Posts

Fair Pay Act Investigations

California recently enacted new standards to combat discriminatory pay practices. California’s Fair Pay Act prohibits paying any employee less than the amount paid to employees of the opposite sex, race or ethnicity for doing “substantially similar work.” Employers have the burden of demonstrating that pay differential are based entirely and reasonably upon:

  • Seniority system, merit system, or system that measures earning by quantity or quality of production; or
  • Bona fide factor that is not based on or derived from sex-based differential compensation and that is job-related and consistent with business necessity.

Fair Pay Act Presentation

I recently attended a great presentation sponsored by the Alameda County Bar Association where Hillary Benham-Baker, Jamie Rudman and Carolyn Rashby did an excellent job describing the interplay between the various state and federal statutes, regulations and orders regarding equal pay. Jamie described a speaking engagement where Julie Su, California’s Labor Commissioner, discussed enforcing California’s Fair Pay Act. The Labor Commissioner discussed what questions Deputy Labor Commissioners would typically ask during Fair Pay Act investigations to determine what constitutes “substantially similar work.” I asked Jamie’s permission to share the information, as they represent excellent questions employers should ask themselves when evaluating whether they are complying with the law.

Fair Pay Act Questions To Determine What Constitutes “Substantially Similar Work”

·         What are the actual tasks performed for each job?  What percentage of time is spent on each?

·         What experience, training and education are required for each job?

·         What knowledge is required to perform each job?

·         What kinds and amounts of physical and/or mental effort are required for each job?  Is one job more physical difficult or stressful?

·          What programs, equipment, tools or products are required for each job? What training is needed to use the programs, equipment, tools or products?

·         What is the working environment?  Does one job involve an exposure to hazards or damages?

·         Does one job require supervision of other employees?

·         What is the difference in terms of the job obligations, levels of authority and/or degrees of accountability?

·         What are the programs, equipment, tools or products used for each job?

·         What kinds and amounts of physical and/or mental effort required for each job?

Employers need to understand what constitutes substantially similar work so they can properly evaluate whether or why employees should be paid the same. Pay disparities must be justified by legitimate business reasons.

If you have questions about equal pay, fair pay or any other employment-related issues, contact me at your convenience.

Original article by Robert E. Nuddleman of Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C.

Feel free to suggest topics for the blog. We are happy to consider topics pertaining to general points of Labor and Employment Law. We cannot answer questions about specific situations or provide legal advice over the Internet. If you desire legal advice, you should contact an attorney.

Your use of this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. The use of the Internet or this blog for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Do not post confidential or time-sensitive information in this blog. The Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. cannot guarantee the confidentiality of anything posted to this blog.

The Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. represents employees and businesses throughout Silicon Valley and the greater San Francisco Bay Area including Pleasanton, Oakland, San Ramon, Hayward, Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Mountain View, Los Altos, San Jose, the South Bay Area, Campbell, Los Gatos, Cupertino, Morgan Hill, Gilroy, Sunnyvale, Santa Cruz, Saratoga, and Alameda, San Mateo, Santa Clara, San Benito, Mendocino, and Calaveras counties.

Is Your Workforce a Suicide Squad?

Ok. I admit it. I’m a fan of super-hero movies. When I found out DC’s Suicide Squad was opening on my daughter’s birthday it was a no brainer. So I loaded the family into the mini-van and took them to see it opening day. The basic plot consists of a team of dangerous, incarcerated super villains “recruited” for a top-secret mission.

Amanda Waller, the U.S. intelligence officer who assembles the team, specializes in getting people to do what she wants. She has one character’s heart locked in a box. She motivates another character by promising he can spend time with his family. The idea is that each member of the team has separate motivations. Waller uses–OK, exploits–those motivations toward a common goal.

Suicide Squad in Your Workplace?

