Presentation on theme: "Managing Rules And Risks: Are You Ready For The New Regs? Wednesday, September 15, 2004."— Presentation transcript:
Managing Rules And Risks: Are You Ready For The New Regs? Wednesday, September 15, 2004
Welcome Moderator, Mike Orren Publisher, Texas Lawyer
Balancing Employment Risks and Managing Risk-Shifting Strategies Vicki Birenbaum Doug Haloftis Brian Pudenz
EEOC Charge Statistics FY 1992 Through FY 2003 The number for total charges reflects the number of individual charge filings. Because individuals often file charges claiming multiple types of discrimination, the number of total charges for any given fiscal year will be less than the total of the eight types of discrimination listed. The data are compiled by the Office of Research, Information, and Planning from EEOC's Charge Data System - quarterly reconciled Data Summary Reports, and the national data base. FY 1992 FY 1993 FY 1994 FY 1995 FY 1996 FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 Total Charges 72,30287,94291,18987,52977,99080,68079,59177,44479,89680,84084,44281,293 Race 29,54831,69531,65629,98626,28729,19928,82028,81928,94528,91229,91028,526 40.9%36.0%34.8%34.3%33.8%36.2% 37.3%36.2%35.8%35.4%35.1% Sex 21,79623,91925,86026,18123,81324,72824,45423,90725,19425,14025,53624,362 30.1%27.2%28.4%29.9%30.6%30.7% 30.9%31.5%31.1%30.2%30.0% National Origin 7,4347,4547,4147,0356,6876,7126,7787,1087,7928,0259,0468,450 10.3%8.5%8.1%8.0%8.6%8.3%8.5%9.2%9.8%9.9%10.7%10.4% Religion 1,3881,4491,5461,5811,5641,7091,7861,8111,9392,1272,5722,532 1.9%1.6%1.7%1.8%2.0%2.1%2.2%2.3%2.4%2.6%3.0%3.1% Retaliation All Statutes 11,09613,81415,85317,07016,08018,19819,11419,69421,61322,25722,76822,690 15.3%15.7%17.4%19.5%20.6%22.6%24.0%25.4%27.1%27.5%27.0%27.9% Title VII 10,49912,64414,41515,34214,41216,39417,24617,88319,75320,40720,81420,615 14.5%14.4%15.8%17.5%18.5%20.3%21.7%23.1%24.7%25.2%24.6%25.4% Age 19,57319,80919,61817,41615,71915,78515,19114,14116,00817,40519,92119,124 27.1%22.5%21.5%19.9%20.2%19.6%19.1%18.3%20.0%21.5%23.6%23.5% Disability *1,04815,27418,85919,79818,04618,10817,80617,00715,86416,47015,96415,377 1.4%17.4%20.7%22.6%23.1%22.4% 22.0%19.9%20.4%18.9% Equal Pay Act 1,2941,3281,3811,2759691,1341,0711,0441,2701,2511,2561,167 1.8%1.5% 1.2%1.4%1.3% 1.6%1.5% 1.4% * EEOC began enforcing the Americans with Disabilities Act on July 26, 1992.
Nationwide Plaintiff Recovery Probability for Employment Practice Liability Overall (1996-2002) Source: Employment Practice Liability: Jury Award Trends and Statistics (2003), Jury Verdict Research
Nationwide Plaintiff Recovery Probability for Sex Discrimination
Nationwide Plaintiff Recovery Probability for Race Discrimination
Nationwide Plaintiff Recovery Probability for Age Discrimination
Nationwide Plaintiff Recovery Probability for Disability Discrimination
Nationwide Statistical Trends in Discrimination Awards The compensatory award median, probability range, award range and award mean for all plaintiff verdicts collected for the years 1996 through 2002 involving discrimination are analyzed in the table below. YearAward MedianProbability RangeTotal RangeAward Mean 1996$128,000$35,000-$375,000$1-$19,395,376$422,982 1997150,00045,000-401,9051-6,729,073384,092 1998170,00050,000-402,20025-80,700,000781,108 1999139,98550,000-445,9871-21,000,000683,081 2000192,50055,578-680,624832-10,160,000737,033 2001171,00040,250-453,8751-5,000,000391,779 2002222,15871,800-589,2753,000-1,600,000403,251 Overall161,81850,000-464,4851-80,700,000606,234
Award Range Percentage To-$ 4,9994 5,000- 9,9993 10,000- 24,9997 25,000- 49,99910 50,000- 74,9998 75,000- 99,9997 100,000- 249,99920 250,000- 499,99917 500,000- 749,9998 750,000- 999,9994 1,000,000-1,999,9997 2,000,000-4,999,9994 5,000,000+2 Distribution of Discrimination Awards, Overall (1996-2002) The following table provides the distribution of compensation awards and percentage of the total number of awards within specific dollar ranges for overall discrimination awards. This category included a combination of age, disability, national origin, pregnancy, race, religion, sex and sexual orientation discrimination.
