Accomodation Archives

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.

New Jersey Expands Protections Against Pregnancy-Based Discrimination By Employers And Other Entities

Update 1/23/14 – On Wednesday, January 22, 2014, Governor Christie signed S2995 into law. LaborSphere’s original post on the legislation appears below.

New Jersey is on the precipice of expanding anti-discrimination protections to both pregnant women and new mothers and those recovering from childbirth. The State Senate and now the State Assembly have passed identical measures with only one dissenting vote in either legislative body. The expansive legislation now awaits the signature of Governor Chris Christie in order to become law.

Amendments to New Jersey Law Against Discrimination

In order to address the perceived vulnerability of pregnant women in the workplace as well as to foster the goal of healthier pregnancies and recovery from childbirth, the legislation passed by New Jersey’s legislature expands the anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation protections of New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination (“NJLAD”). Should it pass, both pregnant women but also those who have recently given birth or have medical conditions related to pregnancy will be statutorily protected against disparate treatment and retaliation by employers, labor organizations, landlords, lending institutions as well as an array of other entities that offer public accommodations.

Further, not only does the pending legislation add “pregnancy” to the array of protected categories covered by the NJLAD. It also specifically requires employers to provide “reasonable accommodations,” such as bathroom breaks, breaks for increased water intake, periodic rest, assistance with manual labor, job restructuring, modified work schedules and temporary transfers to less strenuous or hazardous work.

The legislation implied but does not specifically state that any such requested accommodations will likely need to be based on the advice of a physician. As such, it appears that pregnant women and those who have recently given birth cannot merely demand that an accommodation is “reasonable” and necessary absent some input from her physician.

Further, employers are not obligated to agree to any requested accommodation, even if it is supported by a physician’s recommendation, if such an accommodation would impose an “undue burden” as defined by the statute. The proposed legislation provides specific factors to be utilized in determining whether an accommodation would impose undue hardship on the operation of an employer’s business. These include:

overall size of the employer’ business with respect to the number of employees;
number and type of facilities;
size of budget;
the type of the employer’s operations, including the composition and structure of the employer’s workforce;
the nature and cost of the accommodation needed, taking into consideration the availability of tax credits, tax deductions and outside funding; and
the extent to which the accommodation would involve waiver of an essential requirement of a job as opposed to a tangential or non-business necessity requirement.

New Protection To Employees Seeking Information About Claims

Perhaps the start of a new trend, among the proposed amendments to the NJLAD is also a provision that protects any employee against reprisals by employers for asking coworkers or former coworkers for information that is part of an investigation or in furtherance of a possible claim under the NJLAD. Such information may include requests for data regarding pay, compensation, bonuses or benefits. Significantly, this new protection extends beyond pregnant women and those who have recently given birth.

Impact of Amendments

If enacted, the amendments to the NJLAD would override the New Jersey Supreme Court’s 2005 ruling in Gerety v. Atlantic City Hilton Casino Resort, 184 N.J. 391 (2005). In that case, New Jersey’s highest court held that the NJLAD does not protect against the firing of a female worker who exceeded the leave available under state and federal as well as the defendant-employer’s policy. Under the proposed amendments, it is likely that the accommodations requested in the Gerety case, by a plaintiff who had a difficult pregnancy with twins, would be considered reasonable and covered under the NJLAD.

More broadly, while the federal Family Medical Leave Act and New Jersey Family Leave Act each allow for a maximum of twelve weeks of pregnancy-related leave, under the proposed amendments, the amount of leave available to a woman who is pregnant or recovering from childbirth is not as clearly defined. To the extent a women seeks an accommodation – including additional leave or a reduced work schedule – because of pregnancy and childbirth-related conditions, an employer has, at the very least, an obligation to review and consider such requests.

Should the proposed amendments to the NJLAD be passed, we recommend a review of leave policies as well as training for managers to identify requests for accommodations. Each request for accommodation must be considered carefully and should it appear to impose an undue burden, then the statutorily defined factors must be taken into account.

