Category: Labor & Employment

Employers: How Prepared Are You for Ebola?

Morgan Lewis logo

Rapidly changing circumstances raise workplace questions.

The Ebola epidemic in 2014 has already been confirmed by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) as the worst in history. The extent of this outbreak is still unknown, as reports of Ebola transmissions continue not only in West Africa but also (for the first time in history) inside U.S. and European borders. Because of the potential risks in a globalized economy, the U.S. government, its various agencies, and employers alike are now scrambling to ensure that appropriate rules and procedures are in place to prevent any further exposure to the disease. Reactions have been swift and fluid as officials learn more about the presence of the virus in West Africa and beyond and as they develop strategies to respond. Among the federal agencies that have already taken action, the CDC has recently issued “tightened” guidance for proper personal protective equipment (PPE) in the healthcare industry, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has issued guidance covering a number of workplace safety issues. The situation is changing rapidly and further action is expected by the U.S. government, especially after the White House announced the appointment of an Ebola Response Coordinator (or Ebola Czar).

In the United States, employers are facing challenges and questions on how to best address a wide variety of issues, including workplace safety, travel policies, employee relations, leaves of absence, and refusal to work requests. Whether responding to Ebola or other emergencies, employers should use protocols that include emergency preparedness and response plans, such as assigning responsibilities, assessing the hazard, conveying effective communications, and implementing security measures to address those key issues. In the meantime, here is what you need to know right now.

OSHA’s Interim Guidance

OSHA quickly released interim guidance for workers within the United States that focuses on those in industries most likely to be affected by the Ebola crisis:

  • Healthcare workers

  • Airline and other travel industry personnel

  • Mortuary and death care workers

  • Laboratory workers

  • Border, customs, and quarantine workers

  • Emergency responders

  • Employers in critical infrastructure/key resource sectors, such as bus drivers and pharmacists

Employers in these key industries must evaluate how they currently respond to emergencies and if those preparedness and response plans are adequate or need modification, particularly when assessing hazards specific to their jobsites (OSHA lists industry-specific information on its website). These employers should explore ways to proactively combat and contain the virus, such as obtaining PPE, implementing cleaning and sanitation procedures, and evaluating whether engineering controls, such as pressurized glass, respirators, and decontamination devices, should be used. If an employer happens to be a hospital or similarly licensed accredited facility, state licensing and other laws as well as accreditation bodies may require those organizations to activate emergency preparedness plans. Employers should communicate with their workers and train them about sources of Ebola and any required precautions.

On its newly released website dedicated to Ebola, OSHA has asserted jurisdiction over potential worker exposure via several regulations already in place. Most notably, the Ebola virus has been classified as a “bloodborne pathogen” under OSHA’s Bloodborne Pathogens standard,[1] which explicitly covers pathogens like hepatitis B virus (HBV) and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). The Bloodborne Pathogens standard imposes a range of requirements on employers whose workers can be reasonably anticipated to contact blood or other potentially infectious materials (OPIM), such as saliva and semen. Covered employers must train employees, prepare exposure control plans, and use “universal precautions,” engineering and work practice controls, PPE, and housekeeping measures to contain the virus. Employers must also offer medical evaluations, blood tests, and follow-up evaluations after any worker is exposed to blood or OPIM. The standard contains many other nuanced requirements, including carefully documenting compliance measures. Given the complexities of the regulation, employers are strongly encouraged to seek legal advice if workers could anticipate exposure and to seek emergency, medical, and legal advice if any work-related exposure to blood or OPIM occurs.

Beyond this standard, OSHA has reminded employers that—when undertaking precautions for contact-transmissible diseases and any bioaerosols containing the Ebola virus—they must comply with OSHA’s (1) Respiratory Protection standard[2] if respirators are used on the job and (2) PPE standard[3] wherever PPE is used as a precaution. Finally, OSHA reiterated that it may issue citations against employers under the General Duty Clause of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970[4]—OSHA’s “catch all” provision, which is used if no other regulation applies and where an employer allegedly fails to keep its workplace free of recognized hazards that can cause death or serious bodily harm to workers.

CDC Involvement

The primary U.S. agency embroiled in the fight against Ebola is the CDC. Of the many steps taken by the CDC in this effort, highlights of the latest guidance and advice are outlined below.

