Workplace Archives - The National Law Forum

Employment Tip of the Month – February 2024

Q: Can my company treat employees adversely because of their personal political beliefs? If they wear a shirt of their favorite candidate? Or proselytize about their candidate?

A: The short answer: There exists no “First Amendment Right to freedom of expression” in a private workplace, and that extends to political expression. See Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, 139 S.Ct. 1921 (2019) (Only “State actors subject to First Amendment constraints.”)

So, yes, legally a private employer can refuse to hire Democrats or Republicans, and can fire an employee for wearing a shirt of their candidate or vocalizing a particular political position.

On the other hand, other laws can apply, such as the right to “concerted action” under the National Labor Relations Act. Overt adverse action also could be ripe for allegations of selective enforcement, such as “you only selectively enforce this rule against me because I am ___________”, where Title VII covers race, sex, religion, color and national origin; ADA covers disability; ADEA age, etc. Some political positions could easily bleed over into religious beliefs.

Even if legally permissible for a private employer to discriminate against holders of one particular political belief, from a practical management perspective, it cannot be recommended, and would be loaded with risk. Also, it could simply make for bad optics and make it harder to attract and retain the best talent.

Finally, this answer changes entirely for public employers and government employers, where employees do possess First Amendment rights, so long as, in general, they are speaking (1) as a private citizen, (2) about a matter of public concern, and (3) their speech does not interfere with the job. There are exceptions for high-ranking individuals, political appointees or someone trying to release classified information, though in many instances they would still be protected from retaliation.

Reminder to Employers Regarding Mandatory Workplace Posters

As employers march through the beginning of the new year, they should ensure they are in compliance with the various mandatory workplace notice and posting requirements under applicable state and federal laws.

To that end, the U.S. Department of Labor provides a poster advisory tool for employers to reference. Similarly, most state department of labor websites will, at the very least, provide a list of required state employment posters. Many of these websites also provide links for employers to download mandatory posters for free.

For Texas employers, for example, the Texas Workforce Commission’s website contains a list of optional and required posters. In addition to federally mandated posters, private Texas employers are required to post information related to the Texas Payday law and unemployment compensation, and workers’ compensation, if the employer has workers’ compensation insurance coverage. Further, as of January 8, 2024, Texas employers must post a “Reporting Workplace Violence” notice in both English and Spanish.

Federal and state laws typically require that required posters be physically posted conspicuously at each of the employer’s facilities and/or work sites that are convenient and easily accessible to employees and, in some cases, job applicants. Because many employers have transitioned to or otherwise permitted hybrid and remote-work environments, such employers should remember that federally mandated notices may be electronically provided to remote employees, as well as displayed in the physical workspace for hybrid workforces. But, according to the U.S. Department of Labor’s guidance, electronic posting or access should be at least as effective as a physical posting, and employees should be able to access the electronic posting without having to request permission to view it. Employers should verify whether the applicable state law allows for electronic delivery or posting of mandatory notices to remote and hybrid employees. In Texas, employers should look to federal guidance regarding the same.

2024 FLSA Checklist for Employers in the Manufacturing Industry

Wage and hour issues continue to challenge most employers, especially those in the manufacturing industry. The manufacturing industry tends to be more process- and systems-oriented and generally employ many hourly workers who are not exempt from overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

It is imperative manufacturers ensure they are on the right side of legal compliance. Indeed, non-compliance can trigger audits, investigations, and litigation — all of which can be disruptive, time-consuming, and costly for manufacturers. The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), which is charged with investigating alleged violations under the FLSA, assesses hundreds of millions of dollars each year in penalties to employers.

With the new year, we offer this short (by no means exhaustive) checklist of common pay issues the manufacturing industry:

1. Donning and Doffing

The FLSA requires employers to compensate non-exempt employees for all time worked, as well as pay the minimum wage and overtime compensation. Whether pre-shift (donning) and post-shift (doffing) activities are included as compensable time is not always clear. Activities including putting on or taking off protective gear, work clothes, or equipment could be compensable time under the FLSA depending on the unique facts of the situation. At bottom, to be compensable, such activities must be found to be integral and indispensable to the “principal activity” of the employer’s work under the FLSA and the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947.

Courts differ on whether time spent donning and doffing is compensable because these issues often implicate mixed questions of law and fact. Moreover, collective bargaining agreements can affect whether time spent changing clothes and washing is compensable for the purposes of determining hours worked for minimum wage and overtime calculations under the FLSA. Employers should carefully review their policies to ensure the compensability of pre-shift or post-shift activities being performed by non-exempt employees.

