ATTORNEYS AT LAW

Fall 2004

Labor and Employment Law

New Overtime Regulations Become Law By: Susan N. Eisenberg, Esq. [email protected]

one of these exemptions generally depends

executive, administrative or professional

upon how the employee is paid and what

employee on a salary basis, which means

T

duties he or she performs.

that the employee regularly receives a

he U.S. Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) revised regulations concerning the overtime exemption for “white collar” employees became effective August 23, 2004. These new regulations, which

Salary Requirements for Exempt Employees

predetermined amount of pay that is not subject to reduction because of variations in the quantity or quality of work performed. In other words, with several exceptions listed in the regulations, an otherwise exempt

The new regulations increase the minimum

employee must receive his or her full-week

salary to qualify for the exemption from

salary if he or she has worked any portion of

represent the first revisions concerning the

$250 per week to $455 per week ($23,660

that week.

so-called “White Collar Exemptions” in over

per year). Any employee earning less than

thirty years, provide employers with the

$23,660 per year must receive overtime

suspensions of exempt employees without

opportunity to avoid having to pay overtime

pay for hours worked in excess of forty in a

pay for violation of written company

to some employees whom they have had to

week under the new rules, regardless of his

behavior policies. Previously, if an employer

pay in the past. They also, however, make

or her job duties. Computer professionals

suspended an employee for such an offense

it more difficult to maintain exemptions for

may be paid either $455 per week or $27.63

for less than a full week, the employer

other employees.

per hour. “Highly compensated” workers

risked losing the exemption both for that

The federal Fair Labor Standards Act

who are paid a total annual compensation

employee and other employees in the same

(“FLSA”) requires employers to pay at least

of $100,000 or more are exempt if: (1) their

job category. However, the new rule only

the federal minimum wage, currently $5.15

compensation includes $455 per week

per hour, for all hours worked, and overtime

paid on a salary basis; (2) the employee’s

pay at 1.5 times the regular rate of pay for

primary duty includes performing office or

all hours worked over forty hours in a work

non-manual work; and (3) the employee

week. The White Collar Exemptions provide

customarily and regularly performs at least

an exemption to the minimum wage and

one of the exempt duties or responsibilities

overtime requirements under the FLSA for

of an executive, administrative or

those employees in bona fide executive,

professional employee. As in the old

administrative, professional or outside

regulations, there is no minimum salary level

sales positions. There is also an exemption

for outside salespersons.

for employees in certain computer-related

As under the former rules, the new

professions. Whether an employee fits into

regulations require an employer to pay an

1

The DOL now also permits full-day

Continued on page 2

I N S I D E Supreme Court Sets Guidelines for Faragher/Ellerth Defense.. 3 Legislative /Agency Watch...... 4 Case Law Update ..................... 5

Akerman Senterfitt Labor and Employment Law Update

Fall 2004

Akerman Senterfitt Labor and Employment Law Update

New Overtime Regulations Become Law

employee’s status. The executive does not

employee as exempt likely will expose an

Continued from page 1

have to be the ultimate decision maker,

employer to liability for unpaid minimum

refers to policies of major concern such

but his/her recommendations must be

wages and/or overtime compensation for

as anti-harassment policies, drug policies

given particular weight. The duties test

up to three years and liquidated damages

and violence policies; it does not apply to

for computer professionals mirrors the

(i.e., an additional amount equal to unpaid

performance issues such as tardiness or poor

requirements found in the FLSA itself. As

compensation). The employer may also have

performance in work. Since the regulations

for outside salespersons, the employee still

to reimburse the employee for his or her

require a written policy that is applicable to

must customarily and regularly be engaged

attorneys’ fees and court costs, in addition

all employees, it is important to make sure

away from the employer’s place of business,

to having to pay for its own attorneys and

that an employer has written policies with

and the employee’s primary duty must be

costs. When an employee files suit for this

PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE v. SUDERS

regard to these issues. If there is no written

the making of sales or obtaining orders

type of violation, the FLSA provides that

By: Barnett Q. Brooks, Esq. [email protected]

policy, an employer cannot take advantage

or contracts for services or for the use of

similarly situated employees may join in a

of this new ability to deduct from salaried

facilities for which a consideration will be

collective action. Thus, a whole department

employees for violations.

