World of Work

ICE Targets Employers by Launching I-9 Audit Program

ajdecristoforo@stoel.com (Tony DeCristoforo) — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 12:55:12 -0800

Implementing a new audit initiative, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Service (ICE) has served Notices of Inspection on 652 businesses nationwide. The notices inform employers that ICE will be inspecting their I-9's and other employment records to ascertain whether the employers are in compliance with federal immigration laws and regulations.

The Obama administration appears to be taking a new approach to immigration law compliance by focusing its enforcement activities on employers. Under the Bush administration, ICE was known for sending armed agents into workplaces to round up employees suspected of working illegally. According to this press release issued by ICE, the new strategy is to dedicate resources to auditing and investigating employers in order to reduce the demand for illegal employment .

The 652 Notices of Inspection served last week exceed the total number of notices that ICE served in all of 2008. It appears that these notices are just the first wave of employer audits. In light of ICE's increased auditing activities, now is the time to conduct your own internal audit and ensure that you have proper immigration compliance measures in place.

Proposed "LAW" Would Index Federal Minimum Wage to Poverty Level

dwestlind@stoel.com (Dennis Westlind) — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 07:40:02 -0800

The recently proposed Living American Wage Act (LAW) would tie the federal minimum wage to the federal poverty threshold for a family of two with one child. Introduced last week by Rep. Al Green (D-Texas), LAW would index the minimum wage to 15 percent above the poverty line for a full-time worker, or about $8.20 per hour in wages, and it would increase the minimum wage every four years to maintain a wage at least 15 percent above the poverty line. For more information, click to read Rep. Green’s press release on LAW.

Such an indexed minimum wage would not be unique. Oregon adjusts its minimum wage each year based on the U.S. City Average Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers for All Items. Currently, Oregon's minimum wage is $8.40 per hour. For a list of the minimum wages in other states, click here for the Department of Labor's handy list of minimum wages by state, effective January 1, 2009

We’ll keep watching to see if LAW becomes law. Until then, please note that the federal minimum wage will increase to $7.25 per hour effective July 24, 2009.

Al Franken and EFCA

vjkisch@stoel.com (Victor Kisch) — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:16:13 -0800

After months of litigation, Al Franken has been declared the winner of the Senate race in Minnesota. He will be the 60th Democrat in the Senate, which could enable the Democrats to override a filibuster in the Senate.

So the question becomes where does Senator Franken stand on the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA)? Just as a reminder, this is the bill, which gives unions the right to organize by showing that a majority of employees signed cards and it basically does away with secret ballot elections.

Here is Senator Franken's answer:

Ouch. He doesn't sugarcoat it, does he? Senator Franken is a big supporter of EFCA. So, what does this mean? It makes it more likely that Democrats will push the original bill forward in the Senate or will not compromise (too much) on the original terms. Stay tuned. The EFCA drama is likely to play out in 2009.

Washington Supreme Court Decides Morgan v. Kingen - Bankruptcy is No Defense

daswedlow@stoel.com (Dan Swedlow) — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 09:40:41 -0800

The Washington Supreme Court issued a decision today in Morgan v. Kingen, holding that bankruptcy is not a valid defense to a willful withholding of wages under RCW 49.52.070. The plaintiffs in this case worked at Funsters Grand Casino in SeaTac, Washington. The casino was not a success and the owners voluntarily filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy after only one year in business. After it became clear that the owners were not going to inject badly needed capital, the bankruptcy court converted the proceedings to a complete liquidation under Chapter 7. After the conversion, the owners couldn't have paid their employees even if they had wanted to (at least from the seized Funster assets).

The plaintiffs brought a class action lawsuit on behalf of over 180 employees to recover unpaid wages. The owners of the bankrupt casino argued that while the wages were admittedly owed, the withholding was not willful because the assets were seized in bankruptcy. This distinction is crucially important because willful withholding of wages allows a plaintiff to recover double damages, attorneys' fees and exposes the withholder to personal liability. The owners of the bankrupt casino were thus personally liable for twice the amount of all the unpaid wages plus attorneys' fees unless they could assert a bankruptcy defense. They tried. They failed at the trial level, the appellate level, and as of today, at the Washington Supreme Court as well. Justice Sanders dissented, noting that the owners could not have paid as their assets were seized and unavailable. He was joined by Justice Johnson and Justice Sweeney, pro tem.

