Religion and Hiring in the Wake of Abercrombie
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
July 2015 Religion and Hiring in the Wake of Abercrombie Posted on July 1, 2015 by Mary Helen Matthews, Esq., Employment Law Services Attorney As we reported in our June 1, 2015 Hot Topics, the U.S. Supreme Court recently issued its decision in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. (U.S. 2015). The case involved a young Muslim woman (Samantha Elauf) who was not hired as a sales associate by Abercrombie because she wore a hijab (headscarf) to the interview. Neither Ms. Elauf nor the hiring manager raised the issue of the hijab or of Ms. Elauf’s religion during the interview, but the interviewer admitted she assumed Ms. Elauf was Muslim because of the headscarf and was concerned the headscarf would conflict with the store’s “Look Policy” of no “caps.” For that reason, Ms. Elauf was not hired. At trial, the EEOC successfully argued that Abercrombie failed to accommodate Ms. Elauf’s religious beliefs. But the Tenth Circuit reversed the lower court, holding that the EEOC failed to establish that Ms. Elauf had notified the employer about the conflict created by the religious belief. An employer’s obligation to provide accommodation, the court said, was triggered only when it received actual notice from the applicant that a religious accommodation would be required. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case specifically on the issue of what knowledge an employer must have to trigger its obligation to evaluate religious accommodations. In an 8-to-1 decision in favor of the EEOC, the Court held that in Title VII disparate-treatment claims, actual knowledge by the employer is not required. Instead, “a job applicant ‘need only show that his need for [religious] accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer’s decision, not that the employer had knowledge of his need.’”
Although the Abercrombie decision seems straightforward (due, in part, to cooperative facts), the
implications for employers aren’t so clear. We are left to wonder how employers become proactive
about accommodating religion (which is clearly the message from the Court) while minimizing
legal exposure for inquiring about religious beliefs and negating any suggestion of illegal motive.
Although the case did not saddle employers with new duties or give specific practical guidance, it
does offer insight on improving practices. For example:
FOCUS: Employers’ focus needs to be on whether an accommodation is possible, not on how to
avoid making an accommodation. Employers should actively work to make exceptions to their
neutral employment policies in order to accommodate religious practices.
POLICY: Employers should implement a comprehensive policy on religious accommodation and a
procedure for implementing the policy’s assurances.
JOB DESCRIPTIONS/JOB POSTINGS: Employers should revise job descriptions and job postings
taking care to clearly identify essential job functions and policies, including scheduling
requirements, use of PTO, dress codes, and other areas typically impacted by religious
accommodations. This is especially important for positions where common types of religious
accommodations (dress codes, time off, etc.) might be difficult or even impossible to provide.
EDUCATION/TRAINING: Hiring managers need to be educated about the obligation to provide
religious accommodations and trained to think about the need for religious accommodation—
whether known or suspected—the same way they think about an applicant’s race, color, sex, or
national origin: as a non-issue.
INTERVIEWS: Hiring managers and interviewers should be trained on the “dos” and “don’ts”
during an interview.
Don’t point-blank ask an applicant about their religion, period.
If an interviewer suspects an applicant may have a conflict with a policy or job function due to
religion (either by an employee’s appearance or some other non-verbal cue) the interviewer should
make the company policies and essential job requirements known to the applicant and inquire if
the applicant can comply.
If the applicant indicates they can comply, the conversation on this topic ends.
If the applicant indicates they cannot comply, the interviewer can ask “why,” which is not
considered inquiring into their religion.
If the applicant indicates they have a conflict based on their religion, the interviewer may ask what
they need in order to comply. The interviewer would make note of the applicant’s need/request
either for their own post-hire consideration, or to pass along to HR for further analysis.
Don’t point-blank ask an applicant about their religion, period.
If an interviewer suspects an applicant may have a conflict with a policy or job function due to
religion (either by an employee’s appearance or some other non-verbal cue) the interviewer should
make the company policies and essential job requirements known to the applicant and inquire if
the applicant can comply.
If the applicant indicates they can comply, the conversation on this topic ends.
