ARTICLE
24 January 2020

Seyfarth Policy Matters Newsletter - January 16, 2020

SS
Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Contributor

With more than 900 lawyers across 18 offices, Seyfarth Shaw LLP provides advisory, litigation, and transactional legal services to clients worldwide. Our high-caliber legal representation and advanced delivery capabilities allow us to take on our clients’ unique challenges and opportunities-no matter the scale or complexity. Whether navigating complex litigation, negotiating transformational deals, or advising on cross-border projects, our attorneys achieve exceptional legal outcomes. Our drive for excellence leads us to seek out better ways to work with our clients and each other. We have been first-to-market on many legal service delivery innovations-and we continue to break new ground with our clients every day. This long history of excellence and innovation has created a culture with a sense of purpose and belonging for all. In turn, our culture drives our commitment to the growth of our clients, the diversity of our people, and the resilience of our workforce.
Wage & Hour Division Issues Anticipated Joint Employment Rule.
United States Employment and HR

Wage & Hour Division Issues Anticipated Joint Employment Rule. As the Kansas City Chiefs staged their epic comeback, the Wage & Hour Division put out its Final Rule clarifying the standard for joint employment under the Fair Labor Standards Act in a rare (for labor agencies) Sunday afternoon announcement. For more on the Final Rule's regulatory revisions, see Seyfarth's Wage & Hour Litigation blog.

PWFA Update
. The House Committee on Education and Labor approved on Tuesday an amended version of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (H.R. 2694), incorporating several improvements. These included requiring that the employee be able to perform the essential functions of the job, with or without reasonable accommodation; did not have a veto over which accommodation was acceptable; and must make known to the employer the condition in question. Other changes strengthened the interactive process to determine the appropriate accommodation (as under the ADA), clarified that good faith on the part of the employer during the accommodation process would limit damages, and specified that the legislation applied to employers with 15 or more employers.

Late in the process, however, questions came up in regard to possible requirements imposed by the bill on faith-based employers. This issue was not resolved, resulting in all but two Republican committee members opposing the bill. Nevertheless, Ranking Member Foxx made clear that she was otherwise supportive of the compromise reflected in the revised bill. Whether or not the religious exemption issue can be worked out before House Floor consideration or in the Senate remains to be seen. Seyfarth testified on the original legislation on October 22, helping to lay the ground work for improvements.

POWADA Passes House.
The House also approved late Wednesday the Protecting Older Workers from Discrimination Act (H.R. 1230), 261-155 with 34 Republicans voting Yes. Note that the Senate counterpart (S.485) has bipartisan support with Senators Grassley (R-IA) and Collins (R-ME) as sponsors. The Administration has issued a veto threat. Stay tuned. Seyfarth also submitted an analysis of this legislation on June 4 to the Committee.

Bill Seeking Expanded Nursing Mother Accommodations Introduced.
Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) this week introduced the "Providing Urgent Maternal Protections (PUMP) for Nursing Mothers Act" (H.R. 5592). The bill would eliminate the application of many FLSA exemptions (including the exemption for executive, administrative, and professional employees) to the existing nursing mother provisions. It would apparently require application of the nursing mother provisions to employment outside the United States. And it would provide additional remedies for violations of the provisions. The bill would also apply by statute the Wage & Hour Division's existing requirement that an employee be "completely relieved from duty" for the break to be noncompensable.

Grand Rapids Limits Employment Screening
. As we've seen over the past few years, state and local governments continue to jump into the labor and employment space. Grand Rapids, Michigan just joined the fray, with amendments to its Human Rights Ordinance that place restrictions on users and providers of background screening reports. For more information, see Seyfarth's Legal Update, prepared by the Background Checking & Drug Testing team.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More