U.S. Department of Labor Wage Hour Division. Midwest Region 230 South Dearbom Street. Suite 530 Chcago. IL 60616 Ph: 312-596-7186 Fx: 312.596.7206 Chicago. "Hum December 5. 2017 Llewellyn Hinkes-Jones Bloomberg BNA 1801 South Bell Street Arlington, VA 22202 Dear Mr. Hinkes-Jones: The Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division's (WHD) Midwest Regional Of?ce is responding to your request made under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, dated November 2. 2017. Speci?cally. you asked for the following: Copy of the Wage and Hour Division's case ?le for case ID #1686314. After performing an electronic/manual search of our ?les and WHISARD Database System, we located the responsive documents you requested. After completing our review of the responsive documents located. your request has been partially denied due to Exemptions 4, 6, 7(c) and Under Exemption 4, we have determined that certain information within these records is exempt from disclosure pursuant to the provisions of 5 United States Code (U.S.C.) 552(b)4 which protects trade secrets and commercial or ?nancial information that is privileged or con?dential. Under Exemption 6, we have determined that certain information within these records is exempt from disclosure pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552(b)6, Exemption 6 protects 'certaininfOrr'natio? "With?In 't?e 'res'p'onsTVe records such as'social' security numbers and special identi?ers. Under Exemption we have determined that certain information within these records is exempt from disclosure pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. Exemption 7(0) protects from disclosure records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that the production of such law enforcement records or information could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Under Exemption we have determined that certain information within these records is exempt from disclosure pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. Exemption provides protection of records which could reasonably be expected to identify con?dential sources. Because your request did not require a signi?cant amount of agency staff time or resources to process, no processing fee has been assessed. The responsive documents are protected by the Privacy Act of 1974 at 5 U.S.C. 552a. Nevertheless, the Wage and Hour Division has determined that these documents may be released to you, pursuant to a routine use. Responsive documents released total 10 pages and have been enclosed. If you need any further assistance or would like to discuss any aspect of your request please do not hesitate to contact Brenda Haynes, 312-596-7188. If we cannot assist you in your concerns you can also contact the DOL FOIA Public Liaison, Thomas Hicks, at 202-693-5427. Alternatively, you may contact the Of?ce of Government Infomiation Services National Archives and Records Administration (OGIS) to inquire the mediation services they offer. The contact information for is as follow: Of?ce of Government Information Services, National Archives and Records Administration, 8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, MD 20740-6001. You can also reach that of?ce by e-mail at ogis@nara.gov, by phone at 202-741-5770, by fax at 202-741-5769, or by calling toll-free at 1-877-684-6448. Finally, if you are not satis?ed with the response to this request, you may administratively appeal by writing to the Solicitor of Labor within 90 days from the date of this letter. The appeal must state in writing the grounds for the appeal, and it may include any supporting statements or arguments, but such statements are not required. In order to facilitate processing of the appeal, please include your mailing address and daytime telephone number, as well as a copy of the initial request and copy of this letter. The envelope and letter of the appeal should be clearly marked "Freedom of Information Act Appeal." Any amendment to the appeal must be made in writing and received prior to a decision. The appeal should be addressed to the Solicitor of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, Room N2420, Washington, D.C. 20210. Appeals may also be submitted by email to foiaappeal@dol.gov. Appeals submitted to any other email address will not be accepted. incerely, . r1317} ?Brenda Haynes r" Midwest Regional; Of?ce Wage Hour Division 230 S. Dearborn Street, Suite 530 Chicago, IL 60616 Ha nesbrenda dol. ov Phone: 312-596-7186 WHISARD Compliance Action Report U.S. Department of Labor Wage and liner Division Case ID: 1686314 Originating District: Minneapolis MN District Of?ce Local Filing Number: 2013-2504173? Investigating. District: Minneapolis MN District Of?ce WHMIS Case Number Lead Investigator: Ex(b) (BL Ex 03) Registration Date: 02/26/2013 Aasiiznment Dale: 03/259013 Employer Information Investigation Information Trade Name:Wolls Fargo Bank, N. A. Legal Name: Wells Fargo Bank, N. A. Address. 