by Stephen D. Hans | May 12, 2015 | Business Attorney, Employment Defense Attorney, Employment Discrimination
When the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) determines that a claim merits litigation based on widespread discrimination, it is not required to name specific individuals as victims of discrimination to bring a lawsuit. This was the ruling in a recent lawsuit filed by the EEOC entitled the EEOC v. Rosebud Restaurants, Inc. et al. The EEOC alleged that Rosebud Restaurants violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act by refusing to hire African-Americans because of their race. The EEOC first attempted a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process; however, Rosebud Restaurants filed a motion to dismiss the case, arguing that the EEOC failed to identify the victims of the alleged hiring discrimination. The U.S. District Court denied Rosebud Restaurant’s motion, stating that allegations of intentional discrimination were sufficient to state a claim for Title VII relief without identification of specific job applicants. Bringing litigation against widespread discrimination is one of the priorities listed in the EEOC’s Strategic Enforcement Plan (SEP) SEP is a plan developed to combat systemic discrimination in hiring based on race. SEP uses strategies that include investigation and litigation to accomplish the following: Eliminating barriers in recruitment and hiring Protecting immigrant, migrant and other vulnerable workers Addressing emerging and developing issues Enforcing equal pay laws Preserving access to the legal system Preventing workplace harassment through systemic enforcement and targeted outreach It is wise for small and mid-sized business owners to consult with an employment litigation attorney when devising company policies and practices. A lawyer can help you stay in compliance with state and federal anti-discrimination laws and regulations. Stephen Hans & Associates has represented clients for...
by Stephen D. Hans | Apr 7, 2015 | Business Attorney, Stars ACT 2015
Author: Stephen D. Hans The restaurant industry and other fields of work, such as farming, often have seasonal workers that pick up heavier work loads during more productive times of the year. The lack of clarification regarding seasonal employment has been confusing for small business owners, family farms and ranches when dealing with the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and its requirements to provide healthcare insurance for employees. The bipartisan Simplifying Technical Aspects Regarding Seasonality (STARS) Act of 2015 provides clarity so small businesses can understand their obligations in complying with healthcare law and not receive fines. As the ACA stands in its current form, extensive calculations are necessary to determine the number of full-time employees and whether you qualify as an exempt, small seasonal employer. Many employers have found the process to be complex and confusing. The STARS Act would provide a clear definition for a seasonal worker and seasonal employee as the following: A worker who is employed for six months or less during the calendar year. The formulas employers would use to determine whether they are large employers and whether their workers have full-time status have also been simplified. STARS is supported by the National Restaurant Association (NRA) and the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF). If you have questions about your obligations under the ACA, our attorneys at Stephen Hans & Associates can provide you with trustworthy legal guidance. Our firm has decades of experience assisting clients with litigation related to employment...
by Stephen D. Hans | Feb 25, 2015 | Business Attorney, Employment Defense Attorney, NLRB
Author Stephen D. Hans For more than thirty years, a line was drawn that differentiated a franchiser and franchisee. The relationship between the two served each other well. Entrepreneurs looking to start a business found security in the franchiser relationship. The franchiser protected the brand and the franchisee made daily business operations thrive. A recent article in Investors.com describes a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) determination regarding McDonald’s and its franchisees. The NLRB’s determination goes against the decade long defining rule that distinguished franchisers from franchisees. Traditionally, franchisees were considered independent owners. For years the NLRB adhered to its standard, which stated: “To establish joint employer status, there must be a showing that the employer meaningfully affects matters relating to the employment relationship such as hiring, firing, discipline, supervision and direction.” In recent determinations the NLRB has found that the franchiser and franchisee are joint owners. Claims were brought against McDonald’s and the franchisees alleging on the part of both entities “discriminatory discipline, reductions in hours, discharges, and other coercive conduct directed at employees in response to union and protected concerted activities,”. The result of this finding holds the franchiser responsible for the actions of the franchisee, which in the long term will probably make business less profitable for McDonald’s and therefore less attractive for franchisees. This major shift in NLRB policies favors unions in the ongoing conflicts between unions and independent business owners. Another case, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters against Browning-Ferris Industries also has been brought before the NLRB. In this issue, Browning-Ferris Industries urges that the NLRB uphold its standard of treating franchisees as independent owners....