2. Rounding Time

Accurately keeping up with time worked by non-exempt employees is critical to compliance with the FLSA. Further, employees forgetting to clock-in and clock-out timely is a persistent issue. While the FLSA allows employers to round employees’ clock-in and clock-out times rather than pay by the minute, it is generally unnecessary (and not recommended) with today’s sophisticated time clocking systems. If employers choose to round time, they must ensure that any rounding policy is neutral on its face and neutral in practice — that is, the policy rounds both in the favor of the employer and the employee at roughly an equal weight. For employers engaging in rounding, audits are crucial as even a facially neutral rounding policy that, in practice, has disproportionately benefited the employer and cumulatively underpays the employees can be found to violate the FLSA.

3. Meal Breaks

Under the FLSA, employers must compensate for short rest breaks that last 20 minutes or less. However, employers do not have to compensate employees for a bona fide meal break, which ordinarily lasts at least 30 minutes. Importantly, an employee must be completely relieved from work duties during this uncompensated time and cannot be interrupted by work (even for a short time). Indeed, some courts have held that, where a meal break has been interrupted by work, the entire meal break (not just the time when work was performed) becomes compensable.

To ensure compliance under these rules, employers should have policies and practices in place so that employees can take an uninterrupted meal break. Employers should also have a well-communicated reporting system in place for employees to record any interrupted meal break to ensure the employee is compensated for the meal break or, when possible, a new meal break is scheduled.

4. Regular Rate

A common and incorrect assumption many employers make is that overtime pay under the FLSA is calculated at one-and-a-half times a non-exempt employee’s hourly rate when they work more than 40 hours in a workweek. In fact, the FLSA states overtime is calculated based on the non-exempt employee’s “regular rate” of pay. The FLSA requires that all payments to employees for hours worked, services rendered, or performance be included in the “regular rate” unless the payment is specifically excluded in the law. Thus, any non-discretionary bonuses, shift differential pay, and other incentive payments such as commissions should be included in the regular rate of pay calculation for purposes of calculating overtime under the FLSA.
This is relatively easy when a bonus is paid during a week where the non-exempt employees work more than 40 hours, but it can become complicated when the additional pay is paid on a monthly or quarterly basis. In this scenario, the payment must be averaged out over that longer time period to determine the regular rate such that overtime can be properly calculated. Thus, employers should review their payment processes on the front end to ensure compliance before any small errors or omissions (quite literally) multiply out of control.

Finally, state wage laws should always be top of mind as well. Employers should work with their employment counsel to ensure compliance with all state wage requirements.

OSHA Proposes More Changes to Recordkeeping Rules

Employers across numerous industries may soon face additional recordkeeping and reporting obligations based on a new rule proposed by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

In March 2022, OSHA proposed amendment of its injury and illness tracking rule, which requires certain employers to file illness and injury data with the agency each year. The tracking rule was first implemented in 2016, and required reporting of fatalities, hospitalizations, and other serious injuries for all covered employers with 250 or more employees, and for employers with 20-249 employees in certain “high hazard industries.” The rule required most covered employers to submit their Form 300A “Summary of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses” annually. It also required certain employer establishments with 250 or more employees to submit their complete Form 300 Logs of Work-Related Injury and Illnesses, and their Form 301 Injury and Illness Incident reports annually. Finally, the rule called for creation of a public database of employer illness/injury data, including business names and illness/injury locations.

The rule generated immediate objections from the business community based on privacy concerns. Both the Form 300 Logs and the Form 301s Incident Reports contain personal employee information related to their health status. Employers worried that if OSHA required broad disclosure of these documents and created a public database based on their content, it would jeopardize employee privacy. Even though OSHA claimed it would not make personal identifying information available, employers were not confident the agency could prevent inadvertent disclosure. Also, employers saw myriad ways in which the information could be used against them that have nothing to do with worker safety.

In response to this criticism and after a change in the presidential administration, OSHA rolled back the tracking rule in 2019. The 2019 Rule rescinded the requirement for employers of 250 or more employees to electronically submit Form 300s and Form 301s, but continued to require them to submit Form 300A summaries each year. Because the summaries did not contain personal information, the modified rule alleviated employee privacy worries.

Now, OSHA is poised to revive the original tracking rule, but expand the application of the most onerous requirements to smaller establishments. On March 30, 2022, OSHA published its proposed rule in the Federal Register. If the final rule mirrors the proposed rule, it would largely restore the 2016 rule, but apply the Form 300 and 301 reporting requirements to covered establishments with 100 or more employees instead of 250 employees. Those employers covered by the new 100+ rule are limited to the industries in Appendix B of the proposed rule. The list is lengthy and includes many farming, manufacturing and packaging industry employers, healthcare employers as well as grocery, department and furniture stores.

OSHA received public comment on the proposed rule through June 30, 2022. OSHA received 83 comments from a mix of private and public entities, citizens, and industry groups. OSHA will review the comments and employers should expect the agency to issue a Final Rule by the end of the calendar year, which would become effective 30 days after publication.