Police v. Suders, the Supreme Court held that

paid by the client or customer. By focusing

of employees can join in the suit.

employers may be held liable for constructive

The new regulations provide a “safe harbor” that will save an exemption even when an employer improperly deducts from exempt employees’ salaries. The exemption will not be lost if an employer: (1) has a clearly communicated policy prohibiting improper deductions and including a complaint mechanism; (2) reimburses employees for any improper deductions; and (3) makes a good faith effort to comply in the future. This safe harbor is not available if the employer willfully violates the policy

on the old “short” duties test, the new

DOL itself may investigate an employer for

work environment, attributable to their

“primary duty” is, which eliminates the

improper classifications and seek recovery

supervisors.” More importantly, the Supreme

focus under the old regulations that not

of unpaid minimum wages or overtime

Court resolved a split among the federal

more than 20% of the employee’s work be

compensation, as well as assess a civil penalty against the employer. Indeed,

of employees who never can be exempt and, thus, must be paid overtime compensation. Among those identified as non-exempt are manual laborers and other “blue collar” workers who perform

after receiving employee complaints.

work involving repetitive operations with

As for duties required for the exemption, the new regulations eliminate the “long” and “short” duties tests found in the old regulations for executive, administrative and professional employees. Instead, each of those classifications now has

On June 14, 2004, in Pennsylvania State

regulations focus on what the employee’s

The new rules specify certain classes

the DOL has created a Wage And Hour Overtime Security Enforcement Task Force to insure workers’ rights to overtime under the new regulations. Given the high profile that FLSA issues now have both in the courts and with the DOL, employers should consult with their

their hands, physical skill and energy

employment counsel to make sure that

– including non-management employees

they have a firm understanding of how the

in production, maintenance, construction

law applies to their workforce and are not

and similar occupations, such as carpenters,

violating the law.

electricians, mechanics, plumbers, iron workers, etc.

Please contact your Akerman Senterfitt attorney for any advise you may need

Compliance is Key

one “standard duties” test. The new

Employers should use these new regulations

standard duties tests generally mirror the

as an opportunity to update policies,

old “short” duties tests for administrative

regarding these regulations.

The Plaintiff, Nancy Suders, was an employee of the Pennsylvania State Police (“PSP”). Almost immediately after she started working for PSP, she was subjected to a constant barrage of verbal harassment by three supervisors. Suders also had to regularly endure graphic comments about sex. On two occasions, Suders verbally reported the incidents to the employer’s EEO officer, and while advised to file a complaint,

discharge claims resulting from “hostile

non-exempt.

The Suders Case

observe a supervisor grab his genitals and

Apart from employee lawsuits, the

by continuing to make improper deductions

Exempt Job Duties

Supreme Court Sets Guidelines For When Faragher/Ellerth Defense May Be Used in Constructive Discharge Cases

Fall 2004

courts on the issue of whether constructive discharge is a tangible employment action that results in strict liability for the employer.

she was not given the required form. Suders considered the EEO officer insensitive and unhelpful. After Suders was accused of theft of her employer’s papers, and actually arrested, she

constructive discharge case, an employer can claim the Faragher/Ellerth defense, unless the employee’s constructive discharge is precipitated by a supervisor’s official act, such as “a humiliating demotion, extreme cut in pay, or transfer to a position in which she would face unbearable working conditions.” The Court reasoned that, “[a]bsent ‘an official act of the enterprise,’ as the last straw, the employer ordinarily would have no particular reason to suspect that a resignation is not the typical kind daily occurring in the work force.” The Court also reaffirmed that, in applying the Faragher/Ellerth affirmative defense, the burden is on the employer to allege and prove that the plaintiff failed to mitigate his or her harm.

resigned, without being officially charged

Suders Significance

with theft. She sued in Federal District Court

What has changed from the employer’s

under Title VII, alleging sexual harassment

perspective? The Supreme Court has

and constructive discharge.

for the first time specifically recognized

At the close of discovery, the District

constructive discharge as a viable claim

Background

Court granted the employer’s motion for

under Title VII.* What has not changed is

In 1998, the Supreme Court decided two

summary judgment. Relying on Faragher

how important it is for employers to have

landmark cases on the same day: Faragher

and Ellerth, the District Court held that

a written anti-harassment policy in place to

v. Boca Raton and Burlington Indus., Inc.