If the applicant indicates they cannot comply, the interviewer can ask “why,” which is not considered
inquiring into their religion.
If the applicant indicates they have a conflict based on their religion, the interviewer may ask what
they need in order to comply. The interviewer would make note of the applicant’s need/request
either for their own post-hire consideration, or to pass along to HR for further analysis.
HIRING DECISIONS: If the employer hires the applicant who identified an accommodation in the
interview, then the groundwork will already be set for the accommodation process. If the employer
does not select the applicant then the rejected applicant can be told the true reason for the
rejection, be it that another had superior qualifications or the undue hardship involved with
accommodating the applicant’s religion.
HR should close the loop with rejected candidates and respond to their requests with the
appropriate, nondiscriminatory reason for the decision not to hire.
6/25/2015
Supreme Court Again Sides with Employee Plan Participants Posted on July 1, 2015 by Peggy Hoyt-Hoch, Esq., SPHR, CBP, GBA, Employment Law Services Attorney In a much-anticipated decision, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled to overturn the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and support plan participants who sued their employer for breach of fiduciary duty (Tibble v. Edison Int’l (U.S. 2015). Edison International 401(k) plan (the Plan) participants formed a class and sued their employer for violating the fiduciary duty to monitor the investment funds offered under the Plan. Some claim this decision will make it easier for employee participants to sue their employer plan fiduciaries. By way of background, most defined-contribution plans provide a menu of investment options from which participants select to invest their savings. The participants make the actual decision from among those offered. Ideally, the only funds offered are those that the plan fiduciaries identified as the best, most prudent, and appropriate. This important fiduciary responsibility has been in place forever (well, maybe not that long). So what happened in this case? A group of 401(k) participants discovered three of the investment funds offered within the Plan were essentially identical to other retail funds that charged significantly lower fees. They suggested that by replacing the funds with comparable, less-expensive options, the participants could enjoy greater investment returns. The employer, however, chose to keep the funds as they were. Finally, in 2007, the participants filed suit in federal district court, claiming the fiduciaries breached their duty to monitor the fees of three retail-class mutual funds. The court agreed with the participants. But on appeal, the 9th Circuit ruled that ERISA’s six-year Statute of Limitations (SOL) protected the Plan fiduciaries from liability. The three funds in question had been selected more than eight years earlier and so were beyond the SOL. Nevertheless, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the SOL did not, in fact, protect the fiduciaries, but that the fiduciaries had an ongoing duty to review the appropriateness of fund performance, which includes comparing fees.
The lesson here is that plan fiduciaries must monitor each investment option offered and restrict or remove those that are no longer the most prudent available. Justice Breyer, who wrote the unanimous decision for the Court, offers employer plan sponsors some instructive language concerning fiduciary responsibilities. Plan fiduciaries must “systematically consider all the investments of the trust at regular intervals” to ensure appropriateness. Breyer added that this duty “includes removing imprudent investment options from the plan. This continuing duty exists separate and apart from the trustee’s duty to exercise prudence in selecting investments at the outset.” The Court sent this case back to the 9th Circuit to reconsider its ruling in light of the Court’s instruction regarding the fiduciary duty to continually monitor fund appropriateness.
Suicide Threats and the Workplace Posted on July 1, 2015 by David Cabrera, MS, SPHR, CCP, Human Resource Services Consultant In 2010, 38,364 Americans committed suicide, according to The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This sobering statistic is a reminder of a public health issue that inevitably makes its way into the workplace. What can employers do and what might they need to consider when an employee makes comments indicating he or she may be contemplating suicide? First, take seriously any employee statements that contain specific, general, or veiled threats to harm themselves or others and investigate the matter immediately. Show support and concern for the employee’s well-being, but be careful not to discuss personal matters or offer personal advice. Be direct in asking, “You have made this statement, can you tell me what is going on? Are you serious about this threat?” You will need to assess the employee’s response to determine the validity and the immediacy of their suicidal statement(s). MSEC HR consultants and attorneys are available to assist you in this assessment and in the identification of possible responses. Ultimately, how you proceed will depend on the specifics of the situation. Here are some general considerations: You can urge the employee to seek immediate assistance from support resources such as your Employee Assistance Program, if you offer one, and/or the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 800-273-TALK (8255) and http://www.suicidepreventionlifeline.org/, where trained crisis counselors are available 24/7. Depending on factors such as the nature of the employee’s behavior and statement(s), the nature of the employee’s job, and after consulting with an MSEC attorney, a psychological fitness-for-duty test may be appropriate. Coverage under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and/or the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) may trigger a duty to provide time off or engage in the interactive process to explore possible accommodations (see FYI: FMLA Overview and FYI: ADA Overview). Caution – do not regard an employee as disabled or assume disability in the absence of a medical opinion or an accommodation request. Also, be careful to safeguard the privacy of the employee by only discussing the situation with those that have a legitimate need to know.