As a movie, Suicide Squad did not disappoint. As an employment attorney, it got me thinking. I’m not suggesting employers run out and hire dangerous super villains. If we put aside Waller’s I-don’t-care-who-gets-killed mentality, and the hundreds of zombie-like bad guys put down by rapid machine-gun fire, there may be a few lessons for life and the workplace.

  1. A properly motivated team can overcome extreme obstacles.
  2. You can’t properly motivate someone unless you know what makes them tick.
  3. Although others can motivate us, we work better when we motivate ourselves.
  4. Working as a team is almost always better than working alone (except when it’s not).
  5. When management warns you of the consequences should you fail to follow directions, you’d better follow directions (Alas, poor Slipknot, we knew thee little).
  6. Failure is always an option, but we probably won’t like the results.
  7. A carrot is usually a better motivator than a stick.

Workplace Fairness

I frequently advise employee clients that employers are not required to treat employees fairly. I also advise my employer clients that treating employees fairly is the best way to avoid problems (including legal problems) in the workplace. Consider your work environment.  Whether you’re an employee or an employer, are you motivating your colleagues and yourself toward success? Are you treating others the way you want to be treated? Do you have a killer crocodile living in your sewer? If you answered yes to at least two of those questions, you probably have a stable workforce that is building toward success. If not, then think about what you can change to improve your workplace

I’m hoping to see Jason Bourne soon.  We’ll just have to wait and see if I can any more bright ideas about the workplace.

Original article by Robert E. Nuddleman of Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C.

Feel free to suggest topics for the blog. We are happy to consider topics pertaining to general points of Labor and Employment Law, but we cannot answer questions about specific situations or provide legal advice. If you desire legal advice, you should contact an attorney.

Your use of this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. The use of the Internet or this blog for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be posted in this blog and Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. cannot guarantee the confidentiality of anything posted to this blog.

The Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. represents employees and businesses throughout Silicon Valley and the greater San Francisco Bay Area including Pleasanton, Oakland, San Ramon, Hayward, Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Mountain View, Los Altos, San Jose, the South Bay Area, Campbell, Los Gatos, Cupertino, Morgan Hill, Gilroy, Sunnyvale, Santa Cruz, Saratoga, and Alameda, San Mateo, Santa Clara, San Benito, Mendocino, and Calaveras counties.

Workplace Rules that Violate the NLRA: Conduct Toward Management

Last week I wrote about workplace confidentiality rules that the NLRB’s General Counsel says violate the NLRA (National Labor Relations Act).  This week, we are looking at the same report and what it has to say about workplace rules regarding conduct toward management.

Employees have Section 7 right to criticize or protest their employer’s labor policies or treatment of employees.  According to the General Counsel,” rules that can reasonably be read to prohibit protected concerted criticism of the employer will be found unlawfully overbroad.”  The GC goes on to say:

a rule that prohibits employees from engaging in. “disrespectful,” “negative,” “inappropriate,” or “rude” conduct towards the employer or management, absent sufficient clarification or context, will usually be found unlawful.

Citing Casino San Pablo, 361 NLRB No. 148, slip op. at 3 (Dec. 16, 2014).

As with the confidentiality rules, the General gives several examples of rules regarding conduct toward management that he believes violate the NLRA and examples of rules that do not violate the NLRA.

Rules that Violate the NLRA

  • “Be respectful to the company, other employees, customers, partners, and competitors.”
  • Do “not make fun of, denigrate, or defame your co-workers, customers, franchisees, suppliers, the Company, or our competitors.”
  • “Be respectful of others and the Company.”
  • No “[d]efamatory, libelous, slanderous or discriminatory comments about [the Company], its customers and/or competitors, its employees or management.
  • “Disrespectful conduct or insubordination, including, but not limited to, refusing to follow orders from a supervisor or a designated representative.”
  • “Chronic resistance to proper work-related orders or discipline, even though not “Refrain from any action that would harm persons or property or cause damage to the Company’s business or reputation.”
  • overt insubordination” will result in discipline.
  • “[I]t is important that employees practice caution and discretion when posting content [on social media] that could affect [the Employer’s] business operation or reputation.”
  • Do not make “[s]tatements “that damage the company or the company’s reputation or that disrupt or damage the company’s business relationships.”
  • “Never engage in behavior that would undermine the reputation of [the Employer], your peers or yourself.”