California Employers: What You Need to Know for 2014 – Immigrant Protections & Leaves, Accommodations, and Benefits

A new year means new legislation and regulations for employers with operations in California. This four-part series will take a look at some of the new laws and regulation affecting private employers doing business in California. Today we look at new laws and regulations in California dealing with immigrant protections & leaves, accommodations and benefits.

Immigrant Protections

Retaliation. AB 263 prohibits an employer from using immigration law to retaliate against employees who assert protected rights under the Labor Code. Employers who do so, e.g., by contacting or threatening to contact immigration authorities about the immigration status of a current, former, or prospective employee or their family members, will face various penalties, including suspension of certain business licenses, and may face civil action from affected employees.

Extortion. Similarly, AB 524 clarifies that any person that threatens to report the known or suspected immigration status of an individual may be guilty of criminal extortion.

Despite both laws however, employers may still require employees to verify eligibility for employment under Form I-9 without becoming subject to any penalties.

Leaves, Accommodations, and Benefits

Leave for serious crime victims. Under SB 288, an employee who has been a victim of certain serious crimes may not be discriminated or retaliated against for taking time off from work to appear in any legal proceeding in which his or her right as a victim is at issue. The law defines “victim” to include any person who “suffers direct or threatened physical, psychological, or financial harm as a result of the commission or attempted commission of a crime or delinquent act,” as well as that person’s spouse, parent, child, sibling, or guardian. Employees must, however, comply with specific requirements for requesting the leave.

Leave for stalking victims. SB 400 extends existing leave protections for victims of domestic violence or sexual assault to victims of stalking. All employers must provide time off to these victims to appear at legal proceedings, and employers with 25 or more employees must also provide time off to deal with medical/psychological treatment, including safety planning.

Leave for volunteer firefighters, peace officers, and rescue personnel. Existing law requires an employer with 50 or more employees to permit an employee who is a volunteer firefighter to take temporary leaves of absence, not to exceed an aggregate of 14 days per calendar year, for the purpose of engaging in firefighting or law enforcement training. AB 11 extends these leave provisions to reserve peace officers or emergency rescue personnel pursuing firefighting, law enforcement, or emergency rescue training.

Wage replacement. Effective July 1, 2014, SB 770 extends paid family leave benefits to employees taking time off to care for a seriously ill grandparent, grandchild, sibling, or parent-in-law. The law previously only covered time spent caring for a seriously ill child, spouse, domestic partner, or parent or to bond with a child within one year of birth, adoption, or foster care placement. Note, however, that the law does not create the right to a leave of absence, but only to compensation/wage replacement during a qualifying absence.

“Family friendly” work arrangements in San Francisco. According to the Family-Friendly Workplace Ordinance, employers with twenty or more full and part-time employees working within the geographic boundaries of San Francisco must consider employee requests for “flexible or predictable working arrangements to assist with care giving responsibilities,” provided that the employee has worked more than six months for the employer, works at least eight hours per week on a regular basis, and complies with guidelines set by the San Francisco Office of Labor Standards Enforcement in making the request. The ordinance also requires applicable employers to post a notice on the premises informing employees of their rights, and protects employees from retaliation for making a request or from adverse action based on “caregiver” status.

Small business health insurance. Small business owners with one to fifty eligible employees may now enroll for health care coverage online at the Small Business Health Options (“SHOP”) segment of the Covered California website. In fact, beginning on January 1, purchasing insurance through SHOP will be the only way for small business owners to access federal tax credits helping to offset contributions toward employee premiums. Small businesses will be eligible for such tax credits if they have fewer than twenty-five full-time-equivalent employees for the tax year, pay employees an average of less than $50,000 per year and contribute at least fifty percent of their employees’ premium cost. Maximum tax credits will go to employers with ten or fewer full-time-equivalent employees with wages averaging $25,000 or less per year.

Make sure to check out the first two posts in this series on new Wage and Hour Laws and Penalties and Discrimination and Retaliation.

Firing Employees Who Don’t Get Flu Shots: What Risks Do Hospitals Face?

