Photo of Kimberly Franko

Kimberly Franko

Subscribe to Kimberly Franko's Posts
Contact:Read more about Kimberly Franko

Millions of additional employees will soon be eligible for federal overtime because of the Department of Labor’s April 23 Final Rule. Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), certain salaried employees are exempt from federal minimum wage and overtime requirements if they are employed in a bona fide executive, administrative, or professional (EAP) capacity. This is sometimes called the “white collar” exemption. The Final Rule:

  • Increases the minimum salary requirement for the EAP exemption from $684 per week ($35,568 annualized) to $844 per week ($43,888 annualized) effective July 1, 2024 and to $1,128 per week ($58,656 annualized) effective January 1, 2025; and
  • Increases the minimum total annual compensation level for exemption as a “highly compensated employee”—e.g., one who customarily and regularly performs any one or more of the exempt duties or responsibilities of an executive, administrative or professional employee—from $107,432 to $132,964 effective July 1, 2024 and to $151,164 effective January 1, 2025.
Continue Reading DOL Raises the Federal Overtime Salary Threshold | Next Steps for US Employers

On Tuesday this week, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued its highly anticipated final rule on noncompetes, imposing a near-total ban on worker noncompetes in the United States. Barring injunctive relief from legal challenges (which have already started), the rule will take effect 120 days from publication in the federal register.

Interestingly, the rule exempts noncompete covenants entered into pursuant to a bona fide sale of a business. While “bona fide” is not defined in the final rule, the Supplementary Information for the rule explains that the FTC considered but rejected percentage and dollar minimum thresholds for the sale of business exception to weed out “exploitative and coercive” noncompetes and clarified that excepted noncompetes must be given “pursuant to a bona fide sale.” The Supplementary Information further explains that the FTC considers a bona fide sale to be one that is made between two independent parties at arm’s length, and in which the seller has a reasonable opportunity to negotiate the terms of the sale. In contrast, the FTC specifically calls out as problematic “springing noncompetes,” which apply to employees in the event of a sale and mandatory stock redemption or repurchase programs because the employee has no goodwill to exchange in the sale for the noncompete and no meaningful opportunity to negotiate at the time of contracting.

Nevertheless, the bona fide sale exception is broad and preserves the status quo by allowing buyers in M&A transactions to obtain noncompetes from individual sellers in circumstances where such noncompetes are otherwise permitted currently. While the pending and anticipated legal challenges to the rule are significant and place the entire rule in jeopardy, the sale of business exception is not likely to be narrowed because of these challenges.

So, what does this new regime mean for M&A?

What Type of Noncompetes Are Impacted?

The Supplementary Information confirms that the new rule does not apply to B2B noncompetes or nonsolicits. Instead, the focus of the rule is noncompetes with workers that limit their ability to work for others. So the rule does not impact current B2B agreements.

Second, the FTC repeatedly makes the point that noncompetes must meet existing state and federal law restrictions (e.g., reasonable in scope and duration; limited to the goodwill to be acquired, etc.) to be enforceable, even if they otherwise fall within the sale of business exception in the new rule. This is the case because the FTC rule creates a new floor for noncompetes by preempting more lax state rules, but it does not preempt more stringent state laws or federal antitrust restrictions.

Continue Reading Still Going Strong: M&A Noncompetes and the FTC’s Final Rule on Noncompetes
  • Enhanced risk for bias suits targeting remote staff for layoffs
  • More ADA claims alleging mishandling of accommodation requests
  • Changes to digital nomad visas in different jurisdictions around the globe, and
  • The critical need to identify where all employees are located when the
…

In late breaking news out of New York, Governor Kathy Hochul has vetoed legislation that would have imposed the most restrictive state-level ban on employee non-competes in the United States. Last June, the New York State Assembly passed S3100, which if signed by Governor Hochul, would have voided any contract restraining anyone from engaging in a…

New York never rests–especially for employers–and 2023 was no exception. In 2023, New York employers were required to continuously pivot to meet new obligations and adhere to new limitations under freshly-enacted laws, and to closely follow landmark legislation that would significantly impact the workplace if signed. At the top of the list: S3100, a bill that would have banned employers’ use of employee noncompetes if signed (but employers can now breathe a sigh of relief, because Governor Hochul recently vetoed the bill). 2024 promises to continue to be dynamic for New York employers.