2700 Ave North EIN: 943081343 Suite 300 County. Ramsey NAICS 22 10 .Eictbim Rosav?lo, MN55113 .mp i. Period Investigated From: 02/15/2012 To: 05/19/2013 Rcmvestigption: Investigation Type: (7X0) Recurring. Violation: El Investigation Tool: umnoa lnvosrrgation Future Compliance Agreed: Compliance Status; Agreement to Romodleosolvo (A TR) Involved in A0: El Recommended Action: El Review: CM P: Cl Follow Up Investigation: El Litigation: El Other Action: El Civil Action: Denial of Future Certi?cate: [3 Criminal Action. El BW Payment Deadline: Submit For Opinion: El Trailer i'onns attached: El FMLA. Violation I Compliance Status Iwulamm??s Computed 0W5 Agreed LDs Computed LDs Agreed i Discrimination (9.9. 1 a 30.00 I $0.00 $0.00! 30.00' disciplinary action) I . Agreement to I Remedy/Resolve (Dale: 1305:2017 35.03 AM Case ID. 1636314 Page 1 WHISARD Compliance Action Report Fm Violation I Compliance Status Violations EEs ATPPW: Computed BWs Agreed LDs Computed LDs Agreed CM Ps? Denial of Leave I 1 0 $0.00 $0.00 30. 00 $0.00 Agreement to Remedy/Resolve (A Ti?) i I . Failure to provide General 265000 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Notice/Handbook I Agreement to i Remedy/Resolve (A TR) I Employer Policy Review - 205000 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 - 50.00 Failure/incomplete Rights and Responsibility Notice I Agreement to Remedy/Resolve (A m) . i FMLA Totels: 0 1 $0.00! 30.00 30. 00 so. 00 Total Violations Under FMLA: 53000 30. 00 CMPs computed do not necessaniy meiosis 6MP: assailed. undo?plicated Employees Folio?d:? ?0 ??qr?lJnduplica?tetl Employees Agreed: 4 I .. Total Amount BWs Computed: $0.00 Total Amount BWs Agreed: $0.00 Total Amount LDs Computed: $0.00 Total Amount LDs Agreed: $0.00 Conclusions Recommendations: 42. 25 hrs, cov er, eligible ee, who was given points for two absences due to her SHC- pregnancy, policy review disclosed many de?ciencies, FC with Katie Short, . egreedg) (emove points and correct and clarify policy and comply in future, recommend administrative closing, D) pubs:HRG, 825, F328. 28A, 280 Will Signature Date ?5331/2013 Reviewed By. Date! Date: 12l05iZOl'I 6:35:03 AM Case ID: 1888314 Page 2 ngl? F?mg ?ank, N, A. Casg Case 2013?250-07384 1686314 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. DE Corporation 2700 Snelling Ave North, Suite 300 300 employees MN 55113 Main Of?ce: began 1852 420 Montgomery St >265,000 employees San Francisco, CA 94163 Phone 866 878 5865 There are over 9,000 branches and therefore, It is impractical to list or for the ?rm to provide a list. Corporate Officers Provided of this publicly traded company: John Stumpf, CEO Federal EIN Number: 94-3081343 I?f?u Ind-If'bw I-II-uv??u-? I-i lulu-w. luv 0. Period of Investigation: Limited to (7)03) for period 12/26/12-4/19/13 and policy review 2/15/12-6/19/13 Contact (7)03) Page 1 WI A. :16 1 Debbie Coker, HR Specialist 4, Wells Fargo Leave Management 100 Washington St, 10th Floor Phoenix, AZ 85003-1808 Phone: 602 238 3211 (recorded line, Coker will call back on non-recorded line) In House Counsel and Complaint Resolution Consultant: Katie Short Employment Section Wells Fargo 8: Company Law Department 301 College St, 315t Floor Charlotte, NC 28202 MAC 01053-300 Phone: 704 715 5083 Fax: 704 383 2220 (6). EX (7)03) Coverage: This ?rm operates as a bank and employs over EX (4) employees each working day of 52 calendar weeks in each calendar year. The period of investigation is 12/26/12-4/19/13 for (13) (7)03) and 2/15/12-6/19/13 for the policy review mm.? .fft'bi rat-WE} San Francisco District Of?ce is the Main Of?ce District Office (MODO). Per ADD Alberto Raymond's request, (7)03) was handled locally with a policy review included. Page 2 Wells ?ank, N, 5. ID: Debbie Coker, HR Specialist 4, is one of the responsible persons as she administers FMLA policies and resolves problems employees are experiencing. Katie Short, complaint resolution consultant and attorney, is another responsible person as she works with Wage Hour to resolve FMLA complaints and provides FMLA policy documents and forms for Wage Hour review and facilitates policy changes suggested by Wage Hour. Eligibility: EX WC) works for a covered employer, who employs about 300 individuals at the same work site where she works. Ex (7) has worked for this employer for about 2.5 years when requesting leave and worked about 2, 080 hours in the preceding 12 months. Coker conceded that 55ft?) (7) was eligible for FMLA leave. Qualifying Condition/Serious Health Condition: and (4) EX (7) quali?es for FM LA leave due to her own serious health condition pregnancy and conditions secondary thereto and for the birth of her child. 