The bottom line for businesses in Washington remains unchanged by this decision. A financial inability to pay wages does not constitute a defense to a willful withholding of wages. Today's decision establishes that even a complete liquidation in bankruptcy is no defense. The lesson? If your business is failing and it looks like there may not be enough assets to satisfy all the looming creditors, you might want to seriously consider paying wages before anything else.

Seventh Circuit Rules FLSA Doesn't Protect Verbal Complaints

pkrunkles-pearson@stoel.com (P.K. Runkles-Pearson) — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 13:52:40 -0800

Most employment lawyers and HR professionals know that firing an employee for making a complaint about being paid properly is a recipe for disaster. This week in Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals thought differently, at least for verbal complaints about violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The plaintiff, Kevin Kasten, was reprimanded three times for failing to clock in and out. In response, he complained that the location of the time clock was illegal because, among other things, it prevented employees from being paid for time donning and doffing protective gear. After Kasten failed to clock in a fourth time, he was terminated. Kasten sued under the FLSA, claiming that he had been terminated in retaliation for his complaint.

The FLSA protects employees who have "filed any complaint" under FLSA and whose employers retaliate against them for complaining. The Seventh Circuit ruled that because a complaint must be "filed," verbal complaints are not protected by FLSA.

The takeaway? Despite this ruling, we at the World of Work think that employers should be wary of terminating employees for verbal complaints. As others have noted, the case law in other circuits may contradict the Seventh Circuit on this issue. Even more crucially, plaintiffs making verbal complaints may have other causes of action under state statutory law or common law.

DOL Secures $3.4 Million Settlement for NY Car Wash Employees

dwestlind@stoel.com (Dennis Westlind) — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 10:23:16 -0800

A portend of things to come in federal wage enforcment? Yesterday, a group of New York car washes have agreed to pay over one thousand current and former employees a total of $3.4 million to settle a lawsuit filed by the Department of Labor (DOL) alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Click here to read the consent decree in Solis v. LMC et al.

As we reported back in May, the Department of Labor received a budget increase of 10 percent and is devoting most of that increase to enforcement. Employers can expect to see more activity from the DOL to enforce wage and hour laws, especially large cases against groups of employers.

In the meantime, sit back, relax and enjoy Rose Royce:

Federal Minimum Wage Increases to $7.25 Effective July 24

dwestlind@stoel.com (Dennis Westlind) — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 07:17:04 -0800

Employers take note: the federal minimum wage increases to $7.25 per hour effective July 24, 2009. For more information, check out the Department of Labor's Fair Labor Standards Act site.

Of course, many states also have minimum wage laws, an where an employee is subject to both state and federal minimum wage laws, the employee is entitled to the higher minimum wage. Click here for the Department of Labor's handy list of minimum wages by state, effective January 1, 2009. (Note: the chart does not accurately reflect that Nevada's minimum wage will increase effective July 1, 2009 increase from $5.85 per hour to $6.55 per hour, while the minimum wage for employees not receiving health benefits will increase from $6.85 per hour to $7.55 per hour).

Need the Department of Labor's minimum wage posters? Here they are:

Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Case About Meddling International Union

daswedlow@stoel.com (Dan Swedlow) — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 04:00:00 -0800

The US Supreme Court just agreed to hear a case asking just how much international unions will be allowed to meddle in the affairs of their local affiliates. In Granite Rock v. Teamsters, the employer sued the International Brotherhood of Teamsters in federal court claiming that the International interfered with the relationship between the employer and the Local Teamsters union.

In Granite, the employer and the Local had reached a tentative new agreement which contained a no-strike clause. The employer alleged that the Local ratified the agreement and then engaged in a strike. Apparently a high ranking official of the International was the motivating force behind the strike. The 9th Circuit held that the employer could not sue the International because the agreement was between the employer and the Local, and did not involve the International. The Supreme Court granted cert and will hear the case, perhaps recognizing that international unions are often working behind the scenes with their local unions.