“Tightened Guidance” on PPE for U.S. Healthcare Workers

Following widespread criticism after two nurses contracted Ebola while treating a patient in Dallas, Texas, the CDC released on October 20 “tightened guidance” for PPE used by healthcare workers while caring for patients with Ebola. According to the CDC, three guiding principles control: (1) Employees must receive rigorous and repeated training to fully understand how to use PPE, (2) no skin can be exposed when PPE is worn, and (3) a trained monitor must be present to supervise all workers as they put on or take off PPE. The CDC also described “different options for combining PPE to allow a facility to select PPE for their protocols based on availability, healthcare personnel familiarity, comfort and preference while continuing to provide a standardized, high level of protection for healthcare personnel.” Among the recommendations for monitoring the safe use and removal of PPE, the CDC provides advice on step-by-step PPE removal, as well as disinfection of gloved hands.

In addition to PPE, the CDC further underscored other critical prevention activities to respond to the Ebola risk, including (1) prompt screening and triage of potential patients, (2) designating site managers who have the responsibility to ensure proper implementation of precautions, (3) limiting personnel in the isolation room, and (4) effective environmental cleaning. Employers in the healthcare industry should be aware that the CDC has highlighted management responsibility “to provide resources and support for the implementation of effective prevention precautions” and that management “should maintain a culture of worker safety in which appropriate PPE is available and correctly maintained, and workers are provided with appropriate training.” For more information and advice for healthcare workers, visit the CDC’s website.

Health and Travel Advisories

Given the severity of the risk that Ebola poses, the CDC has issued health and travel alerts, which it will continue to update as the situation develops. In the wake of various governors, particularly those from New York, New Jersey, and Illinois, having announced plans to quarantine health workers traveling from West Africa who treated Ebola patients, the CDC has also updated its guidance on October 27 regarding the monitoring and movement of persons with potential Ebola exposure. The guidance applies to anyone who recently traveled to West Africa and may have been exposed to Ebola and includes newly created tiered categories of risk, ranging from high to no risk and based on exposure to Ebola. Depending on the risk category, the CDC recommends that state and local health authorities isolate travelers who are exhibiting signs of illness or conduct “active” or “direct active” monitoring of signs and symptoms of Ebola for other at-risk individuals.

Health officials will make at least daily contact with these travelers, requiring travelers to disclose (1) temperatures and any other Ebola symptoms, such as headache, diarrhea, and vomiting, and (2) intent to travel out of state. For individuals who are under direct active monitoring, the CDC recommends that discussions with the individual include plans to work, travel, take public transportation, or go to busy public places to determine whether these activities are allowed.

Employers, and particularly employers with an international presence, should closely monitor these CDC travel advisories,[5] as well as advisories published by the World Health Organization (WHO).[6] Employers should evaluate their own travel policies and alerts against those published by the CDC and the WHO.

Protecting Employees from Impacted Regions from Harassment and Protecting the Confidentiality of Medical Information

Like the CDC, employers must respect workers’ privacy—and, particularly, the confidentiality of their medical information pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)—and they must also comply with rules and guidance from OSHA, the CDC, and other agencies. Employers should balance their need to ensure workplace safety with their obligation to avoid unnecessary or overbroad medical inquiries, which are prohibited by the ADA. Of course, if an employee is exhibiting symptoms of Ebola exposure, it is appropriate to urge him or her to see a doctor. However, the decision to send an employee for a medical exam or to request medical documentation should be based on objective information—not unfounded fears that may or may not be grounded in reality. As an example, without some reason to believe there has been Ebola exposure, it could be risky to request medical information simply because an employee visited an Ebola-impacted region.

Employers should also take caution and consult legal counsel before they send home an employee suspected of Ebola exposure. The decision to remove an employee from the workplace for medical reasons must based on objective belief that the employee may present a direct threat of significant, imminent harm to himself or herself or others. These decisions should not be based on rumor or unfounded concerns.

To address these issues, employers should train human resources employees about the CDC guidance so they can understand the medical and scientific realities of Ebola exposure and, therefore, be prepared to respond appropriately if employees express concern about a coworker believed to be at risk for Ebola exposure. Similarly, employers should take all necessary steps to ensure that employees who are, or who are perceived to be, from regions impacted by Ebola do not experience harassment based on race, national origin, or any perceived medical condition.

