Category: Labor & Employment

Micro Bargaining Units Coming To a Workplace Near You

Steptoe Johnson PLLC Law Firm

It is no secret that many employers take steps to try and keep their workplaces union-free.  One of the newer concerns for employers in that camp is the possibility that employees could form a “micro bargaining unit,” which is a unit of employees that make up only a small portion of the workforce. 

Act Now! to Preserve Your Collective Bargaining Rights!

In a 2011 case, Specialty Healthcare, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) established a new standard for determining appropriate bargaining units.  Specifically, the Board stated that, in evaluating a potential unit, it would focus on the community of interest among the petitioning employees.  According to the Board in that case, factors such as the extent of common supervision, interchange of employees, and geographic considerations should all be taken into account when evaluating a proposed unit.

Specialty Healthcare also placed a significant burden on employers trying to challenge smaller units.  The Board stated that, if an employer wished to argue that a unit should include additional employees, the employer needs to show that employees in a larger unit have an “overwhelming” community of interest with those in the proposed smaller unit.  That’s a higher burden than what has been applicable in the past, and not one easy to meet.

The effects of Specialty Healthcare were evident in a more recent Board decision.  In Macy’s Inc., the Board recently confirmed that 41 Macy’s cosmetic and fragrance department sales employees could form a bargaining unit.  Those 41 employees made up about one-third of the employees at that Macy’s store.  Macy’s argued that this unit was inappropriate because cosmetic and fragrance employees shared an overwhelming community of interest with the other sales employees, but the Board saw it differently.

The Board noted several factors that established the community of interest among the cosmetic and fragrance employees: they all worked in the same department, were supervised by the same manager, had limited contact with other sales employees, and were paid on the same commission-based based structure.  Additionally, the Board pointed out that Macy’s rarely transferred employees between the cosmetic and fragrance department and other store departments.

While the Macy’s, Inc. case was not a positive development for employers, the NLRB then rejected a proposed micro-unit about a week later in a different case at Bergdorf-Goodman, a Nieman Marcus subsidiary.  In that case, the Board found that salon shoes salespeople and contemporary shoe salespeople lacked a community of interest.  In so deciding, the Board noted that the proposed unit in that case was not created based on any administrative or operational lines established by the employer.  Additionally, the employees had different department managers, different floor managers, and different directors of sales.

While both of these cases dealt with the retail industry, the results are important to employers in any sector, since the Specialty Healthcare standard certainly can be applied to create micro-bargaining units in other industries.  In fact, employers can probably expect unions to try organizing smaller bargaining units within larger companies, particularly where efforts to organize larger groups have proved unsuccessful.  This strategy allows unions to select pro-union employee groups and increase their likelihood of winning an election.

If there’s one proactive takeaway from these cases, it’s that employers need to think in advance about how they can make themselves less vulnerable to micro-unit organizing.  For example, cross-training employees and having them work in different departments makes it less likely a union could demonstrate a community of interest among a small group of employees.  Of course, any steps taken to combat against micro-unit organizing also need to be evaluated for their operational feasibility.  In most cases, it’s probably best that employers contact experienced legal counsel to weigh the pros and cons involved.

Firings for Facebook Comments Unlawful, NLRB Rules

Jackson Lewis Law firm

An employer violated the National Labor Relations Act by discharging two employees because of their participation in a Facebook discussion about their employer’s State income tax withholding mistakes, by threatening employees with discharge for their Facebook activity, by questioning employees about that activity, and by informing employees they were being discharged because of their Facebook activity, the NLRB has ruled. The Board also ruled the employer’s Internet/Blogging policy violated the NLRA. Triple Play Sports Bar and Grille, 361 NLRB No. 31 (2014).

Facebook Posts

Triple Play employees Jillian Sanzone and Victor Spinella discovered they owed more in State income taxes on their earnings at the sports bar than expected. Sanzone discussed this at work with other employees, and some employees complained to the employer about the tax problem. The employees did not belong to a union. 

