Healthcare costs are rising about 5%: In 2020, the total cost of health care per employee, including premiums and out-of-pocket costs, is projected to rise to an average of $15,375 in 2020, according to recent research from the National Business Group on Health (NBGH). The 2020 Large Employers' Health Care Strategy and Plan Design Survey found that the total cost of health benefits will rise 5% in 2020. Employers say they will cover nearly 70% of costs, while employees will be responsible for 30%, or nearly $4,500.  To control costs employers identified implementing more virtual care solutions and a more focused strategy on high cost claims as their top initiatives for 2020, while managing prescription drug benefit costs also remains a high priority.   Employer interest in alternative payment and delivery models, including accountable care organizations (ACOs) and high-performance networks (HPNs) remains strong. 31% plan to implement either or both strategies in select markets in 2020, either directly or through their health plan, and that percentage could nearly double to 60% by 2022.   In addition, 49% of employers plan to pursue an advanced primary care strategy in 2020, and another 26% are considering one by 2022. Source: CCH 9/11/19

Suits preferred for interviews:  While casual dress codes are gaining ground in the workplace, job applicants shouldn't put away their power suits just yet, according to new research from global staffing firm Accountemps. In a survey of senior managers, 37% of respondents said candidates should always wear a formal suit when interviewing for a job. A similar percentage (36%) felt proper interview attire depends on the position or department at the company.  Almost all respondents agreed how someone dresses for the job interview is significant: 52% reported it's very important, and 42% said it's at least somewhat important. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the research also shows recommended job interview attire varies by industry: Suits are more often preferred in finance, insurance, and real estate (46%) than construction (28%) or retail (26%). Miami, New York, and Washington, D.C. (54% each) have the highest percentage of managers who said a suit should always be worn to job interviews.  Phoenix (45%), Minneapolis (43%), and Charlotte (42%) have the most managers who said whether a suit should be worn to a job interview depends on the position or department at the company. Austin and Seattle (32% each) are the top markets where a suit may not be necessary if the candidate looks professional.  Source: OfficeTeam 9/10/19

New exempt regulations expected soon:  While Congress was in recess, Acting Secretary of Labor Pizzella and Wage and Hour Administrator Stanton moved a number of key initiatives closer to completion.  In the past 60 days or so, the Department has sent the following regulatory packages to the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for final review: the final rule increasing the salary threshold for exempt status under the FLSA, the final rule clarifying and changing rules related to the regular rate of pay, a proposed rule implementing statutory changes related to tipped employees, and a proposed rule related to the use of fluctuating workweek method of payment.  Generally, regulations spend 60-90 days at OIRA, so we expect to see publication of these rules in the Federal Register in the near future.  Source: Seyfarth Shaw 9/12/19

If you have OPT students, ICE is coming: There have been an increasing number of reports that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has begun conducting workplace site visits for F-1 students employed pursuant to optional practical training (OPT) in the science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields. While ICE has had the authority to conduct on-site inspections since 2016, it has not exercised that authority until recently. Given this new development, companies that employ STEM OPT workers are encouraged to be prepared in case ICE visits their workplaces. In most cases, ICE will provide 48 hours written notice before appearing for a STEM OPT inspection, though ICE may show up unannounced if it is responding to a complaint or has evidence to suggest that the company is not complying with the STEM OPT regulations. The inspection notice will typically include the date of the intended site visit, the name(s) of the STEM OPT employee(s) selected for the site visit, and a request that personnel who can answer questions about the company be present. Once on site, the ICE officer(s) will often request to review and discuss the training plan with the manager responsible for training the STEM OPT employee. The officer(s) will likely ask about the employee’s duties, qualifications, hours, and compensation.  Source:  Ogletree Deakins 9/6/19

Professional football running backs splitting off to form new union:  On August 9, 2019, a group called the International Brotherhood of Professional Running Backs (IBPRB) filed a petition with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) asking that NFL running backs be severed from the NFL Players Association (NFLPA) and formed into a new union.  According to the IBPRB, NFL running backs “have unique career structures; and the current one-size fits all [approach to players contracts] is inappropriate.” The petition looms over the ongoing talks between the NFLPA and the NFL over a new collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The current CBA, created in 2011 and set to expire after the 2020 NFL season, created many restrictions on rookie contracts that particularly affect running backs. Notably, the 2011 CBA agreement created the “franchise tag” which gave NFL teams up to seven years to prevent players from becoming free agents.  The IBPRB petition to “sever a smaller unit,” in theory, would allow it to address the problems that uniquely face running backs. If the drive to sever the NFLPA into two unions were to gain traction, it would be sure to complicate the ongoing talks between the NFL and its players. The NLRB has not yet taken any action on assessing the validity of the petition.  Source: Goldberg Segalla LLP 9/6/19

Did you know that in sexual harassment cases injunctive relief is available?  Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the federal law that prohibits workplace sexual harassment and many other forms of workplace discrimination, “[i]f the court finds that the respondent has intentionally engaged in or is intentionally engaging in an unlawful employment practice charged in the complaint, the court may enjoin the respondent from engaging in such unlawful employment practice, and order such affirmative action as may be appropriate.” Perhaps the most common form of injunctive relief in harassment cases is an order requiring that the employer develop and implement anti-harassment policies.  Courts have also “found to be appropriate injunctions enjoining employers from employing individuals found liable for Title VII violations and from allowing such individuals to enter the employer’s premises.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found that a district court had abused its discretion when it refused to issue an order in accordance with a verdict in which the jury determined the company should be prohibited from directly employing the harasser in the future and from permitting the harasser to enter its premises.  Other courts in recent years have also declined to dismiss claims for injunctive relief that sought an order requiring a company to install monitored security cameras and to terminate certain employees refrain from changing the plaintiff’s schedule. Source: Katz Marshall & Banks LLP 9/11/19