As hospitals continue to see an onslaught of flu patients, they also face challenges to flu vaccination policies designed to reduce the spread of flu to patients and fellow employees. Hospitals are understandably concerned with protecting patients, visitors and employees from contracting the flu and the potentially serious consequences to the health of elderly and infant patients. However, protecting patients against flu can create legal liability when employees are disciplined, discharged or suffer other adverse action because they do not get a flu shot.

Employment Considerations for Flu Vaccination Policies—The National Labor Relations Act

What limitations exist on a hospital’s ability to create and implement a flu/other vaccination policy? Under the National Labor Relations Act, a flu vaccination policy is a mandatory subject of bargaining. This means that unionized hospitals cannot unilaterally implement such a policy without first giving the union notice of the intended policy and bargain over the policy if the union requests to do so.

A hospital does not have to bargain if the union has “clearly and unmistakably” waived its right to bargain over the issue. A waiver is typically found in the “Management Rights” clause, which was the case in a recent National Labor Relations Board (NLRB; the Board) decision, Virginia Mason Medical Center, 358 NLRB No. 64 (2012), where the Board found a clear and unmistakable waiver in the Management Rights clause. That clause stated, in relevant part, that the Medical Center has the right to “operate and manage the Hospital, including but not limited to the right to require standards of performance and…to direct the nurses…to determine the materials and equipment to be used; to implement improved operational methods and procedures…to discipline, demote or discharge nurses for just cause…and to promulgate rules, regulations and personnel policies….”

The Union representing the Medical Center’s registered nurses filed an unfair labor practice charge with the Board and a hearing was held before an NLRB Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). The ALJ ruled, and the Board agreed, that the Management Rights clause did not specifically mention wearing facemasks (which the flu policy required in certain areas for non-immunized nurses), but it did “specifically allow the Hospital to unilaterally ‘direct the nurses’ and ‘determine the materials and equipment to be used’ [as well as] implement improved operational methods and procedure.’” The ALJ noted that the Hospital had several infection control policies that required nurses to wear masks under various circumstances, and found that requiring non-immunized nurses to wear masks was within the Hospital’s authority to “determine the materials and equipment to be used [and] implement improved operational methods and procedures.”

With properly crafted language in a Management Rights clause or elsewhere in a collective bargaining agreement, a unionized hospital has the right to unilaterally implement a new flu vaccination policy or modify an existing policy.

Employment Considerations for Flu Vaccination Policies—Disability and Religious Discrimination

Hospitals, of course, have reached different decisions on how to balance the interests of patients and employees. As such, policies vary in the flexibility given to employees regarding non-vaccination and the resulting consequences:

- Vaccination encouraged but not mandated
- Vaccination mandated with exemptions for medical contraindication, religious beliefs (discipline/other adverse consequences for non-exempted employees)
- Vaccination mandated and masking required for medical contraindication, religious beliefs (discipline/other adverse consequences for failure to be vaccinated or wear mask, as applicable)
- Vaccination required (discipline/other adverse consequences for non-compliance)

Flu vaccination policies also differ regarding applicability. Some policies apply only to employees who come into direct contact with patients. At the other end of the continuum, the policy applies to all employees, independent contractors, students, interns, vendors and others who provide services inside the hospital.

Union and non-union hospitals should consider the potential for discrimination claims based on a flu vaccination policy that requires any group of employees to get a flu shot or face adverse consequences (such as discharge) if they fail to do so for any reason. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) would likely find such a policy to be unlawful. The EEOC has taken the position in its “Pandemic Preparedness in the Workplace and the Americans with Disabilities Act” guidance that

“[a]n employee may be entitled to an exemption from a mandatory vaccination requirement based on an ADA disability that prevents him from taking the influenza vaccine. This would be a reasonable accommodation barring undue hardship (significant difficulty or expense). Similarly, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, once an employer receives notice that an employee’s sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance prevents him from taking the influenza vaccine, the employer must provide a reasonable accommodation unless it would pose an undue hardship as defined by Title VII (“more than de minimis cost” to the operation of the employer’s business, which is a lower standard than under the ADA).”