Suders’ claim was untenable as a matter

reduce the risk of liability. The policy should

v. Ellerth. In those cases, the Supreme

of law because she unreasonably failed to

define harassment; establish a procedure

Court distinguished between supervisor

take advantage of PSP’s internal procedures

for reporting harassment; explain the

harassment unaccompanied by an adverse

for reporting harassment. The Court of

investigative process (including a statement

official act and supervisor harassment

Appeals reversed the decision sending the

as to confidentiality); put employees on

accompanied by “a tangible employment

case back for trial. The Supreme Court then

notice as to possible discipline, up to and

action,” holding employers strictly liable

granted certiorari on the issue of whether

including termination, for violation of the

for supervisor harassment that culminates

constructive discharge resulting from

policy (as well as for bad faith reports of

in a tangible employment action, such

harassment by a supervisor amounts to a

harassment); and contain an anti-retaliation

as discharge, demotion, or undesirable

“tangible employment action,” and therefore

statement. The policy should be distributed

reassignment. The Court established that

precludes assertion of the Faragher/Ellerth

to all employees and training should be

if no adverse employment action is taken,

defense.

provided on all aspects of the policy. All

the employer may raise an affirmative

The threshold inquiry in any hostile work

complaints of harassment should be taken

defense (the “Faragher/Ellerth defense”) to

environment case is whether the harassing

seriously, promptly investigated, and result in

review procedures and revisit employee

shield itself against liability by proving: (a)

behavior was sufficiently severe or pervasive

appropriate remedial

and professional employees. However,

classifications to insure that all employees

the employer exercised reasonable care to

to alter the conditions of employment. When

action.

in addition to the old “short” duties for

are being paid correctly. Such a review

prevent and promptly correct any sexually

a plaintiff claims constructive discharge, an additional showing is required: that the

executive employees, executives now must

is important since FLSA lawsuits have

harassing behavior, and (b) the employee

increased at an amazing rate over the past

unreasonably failed to take advantage of

abusive working environment became so

have the authority to hire or fire other

any preventive or corrective opportunities

intolerable that resignation was a reasonable

employees or make recommendations as

several years. In such a litigious environment,

provided by the employer or to avoid harm

response.

to hiring, firing or other changes to an

improperly classifying a non-exempt

2

Susan Eisenberg is a shareholder in the Miami office.

otherwise.

The Supreme Court found that in a

3

* Some lower court had previously held that constructive discharge was actionable under Title VII.

Barnett Q. Brooks is Of Counsel in the Tampa office.

Civil Rights Act and the EEOC Turn Forty July 2004 marked the 40th birthday of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and of the landmark Civil Rights Act that brought the EEOC into being. In its tumultuous creation and ongoing

Fall 2004

LEGISLATIVE &

AGENCY

WATCH

actual enforcement authority during its early

FMLA Revisions on Hold...Again

years, to a driving force for equality in the

The Department of Labor (“DOL”)

American workplace in its modern form.

has planned to update the regulations

development, the EEOC has evolved from a relatively ineffective agency with little

The EEOC began its role enforcing only

implementing the Family and Medical Leave

the provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights

Act (“FMLA”) since early 2003. The FMLA

Act of 1964, which prohibit employment

requires covered employers to provide

discrimination based on race, color, religion,

eligible employees up to twelve weeks of

sex, and national origin. Since then, the

job-protected leave per year.