HIPAA

The Ebola situation has also introduced some Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) interpretation questions for employers that are Covered Entities—such as healthcare providers—but also for those that sponsor a Covered Entity group health plan. HIPAA protects an individual’s protected health information (PHI), which includes, for example, medical, demographic, and other identifying information. HIPAA restricts Covered Entities from disclosing PHI about a worker or plan participant, except in limited circumstances. To date, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has not indicated that the Ebola crisis will change its enforcement or interpretation of HIPAA. The HIPAA Privacy Rule and Security Rules, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, will still apply to Covered Entities. Although narrow exceptions exist for use or disclosure for certain public health purposes, this exception will likely only apply in limited situations for limited organizations. Covered Entities should review their policies and procedures to determine if and how infectious diseases, particularly Ebola, are addressed. They should also train their Privacy Employees—workers who act on behalf of the Covered Entity—to continue to protect an individual’s PHI. Before disclosing any PHI, Covered Entities should exercise caution and consult with legal counsel to confirm that a use or disclosure will not constitute a HIPAA violation.

Labor Relations

In light of the media furor from various healthcare and service workers’ unions regarding Ebola risks to workers, employers should also expect to receive collective bargaining demands related to training, adequate safety procedures, and protective equipment and medical services provided to exposed employees, potentially including demands for leave (whether paid or unpaid). Employers should be proactive, therefore, in reaching out to union representatives of healthcare workers to develop protocols on how best to handle these types of issues, and, given the labor laws, should not act unilaterally, even if well intentioned and even if the to-be-implemented protocols are favorable to employees. Employers should also review their current collective bargaining agreements for any clauses or language requiring the employer to implement procedures related to infectious diseases or the safety of their workers. Finally, even nonunion workers can exercise rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to engage in concerted activity for their mutual aid and protection if workers fear their safety is not adequately protected. A refusal to work because of safety concerns related to Ebola, therefore, could be protected under the NLRA, and employers should carefully consider this issue prior to implementing discipline to employees for refusing to work.

Immigration

In coordination with the CDC, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) implemented a set of travel restrictions[7] involving additional screening and protective measures for travelers from Ebola-affected countries at U.S. ports of entry. Travelers to the United States who are arriving directly or indirectly from Liberia, Sierra Leone, or Guinea will undergo enhanced screening that includes the following:

  • Identifying and interdicting travelers from the Ebola-affected countries.

  • Isolating these travelers from the rest of the traveling public while the individual completes a questionnaire and contact information form.

  • Medically trained personnel will take the traveler’s temperature. If the traveler has a fever or other symptoms, or may have been exposed to Ebola, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will refer the traveler to the CDC for a public health assessment. The CDC will then determine whether the traveler can continue to travel, should be taken to a hospital for further evaluation, or should be referred to a local health department for further monitoring.

  • Encouraging the traveler to seek healthcare at the first sign of any potential illness.

If CBP discovers that a traveler has been in one of the three countries in the prior 21 days, he or she will be referred for additional screening, and, if necessary, the CDC or other medical personnel in the area will be contacted pursuant to existing protocols. The enhanced screening is in place at the five U.S. airports that account for 94% of travelers flying to the United States from Ebola-affected countries. The airports are John F. Kennedy International, Newark Liberty International, Washington Dulles International, Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International, and Chicago O’Hare International. DHS has authority under existing law to deny admission to individuals who represent a public health threat.

Given the rapidly changing circumstances, employers are faced with many labor and employment challenges to consider.

[1]. 29 C.F.R. § 1910.1030.

[2]. 29 C.F.R. § 1910.134.

[3]. 29 C.F.R. 1910.132.

[4]. View the act here.

[5]. View the advisories here.

[6]. View the advisories here.

[7]. View the restrictions here.

ARTICLE BY

Jonathan L. Snare
Joyce A. Cowan
Eric S. Bord
Ross H. Friedman
Michelle Seldin Silverman
Georgina L. O’Hara
OF
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP

NLRB Shows Some Restraint in its Protection of Employee Social Media Communications: Employee Termination Arising From “Egregious” and “Insubordinate” Facebook Posts Was Legal Under the NLRA

Mintz Levin Law Firm

In the wake of the NLRB’s aggressive crackdown on social media policies, many employers have asked: “Is there any limit to what employees can post on social media about their employers?”  It appears that there is.  Just last week, a former employee of the Richmond District Neighborhood Teen Center in San Francisco learned this the hard way when the Board dismissed his complaint that the Center violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act after it pulled a rehire offer after it discovered that he particpated in an inappropriate Facebook exchange.

During the 2011-2012 school year, Ian Callaghan and Kenya Moore both worked for the Center’s afterschool program—Callaghan as a teen activity leader and Moore as the teen center program leader.  In May 2012, the Center held a staff meeting during which it solicited and received both positive and negative feedback from its staff, including Callaghan and Moore.  In July 2012, Callaghan and Moore received letters inviting them to return to the Center for the 2012-2013 school year; this time both as activity leaders.