Acts of violence are often preceded by a threat of violence, so take suicide threats seriously. In some instances, suicidal employees have harmed co-workers prior to harming themselves. Depending on the nature and immediacy of the employee’s threat to harm themselves or others, you may need to call 911 to involve local law enforcement and/or emergency response personnel. Given the uncertainty and unknowns of such situations, preventative action through professional resources is advisable. In terms of prevention, it is important to monitor environmental factors such as workplace stress, workloads, and morale; employee complaints, grievances, and frustrations; and erratic or uncharacteristic changes in employee appearance, behavior, or performance. Seek to promote a supportive, constructive, and positive workplace environment through good leadership and supervision, a healthy culture, and open channels of communication. Consider providing employees with support resources such as wellness and employee assistance programs, training, coaching, and avenues for problem-solving in a safe environment. Various online resources are also available to employers regarding suicide prevention in the workplace. Should you encounter a situation indicating a threat of possible suicide in the workplace, you can contact MSEC for assistance with assessing the human resources and legal issues attendant to the situation.
2015 Legislative Update for Arizona and Colorado Posted on July 1, 2015 Nina Jason in Arizona, Colorado The following legislation will affect Arizona employers in 2015. Colorado had several bills that failed in the 2015 session, although they may reappear in 2016. These bills are briefly outlined in the Colorado portion, below. Arizona Legislative Wrap-Up for 2015 Arizona Fingerprint Clearance Cards legislation (HB 2086) made changes to the existing statute for employment purposes. These changes affect individuals who work with vulnerable populations and public protection services. No criminal history information is to be disclosed to individuals other than to verify employment. Notification to the applicant or current fingerprint clearance cardholder (FCC) is required should the information deny, suspend, or revoke a clearance. This legislation became effective March 30, 2015. On April 6, 2015, the current veterans’ preference employment statute, which previously applied only to state and political subdivision employers, was expanded by HB 2094 to allow private employers to adopt the current preferential points system in the employment process. Effective March 30, 2015, Arizona’s HB 2331 requires workers’ compensation claimants to acknowledge through a signed document that they are aware false statements of earnings are subject to penalties, fines, and forfeiture of benefits. HB 2347, regarding unemployment insurance and base period notices, specifies that all base-period employers will be sent a notice when a claimant files a payable claim, unless the employer had been previously notified of the unemployment claim. Contents of the notice are outlined in the statute that took effect when signed by the governor on April 6, 2015.
