The Epidemic Of Employer Misclassification Of Employees As Independent Contractors Under The Fair Labor Standards Act, And The Courts' Response
Justin M. Swartz, and Mariko Hirose, and contributions by Piper Hoffman, 2009
The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)’s compensation requirements, such as minimum wages and overtime pay, apply only to “employees.” Chao v. Mid-Atl. Installation Servs., Inc., 16 F. App'x 104, 105 (4th Cir. 2001). Employers can get around these requirements and lower their tax bills at the same time by classifying workers as “independent contractors” instead of “employees.” Employers classify as independent contractors many workers who do not meet the legal definition: the Department of Labor estimates that up to 30% of U.S. employers misclassify workers. Courts have found rampant violations across certain industries.
Arbitrability Of Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Claims
This article explores the arguments presented by member firms and registered employees, and outlines what arbitration panels have decided. Laurence S. Moy. Pearl Zachlewski, Linda Neilan, and Katherine Blostein. The Neutral Corner, Newsletter of FINRA Neutrals, Volume 1, 2008.
Since the passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX), arbitrators handling employment claims may be faced with a throny question concerning SOX whistleblower claims: Should a SOX claim be litigated in court or arbitrated? Ultimately, the question comes to whether SOX whistleblower claims constitute "employment discrimination" claims, and are thus exempt from arbitration under Rule 13201 of the Code of Arbitration Procedure for Industry Disputes (Code). This article explores the arguments presented by member firms and registered employees and outlines what arbitration panels have decided.
Justin Swartz and Rachel Bien, Section of Labor & Employment Law, American Bar Association, Vol. 35, Number 4, Summer 2007
Few doubt the merits of diversity in the workplace. Indeed, a host of organizational leaders from chief executive officers to top military brass have recently touted the importance of a diverse labor force. As a result, an entire industry has emerged, geared toward eradicating workplace inequality.
Many thoughtful ideas have made their way onto "best practices" lists that identify methods to increase the representation of historically underrepresented groups in corporations and firms.
Despite all of this attention, however, the challenge of actually achieving diversity remains. As Alexandra Kalev, Frank Dobbin, and Erin Kelly wrote in a recent article examining the effectiveness of employers' efforts to promote diversity, "We know a lot about the disease of workplace inequality, but not much about the cure." "Best Practices or Best Guesses? Assessing the Efficacy of Corporate Affirmative Action and Diversity Policies," 71 Am. Soc. Rev. 589, 590 (August 2006).
At the 2007 National Conference on Equal Employment Opportunity Law in Charleston, South Carolina, the Section's Equal Employment Opportunity Committee (EEOC) presented two panels that focused on efforts to increase diversity in private sector workplaces, including law firms. The consensus that emerged from both panels was clear: truly overcoming inequality in the workplace requires more than changing hearts and minds. It demands a structural, top-down approach with incentives for meeting concrete diversity goals.
Ethics Corner: Third Circuit Vindicates Plaintiff's Attorney
Justin M. Swartz and Cara E. Greene. July, 2007. Ethics Corner is a regular contribution by the ABA, Labor & Employment Law Section’s Ethics and Professional Responsibility Committee.
The Third Circuit recently overturned a district court order disqualifying a plaintiff’s attorney who had conducted an ex parte interview of the defendant’s administrative assistant. EEOC v. HORA, Inc., No. 05-5393, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 15705 (3d Cir. June 29, 2007) (unpublished decision). Characterizing the disqualification as “draconian,” the Circuit held that the district court abused its discretion because the lawyer did not violate any ethics rules, and, even if she had, there was no prejudice to the defendant.
The plaintiff’s lawyer, Jana Barnett, represented Manessta Beverly in a sex harassment and retaliation case against a Days Inn franchise and its management company. During discovery, Barnett conducted an ex parte interview of Debbie Richardson, an administrative assistant at the Days Inn. The district court disqualified Barnett for conducting the interview, finding that she violated Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct (“PRPC”) Rules 4.2, 4.4, and 5.7.
