Tennessee Employment Lawyer Blog

July 22, 2015

EEOC Rules Workplace Sexual Orientation Discrimination Already Illegal Under Federal Law

Recently, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that sexual orientation discrimination is already illegal according to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This groundbreaking decision by the EEOC declares that employment discrimination against gay, lesbian, and bisexual workers is unlawful in all 50 states. The commission already found that Title VII bars discrimination on the basis of gender identity, protecting trans employees. According to the act, Title VII prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, including, the Supreme Court has ruled, irrational sex stereotyping.

The EEOC states that if an employer discriminates against a gay employee for being too “feminine” or a lesbian employee for being too “butch”, this is illegal sex stereotyping. Now the commission states that, if an employer does not approve of a lesbian employee’s sexual orientation, they are objecting to the fact that a woman is romantically attracted to another woman. This objection is based on irrational, stereotyped views of femininity and womanhood. If an employer discriminates against his lesbian employee, that discrimination is based in large part on her sex, and on his anger that she does not fit into her gender role.

The EEOC also stated that, sexual orientation discrimination is “associational discrimination on the basis of sex.” When a homophobic employer mistreats a gay male employee, he does so because he dislikes the fact that his employee dates other men. This means that the employer took that employee’s sex into account while making the decision to treat him unequally. Such discrimination is obviously sex-based and illegal under Title VII.

July 2, 2015

President Obama to raise wages for millions

by Ryan Simmons

If you are working over forty hours a week and are not currently eligible for overtime pay or wages, you may be in luck. The Department of Labor and the Obama administration are on the verge of changing an overtime pay rule that would raise the current overtime threshold of $23,660 per year to $50,440 per year. This would extend overtime pay to millions of American employees. If you feel that you have wrongly denied overtime pay, you should speak to a Tennessee overtime pay and employment lawyer with the Higgins Firm. We will fight for you to help you get the compensation that is rightfully yours.

Currently, the law states that any salaried worker who earns below the threshold must receive overtime. The current threshold of $23,660, or $455 per week, lies below the poverty line for a family of four. The new rule would raise that to $50,440 or $970 per week, which would be closer to the median household income. This rule change would mean that more American workers would qualify for overtime pay. The current overtime threshold is not indexed for inflation and only been updated once since 1975. It only covers twelve percent of salaried employees. If the threshold is raised it would bring it back in line with the 1975 threshold, after inflation.

The current rules for overtime pay exclude white collar workers with titles such as “executive, administrative and professional” from receiving overtime pay. This means that an office worker or secretary might be exempt from overtime pay. Many businesses and companies get around paying their employees overtime pay by giving them nominal supervisory responsibilities. Although the Department of Labor had stated the new rule would make changes to this definition allowing more workers to qualify for overtime pay benefits, the proposed regulation did not include this change.

June 8, 2015

Why are FMLA Lawsuits on the Rise?

by Jim Higgins

Family Medical Leave has been around for a while now, but the Administrative Office of the US Courts just released a report stating that there was a 26.3 % rise in Family Medical Leave Act lawsuits in 2014. There may be a number of reasons for this rise. So what should you do if you are an employer dealing with Family Medical Leave requests and what should you do if you are an employee that feels like you have been wrongly denied your FMLA? Well, here are some suggestions and tips to keep in mind for employers as well as employees. If you have more questions or feel that you may have a FMLA case, then you should speak to one of our FMLA lawyers with the Higgins Firm. We will work with you to make sure your rights are upheld.

It is important to first discuss the many reasons why these cases may be on the rise. One of the main reasons for the increase is because the laws around Family Medical Leave are becoming more well known and the Department of Labor is also expanding the law to include same-sex couples. So, it makes sense that if more people know about the law that more people will use it. The second reason is that Family Medical Leave is defined as a “serious health condition”. This is very vague and therefore, many employees with chronic conditions may find it easy to request and be given the leave.