Colorado Legislative Wrap-Up for 2015 It was a tumultuous 2015 legislative session as each house submitted ambitious employment- related bills, none of which reached the governor’s desk. These bills will not become law, although they may be reintroduced in the 2016 session. The Family and Medical Leave Insurance Act (“FAMLI”) (H.B. 15-1258) would have created an employee-funded, state-administered paid leave program that covered all employers in Colorado. A new division in the Colorado Department of Labor would have administered the leave program along with a solvency surcharge to be paid should the program become financially unsupportable. It was undetermined whether the employer or the employee would pay the surcharge. Local Government Minimum Wage (H.B. 15-1300) would have allowed local cities and municipalities to increase the minimum wage to an amount higher than the state or federal minimum wage. The Colorado Overtime Fairness for Employment Act (H.B. 15-1331) would have increased the minimum salary rate for exempt employees to three times the minimum wage, making the minimum annual salary at least $51,355.20 for each exempt employee. This amount would have increased automatically each year, as it was tied to the state adjusted minimum wage. Restrictions on the director of labor’s ability to grant an exemption were also placed in the bill. The Personnel File Right of Inspection bill (HB15-1342) would have allowed private-sector workers to inspect their personnel files one time each calendar year within 30 days of a written request. It also allowed the employee to provide written responses to adverse entries in his or her file. Civil remedies of not more than $10,000 would have been available to employees where an employer failed to comply with the request. Parental Leave to expire September 1, 2015 In the 2009 Colorado legislative session, the Parental Involvement bill (H.B. 09-1057) passed both houses and was signed by Gov. Bill Ritter in order to afford parents the opportunity to attend academic activities of their children or legal charges. This bill contained a sunset provision requiring the law to be renewed to prevent it from expiring. In the 2015 legislative session, an unsuccessful attempt was made to continue this leave. This means the law will sunset on September 1, 2015 and will no longer provide time off to employees. Finally, workers’ compensation health-care provider choices changed on April 1, 2015. Legislation passed in 2014 (H.B. 14-1383) now requires an employer or insurer to provide at least four separate and independent physicians or medical providers to the injured employee. The employee, from the provided list, selects the treating physician. Exceptions exist for rural areas with limited providers within 30 miles of the employer’s place of business
What Does it Take to be a Human Resources
Business Partner?
Posted on July 1, 2015 by Kathleen Hart, Human Resource Services Consultant, SPHR
More and more HR professionals seek to operate at the level of a strategic business partner. In order
to make the leap, HR professionals must understand the organization’s strategy, identify its
approach to talent managment, and then pursue HR strategies that add value through people and
produce measurable results. Here are some ways to develop as an HR business partner:
Acquire Business Acumen:
Learn the language of business: Learn how the organization makes money and how these activities
are reflected in key financial reports, ratios, and elements such as balance sheets, income
statements, cash flow, return on investment, budgeting, and financing. If this sounds like a foreign
language, seek out books, reference materials, and/or a mentor (such as the CFO or Controller) to
help you build expertise.
Understand the key performance metrics that drive your organization: Each organizational function
contributes to overall success. Understand the key metrics that each functional area uses to
measure its success. For example, Operations may measure productivity and cost while Customer
Service may measure customer satisfaction and retention. HR initiatives need to help each function
reach its goals through people, thereby providing value to the organization. An HR initiative, for
instance, may analyze the cost of turnover and what is driving it or the impact of training on
productivity.
Approach HR with a Strategic Mindset:
Align HR goals with the goals of the organization: Identify your company’s top priorities and
concerns. Based on an understanding of the business, achieve outcomes that impact what matters
most to the organization.
Build a solid business case: Provide senior management with solutions backed by analysis that
supports your initiative. The business case presents a compelling reason for the HR initiative and
supports it with measures of success, projected results, and return on investment. A solid business
case helps transform the perception of HR as tactical and process-focused to strategic and
business-focused.Build Positive Relationships with Key Stakeholders
Foster trust: Before HR can influence and collaborate effectively within the organization, it needs to
be seen as credible and trustworthy. Deliver on your promises and give others the benefit of the
doubt. Develop self-awareness, avoid defensiveness, and show positive intent by investing in
relationships with others.
Walk in their shoes: Help your organization meet goals in a way that balances with risk
management and legal compliance. Avoid being seen as “law enforcement,” using HR jargon, or
saying “no you can’t” when talking to management. These actions reinforce the perception that
HR lives in a bubble and doesn’t understand the real challenges facing the organization. Instead,
be solutions-oriented, welcome management’s questions and concerns, and listen from a place of
understanding and balance.