Rules that Do Not Violate the NLRA:

  • No “rudeness or unprofessional behavior toward a customer, or anyone in contact with” the company.
  • “Employees will not be discourteous or disrespectful to a customer or any member of the public while in the course and scope of [company] business.”
  • “Each employee is expected to work in a cooperative manner with management/supervision, coworkers, customers and vendors.”
  • “Each employee is expected to abide by Company policies and to cooperate fully in any investigation that the Company may undertake.”
  • “Being insubordinate, threatening, intimidating, disrespectful or assaulting a manager/supervisor, coworker, customer or vendor will result in” discipline.

Confused yet?  Does it seem that some of the lawful rules are extremely close to the unlawful rules? You’re not alone.  It’s difficult to tell the difference in many examples.

When drafting workplace conduct policies, employers should be mindful that employees have the right to complain about their workplace and share their experiences and opinions regarding management and the company.  Limiting an employee’s right to complain about management will likely violate the NLRA.  Employers have to consider the impact of workplace rules on employee rights and find an appropriate balance.

Original article by Robert E. Nuddleman of Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C.

Feel free to suggest topics for the blog. We are happy to consider topics pertaining to general points of Labor and Employment Law, but we cannot answer questions about specific situations or provide legal advice. If you desire legal advice, you should contact an attorney.

Your use of this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. The use of the Internet or this blog for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be posted in this blog and Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. cannot guarantee the confidentiality of anything posted to this blog.

The Nuddleman Law Firm, P.C. represents employees and businesses throughout Silicon Valley and the greater San Francisco Bay Area including Pleasanton, Oakland, San Ramon, Hayward, Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Mountain View, Los Altos, San Jose, the South Bay Area, Campbell, Los Gatos, Cupertino, Morgan Hill, Gilroy, Sunnyvale, Santa Cruz, Saratoga, and Alameda, San Mateo, Santa Clara, San Benito, Mendocino, and Calaveras counties.

 

Nuclear Power Plant Supervisor Not a Whistleblower

Energy Northwest operates a nuclear power plant in Richland, Washington. Sanders, a maintenance manager, administered temporary staffing contracts for Energy. After nineteen years of employment, Energy terminated Sanders’ employment because he  improperly approved temporary staffing per diem and travel payments to the father of his daughter’s child. Sanders claimed he was a whistleblower, and Energy terminated him because he objected to the severity level designation of an internal “condition report,” in violation of  42 U.S.C. § 5851. A “condition report” is a report generated by employees when safety procedures may have been violated.

The whistleblower retaliation provision of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 5851,FN:1 protects energy workers who report or otherwise act upon safety concerns. The statute specifically prohibits employers from discharging or otherwise discriminating against employees for several enumerated acts, including notifying an employer of a violation, initiating an enforcement proceeding, or testifying in a safety or enforcement proceeding. See 42 U.S.C. § 5851(a)(1)(A–E). The statute also includes a catch-all provision protecting employees “in any other action to carry out the purposes of this chapter . . . .” Id. at § 5851(a)(1)(F).

Sanders had no independent knowledge of possible safety violations prior to the creation of the internal condition reports at issue. Sanders did not generate the condition reports and Energy was already aware of the potential safety violations, and its internal process for remediation was underway. According to the majority opinion, the safety problems Sanders identified were not “overlooked, neglected, or concealed by management” and were not “concrete [and] ongoing” issues. The court found that Sanders’ conduct fell outside the scope of the Act’s protection, and the district court properly granted summary judgment. Sanders tried to amend his complaint to include state-law disability and retaliation claims, but the court denied the motion, in part, because it was made less than three weeks before the close of discovery and a year after filing the complaint.