Photo of Amanda Brown

Amanda Brown

Subscribe to Amanda Brown's Posts

Airport workers at John F. Kennedy (JFK), LaGuardia (LGA), and New York Stewart International Airport (SWF-Stewart Intl.) may soon be receiving increased wages and benefits under the Healthy Terminals Act (the “Act”) (Senate Bill S6266D).  Spurred by the COVID-19 related death of a JFK airport worker, the Act recently passed both the New York State Senate and Assembly.  Next, the Act will be delivered to Governor Cuomo for his signature.  Governor Cuomo has not indicated whether or not he will sign the Act.  If signed, the Act will take effect on January 1, 2021.

Scope of covered individuals

The Act has a broad (and ambiguous) scope of coverage.  The Act defines covered airport workers as any worker employed by a covered airport employer that works at least half of the workweek at a covered airport location.  The Act exempts individuals who qualify for the executive, administrative, and professional exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) or are covered under Articles 8 and 8-a of New York Labor Law, which applies to construction workers on New York City’s public work and grade crossing elimination projects.

Covered airport employers are defined as any entity employing a covered airport worker (other than public agencies) and covered airport locations include any airport operating under the jurisdiction of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which currently encompasses JFK, LGA, and SWF-Stewart Intl.  The Act does not exclude air carriers and appears to cover not only air carriers, but also ground handling companies providing ramp, catering, and other support services.Continue Reading New York’s healthy terminals act may create additional wage and benefits obligations for airport employers

In another victory for employers and a further retreat from Obama-era policy, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or the “Board”) recently ruled that employers do not violate the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA” or the “Act”) by maintaining a policy that allows employers to monitor employees on the job by searching employees’ personal property on company premises and/or company networks and devices.

In a June 24, 2020 decision – Verizon Wireless, 369 NLRB No. 108 (2020) – the NLRB reversed an Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) ruling that Verizon Wireless and its related entities’ (collectively, “Verizon”) policy permitting company searches of workers’ personal property violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by infringing upon employees’ rights to engage in concerted activity for mutual aid or protection under Section 7 of the Act.  The Board also upheld the ALJ’s ruling that another portion of Verizon’s policy permitting company monitoring of company computers and devices did not violate the Act.
Continue Reading NLRB greenlights company policy allowing searches of workers’ personal property on company premises and company devices and networks

With the spike in reported COVID-19 cases in Texas, counties have started to re-impose previous safety measures. As a result, many of the requirements of the “Stay Home, Stay Safe” orders from earlier this year have come back into effect for a second time – highlighting the continuing challenge of COVID-19 workplace compliance.

On the morning of June 19, 2020, Dallas County Judge Clay Jenkins issued a Supplemental Order on Continuing Requirements, which went into effect that night at 11:59 p.m. The order requires all commercial businesses that provide goods or services directly to the public to require all of their employees and visitors to wear a face covering. The face covering requirement is part of a health and safety policy that each business operating in the county must now develop and implement. The order also states that each business’s health and safety policy may also include other mitigating measures such as temperature checks and health screenings. Businesses operating in Dallas must post their health and safety policies in a location sufficient to provide notice to employees and visitors of its requirements. Businesses that fail to comply with the order face a fine of up to $500 per violation.Continue Reading Face covering requirements reappear overnight for many businesses operating in Texas

As of March 28, 2020, there are over 103,000 reported cases of COVID-19 in the United States. In Dallas County, there are 439 confirmed cases—an increase of 72 cases from the prior day—and the number of cases is expected to rise. Given the current environment, employers should be cognizant of Dallas’ Earned Paid Sick Time Ordinance (the “Ordinance”), which takes effect on April 1, 2020. While there has been significant question as whether the Ordinance violates the Texas Constitution, the City of Dallas recently has suggested it intends to enforce the statute after the effective date of April 1, 2020.

The Ordinance originally took effect on August 1, 2019 (for employers with 6 or more employees) and mirrors the paid sick leave ordinances passed by Austin on February 15, 2018 and San Antonio on October 3, 2019. The Austin ordinance is currently enjoined and is before the Texas Supreme Court. See City of Austin, Texas, et al. v. Tex. Ass’n of Bus., et al., No. 19-0025 (Tex. filed Jan. 10, 2019). The San Antonio ordinance is also enjoined, and the Dallas ordinance, while not enjoined, is the subject of a lawsuit pending in the Eastern District of Texas. See ESI/Emp. Sols., LP, et al. v. City of Dallas, No. 4:19-CV-00570-ALM (E.D. Tex. filed July 30, 2019).
Continue Reading Employers should be ready to comply with Dallas’ paid sick leave ordinance during the COVID-19 pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic has drastically reduced both domestic and international air travel. As of March 23, 2020, the Transportation Security Agency (“TSA”) screened just 13% of the number of passengers it screened on March 23, 2019. This sharp decline in air travel has devastated the U.S. airline industry, which employs approximately 750,000 workers.