In 2016, MSEC is launching the HR Business Partner Program, a developmental, applied-learning
curriculum to help HR professionals develop as HR business partners. To request information,
please contact HRBP@msec.org.HR Certification: Past, Present, Future Posted on July 1, 2015 Posted by Tammeron Trujillo, SPHR, GPHR in Strategic HR In 1997, I became aware of two HR certifications: the Professional in Human Resources (PHR) and the Senior Professional in Human Resources (SPHR). I knew these certifications were associated with the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), but when I looked into receiving them, I realized they were actually issued by the Human Resource Certification Institute (HRCI), with SHRM providing the marketing and exam preparation materials. I took HRCI’s exam and received my SPHR that year. Later, I would receive my Global Professional in Human Resources (GPHR), also from HRCI and with the aid of SHRM study materials. Last year, SHRM and HRCI ended their relationship. HRCI still provides testing for the PHR, SPHR, GPHR, PHR-California (PHR-CA), and SPHR-California (SPHR-CA). In addition, HRCI recertifies professionals holding these credentials every three years. The credential-holder submits documentation through the HRCI website demonstrating that he or she has earned 60 credits of continuing education. Beginning later this year one, you’ll be able to earn credits just by being an employee of an MSEC member. Other ways include attending training and completing on-the-job projects. Upon ending its affiliation with HRCI, SHRM introduced its own HR certifications, the SHRM Certified Professional (SHRM-CP) and the SHRM Senior Certified Professional (SHRM-SCP). Through the end of 2015, current holders of an HRCI certification can acquire the corresponding SHRM certification by visiting the SHRM website at: http://www.shrm.org/certification/pathway/pages/default.aspx and completing an online tutorial. For those who do not have an HRCI certification, SHRM offers its certification through a testing process similar to HRCI’s. Even though I have two HRCI designations and could have gotten the SHRM-SCP simply by completing a tutorial, I took the SHRM-SCP exam to satisfy my curiosity. The process was nearly identical to taking my computer-based GPHR exam. I even went to the same testing location.
The exam was challenging. About 60 percent of the questions seemed knowledge-based while the
remaining 40 percent involved situational judgment. The knowledge questions related to tasks and
duties an experienced HR generalist would probably have experienced, and the situations described
in those questions were realistic. Although I found myself guessing several times, I was almost
always able to narrow the choices down to two from four, and very often I knew the answer
immediately. I continually asked myself what the test authors were really looking for, particularly on
the situational questions, and it helped that I had studied the SHRM Body of Competency and
Knowledge. It is difficult for me to compare taking the SHRM-SCP and the SPHR exams since nearly
18 years elapsed between the two tests, but I do know that I felt the same way exiting both exams;
i.e., I had no idea if I passed or not. In 1997, it was because the test was on paper and had to be
turned in and scored before the result could be reported. In 2015, SHRM is using this first testing
window to conduct a final review of all results before scoring the exams and will not be releasing
results until mid- to late-August.
So what is the future of HR certifications? In the near-term, both HRCI and SHRM will continue to
offer their own general certifications. Right now, the HRCI certifications (PHR, SPHR, etc.) are better-
known, while SHRM has pulled out all the stops to make their certifications accessible and relevant.
In addition, we have the ever-expanding list of specialized certifications relating to HR such as:
CCP – Certified Compensation Profsional
CEBS – Certified Employee Benefits Specialist
CPP – Certified Payroll Professional
CPLP – Certified Professional in Learning and Performance
The number of HR certifications just keeps growing. Getting and keeping professional certifications
seems key for professionals to demonstrate their commitment to their profession and their
expertise. That’s why I expect to see more and more initials on business cards.State of the Land – Paid Sick Leave
Posted on July 1, 2015 by Lorie Birk, Esq., SPHR, Arizona Vice President of Membership Services
The news is rife with calls for paid sick leave from president Obama, Congress, state legislatures
and voters. The tide certainly seems to be in favor of PSL. As this movement is taking place at the
federal, state, and local levels it can be very confusing for employers to know what to do. Accordingly,
MSEC hopes members find this chart useful.