Sanzone, Spinella, and former employee Jamie LaFrance had Facebook accounts. On January 31, 2011, LaFrance posted the following “status update” to her Facebook page:

Maybe someone should do the owners of Triple Play a favor and buy it from them. They can’t even do the tax paperwork correctly!!! Now I OWE money…[expletive deleted]!!!!

The following comments were posted to LaFrance’s page in response:

KEN DESANTIS (a Facebook “friend” of LaFrance’s and a customer): “You owe them money…that’s [expletive deleted] up.”

DANIELLE MARIE PARENT (Triple Play employee): “I [expletive deleted] OWE MONEY TOO!”

LAFRANCE: “The state. Not Triple Play. I would never give that place a penny of my money. Ralph [DelBuono] [expletive deleted] up the paperwork…as per usual.”

DESANTIS: “yeah I really dont go to that place anymore.”

LAFRANCE: “It’s all Ralph’s fault. He didn’t do the paperwork right. I’m calling the labor board to look into it bc he still owes me about 2000 in paychecks.”

At this point, Spinella selected the “Like” option under LaFrance’s initial status update. The discussion continued:

LAFRANCE: “We shouldn’t have to pay it. It’s every employee there that its happening to.”

DESANTIS: “you better get that money…thats [expletive deleted] if that is the case im sure he did it to other people too.” 

PARENT: “Let me know what the board say because I owe $323 and ive never owed.”

LAFRANCE: “I’m already getting my 2000 after writing to the labor board and them investigating but now I find out he [expletive deleted] up my taxes and I owe the state a bunch. Grrr.”

PARENT: “I mentioned it to him and he said that we should want to owe.”

LAFRANCE: “Hahahaha he’s such a shady little man. He prolly pocketed it all from all our paychecks. I’ve never owed a penny in my life till I worked for him. Thank goodness I got outta there.”

SANZONE: “I owe too. Such an [expletive deleted].”

PARENT: “yeah me neither, i told him we will be discussing it at the meeting.”

SARAH BAUMBACH (Triple Play employee): “I have never had to owe money at any jobs…i hope i wont have to at TP…probably will have to seeing as everyone else does!”

LAFRANCE: “Well discuss good bc I won’t be there to hear it. And let me know what his excuse is ;).”

JONATHAN FEELEY (a Facebook “friend” of LaFrance’s and customer): “And ther way to expensive.” 

Sanzone and Spinella Discharged

When Ralph DelBuono, the employer’s co-owner, learned about the Facebook discussion, he discharged Sanzone, telling her it was because of her Facebook comment. Spinella was terminated the next day, after being interrogated about the Facebook discussion, the meaning of his “Like” selection, the identity of the others in the conversation, and other issues. The other co-owner told Spinella that, because Spinella “liked” the disparaging and derogatory comments, Spinella was disloyal and it was “apparent” that Spinella wanted to work elsewhere. He told Spinella, “[Y]ou will be hearing from our lawyers.” Thereafter, the company’s attorney contacted Sanzone by letter, suggesting a possible defamation action. The lawyer also contacted LaFrance who, in response, deleted the entire Facebook conversation and posted a retraction. 

Sanzone and Spinella filed separate unfair labor practice charges against Triple Play, which the NLRB consolidated into one complaint. 

The employer did not dispute the employees’ Facebook activity was concerted and they had a protected right to engage in a Facebook discussion about the employer’s tax withholding calculations. The employer, however, contended it had not violated the NLRA because the plaintiffs had adopted LaFrance’s allegedly defamatory and disparaging comments, which were unprotected. The employer also asserted the Facebook posts were unprotected because they were made in a “public” forum, accessible to employees and customers, and they had undermined the co-owner’s authority in the workplace and adversely affected its public image.