825.115(b) (7) (D) Employer Noti?cation: There was some concern from both Debbie Coker and Katie Short as to whether EX (7) was requesting her leave correctly. EX (7) thought she was appropriately requesting the leave by talking with her manager. This Wage Hour Investigator explained to her the company's desire for her to call leave management also. She was grateful for the feedback and indicated she would so do in the future. The company '5 written policy is unclear and circuitous in regard to leave policies. Noti?cation was not the heart of the complaint. Status of Compllance: - EX requested FMLA leave due to her pregnancy, which the employer approved. When she experienced morning sickness, she called into work and requested FMLA leave. Her leave was denied. The denial letter Indicated the information provided by the health care Page 3 provider did not meet the requirements of a serious health condition. The ?rm initially had raised concerns about Knapek completing the form and the health care provider just signing off and asking for better completion of some questions. Debbie Coker, HR Specialist 4, indicated to Wage Hour that the health care provider did not speci?cally state on the medical certi?cation that she would experience morning sickness. Coker wanted a separate request for prenatal appointments, morning sickness, physical therapy for pain resulting from the pregnancy, etc. Coker agreed to approve FMLA leave for the day of morning sickness when Wage Hour pointed out the date of the morning sickness was on the medical certi?cation. [5103) (7) had not obtained a medical certi?cation for the physical therapy because she did not want to use leave for the appointments and not earn points back for perfect attendance. During the investigation, she was In a car accident due to bad weather conditions while en route to work. When she called in to work, her supervisor advised her to contact her doctor and not to worry about work. Her doctor told her to go home and rest and come in to the doctor only if something did not feel right with her body. She called her supervisor who was ?ne with her not reporting. The next week her supervisor gave her an attendance point for the absence. Coker approved the day as FMLA and the point was removed. - In business area. every month that an employee does not have unscheduled absences and meets their adherence standards (amount of time available to take calls), an attendance - absences never counted. Under the new policy; if a FMLA absence was unscheduled, the employee still did not receive an attendance point. However, the employee would not have an attendance point removed If the employee had an unscheduled FMLA absence. Film (7) thought the policy had changed after here December absence, but it had been In effect in December. Therefore, Page 4 N. A. 1 4 although the points were removed for the above two discussed absences; she did not earn an extra point removed for either. (13) (7X0) A number of de?cits were Identi?ed, most of which Katie Short agreed to rectify. The letters are in the process of revision and not all are In current use. General concerns were raised that short agreed to take Into consideration with the letter revisions. Policy issues include: 1' 2? 3 4. 5. The 2009 poster is displayed in lieu of 2013. The ?rm indicated they used a rolling FMLA year, but did not indicate If they rolled forward or backward. . The language throughout the policy was unclear and confusing in general and speci?cally as to whether It referred to FMLA or other leave. Policy indicated that employees were automatically approved for FMLA if they were approved for short?term disability without testing for FMLA eligibility. The policy indicated FMLA applies to domestic partners who are not spouses. E?P?ircy'dib not mclude most recent miiltary provis one. 7. 8. 9. Policy did not Include air flight crew eligibility information. Fifteen days to provide medical certi?cation was from when ?rm drafted letter, not receipt of request by employee. Requirement of posting FMLA poster was not Included in policy. 