As of June 1, 2015, the following jurisdictions have adopted PSL laws:
Jurisdiction Effective Date
California July 1, 2015
Connecticut January 1, 2012
District of Columbia May 13, 2008
Massachusetts July 1, 2015 (transition relief has been approved)
Bloomfield, NJ June 30, 2015*
East Orange, NJ January 7, 2015
Eugene, OR July 1, 2015*
Irvington, NJ January 28, 2015
Jersey City, NJ January 24, 2014
Los Angeles, CA July 1, 2015*
Montclair, NJ March 4, 2015
New York City, NY April 1, 2014
Newark, NJ May 29, 2014
Oakland, CA March 2, 2015
Passaic, NJ January 1, 2015
Paterson, NJ January 8, 2015
Philadelphia, PA May 13, 2015
Portland, OR January 1, 2014
San Francisco, CA February 5, 2007
Seattle, WA September 1, 2012
Tacoma, WA February 1, 2016*
Trenton, NJ March 4, 2015 *Anticipated effective datesAll of these laws have their own nuances, making it very challenging for employers. Additionally, employers with California employees need to navigate compliance with both city and state requirements, which can be very different. Multi-state employers may have to implement state- specific, or even city-specific, sick leave policies. The blanket term,“PSL laws” can be misleading. In a lot of instances, the employer is required to provide time off to employees who are victims of domestic violence or for other non-medical reasons. Some of these laws apply to all employers, regardless of size. In addition, these laws don’t uniformly define “work” for purposes of earning PSL in a particular jurisdiction. An employee who considers another state or another city their home work site may nevertheless earn PSL just by working some hours in the state or city that has PSL. Opposition to PSL is growing. Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Kansas, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Wisconsin have enacted laws that ban municipalities from passing PSL laws. As always, don’t hesitate to seek assistance from MSEC attorneys as you navigate these laws.
The Coats Case Has Been Decided. What Now?
Posted on July 1, 2015 by Curtis Graves, Esq., SPHR, Information Resource Manager
My organization has been following the Coats v.
Dish Network case for the last couple of years. I
understand that Mr. Coats lost his appeal to the
Colorado Supreme Court. How does this affect us
as employers?
The recent decision by the Colorado Supreme Court maintains the status quo for employers. In
other words, it upholds the Colorado Court of Appeals decision allowing employers to terminate
employees for marijuana use without having to demonstrate that the employee was impaired in
the workplace. This is welcome news for employers, but the issue of marijuana and employment is
far from settled.
Like many states, Colorado has a law—we’ll call it “CLODA” for the “Colorado Lawful Off-Duty
Activities” statute—that prevents employers from terminating employees for engaging in lawful
activity outside of the workplace. Brandon Coats argued that his use of medical marijuana was
lawful under state law and therefore protected by CLODA, as long as the use took place while he
was off-duty. The Colorado Court of Appeals, and then the Colorado Supreme Court, determined
that CLODA would only protect activity that was lawful under federal law as well as state law.
Therefore, CLODA did not protect off-duty marijuana use, as marijuana remains a highly illegal
Schedule I controlled substance under the federal Controlled Substances Act.
However, marijuana’s status as a Schedule I controlled substance is hard to justify. The federal
government places it in the same category as heroin and LSD and considers it more dangerous
than methamphetamine and cocaine, both Schedule II controlled substances. How it got there is
an interesting story, but suffice it to say, if marijuana’s status under federal law were to drastically
change, marijuana might actually come under CLODA’s protection, meaning employers could no
longer terminate an employee for testing positive for marijuana without other indicia of on-the-
job impairment.
This is where a test for current marijuana impairment would really come in handy, but even in the
absence of such a test, employers may be able to support a disciplinary action by combining a
positive drug-test result with other contemporaneous indicators of impairment, such as smell, red
eyes, or an abiding love for nacho-cheese-flavored Doritos.
All of this is speculation at this point, and employers should consider the legal status of marijuana
as one less thing they need to worry about for the time being. But like everything, this, too, will
probably change.
