BCLP At Work

Main Content

Mass Dismissal Filings in Germany – Be Aware

June 8, 2017

Categories

Successful restructuring measures in Germany, the more so if they result in RIF (reduction in force) proceedings, require very careful preparation, close observation of strict deadlines as well as very diligent processes with regard to works council information and consultation procedures.

In the event that the number of affected staff exceeds the collective dismissal filing requirements, extra care is essential in particular for larger entities and globally operating employers: any formal mistakes by them will result in the terminations being null and void. To make things worse, by the end of last year the German Federal Employment Agency (Bundesagentur für Arbeit/ the Agency) introduced new forms and spreadsheets for German employers to fill in and file with the Agency prior to implementing any terminations in the course of mass dismissal.

The relevant dismissal/ termination thresholds for notification of the Agency in the event of mass dismissals – within 30 calendar

Avoiding Three Common Mistakes Made By Employers When Terminating Employees (Part 3 of 3)

Common Mistake No. 3: Poor Drafting of Termination Letters

This post continues the discussion of common errors made by employers terminating employees which can be easily avoided.

As a general rule, an employer may terminate an employee for a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason, just not for an illegal reason. Moreover, in most (but not all) states, an employer is not required to provide an employee with the reason for the employee’s termination. Although there are different schools of thought on the subject in light of the broad latitude given to employers in most states, I typically recommend including the reason(s) for the employee’s termination in the termination letter. In my experience, the termination of an employee without providing a reason usually strikes an employee as fundamentally unfair and increases the likelihood of the employee seeking advice from an attorney (which, in turn, increases the likelihood of

Employers Should Accept Resignations As Soon As Possible

Although an employee can claim constructive termination, it is always beneficial for an employer to accept, as soon as possible and in writing, an employee’s resignation.  By doing so, the employer creates a clear record that an employee was not fired and limits the potential claims which an employee can assert against the employer.

This point was recently illustrated in Featherstone v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group.  In that case, the ultimate issue was whether a resignation is an “adverse action” under California’s anti-discrimination law, the Fair Employment and Housing Act.  In that case, Ms. Featherstone tendered her resignation on December 23, 2013, and it was immediately accepted.  The court recognized that general contract rules apply to resignations and that “a resignation is an offer which may be withdrawn prior to its acceptance.”  In that circumstance, however, though Ms. Featherstone subsequently tried to rescind her resignation, the court held that

Avoiding State Law Pitfalls (Part 3 of 4)

May 29, 2017

Categories

This is the third hypothetical in our series showing how well-intentioned employers can violate unfamiliar state laws.

Scenario #3

The manager of a restaurant in Hartford, Connecticut calls you regarding an outspoken cook who frequently expresses his views on controversial topics. All of the cooks discuss a broad range of topics while working, and these discussions do not interfere with their performance. Nevertheless, the manager has advised the cook that he should be careful about offending others with his views on sensitive topics. The cook responds that this is America, and he has a constitutional right to say whatever he wants. The manager asks you whether this is true. You correctly advise the manager that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not apply to private employers. Rather, federal constitutional rights only come into play if there is some form of “state action.” The next time the cook expresses

Mandatory Paid Sick Leave for Arizona Employees: How Proposition 206 Impacts Your Business

After surviving a legal challenge rejected by the Arizona Supreme Court, Arizona’s $10 minimum wage enacted under Proposition 206 is already in effect, and the sick leave portion of the law takes effect in July. For many companies, this will require new paid time off and sick leave policies, or at least revisions to their existing policies.

With enactment of Proposition 206, Arizona joins other states with sick leave laws, including Illinois, California, Oregon, Washington, Massachusetts, Vermont, and Washington, D.C. As previously reported by the Bryan Cave Retail Law blog, the Illinois law took effect in January 2017.

The Arizona law generally applies to all Arizona employees; it makes no distinction between salaried, hourly, full-time, part-time, temporary or seasonal employees. All employees must accrue one hour of paid sick time for every 30 hours worked.