Many medical professionals also seem very willing to offer certification to employees requesting intermittent FMLA leave even if the reason is not very clear. Also, once an employee receives certification for FMLA, it often becomes easier for them to take the leave for a day or two if they just want a day off because they will not face consequences for that time. Finally, lawsuits may be increasing because many employers may not fully understand the FMLA laws and their requirements. It is important for employers to learn about the laws so they do not fail to realize when an employee may legitimately need the leave. This will help to avoid violations and thus more lawsuits.

May 27, 2015

Employers May Face Investigation if they are not paying their Employees Properly for Overtime

by Jim Higgins

Are you an employee that has been misclassified as being exempt from overtime pay? If so, you may be in luck. The Department of Labor is planning to pay closer attention to working conditions and improper pay practices this year, including those non-exempt employees that are being denied overtime pay due to a misclassification. If you feel that you have been wrongly denied your overtime pay, then you need to speak to an overtime pay and employment lawyer with the Higgins Firm. We know that employees work hard for their money and we will help you to get the compensation you deserve.

According to the Mainstreet news source, the Department of Labor’s increase in attention to employers and their pay practices is due to a rise in requested funding and having more staff of their own. The 2015 budget for the Department of Labor includes $11.8 billion in discretionary funding, which includes an increase of more than $41 million for the Wage and Hour Division and some $14 million to help with the misclassification of employees as independent contractors. The U.S. Secretary of Labor, Thomas Perez, stated that, “This budget request works to ensure that Americans have the skills they need for the in-demand jobs of today and tomorrow and also protects the health, safety and retirement savings of workers.”

The Fair Labor Standards Act states that a non-exempt employee is one who is eligible for overtime pay after working forty hours per week. The Department of Labor will audit and investigate companies that have received complaints from their employees or those seeking employment. These investigations can include private interviews by the investigator of company employees.

April 21, 2015

Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) Protections for Same-Sex Spouses

by Jim Higgins

According to a Final rule recently adopted by the Department of Labor, same-sex couples that are legally married will now be included in the definition of spouse under the Family Medical Leave Act. This means they will be eligible to use FMLA in order to care for their spouse or a family member even if their marriage is not recognized in the state in which they live. The rule became effective on March 27, 2015, but one state’s Attorney General has filed an action seeking to enjoin implementation of the Rule.

Under the Family Medical Leave Act’s “state of residence” rule which had previously been in place since the 1990s, employees were not eligible for protections under FMLA if they were in a legal same-sex marriage in one state but moved to or resided in a state that did not legally recognize the marriage. The new rule known as “place of celebration”, determines eligibility by looking to whether the marriage was valid in the state where the couple was married, regardless of where the couple resides. According to the Department of Labor, the Final Rule’s definition of “spouse” “expressly includes individuals in lawfully recognized same-sex and common law marriages and marriages that were validly entered into outside of the United States if they could have been entered into in at least one state.”

On March 18, 2015, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton commenced a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Labor, seeking a temporary and permanent injunction to block the Final Rule. In its complaint, Texas argues that United States v. Windsor allows states to decide whether to recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages, and that the Final Rule invalidly attempts to abrogate the States’ sovereign immunity and thus “flies in the face” of the Supreme Court’s decision.

February 6, 2015

Get your hands off my Tips!

by Jim Higgins

So you have a wonderful dinner at your favorite restaurant and you would like to show your gratitude to your fabulous waiter. As such, you give him or her a generous tip. Unfortunately, these hard working waiters or waitresses do not always get to keep their tip. This is because many restaurants have what is known as a “tip pool”. Not only may this be surprising to the customer but just think how that poor hard working waitress feels. Regardless, it is important for the employees to know that not all tip pools are legal. If the tip pool is found to be illegal the employee may be entitled to a full hourly wage for hours worked, liquidated damages and attorney’s fees.

