against the union could have had an impact i n 2 3 s t a t e s , w h e r e teachers and other gov- ernment workers are required to contribute to unions they don't sup- port. T h e teac h e r s w h o brought the case have a s k e d t h e c o u r t t o rehear their case once a ninth justice has been confirmed—although the result of that case w ill likely depend on who wins control of the White House in the fall, and whether a liberal or conservative justice ulti- m a t e l y j o i n s t h e Supreme Court. I n J u l y 2 0 1 6 , t h e National Labor R ela- tions Board ("NLRB") issued another signifi- cant decision. In par t o n e o f t h i s t wo - pa r t series (www.CPAPracticeAdvisor. com/12080877), we discussed the N L R B's re c e n t ac t i v i t y i n c a s e s involving Browning-Ferris Industries and McDonald's, and we talked about how the NLRB has loosened consid- erably the amount of control a com- pany must exercise over a worker before that company will be deemed a joint employer for labor law purposes. Since then, the NLRB has expanded upon its precedent. In a case involving Miller & Anderson, Inc., the NLRB overruled its own prior case law and found that an employer and a staffing company need not consent before an election covering temporary workers and regular employees can take place. Thi s dec i sion ex pand s u pon the NLRB's recent joint employer rulings, and opens the door even further for organizing of a company's temporary workforce. The push to "ban the box" Over the past several years, there has been a push by many advocates to " ban the box ," meaning preclude employers from asking applicants whether they have ever been con- victed of a crime. The EEOC previ- ously issued guidance on the use of criminal history information and has even filed several high-profile lawsuits alleging violations of anti-discrimina- tion law based on application ques- tions. Several states and cities have issued regulations banning such ques- tions, at least until aer a job offer has been made. For example, in March 2016, Austin, Texas amended the city code to preclude private employers from asking applicants questions per- taining to their cr iminal hi stor y. Employers should be aware of any such rules in their area, whether state- w ide or v ia local ord inance, and should tai lor their hiring process accordingly. In the current regulatory, legislative and legal env ironment, employers need to understand how they could be impacted by all the changes in the reg- ulator y landscape. By working with trusted ex per ts, including outside counsel, companies can minimize their exposure, risk, and expenses. For more information, please visit CPAPracticeAdvisor.com/10015491 IN THE CURRENT REGULATORY, LEGISLATIVE AND LEGAL ENVIRONMENT, EMPLOYERS NEED TO UNDERSTAND HOW THEY COULD BE IMPACTED BY ALL THE CHANGES IN THE REGULATORY LANDSCAPE.