Send your questions to cgraves@msec.org. Please tell us if you would prefer your identity not be mentioned in our answer.Wage and Hour Laws for Government Entities Posted on July 1, 2015 by Lorrie Ray, Esq., SPHR, Director of Membership Development Wage and hour laws have a tumultuous history in the public sector. For a period of time, due to a Supreme Court decision, they didn’t apply at all. That was many years ago, and since the late 1980s the U. S. Department of Labor has had special rules for the public sector. This includes any entity that is a political subdivision of the state. It of course includes cities, towns, and counties, and most often includes special districts, like public schools, fire departments, and libraries. The special rules effectively provide flexibility to the public sector in the following areas: Compensatory time. This is probably the most well-known. So long as the employer has a written policy or notice to the employee prior to the work being performed, the employer can either pay any overtime, or provide time-and-one-half off for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek. Be sure you know the rules about how many “comp time” hours can be accrued, when the employee is entitled to take the time off, and at what rate compensatory time is paid out. Work periods longer than one week. Those engaged in law enforcement and firefighting duties may have set recurring work periods between seven and 28 days. Further, the number of hours worked in any work period may translate to more than 40 hours in a week, so long as it doesn’t exceed the regulatory total: 53 hours a week for firefighters, and 43 for law enforcement. Make certain that the employee is engaged in fire suppression or law enforcement activities as defined by the regulation. The regulations include other rules that are important to understand. Shift swapping and volunteering in another department with no overtime. If employees volunteer to swap shifts or work in another department on a truly occasional basis, employers may not have to pay overtime for that work. Employers need to make sure they understand all the necessary elements and are following the regulations in order to take advantage of this exception. Exempt employees can be docked for working fewer than 40 hours a week, so long as there is a written policy, and so long as it is for a permissible reason. The regulations discuss the details of what is acceptable. If you want to see the regulations discussed in this article, please click here. If there is anything else we can do to assist you with federal wage and hour laws, give us a call. We are happy to help.
Survey News Posted on July 1, 2015 by Sue Wolf, Director of Surveys 2015 Information Technology Compensation Survey The 2015 Information Technology Compensation Survey is now available. This survey collected data from 347 organizations on 83 benchmark positions. This survey reports data by Information Technology Department Size and Geographic Location. The 2015 survey includes Denver/Boulder, Northern Colorado, Southern Colorado, Colorado Western Slope, Colorado Resort areas, Wyoming, and Arizona. The survey displays individual data lines for each geographic location as well as an All Front Range, All Colorado, and Total Response data line. In addition, the survey displays data by Less than 5 IT Employees, 5-10 IT Employees, 11-20 IT Employees, 21-50 IT Employees, and 51 or More IT Employees. This survey gathered base wages effective January 1, 2015. Included in the Survey: Annual Incentive – Participants were asked to provide annual incentives for the past fiscal/ calendar year. Data reported are average incentives paid and number of employees receiving an incentive. Target % Incentive – Participants were asked to provide targeted percentage figures for additional compensation, not earned income, for the current year. Exemption Status – Participants were asked to identify their matched position as exempt or non- exempt
2015 Information Technology Compensation Survey – Participant Analysis The two charts below display the participation of organizations who reported data in the 2015 IT Survey. Sixty-four percent of organizations reporting data have IT departments with 10 or fewer employees. If you look at the geographic breakout of the data, 58 percent of the sample is in the Denver/Boulder area.
How Do 2015 Salaries for 10 Benchmark IT Jobs Compare to 2014 Salaries? The following chart is a two-year comparison of 10 core benchmark IT jobs. As you will notice from the data, there is not significant variance in the weighted average reported for these 10 jobs. The three positions with the greatest increase from the 2014 survey are the Webmaster at 9 percent and the Business Analyst and Application Programmer/Analyst both with a 6 percent increase. MSEC’s Information Technology Survey and other compensation surveys are available in PDF or spreadsheet via the MSEC website, www.msec.org. For the compensation surveys, the PDF document contains the job description for each position surveyed as well as the general information statistics, such as pay increases and turnover figures. The PDF documents are linked and bookmarked for ease of navigation. The spreadsheet format contains data for each position in an easily searchable, uploadable format. Benefit surveys are available in PDF format, also linked and bookmarked for your convenience. Still prefer to have a hard copy? No problem! Call or email the Surveys Department and we will be happy to drop one in the mail for you. Notice of Surveys Summer is Industry Surveys Time! BioSciences Casino Construction Industry Financial Services Hotel Housing Authority/Property Management Mining Senior Services
You can also read