EEOC’s role has expanded to include

The regulations sought to be updated

enforcement of federal laws prohibiting

explain and clarify how the Act’s provisions

discrimination based on age, inequality in

should be applied in the workplace. The

pay and disability. The EEOC’s powers were

Bush administration has considered an

further expanded by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which added compensatory and

update of the regulations to be a priority since January 2003, especially in light

Proposed Florida Minimum Wage Increase Will Appear on the November Ballot A coalition of labor and community groups billing itself as “Floridians for All”

Akerman Senterfitt Labor and Employment Law Update

Tracking the Courts

Akerman Senterfitt Labor and Employment Law Update

Fall 2004

Case Law

Update

NLRB Limits Nonunionized Employees’ Right to have Co-worker Present During Investigation

Transfer of Employee who Engaged in Consensual Liasion with Supervisor is not an Actionable Tangible Employment Action Speaks v. City of Lakeland, 315 F. Supp. 2d 1217 (M.D. Fla. 2004)

confidential workplace investigations, the

While Speaks was employed by the Lakeland

NLRB receded from Epilepsy Foundation

Police Department, she acquiesced to the

and found that the policy considerations

sexual advances of, and ultimately engaged

underlying Weingarten did not apply to

in sexual intercourse with, a sergeant who

nonunion workplaces.

was not her supervisor. She subsequently

The NLRB found that co-workers— unlike union representatives—would not represent the interests of the entire work force, lack an “official status” which would

requested and was granted a transfer to that sergeant’s unit because she did not get along with her previous supervisor. After the transfer, the sergeant continued to demand sexual intercourse and other sexual acts from

level the playing field, lack a knowledge

allow Florida voters in the upcoming

IBM Corporation, 341 NLRB No. 148 (June 2004)

November elections to vote on a state

Reversing its prior decision of Epilepsy

the unique skills of a “knowledgeable”

constitutional amendment raising Florida’s

Foundation of Northeast Ohio, 331 NLRB

union representative in grievance matters.

to the City as sexual harassment. Speaks

676 (2000), the National Labor Relations

Contrasting these diminished policy

told her husband of the sexual activities

Board (“NLRB”) ruled that nonunionized

concerns with increasing legal requirements

after she and the supervisor had an

employees do not have the right under

to investigate workplace discrimination,

argument, and the supervisor threatened

is sponsoring a ballot initiative that would

minimum wage to $6.15 per hour, one dollar above the current state and federal minimum.

of the workplace and its politics, and lack

Speaks both on- and off-duty over the next year, and Speaks acquiesced. Speaks did not report any of these acts

punitive damages to the remedies available

of the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court

to employees who experienced intentional

found a portion of the regulations to be

Florida’s minimum wage to increase in

the National Labor Relations Act to have a

sexual harassment, workplace violence,

to transfer her back to her former squad

discrimination, and made Title VII cases

invalid in 2002 in its Ragsdale v. Wolverine

proportion to inflation. On July 15, 2004,

co-worker present during an investigatory

corporate abuse, fiduciary lapses, substance

under the supervisor Speaks did not like.

eligible for jury trials.

Worldwide, Inc. opinion. However, the

the Florida Supreme Court approved the

interview that might lead to discipline. Since

abuse, and improper computer usage, the

Her husband reported the sexual behavior

The ballot initiative would also index

updated FMLA regulations have been

ballot initiative, holding that, as required by

the Supreme Court’s decision in NLRB v.

NLRB found the need of nonunionized

to the City, and the City then conducted an

for which statistics are available, the EEOC

delayed on two occasions, in May 2003 and

Florida law, the proposed amendment dealt

employers to conduct prompt, efficient,

internal affairs investigation. The City lacked

June 2004. The delays are certainly due in

J. Weingarten, Inc., 420 U.S. 251 (1975),

received over 81,000 charges and recovered

with only a single-subject and that the ballot

a combined total of nearly $385 million

no small part to the DOL’s intense focus,

which held that employees in unionized

and confidential investigations outweighed

title and summary accurately reflected the

through its administrative enforcement and

during much of 2003 and the early part of

subject matter of the proposed amendment.

