Guest Blogger: Healthy Families Act Legislation Becoming a Hot Topic

Because my employment law trial starts this week in state court, I've arranged for a series of (what I think are) great guest bloggers to talk about what's new and noteworthy in employment law. It's a nice opportunity for readers of the blog to hear a different perspective while at the same time, keeping all of you updated on interesting developments. Regular blog posting will resume in 2-3 weeks when my trial concludes. 

As I will say time and again, I'm extremely thankful to all the guest bloggers for contributing and I strongly encourage you to visit and explore their blogs.

In the meantime, the guest blogger for the day is Jon Hyman, the prolific writer of the Ohio Employer's Law Blog.  Jon is an attorney at Kohrman, Jackson and Krantz  where he does  employment law, but also works on various litigation matters as well.   Jon advises individuals and companies on a wide-range of employment, human relations, and litigation issues. This role frequently requires Jon’s service as an author and speaker on myriad employment-related issues. If you haven't checked out his blog, you're missing out on some valuable updates. 

Today, Jon introduces us to the Healthy Families Act legislation that has been introduced in Ohio and elsewhere around the county....

Legislatures around the country are beginning to seriously consider paid sick leave laws. Just recently, the D.C. legislature passed such a law, and Ohio will most likely have its law on the ballot in November for voters to decide.

Not to be outdone, Congress is also considering such a law, the Healthy Families Act. The HFA will grant all employees working for companies with 15 or more employees 7 paid days off per year for (1) their own physical or mental illness, injury or medical condition, (2) their own professional medical diagnosis or care, or preventive medical care, and (3) the same for an employee's child, parent, or spouse. Employees who work less than 30 hours per week or 1,500 total hours per year will receive a pro rated amount of paid time off.

Employers would have discretion to determine how employees accrue this paid leave, as long as it is at least quarterly. Employers cannot prohibit the carry over of 7 or less days per year.

The HFA will also allow for certification by a health care professional when an employee is out for more than 3 consecutive work days, an anti-retaliation provision, and a private right of action for aggrieved employees.

It also will forbid employers from counting the use of paid sick leave under a no-fault attendance policy. It is unclear if this prohibition applies only to paid leave under this statute, or any paid leave granted by an employer.

Section 11(a) of the HFA is what I believe to be the saving grace for most employers, and why I think the HFA will not result in monumental practical changes for the vast majority of companies that already provide paid time off if it passes.

That section provides: "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to diminish the obligation of an employer to comply with any contract, collective bargaining agreement, or any employment benefit program or plan that provides greater paid sick leave rights to employees or individuals than the rights established under this Act."

As I read that section, if a company has a leave policy that already provides for at least 7 paid sick days, it will not have to grant any additional paid leave.

The limited practical effect of this legislation notwithstanding, the cons of the HFA far outweigh its pros.

First and foremost, that last thing that businesses want is another statute under which employees will be able to sue, especially when it provides for double damages and attorneys fees.

Also take a look at Section 7(a)(1)(B):

It shall be unlawful for any employer to interfere with, restrain, or deny the exercise of, or the attempt to exercise, any right provided under this Act, including ... using the taking of sick leave under this Act as a negative factor in an employment action, such as hiring, promotion, or a disciplinary action.

 "Negative factor" is far too lenient of a standard, and very will could hamstring employers from taking legitimate action against any employee who is out for even a day with an illness.

Congress and state legislatures around the country should take a long, hard look at these serious deficiencies in the HFA, and should not merely knee-jerk vote in its favor because paid time off is viewed by most employees (and most of us are employees) as a "good thing."

If this statute becomes law in its current form, it will take a herculean effort by the Department of Labor to draft clear and comprehensive rules and regulations that make this law workable for businesses, instead of leaving myriad unanswered questions for the courts to sort out at the expense of those companies who will have to defend their individual interpretations.