The following month, Callaghan and Moore communicated over Facebook about (i) refusing to obtain permission before organizing youth activities (“ordering sh*t, having crazy events at the Beacon all the time.  I don’t want to ask permission…”; “Let’s do some cool sh*t and let them figure out the money”; “field trips all the time to wherever the f#@! we want!”), (ii) disregarding specific school district rules (“play music loud”; “teach the kids how to graffiti up the walls…”), (iii) undermining leadership (“we’ll take advantage”), (iv) neglecting their duties (“I ain’t go[]never be there”), and (v) jeopardizing the safety of participating youth and the program overall (“they start loosn kids I aint helpin”; “Let’s f#@! it up”).  When the Center’s administration became aware of the postings, it revoked the offers to rehire, and Callaghan filed a charge with the Board.

Under Section 7 of the Act, employees have the right to engage in concerted activities for their mutual aid and protection, including complaining to one another about the terms and conditions of their employment.  In that vein, an employer may not take adverse action against employees for exercising their Section 7 rights without violating Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.  That said, employees can take it too far and lose the protection of Section 7 when their conduct is particularly egregious or of such a character as to render the employees unfit for further service.

Here, although Callaghan and Moore previously had engaged in protected activity during the May 2012 staff meeting when they offered negative feedback about the Center, and although neither Callaghan nor Moore had ever engaged in any acts of insubordination, the Board held that they lost the Act’s protection because “[t]he magnitude and detail of insubordinate acts advocated in the [Facebook] posts reasonably gave [the Center] concern that Callaghan and Moore would act on their plans, a risk a reasonable employer would refuse to take.”

Several years ago, the Richmond District Neighborhood Center decision may have been a foregone conclusion.  But in light of the current Board’s aggressive approach to Section 7 protections, the decision provides employers with reassurance that Section 7 has retained at least some outer bounds.  The decision provides some guidance for defining “insubordination” in social media policies, for example, to include communications pervaded by detailed plans to jeopardize the employer’s very existence, violate legally enforceable employer policies, or neglect job duties.

For a full discussion of the Board’s recent approach to social media policies, see George Patterson’s September 3, 2014 posting “NLRB Continues Aggressive Crackdown on Social Media Polices.”

ARTICLE BY

Erin Cornell Horton
OF
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

EEOC Part of Increasing Focus On LGBT Issues

Barnes Thornburg

We seem clearly to be in the midst of a shift towards greater employment protections for LGBT employees, evidenced both by discrimination legislation largely at a state and local level and less directly in the legal environment by developments such as greater acceptance of gay marriage including the Supreme Court’s recent refusal to consider lower court decisions invalidating state statutes prohibiting gay marriage.

EEOC Commissioner Chai Feldblum recently released thisinteresting summary of the EEOC’s activities and positions on LGBT issues. Highlights include:

  • Title VII prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex.  The EEOC interprets the law to provide protection on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.  This has not always been the case – in the 1970s the EEOC held that discrimination on the basis of gender identity (1974) and sexual orientation (1976) were not prohibited under Title VII.
  • Courts have not yet developed a clear position on this.  (And for lawyer readers, there are numerous case cites that provide a useful reference.)
  • The EEOC has accepted discrimination charges from LGBT individuals since January 2013 and reports that it is has received and resolved hundreds of them.
  • Commissioner Feldblum states that strong laws at all levels of government explicitly protecting LGBT workers are still necessary.

Anecdotally, more and more employers seem to be voluntarily extending to LGBT employees the protection they extend to employees in generally accepted protected classes.  In many cases, the employer is required to do so under the laws of some places it does business, and simply implements the protection uniformly.  Employers who choose not to do so voluntarily and are not yet required to do so in places where they do business should at least be thinking ahead on administering what seem like inevitable changes.

As always, regardless of what classes are protected in what jurisdictions, the best defense against discrimination liability are making good business decisions and being able to document that you have done so.

ARTICLE BY

William A. Nolan
OF
Barnes & Thornburg LLP

NLRB Finds Facebook Posts Go Too Far for the Act's Protection

Neal Gerber

As we reported previously, social media issues are troublesome for employers who must navigate unsettled or even conflicting federal and state laws and decisions.  A recent ruling from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) demonstrates that employers can still protect their business against inappropriate online activity by employees.  Specifically, the NLRB ruled that an Employer acted lawfully in rescinding two employees’ rehire offers, finding that the Facebook conversations between the two were so egregious as to lose protection under the National Labor Relations Act and render the two individuals unfit for further service with the Employer.

