The proposal for paid sick leave is being characterized as a public health initiative, as explained in this reported comment by Council Member Chris Tolbert:

“The workers who do not have access to earned sick and safe leave work in professions where they interact with more people on a daily basis than a politician can hope to reach in a month…[t]his is a huge public health concern when the people who are making your burrito or bagging your groceries are sick at work.”

To lead by example, Mayor Coleman announced that by 2017, all City employees who do not already enjoy the use of paid sick leave will have these benefits extended to them.

Different From Minneapolis

St. Paul officials claim to have learned from a similar proposal in Minneapolis that has since stalled in large part because of local business opposition.  St. Paul’s venture into this turf will feature a task force consisting of the St. Paul Chamber of Commerce, local businesses and other stakeholders selected by Mayor Chris Coleman and the City Council. The task force will make recommendations to the Saint Paul Human Rights and Equal Economic Opportunity (HREEO) Commission, who will in turn make recommendations to the City Council and Mayor.

Council Member Jane Prince elaborated on the benefits of this approach when she explained:

“I think if we’re going to consider doing this kind of an ordinance, we really need to involve the business community, and create an ordinance in a way that includes their needs and concerns,” Prince said. “If we’re going to be looking at adding regulations, we need to take a look at regulations that need to go away, or ways in which we could support their growth and prosperity.”

Bottom Line

As we have reported (Will We See Mandatory Sick Leave?, Dec. 30, 2015), paid sick leave legislation seems to be gaining steam.  A few states (most recently Oregon) and a number of municipalities have already enacted some sort of requirement, and others are seriously considering it.

St. Paul’s approach may have a greater chance of success than the Minneapolis proposal since it involves collaboration with the business community right from the beginning.  We will keep our eye on this.

The post City of St. Paul is Asking For Sick Leave appeared first on Felhaber Larson.

The most recent example is the State of Oregon, which will require employers of 10 or more workers to permit accrual of up to 40 hours of paid sick leave per year at the rate of one hour for every 30 hours worked.  Employers with fewer than 10 workers must allow accrual of unpaid sick leave at the same rate.  This law becomes effective January 1, 2016.

The law permits employees to use this paid sick leave for any purpose permitted under the state’s family leave law, including parental and bereavement leave.

Of course, President Obama has already signed an executive order requiring federal contractors to provide up to 7 days of paid sick leave to employees stating January 1, 2017, for contracts received on or after January 1, 2016.

On the other hand, a Pennsylvania court has invalidated the new Pittsburgh city ordinance requiring employers in the city to provide one hour of paid sick leave for every 35 hours worked.  The court ruled that that the ordinance violated state law prohibiting cities from determining “duties, responsibilities or requirements placed upon businesses, occupations and employers.” An appeal of that decision seems likely.

BOTTOM LINE

It remains to be seen whether Minneapolis revisits the issue on its own or is influenced by momentum from other cities and states on this issue.   We will continue to watch for developments.

Felhaber Larson wishes everyone a very healthy and happy new year, and we hope that you enjoy this new look for the Minnesota Employment Law Report.

The post Will We See Mandatory Paid Sick Leave? appeared first on Felhaber Larson.

Be mindful that, in additional to needing a favorable ruling from the committee by March 21, these bills must also be passed by a majority of the Minnesota House and Senate and receive the Governor’s signature before becoming law. Provided below is a summary of the 3 bills that will receive a committee hearing this week:

• Amendments to Nursing Mothers Break (S.F. No. 2000 / H.F. No. 2259) – This bill would amend Minn. Stat. § 181.939 to enlarge the employer’s obligation to provide a separate space for nursing mothers to express milk. Specifically, according to the amendments contained in the bill, employers would be required to provide nursing mothers with a room or other location, “other than a bathroom or a toilet stall, that is shielded from view and free from intrusion from coworkers and the public and that includes access to an electrical outlet, where the employee can express her milk in privacy.” The bill would also make a violation of the law requiring break time for nursing mothers a violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act, which would permit private lawsuits to be used as a means of enforcement and would permit the recovery of attorneys’ fees.

• Pay Equity Standards for Certain State Contractors (H.F. No 2373) – This bill provides that all state agencies and private employers that have a contract with the state in excess of $500,000 (and at least 40 full-time employees) must have their pay practices approved by the Commissioner of Human Rights. Specifically, the employer must be able to show to the Commissioner that it has “equitable compensation relationships” as defined by Minn. Stat. § 471.991, which means that the compensation for female-dominated classes is not consistently below the compensation for male-dominated classes of comparable work value. A similar requirement was imposed on Minnesota municipalities in the 1980s, and this bill would extend these administrative burdens to all state agencies and certain private employers that contract with the state.

• Amendments to Independent Contractor Registration Requirement (H.F. No. 2198 / S.F. No. 2065) – This bill would amend Minn. Stat. § 181.723, which provides that individuals performing work in the commercial or residential construction industry must first obtain an “independent contractor exemption certificate” in order to avoid being considered “employees” of the “person for whom the individual performs services.” Nevertheless, because of a “glitch” in the statutory framework, the Minnesota Court of Appeals held in Nelson v. Levy, 796 N.W.2d 336 (Minn. Ct. App. 2011) that individuals performing work through a separate legal entity (LLC, etc.) were not required to obtain an exemption certificate pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 181.723. As a result, many individuals in the industry simply formed separate legal entities to avoid obtaining an exemption certificate. The bill attempts to “fix” the glitch by making clear that either the individual or the separate legal entity must obtain an exemption certificate in order for the individual to be considered an independent contractor (and not an employees of the “person for whom the individual performs services”).

Bottom Line

While each of these bills still has a long way to go before becoming law, they appear to have some degree of momentum in the legislature. Thus, we will keep these bills on our radar and suggest that if you have particular concerns about these bills, you may want to consider contacting your state representative to voice your concerns.

We will continue to monitor these and other employment-related legislation that is being debated at the Minnesota Legislature.

The post Three Employment-Related Bills Set to Receive Committee Hearings this Week appeared first on Felhaber Larson.