Technology Employment Law

Technology Employment Law

Legal Insight for Technology, Media, and Telecommunications Employers

Plan Sponsors Can Draw Guidance (and Comfort) from New DOL FAQs

LinkedIn Tweet Like Email Comment

Our colleague Sharon L. Lippett, a Member of the Firm at Epstein Becker Green, has a post on the Financial Services Employment Law blog that will be of interest to many of our readers in the technology industry: “New DOL FAQs Provide Additional Guidance (and Comfort) for Plan Sponsors.”

Following is an excerpt:

Based on recent guidance from the Department of Labor (the “DOL”), many sponsors of employee benefit plans subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (“ERISA Plans”) should have additional comfort regarding the impact of the conflict of interest rule released by the DOL in April 2016 (the “Rule”) on their plans. Even though it is widely expected that the Trump administration will delay implementation of the Rule, in mid-January 2017, the DOL released its “Conflict of Interest FAQs (Part II – Rule)”, which addresses topics relevant to ERISA Plan sponsors. As explained below, these FAQs indicate that the Rule, as currently designed, should not require a large number of significant changes in the administration of most ERISA Plans. …

Read the full post here.

Long-Awaited Accessibility Standards for Medical Diagnostic Equipment Are Released

LinkedIn Tweet Like Email Comment

Our colleagues Joshua A. Stein and Frank C. Morris, Jr., at Epstein Becker Green have a post on the Health Employment And Labor blog that will be of interest to many of our readers in the technology industry: “The U.S. Access-Board Releases Long-Awaited Final Accessible Medical Diagnostic Equipment Standards.”

Following is an excerpt:

As part of a flurry of activity in the final days of the Obama Administration, the U.S. the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (the “Access Board”) has finally announced the release of its Accessibility Standards for Medical Diagnostic Equipment (the “MDE Standards”). Published in the Federal Register on Monday, January 9, 2017, the MDE Standards are a set of design criteria intended to provide individuals with disabilities access to medical diagnostic equipment such as examination tables and chairs (including those used for dental or optical exams), weight scales, radiological equipment, mammography equipment and other equipment used by health professionals for diagnostic purposes. …

Read the full post here.

U.S. Access Board Releases Information and Communication Technology Standards and Guidelines

LinkedIn Tweet Like Email Comment

Earlier this month, in the waning moments of the Obama Administration, the U.S. Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (the “Access Board”) took the long-anticipated step of requiring websites of federal government agencies to comply with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (“WCAG”) 2.0 Levels A and AA.  (The Access Board was established in 1973 to develop and maintain standards for accessible design in the built environment, transit vehicles and systems, telecommunications equipment and electronic and information technology.)

On Thursday, January 5, 2017, the Access Board announced the release of the long anticipated “Information and Communication Technology (“ITC”) Standards and Guidelines,” which update and combine the previously separate requirements of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (requiring federal agencies to make their electronic and information technology accessible to people with disabilities) and Section 255 of the Communications Act of 1934 (requiring telecommunication equipment manufacturers and service providers to make their products and services accessible to people with disabilities), into one rule.  The ITC Standards and Guidelines (also referred to as the “508 Refresh”) were officially released by the Access Board on Monday, January 9, 2017 and published in the Federal Register on January 18, 2017.

This final rule includes the following noteworthy changes from the previously published Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”):

  • Provides a “Safe Harbor” provision;
  • Incorporates the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (“WCAG”) 2.0 Levels A and AA by reference;
  • Covers all types of public-facing content, as well as nine (9) categories of non-public-facing content that communicate agency official business; and
  • Extends the previously contemplated compliance dates.

Application

To Whom Do the ITC Standards and Guidelines Apply?

The Section 508-based ITC Standards apply only to Federal Agencies subject to Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 who develop, procure, maintain or use ITC and is intended to ensure Federal employees with disabilities have comparable access to, and use of, such information and data relative to other Federal employees unless doing so would impose an undue burden.

The Section 255-based guidelines apply to manufactures of telecommunication equipment and address the accessibility of newly released, upgraded, or substantially changed telecommunications equipment (as well as support documentation and services, including electronic documents and web-based product support) subject to Section 255 of the Communications Act of 1934.

Who Do the ITC Standards and Guidelines Not Apply To?

  • Private Businesses – including healthcare, retail, hospitality, financial services, etc.;
  • State and Local Government Agencies;
  • Public Schools;
  • Colleges; and
  • Non Profit Entities.

