JDSupra (03/21/2012)

The Fair Labor Standards Act regulates, among other things, the payment of overtime. It includes an “antiretaliation” provision that prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee “because such employee has filed any complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related to this chapter.” In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp. that an oral complaint could fall within the purview of FLSA’s antiretaliation provision, though it declined to address the issue of whether the oral complaint had to be made to a government agency or whether an internal, intracompany complaint would be covered under the antiretaliation provision.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals recently joined the majority of other circuits by holding, in the case of Minor v. Bostwick Laboratories, that an internal complaint can be protected under the FLSA’s antiretaliation provision. The Fourth Circuit’s opinion emphasizes the importance for employers to be on the lookout and “keep their ears peeled” for internal complaints. Given the potential consequences of failing to identify or otherwise mishandling such complaints, employers should review their internal grievance policies—including checking for antiretaliation language—and update them as needed. Once a complaint has been processed through a company’s grievance policy, it is of paramount importance that it be directed to and administered by appropriate members of company management.

Lexology (03/19/12) Todd M. Cleary; Sven E. Skillrud

Companies soon will be required to report the aggregate cost of employee health plan coverage on Forms W-2 issued for 2012 (i.e., W-2s given to employees in January 2013). Unless an exemption applies, employers will be required to report the aggregate cost of all “applicable employer-sponsored” health plan coverage given to (1) the employee, and (2) anyone covered by the plan because of his or her relationship to the employee. Reportable costs include both the company’s and employee’s contributions.

According to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, the following benefits are generally excluded from health plan cost reporting: long-term care, accident or disability income insurance or supplemental liability insurance, health reimbursement arrangement benefits, stand-alone dental and vision plan coverage, and money contributed to a health savings account or medical savings account.

Business Management Daily (03/18/12)

In the case Atkinson v. North Jersey Developmental, et al., a retired worker sued her former employer for alleged race discrimination, insisting that a reduction in her workload constituted an adverse employment action. However, her case was dismissed because the employer was able to document that she had requested the lighter workload herself. The employer also had documented every complaint made by the worker and how each of her requests was accommodated. Experts say the case emphasizes the importance of employers carefully documenting worker complaints.

Lexology (03/19/12) Maria Greco Danaher

In Gerner v. County of Chesterfield, the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reiterated that both current and former employees can bring an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The case involved a woman whose position as human resources director for Chesterfield County, VA, was eliminated as part of a reorganization in 2009 and who was terminated for allegedly refusing to collect three months of pay and benefits as a severance in exchange for resigning and signing a waiver of legal claims against the county. The employee filed a lawsuit that accused the county of giving male former directors of county departments deals of up to six months of pay and benefits or putting them in positions with less responsibility for the same pay to “enhance their retirement benefits.”

The Fourth Circuit pointed to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Hishon v. King & Spalding, in which benefits may provide the basis for a Title VII claim if it is “part and parcel of the employee relationship.” Additionally, the Fourth Circuit said Title VII language protects “any individual.”