The Department of Energy (DOE) has proposed an amendment to the Department of Energy Acquisition Regulation (DEAR) that, among other changes, clarifies that FAR Subpart 22.12, Nondisplacement of Qualified Workers Under Service Contracts, and the associated Department of Labor regulations, applies to subcontracts under DOE’s management and operating (M&O) contracts. M&O contractors and their subcontractors need to be aware of these changes, particularly the impact on the requirement to hire service employees working on incumbent contracts set forth in contract clause FAR 52.222-17.

FAR Subpart 22.12 implements Executive Order 13495 (January 30, 2009), and requires a successor contractor and its subcontractors to offer “service employees,” as defined by the Service Contract Act, under the predecessor contract (of the same or similar services at the same location) and whose employment will be terminated as a result of the successor contract award, a right of first refusal of employment under the new contract. Employment openings are generally prohibited until such right of refusal has been provided, meaning an incoming contractor will have limited opportunity to staff its current employees on the contract. Importantly, each bona fide express offer of employment must have a stated time limit of not less than 10 days for an employee response, a time period that successor contractors should account for when determining how long it will take to transition the contract. The contract clause, FAR 52.222-17, has to be flowed down to service subcontracts over the simplified acquisition threshold, typically $150,000. The requirements of FAR Subpart 22.12 do not apply to service contracts performed entirely outside the United States. 77 Fed. Reg. 75768 (Dec. 21, 2012).

Continue Reading

On April 21, 2016, San Francisco became the first city to impose a mandatory paid parental leave ordinance.  Under the new law, certain covered employers must provide supplemental compensation to employees who are receiving California Paid Family Leave (PFL) for purposes of bonding with a new child.  Employers should be mindful of these new obligations, which are likely to expand to other cities and possibly the entire State of California in the future.

Under previously existing law, no California city required that employers provide paid parental leave for bonding with a new child.  Employers were only required to notify employees of their rights under the state’s PFL program.  The PFL program is a component of the California State Disability Insurance (SDI) program and entitles employees who have paid into SDI to receive up to 55% of their lost wages when they must take a leave of absence to care for a child, parent, parent-in-law, grandparent, grandchild, sibling, spouse, or registered domestic partner.  Benefits are capped at six weeks in a 12-month period, and benefits are funded entirely by the SDI program.  (Note that California Governor Jerry Brown recently signed legislation that will increase the benefits paid by the California PFL program for eligible leaves from 55% to 60% (or 70% in some cases) beginning on or after January 1, 2018.) Continue Reading San Francisco Becomes First City to Require Employers to Fund Paid Family Leave

The General Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) recently revealed the Board’s policy initiatives for 2016 in a memorandum to local regional offices.  The memo informs the NLRB regions which cases it considers to be of particular concern and requires that they be submitted to the Division of Advice at the Board’s Washington, D.C. headquarters so the General Counsel’s office may “provide a clear and consistent interpretation of the [National Labor Relations] Act” that is consistent with the General Counsel’s view.  While the memo contains few surprises, it does offer employers a cautionary warning of possible changes to current labor law jurisprudence.  Because these changes may negatively impact employers, employers would be wise to take note of its warnings.

Continue Reading NLRB Policy Initiatives for 2016: Employers Be Warned

After a lengthy period of public comment and several revisions, California’s Fair Employment and Housing Council finally adopted amendments to the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) regulations.  The amendments, which went into effect on April 1, 2016, generally reinforce existing law but also impose several new and detailed requirements for employers.

Requirements for harassment, discrimination and retaliation policy:

As of April 1, every California employer must have a harassment, discrimination, and retaliation policy that:

  1. Is in writing;
  2. Lists all current protected categories under the California FEHA (race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age for individuals over 40, military and veteran status, and sexual orientation);
  3. Specifies that employees are protected from illegal conduct from any workplace source, including third parties who are in the workplace;
  4. Creates a confidential complaint process that ensures a timely response, impartial investigation by qualified personnel, documentation and tracking, appropriate remedial actions and resolutions, and timely closure;
  5. Informs employees about several different avenues (other than to a direct supervisor) for reporting a complaint and allows employees to have direct communication with a designated company representative, such as a human resources manager or other reliable company personnel;
  6. Requires supervisors to report any complaints of misconduct to a designated company representative; and
  7. Makes clear that employees will not be exposed to retaliation as a result of making a complaint or participating in any workplace investigation.