Comments Protected

The Board disagreed. It determined the employees did not lose the Act’s protection to engage in concerted activity because of their comments in the Facebook discussion. Under its holding in Atlantic Steel, 245 NLRB 814 (1979), the NLRB explained, it must balance employee rights with the employer’s interest in maintaining order at its workplace, but Atlantic Steel dealt with workplace confrontations with the employer, which was not the scenario here. The employer’s reliance on that decision was therefore misplaced. In this case, the Board pointed out, the disputed conduct involved a social media discussion among offsite, off-dutyemployees, and two non-employees in which no manager or supervisor participated and where there was no direct confrontation with management. Further, the Board said, Sanzone’s “use of a single expletive” to describe her manager “in the course of a protected discussion on a social media website” did not “sufficiently implicate” the employer’s “legitimate interest in maintaining discipline and order in the workplace.”

The Board also rejected the employer’s argument that Sanzone’s comment was unprotected because it was a workplace confrontation that could be seen by customers DeSantis and Feeley. The NLRB noted they joined the discussion as LaFrance’s Facebook friends, on their own initiative and in the context of a social relationship with LaFrance outside of the workplace, not because they were the employer’s customers, and“[t]his off-duty indiscretion away from the [employer’s] premises did not disrupt any customer’s visit to the [employer].”

Neither did the Board see this conduct as disloyal or defamatory. While the Board agreed an employer has a legitimate interest in preventing the disparagement of its products or services and in protecting its reputation from defamation, against which NLRA Section 7 rights are to be balanced, that interest was not pr
esent here so as to overcome the employees’ statutory protection. It rejected the employer’s contention that Sanzone’s comment and Spinella’s “like” were disloyal and unprotected. The purpose of the employees’ communications was to seek and provide mutual support to encourage the employer to address problems in the terms or conditions of employment, not to disparage its product or services or to undermine its reputation, the NLRB said. The discussion clearly showed a labor dispute existed and the employees’ participation was not directed to the general public (they were more comparable to conversations that can be overheard by a customer). Further, the Board said the comments were not “so disloyal . . . as to lose the Act’s protection” because they did not even mention the employer’s products.

The Board also rejected the contention that the employees’ comments were unprotected because they were defamatory. According to the agency, Triple Play had not met its burden to establish the comments were made with knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity. In addition, it said that Sanzone’s use of an expletive to describe a co-owner in connection with the asserted tax-withholding errors “cannot reasonably be read as a statement of fact; rather, Sanzone was merely (profanely) voicing a negative personal opinion of [the co-owner].”

“Like” Protected

The Board also decided that Spinella’s use of Facebook’s “like” option was protected. It expressed agreement only with the comment it immediately followed (LaFrance’s original post), the Board found, not with LaFrance’s other comments. Accordingly, said the Board, Spinella’s activity was protected by the Act, and the employer’s adverse action was unlawful. (See our blog post, Employee’s Facebook ‘Like’ is Part of Concerted Activity: NLRB.)

Internet/Blogging Policy Unlawful

The Board faulted the employer’s internet/blogging policy, as well. It found that, since employees would reasonably construe the employer’s “Internet/Blogging” policy to prohibit the type of protected Facebook post that led to the unlawful discharges, it was illegal.

The policy stated:

The Company supports the free exchange of information and supports camaraderie among its employees. However, when internet blogging, chat room discussions, email, text message, or other forms of communication extend to employees revealing confidential and proprietary information about the company, or engaging in inappropriate discussions about the company, management, and/or co-workers, the employee may be violating the law and is subject to disciplinary action, up to and including termination of employment. Please keep in mind that if you communicate regarding any aspect of the Company, you must include a disclaimer that the views you share are yours, and not necessarily the views of the Company. In the event state or federal law precludes this policy, then it is of no force or effect.

Employees could reasonably interpret the policy as proscribing discussions about terms and conditions deemed “inappropriate” by the employer, because “‘inappropriate’ [is] ‘sufficiently imprecise’ that employees would reasonably understand it to encompass ‘discussions and interactions protected by Section 7,’” the Board found.