Paid sick leave can be used for medical care of a mental or physical illness,

OSHA Indefinitely Postpones Electronic Submission of Injury and Illness Records

May 26, 2017

Categories

We’d like to share with our readers a recent Client Alert from the Bryan Cave OSHA Industry Team providing notice to clients that an upcoming July 1, 2017 deadline for submission of injury and illness logs to OSHA has been delayed by the Trump Administration.  The alert also contains some additional commentary on related injury/illness recordkeeping requirements.

https://www.bryancave.com/en/thought-leadership/osha-indefinitely-postpones-electronic-submission-of-injury-and.html

Bryan Cave LLP has a team of knowledgeable lawyers and other professionals prepared to help employers assess their obligations. If you or your organization would like more information on this alert or how the new regulations affect your business, please contact an attorney in the Labor and Employment practice group.

House Passes Bill to Reduce Overtime

May 25, 2017

Categories

On May 3, 2017, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 1180, Working Families Flexibility Act, a law that would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act, to allow employers to give workers paid time off or comp time instead of time-and-a-half overtime pay.  Under the Act, comp time could only be provided in lieu of overtime if it is part of a collective bargaining agreement that was negotiated with the labor organization.  For non-union employees, the employee must have knowingly and voluntarily agreed to the comp time.  There are other conditions such as the employee working a minimum 1,000 hours in a 12-month period before he or she can agree to comp time, as well as limitations, including a maximum accrual of 160 hours of comp time and a mandatory payout of compensation for any unused and accrued comp time by the end of calendar year.  See H.R. 1180 at

France’s Right to Disconnect

May 24, 2017

Categories

Early this year, France enacted a new law concerning the right of French employees to disconnect from digital devices off hours. The intent is to reduce work-induced stress and enable employees to benefit from their rest time at night, on weekends, and during vacation.

On May 9th 2017, Bryan Cave Labor & Employment lawyers Sarah Delon-Bouquet, Federica Dendena, Gary Freer, and Martin Luederitz from four jurisdictions – France, Germany, Italy and the UK – presented a highly attended webinar discussing the recent developments in France and Europe. For those clients operating globally and across various EU jurisdictions, it came as no surprise that there is no uniformity amongst the EU jurisdictions, and each requires individual interpretations that also include a consideration of the differing cultural norms and working practices.

Although there are differences, the following summary can be applied universally:

  • Try to anticipate and plan ahead;
  • Recognize the working

Reducing Exposure to Attorneys’ Fees Awards Through Use of Rule 68 Offers of Judgment (Part 2 of 2)

May 22, 2017

Categories

This is a continuation of Part 1 https://bclpatwork.com/2017/04/12/reducing-exposure-to-attorneys-fees-awards-through-use-of-rule-68-offers-of-judgment/

The Recommended Form and Content of a Rule 68 Offer of Judgment

The offer of judgment should be in writing and state that the defendant is offering to allow judgment to be taken against it for a specific dollar amount (which typically is no less than the amount of the plaintiff’s lost wages through the date of the offer, filing fees, and other recoverable costs), plus an unspecified amount described as “the reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred by the plaintiff through the date of the offer in prosecuting his claims against the defendant.”

There is risk that the plaintiff will accept offer and a dispute will ensue regarding the amount of the unspecified “reasonable attorneys’ fees” offered. To guard against this, it is advisable to include the following language in the offer of judgment: “The amount of the ‘reasonable attorneys fees’ will be

Avoiding Three Common Mistakes Made By Employers When Terminating Employees (Part 2 of 3)

Common Mistake No. 2: Paying a Separating Employee Something Extra Without Requiring a Waiver and Release

This post continues the discussion of common errors made by employers terminating employees which can be easily avoided.

Whether it is advisable to pay a separating employee something extra in exchange for a waiver and release of claims against the employer depends on a number of factors, such as the strength of the potential claims that the employee would be waiving and the likelihood of the employee filing suit. That said, an employer should never pay separating employees money to which they are not otherwise entitled without requiring the execution of a waiver and release.

While the wisdom of this advice might be obvious to some, it is not uncommon in my experience to see an employer gratuitously pay a couple of weeks pay to a separating employee without requiring the employee to execute

The attorneys of Bryan Cave LLP make this site available to you only for the educational purposes of imparting general information and a general understanding of the law. This site does not offer specific legal advice. Your use of this site does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Bryan Cave LLP or any of its attorneys. Do not use this site as a substitute for specific legal advice from a licensed attorney. Much of the information on this site is based upon preliminary discussions in the absence of definitive advice or policy statements and therefore may change as soon as more definitive advice is available. Please review our full disclaimer.