Continue Reading New Amendments to California Fair Employment and Housing Act Now Effective

A number of significant developments in California labor and employment law occurred in 2015. This article will highlight the developments we believe are most important for California employers, including a new mandatory paid sick leave law, a substantial overhaul of the Fair Pay Act, the solidification of special meal period waivers for healthcare employees, the prohibition of certain no-hire clauses in California settlement agreements, and a few others.

California Paid Sick Leave Laws

On July 1, 2015, California became the second state in the nation (following Connecticut) to implement a mandatory paid sick leave law and the first state in the nation to require paid sick leave for all employers.  Unlike Connecticut, there is no small employer carve out.

Continue Reading California Case Law 2015 Recap

Employers often must balance the mandates of seemingly competing directives. A challenging example arises in the area of possible mental impairment.  An employer may hear concerns that an employee is acting abnormally, or has hinted at a desire to hurt herself, or is exhibiting other possible signs of mental impairment.  The employer does not wish to stereotype the employee unfairly, or unlawfully “regard” the employee as disabled; yet, the employer also must ensure a safe work environment for other employees and others on the premises. Continue Reading Mental Impairments: When Can an Employer Require a Fitness-for-Duty Exam?

On Thursday, February 25, 2016, the U.S. Department of Labor proposed new rules to implement Executive Order 13706, which requires certain federal contractors to provide qualifying employees with at least seven days of paid sick leave each year, including paid leave for family care. The Department of Labor intends to publish a final version of these rules by September 30, 2016, and employers who contract with the federal government should begin preparing for their implementation now. Noncompliance could result in suspension of federal payments or even termination of a federal contract. Continue Reading New Mandatory Paid Sick Leave Rules Could Ensnare Unwary Federal Contractors

The EEOC recently announced two new lawsuits it has filed alleging that employers have violated Title VII’s protections against gender bias to include prohibitions against sexual orientation bias. The lawsuits are not very surprising in light of the EEOC’s position last July, in Baldwin v. Department of Transportation. There, in a case involving a federal employee, the EEOC took the position that discrimination against a person based on sexual orientation is, by its nature, discrimination on the basis of sex. Continue Reading EEOC Alleges in Two Lawsuits That Title VII Prohibitions Extend to Sexual Orientation Bias

An Indiana Federal Court Judge recently ruled that NCAA student-athletes are not employees and thus do not have a claim for minimum wage payments. In Anderson et al. v. NCAA et al., three former track athletes claimed that, as student-athletes, they really should be treated as student interns and that under the Department of Labor guidance issued in 2010, the athletes were more akin to employees, entitled to minimum wage pay.

District Judge William T. Lawrence disagreed and dismissed the wage lawsuit against several defendants, including the NCAA and the University of Pennsylvania.  The Judge determined that the athletes’ attempt to use the guidance for interns was not instructive for, and should not be followed in the case of, student-athletes. The Judge also noted that universities having thousands of student-athletes who are unpaid is not a secret but yet the Department of Labor has not issued guidance directly addressing them or claiming that the minimum wage laws apply to student-athletes.

Counsel for the student-athletes vowed to appeal the ruling.

In a February 4, 2016, decision, United States ex rel. Wall v. Circle C. Construction, LLC, the Sixth Circuit summarily rejected the government’s assertion that the measure of damages in a False Claims Act (FCA) suit involving a violation of prevailing wage rate requirements was the total amount paid for the work.  The Sixth Circuit’s rejection of the “total contract value” theory of damages in the prevailing wage rate context is a welcome development for FCA defendants who are faced with increasingly creative damages theories asserted by the government and the relator’s bar.

Circle C’s Army Contract

For a case that involved a relatively minor non-compliance with the prevailing wage rate requirements applicable to federal construction contracts, the Circle C. Construction case has a long history.  Circle C entered into a contract to construct warehouses at the U.S. Army base at Fort Campbell, located in Kentucky and Tennessee.  Pursuant to the Davis-Bacon Act, Circle C was required to pay electrical workers at least $19.19 per hour, plus a fringe benefit rate of $3.94 per hour.  Circle C was also required to submit certified payroll for itself and its subcontractors.

Continue Reading

From the Bass, Berry & Sims Blog Network
From the Bass, Berry & Sims Blog Network

Thought Leadership by our Attorneys.