Almost fifteen hundred home care workers will will recover $1.1 million in settlement of a class-action case against their employer. The recovery is against non-profit McMillan’s Home Care Agency. The case was originally filed in 2010, alleging blatant violation of wage-and-hour laws for New York City workers with individuals working up to 60 hours a week without additional compensation. Approximately one in seven low wage earners in New York are in the home care industry.
“Summer’s here and the time is right for dancing in the street. . . .”
The time is also right for having summer interns in your place of business. With a difficult job market, many students are seeking any type of position to build a resume while others are involved in education programs for credit that require practical on-the-job work.
If you plan on allowing volunteer interns to work over the summer at a for-profit business, you must meet certain criteria outlined by the Department of Labor to avoid a wage and hour violation under the FLSA. Those factors are:
- The internship, even though it includes actual operation of the facilities of the employer, is similar to training which would be given in an educational environment;
- The internship experience is for the benefit of the intern;
- The intern does not displace regular employees, but works under close supervision of existing staff;
- The employer that provides the training derives no immediate advantage from the activities of the intern; and on occasion its operations may actually be impeded;
- The intern is not necessarily entitled to a job at the conclusion of the internship; and
- The employer and the intern understand that the intern is not entitled to wages for the time spent in the internship.
Click here to review the complete DOL fact sheet: Fact Sheet #71: Internship Programs Under The Fair Labor Standards Act.
Wilson Worley employment attorney Sam Booher discusses two recent employment law developments: (1) A recent EEOC release states that transgender individuals are protected from discrimination under Title VII; (2) A recent federal circuit court decision finds that making a job offer contingent on withdrawal of an EEOC charge of discrimination is unlawful retaliation. For the complete discussion in the newsletter, follow this link to the Wilson Worley website.
You may have missed it with all the discussion of the NLRB rulings, healthcare reform act litigation, and immigration rulings; but the EEOC released a final rule earlier this year on the ADEA. At the end of March, the EEOC issued the regulation on disparate impact and “reasonable factors other than age” under the ADEA. The final rule makes clear that federal law prohibits practices and policies that have the effect of harming older works more than younger ones, unless the employer can establish that the practice or policy is based on a reasonable factor other than age. In a press release, the EEOC stated, “The rule explains the meaning of the RFOA defense to employees, employers, and courts, and makes EEOC’s regulations consistent with Supreme Court case law. The rule applies to private employers with 20 or more employees, state and local government employers, employment agencies, and labor organizations. The final rule strikes the appropriate balance between protecting older workers from discriminatory, unreasonable business decisions and preserving an employer’s ability to make reasonable business decisions.” The EEOC has also created a Q&A page on the issue; you can view it by clicking here.