The difference between a legal and illegal tip pool depends on a few factors. These factors are often intertwined with the employer’s legal ability to take a “Tip Credit” to pay the lower hourly minimum wage of $2.13 per hour. Specifically, for a tip sharing program to be legitimate the tips can only be shared among employees that regularly and customarily receive tips. This would include employees such as bartenders, counter staff, waiters, waitresses and sometimes hostesses. It would not include cooks, managers, chefs or owners. This would be mainly those employees that aren’t paid at the $2.13 minimum wage.

Taking this a step further, for the employer to be allowed to take a credit for the tip and reduce the hourly wage to $2.13 an hour the following must occur:

1. The employer must notify the specific amount of cash wage the employee will receive. This cannot be less than $2.13 per hour.
2. The tip credit that the employer claims can’t exceed the actual amount of the tip received by the employee 3. The employee must be allowed to keep all tips earned except for the amount to be legally contributed to the tip pool 4. The tip credit will not apply to the employee unless the employee has been informed of these tip credit provision. It is important to note that this notice can be oral or written.

If an employer has set up an illegal tip pool or has not complied with the foregoing tip credit provisions they may have to pay the difference between the $2.13 an hour paid and the current minimum wage. The employee would also be allowed to keep all tips earned.

Also, if the employer decides to use the tip credit provision they must be able to show that the employee earned a minimum of $7.25 an hour. In other words, if you take the $2.13 an hour paid and all tips earned by an employee during a week and divide that amount by the number of hours worked then the average wage should equal or exceed $7.25 an hour.

Finally, do not forget about overtime. If you work over 40 hours per week you are still entitled to 1.5 times your hourly pay for the hours worked over 40. This is probably one of the most overlooked FLSA violations around.
Continue Reading

December 29, 2014

Are “Independent Contractors” entitled to overtime?

by Jon Street

One way some employers will attempt to avoid the overtime and minimum wage requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) is by classifying employees as “independent contractors”. This practice is more common in certain industries than others, industries such as construction.

Recently the United States department of Labor obtained a judgment for $380,000.00 against an employer who had classified more than 300 employees working as drywall installers as “independent contractors” and failed to pay them overtime. The press release from the Department of Labor stated as follows:

“”The issue here-misclassifying employees as independent contractors to avoid paying required wages and benefits-is a critical one. Misclassification impacts not only employees and their families, but entire industries,” said Mark Watson, regional administrator for the Wage and Hour Division in the Northeast. “This case sends a clear message that the Wage and Hour Division will use every tool available to protect workers and to ensure a level playing field so that law-abiding employers are not put at a competitive disadvantage.”

The employees, who worked throughout central New York and the Northeast, put in as many as 60 to 70 hours per week with regularity and were paid straight time for hours worked beyond 40 in a workweek.”
Continue Reading

December 2, 2014

Ex-UPS Worker’s Pregnancy Discrimination Case Is Going To The Supreme Court

by Jim Higgins

This case has been winding its way through he courts for eight (8) years. It may have a significant impact on the rights of pregnant workers. Considering almost half of our labor force are women and over 40% are the bread winners in the family this case is important to so many families.

According to this case, Peggy Young, a former employee of the United Parcel Service or UPS, was pregnant with her daughter when UPS informed her that she could not be given a temporary assignment in order to avoid lifting heavy packages as ordered by her doctor. UPS had employed Young as a part-time driver who was to deliver overnight letters by 8:30 am. This job requires drivers to be able to lift up to seventy pounds. She was informed by her doctor not to lift more than twenty pounds. She stated that, “They told me basically to go home and come back when I was no longer pregnant.” She filed a lawsuit against the Atlanta based company for discriminating against pregnant women.

Young’s lawsuit is about the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which was passed by Congress in 1978 to include discrimination against pregnant women as a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Congress stated that workplace rules that excluded pregnant workers from disability benefits and insurance coverage did not amount to sex discrimination under the landmark civil rights law. Young’s lawsuit is to determine if UPS violated the law through its own policies that provide temporary light work jobs only to employees with on the job injuries that have a disability under federal law or to those employees that have lost their federal driver certification.
UPS spokeswoman Kara Gerhardt Ross said the law is on the company’s side. “UPS did not intentionally discriminate,” Ross said. UPS also noted in their court filings that the Postal Service is an independent agency that receives no tax dollars but is subject to congressional control has similar policies when it comes to pregnant employees. The Postal Service did not comment.

