News from Ollis/Akers/Arney Human Resources Consulting

Lessons Learned From the 4-day Workweek

The concept of a four-day workweek isn’t new, but it’s gained traction as the COVID-19 pandemic caused increasing numbers of employees to work remotely some or all the time. A 2022 survey by professional services company Ernst & Young found that nearly half (40%) of surveyed companies had or were in the process of implementing a four-day workweek. These models are overwhelmingly popular among employees and have been shown to increase productivity, improve employee well-being, decrease burnout and reduce employee turnover. However, the effectiveness of four-day workweeks can vary with an organization and its employees.

Essential Takeaways From Organizations That Implemented Four-day Workweeks:

Ease into it. This enables supervisors to uncover any potential problems with execution before the change begins.
Communicate with clients. This can build trust and prevent mistakes or lost clients due to misunderstanding. Setting up an emergency contact line so clients and customers can get urgent assistance when needed is also key.
Understand that it may not work. It may not be suitable for everyone.
Monitor the intensity of work. A four-day workweek improves worker well-being by putting their needs first. Pay attention to how employees respond.
Get regular feedback. A poorly managed transition to a four-day workweek can harm organizational goals. Communicate clearly through the transition.
Focus on employees. Help employees prioritize what's most valuable.

Organizations implementing four-day workweeks may see numerous benefits in employee engagement, well-being, productivity and retention. However, many factors go into making this transition successful. Employers should research if a four-day workweek is right for their organization and learn from the mistakes of other organizations to ensure effective implementation.

Read the full article HERE

SCOTUS Makes it Tougher for Employers

to Refuse Religious Accomodations

After last week’s Supreme Court decision in Groff v. DeJoy, employers should prepare to seriously entertain, and grant, more employee requests for religious accommodation.

Gerald Groff, an Evangelical Christian postal worker in Pennsylvania, requested not to work at all on Sundays for religious reasons. (The post office was making Sunday deliveries for Amazon.) Mr. Groff’s bosses made some attempts at accommodation, but the attempts were not successful. Either Mr. Groff was left on the Sunday schedule and disciplined for not working, or his co-workers were overworked trying to cover for him. Mr. Groff eventually resigned, and then he sued and lost, and lost again on appeal. The Supreme Court agreed to review the case, and on Thursday unanimously agreed on a tougher standard for employers claiming that religious accommodations present an “undue hardship.”

Practical tips for employers

In light of the Groff decision, employers should be ready to field and seriously consider many more requests for religious accommodation. Here are some suggestions.

• Require requests for religious accommodation to be made in writing, with exceptions for employees who are not fluent in English or who have literacy issues. The request should contain a brief explanation as to how the employer’s policy or practice conflicts with the employee’s religious beliefs.

• Review the requests, and make sure they are really religious in nature. With COVID vaccines, many employers received “religious” accommodation requests that were not based on religion but on politics or fear about the safety of the vaccines. Those may be legitimate concerns, but they are not “religious” in nature.

• If the request is religious in nature, assess whether the employee’s belief is sincerely held. When in doubt, assume that the belief is sincere.

• If the request is religious in nature, and if the employee’s belief appears to be sincere, then either grant the accommodation request or go through the ADA “interactive process” with the employee before making an “undue hardship” determination.

The Court declined to adopt the current guidance on religious accommodation from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, saying that it wanted to allow the agency to amend its current guidance (or not) in light of the Groff decision. Thus, more or amended guidance should be on the way.

Read the Legal Bulletin HERE

FMLA: Covered Employers

The federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) requires employers covered by the law to provide eligible employees unpaid, job-protected leave for qualifying reasons.

Covered Employers

The following employers are covered by the FMLA:

Public agencies, including federal, state and local governments;
Local educational agencies, including public and private elementary and secondary schools and public school boards; and
Private-sector employers with 50 or more employees during 20 or more calendar workweeks in the current or previous calendar year.

Employees are employed each working day of the calendar week if they work any part of the week. The workweeks do not have to be consecutive.

Learn more HERE

PCORI Fees Due July 31st

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires health insurance issuers and self-insured plan sponsors to pay Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute fees (PCORI fees). The fees are reported and paid annually using IRS Form 720, the Quarterly Federal Excise Tax Return.

Form 720 and full payment of the PCORI fees are due by July 31 of each year, and generally covers plan years that end during the preceding calendar year.

For plan years ending in 2022, the PCORI fees are due by July 31, 2023.

In general, the PCORI fees are assessed, collected and enforced like taxes. The PCORI fee is imposed on an issuer of a “specified health insurance policy” and a plan sponsor of an “applicable self-insured health plan” based on the average number of lives covered under the plan.

See the Action Steps HERE

Eleventh Circuit Court Holds That Military Leave is Comparable to Paid Administrative Leave

On June 8, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held in Myrick v. City of Hoover, Alabama that military leave is comparable to paid administrative leave under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA).

Quick Hits

Military leave is comparable to paid administrative leave under USERRA, the Eleventh Circuit held.
USERRA requires employers to provide employees on military leave with the same rights and benefits provided to similarly situated employees on non-military leave.
The plaintiffs, who all had taken military-related leave, sued their municipal employer under USERRA claiming disparate treatment because the city did not grant them the same benefits it provided for employees on paid administrative leave.
The court relied in part on the U.S. Department of Labor’s interpretation of USERRA, stating that it was irrelevant how an employer characterized an employee’s status (paid or unpaid) during a period of military service.
In finding for the employees, the court cited three factors as determinative—the duration of the leave, the purpose of the leave, and the ability of employees to choose when to take the leave.

Key Takeaways

The Myrick v. City of Hoover, Alabama holding highlights USERRA’s requirement for employers to provide the same rights and benefits—including paid leave—to employees on military leave that they provide to similarly situated employees on comparable forms of non-military leave. Employers, especially those that maintain paid administrative leave policies, may want to review their leave of absence policies for compliance with USERRA.

Read the Ogletree Deakins article HERE

Join us for a full day training on basic HR regulations and best practices covering areas such as:

Sexual Harassment
Coaching and Counseling
Progressive Disciplinary Action
Performance Management
Involuntary Terminations

Contact our HR Consulting team for more information by clicking HERE.

DOL Issues Guidance on Requirements of PUMP Act

On May 17, 2023, the Department of Labor (DOL) issued enforcement guidance on the “pump at work provisions” of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), as amended by the passage of the PUMP Act last December 2022.

Under the Act, employers must provide nursing employees with “reasonable break time” to express milk. According to the DOL guidance, the frequency, duration, and timing of “reasonable” breaks may vary depending on the individual circumstances of the nursing employee—such as the location of the pumping space and the pump setup. Also, an employee’s pumping needs may change over the one-year period to which the provisions apply.

Read the Husch Blackwell article HERE