On Friday, March 27, 2020, Congress passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the “CARES Act”) that provides an estimated $2 trillion in economic aid, including financial relief for the airline industry. President Trump signed the bill into law the same day. The CARES Act will not only help air carriers avoid near term involuntary furloughs and bankruptcies, but it will also reshape the airline industry through the various restrictions imposed in exchange for economic aid.

In total, the CARES Act provides $50 billion in economic aid to passenger air carriers that is split into two buckets – grants and loans. Any loans or grants made to air carriers under the Act will be publicly disclosed on the Treasury Department’s website and reported to Congress.Continue Reading CARES Act enacted just in time to give the airline industry much needed lift

As the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) spreads domestically in the United States, employers should take proactive action to address employee concerns regarding COVID-19, plan for the potential impact of its transmission at the workplace, and be ready to take action in the event of suspected or actual virus exposure at work.

Centralized communication and planning: Employers should ensure they have a centralized leadership team to address workplace communications regarding COVID-19. In addition, a COVID-19 taskforce should review employer policies in the context of virus outbreak.

  1. The COVID-19 taskforce should consist of members of operations, security, HR, legal, and IT.
  2. Employers should instruct supervisors to refrain from questioning employees regarding suspected illnesses. Further, employers should direct supervisors and employees to route all concerns regarding COVID-19 to specifically identified members of the employer’s COVID-19 taskforce.
  3. The COVID-19 taskforce should prepare communications to distribute to the workforce describing:
    • The steps the employer is taking to respond to COVID-19 to ensure a safe workplace.
    • The sources employees can consult for information regarding COVID-19 (e.g., the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the World Health Organization, and the local public health department).
    • Actions employees can take to reduce exposure risk (e.g., washing hands)
    • The employer’s leave, sick, and telecommuting policies.

Contingency plans: Employees may be absent from work not only due to illness, but also in the event of self-quarantine or to care for dependents who are ill or at home due to daycare and school closures. As a result, employers should plan now for how their businesses will continue to operate in the event that a large portion of the workforce is absent. Employer contingency plans should identify key personnel and duties, and provide for cross-training of personnel on duties that are essential to continuous operation of the business.Continue Reading Action items for employer task forces responding to novel coronavirus (COVID-19)

As discussed in our client alert addressing the growing COVID-19 crisis, U.S. employers face a number of complicated legal issues as they prepare for the possibility that their workforces will be impacted by the current emergency. In support of that effort, employers should begin preparing to address the following issues.

Before turning to those issues, as mentioned in our previous client alert, employers should strive to make the guiding principles behind all employer responses in this area a combination of compassion for employee impacts and reasonable flexibility. State and federal laws provide many minimum standards, but the best thing an employer can do in the midst of this growing epidemic is to take care of its people. Doing so is not just the right thing to do, but it also encourages employees to be reasonable in return and it mitigates the risk of future conflict with employees or legal exposure.Continue Reading Employer planning focus points for U.S. impacts of novel coronavirus (COVID-19)

On Tuesday, December 17, 2019, in Apogee Retail LLC d/b/a Unique Thrift Store, 368 NLRB No. 144 (2019), the National Labor Relations Board (the Board or NLRB) held that requiring employee confidentiality during workplace investigations does not constitute an unfair labor practice under the National Labor Relations Act (the Act or NLRA). This is yet another employer-friendly decision in a series of recent rulings overturning Obama-era Board precedent.

Back in 2015, the Board held that employers could require confidentiality during workplace investigations only where they demonstrated that confidentiality was necessary to preserve the integrity of the investigation. See Banner Estrella Med. Ctr., 362 NLRB 1108 (2015), enforcement denied on other grounds 851 F.3d 35 (D.C. Cir. 2017). This standard created a difficult situation for employers, placing the burden on them to determine if there was a need for confidentiality that outweighed any potential impact on workers’ NLRA rights. Moreover, the standard also conflicted with guidance from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), which encourages employers to keep investigations confidential to protect victims and to encourage reporting.Continue Reading NLRB greenlights employer rules requiring employee confidentiality during workplace investigations