Employer Cautions

This decision is wide-ranging. It underscores the need for employers to pause, reflect, and thoroughly investigate before taking action against employees for alleged misconduct where they have acted together in regard to their wages, hours or working conditions, even where their language might give offense to the employer despite the fact that members of the public can view their complaints. The decision also shows the NLRB affords significant leeway to employees, even permitting public invective against business owners — at least up to a point. Finally, employers should avoid policies and rules that contain broad, imprecise, or vague prohibitions that might be viewed as restricting unlawfully employees’ protected activity. 

ARTICLE BY

Howard M. Bloom
Philip B. Rosen
 
OF
Jackson Lewis P.C.

DOL Institutes Enhanced Password Requirements for Permanent Case Management System (PERM) Users

Greenberg Traurig Law firm

Effective August 25, 2014, the Department of Labor (DOL) has instituted enhanced password requirements for Permanent Case Management System (PERM) users. In the next 90 calendar days, current PERM users will be required to update existing passwords to meet the new security criteria. In addition, all PERM users will be required to update their passwords every 90 days. The DOL sends reminder emails on the 75th, 80th, 85th, 88th, 89th, and 90th day. Users may also choose to update their password at any time prior to expiration. Should the password expire, the user will be required to re-activate the account by identifying himself or herself and answering a secret question correctly. The DOL will send a temporary password for the user to access the PERM account and set up a new password.

The new password must meet the following criteria: 1) 8-15 characters, 2) one special character, 3) one upper case letter, 4) one lower case letter, 4) one number, and 5) no recycling of a prior password used in the past 12 passwords. For detailed instructions regarding the new password rollout, you can review the DOL’s Quick Start Guide.

ARTICLE BY

Emily R. Liss
 
OF 
Greenberg Traurig, LLP

DOL Institutes Enhanced Password Requirements for Permanent Case Management System (PERM) Users

Greenberg Traurig Law firm

Effective August 25, 2014, the Department of Labor (DOL) has instituted enhanced password requirements for Permanent Case Management System (PERM) users. In the next 90 calendar days, current PERM users will be required to update existing passwords to meet the new security criteria. In addition, all PERM users will be required to update their passwords every 90 days. The DOL sends reminder emails on the 75th, 80th, 85th, 88th, 89th, and 90th day. Users may also choose to update their password at any time prior to expiration. Should the password expire, the user will be required to re-activate the account by identifying himself or herself and answering a secret question correctly. The DOL will send a temporary password for the user to access the PERM account and set up a new password.

The new password must meet the following criteria: 1) 8-15 characters, 2) one special character, 3) one upper case letter, 4) one lower case letter, 4) one number, and 5) no recycling of a prior password used in the past 12 passwords. For detailed instructions regarding the new password rollout, you can review the DOL’s Quick Start Guide.

ARTICLE BY

Emily R. Liss
 
OF 
Greenberg Traurig, LLP

Oregon’s Same-Sex Marriage Ban Unconstitutional, Judge Rules

Jackson Lewis Law firm

 

Oregon’s prohibition on same-sex marriage conflicts with the United States Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection, newly appointed U.S. District Court Judge Michael McShane has held in a case filed on behalf of four couples in Multnomah County. Geiger v. Kitzhaber, No. 6:13-cv-01834-MC (May 19, 2014).

Judge McShane explained the measure discriminates against same-sex couples. “The state’s marriage laws unjustifiably treat same-gender couples differently than opposite-gender couples. The laws assess a couple’s fitness for civil marriage based on their sexual orientation: opposite-gender couples pass; same-gender couples do not. No legitimate state purpose justifies the preclusion of gay and lesbian couples from civil marriage.”