Here are ten of the most important changes New York employers need to know right now as we step into 2024–as well as what’s coming down the pike, a couple of important changes you may have missed, and what we’re keeping an eye on as we step into the new year.  

What you need to know right now

1. New York’s bill restricting noncompetes vetoed by Governor Hochul

On December 22, 2023 Governor Hochul vetoed S3100, which would have been the most restrictive state-level ban on employers’ use of noncompetes to date if it had been signed into law. Passed by the New York State Assembly in June 2023, S3100 provided that every contract restraining anyone from engaging in a lawful profession, trade or business of any kind is void to the extent of the restraint; allowed a private right of action for employees; and did not have an explicit “sale of business” exception (for more details on the now-vetoed legislation, see our prior blog here.)

The bill faced opposition by Wall Street and other industries that heavily rely on noncompetes, and business groups pushed for amendments to the bill (which the governor had until the end of 2023 to sign or veto). In late November, Governor Hochul reportedly stated she was in favor of striking a balance that would protect lower- and middle-income workers (up to $250,000) but allow noncompetes for those at higher income levels who are better equipped to negotiate on their own to do so. Reports are that Governor Hochul recently tried to negotiate amendments to the bill in this respect, but that negotiations broke down.

Employer takeaway:

  • We expect this issue to make an appearance in New York’s next legislative session. Employers should keep an eye out for the introduction of new bills to restrict noncompetes and follow their progress. Now that Governor Hochul has expressed favor for an income threshold to ban noncompetes, legislators may be more likely to craft a bill that will more easily be signed into law.
Continue Reading New York Employer “Top Ten” (and more): What to Know Heading into 2024

Special thanks to co-presenters Nandu Machiraju and William Rowe.

Where the sellers or shareholders in a corporate transaction are individuals (especially where they may continue on as employees of the buyer), noncompetes are a valuable tool in a deal lawyer’s toolbox. However, there is a clear trend of increasing hostility to the use of…

Many thanks to our Franchise, Distribution & Global Brand Expansion colleague Will Woods for co-authoring this post.

On October 25, 2023 the National Labor Relations Board issued a final joint employer rule (accompanied by a fact sheet) making it easier for multiple companies to be deemed “joint employers” under the law. This legal classification can have profound consequence by making independent entities now liable for labor law violations as well as obligations to negotiate with unions.

The new standard casts a wider net for “joint-employer” status

Under the new rule, an entity may be considered a joint employer of a group of employees if the entity shares or codetermines one or more of the employees’ “essential terms and conditions of employment.” The Board defines the essential terms and conditions of employment as:

  1. wages, benefits, and other compensation;
  2. hours of work and scheduling;
  3. the assignment of duties to be performed;
  4. the supervision of the performance of duties;
  5. work rules and directions governing the manner, means, and methods of the performance of duties and the grounds for discipline;
  6. the tenure of employment, including hiring and discharge; and
  7. working conditions related to the safety and health of employees.

How the new rule dramatically shifts away from the 2020 rule

In issuing the final rule, the NLRB rescinded the prior 2020 joint employer rule (a remnant of the Trump-era Board), which provided that a business is a joint employer only if it both possesses and exercises substantial direct and immediate control over one or more essential terms and conditions of employment-with “substantial” meaning control that is not exercised on a “sporadic, isolated, or de minimis basis. ” (For more on the 2020 rule, see our prior blog here.) The 2020 rule’s higher threshold meant a lower likelihood that businesses would be considered joint employers. The new rule’s impact on employers could be wide-ranging, and particularly difficult for non-unionized employers who are not used to navigating typical union activity such as being required to show up at the bargaining table, handling unfair labor practice charges, or dealing with picketing by a vendors’ employees (which would have previously been considered an illegal secondary boycott).

No direct (or even exercised) control required

The new rule rejects the previous rule’s focus on “direct and immediate control.” Instead, now, indirect or reserved control is sufficient to establish joint employer status. Thus, if a company has contractual authority over certain employment terms but never acts on that authority, that may be enough to establish a joint employer relationship. The same goes for a company that exercises authority over another company’s workers through a “go-between” company or intermediary, or a company requiring a vendors’ employees to follow certain health and safety rules while on-premises. In these instances, liability under the National Labor Relations Act, including the requirement to negotiate with a union, could ensue.

