Category: Labor & Employment

Substantial OSHA Penalty Increases Are Coming

Line GraphOSHA penalties are going up.  EPA’s penalties are going up, too.  However, while EPA penalties have been going up modestly every four years to take inflation into account, OSHA penalties have not increased in 25 years.  Maximum OSHA penalties may jump as much as about 78 percent next year.  For a provision quietly tucked away in budget legislation, this packs quite a punch.

The Legislative Change

On November 2, 2015, President Obama signed into law the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015.[1]  Section 701 of that legislation is the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (the 2015 Adjustment Act).  The 2015 Adjustment Act amends the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990[2] to remove the OSHA exemption to the requirement that civil monetary penalties be periodically increased to account for inflation.  The amendment also changed the frequency of the inflation increases from “once every 4 years”[3] to “every year.”

In addition, the new law entitles OSHA to a single “catch up” penalty increase to account for the lack of periodic penalty increases, which “shall take effect no later than August 1, 2016.”  OSHA is authorized to calculate this initial increase based on the percentage difference between the Consumer Price Index (CPI) in October 2015 and the CPI in October of the calendar year that the civil penalty was last adjusted under any different law.[4]  In this instance, because OSHA penalties have not been adjusted since 1990, the catch-up penalty increase will be based on the October 1990 CPI as compared to the October 2015 CPI.

Based on the October 2015 CPI, the percentage difference is expected to be about 78 percent.[5]  In the catch-up adjustment, $7,000 OSHA penalties could increase to as much as approximately $12,471, and $70,000 OSHA penalties could increase to as much as approximately $124,710.  If OSHA rounds those numbers, the likely maximums would be $120,000 and $12,000.

Past Efforts to Raise Maximum OSHA Penalties

Under section 17 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act), OSHA penalties for “willful” or “repeat” violations have a maximum civil penalty of $70,000 but not less than $5,000 for each willful violation.[6]  Penalties for “serious” violations have a maximum of $7,000 per violation.  Those figures have remained static since 1990 despite repeated efforts to increase them.

For example, in 2009, a Senate bill and a House bill,[7] both entitled the Protecting America’s Workers Act, would have amended section 17 of the OSH Act with one-time maximum civil penalty increases.  The $70,000 “willful” violation maximum would have been increased to $120,000 but not less than $8,000 (up from $5,000).  The penalties for “serious” violations would have increased from a maximum of $7,000 to a maximum of $12,000, and penalties for “serious” violations that result in employee fatalities would have been increased to a maximum of $50,000 but not less than $20,000 for employers with more than 25 employees.  The proposed legislation did not pass either House of Congress.[8]  This year, updated versions of the Protecting America’s Workers Act were introduced which would make the same adjustments in penalties.[9]

After more than 25 years and extensive legislative effort, OSHA penalties are poised for a significant initial increase, due to a provision added to an appropriations bill without hearings or debate.

Implications for State OSHAs

About half the states have their own enforcement programs under OSHA-approved state plans, even though they generally enforce OSHA’s standards.  Thus, the statutory increase in federal OSHA’s maximum penalties will not directly impact state OSHA programs, whose maximum penalties are set by state law.  However, this federal increase is expected to lead to state increases as well.  Under section 18 of the OSH Act, state plans must be “at least as effective” as those of federal OSHA.[10]  Lower state maximum penalties are not likely to be seen as being “as effective” as federal maximums.

EPA Penalties Are Going Up Too

Under the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, EPA penalties have increased every four years.  Between 1996 and 2013, four adjustments of EPA’s statutory civil payment amounts were implemented.[11]  Annual inflation adjustments will now be required.  In recent years inflation has been low, so the next increase will likely be relatively modest.

Article By Mark N. Duvall & Maryam F. Mujahid of Beveridge & Diamond PC
© 2015 Beveridge & Diamond PC

[1] Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, Pub. L. 114-74.

[2] Id at § 701.  Prior to the amendment, Section 4(1) read: “by regulation adjust each civil monetary penalty provided by law within the jurisdiction of the Federal agency, except for any penalty (including any addition to tax and additional amount) under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, the Tariff Act of 1930, the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, or the Social Security Act, by the inflation adjustment described under section 5 of this Act[.]”  H.R. 3019, 104th Cong. (1996).

[3] H.R. 3019, 104th Cong. (1996) (“The head of each agency shall, not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 [Apr. 26, 1996], and at least once every 4 years thereafter[.]”) (emphasis added).

[4] This initial catch-up adjustment may not exceed 150 percent of the amount of the civil monetary penalties as of the date that the 2015 Adjustment Act was enacted.

[5] The October 1990 CPI is 133.5 and the October 2015 CPI is 237.838.  For more information on CPI figures and calculations, click here.

[6] 29 U.S.C. § 666.

[7] S. 1580, 111th Cong. (2009); H.R. 2067, 111th Cong. (2009).