A state Constitutional amendment, enacted pursuant to a 2004 ballot initiative organized and sponsored by the Defense of Marriage Coalition, had prohibited same-sex marriage, stating that only “marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or legally recognized as a marriage.” This initiative and the subsequent Constitutional amendment were in response to the Multnomah County commissioner’s decision to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. During the Geiger litigation, Oregon’s Attorney General stated she found it impossible to legally defend the ban because “per- forming same-sex marriages in Oregon would have no adverse effect on existing marriages, and that sexual orientation does not determine an individual’s capacity to establish a loving and enduring relation- ship.” With Geiger, and the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in United States v. Windsor invalidating the federal Defense of Marriage Act, same-sex marriage is valid under Oregon state and federal law.

Further, although Oregon enacted a domestic partnership law in 2008, the Family Fairness Act, granting domestic partners similar rights and privileges to those enjoyed by married spouses, the Legislature acknowledged domestic partnerships did not reach the magnitude of rights inherent in the definition of marriage. For example, same-sex couples in Oregon were not entitled to the rights or benefits under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act because Department of Labor guidance recognizes same-sex marriage only if valid under the employee’s state of residence. The DOL, however, has proposed a rule expanding the term “spouse” and, if implemented, will recognize same-sex marriages when recognized in the couple’s state of residence or if performed in a state recognizing same-sex marriage. According to the Secretary of Labor, “The basic promise of the FMLA is that no one should have to choose between succeeding at work and being a loving family caregiver. Under the proposed revisions, the FMLA will be applied to all families equally, enabling individuals in same-sex marriages to fully exercise their rights and fulfill their responsibilities to their families.” No changes have been proposed, however, for purposes of the Employment Retirement Income and Security Act (“ERISA”), the federal law governing employee benefit plans. The DOL counsels employers that, for purposes of ERISA, same-sex marriage should be recognized if valid in the state it is performed.

While Geiger will simplify the legal landscape, employers should review policies, procedures, and benefit plans closely to ensure that same-sex spouses are treated equally in all respects. In addition, Oregon law further prevents employment discrimination based on sexual orientation and family status. Requiring same-sex couples to “prove their status” or take other similar measures that are not required of opposite-sex couples may increase the risk of potential litigation under these laws.

Mei Fung So contributed to this article. 

ARTICLE BY

Scott Oborne
Bryan P. O’Connor
Roger S. Kaplan
 
OF
Jackson Lewis P.C.

“Do You Want Liability With That?” The NLRB McDonald’s Decision that could undermine the Franchise Business Model (Part II)

 

McBrayer NEW logo 1-10-13

 

Yesterday’s post discussed the decision of NLRB’s General Counsel to hold McDonald’s Corp. jointly responsible with its franchise owners for workers’ labor complaints. The decision, if allowed to stand, could shake up the decades-old fast-food franchise system, but it does not stop there. The joint employer doctrine can be applied not only to fast food franchises and franchise arrangements in other industries, but also to other employment arrangements, such as subcontracting or outsourcing.

This decision could also impact the pricing of goods and services, as franchisors would likely need to up costs to offset the new potential liability. Everything from taxes to Affordable Care Act requirements could be affected if the decision stands.

If you are a franchisor and are currently in what could be determined to be a joint employer relationship, consider taking steps to further separate and distinguish your role from that of your franchisee. While franchisors should always take reasonable measures to ensure that franchisees are in compliance with applicable federal and state employment laws, they should take care to not wield such force over them to give the appearance of a joint-employer relationship.

We will be following the NLRB decision and keep you updated as the issue progresses.

ARTICLE BY

Luke A. Wingfield
 
OF 
McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie and Kirkland, PLLC

“Do You Want Liability With That?” The NLRB McDonald’s Decision that could undermine the Franchise Business Model

McBrayer NEW logo 1-10-13

On July 29, 2014 the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) General Counsel authorized NLRB Regional Directors to name McDonald’s Corp. as a joint employer in several complaints regarding worker rights at franchise-owned restaurants. Joint employer liability means that the non-employer (McDonald’s Corp.) can be held responsible for labor violations to the same extent as the worker’s “W-2” employer.