http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/pandemic_flu.html– 48k – 2009-10-21

A federal district court in Ohio refused to dismiss a complaint by a registered nurse alleging religious discrimination because she was fired for refusing to comply with the hospital’s mandatory flu vaccination policy. Chenzira v. Cincinnati Children’s Medical Center, S.D. Ohio, No. 1:11-cv-00917 (12/27/12). The employee’s refusal was based on her “religious beliefs” in veganism. The court rejected the hospital’s argument that her veganism was merely a “social philosophy or dietary preference.” According to the court, it was plausible the employee could show that she held her belief in veganism with the same sincerity as traditional religious beliefs. However, this case is far from over. The court noted that its ruling on the motion to dismiss “in no way addresses what it anticipates as the hospital’s justification for its termination of the employee — the safety of patients at Children’s Hospital.”

Not all refusals to get a flu shot are based on medical or religious reasons. A hospital in northern Indiana fired seven employees who refused to get flu shots. One oncology nurse who was fired said it was “a personal thing.” The nurse said she gets other vaccinations but it should be her choice whether she gets the flu vaccine. She said she opposes “the injustice of being forced to put something in [her] body.” Absent a violation of applicable state law, it is doubtful this employee would have a claim against the hospital for her termination.

Considerations in Creating a Flu Vaccination Policy

Current CDC guidelines do not require hospitals to mandate flu vaccination in any form; the CDC recommends active encouragement of employees to get a flu shot. However, some hospitals believe it is appropriate to do more to try to protect vulnerable patients from catching the flu in the hospital and then suffering severe health consequences. These hospitals mandate that at least some groups of employees must be vaccinated. ”

Terminating or taking other adverse action against an employee who cannot get the vaccine because of a disability (as defined in the Americans with Disabilities Act and/or applicable state law) exposes a hospital to meaningful risk of a discrimination lawsuit. The same is true for employees who raise a “religious objection.”

Hospitals should evaluate such refusals on a case-by-case basis and explore possible reasonable accommodations of the employees’ refusal to get vaccinated, and the policy should so inform employees. Possible reasonable accommodations could be exempting the employee from the policy entirely, transferring the employee to another position temporarily (until the flu threat ends as determined by local health officials) or permitting the employee to wear a mask when in proximity to patients and coworkers. From my perspective as a former hospital board chairman, this approach presents a balancing of the hospital’s interest in protecting patients from flu exposure while protecting the legal rights of certain employees who decline to get vaccinated. In the final analysis, many hospitals believe that risk of harm to patients may trump an individual’s right to refuse when flu epidemics are declared.

Editor’s Note: See our coverage on this topic for non-health care employers here.

The Dos and Don’ts of Implementing a Mandatory Flu Shot Vaccine Policy

As another flu season approaches and the lines are forming for annual flu shots, many employers are questioning the legality of requiring their employees to receive a flu vaccine shot when they recognize business and safety needs for ensuring their work environments and workforce are better protected from the flu virus. This need is especially acute for non-hospital employers who care for individuals with compromised immune systems, such as rehabilitation centers or schools. While a different set of considerations come into play when a hospital is assessing how to implement a flu vaccine policy (see our post on this topic by Mark Nelson here), non-hospital employers have business needs and health concerns that may make implementation of a flu vaccine policy desirable or necessary.

So, what should an employer consider before implementing such a policy?