[8] In addition, civil penalties for OSHA were subsequently included in proposed mine safety legislation, which was similarly unsuccessful. See H.R. 5663; Beveridge & Diamond, P.C., OSHA Legislation Gets Boost from Mine Safety Bill (Aug. 17, 2010). 

[9] S. 1112, 114th Cong. (2014); H.R. 2090, 114th Cong. (2014).

[10]  29 U.S.C. § 666.

[11] As described in the most recent (2013) EPA notice raising maximum penalties,  “EPA’s initial adjustment to each statutory civil penalty amount was published in the Federal Register on December 31, 1996 (61 FR 69360), and became effective on January 30, 1997 (‘the 1996 Rule’). EPA’s second adjustment to civil penalty amounts was published in the Federal Register on February 13, 2004 (69 FR 7121), and became effective on March 15, 2004 (‘the 2004 Rule’). EPA’s third adjustment to civil penalty amounts was published in the Federal Register on December 11, 2008 (73 FR 75340), as corrected in the Federal Register on January 7, 2009 (74 FR 626), and became effective on January 12, 2009 (‘the 2008 Rule’)”; and the fourth adjustment was published in the Federal Register on November 6, 2013.  78 Fed. Reg. 66643 (Nov. 6, 2013)

Trending Now: How Latest News Going Viral Can Lead to Employment Litigation

A downed Russian airliner, the tragic Paris attacks, the European refugee crisis, states closing their borders to Syrian nationals, Charlie  Sheen’s HIV diagnosis. What do these all have in common? They are hot topics for discussion around the watercooler.  And they also will bring out a multitude of opinions.  What’s the problem?  Opinions can be controversial and, to some, down right offensive.  Healthy debate about how the United States should handle the war on terror could be construed as evidence of religious discrimination (in some cases).  Discussion regarding Charlie Sheen’s HIV diagnosis can also quickly spiral out of control and later be construed as evidence of disability discrimination.  It’s a problem and employers need to be aware of it.

So how can you protect yourself?  Well, you certainly cannot stifle discussion about what is happening outside of the workplace.  Nevertheless, employers are encouraged to step up, stay on top of what’s trending and put a stop to any discussion that could reasonably be construed as inconsistent with the Company’s EEO policies.  You won’t be popular.  But let’s face it:  running a business is not about winning a popularity contest.

Want to stay on top of what’s trending?  Create a Twitter account and keep apprised of the most popular hashtags.  The amount of work is minimal and you’ll be tuned in to what topics are floating around the workplace.

Article By Peter T. Tschanz of Barnes & Thornburg LLP

© 2015 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

Employment Law This Week – Episode 5 – Week of November 16, 2015 [VIDEO]

We look at the latest trends, important court decisions, and new developments that could impact your work.  This week’s topics …

(1) OSHA Fines Rise

OSHA fines are set to increase for the first time in 25 years. Under the new bipartisan budget bill, OSHA civil penalties will rise next year to reflect the difference between the Consumer Price Index in 1990 and in 2015—an increase of as much as 82%. After this “catch up” adjustment, the fines will keep pace with inflation moving forward.

(2) Supreme Court to Review ACA’s Contraception Opt-Out

The Affordable Care Act’s (ACA’s) birth control provisions are heading back to the U.S. Supreme Court. At issue is whether the ACA’s opt-out process violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Under the opt-out, religious organizations do not have to pay for contraception, but other accommodations are made so that employees will still receive coverage. The high court will review a consolidation of seven cases to decide whether the opt-out “substantially burdens” religious freedom. Like last year’s landmark Hobby Lobby decision, this case addresses the extent to which corporations have the same rights as natural persons and how those rights affect a company’s legal obligations towards its employees. This is the latest case, but undoubtedly not the last one, on this topic.

(3) NLRB Finds That Chipotle Illegally Fired Worker for Discussing Wages

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruled that Chipotle illegally fired an employee for participating in minimum wage protests. The NLRB ruled that the firing by the chain was a violation of the National Labor Relations Act. Though the employee’s supervisor claimed he was fired for poor performance, the NLRB found that the firing was motivated by the employee’s participation in the protests and his discussion of pay with other employees. Other restaurants are facing similar charges from the NLRB arising from the “Show Me 15” protests.

(4) Wages for Off-the-Clock Security Screenings

Two federal class actions challenging off-the-clock security screenings reach different outcomes. Bath & Body Works recently agreed to settle a suit in California over unpaid overtime and off-the-clock security inspections. But a federal judge in the same state dismissed a similar class action against Apple in which retail workers claimed that they should be compensated for time spent having their bags checked. The judge concluded that the employees were not performing job duties and could avoid the screenings by not bringing a bag or cell phone to work.

(5) In-House Counsel Tip of the Week

Eugene Schlanger, a regulatory and compliance attorney, gives some advice on how to prepare for employment issues before they arise.

By George Carroll Whipple, III of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.

©2015 Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights reserved.