Continue Reading NLRB Announces Most Expansive Definition of Joint Employment Yet, With Potential Significant Implications for Franchisors, Staffing Agencies and More

New Jersey may have started a trend. As of April 10, covered New Jersey employers must now comply with new requirements under the New Jersey mini-WARN Act (see our blog here). New York and California are giving chase, with proposed amendments to New York State’s WARN Act regulations, New York State’s WARN Act, and California’s WARN Act. And New York employers should take note: New York’s WARN Portal is set to go live this month.

Proposed Amendments to NYS WARN Regulations–And a New NYS WARN Portal

The New York State Department of Labor has proposed amendments to the New York State WARN Act (“NYS WARN”) regulations that are intended to account for the post-pandemic workforce, including clarifying how remote work impacts NYS WARN compliance and simplifying language to ensure employers understand their obligations under the law. The Department of Labor is accepting comments to the proposed regulations until May 30, 2023. 

Key items in the proposed amendments to the NYS WARN regulations include:

  • Remote employees included in threshold count: The employers covered by NYS WARN has been expanded to include any employer who employs 50 or more full-time employees, who work at the single site of employment plus individuals that work remotely but are based at the employment site, which may include remote employees in New York as well as other states.
  • Certain notices must be provided electronically: Notices being sent to the New York State Department of Labor Commissioner (“Commissioner”) must be provided electronically and are no longer required to have original signatures.
  • Notice must include additional information: The notice to the Commissioner must include more detailed information about the affected employees, including telephone numbers, job titles, and whether they are paid on an hourly, salary or commission basis. The notice to affected employees must include any other information relevant to their separation, such as information related to any financial incentives an employee may receive if they remain employed by the employer until the effective date of the employment loss, as well as available dislocated worker information.
  • The exceptions for notice are changing:
    • Faltering company exception reduced: The faltering company exception will apply only to plant closings, and will no longer apply to mass layoffs, relocations or reductions in hours.
    • Unforeseeable business circumstances exception expanded: The unforeseeable business circumstances exception will be expanded to expressly include in certain circumstances a public health emergency (including a pandemic) or a terrorist attack.
    • Exception to notice requires determination by Commissioner: The 90-day notice period can be reduced in limited circumstances (including under the faltering company, unforeseeable business circumstances, and natural disaster exceptions) only if:
      • The employer submits a request for consideration for eligibility of an exception to the Commissioner within 10 business days of providing the required notice under NYS WARN to the Commissioner (unless the Commissioner grants an extension);
      • The employer provides a reason for reducing the notice period in addition to any other documents the Commissioner may require; and
      • The Commissioner determines that the employer has established all of the elements of the claimed exception.
  • The calculation of back pay is being clarified for hourly employees: The calculation to be used to determine the average rate of compensation and final rate of compensation for hourly employees is clarified. Such calculation uses the number of hours worked instead of the number of days worked. The days worked method of calculation should still be used for non-hourly employees.
  • The use of payment in lieu of notice is being clarified: Liability for an employer’s failure to give the required notice to employees under NYS WARN will be reduced by amounts paid to an employee in lieu of notice, except where the following conditions are met (then such payments will be considered wages for the notice period):
    • There is an employment agreement or uniformly applied company policy that requires the employer to give the employee a certain amount of notice before a layoff or separation;
    • The employee is laid off without the required notice; and
    • The employer pays the employee an amount equal to the employee’s wages and any benefits for the required notice period.
Continue Reading Employer WARN-ING: Potential Changes to New York’s and California’s WARN Acts Barreling Down the Turnpike

Effective April 10, covered New Jersey employers must comply with new requirements under the New Jersey mini-WARN Act. New Jersey will join New York and Maine as one of three jurisdictions where employers are required to provide 90 days’ advanced notice to affected employees. (See our prior blog here).