DO evaluate the business need for the policy. Whether it be concern for patients, clients, or customers or, rather, a need to ensure that your workforce is less likely to be on leave due to a flu outbreak, an employer must be prepared to identify its reasonable business interest if the policy is challenged.
DO consider what type of policy suits business needs. Some employers are implementing mandatory policies for all employees to receive a flu shot. Others are only requiring that certain categories of employees receive a flu shot, i.e., those with regular access to patients or individuals with compromised immune systems. Still others are implementing a policy that “strongly encourages” flu vaccinations.
DO review any applicable Collective Bargaining Agreements. Under the National Labor Relations Act, a flu vaccination policy is a mandatory subject of bargaining. This means that a unionized employer cannot unilaterally implement such a policy without giving the union notice of the policy and bargain over the policy if the union requests. However, as set forth under recent National Labor Relations Board caselaw, a union may waive a right to bargain over such a policy by way of a Management Rights Clause. See Virginia Mason Medical Center, 358 NLRB No. 64 (2012). If unionized, employers should evaluate the breadth of their clause to see if the union has waived the right to bargain regarding the employer’s right to direct employees, to determine materials and equipment to be used and/or to implement improved operational methods and procedures. In the Virginia Mason case, the NLRB specifically recognized this type of waiver language as permitting the Medical Center to require non-immunized nurses to wear facemasks.
DON’T refuse to engage in an interactive process with any objecting employees. Employers should be prepared to work with an employee’s health or religious objections to receiving a flu shot. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has taken the position that employees may be exempt from a mandatory vaccination requirement based on an ADA disability or a “sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance.” See www.eeoc.gov/facts/pandemic_flu.html -48k-2009-10-21. Further, the EEOC has issued an informal guidance letter on health care workers’ requests from employer-mandated vaccinations under Title VII, opining that Title VII defines religion very broadly and that an “employee’s belief or practice can be ‘religious’ under Title VII even if the employee is affiliated with a religious group that does not espouse or recognize that individual’s belief or practice, or if few – or no – other people adhere to it. See http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/foia/letters/2012/religious_accommodation.html. Courts have recognized that such “sincerely held” beliefs may include lifestyle choices such as veganism. See Chenzira v. Cincinnati Children’s Medical Center, No. 11-917, 2012 WL 6721098 (S.D. Ohio December 27, 2012). In such instances where an employee expresses a health or religious-based objection to a mandatory flu vaccine policy, the employer should discuss reasonable accommodations with the employee, e.g., exempting the employee from the policy entirely, transferring the employee to another position temporarily (until the flu threat ends as determined by local health officials) or permitting the employee to wear a facemask when in proximity to patients and coworkers.
DON’T terminate any employee who refuses a flu shot without engaging in the interactive process if they are objecting for health or religious reasons. Further, any disciplinary measures should be uniformly implemented in the case of employees in violation of the policy. Employers may also want to consider progressive discipline for first-time offenders, e.g., issuing a warning letter for an initial failure to show proof of a flu shot or failure to wear a facemask.
DO ensure that any policy implemented is enforced uniformly. Require proof that employees have received a flu shot. In the case of objectors, seek a waiver that the employee is unable or objects to vaccination and then engage in the interactive process to agree upon a reasonable accommodation.
DO consider making flu shots available to employees on-site to maximize compliance with any flu shot policy.
DON’T implement a policy without contacting your state’s Department of Health or any other related agencies. These agencies can provide guidance on the manner in which vaccine policies should be implemented for various categories of employers or regarding possible accommodations for objecting employees.

Yahoo’s Ban on Working from Home: Does it Raise Red Flags For Other Companies?

Yahoo’s widely reported decision to require its remote workforce to physically report to one of Yahoo’s office locations – or face termination of employment – has caused a social media stir. Here are some of the common questions, and our thoughts about whether Yahoo’s decision signals a trend applicable to other companies.

Q: Can Yahoo fire its remote workforce if they refuse to return to the office?

A: For the most part – yes. If employees are employed “at-will,” then they can be fired with or without cause, and without notice. In other words, Yahoo’s statement that they feel the business is best served by the regular, spontaneous interactions resulting from having employees in the office is a legitimate non-discriminatory reason to require employees to return to the offices. Therefore, any employee who refuses to physically report to a Yahoo office location can be lawfully fired for his/her refusal. Exceptions are generally limited to a circumstance where Yahoo had agreed, in writing, that the employee was guaranteed the ability to work from home. Another limited exception is if the employee is allowed to work from home for a specified period of time, as a reasonable accommodation for a verified disability.

Q: Does Yahoo’s decision signal that the other industries should re-evaluate the use of remote workers?