If OSHA enacts its proposed rule, covered employers will face significant additional burdens. Employers must ensure that their Form 300 and 301 Forms are maintained accurately and filed in time to comply with the rule. They can expect that OSHA will scrutinize these forms and potentially use them for inspection purposes or to develop industry-specific enforcement programs. Moreover, OSHA may impose redaction burdens on employers and force them to remove personal identifying information from the forms before submission, which can be an administrative burden with potentially significant privacy implications if not followed carefully. Finally, with additional data publicly available, employers should expect enhanced media and interest group activity based on their injury and illness data. Even if personal information is not disclosed, interest groups and labor organizations will certainly seize on the available data to criticize employers or push for regulations, without consideration of the fact that employer fault cannot be determined from the data alone.

Employers should take steps now to prepare for the proposed rule and continue to ensure their safety and health programs minimize employee illness/injury risk. The new rule would greatly increase potential legislative and public relations risks associated with poor safety and health outcomes, and effective illness/injury prevention programs can help employers avoid such scrutiny before the enhanced disclosure requirements take effect.

Article By Susan F. Wiltsie and Reilly C. Moore of Hunton Andrews Kurth. Scott W. Burton also contributed to this article.

For more labor and employment legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

OSHA’s Next Steps with the Vaccine or Test Rule

On Tuesday, January 25, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) announced the withdrawal of the “Emergency Temporary Standard” (ETS) that would have required large private employers of 100 or more employees to implement a vaccine or test policy. This announcement came after the U.S. Supreme Court stayed enforcement of the ETS on January 13, 2022 pending a decision from the Sixth Circuit on the underlying proceedings challenging the ETS. The withdrawal of the ETS is effective as of January 26, 2022.

The announcement from OSHA made it clear that the withdrawal is not complete, stating:

“Although OSHA is withdrawing the Vaccination and Testing ETS as an enforceable emergency temporary standard, OSHA is not withdrawing the ETS to the extent that it serves as a proposed rule under section 6(c)(3) of the Act, and this action does not affect the ETS’s status as a proposal under section 6(b) of the Act or otherwise affect the status of the notice-and-comment rulemaking commenced by the Vaccination and Testing ETS.” OSHA’s complete withdrawal can be found here.

OSHA intends to keep the ETS as a proposed rule under OSHA’s rulemaking authority. This means that OSHA may choose to modify the previously published ETS and may rely on the Supreme Court’s opinion in doing so. OSHA may choose to implement ideas from the Supreme Court justices such as an industry or workplace-specific analysis. Additionally, OSHA is also likely to review the comments submitted during the notice and comment period for direction with respect to a potential final ETS.

While Tuesday’s announcement does not necessitate action by employers, it does leave the door open for future directives.

Article by Maureen Rouse-Ayoub, Stephanie R. Setterington, Williams J. Whalen with Varnum LLP.

For more on OSHA, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.

Protections for Employees Who Report Workplace Discrimination

While thousands of employees each year submit complaints of discrimination against their employers, many more experience workplace discrimination and do not submit a formal complaint or even report it internally. A 2016 study by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) noted that three out of four individuals who experienced harassment never spoke with a supervisor, manager, or union representative about the harassment. Other studies estimate that only one percent of people who experience workplace discrimination file a formal discrimination charge.

Types of Discrimination Charges Filed

Even with a high level of underreporting of harassment and discrimination in the workplace, the EEOC reported that workers filed 67,448 charges of workplace discrimination in fiscal year 2020.[1] The EEOC breaks down the data by the characteristics of the individual who filed the complaint. The breakdown reflects the various bases for protection under federal anti-discrimination laws, specifically disability, race, sex, age, national origin, color, religion, and genetic information. In the EEOC data from fiscal year 2020, retaliation claims made up 55.8% of all charges filed, which was the most common claim asserted. Retaliation claims are often coupled with claims of discrimination because they generally require complaints about, or opposition to, discrimination in the workplace. Because of this overlap in claims and the reality that workers may have multiple characteristics or identities that entitle them to protections, the total of the percentages of the types of claims asserted is greater than 100%.

Following retaliation claims, discrimination claims based on disability were the most common in fiscal year 2020, making up 36.1% of all workplace discrimination claims. Fiscal year 2020 may have seen an even greater increase in disability-related charges due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The EEOC continues to update its guidance periodically on the impact of COVID-19 on workplace discrimination laws related to disability. Discrimination based on race made up 32.7% of claims, and discrimination based on sex made up 31.7%.