It should be noted, however, that when the DOJ publishes proposed website accessibility regulations applicable to the private sector, and consistent with the DOJ’s long standing position, website accessibility will very likely be defined as compliance with WCAG 2.0, levels A and AA, just as the Access Board has used these guidelines in the Section 508 Refresh.

Deadlines

On Tuesday, January 10, 2017 the Access Board held a briefing at their Washington, D.C. office to provide a top level overview of these new rules and to provide a public question and answer session.  During this meeting, the Access Board reinforced the following information:

  • The final rule was set to be “effective” 60 days from the date of publication in the Federal Register.  Therefore, as the final rule was published in the Federal Register on Wednesday, January 18, 2017, the “effective” date was set to be Sunday, March 19, 2017.  (It is worth noting on January 20, 2017, White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus issued a memorandum from the White House to the heads of executive departments and agencies calling for a sixty (60) day postponement of the effective date of regulations that have been published in the Federal Registry but not yet taken effect.  Therefore, this date may yet be delayed.)
  • Notwithstanding that deadline:
    • Compliance with the Section 508-based Standards is not required until 12 months from the date of publication in the Federal Register.  Therefore, the anticipated date of compliance for the Section 508-based Standards will be Thursday, January 18, 2018; and
    • Compliance with the Section 255-based guidelines will not be required until the guidelines are adopted by the Federal Communications Commission.

OFCCP Sues Tech Giant Oracle Alleging Discrimination in Compensation and Hiring Practices and Failure to Produce Requested Records and Data

LinkedIn Tweet Like Email Comment

The United States Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (“OFCCP”) on January 17, 2017, just days before the inauguration of President Donald Trump, filed a lawsuit against Oracle America, Inc. (“Oracle”), alleging discrimination in its compensation and hiring practices, and its refusal to produce requested records and data. See Complaint. The lawsuit, filed with the Office of Administrative Law Judges, stems from a compliance review initiated by the OFCCP on September 24, 2014 at Oracle’s Redwood Shores headquarters in California, housing 7,000 employees.

As a federal government contractor, subject to Executive Order 11246, the Rehabilitation Act and the Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act, Oracle is contractually obligated not to discriminate in employment on the basis of certain protected characteristics, which include race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, disability, and status as a protected veteran. In addition, Oracle is required to take affirmative action to ensure that applicants and employees are afforded employment opportunities without regard to these protected characteristics. As part of its contracts with the federal government, Oracle also agrees to allow the OFCCP to inspect its employment records to ensure the company’s compliance with its non-discrimination and affirmative action obligations.

The lawsuit seeks to redress violations of Executive Order 11246 stemming from the tech giant’s alleged “systemic compensation discrimination” against qualified women, Asians and African Americans employed in Information Technology, Product Development and Support positions (encompassing 80 job titles), and its “pattern and practice of hiring discrimination” against qualified White, Hispanic and African American applicants in favor of Asian applicants, namely Asian Indians, in the Professional Technical 1, Individual Contributor and the Product Development job groups (involving 69 job titles). The OFCCP specifically alleged that there were “gross disparities in pay” and “[statistically] significant overrepresentation” of Asians in the applicant pools and affected positions. In making its findings, the OFCCP indicated that Oracle refused to produce prior year compensation data and complete hiring data, and further refused to produce documentation demonstrating that it had performed “an in-depth review of its compensation practices” and that it had analyzed its applicant-hiring data for adverse impact.

Having found discrimination, the OFCCP issued a Notice of Violations, and three months later a Notice to Show Cause seeking an explanation for why the agency should not initiate enforcement proceedings. Seven months later, after conciliation efforts failed, the OFCCP instituted the instant action. While only Oracle and the OFCCP know what was discussed and debated in an attempt to bring about a resolution, clearly the OFCCP was not satisfied with Oracle’s explanations justifying the pay disparities and hiring practices, nor pleased with the company’s refusal to produce the additional compensation and hiring data requested. As a result, the OFCCP is seeking a decision finding that Oracle’s compensation and hiring practices violated Executive Order 11246, and an order permanently enjoining the company from failing and refusing to comply with its obligations, cancelling its federal government contracts, debarring it from entering into future contracts until remedying its prior noncompliance, and requiring it “to provide complete relief to the affected classes, including lost compensation, interest and all other benefits of employment resulting from Oracle’s discrimination.” Simply put, there are millions of dollars at stake.