Key changes to NJ-WARN include the following:

  • The employers covered by NJ-WARN has been expanded by the amendments, to include any employer who employs 100 or more employees, whether full-time or not (previously it required employment of 100 or more full-time employees).
  • The threshold for a “mass layoff” triggering NJ-WARN has been reduced significantly. Under the amended law, a “mass layoff” means the termination of 50 or more employees at a covered establishment in a 30-day period. Previously, a mass layoff meant (i) the termination of 50 or more employees comprising 1/3 of the workforce at the establishment, or (ii) the termination of 500 or more employees.
  • The scope of employees that count toward the 50-employee threshold for a “mass layoff” has been expanded:
    • Both employees “at” the establishment and “reporting to” the establishment are counted, which may include remote employees in New Jersey as well as other states. Prior to the amendments, the threshold for a mass layoff included 50 or more employees “at” the establishment.
    • Both part-time and full-time employees must be counted toward the threshold. Previously, only full-time employees counted toward the threshold.
  • The definition of a covered “establishment” has been expanded to include a non-contiguous group of locations / facilities of an employer within the State (previously it applied to contiguous worksites / office parks of an employer). Based on the amendment’s legislative history, this appears to be aimed at retail companies with multiple locations in the State. However, it is unclear how this could apply to largely or entirely remote workforces, and how it “squares” with the inclusion of remote, out of state, employees in the 50 employee threshold.
  • Covered employers will be required to provide at least 90 days’ notice (as opposed to the prior 60 days’ notice) before the first termination of employment occurs in connection with a termination or transfer of operations, or mass layoff. If the employer fails to provide 90 days’ notice, the employer is required to provide the terminated employee with four weeks of pay (which is a new requirement) in addition to statutory severance (see next bullet point).
  • In addition to notice, covered employers will be required to provide severance pay equal to one week of pay for each full year of employment to each terminated employee. (Previously, the law required one week of severance pay for each year worked only if the employer failed to provide the required 60 days’ notice.)

Overall review of NJ-WARN amendments

Here’s a quick review of what will be required once the amendments take effect.

Triggering events

NJ-WARN applies to employers with 100 or more employees anywhere in the US, when:

  • A covered establishment transfers or terminates operations which results, during any continuous period of not more than 30 days, in the termination of 50 or more employees; or
  • An employer conducts a mass layoff (i.e., termination of 50 or more employees in a 30-day period) at a covered establishment.

Terminations for cause or poor performance excluded

Although NJ-WARN’s “termination of employment” definition excludes (1) voluntary departures, (2) retirement, and (3) terminations for misconduct, the statute does not clearly specify whether ordinary terminations for cause or poor performance can trigger its requirements. But our research into NJ-WARN’s legislative history strongly suggests that terminations for cause or poor performance are not covered by NJ-WARN. In the February 27, 2006 New Jersey Assembly Labor Committee hearing, NJ-WARN’s lead senate sponsor clarified that the legislation was not intended to apply to employees terminated for poor performance.

Note on aggregation

Under the new amendments, an employer whose layoff decision affects employees at multiple New Jersey worksites may be subject to NJ-WARN’s notice and severance requirements even if less than 50 employees are terminated at each individual worksite.

To determine whether a termination or transfer of operations or mass layoff is subject to NJ-WARN’s notification requirements, employers generally must aggregate any terminations of employment for two or more groups at a single “establishment” occurring within any 90-day period. If the aggregate number of terminations of all the groups is 50 or more, then the terminations are subject to NJ-WARN’s notice and severance requirements (unless the employer can demonstrate that each group’s cause of terminations is separate and distinct from the other groups’ causes). And since the definition of an “establishment” has been expanded to include an employer’s non-contiguous group of locations / facilities within New Jersey, multi-site employers should consider the aggregate impact of any layoff decision affecting multiple worksites.

Remote workforce

NJ-WARN’s updated “mass layoff” and “establishment” definitions have also created some ambiguity regarding the statute’s application to remote employees. Specifically, a “mass layoff” now includes employees “at or reporting to” the “establishment.” And since “establishment” has been amended to include “a group of locations,” there is an argument that terminated remote employees should be counted for purposes of determining NJ-WARN applicability. But the legislative history of the NJ-WARN amendments suggests the changes were aimed at retail companies with multiple locations in New Jersey, and therefore NJ-WARN’s application to remote employees remains unclear.

Continue Reading Next Month NJ Employers Must Comply With New Not-So-Mini Obligations Under Its Mini-WARN Act