Young argued that because UPS made accommodations for non pregnant employees with work restrictions, it should have done the same for her. The lower courts dismissed the suit, agreeing that Young did not prove UPS discriminated against her because of her pregnancy. The justices agreed in July to review the case. Young stated that, “I am fighting for my two daughters and I’m fighting for women who want to start a family and provide for the family at the same time.”
Continue Reading

November 17, 2014

EEOC Sues Restaurant for Pregnancy Discrimination

by Jim Higgins

Tennessee employees and employees all across the United States are entitled to certain rights when applying for, interviewing and getting hired to perform a job. These rights include that a company or organization is not allowed by law to discriminate against employees because of race, gender, disability, sexual orientation or pregnancy. Unfortunately however, these types of discrimination occur all too often in the workplace. If you or someone you know has been rejected or fired from a job because of any type of discrimination, then you should speak with a Tennessee employment discrimination lawyer as soon as possible. They will review your case and make sure that you receive the compensation you deserve for the violation of your rights.

According to this lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission against the Crooked Investment Company doing business as Crooked Creek & Creekside Bar & Grille the job applicant had previous experience working in a restaurant. She applied for an available food server position in February of 2013. Her first interview with the Crooked Creek Company went well and she was asked to come back for a second interview. During the second interview, she told the company that she was pregnant. When this information was revealed, the Crooked Creek Company refused to consider her for the job.

If a company refuses to hire someone for a job because they are pregnant, this is a violation of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission first tried to settle this case through its pre-litigation process. When that failed to work the EEOC filed a lawsuit against the company. The lawsuit is seeking back pay, compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of the applicant and they are also seeking injunctive relief to help prevent any other cases of pregnancy discrimination occurring.

According to a statement by the EEOC’s trial attorney, “Women should not be forced to remove themselves from the labor market simply because they are pregnant.” “The EEOC will vigorously enforce a pregnant woman’s right to be fairly considered for a job.” The EEOC is responsible for enforcing federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination.
Continue Reading

November 4, 2014

Publix Super Markets Inc. to pay $6.8 million to job applicants

by Jim Higgins

This lawsuit which is being processed in a Tennessee federal court claims that the Lakeland-based Publix Super Markets violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by not making legally required disclosures about background checks to job applicants. Publix has denied that they did anything wrong and was not found to be liable in court but have agreed to a settlement because of the huge cost of litigation and the cost of disruptions to their business.

The main plaintiff in the case, Erin Knights, applied for a job at Publix in 2013 through an electronic kiosk at a store in Tennessee. The lawsuit states that Publix’s application process included an authorization for a background check but it violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act rule that requires companies that are receiving a consumer report for employment to notify the potential employee a document containing only the disclosure. The lawsuit states that, “disclosure requirements are important because they enable consumers to control and correct the information that is being disseminated about them by third parties.”

The lawsuit also alleges that Publix included language in their job application that would lead to certain applications waiving specific legal rights concerning the background checks.

The settlement class totals 90,633 people who would receive roughly $48 each after lawyers’ expenses. The settlement includes people who applied for work at Publix and were subjected to background checks during the period March 12, 2012, to May 13, 2014. Publix has stated that it has made changes to its applications about the background checks. A Publix spokesman declined to discuss the case.

When we apply for jobs it is easy to believe that all the forms we are completing are legitimate. Also, it can be difficult to question the forms because we want to please our prospective employers. Who wants to be someone as a “troublemaker”? It seems that it is just this position of power the employers often abuse. Fortunately, we have some laws in place that level the playing field. The Fair Credit Reporting Act is a great example of just such a law. A law that was put in place to protect all of our citizens against corporations that may abuse that information.
Continue Reading