workplaces were entitled to representation

the right of employees to have a co-worker

litigation efforts, permanently shedding its

2004, on its hotly contested revisions to

This was the last major hurdle for the ballot

during interviews, the NLRB has vacillated

present in the absence of a union. Therefore,

early reputation as a toothless tiger.

the regulations on white collar employee

initiative, which will now go before the

on the application of Weingarten rights to

the NLRB reversed its position and limited

overtime exemptions under the Fair Labor

voters in November.

nonunion workplaces and employees. In

the application of Weingarten to union

Epilepsy Foundation, the NLRB extended this

workplaces. Accordingly, nonunionized

create a living wage for the most vulnerable

right to nonunion workplaces by allowing

employers can conduct confidential

In fiscal year 2003, the most recent year

The EEOC’s recent multi-million dollar settlement with Morgan Stanley underscores its powerful enforcement role. In July 2004,

Standards Act.

Those supporting the initiative say it will

Currently, the DOL plans to publish its

enough evidence to find the relationship was “unwelcome” but did find that both parties’ actions were inappropriate. The City suspended and demoted the sergeant, and at Speaks’ request, the City allowed her to transfer to another position outside of the police department. Following the transfer, Speaks sued, and

Morgan Stanley agreed to pay $54 million to

updated regulations in March 2005. Until

employees in the workforce. Business groups

employees to have representation by co-

investigations and interviews of employees

settle charges of sex discrimination against

then, it appears to be status quo for the

opposing the measure say it will result in a

the City moved for summary judgment.

workers during investigatory interviews.

in private and without any type of employee

women in pay, promotions and benefits in

Family and Medical Leave Act.

decrease in hiring and chase businesses out

The Middle District Court of Florida found

Noting the increasing need to conduct

representative.

of Florida in pursuit of lower labor costs.

its Institutional Equity Division.

4

Continued on page 6

5

Akerman Senterfitt Labor and Employment Law Update

Fall 2004

Case Law Update

later Bost filed suit. A month after filing suit,

supervisor also told two other employees

Continued from page 5

Bost filed a formal charge of discrimination

that Wilson was an “excellent” candidate

that Speaks could not demonstrate any

with the EEOC. When his employer sought

and the “most qualified.” The supervisor

tangible employment action because Speaks’

summary judgment on the grounds that Bost

then gave the Human Resources Department

transfer out of the police department was

filed suit before filing a Charge, Bost argued

a list of requirements he believed that

at her request and her sexual encounters

that his Charge should be considered filed

candidates for the position needed. Based

with the sergeant did not prove a

when he submitted his intake questionnaire

on those requirements, Human Resources

change in employment. The Court also

and affidavit. On appeal, the Eleventh

provided the supervisor with the names of

found that the City proved the Faragher

Circuit noted that a Charge initiates an

two male candidates for consideration for

affirmative defense because (i) it had an

enforcement procedure that enables the

the position. The supervisor testified that

established anti-harassment policy, (ii) the

EEOC to detect and remedy discrimination,

he did believe Wilson was qualified for the

City responded in a “reasonably prompt

and the initiation of this procedure also

position, but he promoted one of the male

manner” to the complaint of harassment

notifies the employer that a Charge has been

candidates to the open position.

by severely punishing the sergeant, and

filed with the EEOC and starts the EEOC’s

After Wilson filed suit alleging sex

by allowing Speaks to transfer to another

investigation of a complaint. The Court held

discrimination, the trial court granted the

position where she would not be supervised

that these are essential aspects of the EEOC

employer’s summary judgment motion on

by the sergeant, and (iii) Speaks did not

administrative process. Therefore, Bost’s

the promotion claim, finding that Wilson

use reasonable care to avoid harassment

intake questionnaire and affidavit were not

did not meet the criteria for the position.

because she waited over a year to use the

equivalent to a Charge, and Bost prematurely

On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit reversed,

City’s complaint procedure. Therefore, the

filed suit against his employer.

finding that Wilson had established that the

Court granted the City summary judgment. Accordingly, employers should be aware that they can avoid liability for egregious acts of harassment by taking prompt remedial action, and that they may allow employees to voluntarily transfer to other positions without fear of liability.

