Search form

Philadelphia City Council Enacts Broad Scheduling Regulations

By Stephanie J. Peet and Amanda E. Steinke
  • December 20, 2018

The Philadelphia City Council has passed the Philadelphia Fair Workweek Employment Standards Ordinance, intended to regulate scheduling practices for the employers in the city in the hospitality, retail, and food services industries. Mayor Jim Kenney (D) is expected to sign the Ordinance, which would become effective on January 1, 2020.

The Ordinance, passed on December 6, 2018, reflects a growing trend in major cities (including New York City, San Francisco, and Seattle) to reduce abusive employer scheduling practices, and to increase stability in pay and work hours for employees, through legislation.

Covered Employers and Employees

The Ordinance is limited to retailers, hotels, and food service establishments, including chain establishments or franchises, with at least 30 locations and 250 employees worldwide.

The Ordinance will apply to all employees who are non-exempt under either federal or state law, regardless of whether the employees are full-time, part-time, temporary, or seasonal. Union-organized workers likewise are covered, although the Ordinance’s requirements may be waived through clear and explicit language in a collective bargaining agreement.

Scheduling and Pay Requirements

The Ordinance imposes significant scheduling and pay requirements on covered employers, as well as provides protections for employees whose employers fail or refuse to comply with the regulations.

Significantly, under the Ordinance, covered employers must:

  • Provide every covered employee, at the time of hiring, with a written “good faith estimate” of the employee’s work schedule, including the average number of hours the employee can expect to work each week over a typical 90-day period. In addition, at the time of hire the employee has the right to make schedule requests to account for his or her availability or unavailability.
  • For the first year of the Ordinance, release all work schedules of covered employees at least 10 days prior to the start of the scheduled period. Beginning in January 2021, this notice requirement will increase to 14 days.
  • Notify covered employees of all proposed scheduling changes prior to their taking effect.
  • In addition to regular pay for hours worked, compensate a covered employee for changes made to the posted work schedule more than 24 hours after the deadline to release schedules (referred to as “predictability pay”), unless the employee voluntarily consents to the change. A covered employee may decline, without penalty, to work hours or shifts not included in the posted work schedule. If an employee’s hours are increased, or his or her shift schedule is altered with no change in total hours, the employer must pay one hour of predictability pay. Conversely, if the employer decreases the employee’s hours, the employer must pay half-pay, at the employee’s regular rate of pay, for all hours that the employee’s schedule was reduced or canceled.
  • Allow for a minimum of nine hours of rest between shifts. A covered employee may decline, without penalty, hours or shifts that would occur within less than nine hours after the end of the covered employee’s prior shift. However, a covered employee who voluntarily waives the mandatory rest period is entitled to an additional $40 per shift.

Under the Ordinance, employers are restricted in their ability to use outside staffing agencies or other third-party applicant pools in an effort to avoid paying predictability pay to their own employees. Employers must offer work shifts to existing employees before hiring new employees or using staffing agency employees. Employers must make this offer at least 72 hours before the applicable shift(s) and, generally, must give the work to employees who offer to work, unless doing so would result in additional overtime costs.

Predictability pay is not required under certain circumstances. For example, employers need not provide predictability pay when power outages, severe weather, or transit or utility shutdowns occur; when threats to the employer’s property or personnel occur; when an employee’s schedule is altered due to changes involving a ticketed event or hotel banquet that are beyond the employer’s control; or when an employee’s hours are reduced due to termination of employment. In addition, the Ordinance includes a 20-minute grace period for changes to shift times before an employee would be entitled to predictability pay.

Employee Protections and Enforcement

The Ordinance expressly prohibits retaliation and affords a rebuttable presumption of retaliation for any adverse employment action within 90 days of an employee exercising his or her protected rights, unless the adverse action was due to documented disciplinary reasons constituting just cause.

An aggrieved employee may file a complaint of an alleged violation with an agency to be designated by the City of Philadelphia. That agency also may investigate covered employers on its own initiative.

Penalties for a violation of the Ordinance may include back pay, presumed damages, liquidated damages not to exceed $2,000, attorneys’ fees, and equitable relief.

Implications for Covered Employers

If enacted, the Ordinance likely will significantly affect the scheduling practices of covered employers in Philadelphia. While legal challenges are expected, covered employers should begin taking the steps necessary to revise their scheduling policies and practices to comply with the Ordinance.

Jackson Lewis will continue to monitor developments regarding the Ordinance. If you have any questions about the Ordinance or any other wage and hour issue, please contact the Jackson Lewis attorney(s) with whom you regularly work.

©2018 Jackson Lewis P.C. This material is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice nor does it create a client-lawyer relationship between Jackson Lewis and any recipient. Recipients should consult with counsel before taking any actions based on the information contained within this material. This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Reproduction of this material in whole or in part is prohibited without the express prior written consent of Jackson Lewis P.C., a law firm that built its reputation on providing workplace law representation to management. Founded in 1958, the firm has grown to more than 900 attorneys in major cities nationwide serving clients across a wide range of practices and industries including government relations, healthcare and sports law. More information about Jackson Lewis can be found at www.jacksonlewis.com.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

September 13, 2019

California Supreme Court Rejects Claim for Unpaid Wages under PAGA

September 13, 2019

Putting an end to employees’ backdoor attempts to recover unpaid wages in Private Attorneys General Act-only actions under California Labor Code Section 558, the California Supreme Court has ruled against allowing such claims. ZB, N.A., et al. v. Superior Court, No. S246711 (Sept. 12, 2019). This is surprising, as the Court provided... Read More

September 13, 2019

California Worker Misclassification Bill Closer to Enactment

September 13, 2019

The California Assembly has passed a bill that would require workers to be classified as employees if the employer exerts control over how the workers perform their tasks or if their work is part of the employer’s regular business. Assembly Bill 5 (AB 5) passed by a vote of 61-16 in the Assembly. Governor Gavin Newsom has stated his... Read More

September 9, 2019

Non-Agricultural Employers May Use Workweek Averaging to Satisfy State Minimum Wage Obligations in Washington

September 9, 2019

The Washington Supreme Court has confirmed that non-agricultural employers may use a workweek averaging methodology to satisfy the Washington Minimum Wage Act. Sampson et al. v. Knight Transportation Inc. et al., No. 96264-2 (Sept. 5, 2019). In other words, non-agricultural employers can satisfy their state minimum wage... Read More

Related Practices