With the recent wintry weather that New York has experienced this year, many businesses closed their stores, locations or offices either because of bad weather or in anticipation of bad weather. The Mayor's and the Governor's decisions to close the transportation system in anticipation of a blizzard that never materialized also did not help matters!
The situation has prompted a number of questions concerning how employees' pay should be treated when a business closes because of weather conditions.
Here are the rules of thumb:
(1) For employees who are exempt from minimum wage and overtime laws, they do not have to be compensated if they do not show up for work because of bad weather if the business remains open; if an employer closes the business due to bad weather, the employee's full salary must be paid for the pay period even if he or she may not have worked the full period. However, in the case where the business is open, but the employee does not appear for work, if the company has a paid time off policy, then the employee can ask to be paid for the day if he or she has accrued time.
(2) In the case of non-exempt employees, that is, employees that are subject to minimum wage and overtime laws, if the company closes, they are not entitled to be paid, but the company can allow the employee to apply any accrued paid time off if the company has such a policy.
An interesting situation arises with employees that can telecommute. If an exempt employee works remotely from home on a bad weather day, no deduction can be made if the employee is "absent" from work. However, because of the difficulty of monitoring whether an employee is actually working at home, non-exempt employees should always be prohibited from working from home.
Paying employees for work when they are not actually in the office or the place of employment is a difficult issue for many business owners. The rules are complicated enough, so as businesses become more affected by global weather changes, it is a good idea to have a set of rules and policies in place for exempt and non-exempt workers, and to make them known to employees so they are not surprised by any deductions from wages.
Wednesday, March 18, 2015
Thursday, January 29, 2015
Who Your Employees Associate With May Be Grounds for a Discrimination Suit
Can being married to a Jewish spouse subject your business to a discrimination suit based on religion? Yes, says the state appellate court in the Second Department of New York.
In a recent decision by that court in Jeffrey Chiara v. Town of New Castle, decided on January 14,2015, an appellate panel of judges opined that the plaintiff husband, who was not Jewish, but married a Jewish woman, was found to be discriminated against by virtue of his marriage to his wife. Coworkers of Mr. Chiara apparently made derogatory comments about the Jewish religion. When he informed his coworkers that his wife was Jewish, the derogatory anti-Semitic remarks and comments continued--for several years.
In 2006, the Town of New Castle brought disciplinary charges against Mr. Chiara for misconduct and insubordination, and his employment was eventually terminated. He thereafter filed a lawsuit alleging discrimination and hostile work environment based on religion--his wife's!
After losing his case at the trial court level, he argued to the appellate court that he was a member of a "protected class" by virtue of his marriage to a Jewish woman. His employer argued that no law in New York supports a claim of discrimination based on the religion of a spouse.
The Appellate Division, Second Department, disagreed and held that just as Title VII of the federal law, the New York State Human Rights Law protects employees based on their association with other individuals, including their spouses.
As the first decision of its kind in New York, employers should be very mindful that New York law has now been interpreted broadly enough (at least by this one court) to extend protections to employees even if they are not covered by Title VII of the federal law. It should also serve as a warning to employers that employees may be deemed to be discriminated against based on who they associate with,even if they are not within a protected class.
In a recent decision by that court in Jeffrey Chiara v. Town of New Castle, decided on January 14,2015, an appellate panel of judges opined that the plaintiff husband, who was not Jewish, but married a Jewish woman, was found to be discriminated against by virtue of his marriage to his wife. Coworkers of Mr. Chiara apparently made derogatory comments about the Jewish religion. When he informed his coworkers that his wife was Jewish, the derogatory anti-Semitic remarks and comments continued--for several years.
In 2006, the Town of New Castle brought disciplinary charges against Mr. Chiara for misconduct and insubordination, and his employment was eventually terminated. He thereafter filed a lawsuit alleging discrimination and hostile work environment based on religion--his wife's!
After losing his case at the trial court level, he argued to the appellate court that he was a member of a "protected class" by virtue of his marriage to a Jewish woman. His employer argued that no law in New York supports a claim of discrimination based on the religion of a spouse.
The Appellate Division, Second Department, disagreed and held that just as Title VII of the federal law, the New York State Human Rights Law protects employees based on their association with other individuals, including their spouses.
As the first decision of its kind in New York, employers should be very mindful that New York law has now been interpreted broadly enough (at least by this one court) to extend protections to employees even if they are not covered by Title VII of the federal law. It should also serve as a warning to employers that employees may be deemed to be discriminated against based on who they associate with,even if they are not within a protected class.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)