The Employer operates a Teen Center that provides afterschool activities to students.  During a period between school sessions, just before the employees would have been rehired for the coming school year, the two individuals engaged in a series of Facebook conversations during which they repeatedly talked, in profane terms, about what they intended to do when they returned to work. The messages contained numerous indications that the two would refuse to follow the rules and policies of the Employer, would refuse to work with management or get required permissions, would engage in various acts to undermine the school’s leadership, and they detailed specific acts of intended insubordination.

The NLRB agreed that the exchange of messages (which certainly discussed their displeasure over working conditions) was “protected concerted activity” under the Act. Normally, such protected activity cannot be the basis of any adverse employment action. However, the Board determined that the conduct constituted “pervasive advocacy of insubordination which, on an objective basis, was so egregious as to lose the Act’s protection.”

In finding the conduct unprotected, the Board relied on the fact that the individuals repeatedly described a wide variety of planned insubordinations in specific detail. According to the Board, these acts were beyond brief comments that might be explained away as a joke or hyperbole divorced from any likelihood of implementation. Rather, the Board concluded that the magnitude and detail of insubordinate conduct advocated in the posts reasonably gave the Employer concern that the two individuals would act on their plans, a risk that a reasonable employer would refuse to take by returning the individuals to the workforce. The Board concluded that the Employer was not required to wait for the employees to follow through on the misconduct they advocated.

This decision gives employers some relief that there are limits to what employees can say on social media, even if the subject of their conversations or postings is “protected” and “concerted”. However, before an employer can take adverse employment action against an employee who engages in such activity, the employer must be able to demonstrate that, on an objective basis, the activity is egregious and pervasive and is of such magnitude and of such detail that it is reasonably likely to be acted upon rather than being mere hyperbole.

[Richmond District Neighborhood Center, 361 NLRB No. 74 — October 28, 2014]

ARTICLE BY

Howard L. Bernstein
OF
Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP

Uber’s Decision To “Deactivate” Driver Over Retweet of Article Goes Viral in Minutes

Allen Matkins Law Firm

It all started with a retweet. A recent story regarding the “deactivation” and subsequent reinstatement of an Uber driver in Albuquerque is a useful reminder for employers that, given the widespread use by employees of social media, employment decisions should not only be well thought out, but also should take into account potential negative publicity.

During a period while he was on hiatus from driving for Uber, Christopher Ortiz merely retweeted an article referenced as “Driving for Uber, not much safer than driving a taxi,” without commenting on the article. When he sought to resume driving for Uber a couple of months later, Ortiz received an email from Uber stating that his driver account had been “permanently deactivated due to hateful statements regarding Uber through social media.” The e-mail referenced the title of the article that Ortiz had retweeted. Ortiz immediately tweeted a screenshot of Uber’s email, and the story was picked up by websites such as Forbes and BuzzFeed.

Twitter Feed for Christopher J. Ortiz

Within hours, Uber reversed its decision and reactivated Ortiz’s driver account. Ortiz then tweeted a screenshot of Uber’s message reinstating him, which subsequently was retweeted numerous times.

In this situation, each of Uber’s communications with Ortiz was made public and broadcast within seconds of its transmission to Ortiz. It took only minutes for Uber’s termination decision to get attention from national media outlets. The fact that information regarding employers’ hiring and firing decisions can become subject to public scrutiny at such a rapid pace should serve as a reminder to employers to carefully assess how they approach these decisions and how they react to the decisions’ aftermath. For example, retracting an employment decision, particularly if it is publicized, could embolden other employees to publicize negative employment decisions affecting them in the hope those decisions too will be retracted.

As noted at the outset, employers should contemplate, as part of their decision-making process, that any employment decisions they make, and particularly those they may e-mail to their employees, potentially could be broadcast publicly and be subject to the court of public opinion through various forms of social media. As demonstrated by this incident, once a story gains traction on social media, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to control the ramifications.

ARTICLE BY

Alexander Nestor
Nisha Verma
OF
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP

How Should IME (Independent Medical Examination) Doctors Apportion for Pre-Existing Impairment Using the AMA Guides and Rule 20 Guidelines?

Steptoe Johnson PLLC Law Firm

In West Virginia, Workers’ Compensation statutes provide that an employee who has a definitely ascertainable impairment resulting from an occupational or non-occupational injury, disease, or any other cause, whether or not disabling, and the employee thereafter receives an injury in the course of and resulting from his employment, the prior injury and the effect of the prior injury and aggravation shall not be taken into consideration in fixing the amount of compensation or impairment allowed by reason of the subsequent injury.  The statute provides that compensation, i.e., a permanent partial disability impairment rating, shall be awarded only in the amount that would have been allowable had the employee not had the pre-existing impairment.

No provision in this particular code section requires that the degree of pre-existing impairment be definitely ascertained or rated prior to the injury received in the course of and resulting from the employment or that the benefits must have been specifically granted or paid for the pre-existing impairment.  Additionally, the degree of pre-existing impairment may be established at any time by competent medical evidence.  It is not clear in the rules or statutes whether a reduction of an award for a pre-existing degenerative impairment should be calculated after the application of the tables in Rule 20 for determining impairment in regard to the lumbar, thoracic, or cervical spine or before the application of these tables.

In West Virginia, with regard to permanent partial disability evaluations and awards, such assessments shall be determined based upon the range of motion model contained in the AMA Guides, 4th Edition.  Once an impairment level has been determined by range of motion assessment in regard to a claimant’s spine injury, that level will be compared with the ranges set forth in the corresponding tables for permanent impairment as found in Rule 20, W. Va. C.S.R. § 85-20 et seq.  Permanent partial disabilities in excess of the range provided in the appropriate category as identified by the rating physician are reduced to within the ranges set forth in these tables found in Rule 20.  A single injury or cumulative injuries that lead to permanent impairment to the lumbar, thoracic, or cervical spine area of one’s person shall cause an injured worker to be eligible to receive a permanent partial disability award within the ranges identified in the tables found in Rule 20.

The rating physician must identify the appropriate impairment category and then assign impairment within the appropriate range designated for that category.  Rule 20 provides that all evaluations, examinations, reports, and opinions with regard to the degree of permanent whole body medical impairment which an injured worker has suffered shall be conducted and imposed in accordance with the AMA Guides, 4th Edition.  Rule 20 does not specifically address allocation of physical impairment at any time but does dictate that degenerative conditions are not compensable.  Also, Rule 20 allows for an evaluating physician to deviate from the rule with sufficient explanation for the deviation.

In a memorandum decision issued by the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals on June 11, 2014, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded a decision of the Office of Judges and Board of Review based on an employer’s appeal and found that the Office of Judges inappropriately concluded that the reviewing doctor did not correctly apportion for the claimant’s pre-existing condition when she did so after applying the table for impairment found in Rule 20.  The Supreme Court specifically noted that the physician correctly and appropriately apportioned for a pre-existing impairment after applying the tables found in Rule 20.  Even though this is a memorandum decision that does not have any specific syllabus points, it certainly is the only decision we have from the high court which shows that apportionment for a pre-existing condition should be made after applying the tables of impairment for the lumbar, thoracic, or cervical spine found in Rule 20.

ARTICLE BY

Alyssa A Sloan
OF
Steptoe & Johnson PLLC

EEOC Loses on Procedural Grounds in Hotly Contested Case Challenging CVS Pharmacy Separation Agreement

SchiffHardin-logo_4c_LLP_www

Employers should continue to proceed with caution despite the recent pro-employer decision in EEOC v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., a closely-watched case in which the EEOC alleged that CVS’ standard separation agreement interfered with the rights of former employees to file an EEOC charge or participate in an EEOC investigation. Although summary judgment was granted in favor of CVS by Judge John W. Darrah of the Northern District of Illinois, the court chose not to address the merits of the case, and instead dismissed the lawsuit on procedural grounds based on the EEOC’s failure to conciliate the case prior to filing its lawsuit.

This lawsuit was unique because there was no allegation that CVS had engaged in discrimination or retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII). Rather, the EEOC alleged that CVS’ mere use of its standard separation agreement constituted a “pattern or practice” of resistance under Section 707 of Title VII. Among several challenged provisions, the separation agreement required former employees to release all waivable claims against CVS, prohibited them from filing any lawsuits or claims against CVS, and required former employees to notify CVS if they participated in an agency investigation. A disclaimer expressly stated that execution of the separation agreement was not intended to interfere with the right to participate in an agency proceeding or from cooperating with such agency.

The court granted summary judgment to CVS due to the EEOC’s failure to conciliate prior to filing suit. Yet, this decision provides little comfort for employers that utilize separation agreements with similar terms. Although the issue of whether the agreement constitutes a “pattern or practice” violation of Title VII remains unsettled, a resolution may be forthcoming as the EEOC is currently pursuing a similar theory in a case pending in the District of Colorado.

