Employment Law Observer

In-N-Out Burger, Incorporated (In-N-Out) found itself on the wrong side of National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) unfair labor practice proceedings for prohibiting its employees from "wearing any type of pin or stickers" on their uniforms. The Fifth Circuit, in In-N-Out Burger, Incorporated v. National Labor Relations Board (No. 17-60241, decided July 6, 2018), upheld a NLRB finding that In-N-Out violated Section 8(a)1 of the National Labor Relations Act by prohibiting its employees from wearing a "Fight for $15" button and for maintaining an overly broad uniform policy.

Many times, employers evaluate disability claims by simply checking the boxes. It’s easy to develop tunnel vision, especially when the employer feels the issue is narrowly defined by an existing law or policy, e.g., a law or employer policy requiring that certain employees be vaccinated. However, this narrow frame of mind may cause employers to miss the complete picture. A recent 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals (DE, NJ, PA) decision illustrates the consequences of missing the big picture. In Ruggiero v. Mount Nittany Medical Center, the court addressed the interplay between a hospital’s vaccination policy and the ADA, holding held an employee’s ADA claim could proceed because the hospital failed to engage in the interactive process. The Court held the hospital had a duty to engage in the process once aware of her disability and request for accommodation, regardless of its policy requiring that all employees be vaccinated.

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.

Believe it or not, individuals with criminal convictions can make a business out of trolling online job boards for job postings that express an intent to discriminate against applicants with conviction records—think job postings with “no felonies” as a qualification. Postings of this type run afoul of the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act, which prohibits employers (1) from circulating job ads and applications that express an intent to discriminate against applicants with conviction records and (2) from refusing to hire applicants because of their arrest or conviction record (among other types of discrimination directed at individuals with arrest and conviction records). Postings that violate this prohibition can cost your company a whole lot of headache and money. Penalties range from a cease and desist order to job instatement and backpay if the applicant can show he or she would have been hired but for her conviction.

In light of the recent spotlight in entertainment, government, media, and the law regarding unlawful harassment in the workplace, the Illinois legislature has recently taken action to ensure local governments have a handle on the problem. On November 16, 2017, the General Assembly passed Public Act 100-0554, which amends the Illinois State Officials and Employees Ethics Act and the Illinois Human Rights Act. The law prohibits sexual harassment and requires various state government and local governments to implement sexual harassment-related policies.

Employers, another notice provision has taken effect in California. Beginning on July 1, 2017, employers with at least 25 employees must now provide written notice to new employees that explain the rights of victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. More specifically, the required notice mandates employers notify new employees of their rights under Labor Code Sections 230 and 230.1. These sections detail the following points:

At-will employment is the default rule in Wisconsin. Employers may terminate for any reason or no reason at all.  However, that relationship can be overridden by contract, in some cases inadvertently, through employee policies and other post-employment agreements. In a case that came as good news for employers, last week, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed that it would not read a policy as overriding the employment at-will relationship unless the policy evidenced an intent to do so.

A Costco employee suffered from Tourette's syndrome and made complaints to management about the way his supervisors and others were treating him. He later filed charges with the Connecticut Human Rights Organization as well as suit in federal district court, claiming that he was subjected to a hostile work environment and retaliation in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and corresponding state statutes. He also claimed breach of contract and promissory estoppel. 

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed a class-action lawsuit against a department store claiming its policy violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). The case came about when an employee was unable to attend work for a few days due to medical illness, and despite having provided a doctor’s note for her absence, the store sought the specific nature of her illness in order to have the absences deemed “excused.” The employee refused to provide the information and claimed the request was unlawful. The store subsequently terminated her employment. Later, the store revised its policies and this requirement was removed.