As we previously reported, in February 2018, the city of Austin, Texas passed a paid sick and safe leave ordinance (the “Ordinance”) that would have required companies to provide paid sick and safe leave to their employees. The Ordinance obligated companies with 15 or more employees to provide eight days of paid leave, and companies with fewer than 15 employees to provide six days of paid leave. The Ordinance was scheduled to go into effect on October 1, 2018.

In Texas Association of Business et al. v. City of Austin, Texas, however, the Texas Court of Appeals recently declared the City of Austin’s Ordinance unconstitutional and ordered the district court to grant a temporary injunction barring its implementation.

The Court held that the Ordinance “violates the Texas Constitution because it is preempted by the Texas Minimum Wage Act”. The Texas Constitution bars city ordinance provisions “inconsistent” with the laws “enacted by the Legislature of the State.” The Texas Court of Appeals held that the Ordinance established a “wage”, violating the Texas Minimum Wage Act (TWMA), and thereby the Texas Constitution.

The TMWA precludes municipalities from regulating “wages” for employers subject to the minimum wage requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Texas Court of Appeals held that the Ordinance regulated “wages” because it requires employers to pay employees for hours they did not work, effectively raising their rate of pay for hours they actually worked. The Court illustrated this concept by using a hypothetical example of an hourly worker who earned $10 per hour, working 15 hours per week, who used 25 hours of accrued sick time in a year. The Court reasoned that under the Ordinance, this employee would receive “$250 for time she did not work, making her actual hourly wage $10.33.” Although the City of Austin argued that “wages” under the TWMA referred only to payments made to compensate workers for their services and not additional benefits, the Texas Court of Appeals disagreed and concluded that the TMWA’s definition of “wages” did not “necessarily preclude the inclusion of paid sick leave.”

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Arielle E. Kobetz Arielle E. Kobetz

Arielle E. Kobetz is an associate in the Labor & Employment Law Department and a member of the Employment Counseling & Training Group. Her practice focuses on providing clients with strategies and counseling related to a variety of workplace-related disputes, including employee terminations…

Arielle E. Kobetz is an associate in the Labor & Employment Law Department and a member of the Employment Counseling & Training Group. Her practice focuses on providing clients with strategies and counseling related to a variety of workplace-related disputes, including employee terminations and discipline, leave and accommodation requests, and general employee relations matters. She also counsels clients on developing, implementing and enforcing personnel policies and procedures and reviewing and revising employee handbooks under federal, state and local law.

Prior to joining Proskauer, Arielle served as a law clerk at the New York City Human Resources Administration, Employment Law Unit, where she worked on a variety of employment discrimination and internal employee disciplinary issues.

Photo of Evandro Gigante Evandro Gigante

Evandro is the go-to employment litigator and counselor when clients face their most challenging, bet the reputation claims, or want to develop policies and practices that mitigate legal risk. As an award-winning partner in the Labor & Employment Law Department, member of the…

Evandro is the go-to employment litigator and counselor when clients face their most challenging, bet the reputation claims, or want to develop policies and practices that mitigate legal risk. As an award-winning partner in the Labor & Employment Law Department, member of the Employment Litigation group, and co-head of the Counseling, Training & Pay Equity group, he represents clients on a variety of labor and employment matters, including allegations of sexual harassment, race, gender, national origin, disability and religious discrimination. In addition, Evandro handles restrictive covenant matters, including non-compete, non-solicitation and trade secret disputes. Evandro also counsels employers through the most sensitive employment issues, including matters involving employer diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.

With a focus on discrimination and harassment claims, Evandro has extensive experience defending clients before federal and state courts. He tries cases before juries and arbitrators and routinely represents clients before administrative agencies such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, as well as state and local human rights commissions. Evandro often draws on his extensive litigation experience to help clients avoid the courtroom by effectuating positive change in the workplace through impactful anti-discrimination and harassment training, as well as robust employment policies.

Working in a wide range of industries, Evandro has experience representing clients in professional services, including law firms, financial services, including private equity and hedge funds, higher education, sports, media, retail, and others. Evandro also advises charter schools and other not-for-profit organizations on labor and employment matters on a pro bono basis.