The breakdown by category is consistent with charge filing patterns in past years. One study conducted by the Center for Employment Equity of the University of Massachusetts Amherst analyzed all discrimination charges filed with the EEOC (or a comparable state agency) from 2012 to 2016. It determined that discrimination charges based on disability and race were the most common and that disability-related claims had become more frequent than charges based on other protected categories. In an article published by staff at the Center for Employment Equity, they determined that 63% of employees who filed a complaint eventually lost their jobs.

Protections from Retaliation

The data from the EEOC and Center for Employment Equity underscores an unfortunate reality for employees who come forward to report discrimination—they face the possibility of retaliation by their employer, which, at its most extreme, results in a loss of their job. Fortunately, there are legal protections in place for employees who face retaliation for complaining about workplace discrimination.

Employees who engage in protected activity, either by participating in an investigation of workplace discrimination, complaining of workplace discrimination, or opposing discrimination in the workplace, are protected from retaliation. This means that an employer cannot take any “materially adverse action” against these employees. Such actions include anything that would deter a reasonable worker from coming forward to complain about discrimination in the workplace. This includes actions short of termination, like demotions or salary reductions. The law protects not only current employees and applicants, but also former employees and third parties who have a close relationship with the employee who experienced discrimination. Employees who face retaliation for reporting discrimination in the workplace may be entitled to monetary compensation for the harm caused by the retaliation, including back wages, reinstatement to their former position if they were terminated, compensation for emotional distress caused by the employer’s actions, and reimbursement of their attorneys’ fees and costs.

While no employee should face retaliation for reporting workplace discrimination or harassment, the data demonstrates that it is an unfortunate reality in workplaces. If you believe you have faced discrimination, harassment, or retaliation, you should contact an employment attorney to determine your options and how to proceed.

Importance of Seeking Legal Counsel

The Center for Employment Equity’s analysis highlighted another reality faced by employees who filed discrimination charges with the EEOC. Upon examining the outcome of each charge and excluding charges that were closed because of administrative reasons, it noted that monetary benefits and changes to workplace practices were relatively infrequent. In less than 20% of charges, employees received a monetary benefit. Less than 10% resulted in changes to employer practices. This data does not account for employees who made complaints of discrimination and were able to reach a resolution with their employer prior to filing a charge.

This data showing the poor outcomes from filing discrimination charges demonstrates the importance of seeking legal counsel if you believe that you have faced discrimination in the workplace. An attorney can advise you on the merits of your claim as well as the appropriate deadlines for filing a charge and lawsuit, and can advocate for you before the employer, both before and after submitting a discrimination charge. For current employees, such advocacy may help to shield you from retaliation or to exit from your employment on more favorable terms. In addition to seeking legal counsel, you can begin to take other steps to assist your case by doing the following:

Document the mistreatment you experience.
Create a detailed timeline of instances of discrimination, which will assist an attorney who may assess your potential claims.
Retain employment-related documents, like employee manuals; employment offer letters and agreements; and information concerning commission, equity, and benefits plans.
Do not record conversations without the consent of the other party and without first seeking advice from legal counsel. Each state has different recording law statutes that require all parties or at least one party to consent to recording. It is important not to violate these laws, which can carry civil and sometimes criminal liability.

This list only identifies basic steps that you can take if you believe you have experienced discrimination or harassment in the workplace. If you have faced workplace discrimination, you should consult with an employment attorney for advice on your potential claims

[1] The number of charges filed has decreased steadily in recent years, with 72,675 charges of workplace discrimination filed with the EEOC in fiscal year 2019 and 76,418 filed in 2018. There may be multiple explanations for this decrease, though this year’s decline may be in part explained by the COVID-19 pandemic, which left many employees without work for much of 2020 and required others to work remotely.

This article was written by Alia Al-Khatib of Katz, Marshall & Banks, LLP.

For more articles regarding workplace discrimination, please visit our Labor and Employment News section.

Supreme Court Will not Disturb Ruling that a False Rumor about “Sleeping Your Way to a Promotion” can be a Hostile Work Environment

The U.S. Supreme Court decided not to review an appellate court decision that held a false rumor about a woman “sleeping” her way to a promotion can give rise to a hostile work environment claim. This means that the February 2019 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Parker v. Reema Consulting Services, Inc. will stand. In Parker, the Fourth Circuit held that, where an employer participates in circulating false rumors that a female employee slept with her male boss to obtain a promotion, this constitutes Title VII gender discrimination.

Parker’s Discrimination Claim

Evangeline Parker started worked for Reema Consulting Services, Inc., (“RCSI”) at its warehouse facility as a low-level clerk. She was promoted six times, ultimately rising to Assistant Operations Manager. About two weeks after she was promoted to a manager position, she learned that some male employees were circulating “an unfounded, sexually-explicit rumor about her” that “falsely and maliciously portrayed her as having [had] a sexual relationship” with a higher-ranking manager to obtain her management position.