10. Firm assumes eligibility even if employees work at a site where 50 Page 5 ?ank, N. A. C??g 1?E?j4 employees do not work within 75 miles. and 11. Employees are asked to sign release for employer to contact health care provider before the medical certi?cation ls submitted and a need for the authorization is known. Concerns with the letters Include: Employees are noti?ed that they were previously informed erroneously as to whether FMLA was applicable. Firm was warned that there may be rami?cations of the misinformation depending on all the facts. Employees were given ?fteen days from the date the letter was drafted as opposed to the date request was received to provide medical certi?cation. Employees were informed the rolling FMLA year was being used, but not whether the year rolled forward or backward. and Letter approving medical leave did not reference whether federal FMLA was applicable. Disposition: Flnal conference was held on 6/17/13 by telephone with Katie Short complaint resolution consultant, and Elel H6) *5le ll7llcl Investigator, participating. The following issues were discussed In detail: attendance points and FMLA absences, consistency between and FMLA policies on bene?ts, FMLA policies, forms, documents, posters, and letters. Short was notified of the speci?c violations. Debbie Coker, HR Specialist 4, and Short both expressed concerns that the EX (7) may not have been requesting FMLA designat on of her leave correctly. with who was receptive-arid indicated she would follow the procedure now that she was made aware of It. Per Coker, Kolleen Kepler was mailed copies of the following publications: Regulations 825 and Handy Reference Guide to the Fair Labor Standards Act - 1282 on 3/28/13. Page 6 We?; Page ?ank, Coker agreed approve FMLA leave for both days In question for EX (him and short con?rmed also that the days were designated as FMLA. The removal of a point for perfect attendance could not be awarded for either day as all unscheduled absences (FMLA and cancel perfect attendance. Short and Coker were both clear on their company's willingness to comply with the FMLA. A review of the ?rm's handbook, speci?c notice of rights, and FMLA forms was conducted. This review disclosed the deficiencies described above. Short indicated that the letters used for FMLA leave were currently under revision and that she would assure Wage Hour's concerns would be addressed in the new versions. Short committed Wells Fargo to most of the changes requested by Wage Hour. She did refuse to include information on air flight crew eligibility, arguing lrrelevancy, and to clarify that employees do not have to sign a release for their employer to talk to their health care provider at all and especially not before the initial medical certification is received. Additionally, she indicated that if employees use 12 weeks of FMLA designated leave while working at a site where they are not eligible for FM LA leave due to less than 50 employees working within a 75 mile radius, they will not be allowed to use any more FMLA leave that FMLA year even if they transfer to a site where they would be eligible for FMLA, indicating that case law supports her position. Contrary to that position, where employees are allowed to use leave for unmarried domestic partners, they will be allowed to use another 12 weeks for actual FMLA leave. Short did agree that language would be clearer and more consistent throughout the new policy, which may eliminate some of the concerns raised. When The policy will not Indicate that qualifying for short term benefits will not automatically qualify one for FMLA. The new policy will allow ?fteen days from when the employee has access to the FMLA medical certification form (through an Internet link or overnight shipment of the form and requesting letter) for provision. This ?rm will use the Department of Labor Rights and Responsibility Page 7 WIF ankN. .C Notlce going forward and will post the current 2013 FMLA poster. The current military provlslons be incorporated into the policy. lbi(7J{Di Over 265,000 employees will be Impacted by the changes. EX lb) (73' was kept abreast throughout the investigation through engaged conversations. Unfortunately, ?nal update of the results was left through two unreturned voice messages. She had already con?rmed correction of the two points given for FMLA absences and was expecting the bonus points would likely not be awarded. Recommend administrative closing. 6/21/13 Page 8