Award Range for Retaliation Cases Percentage To-$ 4,9994 5,000- 9,9995 10,000- 24,9998 25,000- 49,99911 50,000- 74,9998 75,000- 99,9996 100,000- 249,99918 250,000- 499,99919 500,000- 749,9998 750,000- 999,9994 1,000,000-1,999,9995 2,000,000-4,999,9992 5,000,000+1
Median Award by Defendant Type For Discrimination, Federal District Court Cases (1997-2003) Defendant Type Source: Employment Practice Liability: Jury Award Trends and Statistics, 2004 Edition.
Analysis by Defendant Type The following pie chart reveals the industry breakdown of defendant types based on plaintiff and defendant verdicts rendered from 1996 through 2002.
Nationwide Employment Practice Liability Settlements (1996-2002) LiabilityAward Median Probability RangeTotal RangeAward Mean Discrimination, Overall $55,000$22,500-$150,000$1-$508,000,000$1,262,128 Constructive Discharge60,00025,000-154,9582,000-2,750,000196,012 Hostile Work Environment 59,58129,750-121,1251,500-6,750,000239,465 Retaliation, Overall39,50018,750-121,2502,001-1,250,000120,335 Sexual Harassment61,00022,250-172,5001-1,250,000150,615 Wrongful Termination50,00020,000-135,000121-55,000,000406,654 Employment Cases, Overall 56,75025,000-157,8751-508,000,0001,252,622 The settlement median, probability range, total range and mean for all settlements collected for the years 1996 through 2002 are analyzed in the table below.
Nationwide Settlement Trends (1996-2002) The following table provides the distribution of settlements and the percentage of the total number within specific dollar ranges for the years 1996 through 2002. Distribution of Settlements
Texas Median Awards for Employment Cases (2002-Present) Dollars Source: Information collected from Westlaw Data Base. 115,000 71,500 103,025 127,000 149,425 17,250 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 Title VII AwardsADEA AwardsADA AwardsW/C Retaliation Awards TCHRA AwardsFMLA Awards
EPL Considerations Nexus Between Retention $’s and Claims → Trends → Employer size Relationship to Median Verdicts/Settlements Impact → Early claim evaluation → Claim management paradigm
EPL Considerations (Cont’d) Duty to Defend Policies → Pro’s o Timing of financial contribution o Less worry about allocation → Con’s o Limitations on lawyer selection o Constraints of litigation guidelines Panel Counsel Evaluation
EPL Considerations (Cont’d) Settlement → Usually require insured’s consent → “Hammer” clause Tension between Economic and Reputational Concerns → Common denominator: competent counsel
EPL Considerations (Cont’d) Coverage Issues → Defense costs included within policy limits → Same policy forms unclear → Notice of claim Exclusions → “Bodily injury” only excluded → “Bodily injury and personal injury” exclusion → Exception to injury exclusion: emotional distress, mental anguish, and humiliation → Assault and battery
EPL Considerations (Cont’d) Breach of Contract → Within “wrongful act” definition → Written contract exclusions → Express contract exclusions → Oral Contract exclusions FLSA Exclusions
EPL Considerations (Cont’d) Recap → Purchase considerations: o Packages o Inter-corporate coordination → Paradigm o Exposure o Retention o Price o Counsel relationships o Scope of coverage
The Fair Labor Standards Act: Old Law, Brand New Regulations Bill Belt Carrie Hoffman Ron Gaswirth
Settlements and Judgments Shoney’s – $18 MM Radio Shack –$27 MM Eckerd –$ 8 MM Rite-Aid –$25 MM Albertsons –$37 MM Taco Bell –$13 MM Farmers Insurance –$90 MM * Pacific Bell –$28 MM Wells Fargo –$4.6 MM
Collective Actions Section 16 B –Court can order mailed notice No Rule 23 –Opt-in only –lower number of plaintiffs No res judicata –2-year statute of limitations –3-year willful
Certification – 5 th Circuit Similarly Situated –Lenient standard to be certified: similarly situated in job and pay provisionally after close of discovery –Stringent standard applied at de-certification stage Issues –Names and Addresses Produced –Court Ordered Notice