The rumor originated with another RCSI employee who was jealous of Parker’s achievement, and the highest-ranking manager at the warehouse facility participated in spreading the rumor. Parker’s complaint alleged that as the rumor spread, she “was treated with open resentment and disrespect” from many coworkers, including employees she was responsible for supervising.

At an all-staff meeting at which the rumor was discussed, the warehouse manager slammed the door in Parker’s face and excluded her from the meeting. The following day, the warehouse manager screamed at Parker and blamed her for “bringing the situation to the workplace.” He also stated that “he could no longer recommend her for promotions or higher-level tasks because of the rumor” and that he “would not allow her to advance any further within the company.” A few days later, the warehouse manager “lost his temper and began screaming” at Parker, and Parker then filed an internal sexual harassment complaint with RCSI Human Resources. Shortly thereafter, RCSI gave Parker two warnings and terminated her employment.

Parker brought a discrimination claim, alleging that she was subjected to a hostile work environment. The district court dismissed her claim on the grounds that 1) the harassment was not based upon gender and instead based upon false allegations of conduct by her, and 2) the conduct was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to have altered the conditions of Parker’s employment because the rumor was circulated for just a few weeks. Judge Titus found, “Clearly, this woman is entitled to the dignity of her merit-based promotion and not to have it sullied by somebody suggesting that it was because she had sexual relations with a supervisor who promoted her.” However, he continued “that is not a harassment based upon gender. It’s based upon false allegations of conduct by her. And this same type of a rumor could be made in a variety of other context[s] involving people of the same gender or different genders alleged to have had some kind of sexual activity leading to a promotion.” Ultimately, Judge Titus held that “the rumor and the spreading of that kind of a rumor is based upon conduct, not gender.

Gender-Based Rumors Can Constitute Sex Harassment

Taking into account all of the allegations of the complaint, including the sex-based nature of the rumor and its effects, the Fourth Circuit held that the rumor that Parker had sex with her male superior to obtain a promotion was gender-based in that it implied that she “used her womanhood, rather than her merit, to obtain from a man, so seduced, a promotion.” The court found that the rumor invoked “a deeply rooted perception — one that unfortunately still persists — that generally women, not men, use sex to achieve success.” This double standard precipitated by negative stereotypes regarding the relationship between the advancement of women in the workplace and their sexual behavior can cause superiors and coworkers to treat women in the workplace differently from men. Thus, the rumor about Parker sleeping her way to a promotion constituted a form of sexual harassment.

The Fourth Circuit also held that Parker sufficiently alleged severe or pervasive harassment:

[T]he harassment was continuous, preoccupying not only Parker, but also management and the employees at the Sterling facility for the entire time of Parker’s employment after her final promotion. The harassment began with the fabrication of the rumor by a jealous male workplace competitor and was then circulated by male employees. Management too contributed to the continuing circulation of the rumor. The highest-ranking manager asked another manager, who was rumored to be having the relationship with Parker, whether his wife was divorcing him because he was “f–king” Parker. The same manager called an all-staff meeting, at which the rumor was discussed, and excluded Parker. In another meeting, the manager blamed Parker for bringing the rumor into the workplace. And in yet another meeting, the manager harangued Parker about the rumor, stating he should have fired her when she began “huffing and puffing” about it.

Implications

Parker correctly recognizes that gender-based stereotypes can prevent women from advancing in the workplace and that Title VII bars employers from using negative gender stereotypes to harass employees.

ARTICLE BY Eric Bachman of Zuckerman Law.

More on workplace harassment via the National Law Review Labor & Employment law page.

Global Employment Contracts: The Modern Tower of Babel

Although multi-jurisdictional compliance is a challenge in relation to every aspect of employment law, the structure of employment contracts and the enforcement of global policies require particularly careful consideration.

The need to coordinate individual country compliance across numerous countries whilst still maintaining a common company culture requires extensive knowledge of national laws and considerable ﬂexibility.

Contracts

US-based businesses will be used to working with at-will offer letters, but these are mostly unheard of elsewhere. In most jurisdictions, detailed employment contracts are not only customary, but are required by law. As you would expect, companies must ensure the legal compliance of their contractual documentation for each country in which they do business. This includes engagement letters, employment offers, employment contracts, bonus schemes, stock option plans, etc.

With employment contracts, the most common approach is to prepare a contract compliant with local law in accordance with best practices in the jurisdiction where the individual is to be employed. Contracts should incorporate crucial terms, such as probationary periods, termination grounds, working time provisions, and post-termination non-compete and/or non-solicitation provisions.