by Stephen D. Hans | Jan 23, 2015 | Business Attorney, Employment Discrimination
Companies often find that staffing agencies are valuable resources for helping them fill temporary or permanent positions and for handling human resources issues. However, recently, an outside staffing agency was involved in a disability discrimination lawsuit the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) brought against Sony Electronics. Both Sony Electronics and Staffmark Investment LLC ended up settling the lawsuit, which addressed alleged discrimination against a temporary employee who had a prosthetic leg. Staffmark sent the employee to inspect Sony televisions on a temporary basis. While working her second day, a Staffmark employee approached the woman and removed her from the workplace. The explanation given was that the company had concerns she would get bumped or knocked down. The EEOC investigation revealed that Sony’s management had prompted the Staffmark employee to remove the worker. Consequently, the judge considered Sony to be complicit in the violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). It was an expensive error for both companies, resulting in payments from Staffmark of $100,000 and from Sony of $86,000 to the employee. In addition to the monetary penalty, the federal judge ordered the following: • Sony must report all employee complaints of disability discrimination to the EEOC for the next two years • Sony must train certain management and supervisory employees in employment discrimination laws, including the ADA • Sony must not require that the employee keep the facts of the case confidential, must not waive her rights to file discrimination with a government agency or prevent her from applying or working with Sony or any of Sony’s clients If you face discrimination issues as an employer, Stephen...
by Stephen D. Hans | Dec 17, 2014 | Business Attorney, Employment Defense Attorney
As employers, sometimes it is difficult to keep with the employment law changes, which is why you should consult periodically with an employment defense lawyer and stay apprised of new laws. At the end of October 2014, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio signed the Affordable Transit Act into law. Under the new law, NYC companies with 20 or more full-time employees must offer their employees pre-tax transit benefits. The new act follows the limits already established by the IRS, which allows a $130 pre-tax benefit that can be deducted from salaries for mass transit expenses. Advantages the new law offer for employers and employees are: Employees can opt into the new program and save over $400 a year on Metro Card expenses Employers save more than $100 a year per employee in tax liability An estimated 450,000 New Yorkers not currently offered pre-tax transit benefits now have access to them. The new law goes into effect on January 1, 2016. Employers violating the law are subject to civil penalties but have 90 days to correct a violation before having the penalty imposed. Also businesses have a grace period until July 1, 2016 to adjust to the law and are not subject to penalties occurring prior to that date. The intent of the new law is to make mass transit more affordable for New Yorkers, and it is also an initiative aligned with deal with climate changes. Stay on top of legal changes by consulting with skilled lawyers. Our employment defense attorneys at Stephen Hans & Associates offer employers decades of legal experience that helps...
by Stephen D. Hans | Dec 4, 2014 | Business Attorney
A recent change in regulations predicted to arrive soon is that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will release a national menu labeling standard for chain restaurants. The standard will address calorie and nutritional information required on menus and at point of sale. The National Restaurant Association (NRA) explains the relevance of the new standard for restaurant owners. The new menu label standard is covered by the 2010 health care law. This federal law takes priority over state and local rules and limits a restaurant’s legal liability. The new standard will only apply to chain restaurants operating in 20 or more locations under the same brand name. Restaurants the new standards apply to will have a six month grace period once the standard is officially released before having to comply. The NRA has worked closely in collaboration with regulators to protect restaurant owners who are making good-faith efforts to comply so they are not subjected to penalties for human errors or reasonable fluctuations in ingredients or service sizes. Also, restaurants are allowed the freedom to present easily understood nutritional information to consumers in their own way. Through a recent study conducted by Johns Hopkins University’s Department of Health Policy, the NRA indicates restaurant chains have reduced calories in many of their menu items, providing consumers with healthier choices. The study reviewed more than 60 large chain restaurants. Statistics showed a 12 percent drop in calories in 2013 menu items over 2012 menu items. These efforts on the part of restaurants show a willingness to comply with regulations that promote health and wellness, which is also the purpose in the...