De-certification Opt-in Plaintiffs not similarly situated
What To Do? Audit –Exempt jobs –Off-clock work –Rules –Wait time –Travel time –Break time Make sure overtime is calculated correctly
Brand New Regulations DOL issued final regulations on April 20, 2004 Became effective on August 23, 2004 Not all of the proposed regulations remain, especially the elimination of the “discretion and independent judgment” duty requirement The increased salary requirements remain in the final regulations, but were increased further The final rule includes many significant changes that take into account 75,280 comments from the public
New “Fair Pay” Regulations So-called “white collar” overtime exemptions Eliminates the short and long tests and replaces them with one “standard test” per exemption Increases the minimum salary paid to a white collar exempt employee (executive, administrative, professional) –From $155/week ($8,060/year) – Former long test –To $455/week ($23,660/year) – New standard test
New “Fair Pay” Regulations Overtime exemptions do not apply to certain classifications of employees, regardless of salary: –“Blue collar” workers who perform work involving repetitive operations with their hands, physical skill and energy –Police officers, fire fighters, paramedics, emergency medical technicians and similar safety and first responder employees –Licensed practical nurses and other similar health care employees
Highly Compensated Employees Highly compensated employees performing office or non-manual work and paid total annual compensation of $100,000 or more (which must include at least $455 per week paid on a salary or fee basis) are exempt from the FLSA if they customarily and regularly perform at least one of the duties or responsibilities of an exempt executive, administrative or professional employee identified in the standard tests for exemption. New “Fair Pay” Regulations
Executive Exemption NEW: The employee must be compensated on a salary basis at a rate not less than $455 per week; The employee’s primary duty must be managing the enterprise, or managing a customarily recognized department or subdivision of the enterprise; The employee must customarily and regularly direct the work of at least two or more other full-time employees or their equivalent; and NEW: The employee must have the authority to hire or fire other employees, or the employee’s suggestions and recommendations as to the hiring, firing, advancement, promotion or any other change of status of other employees must be given particular weight.
Administrative Exemption NEW: The employee must be compensated on a salary or fee basis at a rate not less than $455 per week; The employee’s primary duty must be the performance of office or non-manual work directly related to the management or general business operations of the employer or the employer’s customers; and The employee’s primary duty includes the exercise of discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of significance.
Professional Exemption - Learned NEW: The employee must be compensated on a salary or fee basis at a rate not less than $455 per week; The employee’s primary duty must be the performance of work requiring advanced knowledge, defined as work which is predominately intellectual in character and which includes work requiring the consistent exercise of discretion and independent judgment; The advanced knowledge must be in a field of science or learning; and The advanced knowledge must be customarily acquired by a prolonged course of specialized intellectual instruction.
Professional Exemption - Creative NEW: The employee must be compensated on a salary or fee basis at a rate not less than $455 per week; The employee’s primary duty must be the performance of work requiring invention, imagination, originality or talent in a recognized field of artistic endeavor.