Countries have varying rules on the maximum duration of a probationary period. For example, France permits an eight-month probationary period, one renewal included, for executives under an indeﬁnite-term contract (contrat à durée indéterminée); whereas a 90-day probationary period is standard in the United States.
Subject to applicable statutory restrictions in each country, termination provisions provide a good starting point to enforce the departure of an employee, for example in case of a violation of company policies, such as a code of conduct.
In France, where the legal working time is 35 hours per week, there is the option of entering into ﬂat-rate pay agreements for autonomous executives whose roles and responsibilities do not permit alignment with the collective working time/office schedule. In the United Kingdom, there exist more ﬂexible, zero-hours contracts, under which the employer is not obliged to provide any minimum working hours but, equally, the employee has no obligation to accept the work offered.
The rules on post-termination provisions, such as conﬁdentiality, non-compete and non-solicitation restrictions, vary signiﬁcantly. Some jurisdictions follow a reasonableness approach (Australia, the United Arab Emirates, and the United Kingdom); others have outright prohibitions (India, Mexico, and Russia); and others mandate compensation for non-compete clauses (China, France, and Germany).

With so many nuances country-by-country, contract drafters often consider choice of law and jurisdiction clauses. Public policy considerations may, however, override such clauses. For an Italian citizen hired in Italy to work in Italy, it will be difficult to apply Australian law merely because the employer is an Australian corporation. The general rule is that the laws of an employee’s physical worksite will likely apply, regardless of such clauses.

The relevant law for all European Union countries is the Rome I Regulation. Under Rome I, foreign employees in Europe beneﬁt from the mandatory laws of the country with which they have the closest connection, which will usually be the country where they normally work. Accordingly, a German employee working in France should receive a French law-governed employment contract, even if the employee works for a UK employing entity.

For highly mobile employees, however, the place of work is often debatable. For instance, English employment courts have decided that an employee working remotely in Australia has the right to bring an unfair dismissal claim in the United Kingdom if the work is done for a UK employer, regardless of the employee’s physical worksite.

Forum-selection provisions that call for a forum other than the place of employment tend to be unenforceable outside the United States. In London, US expatriates working under contracts with such clauses who sue before an English Employment Tribunal are unlikely to see their claim dismissed when their employer invokes the forum-selection clause.

In choice-of-forum situations, Europeans invoke the provisions of the “Recast Brussels Regulation.” These codify the general rule that employees rarely have to litigate employment disputes outside their host country place of employment, even if a choice-of-foreign-forum clause purports to require otherwise.

Communicating Global Policies

Every organisation has bespoke policies, employee handbooks, and a code of conduct. In addition, every organisation has its own HR practices, such as evaluation processes and training programmes, all dictated by the corporate culture and even corporate vocabulary. It can be challenging to extend those across borders and the legal systems of different countries.

In France, policies related to safety, disciplinary procedures, harassment, whistleblowing, etc., particularly if the policy provides sanctions, must be incorporated within internal rules (règlement intérieur), which must be ﬁled with the employment court and inspectorate. If a company fails to ﬁle its policies correctly, it may not be able to discipline employees for violating the rules.

Country by country, companies must consider the interrelationship between the contract and the applicable policies. In some jurisdictions, it is advisable to incorporate relevant handbook policies into the contract. In the United Kingdom, for example, it is compulsory to mention disciplinary and grievances procedures in the contract.

Language Barriers

Where the policies are written is, however, merely the beginning. How they are written is much more complicated. Communicating clearly in multiple languages is now a core HR function for global entities. Many jurisdictions, such as Belgium, France, and Poland, require contracts to be in the local language, even for an employee ﬂuent in the primary language used by the employer. If the contract is not in the local language, its provisions, the policies, and other elements, will be unenforceable, at least for the employer.

A typical example is a global bonus plan, where a failure by the employer to translate the target objectives can allow the employee to claim a bonus without needing to comply with the terms of the plan (i.e., without achieving the stated goals or objectives). This has been conﬁrmed by French case law.

In some countries, such as Turkey, the local language will always prevail, regardless of what is provided for in the contract. In those cases, ensuring translation accuracy can avoid inadvertently granting employees more generous terms under a local translation than the company intended.

Local language translations are also required for other purposes. For instance, in Spain the employment contract needs to be ﬁled with the government, in Spanish. In other countries, such as China, works councils and unions will need to be consulted on the implementation of policies, and submissions for those consultations will need to be in the local language.

As a result, businesses now often consider whether to create employment documents in the local language only, or in two languages. If a document is used that has two columns showing the corporate language and the local language, it is crucial to state which language prevails.

ARTICLE BY Yesenia M. Gallegos and Ludovic Bergès of McDermott Will & Emery.

For more on employment law, see the Labor & Employment law page on the National Law Review.