The Third Circuit reversed, holding that Barnett did not violate Rule 4.2 because the administrative assistant was not a member of the organization with whom ex parte contact was forbidden. The Third Circuit recently overturned a district court order disqualifying a plaintiff’s attorney who had conducted an ex parte interview of the defendant’s administrative assistant.
Whistleblower Claims Under The Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002
Laurence S. Moy, Linda A. Neilan, and Hollis Pfitsch (Summer Associate), Practising Law Institute, October 7-8, 2004, and December 9-10, 2004.
In the wake of recent accounting and corporate scandals, Congress passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (hereinafter, “Sarbanes-Oxley,” “SOX,” or the “Act”), Public L. No. 107-204, Sec. 806, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1514A.1 In addition to providing greater oversight of the accounting industry and protecting investors, the Act prohibits employers from retaliating against whistleblowers. (“Whistleblower” might be considered a misnomer since the Act’s scope is not limited to employees who “blow the whistle” by refusing to engage in illegal or wrongful acts or by reporting such activities to the employer or the appropriate authorities.) The Act provides extensive coverage to employees who report improper conduct as well as employees who participate in proceedings relating to same. Companies that fall under the purview of Sarbanes-Oxley are prohibited from discharging, demoting, suspending, threatening, harassing, or discriminating against any employee who engages in protected activity. 18 U.S.C. § 1514A(a).
Prior to Sarbanes-Oxley’s enactment, federal and state whistleblower statutes provided limited protection for a narrow class of employees. The False Claims Act covers employees only if they report fraud on the federal government. 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h).2 In New York, a state statute had provided pre-Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblowers with extremely limited coverage. That statute, New York Labor Law § 740, only protects an employee who “discloses, or threatens to disclose to a supervisor or to a public body an activity, policy or practice of the employer that is in violation of law, rule or regulation which violation creates and presents a substantial and specific danger to the public health or safety.” N. Y. Lab. Law § 740(2). Thus, Sarbanes-Oxley has vastly changed the horizon of protection for whistleblowers in the private sector.
This paper addresses the whistleblowing provisions of the Act and its accompanying regulations, provides guidance to lawyers advising companies responding to potential whistleblower complaints of improper conduct, and reviews the duties of lawyers to report wrongful conduct as per the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (“SEC” or “Commission”) new regulations.
Can Law Firm Partners Sue The Firm For Employment Discrimination?
Employment attorneys Wayne Outten and Justin Swartz. This article originally appeared in Law Journal Newsletters' Law Firm Partnership & Benefits Report, February 2004. For more information, visit www.ljnonline.com.
This article will first discuss reasons that law firms, especially large firms, are susceptible to discrimination suits by their partners. Next, it will explain two threshold requirements for law firm partners to sue their firms for employment discrimination. Both of these requirements turn on whether certain partners are deemed employees. Third, the article will discuss the Supreme Court’s Clackamas decision and lower court decisions that preceded Clackamas but used similar analyses. Finally, it will note that,under some federal and state laws, law firms are vulnerable even if their partners are not deemed employees.Discussion of: reasons law firms may be susceptible to discrimination suits by their partners; two required thresholds for filing such a suit; Supreme Court's Clackamas decision; and finally a note on why some law firms are vulnerable even if their partners are not deemed employees.
Non-Compete Agreements: Emerging Issues From The Perspective Of Employee's Counsel
Co-authored by Wayne N. Outten, Anne Golden, and Nantiya Ruan, 2001.
Today more than ever, trained employees are valued by employers who want to do everything in their power to keep them from leaving and taking their skills and knowledge with them. Undoubtedly, this is due in part to our nation's unemployment rate reaching a thirty-year low. Add the current business environment of increased mobility, decreased loyalty, and the tremendous amount of capital resources spent in creating intellectual property, and companies are increasingly requiring key employees to sign harsh non-compete agreements to discourage employee defection or "corporate raiding."
The law still favors free mobility of employees. But along with an increased number of employers requiring employees to sign non-competition agreements comes an increased number of suits to enforce these restrictive covenants. Consequently, the body of law governing this area has been changing. This outline will give practical advice to employee advocates on ways to best protect their clients' interests when confronted with non-competition agreements and will examine the emerging trends in this narrow, but increasingly pertinent, area of employment law.