Counseling & Compliance Training - Page 69 of 91

No More No-Gossip Policies?

A National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) administrative law judge ruled recently that the “no-gossip” policy of Laurus Technical Institute, a for-profit technical school located in Georgia, broke federal law because it was overly broad, ambiguous and restricted employees from discussing or complaining about any terms and/or conditions of employment, even though nothing in Laurus’s policy directly addressed discussions about wages, hours or other employment terms and conditions.

Kate Gold, partner in the Los Angeles office, recently told Human Resource Executive Online during an interview on the topic of the Laurus decision and no-gossip policies for employers, “Though the NLRB has been focused on other policies that could violate an employee’s right to engage in protected concerted activity — such as social media or confidentiality policies — no-gossip policies can be especially problematic.”

Kate went on to say “I would not include it among the top 10 or even the top 20 essential policies an employer should include in a handbook or policy manual, such as an at-will, anti-harassment or reasonable accommodation policy. However, given the type of concern raised by a no-gossip policy, there could be other employer policies that are problematic for the same reasons. The issue raised by an overbroad no-gossip policy is whether it constitutes an unlawful restriction on an employee’s right to engage in protected concerted activity under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act.”

For the full text of the article click here.

New Jersey’s Whistleblower Law Is Not An End Run Around Labor Law Preemption

New Jersey’s Appellate Division has rejected two Atlantic City nightclub workers’ attempts to artfully plead their way around preemption under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) by alleging a whistleblower claim under New Jersey’s Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA). The case was brought by two “Tipped Floor Euros,” i.e., alcoholic beverage servers, who alleged retaliation and constructive discharge following their complaints regarding tip-pooling, wage payments and being forced to perform duties prohibited by the collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The case is O’Donnell v. Nightlife, et al. (April 17, 2014).

In rejecting the plaintiffs’ CEPA claims, the Appellate Division took a narrow view of the whistleblower statute, citing the standard that the conduct complained of must “pose a threat of public harm, not merely private harm or harm only to the aggrieved employee.” [Opinion, p. 11, available here, citing Mehlman v. Mobil Oil Corp., 153 N.J. 163, 188 (1988)] The Appellate Court agreed with the trial court that most of the plaintiffs’ complaints alleged violations of the CBA, not violations of law, and accordingly, not violations of CEPA.

The Appellate Division also took a broad view of preemption under the NLRA and LMRA. The Court gave credit to plaintiffs’ attempts to “artfully phrase” the language in the complaint – alleging that failure to pay the share of the nightly tip pool constituted “fraud” and failure to pay full minimum wage for non-tipped work constituted a “violation of [New Jersey] wage and hour laws.” However, the Appellate Division ultimately ruled that such state causes of action are presumptively preempted under NLRA and LMRA and were appropriately dismissed as preempted because they each ultimately asserted violations of the CBA or claims that required interpretation of the CBA.

Accordingly, based on this precedent, a unionized employee’s remedy lies not under CEPA but through the union grievance procedure and the relief available under Sections 7 and 8 of the NLRA.

Philadelphia Pregnancy Accommodation Law: Notice Requirement Begins on April 20, 2014

On January 20, 2014, Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter signed into effect an amendment to the city’s Fair Practices Ordinance: Protections Against Unlawful Discrimination that expressly includes pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition among those categories protected from unlawful discrimination.

The city law covers employers who do business in Philadelphia through employees or who employ one or more employees. Before this amendment, employers’ obligations under city, state, and federal antidiscrimination laws only required them to treat employees with pregnancy-related issues no worse than any other disabled employee with respect to accommodations. Now employers are not only prohibited from denying or interfering with an individual’s employment opportunities on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, but employers also are required to make reasonable accommodations on these bases to an employee who requests it. The legislation’s non-exhaustive examples of reasonable accommodations include restroom breaks, periodic rest for those who stand for long periods of time, assistance with manual labor, leave for a period of disability arising from childbirth, reassignment to a vacant position, and job restructuring. Employers have an affirmative defense under the law for failing to accommodate an employee if such accommodations would cause an undue hardship.

Employers should take note that this law increases the burden on them to provide reasonable accommodations, since examples like reassignment and job restructuring have traditionally not been required under similar federal and state laws that mandate accommodations for individuals with disabilities. Thus, employers should review their policies and other written materials regarding employee accommodations to ensure that they reflect the increased protections afforded by the amendment. Employers were required to provide written notice to its employees of the protections under this amendment by April 20th or post the notice conspicuously at its place of business in an area accessible to employees. The Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations has provided a model notice to employees, which can be found at: http://www.phila.gov/HumanRelations/PDF/pregnancy_poster.pdf.

Supreme Court Expands Scope of Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Protections

Editor’s Note: The following post appears in the latest issue of the California HR Newsletter.

Supreme Court Expands Scope of Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblower Protections

The Issue: My company is not publicly traded, but provides services to companies that are. Do Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower protections extend to our employees?

The Solution: Yes.

Analysis: Enacted in the wake of the Enron and Worldcom scandals, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act imposes increased reporting standards on publicly-traded companies and the outside accountants, consultants, and lawyers supporting them. Section 1514A prohibits public companies, or their contractors or agents, from using adverse employment action, threat, or harassment to retaliate against “an employee” who blows the whistle (internally or externally) on perceived violations of the Act, SEC regulation, or any other federal law relating to shareholder fraud. Though civil remedies are largely coextensive with California’s employee anti-retaliation provisions, federal claims brought under section 1514A are exempt from arbitration and entail potential criminal penalties, including up to ten years of jail time for the responsible decision-makers.

