Employment Law Observer

Public employers have interests that differ from private employers. While both types of employers seek to increase their revenues, public employers have additional concerns that can take priority over short-term budgetary interests, such as maintaining public safety. Those interests can conflict with their employees' First Amendment rights to communicate on matters of public concern. In these circumstances, the law must balance the interests of public sector employees to speak on matters of public concern and the interests of public employers in applying proper workplace rules that promote and maintain cohesion, order, and teamwork—especially in the area of law enforcement.

On Thursday, September 3, 2020, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued an Opinion Letter shedding light on the agency's own ability to sue employers under Section 707(a) of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The letter clarifies two notable areas for employers. First, the EEOC does not have broad authority to file a civil lawsuit against an employer under Title VII without a finding of discrimination or retaliation. Second, the EEOC must follow procedural guidelines—investigate a charge of discrimination, find reasonable cause, attempt to remedy such practice by conciliation—before a civil lawsuit may be filed.

In a workplace safety whistleblower lawsuit recently filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, an air conditioning technician claims he was fired by his employer, HT Airsystems of Florida, LLC, in retaliation for complaining about purported overtime violations and for raising concerns about a lack of personal protective equipment (PPE), which would be a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and Florida's Private Whistleblower Act (FWA).

It's the end of the year and while everyone is busy, employers in California should be aware of new laws and regulations that go into effect on January 1, 2020. In the spirit of the season, we are using the "12 days of the holidays" to blog daily about one of these new California laws and the law's impact on California employers. On the second day of the holidays, my labor and employment attorney gave to me: two turtle doves and AB 9.

As Illinois employers get into the swing of 2019, do not forget Illinois has a new and additional posting requirement that came about as a result of amendments to the Illinois Human Rights Act in the Fall of 2018. That posting requirement obligates employers to post the notice found here with your other postings to employees and to include the substance of the content in your employee handbooks. It reminds employees of their right to be free from discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation, as well as their right to a reasonable accommodation for pregnancy and disabilities.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently determined that an Illinois Sheriff’s Department did not violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by declining to provide a deputy his requested accommodation, an SUV, and instead transferring him to a position that did not require driving. The deputy had alleged the Department’s failed to accommodate him by refusing to provide him with an SUV, then retaliated against him by transferring him to a courthouse duty position.

Earlier this month, the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) General Counsel issued Memorandum GC-18-04 providing guidance on handbook rules in light of the Board’s Boeing Company decision. In Boeing, the Board reevaluated when a seemingly neutral work rule, handbook rule, or employment policy violates the rights of workers granted by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). In doing so, it adopted a new test balancing the negative impact a given rule may have on an employee’s ability to exercise his or her Section 7 rights versus the employer’s right to maintain a disciplined and productive workplace. It also laid out three categories of rules: those that are always lawful, those that are usually always unlawful, and those it depends-type rules falling into the middle category. The GC’s guidance sorts common workplace policies into these three buckets.

Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal recently decided two questions of first impression under Florida law: (1) whether a one-event sexual advance at a private, non-work sponsored party may support sexual harassment and retaliation claims, and (2) whether rejecting a supervisor’s sexual advance is protected “opposition.” The court answered both questions “yes.”

On February 21, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that provisions of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act that protect whistleblowers from being fired, demoted, or harassed by their employers only apply to people who actually make a report of a violation of the federal securities laws to the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Dodd-Frank Act established a whistleblower program that was designed to motivate individuals to report securities laws violations to the SEC by providing whistleblowers with incentives and protections. Individuals who voluntarily report information to the SEC may be entitled to a cash award of 10 to 30% of the monetary sanctions collected in enforcement actions, and they are protected from retaliation by their employers for having provided that information.

It's the end of the year and while everyone is busy, employers in California should be aware of new laws and regulations that go into effect on January 1, 2018. In the spirit of the season, we are using the next "12 days of the holidays" to blog about one California law a day and that law's impact on California employers. On the tenth day of Christmas, my Labor and Employment attorney gave to me – ten pipers piping and SB 306.

Every employer has faced the unfortunate experience of hiring an employee whose performance fell well below expectation. As highlighted in the Seventh Circuit’s recent Ferrill v. Oak Creek-Franklin Joint School District decision, employers faced with poor performing employees should carefully address and document such shortcomings to ward off potential Title VII charges.

OSHA’s new anti-retaliation rule went into effect on December 1, 2016. The purpose of the new rule was to clarify what OSHA considered “the existing implicit requirement” that an employer work-related injury and illness policies be reasonable and not deter or discourage employees from reporting injuries. Since that time, employers and lawyers alike have waited to see what types of policies OSHA would target under the new rule. The Department of Labor’s recent complaint filed in the Eastern District of Wisconsin sheds some light on that question.

In the last few weeks, federal courts in Texas have been the center of attention, deciding what rules and regulations of the current administration may fall to legal challenges asserted in the jurisdiction by collections of states, business, and trade associations, among others.  Texas courts have issued preliminary injunctions impacting the persuader rule, and most recently the DOL's new overtime rule. 

Worried about what the new OSHA Final Rule means for your company? Don't worry – we've got you covered. If you are a business owner, in-house counsel, human resource policy decision-maker, employment and labor law specialist, or a front-line HR professional, you won't want to miss our webinar on Wednesday, December 7th at noon Central. Aimee Delaney and Elizabeth Odian will walk you through the revised OSHA regulations, their implications, and ways you can manage risk to your organization.

It is not uncommon for companies to contract their daily business operations to third-party companies. In Motta et al v. Global Contact Services, Inc., the court addressed whether such relationships relieve the outsourcing company of any duties to address discrimination or harassment in the workplace.

The converging paths of the Family Medical Leave Act's (FMLA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) ranks among the most difficult legal issues for employers to safely traverse. Employers should think twice before terminating an employee who cannot return to work after 12 weeks of FMLA leave. This is because courts across the country have held that additional leave may be a necessary reasonable accommodation under the ADA. The question then becomes, how much additional leave does one need to provide an employee before he or she is no longer protected by the ADA.

Effectively responding to employee discrimination complaints by current employees without running afoul of federal and state anti-retaliation laws presents a slippery slope for all employers. In fact, retaliation complaints make up nearly half of all discrimination charges filed with the EEOC today. Thus, it is critical that employers, their managers, supervisors, and employees understand who the laws protect and what constitutes retaliation.

Does a single incident create a hostile work environment? Just this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that one offensive comment was insufficient to create a hostile work environment.

Celia Greengrass worked as an account executive for International Monetary Systems, Ltd. ("IMS"). In September 2007, Greengrass made an internal complaint about alleged harassment by a manager; two months later, she quit her job. In January 2008, Greengrass filed a complaint with the EEOC alleging sex discrimination, national origin discrimination, and retaliation.

A school custodian's hours and work assignments were changed six days after his wife spoke about eliminating the superintendent's position at a school board meeting about budgetary issues. The custodian's reassignment happened four days after the school district eliminated two part-time custodial positions that previously handled the work. The custodian resigned effective on the date his schedule was to change. He claimed that his working conditions were "uniquely intolerable," in part because his new assignment required outdoor work and he was severely allergic to bee stings, although his doctor never recommended excusing the custodian from performing any outdoor duties.