The Court will probably not hear the case until the 2010 session, and it could be some time before an opinion is issued. It is not uncommon for employers to have good relationships with local unions. Sometimes those relationships are strained through pressure from out-of-town international union officials. Currently, international unions are somewhat insulated from liability for meddling in negotiations and other ongoing business relationships between local unions and employers. Ultimately, this decision could open a new legal avenue for employers to hold international unions accountable for their actions.

Oregon Musicians No Longer Presumed Employees for Unemployment Purposes

pkrunkles-pearson@stoel.com (P.K. Runkles-Pearson) — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:42:26 -0800

Sine die! The Oregon Legislature's biennial session has come to a close, providing a perfect opportunity for the World of Work to take a look at what passed, what failed, and what flew under the radar.

One helpful new statute fixes a problem for employers who operate music venues. In late 2007, Mississippi Studios, a hip North Portland nightspot and recording studio, got nailed in an Oregon Employment Department audit for not paying unemployment taxes on musicians who played at the venue. Mississippi assumed that the musicians were not employees, but were independent contractors according to the Department's test. Not so fast. Mississippi was unaware of ORS 657.506, an obscure provision in Oregon statute that presumed musicians are employees unless otherwise stated in an employment agreement.

The new statute, which went into effect immediately on passage, repeals the old rule and treats Oregon musicians just like everybody else. The bill is simply drafted and repairs some bad lawmaking. Way to go, legislature! This time you were up there with the best.

9th Circuit Orders Damages, but Not Reinstatement for Unauthorized Alien Workers

dwestlind@stoel.com (Dennis Westlind) — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 07:37:57 -0800

What's an employer to do when it is ordered to reinstate former employees, but those employees are not legally authorized to work in the United States? Pay liquidated damages instead, according to the Ninth Circuit's recent decision in NLRB v. C&C Roofing Supply Inc.

In C&C, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) alleged that the employer unlawfully fired 20 workers for engaging in union activity. The parties reached a formal settlement that called for reinstatement of the illegally fired workers and payment of specific amounts of liquidated damages to each. However, the employer then refused to reinstate the employees because many of them were unauthorized aliens and rehiring them would violate the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) and the Legal Arizona Workers Act, which both prohibit hiring unauthorized aliens.

The Ninth Circuit solved the dilemma by ordering the employer to pay the agreed-upon liquidated damages, but did not require the employer to reinstate the unauthorized employees. But how does this case square with Hoffman Plastic Compounds Inc. v. NLRB? There, the U.S. Supreme Court held 5-4 that the board may not order back pay for unauthorized aliens, despite their firing in violation of federal labor law, because doing so would violate immigration policy expressed in IRCA. In C&C, the Ninth Circuit dodged that issue by ruling that agreed-upon liquidated damages as part of a settlement do not raise the same issues as back pay ordered by the court, as the employees need not be "available to work" in order to receive liquidated damages. Don't be surprised if this one gets appealed up to the Supreme Court for a determination if it really does square with Hoffman.

Ricci v. DeStefano -- Supreme Court Holds City Violated Title VII By Rejecting Racially Disparate Test Results

mealifanz@stoel.com (Marc Alifanz) — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 08:24:41 -0800

To end its term, the Supreme Court today issued its long awaited opinion in Ricci v. DeStefano--a case that has received extra media attention because Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor was on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals panel that decided the case below. The conservative justices on the Court reversed the Second Circuit (and by extension, Judge Sotomayor) in a 5-4 decision, ruling that the city of New Haven violated Title VII by discarding the results of a firefighter promotion test where white applicants fared disproportionately better than other applicants. As one might expect, Justice Kennedy provided the swing vote and authored the majority opinion.