In Lawson v. FMR LLC, decided in early March, the Supreme Court significantly expanded the scope of section 1514A’s protection, extending it to employees of service providers to public companies. The plaintiffs in Lawson were accountants formerly employed by FMR, a private contractor that prepares SEC filings for publicly traded mutual funds. They were allegedly terminated for raising concerns to their superiors regarding accounting and reporting methodologies used by FMR. FMR argued that the case should be dismissed because section 1514A, titled “Whistleblower protection for employees of publicly traded companies,” regulates private contractors only to the extent they are used to retaliate against public company employees, and does not shield a private contractor’s own employees.

The Supreme Court disagreed. Reversing the First Circuit, the Court held that, “based on the text of 1514A, the mischief to which Congress was responding, and earlier legislation Congress drew upon, . . . the provision shelters employees of private contractors and subcontractors, just as it shelters employees of the public company served by the contractors and subcontractors.” Though this expansive interpretation could generate a wide range of potential plaintiffs (a fact duly noted in the dissent), the Court indicated that professional service providers, such as the accountant plaintiffs in Lawson, are the intended and most likely beneficiaries.

Accordingly, private companies providing professional services to publicly traded clients should ensure they have appropriate procedures in place for responding to employee questions or complaints that may be regarded as “whistleblowing.” Failure to do so may expose them to federal remedies above and beyond those already imposed by California law.

Proposed California Paid Sick Leave Law Will Require Employers to Provide Paid Sick Leave to Employees

Are you a California employer currently providing paid sick leave to your employees? You may soon have to! California Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez (D-San Diego) recently introduced legislation (Bill AB1522) approved by the Assembly Labor and Employment Committee requiring employers in the State of California to provide their employees with paid sick leave.

This bill would enact the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014 to provide, among other things, that an employee who works in California for 7 or more days in a calendar year is entitled to paid sick days to be accrued at a rate of no less than one hour for every 30 hours worked. An employee would be entitled to use accrued sick days beginning on the 90th calendar day of employment. And employers would be subject to statutory penalties as well as lawsuits, including the recovery of attorneys fees by the aggrieved employee against employers, for alleged violations.

It is important to note that this type of bill is not new in California, as the San Francisco Paid Sick Leave Ordinance became effective on February 5, 2007 and all employers must provide paid sick leave to each employee — including temporary and part-time employees — who performs work in San Francisco.

The California Chamber of Commerce as well as other employer groups are opposed to this bill and view it as a job killer.

Stay tuned….

Just Don’t Ask: With The Fair Chance Ordinance, San Francisco Joins A Growing Number Of Jurisdictions That Restrict Employers’ Pre-Hire Inquiries About Applicants’ Criminal Histories

In February 2014, San Francisco joined the growing number of jurisdictions that have enacted so-called “ban the box” laws. Like many of its counterparts, San Francisco’s Fair Chance Ordinance, which will become effective in August 2014, significantly limits employers’ abilities to inquire about and/or consider applicants’ and employees’ criminal records when making employment decisions.

Pursuant to the Ordinance, San Francisco employers are prohibited from asking about applicants’ criminal histories until either (a) after the applicants’ first live interview, or (b) after a conditional offer of employment has been extended. However, the Ordinance places considerable limits on obtaining and using any information obtained. Specifically, employers are prohibited from inquiring about or taking any adverse action against applicants or current employees based on: (a) any arrests not leading to a conviction, except for some unresolved (i.e., pending) arrests; (b) participation in or completion of a diversion or deferral of judgment program; (c) convictions that have been judicially dismissed, expunged, voided, invalidated or otherwise rendered inoperative; (d) convictions or other determinations of the juvenile justice system; (e) convictions older than seven years; and/or (f) information pertaining to any offense other than a felony or misdemeanor (e.g., infractions). Before making any inquiry about an applicant’s conviction history, the Ordinance requires that the employer provide the applicant in question with a notice promulgated by the San Francisco Office of Labor Standards Enforcement (“OLSE”).

The Ordinance also requires that employers engage in an individualized assessment and consider only directly-related convictions when making decisions about applicants. Employers also must consider the amount of time that has elapsed since the applicants’ convictions and any evidence of rehabilitation, inaccuracy of the applicants’ records, and/or other mitigating factors. Before making any adverse decision, employers are required to provide the employee with a written notice of their intention to make such a decision, detailing the reasons for the decision. In addition, if any background report was considered by the employer, the employer must also provide that to the applicant. Any affected candidate has seven days following receipt of the employer’s notice to submit evidence regarding: (i) the inaccuracy of the criminal history information; or (ii) rehabilitation or mitigating factors. If the employer receives such information from an applicant, it must delay its intended action and consider the additional information.

In addition to the above restrictions, the Ordinance contains strict anti-retaliation/interference provisions. The Ordinance also requires that employers post a notice of applicants’ and employees’ rights in a conspicuous place at every workplace, job site, or other location in San Francisco that is under the employer’s control and that is frequently visited by employees or applicants. In addition, any job postings must contain a notice that the employer will comply with the Ordinance’s requirements.

Though San Francisco’s ordinance is particularly stringent, the City is by no means alone in banning employers from inquiries about applicants’ criminal pasts: dozens of cities and several other states – including Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Rhode Island – have enacted similar “ban the box” legislation. Moreover, there are a growing number of organizations pushing for the enactment of similar laws and ordinances across the country.

Employers in jurisdictions that have already enacted “ban the box” laws should ensure that they avoid any impermissible inquiries. Employers in locations that have not yet been affected should closely monitor developments in their jurisdictions to avoid any exposure.