The court’s opinion includes a footnote that may prove helpful to employers. Judge Darrah noted that it was unreasonable to interpret CVS’ separation agreement as prohibiting employees from filing an EEOC charge and that, even if the agreement did prohibit the filing of a charge, that provision would simply be unenforceable and “could not constitute resistance to [Title VII]” such that the agreement would violate Title VII. However, this comment is non-binding dicta and not precedential.

ARTICLE BY

Lauren S. Novak
OF
Schiff Hardin LLP

United States Supreme Court Round-Up: Key Opinions from 2013 to 2014 and Upcoming High-Profile Business Disputes

Andrews Kurth

The 2013–2014 term of the United States Supreme Court resulted in a wide range of decisions of importance to business. In this article, we highlight some of the key opinions and explore their likely impacts. We also preview a few of the high-profile business disputes the Supreme Court has agreed to hear next term.

Key Business Cases from the 2013–2014 Term

American Chemistry Council v. Environmental Protection Agency: Holding: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reasonably interpreted the Clean Air Act to require sources that would need permits based on their emission of chemical pollutants to comply with “best available control technology” for greenhouse gases. Effect: The decision reinforces the Supreme Court’s previous recognition that the EPA has the power to regulate greenhouse gases as pollutants. However, portions of the decision strongly cautioned the EPA against overreach, stating that the agency may not “bring about an enormous and transformative expansion in [its] regulatory authority without clear congressional authorization.” These comments suggest that the Supreme Court may take a hard line when the Obama Administration’s other climate regulations eventually go to court.

Daimler AG v. Bauman: Holding: A foreign company doing business in a state cannot be sued in that state for injuries allegedly caused by conduct that took place entirely outside of the United States. Effect: Daimler makes it much harder for plaintiffs to establish general jurisdiction over foreign entities. The opinion re-characterizes general jurisdiction as requiring the defendant to be “at home” in the state, a circumstance that the Supreme Court suggested will generally be limited to the places where the defendant is incorporated or where it has its principal place of business. Moreover, the fact that a domestic subsidiary whose activities are imputed to the foreign parent may be “at home” in the state will not make the foreign parent “at home” in that locale for purposes of general jurisdiction.

Halliburton v. Erica P. John Fund, Inc.: Holding: Plaintiffs in private securities fraud actions must prove that they relied on the defendants’ misrepresentations in choosing to buy stock. Basic v. Levinson’s holding that plaintiffs can satisfy this reliance requirement by invoking a presumption that the price of stock as traded in an efficient market reflects all public, material information, including material misstatements, remains viable. However, after Halliburton, defendants can defeat the presumption at the class certification stage by proving that the misrepresentation did not in fact affect the stock price. Effect: While investors will continue to pursue class actions following large dips in stock prices, the Halliburton decision helps to level the playing field by providing defendants a mechanism to stop such suits at the class certification stage.

Lawson v. FMR LLC: Holding: Employees of privately held contractors or subcontractors of a public company are protected by the anti-retaliation provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX). Effect: Following Lawson, there will likely be an increase in SOX litigation against public and non-public companies. Because many of the issues concerning the scope and meaning of SOX have yet to be resolved, lower courts will continue to wrestle with defining the parameters of the law. Questions left unanswered byLawson include whether the whistleblower’s accusation must be related to work he or she performed for the company and whether the contract with the public company must have some relation to public accounting or securities compliance.

Chadbourne & Park LLP v. Troice: Holding: The Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1988 (SLUSA) does not preclude state-law class actions based on false representations that the uncovered securities that plaintiffs were purchasing were backed by covered securities. Effect: SLUSA bars the bringing of securities class actions “based upon statutory or common law of any state” in which the plaintiff alleges “a misrepresentation or omission of a material fact in connection with a purchase of sale of covered securities.” The statute defines “covered securities” to include only securities traded on a national securities exchange or those issued by investment companies.

U.S. v. Quality Stores: Holding: Severance payments to employees who are involuntarily terminated are taxable wages for purposes of the Federal Insurance Contributions Act. Effect: Employers should, under most circumstances, treat severance payments to involuntarily terminated employees as wages subject to FICA taxes. There are exceptions, however, and employers should therefore seek legal counsel to assist in determining the tax status of a particular severance arrangement.

Business Cases to Watch in the 2014–2015 Term

Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk: Whether time spent in security screenings is compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mach Mining v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: Whether and to what extent a court may enforce the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s mandatory duty to conciliate discrimination claims before filing suit.