To qualify for the computer employee exemption, the following tests must be met: -The employee must be compensated either on a salary or fee basis at a rate not less than $455 per week or, if compensated on an hourly basis, at a rate not less than $27.63 per hour; - The employee must be employed as a computer systems analyst, computer programmer, software engineer or other similarly skilled worker in the computer field performing the duties described below; Computer Employee
To qualify for the computer employee exemption, the following tests must be met: - The employee’s primary duty must consist of: - The application of systems analysis techniques and procedures, including consulting with users, to determine hardware, software or system functional specifications; - The design, development, documentation, analysis, creation, testing or modification of computer systems or program, including prototypes, based on and related to user or system design specifications; - The design, documentation, testing, creation or modification of computer programs related to machine operating systems; or - A combination of the aforementioned duties, the performance of which requires the same level of skills. Computer Employee (Cont’d)
Outside Sales The employee’s primary duty must be making sales (as defined in the FLSA), or obtaining orders or contracts for services or for the use of facilities for which a consideration will be paid by the client or customer; and The employee must be customarily and regularly engaged away from the employer’s place or places of business. Salary requirements do not apply.
Maximizing Lawsuit and Class Action Avoidance: Creating The Right Work Environment and The Data To Prove It Kenneth Broodo
LAWFUL, adj. Compatible with the will of a judge having jurisdiction. LAWYER, n. One skilled in circumvention of the law. LITIGANT, n. A person about to give up his skin for the hope of retaining his bones. LITIGATION, n. A machine which you go into as a pig and come out of as a sausage. -Ambrose Bierce, The Devil’s Dictionary Maximizing Lawsuit and Class Action Avoidance
Maximizing Lawsuit And Class Action Avoidance: Creating The Right Work Environment Work Environment/Correction HR Organization and Purpose Anti-Discrimination Practices Statistical Analysis/Measurement Data Collection and Coding Monitoring and Feedback Decision-Making Processes/Prevention Notice and Opportunity Standards and Consistency
Work Environment HR Organization and Purpose Anti-Discrimination Practices “Sometimes a cigar- is just a cigar.” -Sigmund Freud
A.HR Organization 1.Functional Integration 2.Role of Operations 3.Ombudsman
B. Anti-Discrimination & Diversity Measures 1. Posted Non-Discrimination Notice 2. Publication of Revised EEO Policy Statement * Review of Value-Based Policy Issues 3. Diversity Training 4. Written Communications 5. Diversity Incentives
C.Discrimination Complaints and Non-Retaliation 1. Program Review 2. Written Complaint and Investigation Procedures 3. Non-Retaliation Policy
Statistical Analysis Data Collection and Coding Monitoring and Feedback “Boss, would you mind repeating everything you said after, ‘Max, here’s the plan.’” -Get Smart
A.Review of In-House Analyses B.Annual Statistical Analysis 1. Coding Key Information 2. “Bad Manager” Report 3. Protection of Privilege 4. Commitment
Decision-Making Processes Notice and Opportunity Standards and Consistency “As a matter of human history, Captain, it has always been easier to destroy, than to create.” -Leonard Nimoy as Spock in The Wrath of Khan
A.Job Application and Assignment Procedures 1. Job Posting 2. Job Descriptions 3. Job Assignment Criteria 4. Job Path Information 5. Job Applications Required 6. Job Assignment Approval Form
B.Revision of Hiring Guidelines C.Review of Compensation Decisions and Criteria D.Revision of Job Performance Evaluation System E.Job Testing
F.Job Opportunity Training 1. Manager Trainee Program 2. EEO Training 3. Addition to New Hire Orientation 4. Posting of Training Opportunities 5. Creation or Expansion of Job Rotation Program 6. Creation or Expansion of Company “University” 7. Review of Recognition Programs 8. Creation or Expansion of Mentoring Program 1398075
FUTURE, n. That period of time in which our affairs prosper, our friends are true and our happiness is assured. -Ambrose Bierce, The Devil’s Dictionary “We appreciate your business.” -Ron Gaswirth Gardere Wynne Sewell, LLP Maximizing Lawsuit And Class Action Avoidance: Creating The Right Work Environment