An EEOC Intake Questionnaire Does Not Constitute a Charge of Discrimination Bost, et al. v. Federal Express Corp., 372 F. 3d 1233 (11th Cir. 2004)

employer’s stated reasons for denying her

Supervisor’s Statements Showing Discriminatory Animus Are Sufficient for Employee to Show that Employer’s Stated Reasons for Denying Promotion were Pretextual

the promotion were pretextual. The Eleventh

Wilson v. B/E Aerospace, Inc., Case No. 03-14909 (11th Cir. June 30, 2004)

ultimately receive those positions.

Plaintiff Wilson informed her supervisor that

Plaintiff Bost filed an intake questionnaire

she was interested in being considered for a

and an affidavit with the EEOC, alleging that

promotion to a senior vice president position

his employer discriminated against him and

within the company. Her supervisor replied

other similarly situated employees because

that Wilson was the “obvious choice” for

of their age. The EEOC never responded to

the position “even though women aren’t

the intake questionnaire, and five months

typically in that type of position.” The

6

Akerman Senterfitt Labor and Employment Law Update

Employer Hit With Jury Award Of $495K – Case Concludes Honesty is Best Policy For Employers

was more qualified than the male candidate who received the promotion, despite the fact that Wilson could not show that she was significantly more qualified than the male candidate. Accordingly, employers must be aware that statements to potential candidates indicating that the candidate is “qualified” or the “obvious choice” for a position can be used as evidence of discrimination when such candidates do not

limited overnight shows. Subsequently, the

discharge. Specifically, HSN’s reasons

plaintiff was cut from the 1999 broadcasting

for prohibiting infomercials shifted from

budget that was prepared in the fall of 1998.

a contract forbidding infomercials, to a

Around the same time, the plaintiff had

non-compete agreement, to an unwritten

her thymus gland removed and again took

policy prohibiting infomercials, and finally,

medical leave. When she failed to contact

to a standard industry practice that show

the network at the end of her 26-week

hosts should refrain from appearing in

disability term, HSN informed her that she

infomercials. The plaintiff countered this

Cleveland v. Home Shopping Network, Inc., 369 F. 3d 1189 (11th Cir. 2004)

would be fired unless she provided medical

testimony with evidence that she was

documentation. In response, the plaintiff

not under contract, that the alleged

provided a doctor’s letter clearing her to host

non-compete agreement no longer was

verturning a lower court’s decision, the Eleventh Circuit reinstated a jury award of $495,000 on the disability discrimination claim of a former Home Shopping Network (“HSN”) host who alleged that she was fired because of a neuromuscular condition.

O

shows, with some medical restrictions. Upon

valid, that no other HSN employee ever

her return, however, she was assigned to and

had been made aware of an unwritten

kept in an off-the-air support position even

policy or industry practice prohibiting

HSN hired the plaintiff in 1985 to host a

one month later, but mostly on HSN’s less-

evidence to allow the jury to conclude that

show selling dolls. In 1997, although the

popular sister network, America’s Store,

“the infomercial excuse was pretextual.”

plaintiff’s new supervisor criticized the

despite requests from customers that she

While the shifting reasons given by HSN

plaintiff’s hosting style, the plaintiff received

host HSN’s shows. Eighteen months later,

for why infomercials were prohibited does

a satisfactory performance evaluation. In

she was fired by HSN’s executive vice

not change that the plaintiff was fired for

1998, the plaintiff was diagnosed with

president of broadcasting, allegedly for

appearing in the infomercial, the shifting

myasthenia gravis, a neuromuscular disease,

appearing in an unauthorized infomercial on

reasons allowed the jury to question

and was out on medical leave for two

another station.

the decisionmaker’s credibility. Once the

Circuit concluded that the supervisor’s statement showed that he believed Wilson

Fall 2004

months. When she returned, her doctor restricted her to a four-day workweek and

infomercials, and

after she produced a second doctor’s letter clearly stating that she could host shows with the same four-day restriction that applied previously.