Inclusion Does Not Stop Workplace Bias, Deloitte Survey Shows

In Deloitte’s 2019 State of Inclusion Survey, 86% of respondents said they felt comfortable being themselves all or most of the time at work, including 85% of women, 87% of Hispanic respondents, 86% of African American respondents, 87% of Asian respondents, 80% of respondents with a disability and 87% of LGBT respondents. But other questions in the company’s survey show a more troubling, less inclusive and productive office environment, and may indicate that simply implementing inclusion initiatives is not enough to prevent workplace bias.

While more than three-fourths of those surveyed also said that they believed their company “fostered an inclusive workplace,” many reported experiencing or witnessing bias (defined as “an unfair prejudice or judgment in favor or against a person or group based on preconceived notions”) in the workplace. In fact, 64% said that they “had experienced bias in their workplaces during the last year” and “also felt they had witnessed bias at work” in the same time frame. A sizable number of respondents—including 56% of LGBT respondents, 54% of respondents with disabilities and 53% of those with military status—also said they had experienced bias at least once a month.

Listening to those who say they have witnessed or experienced bias is especially important. When asked to more specifically categorize the bias they experienced and/or witnessed in the past year, 83% said that the bias in those incidents was indirect and subtle (also called “microaggression”), and therefore less easily identified and addressed. Also, the study found that those employees who belonged to certain communities were more likely to report witnessing bias against those communities than those outside them. For example, 48% of Hispanic respondents, 60% of Asian respondents, and 63% of African American respondents reported witnessing bias based on race or ethnicity, as opposed to only 34% of White, non-Hispanic respondents. Additionally, 40% of LGBT respondents reported witnessing bias based on sexuality, compared to only 23% of straight respondents.

While inclusion initiatives have not eliminated bias, Deloitte stresses that these programs are important and should remain. As Risk Management previously reported in the article “The Benefits of Diversity & Inclusion Initiatives,” not only can fostering diversity and inclusion be beneficial for workers of all backgrounds, it can also encourage employees to share ideas for innovations that can help the company, keep employees from leaving, and insulate the company from accusations of discrimination and reputational damage.

But building a more diverse workforce is only the first step, and does not guarantee that diverse voices are heard or that bias will not occur. Clearly, encouraging inclusion is not enough and more can be done to curtail workplace bias. And employees seeing or experiencing bias at work has serious ramifications for businesses. According to the survey, bias may impact productivity—68% of respondents experiencing or witnessing bias stated that bias negatively affected their productivity, and 70% say bias “has negatively impacted how engaged they feel at work.”

Deloitte says that modeling inclusion and anti-bias behavior in the workplace is essential, stressing the concept of “allyship,” which includes, “supporting others even if your personal identity is not impacted by a specific challenge or is not called upon in a specific situation.” This would include employees or managers listening to their colleagues when they express concerns about bias and addressing incidents of bias when they occur, even if that bias is not apparent to them or directly affecting them or their identity specifically.

According to the survey, 73% of respondents reported feeling comfortable talking about workplace bias, but “when faced with bias, nearly one in three said they ignored bias that they witnessed or experienced.” If businesses foster workplaces where people feel comfortable listening to and engaging honestly with colleagues of different backgrounds, create opportunities for diversity on teams and projects, and most importantly, address bias whenever it occurs, they can move towards a healthier, more productive work environment.

Article by Adam Jacobson of Risk and Insurance Management Society, Inc. (RIMS).

For more on workplace discrimination issues, please see the National Law Review Labor & Employment law page.

Growing Questions About Employee Medical Marijuana Use Leave Employers in a Haze

The intersection of employment and marijuana laws has just gotten cloudier, thanks to a recent decision by the Rhode Island Superior Court interpreting that state’s medical marijuana and discrimination laws. In Callaghan v. Darlington Fabrics Corporation, the court broke with the majority of courts in other states in holding that an employer’s enforcement of its neutral drug testing policy to deny employment to an applicant because she held a medical marijuana card violated the anti-discrimination provisions of the state medical marijuana law.

Background

Plaintiff applied for an internship at Darlington, and during an initial meeting, she signed a statement acknowledging she would be required to take a drug test prior to being hired. At that meeting, Plaintiff disclosed that she had a medical marijuana card. Several days later, Plaintiff indicated to Darlington’s human resources representative that she was currently using medical marijuana and that as a result she would test positive on the pre-employment drug test. Darlington informed Plaintiff that it was unable to hire her because she would fail the drug test and thus could not comply with the company’s drug-free workplace policy.

Plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging Darlington violated the Hawkins-Slater Act (“the Act”), the state’s medical marijuana law, and the Rhode Island Civil Rights Act (“RICRA”). The Hawkins-Slater Act provides that “[n]o school, employer, or landlord may refuse to enroll, employ, or lease to, or otherwise penalize, a person solely for his or her status as a cardholder.” After concluding that Act provides for a private right of action, the court held that Darlington’s refusal to hire Plaintiff violated the Act’s prohibition against refusing to employ a cardholder. Citing another provision that the Act should not be construed to require an employer to accommodate “the medical use of marijuana in any workplace,” Darlington contended that Act does not require employers to accommodate medical marijuana use, and that doing so here would create workplace safety concerns. The court rejected this argument, concluding:

The use of the phrase “in any workplace” suggests that statute does require employers to accommodate medical marijuana use outside the workplace.
Darlington’s workplace safety argument ignored the language of the Act, which prohibits “any person to undertake any task under the influence of marijuana, when doing so would constitute negligence or professional malpractice.” In other words, employers can regulate medical marijuana use by prohibiting workers from being under the influence while on duty, rather than refusing to hire medical marijuana users at all.
By hiring Plaintiff, Darlington would not be required to make accommodations “as they are defined in the employment discrimination context,” such as restructuring jobs, modifying work schedules, or even modifying the existing drug and alcohol policy (which prohibited the illegal use or possession of drugs on company property, but did not state that a positive drug test would result in the rescission of a job offer or termination of employment).

The court thus granted Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on her Hawkins-Slater Act claims.

With respect to Plaintiff’s RICRA claim, the court found that Plaintiff’s status as a medical marijuana cardholder was a signal to Darlington that she could not have obtained the card without a debilitating medical condition that would have caused her to be disabled. Therefore, the Court found that Plaintiff is disabled and that she had stated a claim for disability discrimination under RICRA because Darlington refused to hire her due to her status as a cardholder. Importantly, the court held that the allegations supported a disparate treatment theory.

Finally, while noting that “Plaintiff’s drug use is legal under Rhode Island law, but illegal under federal law [i.e. the Controlled Substances Act (the CSA”)],” the Court found that the CSA did not preempt the Hawkins-Slater Act or RICRA. According to the court, the CSA’s purpose of “illegal importation, manufacture, distribution and possession and improper use of controlled substances” was quite distant from the “realm of employment and anti-discrimination law.”

Key Takeaways

While this decision likely will be appealed, it certainly adds additional confusion for employers in this unsettled area of the law – particularly those who have and enforce zero-tolerance drug policies. The decision departs from cases in other jurisdictions – such as California, Colorado, Montana, Oregon, and Washington – that have held that employers may take adverse action against medical marijuana users. The laws in those states, however, merely decriminalize marijuana and, unlike the Rhode Island law, do not provide statutory protections in favor of marijuana users. In those states in which marijuana use may not form the basis for an adverse employment decision, or in which marijuana use must be accommodated, the Callaghan decision may signal a movement to uphold employment protections for medical marijuana users.

While this issue continues to wend its way through the courts in Rhode Island and elsewhere, employers clearly may continue to prohibit the on-duty use of or impairment by marijuana. Employers operating in states that provide employment protections to marijuana users may consider allowing legal, off-duty use, while taking adverse action against those users that come to work under the influence.

Of course, it remains unclear how employers can determine whether an employee is under the influence of marijuana at work. Unlike with alcohol, current drug tests do not indicate whether and to what extent an employee is impaired by marijuana. Reliance on observations from employees may be problematic, as witnesses may have differing views as to the level of impairment and, in any event, observation alone does not indicate the source of impairment. Employers choosing to follow this “impairment standard” are advised to obtain as many data points as possible before making an adverse employment decision.

All employers – and particularly federal contractors required to comply with the Drug-Free Workplace Act and those who employ a zero-tolerance policy – should review their drug-testing policy to ensure that it (a) sets clear expectations of employees; (b) provides justifications for the need for drug-testing; (b) expressly allows for adverse action (including termination or refusal to hire) as a consequence of a positive drug test. Additionally, employers enforcing zero-tolerance policies should be prepared for future challenges in those states prohibiting discrimination against and/or requiring accommodation of medical marijuana users. Those states may require the adjustment or relaxation of a hiring policy to accommodate a medical marijuana user.

The Callaghan decision also serves as a reminder of the intersection of medical marijuana use and disability. Here, the court allowed a disability discrimination claim to proceed even though Plaintiff never revealed the nature of her underlying disability because cardholder status and disability were so inextricably linked.

Finally, employers should be mindful of their drug policies’ applicability not only to current employees, but to applicants as well. In Callaghan, the court found the employer in violation of state law before the employee was even offered the internship or had taken the drug test.

This post was written byNathaniel M. Glasser and Carol J. Faherty of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.

Tag: Workplace

Employment Tip of the Month – February 2024

Like this:

Reminder to Employers Regarding Mandatory Workplace Posters

Like this: