Wise employers know that a single severe act can be enough to satisfy the standard of “severe or pervasive” and be sexual harassment.  But how severe does the act have to be?

A recent 6th Circuit ruling gives some assistance.  In Ault v. Oberlin College, the Court discussed why a single physical incident was sufficiently severe.  The ruling is likewise informative because it also discusses why several infrequent but boorish comments were not sufficiently severe or pervasive. Continue Reading Single Severe Act Can Be Sexual Harassment – But How “Severe”?

Yesterday, I presented an hour-long webinar discussing how to prepare for and navigate the “Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces” proposed rule and accompanying guidance.

On May 28, 2015, the Obama Administration published the much anticipated proposed DOL guidance and accompanying Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) proposed rule implementing EO 13673, Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces (July 31, 2014). In the webinar we highlighted key elements of both publications and their impact on government contractors, including:

  • The new “labor law violation” disclosure requirements and resulting contracting officer responsibility determinations
  • Unique role of “Labor Compliance Advisors”
  • Paycheck transparency and independent contractor notice requirements
  • Limitation on companywide arbitration plans

Feel free to listen to the webinar below or download the slides.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYplJCj37-U

Can employers enter into pacts not to “poach” each other’s employees? That is the question at the center of a recent case claiming that two universities conspired to depress compensation for faculty members in violation of federal antitrust law. A radiologist at Duke University School of Medicine filed the suit after applying and being rejected as an applicant at the University of North Carolina. The applicant was told the universities had agreed to block lateral moves of faculty between the universities. What are the legal concerns regarding employee poaching behavior?

My colleagues, Dale Grimes and Gingie Yetter, analyzed the case in a recent client alert, “Academic Medical Centers Target of Latest Employee Anti-Poaching Antitrust Claim,” that is available online.

Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals logoThe Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) recently granted a claim sponsored by the prime contractor for its subcontractor’s employee severance costs under a fixed-price contract. Appeal of Government Contracting Resources, Inc., ASBCA No. 59162 (March 12, 2015).

Government Contracting Resources, Inc. (GCR), sought additional compensation for severance costs it incurred, along with its subcontractor, upon expiration of its service contract with NASA for the distribution of mail at the Kennedy Space Center. A collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between GCR subcontractor Creative Management Technology Inc. (CMT) and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAMAW) granted severance pay to CMT bargaining unit employees who were not rehired by a successor company at the end of the service contract. The provisions of the CBA had been incorporated, through a modification, into GCR’s service contract with NASA.

Continue Reading Sponsored Claim for Subcontractor Severance Pay Granted under Fixed-Price Service Contract

A Maryland-based construction company required to pay “prevailing wages” under a Federal government contract recently settled for $400,000 claims that it had violated the False Claims Act (“FCA”) by failing to properly supervise lower-level contractors in the payment of prevailing wages to their workers. The case serves as a reminder that government contractors who fail to ensure compliance with wage requirements – whether under the Davis-Bacon Act (“DBA”), Service Contract Act (“SCA”), or Walsh-Healy Public Contracts Act (“PCA”) – can face significant liability. It also highlights the ongoing expansion of the federal government’s battle against procurement fraud. Continue Reading The Growing Risks of Non-Compliance with Wage Rate Determinations

Is the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Young v. United Parcel Service, here, a limited ruling, applicable only in the context of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA)? Or, does the decision ring in a whole new (and less employer-friendly) era in discrimination case law? It is too early to tell. Allow this explanation for why.

The Supreme Court ruled that UPS may have violated the PDA by not providing a temporary light duty assignment to a pregnant driver who was on temporary, pregnancy-related restrictions. But the Court found that neither party was entitled to their desired interpretation of the PDA. Continue Reading Supreme Court Revives Pregnancy Discrimination Case

Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Tim Garrett wrote an article summarizing the SEC’s April  1 announcement that it had settled an enforcement action over an employer’s use of a restrictive confidentiality agreement.

Tim made the point that the SEC’s action was consistent with similar efforts by the National Labor Relations Board and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. “These agencies have been reviewing critically the confidentiality provisions of severance agreements and documents used as part of internal investigations,” he wrote. “This announcement from the SEC is a further reminder that employers should have such confidentiality provisions reviewed by counsel or risk similar consequences.”

The full article, “SEC Settles Enforcement Action for Overly Restrictive Confidentiality Agreement” was published by Employee Benefit Adviser on April 2.

Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Tim Garrett commented on the Supreme Court decision, Young vs. UPS, questioning whether an employer must provide equal accommodations regarding limited duty to employees who have pregnancy-related limitations and those whose limitations are not pregnancy-related. The Supreme Court referred the case back to the 4th Circuit for review. In light of this ruling, companies are urged to review policies related to pregnant employees. Tim commented on the status this ruling provides to pregnant employees.

The full article, “Businesses Should Review Practices, Policies for Pregnant Workers after Supreme Court Ruling,” was published by InsideCounsel on March 27 and is available online.

Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Tim Garrett authored an article outlining steps that companies should consider to provide a safe workplace. In the wake of recent incidents of violence at the workplace, Tim asserts, employers should adopt policies and procedures to foresee issues and be prepared when situations arise. The article discusses some factors contributing to employers’ concerns and what practical steps employers should take in response.

The full article, “Subduing Violence at Work: Setting Policies to Help Safeguard the Workplace,” was published by Workforce magazine on March 18 and is available online.

As of March 27, “spouse” under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) will include same-sex spouses for any legally recognized marriages based on the laws of the state of celebration. On February 25, as expected, the Department of Labor (DOL) published its final rules on the definition of spouse under the FMLA in light of the Supreme Court’s Windsor decision. Based on this final rule, the definition of spouse will be based upon the law of the jurisdiction where the marriage was entered into (place of celebration) rather than based on the law of the state of the employee’s residence (or work) “to ensure that all legally married couples, whether opposite-sex or same-sex, will have consistent federal family leave rights regardless of where they live.” Continue Reading DOL Issues Final Rule Revising the Definition of “Spouse” Under the FMLA

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

Thought Leadership by our Attorneys.