Workforce Bulletin

We previously wrote about a Michigan Supreme Court decision to reinstate two voter initiatives – the Wage Act and the Earned Sick Time Act (ESTA) – and state agency responses to that decision (the “Original Order”), which included the filing of a motion asking the court to clarify the Original Order. On September 18, 2024, the Michigan Supreme Court responded, granting the request for immediate consideration and issuing a thirteen-page Order (the “Clarification Order”).

New Details on Coming Adjustments to Michigan Wage Rates

Tip Credit Phase Out

The substantive portion of the Clarification Order re-writes a lengthy and important footnote in the Original Order, including an extension of the gradual phase-out of the tip credit and a clearer definition of the annually increasing percentage amount. Instead of merely saying “The tip credit will be [XX]% of minimum wage,” the Clarification Order provides that “tipped workers’ minimum hourly wage rate must be at least [XX]% of the general minimum wage rate, and the tip credit can be used to satisfy the balance owed to such workers.”

In other words, the Clarification Order spells out that, for example, “80%” means that tipped workers must be paid a base rate that is at least 80% of the general minimum hourly wage rate.

In recent years, advocates and lawmakers have been pushing to expand the reach of “ban-the-box” measures designed to remove job barriers for individuals with criminal convictions. “Ban-the-box” laws, also called “fair chance laws,” are designed to prevent employers from excluding applicants based on their criminal history alone, by prohibiting employers from immediately inquiring into an applicant’s criminal history before evaluating their qualifications.

Ban-the-box laws have been adopted federally (for federal agencies and federal contractors acting on their behalf) and in numerous states and local jurisdictions. These laws generally contain broad carve-outs for employers or positions where background checks are required, including within the financial services industry. Some changes are coming to narrow those exemptions. On December 23, 2022, President Biden signed into law the Fair Hiring in Banking Act (FHBA), which substantially revised Section 19 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDIA) to reduce hiring barriers within the financial services sector.

Over the past several years, the number of states with comprehensive consumer data privacy laws has increased exponentially from just a handful—California, Colorado, Virginia, Connecticut, and Utah—to up to twenty by some counts. Many of these state laws will go into effect starting Q4 of 2024 through 2025.

We have previously written in more detail on New Jersey’s comprehensive data privacy law, which goes into effect January 15, 2025, and Tennessee’s comprehensive data privacy law, which goes into effect July 1, 2025. Some laws have already gone into effect, like Texas’s Data Privacy and Security Act, and Oregon’s Consumer Privacy Act, both of which became effective July of 2024. Now is a good time to take stock of the current landscape as the next batch of state privacy laws go into effect.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday: This week, on our Spilling Secrets podcast series, our panelists delve into the implications for employers following the recent blockage of the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) non-compete ban.

On August 20, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas invalidated the FTC’s non-compete ban, deeming it arbitrary and capricious and beyond the scope of the agency’s statutory authority.

In this episode of Spilling Secrets, Epstein Becker Green attorneys Peter A. Steinmeyer, Erik W. Weibust, and Paul DeCamp tell us more about the court’s decision to block the ban, what legal challenges remain, and the key considerations for employers moving forward. 

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we’re highlighting a few state-level employment issues, including the legal challenges faced by Staples Inc. regarding the Massachusetts lie detector ban; New Jersey’s implementation of a gender-neutral dress code for businesses; and the varying voting leave policies across states in preparation for the November election.

The Tenth Circuit recently reaffirmed that employers may lawfully enforce a policy against surreptitious recordings.

In Spagnolia v. Charter Communications, LLC, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit unanimously affirmed a District of Colorado order granting employer Charter Communications, LLC’s (“Defendant”) summary judgment on claims filed by plaintiff Heather Spagnolia (“Spagnolia”), who asserted that she was fired in retaliation for making reasonable requests for lactation accommodations. The issue before the appellate court was whether Defendant’s proffered reason for terminating Spagnolia (secretly recording meetings with her supervisors in violation of company policy) was pretextual. 

Both courts agreed that Spagnolia’s violation of the policy against surreptitious recordings was a lawful basis for termination, and that Spagnolia failed to show that this was pretextual.