Omnicare v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund: Whether, for purposes of a claim under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, a plaintiff may plead that a statement of opinion was untrue merely by alleging that the opinion itself was objectively wrong, or must the plaintiff also allege that the statement was subjectively false through allegations that the speaker’s actual opinion was different from the one expressed.

Young v. UPS: Whether, and in what circumstances, an employer that provides work accommodations to non-pregnant employees with work limitations must provide work accommodations to pregnant employees who are similar in their ability or inability to work.

As in recent years, the Supreme Court continues to grant review on more and more cases involving matters of concern to U.S. businesses. Andrews Kurth attorneys are available to provide further detail and guidance on the decisions highlighted here, and on any other issues of concern to your company that have reached the high court.

ARTICLE BY

Kelly Sandill
OF
Andrews Kurth

Managing Ebola Concerns in the Workplace [PODCAST]

Jackson Lewis Law firm

Many employers are struggling to understand the potential workplace implications of Ebola hemorrhagic fever (EHF).  We invite you to listen to a complimentary 48-minute podcast during which three Jackson Lewis practice group leaders discuss some of the legal and practical issues relating to the virus.  Among the issues discussed are:

  • Steps employers should consider taking to ensure OSHA and state workplace health and safety laws are satisfied;

  • ADA, GINA and FMLA compliance challenges that may arise as employers attempt to lawfully identify and manage employees who are or may have been exposed to Ebola; and

  • HIPAA and other sources of privacy and medical confidentiality obligations that should be considered as employers respond to workplace Ebola concerns.

You can access the podcast here.

ARTICLE BY

Bradford T. Hammock
OF
Jackson Lewis P.C.

The Unions Are Coming…The Unions Are Coming! We Don’t Need Paul Revere’s Lantern To See Who’s Coming!

Michael Best Logo

On December 16, 2014, the term of NLRB Board Member Nancy Schiffer ends.  This is a critical date for the union movement because on that date the pro-Union members of the Board will lose their 3-2 majority status and their effective control over the NLRB. So what’s coming next for private employers?

On July 29, 2014, the General Counsel of the NLRB issued an advice memorandum to the NLRB Regional Directors identifying his game plan regarding re-establishing a new definition for joint employer, to make it easier for unions to organize:

“The new broader standard will allow employees to use traditional economic weapons to exert lawful economic pressure on those parties to realistically control the economics of their relationship even if they do not directly control working conditions.”

Prior to that public announcement, the General Counsel had stated that the objective of the Board has been to consistently uphold unions organizing very small subsets of employees, called “micro-units,” instead of the traditional wall-to-wall bargaining units.  Quite simply, these “micro units” are easier for unions to gerrymander and, ultimately, to organize.

The final step in this trifecta is the most troubling for employers – the new NLRB Election Rules.  Through rule-making, the NLRB is seeking to re-write the NLRA in such a way as to greatly speed up the elections.  The new rules reduce the timeline for elections from over 35 days to under 20 days between the time of the petition and the election.  These “quickie” or “ambush” elections will undoubtedly benefit unions, because it gives the employer less time to explain to the employee the pros and cons of joining a union.  These rules are on a fast track and clearly support the union movement.

So, undoubtedly, the unions are indeed coming after management!  This is a watershed moment for the unions.  The union’s financial coffers have been depleted as the union membership numbers continue to plummet. If they don’t get their act together and start to effectively unionize, then they will have to stop blaming employers and/or the NLRB for their organizing failures.

Under the new NLRB Election Rules, nearly all election-related issues will be resolved after the election.  This process would be similar to the approach taken in the recent Northwestern University football players’ case, in which the NLRB held the election and then impounded the ballots.  The NLRB will sort out any issues after the fact so long as the objections don’t impact more than 20% of the bargaining units.

Employers had better gear up and get ready because the unions are locked and loaded and ready to attack. The stage has been proactively set by the NLRB to give unions their best-ever opportunity to succeed in union organizing. If employers don’t prepare now, they will jeopardize their freedom to deal directly with their employees and reduce their flexibility in running their company. The NLRB Regional Offices are already gearing up to explain the new changes in NLRB election procedure, starting in November, so here come the unions!

© MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP
ARTICLE BY

Amy O. Bruchs
Carlos R. Pastrana-Torres
Robert W. Mulcahy
Farrah N.W. Rifelj
Brian P. Paul
OF
Michael Best & Friedrich LLP