Action Steps Employers Should Take Now

While it is still unclear what agenda the Trump Administration will expect the OFCCP to follow, so long as the status quo remains, federal government contractors should take heed. The OFCCP clearly intends to send a message with this and other lawsuits recently filed. Contractors should therefore be proactive to ensure that their compensation practices are not causing significant pay disparities that cannot be justified. They also need to ensure that their hiring practices are such that they are considering a diverse slate of candidates drawn from well-balanced recruiting pools and making hiring decisions without regard to gender, race and ethnicity. Both can be accomplished by contractors engaging counsel to conduct self-audits to ensure that they are in compliance and meeting all of their non-discrimination/affirmative action obligations as a federal government contractor. If such action is not taken, then they may face the same level of scrutiny and consequences as Oracle.

Five Issues Technology Employers Should Monitor Under the Trump Administration

LinkedIn Tweet Like Email Comment

A New Year and a New Administration: Five Employment, Labor & Workforce Management Issues That Employers Should MonitorIn the new issue of Take 5, our colleagues examine five employment, labor, and workforce management issues that will continue to be reviewed and remain top of mind for employers under the Trump administration:

Read the full Take 5 online or download the PDF. Also, keep track of developments with Epstein Becker Green’s new microsite, The New Administration: Insights and Strategies.

Governor Andrew D. Cuomo Introduces Employee Protective Mandates in New York State

LinkedIn Tweet Like Email Comment

Our colleagues Judah L. Rosenblatt, Jeffrey H. Ruzal, and Susan Gross Sholinsky, at Epstein Becker Green, have a post on the Hospitality Labor and Employment Law Blog that will be of interest to many of our readers in the technology industry: “Where Federal Expectations Are Low Governor Cuomo Introduces Employee Protective Mandates in New York.”

Following is an excerpt:

Earlier this week New York Governor Andrew D. Cuomo (D) signed two executive orders and announced a series of legislative proposals specifically aimed at eliminating the wage gap in gender, among other workers and strengthening equal pay protection in New York State. The Governor’s actions are seen by many as an alternative to employer-focused federal policies anticipated once President-elect Donald J. Trump (R) takes office. …

According to the Governor’s Press Release, the Governor will seek to amend State law to hold the top 10 members of out-of-state limited liability companies (“LLC”) personally financially liable for unsatisfied judgments for unpaid wages. This law already exists with respect to in-state and out-of-state corporations, as well as in-state LLCs. The Governor is also seeking to empower the Labor Commissioner to pursue judgments against the top 10 owners of any corporations or domestic or foreign LLCs for wage liabilities on behalf of workers with unpaid wage claims. …

Read the full post here.

Are You Prepared to Ban the Box? New Ordinances Prohibit Los Angeles Employers from Asking About Criminal Convictions Before Making Conditional Job Offers

LinkedIn Tweet Like Email Comment

On December 9, 2016, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti signed ordinances no. 184652 and 184653, collectively referred to as the “Fair Chance Initiative.” These ordinances prohibit employers and City contractors (collectively “Employers”), respectively, from inquiring about job seekers’ criminal convictions until after a conditional offer of employment has been made. Both ordinances will go into effect on January 22, 2017 and will impact all employers in the City of Los Angeles and for every position which requires an employee to work at least an average of two hours per week within the City of Los Angeles and all City contractors and subcontractors, regardless of their location.

No Criminal Inquiry Until After Offer

Specifically, these ordinances prohibit Employers from inquiring about a job applicant’s criminal history, at any time or in any manner, unless and until a Conditional Offer of Employment has been made to the applicant. Following the Conditional Offer of Employment, Employers are permitted to request information regarding the applicant’s criminal history. However, Employers can only withdraw or cancel the conditional offer as a result of the applicant’s criminal history after engaging in the “Fair Chance Process.”

New “Fair Chance Process” Required

The “Fair Chance Process” requires Employers to prepare a written assessment highlighting the specific aspects of the applicant’s criminal history that pose an inherent conflict with the duties of the position sought by the applicant. Employers must provide the applicant with written notification of the proposed withdrawal of the conditional offer, a copy of the written assessment regarding the risks posed by the applicant’s criminal history, and any other relevant documentation. The applicant is then given an opportunity to provide the Employer a response to the written assessment, including any supporting documentation. Employers must wait at least 5 business days after the applicant is informed of the proposed withdrawal before taking any action, including filling the position for which the applicant applied.

