Your Top Destination for Human Resources Compliance Knowledge

Welcome, everyone! In the next few minutes, we’ll review the latest HR news. Let’s get started.

In motions filed March 7, the Federal Trade Commission asked the Fifth and Eleventh circuits to hold appeals on two lawsuits for 120 days so the agency can reevaluate a rule that’s being questioned. The rule refers to an FTC rule issued during the prior administration banning all noncompete agreements that prohibit workers from leaving an employer and going to work for a competing business or launching a competing business of their own.

The rule was set to go into effect back in September, but in August a federal judge stopped the rule from taking effect. The judge said the FTC doesn’t have the authority to ban practices it deems are unfair methods of competition. The motions filed recently would pause cases appealing that decision.

In other news, the requirement for federal contractors to pay workers at least $17.75 per hour was revoked on March 14 by an executive order. The minimum wage had been required under an executive order that applied to certain contracts signed after January 30, 2022.

Covered federal contractors still need to follow any wage determinations called for in their contracts as well as federal, state, and local minimum wage laws. In addition, the federal contractor minimum wage of $13.30 per hour remains in effect, and contractors need to pay that rate if it is required under their contract.

And finally, on March 19, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, along with the Justice Department, released information on how a diversity, equity, and inclusion program could violate the law. This news comes in light of recent executive orders scrutinizing DEI programs.

Generally, DEI initiatives, policies, programs, or practices can be illegal if they involve taking an employment action that’s motivated by an employee’s or applicant’s race, sex, or another protected characteristic.

Employers should also tread carefully in regard to DEI training. Most DEI training, however, is designed to encourage respect in the workplace which wouldn’t cross the line into discrimination.

That’s all the HR news we have time for today. Thanks for watching. See you next month!

A study exploring the long-term relationship between job satisfaction and life satisfaction shows that personal happiness leads to a positive work life, not the other way around.

This conclusion by researchers is the opposite of the long-held belief that a happy work life has a stronger influence on one’s personal life.

The findings, published in the Journal of Organizational Behavior, could help employers better understand work-life balance.

Researchers from the U.S., Germany, and Australia looked at data in the study from more than 160,000 people globally. The information showed how job and life satisfaction evolve and affect each other over time.

The study found that individuals with higher life satisfaction were 32 percent more likely to experience an increase in job satisfaction. While job satisfaction does have a positive effect on future life satisfaction, it is comparatively weaker and lessens over time.

Employers that violate the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) risk bad publicity, low employee morale, and high turnover. While these have economic consequences embedded into them, employers also risk lawsuits which can result in financial penalties that could impact their bottom line.

Employers that find themselves in a courtroom losing an FMLA claim might have to pay employees for lost wages and benefits due to the violation, including the following:

Back pay: Back pay refers to wages, salaries, and benefits an employee lost as a result of an employer’s wrongful actions. Back pay covers lost earnings from the date of termination (or other negative employment action) to the date of the judgment in the case. This can include actual monetary loss sustained by the employee up to:

• 26 weeks of wages for leave to care for a covered servicemember.
• 12 weeks of wages for leave for other FMLA-qualifying reasons.

Reinstatement: Employers might be ordered to reinstate the employee to their former position or an equivalent one. This is known as “equitable relief.”

Front pay: If reinstatement isn’t feasible, employers might have to pay future wages. Front pay refers to wages, salaries, and benefits the employee will lose in the future as a result of the employer’s actions (from the date of the judgment to some point in the future). If, for example, the employee can’t find a new job, the employer might have to pay the employee in the meantime.

Liquidated damages: These are typically equal to the amount of back pay, front pay, and interest, effectively doubling the compensation. Liquidated damages are amounts automatically awarded unless the employer can show that it acted in good faith. If, for example, the employer can show that it made an honest mistake when it denied an employee leave, the employee won’t be awarded liquidated damages.

Attorney fees and court costs: If the employee wins the case, the employer might be required to pay the legal fees and court costs incurred by the employee. This can include expert witness fees and other costs of the case, which can add up to thousands of dollars.

Civil penalties: The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) can impose civil monetary penalties for willful violations.

Generally, the DOL doesn’t randomly investigate employer FMLA compliance. They could, however, discover noncompliance issues while investigating an employer for another labor-related matter.

Employees can file claims directly with the DOL. They may also file private lawsuits. Lawsuits must be filed within two years after the last action that the employee believes violated the FMLA, or three years if the violation was willful.

Key to remember: Employer FMLA missteps can result in big costs. In fiscal year 2024, the DOL obtained $1,482,398 in back wages alone for FMLA violations.

A surefire way for an employer to upset the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is to keep recruiting and hiring notes such as:

• “DO NOT schedule a female for this post”
• “Post is MALE ONLY!”

It’s because of discriminatory “reminders” like these, as well as other infractions, that an Alabama contract security solutions provider must pay $1.6 million, according to an EEOC lawsuit.

The suit alleged the company engaged in sex discrimination over the past few years by:

• Denying security officer jobs and assignments to women.
• Telling female applicants that they wouldn’t be selected for security positions or assignments because of their sex.

The EEOC’s complaint also alleged that company displayed a pattern of sex discrimination, keeping women from pursuing job opportunities despite having prior work experience in security, law enforcement, or the military.

Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a federal employment antidiscrimination law enforced by the EEOC.

Jamie asked for and was granted intermittent leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) for a medical condition. As the expiration date for her FMLA leave approached, if Jamie wanted to extend it, she needed to complete and return a medical recertification. Jamie told her employer she wanted the extension but didn’t provide the requested certification.

The employer, therefore, denied Jamie’s request for extended FMLA leave.