A Shout Out to a New Connecticut Law Blog

There aren't a lot of Connecticut legal blogs, so when a new one comes on the scene, the least I can do is a quick shout out. 

The Blog -- A Connecticut Law Blog -- describes itself as providing "Thoughts on Connecticut Law with a Side of Baseball".  Its author, Ryan McKeen, is an attorney in East Hartford, Connecticut.  He e-mailed me on Wednesday and it is nice to hear from a loyal reader.

Ryan is, however, a Red Sox fan.  Given that the Connecticut Employment Law Blog is Yankees territory, we'll let it slide since we've just begun Spring Training. Feel free to check out Ryan's blog.

Non-Compete Agreements for Security Guards

With apologies to Alex Trebek, it's time for a game of legal Jeopardy


First, the answer: "As a result of a new Connecticut law (effective October 1, 2007), employees in this arcane type of job classification can now bring suit if their employer requires them to sign a certain type of non-compete agreement."

The question: What is "classification 339032 of the standard occupational classification system of the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor"?

Are you confused yet? If so, let's back up.  

About a year ago, Guardsmark, a security company, lost its contract to provide services to ESPN. When employees from the old security company tried to work for the new company, Guardsmark invoked the non-compete agreements that these employees signed.  As Connecticut readers know, there are not many state laws that restrict the use of non-compete agreements, compared with other states.

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal picked up the cause and testified in support a new bill that would prohibit employers from using non-compete agreements on security personnel in limited circumstances. 

The bill, which was subsequently modified then passed by the general assembly, prohibits employers from requiring security officers to "enter into an agreement prohibiting such person from engaging in the same or a similar job, at the same location at which the employer employs such person, for another employer or as a self-employed person".   (If the employer can "prove" that the employee received trade secrets, then a non-compete can be used.)

The general assembly, however, did not use the term "security officer" or define it, which, I would argue would have been the more logical approach to take. Rather, it relied on standard occupational classifications that have been created by the U.S. Department of Labor "for the purpose of collecting, calculating, or disseminating data."

A look at the online SOC codes, however, are far from enlightening: Under 33-9062 (which is how the DOL actually lists its classification), it has the following description:

33-9032 Security Guards -- Guard, patrol, or monitor premises to prevent theft, violence, or infractions of
Far from an eloquent description, since many employers are not even aware that the DOL uses these types of classification.

So, how will this be interpreted? We're unlikely to find out given the narrow nature of the law. For employers of security guards, however, one answer is simple: Do not use broad non-compete agreements to prevent employees from working for new employers at the same location. 

And stay tuned for a sequel; the DOL website posts this informational note: "The 2000 SOC Manual is currently under revision.

About

I have relocated my practice to Pullman & Comley LLC.

 My primary office is in Hartford, Connecticut but I do business all across the state including the Stamford, Bridgeport, and New Haven areas.  My practice includes representing and counseling employers on labor and employment law through practical considerations and application of the law.

This blog discusses new and noteworthy developments in employment law in Connecticut.   It will be a place where those items are discussed, debated and explored. Your involvement in the blog through suggestions, comments, criticisms and praises is crucial to its long-term success.

 

 

Litigation experience in federal and state courts:

  • Wage and Hour Law
  • Employment Discrimination
  • Trade Secrets
  • Non-compete enforcement
  • Other employment-related matters

Arguing before:

  • Connecticut Appellate Court
  • United States District Court - Connecticut
  • Connecticut Superior Court
  • Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
  • Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

Awards and Recognition:


Volunteer Work:

  • The Urban League of Greater Hartford
  • Mental Health Association of Connecticut
  • Connecticut Middle School Mock Trial Program
  • Lawyers for Children America


I am a law graduate of Washington University in St. Louis School of Law where I was honored with the "Order of the Coif".  I received my bachelor's degree from the University of Pennsylvania.  While there, I served as an editor for the award-winning daily newspaper, The Daily Pennsylvanian.

The Connecticut Law Tribune ran this profile recently as well.