New Haven used the test in question to identify firefighters best qualified for promotion. Despite being objectively administered, the test's racially disproportionate results led the city to question whether it should validate the results. The city, of course, found itself in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" position: certify the test results, and face Title VII disparate impact litigation from minority applicants; fail to certify them, and face Title VII reverse discrimination litigation from the white officers who passed but were denied a promotion. The city opted for the latter course, and, as expected, the white firefighters filed a reverse discrimination lawsuit. The city prevailed on summary judgment at the district court level, and the Second Circuit affirmed.

The Supreme Court found that discarding the tests violated Title VII , while certifying the test would not have been a violation of law because there was no "strong basis in evidence" for believing that the black firefighters would prevail on a disparate impact claim. The court noted that despite what otherwise would have constituted a "prima facie" showing of disparate impact race discrimination, several defenses were available to the city--namely that the exam at issue was job related, consistent with business necessity, and there existed no equally valid, less discriminatory alternative that suited the city's needs but was not adopted. The four dissenting justices disagreed, arguing that the majority's analysis was flawed because "New Haven had ample cause to believe its selection process was flawed and not justified by business necessity."

Ultimately, the Ricci decision will have little to no impact on most employers, but represents a small victory for employers (despite the positioning here that held against the city/employer). Employers can now take a somewhat more confident stand in backing test results that may demonstrate some disparate impact, so long as the test was objective and no other less discriminatory alternative exists. The Ricci decision may not last for long, however. Political condemnation by Democrats has been swift, with Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) saying that "it is less likely now that employers will conscientiously try to fulfill their obligations under this time-honored civil rights law. This is a cramped decision that threatens to erode these protections and to harm the efforts of state and local governments that want to build the most qualified workforces." Don't be surprised if Congress passes legislation down the road aimed at upending the Ricci decision.

FOREWARN Act Introduced - Changes to WARN Act in 2009?

dwestlind@stoel.com (Dennis Westlind) — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 07:26:21 -0800

Last week, the Federal Oversight, Reform, and Enforcement of the WARN (FOREWARN) Act was introduced in the House by Rep. George Miller (D-CA) and in the Senate by Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH). FOREWARN aims to amend the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act by requiring more and smaller employers to notify workers of plant closings or mass layoffs. FOREWARN also would increase penalties for employers who violate the act. For more information, click here to read Senator Brown's press release on FOREWARN.

This isn't the first time in Congress for FOREWARN; it was introduced in 2007, but failed to gain traction, perhaps because of a likely veto from the then Bush White House had it passed. The reintroduction of FOREWARN does not come as a big surprise: the World of Work warned (ouch! bad pun!) that changes were coming to the WARN Act back in March. Better yet, we predicted FOREWARN would be on then President-Elect Obama's agenda back in November 2008.

While FOREWARN is still making its way through Congress, employers must comply with the existing WARN Act, and we have some WARN Act resources to help:

For a basic overview of the law, here's a basic WARN Act Fact Sheet.
For more detailed information, download the Employer's Guide to the WARN Act (a great resource and our personal favorite).
Next, if your layoff is caused by an "act of God," you might want to download the WARN Act Natural Disaster Fact Sheet.
And finally, you can read what the DOL is telling your employees: the Workers' Guide to the WARN Act, and for Spanish-speaking employees, the Guía para el Trabajadores.

Employment Non-Discrimination Act: Is This the Year?

dwestlind@stoel.com (Dennis Westlind) — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 07:10:33 -0800

Just in time for Pride Month, Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) introduced the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2009 (ENDA) earlier this week. If passed, ENDA would prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. It would also prohibit employers retaliation against employees who oppose such discrimination who participate in any investigation or proceeding under ENDA. To read more about ENDA, check out this article from the Human Rights Campaign.

ENDA would be the first federal law prohibiting sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of, among other things, sex; it does not explicitly prohibit sexual orientation or gender identity discrimination). Several states already have similar protections in place, but ENDA would apply nationwide. ENDA would exempt from its coverage small businesses (those with less than 15 employees), religious organizations, and the armed forces.