Background

In 2017, Spagnolia moved to Colorado to work for Defendant as a Regional Operations Center Specialist. From April to July 2019, Spagnolia took leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act to give birth to her second child. When she returned to work in July 2019, Spagnolia’s supervisor mistakenly permitted her to take paid lactation breaks, even though Defendant’s written policy provided for unpaid lactation breaks. During that time, Spagnolia’s lactation breaks lasted for an average of two hours per day, and sometimes up to three hours—in addition to her lunch break and regular paid breaks.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we’re examining the repercussions for employers of a recent court decision that set aside the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) nationwide non-compete ban:

On August 20, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas blocked the FTC’s ban on non-compete agreements nationwide. What does this mean for employers?

Epstein Becker Green attorney Peter A. Steinmeyer tells us what employers should be doing now and outlines the implications of this decision on existing and future non-compete agreements.

A growing number of states and municipalities have passed “fair chance” laws that, to varying degrees, prohibit employers from inquiring into a job applicant’s criminal background during the hiring process or restrict employers from using certain criminal conviction information in connection with their hiring decisions. Recently, Los Angeles County joined this group and New York City is posed to again amend the rules for its existing law. The Los Angeles developments create new intricacies for employers, while the New York actions may be best understood as clarification of existing law. In either case, keeping up with the changes is important for employers who are hiring in those locations. 

Los Angeles County’s New Law

The Los Angeles County Fair Chance Ordinance for Employers (“FCO”) was adopted by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors on February 7, 2024, and becomes operative on September 3, 2024. The FCO was designed to complement California’s “Ban-the Box” law, called the Fair Chance Act (“FCA”), and introduces additional compliance requirements for covered employers, including, but not limited to, mandatory language for job postings and solicitations, and written notice requirements in connection with the extension of a conditional offer of employment.

On August 22, 2024, the Michigan Department of Labor & Economic Opportunity (LEO) issued a press release on the heels of the Mothering Justice decision, about which we previously wrote, and which will drastically change the minimum wage, tip credit, and paid sick leave obligations for Michigan employers.

With respect to paid sick leave, LEO announced that it issued new guidance and FAQs on the Earned Sick Time Act, which goes into effect on February 21, 2025. We will be publishing an Insight shortly detailing all the mandatory changes.

With respect to the minimum wage and tip credit changes, on August 21, the state of Michigan’s Attorney General, LEO, and the Department of Treasury asked the Michigan Supreme Court for clarification on how the Treasurer should calculate adjustments for inflation to set new minimum wage rates, as directed by the July 31 decision. The motion outlines a proposed schedule of new minimum wages based on one interpretation of the Supreme Court’s order, but suggests that ambiguity in the order leaves room for interpretation and therefore lays out five options:

The U.S. Departments of Labor (DOL), Health and Human Services, and the Treasury (collectively, the “Tri-Departments”) published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on August 3, 2023, to propose new regulations for the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA). In particular, the proposed rules would implement amendments to MHPAEA that were passed under the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (CAA) to require documentation of comparative analyses for Non-Quantitative Treatment Limits (NQTLs). We anticipate that the Tri-Departments will publish new regulations for MHPAEA that will finalize most provisions of the NPRM in the coming days or weeks.

We anticipate that most provisions of the new regulations will finalize the proposed requirements without significant modifications. However, robust public comments were submitted with regard to several key provisions that may cause the Tri-Departments to modify or rescind the proposed rules.

Three of the most controversial provisions from the proposed rules to watch for in the final rules are:

• Quantitative testing for Non-Quantitative Treatment Limits

  • Current guidance: Health plans must ensure that financial requirements (such as copays and coinsurance) and quantitative treatment limits (such as day or visit limits) that apply to benefits for the treatment of mental health and substance use disorders (MH/SUDs) are no more stringent than the predominant level of the financial requirement or treatment limit that applies to substantially all medical and surgical benefits. This is a mathematical test that has been well-established for these numerical limits since the first MHPAEA regulations were published in 2011.
  • Potential Change: The 2023 NPRM also proposed to apply this mathematical test to NQTLs. If finalized, this new requirement may effectively prohibit most applications of prior authorization, step therapy, and other forms of utilization management for outpatient and prescription drug benefits for MH/SUD conditions.