Case Law

Update Featured Case

The plaintiff was

that two other show hosts had received permission in the past to appear in infomercials. The Court found that the plaintiff provided sufficient

reinstated as a host

At trial, HSN provided shifting and inconsistent reasons for the plaintiff’s

decisionmaker’s credibility was damaged, the jury could infer that he did not fire the plaintiff because of the infomercial,

Labor and Employment Law Update

but rather because of her disability. Here,

EDITORIAL BOARD

the employer’s dishonesty was affirmative evidence of guilt. This recent decision by the Eleventh

Muslima Lewis, Esq. Editor [email protected]

Gordon Hill, Esq. [email protected]

Jeanie Demshar, Esq.Assistant Editor [email protected]

Suzan Jo, Esq. [email protected]

Ena T. Diaz, Esq. [email protected]

Miguel Martinez, Esq. [email protected]

employers that honesty is the best policy.

David Young, Esq. [email protected]

a reason to discredit an employment

7

Circuit demonstrates the importance of providing consistent reasons for employment actions, and teaches An employer should not give the jury decision.

Akerman Senterfitt Labor and Employment Law Update

Fall 2004

Akerman Senterfitt’s Labor and Employment Law Practice Group A

kerman Senterfitt’s Labor and Employment Law Practice Group is the largest in the State of Florida. We provide

frequently appear before federal and state

non-union environments. Akerman Senterfitt

administrative agencies and in state and

attorneys seek to provide management with

federal courts, at both the trial and appellate

the tools to avoid discrimination claims and

levels.

to resolve employee concerns promptly. We

The firm’s labor relations work includes

legal counsel and representation on all

are frequently asked to present seminars

employment and labor relations matters.

representing employers in union election

for management personnel, supervisors,

The firm represents public and private

campaigns, negotiating collective bargaining

and human resources staff on a variety of

employers in sex, age, race, national origin,

agreements, providing union avoidance

employment law issues.

disability, AIDS, and religious discrimination

advice, and handling unfair labor practice

cases; EEQC, ERISA, OSHA, FLSA, FMLA,

charges, secondary boycotts, strikes, picketing

ADA, and COBRA compliance issues;

and handbilling.

unemployment compensation claims and

To minimize employment problems, we

whistleblower complaints. The attorneys

work with our clients to create a positive and

in the Employment Law Practice Group

productive workplace in both organized and

FT. LAUDERDALE Las Olas Centre II 350 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1600 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301-2229 Main: 954.463.2700 Fax: 954.463.2224

The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely upon advertisements. Before you decide, please ask us to send you free written information about our qualifications and experience.

JACKSONVILLE 50 North Laura Street, Suite 2500 Jacksonville, FL 32202-3646 Main: 904.798.3700 Fax: 904.798.3730

MIAMI One Southeast Third Avenue. 28th Floor Miami, FL 33131-1714 Main: 305.374.5600 Fax: 305.374.5095

ORLANDO Citrus Center, 17th Floor 255 South Orange Avenue Orlando, FL 32801-3483 Main: 407.843.7860 Fax: 407.843.6610

TALLAHASSEE Highpoint Center, 12th Floor 106 East College Avenue Tallahassee, FL 32301 Main: 850.224.9634 Fax: 850.222.0103

TAMPA Wachovia Center 100 South Ashley Drive, Suite 1500 Tampa, FL 33602-5311 Main: 813.223.7333 Fax: 813.223.2837

WEST PALM BEACH Esperante Building 222 Lakeview Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-6183 Main: 561.653.5000 Fax: 561.659.6313

WASHINGTON 801 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W., Suite 750 Washington, DC 20004 Main: 202.393.6222 Fax: 202.393.5959

www.akerman.com A DV E RT ISE M E N T

Labor and Employment Law Update