This isn't ENDA's first trip through Congress; versions of the bill have been introduced in almost every Congress since 1994. However, with a strong Democratic majority in both houses of Congress, a Democratic President who is feeling the heat from the GLBTQ community, and the gay rights movement riding a wave of successes in state legislatures, 2009 may well be the year ENDA becomes law.

Employers whose policies and handbooks don't already address discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity should consider a revision. For an example of how one company has addressed such discrimination, click here to read IBM's anti-discrimination policy. Click here for a state-by-state analysis of existing sexual orientation discrimination laws;

Oregon Legislature Bans Mandatory Meetings

dwestlind@stoel.com (Dennis Westlind) — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 10:47:14 -0800

A new Oregon bill will prohibit employers from requiring employees to attend mandatory or "captive audience" meetings on, among other topics, labor unions. Governor Ted Kulongoski is expected to sign the bill, which would them become law effective January 1, 2010. Click here to read SB 519.

SB 519 prohibits an employer from taking action against an employee who refuses to participate in communications concerning the employer’s opinions on religious or political matters. Religious or political matters is defined broadly and includes communications to employees about unionization. An employee who suffers economic loss (through termination or suspension) as a result of the bill can sue his or her employer and recover treble damages. The bill also allows employees to obtain an injunction prohibiting additional "captive audience" meetings.

This law might not be long-lived: the U.S. Supreme Court found a similar California law to be preempted by federal labor law. Click here to read that opinion in Chamber of Commerce v. Brown. Even if a court finds Oregon's statute to be similarly preempted (and we believe a court will), the law could still apply to employers that are not covered by federal labor law - namely, Oregon public and agricultural employers. Also, the word from Salem is that the legislature will still revise the law to provide additional protections for religious employers (such as churches and some hospitals) who hold religious meetings, so keep an eye out for those changes in the next week or so.

City of Bozeman Reverses Course, Stops Asking for Social Media Passwords

mealifanz@stoel.com (Marc Alifanz) — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:56:30 -0800

In a new development on yesterday's story, the City of Bozeman, Montana must have been listening to the cacophony of criticism from privacy and employment lawyers alike relating to its new policy asking job applicants for their username and passwords for social networking sites such as Facebook and MySpace.

The Billings Gazette reports that the Bozeman City Commission has voted to abandon the policy, which one commissioner called an "egregious violation of privacy." Interestingly, the policy has been in place for well over a year, but nobody bothered to look closely at the privacy or employment law implications until the media picked up on the story.

Given that most HR professionals wouldn't dream of asking applicants about the kinds of information easily found on social networking sites (even without needing a password), this reversal of course falls in the "better late than never" category of HR decisions.

Labor Unions Targeting Green Energy Development

dwestlind@stoel.com (Dennis Westlind) — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:01:31 -0800

Labor unions are seeing a rare growth opportunity in green power. Despite the recession, there has been a building boom in green energy, in particular solar and wind projects. As reported recently in the New York Times, labor unions see something in green energy for them as well, and they're using intense political pressure to get it.

When a new solar or wind project is being built, a union will approach the builder and demand that it use only union labor on the project. If the builder agrees, the union then urges local regulators to quickly approve the project; if the builder refuses, however, the union then raises myriad environmental concerns with regulators in an attempt to stall or even completely derail the project. Apparently, a union-built solar installation won't have the same impact on the habitat of the short-nosed kangaroo rat or the ferruginous hawk as a non-union one. Right.

These tactics aren't new; labor unions have made aggressive use of the environmental laws for years to put pressure on traditional energy producers to use union labor. But, with union membership in an overall decline, unions are desperate to maintain relevance in the growing green economy.

Interested in wind, solar and other forms renewable energy? Check out our sister blog, Renewable + Law, from Stoel Rives' Renewable Energy Initiative.

Employer Asks Applicants for Facebook, MySpace Passwords

dwestlind@stoel.com (Dennis Westlind) — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 07:43:53 -0800

Besides asking about applicants' educational history and employment background, the City of Bozeman, Montana is also asking job applicants for their usernames and passwords for social networking websites such as Facebook and MySpace. Click here to read the full story from ABCnews.com.