In the U.S., the overwhelming majority of the 14,000 McDonald’s restaurants are owned and operated by franchisees (as is the case with most other fast-food chains). The franchise model is predicated on the assumption that the franchisee is an independent contractor – not an employee of the franchisor. Generally, the franchisor owns a system for operating a business and agrees to license a bundle of intellectual property to the franchisee so long as on the franchisee adheres to prescribed operating standards and pays franchise fees. Franchisees have the freedom to make personnel decisions and control their operating costs.

Many third parties and pro-union advocates have long sought to hold franchisors responsible for the acts or omissions of franchisees – arguing that franchisors maintain strict control on day-to-day operations and regulate almost all aspects of a franchisee’s operations, from employee training to store design. Their argument is that the franchise model allows the corporations to control the parts of the business it cares about at its franchises, while escaping liability for labor and wage violations.

The NLRB has investigated 181 cases of unlawful labor practices at McDonald’s franchise restaurants since 2012. The NLRB has found sufficient merit in at least 43 cases. Heather Smedstad, senior vice president of human resources for McDonald’s USA, called the NLRB’s decision a “radical departure” and something that “should be a concern to businessmen and women across the country.” Indeed it is, but it is important to note that General Counsel’s decision is not the same as a binding NLRB ruling and that it will be a long time before this issue is resolved, as McDonald’s Corp. will no doubt appeal any rulings.

ARTICLE BY

Luke A. Wingfield
 
OF 
McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie and Kirkland, PLLC

“Do You Want Liability With That?” The NLRB McDonald’s Decision that could undermine the Franchise Business Model

McBrayer NEW logo 1-10-13

On July 29, 2014 the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) General Counsel authorized NLRB Regional Directors to name McDonald’s Corp.as a joint employer in several complaints regarding worker rights at franchise-owned restaurants. Joint employer liability means that the non-employer (McDonald’s Corp.) can be held responsible for labor violations to the same extent as the worker’s “W-2” employer.

In the U.S., the overwhelming majority of the 14,000 McDonald’s restaurants are owned and operated by franchisees (as is the case with most other fast-food chains). The franchise model is predicated on the assumption that the franchisee is an independent contractor – not an employee of the franchisor. Generally, the franchisor owns a system for operating a business and agrees to license a bundle of intellectual property to the franchisee so long as on the franchisee adheres to prescribed operating standards and pays franchise fees. Franchisees have the freedom to make personnel decisions and control their operating costs.

Many third parties and pro-union advocates have long sought to hold franchisors responsible for the acts or omissions of franchisees – arguing that franchisors maintain strict control on day-to-day operations and regulate almost all aspects of a franchisee’s operations, from employee training to store design. Their argument is that the franchise model allows the corporations to control the parts of the business it cares about at its franchises, while escaping liability for labor and wage violations.

The NLRB has investigated 181 cases of unlawful labor practices at McDonald’s franchise restaurants since 2012. The NLRB has found sufficient merit in at least 43 cases. Heather Smedstad, senior vice president of human resources for McDonald’s USA, called the NLRB’s decision a “radical departure” and something that “should be a concern to businessmen and women across the country.” Indeed it is, but it is important to note that General Counsel’s decision is not the same as a binding NLRB ruling and that it will be a long time before this issue is resolved, as McDonald’s Corp. will no doubt appeal any rulings.

ARTICLE BY

Luke A. Wingfield
 
OF 
McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie and Kirkland, PLLC

Back to School for Michigan Employers–Minimum Wage Increase

Barnes Thornburg

As the kiddies get ready to go back to school, employers too should freshen up on a few items that are about to change in Michigan, including the minimum wage. Back on May 28, we reported on this blog that Michigan had passed The Workforce Opportunity Wage Act, by which the minimum wage will increase from $7.40 to $9.25 per hour over the next four years. The first incremental increase takes effect on September 4, when the minimum wage will increase to $8.15 per hour. So, if you haven’t done so already, please mark September 4 on your calendar.