A: While it is always productive to re-evaluate the effectiveness of workforce models, a wholesale rejection of the remote worker model does not necessarily serve an industry’s business needs, or risk management objectives.

First, Yahoo’s action is perceived as providing an opportunity to pare down a “bloated” workforce in an effort to limit the need for extensive reductions in force. Yahoo is betting on there being less morale and legal risk associated with an employee’s resignation vs. an involuntary termination. While companies may face the business need to ramp down certain departments depending on where they are in the approval process, targeted restructurings are generally a more appropriate response.

Second, many companies, such as Life Sciences companies that are paring down costs as they await FDA approval, use remote workers as a cost-savings method, to reduce office overhead costs. In contrast, it has been reported that Yahoo has “excess” office space that presumably would not be cost-effective to offload or sublease. Also, the majority of Life Sciences companies are clustered in the areas of metro NY/NJ, Boston, the Bay Area and LA. Clearly, traffic is a significant issue in these areas and working remotely can offset the loss of productivity caused by lengthy daily commutes.

Remote work is also a necessity for many Life Sciences companies. For example, clinical trials are conducted at investigator sites in the U.S. and around the world. Employees in clinical operations must not only travel on a regular basis, but the ability to work remotely for much of the time when they are not traveling is valued. Also, using a remote workforce is a common response to growth and expansion, especially when there is a need to locate your sales force in states outside of company headquarters and manufacturing facilities.

Fourth, most industry jobs do require a Bachelor’s degree, and workforce studies indicate that approximately one-fifth of Life Sciences jobs require an advanced degree. Clearly, the ability to attract and retain a highly skilled and well-trained workforce has been recognized as a necessity to remain competitive – and that applies to small start-ups and large multi-national pharmaceutical companies. The ability to work remotely, at least part of the time, can be an effective recruiting and retention tool.

Q: What are the emerging HR issues with regards to the use of remote workers?

A: While mobile technology is a tremendous asset in terms of collaboration, the law does not always keep pace with the cross-over intersection of business and personal use of mobile technology. As a result, it is a “new frontier” and employers are faced with having to anticipate the potential legal liability. For example, to the extent that your company is monitoring employees’ e-mail/text and other use of mobile technology to ensure productively, it is critical to warn employees that they are being monitored, and they should have no expectation of privacy. We are also seeing an increasing rise in litigation and employer-adverse agency decisions resulting from employers’ use of information about employees’ non-work activities gleaned from review of their personal Facebook accounts as a basis to discipline or terminate employees. Also, many states have enacted or proposed legislation that makes it unlawful for an employer to directly or indirectly obtain access to an employee’s Facebook account. As a result, we recommend that concerns about employee abuse of telecommuting are best addressed by routine and regular performance management, rather than social media spying.

We also recommend proactive management of concerns relating to data confidentiality and network security. This includes review of existing restrictive covenant agreements to insure that enforceable non-disclosure, non-solicit and, if warranted, non-compete agreements are in place, tailored to protect those assets most critical to your business. Choice of law provisions also need to be considered when the employee is in a different state or country than the HQ location. In addition, we recommend providing the equipment used by the remote employee (phone/laptop, etc.), so that equipment – and all the programs and data contained on those devices – can be legally recovered at the end of the employment relationship. Protocols should also be in place to restrict access to proprietary and other confidential information, to demonstrate that your company has a legitimate need to protect certain information.

Finally, we urge caution when allowing non-exempt employees to work remotely. Wage and hour laws require that the hours non-exempt employees work are accurately tracked, and that they receive overtime for extra hours recorded, including for hours that the Company was on notice that the employee was working, even if those extra hours were not recorded. Employers are being deemed as “on notice” when they are aware that the employee is e-mailing or texting supervisors about work during “off-hours” based on the access provided by mobile technology that might not be otherwise available to a non-exempt employee who is not working remotely.

(Editor’s note – This post was distributed as a Drinker Biddle Client Alert on February 27, 2013. To read other Drinker Biddle alerts and publications click: http://www.drinkerbiddle.com/resources)