It has become increasingly common over the last few years for employers to research job applicants through social networking sites. In fact, the Delaware Employment Law Blog has some very interesting results from a study on employers' use of social networking sites to screen job applicants. Employers are rejecting job candidates based on postings on drug and alcohol use, inappropriate pictures, and even inappropriate screen names.

But is researching applicants through Facebook, MySpace and Twitter always such a good idea? The conventional interviewing wisdom is to avoid personal questions that could make the hiring process appear biased. Interview questions like "are you married?" or "do you have children?" are generally avoided, as they might make the interview appear to be making decisions based on marital status or family composition. Social networking sites often contain the same information that a good HR person wouldn't dream of asking in a million years. To be safer, employers might want to make reviewing Facebook part of a post-offer background check.

Speaking of social networking, the World of Work is there. Click here to follow us on Facebook; click here to follow us on Twitter. Please just ignore those pictures of us from last year's office New Year's party.

Supreme Court Tightens Standards for Age Discrimination Plaintiffs

dwestlind@stoel.com (Dennis Westlind) — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 06:42:01 -0800

Yesterday the United States Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that trial courts may not use a "mixed motive" framework in federal age discrimination cases. Rather, plaintiffs in age discrimination cases must prove that "but for" their age, they would not have been discriminated against. Click here to read the Court's decision in Gross v. FBL Financial Services.

Under a 1991 amendment to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, plaintiffs may prove race, sex, religion or national origin discrimination by proving either they would not have been discriminated against "but for" their employer's unlawful motive, or if their employer had a "mixed motive," meaning that the employer had some lawful motives to take an adverse action against the employee, but also some unlawful motives. In "mixed motive" cases, employers can avoid some (but not all) liability by proving that it would have taken the same action against the employee even absent the unlawful motive. Prior to Gross, several circuit courts (including the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals) had applied the "mixed motive" framework in cases under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act or the Americans with Disabilities Act, even though those statutes do not incorporate a"mixed motive" framework.

Gross is ultimately a technical case mostly of interest to employment litigators. Gross will make it incrementally more difficult for plaintiffs to prevail in age discrimination and some other federal discrimination cases. Employers do not need to change their current policies and practices in light of Gross - rather, employers should continue not to discriminate on the basis of age, sex or any other characteristic protected by federal, state or local law. (Well, duh!)

Extension of Federal Benefits to Same-Sex Partners Falls Short of Goals

dwestlind@stoel.com (Dennis Westlind) — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 07:10:25 -0800

The memorandum issued by President Obama yesterday extends some benefits to the same-sex partners of federal employees, including access to a government insurance program that pays for long-term conditions such as Alzheimer's disease, and to sick leave to care for a sick same-sex partner or a non-biological child. However, the extension did not provide eligibility for health care to same-sex partners, drawing protest from gay activists.

Why did President Obama stop short? The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the 1996 federal law that, among other things, defines marriage as a legal union exclusively between one man and one woman. According to President Obama's press statement, the White House determined that DOMA prevented an extension of all benefits to same-sex partners, including health care. In the statement, President Obama called on Congress to repeal DOMA and signaled an intend to extend all benefits to same-sex partners if and when that happens.

President Obama's actions will clearly impact Federal agencies and their employees, but what effect does it have on private employers? For now, none - the memorandum only applies to the federal government. However, it does signal a growing trend in mandating the extension of employee benefits to same-sex partners. States that recognize same-sex marriage generally require private employers to extend benefits to same-sex spouses; other states that do not recognize same-sex marriages but do recognize same-sex partnerships (such as Oregon, Washington and California) may require private employers to extend benefits to same-sex partners under certain circumstances. Private employers should consult legal counsel about their possible obligation to provide such benefits.

Obama To Extend Job Benefits to Same-Sex Partners

dwestlind@stoel.com (Dennis Westlind) — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 07:09:24 -0800

The New York Times is reporting that President Obama will sign an order later today extending some -- but not all -- job benefits to the same-sex partners of federal employees. According to reports, the order will come short of providing full health care coverage to same-sex partners. Check back in with the World of Work for details as they emerge.