ARTICLE BY

Kelly Petrocelli
 
OF
Barnes & Thornburg LLP

EEOC Signals Intent to Tighten Enforcement of Laws Prohibiting Pregnancy-Related Discrimination

Sills-Cummis-Gross-607x84

Noting that it continues to see “a significant number of charges alleging pregnancy discrimination,” and that its “investigations have revealed the persistence of overt pregnancy discrimination, as well as the emergence of more subtle discriminatory practices,” the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) recently issued Enforcement Guidance on Pregnancy Discrimination and Related Issues (“Enforcement Guidance”). The full text of the Enforcement Guidance is available here. 

The EEOC’s issuance of the Enforcement Guidance, which focuses primarily on the fundamental requirements of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (“PDA”), while also touching on the pregnancy-related protections provided under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), sends a strong signal to employers that their employment decisions and policies will now be more intently scrutinized for actionable pregnancy discrimination.1

The Enforcement Guidance focuses on the issue of equal access to benefits – in particular, to light duty, leave, and health insurance. With regard to light duty, employers may not treat employees whose capacity is limited by pregnancy, or a pregnancy-related condition, any differently than they do employees who are similarly limited, but for reasons unrelated to pregnancy.

As for leave, employers should be cognizant of the following. First, they may not force an employee to take leave because she is or has been pregnant, so long as she is able to perform her job. Second, the PDA mandates that employers permit women with pregnancy-related physical limitations to take leave on the same terms and conditions as employees who are similarly limited for other reasons. Finally, while leave related to pregnancy-related medical conditions will, necessarily, be limited to female employees, leave to bond with or care for a newborn must be extended to male and female employees on an equal basis.

With regard to health insurance, employers should note that an employer-provided health insurance benefit plan must cover pregnancy-related costs to the same extent it covers medical costs unrelated to pregnancy. This required symmetry of coverage must extend to costs stemming from an insured employee’s pre-existing pregnancy. Additionally, an employer may be in violation of the PDA if the health insurance it provides does not cover prescription contraceptives, regardless of whether the contraceptives are prescribed for birth control or for medical purposes. The Enforcement Guidance does not address whether, in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision, certain employers may be exempt from providing insurance coverage for contraceptives.

The guidance also addresses the obligations under the ADA to provide pregnant employees with reasonable accommodations to address pregnancy-related limitations. Such accommodations may include:

  • redistributing marginal or nonessential functions – such as occasional lifting – that a pregnant worker cannot perform;

  • modifying workplace policies, such as to afford a pregnant employee more frequent breaks; 

    • allowing a pregnant employee placed on bed rest to work remotely (where

      feasible); or

    • granting leave to a pregnant employee in excess of what the employer typically provides under its sick leave policy.

      The final section of the Enforcement Guidance provides “best practices” that employers can utilize to reduce their exposure to pregnancy-related liability under the PDA and ADA. The EEOC suggests, as a general matter, that employers should:

    • develop, disseminate and enforce a strong policy based on the requirements of the PDA and ADA;

    • train managers and employees regularly about their rights and responsibilities related to pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions;

    • conduct employee surveys and review employment policies to identify and correct any policies or practices that may disadvantage women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, or that may perpetuate the effects of historical discrimination in the organization;

    • respond to pregnancy discrimination complaints efficiently and effectively; and

  • protect applicants and employees from retaliation.

    In light of the EEOC’s heightened emphasis on PDA and ADA enforcement, employers should consult counsel before undertaking employment actions that may implicate pregnancy-related protections under the PDA or ADA, and to evaluate whether revisions to existing employment policies are needed to limit exposure to pregnancy- related liability. 

ARTICLE BY

David I. Rosen
Galit Kierkut
Charles H. Kaplan
Damon Werner Silver
 
OF
Sills Cummis & Gross P.C.