New Posting and Recordkeeping Requirements

Additionally, Employers’ job postings must now include a notice stating that they will consider all qualified applicants regardless of their criminal histories, in compliance with these ordinances. Employers must also conspicuously post a notice regarding the “Fair Chance Initiative” in a location in the workplace visible to all job applicants; this notice must also be sent to each union or workers’ group with which the employers have any agreement that governs over employees. Further, Employers must retain all job application documents for three years. Penalties for violations of these ordinances may be assessed at up to $500 for the first violation, up to $1,000 for the second violation, and up to $2,000 for subsequent violations. The City may then, at its discretion, distribute a maximum of $500 from that penalty directly to the applicant. The penalty provision of the ordinances will not go into effect for employers in Los Angeles City until July 1, 2017. However, the penalty provision for City contractors is effective immediately.

Exceptions from these ordinances include: (1) employers who are required by law to seek a job applicant’s criminal history; (2) positions for which an applicant would be required to possess or use a firearm; (3) positions which, by law, cannot be held by an individual with a criminal history; and (4) employers who are prohibited, by law, from hiring persons with criminal convictions.

Employers with operations in the City of Los Angeles should:

  1. Remove questions regarding criminal history from job applications;
  2. Ensure future job postings include required equal employment notices;
  3. Defer inquiries regarding criminal history until making conditional job offers; and
  4. Ensure the Fair Chance Process is followed before denying employment based on criminal history.

Top Issues of 2016 – Featured in Employment Law This Week

LinkedIn Tweet Like Email Comment

The new episode of Employment Law This Week offers a year-end roundup of the biggest employment, workforce, and management issues in 2016:

  • Impact of the Defend Trade Secrets Act
  • States Called to Ban Non-Compete Agreements
  • Paid Sick Leave Laws Expand
  • Transgender Employment Law
  • Uncertainty Over the DOL’s Overtime Rule and Salary Thresholds
  • NLRB Addresses Joint Employment
  • NLRB Rules on Union Organizing

Watch the episode below and read EBG’s Take 5 newsletter, “Top Five Employment, Labor & Workforce Management Issues of 2016.”

Texas Federal Court Enjoins New FLSA Overtime Rules: Employer Impact

LinkedIn Tweet Like Email Comment

Our colleague Michael S. Kun, national Chairperson of the Wage and Hour practice group at Epstein Becker Green, has a post on the Wage & Hour Defense Blog that will be of interest to many of our readers in the technology industry: “Stop! Texas Federal Court Enjoins New FLSA Overtime Rules.”

Following is an excerpt:

The injunction could leave employers in a state of limbo for weeks, months and perhaps longer as injunctions often do not resolve cases and, instead, lead to lengthy appeals. Here, though, the injunction could spell the quick death to the new rules should the Department choose not to appeal the decision in light of the impending Donald Trump presidency. We will continue to monitor this matter as it develops.

To the extent that employers have not already increased exempt employees’ salaries or converted them to non-exempt positions, the injunction will at the very least allow employers to postpone those changes. And, depending on the final resolution of this issue, it is possible they may never need to implement them.

The last-minute injunction puts some employers in a difficult position, though — those that already implemented changes in anticipation of the new rules or that informed employees that they will receive salary increases or will be converted to non-exempt status effective December 1, 2016. …

Read the full post here.

Proposed Increases Under New York State’s Overtime Laws: Not Blocked by Federal Overtime Rule Change Injunction

LinkedIn Tweet Like Email Comment

Our colleague Jeffrey H. Ruzal, Senior Counsel at Epstein Becker Green, has a post on the Wage & Hour Defense Blog that will be of interest to many of our readers in the technology industry: “Decision Enjoining Federal Overtime Rule Changes Will Not Affect Proposed Increases Under New York State’s Overtime Laws.”

Following is an excerpt:

As we recently reported on our Wage & Hour Defense Blog, on November 22, 2016, a federal judge in the Eastern District of Texas issued a nationwide preliminary injunction enjoining the U.S. Department of Labor from implementing its new overtime exemption rule that would have more than doubled the current salary threshold for the executive, administrative, and professional exemptions and was scheduled to take effect on December 1, 2016. To the extent employers have not already increased exempt employees’ salaries or converted them to non-exempt positions, the injunction will, at the very least, appear to allow many employers to postpone those changes—but likely not in the case of employees who work in New York State.

On October 19, 2016, the New York State Department of Labor (“NYSDOL”) announced proposed amendments to the state’s minimum wage orders (“Proposed Amendments”) to increase the salary basis threshold for executive and administrative employees under the state’s wage and hour laws (New York does not impose a minimum salary threshold for exempt “professional” employees).  The current salary threshold for the administrative and executive exemptions under New York law is $675 per week ($35,100 annually) throughout the state.  The NYSDOL has proposed the following increases to New York’s salary threshold for the executive and administrative exemptions …

Read the full post here.

.