Ford UAW Workers Defy Logic Of Ricky Bobby With New Tentative Agreement

If you ain’t first, you’re last. Not so, say the Ford UAW workers whose bargaining committee recently reached a new tentative agreement with Ford. While Ford was the last to reach a tentative agreement with the UAW, if the membership ratifies the tentative agreement, the UAW workers at Ford stand to receive a better overall deal than their counterparts at Fiat Chrysler and GM. Highlights of the tentative agreement with Ford include:

  • Investment of $9 billion in the U.S. by Ford over the life of the agreement;

  • $8,500 ratification bonus along with a $1,500 profit-sharing prepayment;

  • Entry level employees can progress to the Tier 1 wage rates within 8 years; and

  • $70,000 retirement incentive for eligible employees.

As with the ratification process for Fiat Chrysler and GM, the UAW membership at Ford will now be asked to vote in the coming days to approve the tentative agreement. The fact that the Ford tentative agreement is already better than the tentative agreements with Fiat Chrysler and GM should aid in the ratification process. Additionally, the UAW has already seen firsthand what works and what does not when it comes to seeking ratification of a tentative agreement in the current automotive climate.

While the bargaining process at Ford seems to be headed in the right direction, GM is still waiting to announce the ratification of its tentative agreement with the UAW. Despite a majority of the hourly production workers supporting the tentative agreement, a majority of the skilled-trades workers voted “no.” Based on the UAW’s constitution, the UAW is required to meet with the skilled-trades members to hear their complaints. Those meetings began this week. We will have to wait and see if the UAW attempts to go back to the bargaining table based on the issues raised by the skilled-trades workers.

Article By Michael W. Groebe of Foley & Lardner LLP

© 2015 Foley & Lardner LLP

‘Fight for $15’ Walk-Outs and Protests Continue; Are You Prepared for November 10?

national labor relations boardContinuing its three-year campaign, “Fight for $15” on November 4, 2015, announced plans for worker strikes and protests at fast food restaurants in 270 U.S. cities on November 10. The protests, timed to occur one year prior to the 2016 presidential election, is calculated to send a message to voters and candidates. Protests will culminate with a march on the November 10 Republican presidential debate in Milwaukee.

While the fast food workers involved in the walk-outs are not represented for purposes of collective bargaining by a labor union, the walk-outs have largely been organized and funded by the Service Employees International Union (“SEIU”). Employers with union contracts who have lived with the possibility of strikes are generally more familiar with the rights and obligations of employees and employers under the labor law than their non-union counterparts. But now that walk-outs and work stoppages are becoming an accepted strategy in the non-union workforce, non-union employers need to know the rules, too. Indeed, over three years of protests, scores of unfair labor practice charges have been filed against non-union employers alleged to have interfered with employee participation in protected activity. Moreover, on November 4, 2015, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) upheld a decision finding that a St. Louis Chipotle Grill unlawfully discharged an employee because he engaged in fight-for-$15 protests.

“Protected, Concerted Activity”

Under the National Labor Relations Act, employees have the right to engage in group activity for the purposes of “mutual aid and protection.” Thus, whether a union is involved, if two or more employees acting in concert walk off the job to protest work conditions or enforce demands relating to the terms of their employment, the walk-out, or strike, generally is protected concerted activity under the National Labor Relations Act. (Quickie, intermittent work stoppages might not be.) Under these circumstances, it would be unlawful to discipline or discharge (or otherwise disadvantage) employees for walking off the job. It also means that unless the employees have been permanently replaced (discussed below), the strikers are entitled to be returned to their jobs when they make an unconditional offer to do so.

Lawful Employer Responses to Protected Concerted Activity

Employers are not without rights in dealing with protected concerted activity (“PCA”). First and foremost, employers have a right to continue business operations. This can be accomplished by assigning managers or hiring replacement workers to do the work of the employees who walked off the job. If the strike is not caused by an employer unfair labor practice, employers have the right to designate the replacement workers either as permanent or temporary. (If the strike is caused by an employer unfair labor practice, employers have the right to designate the replacement workers only as temporary.)

If replacement workers are designated as temporary, when the strikers offer to return to work, the employer is obligated to lay off the temporary workers and put the strikers back to work.

When the employer designates the replacements as permanent, when the strikers offer to return to work, they are placed on a preferential hiring list. In that situation, the employer is not obligated to lay off the replacements, but when positions open up through normal attrition, the employer first has to offer those openings to the former strikers who are on the preferential hiring list.

Walk-outs in the fast food industry have been short, however, typically rendering the hiring of replacement workers impractical. As a practical matter, employers may have to rely on managers or other employees who are not participating in the strike.

Violence and Other Picket Line Misconduct

Employees lose the protection of the NLRA if they engage in certain improper conduct. This includes intermittent or “quickie strikes.” Generally, strikers lose the protection of the NLRA when they engage in a pattern of striking for short periods, returning to work briefly, and then striking again. By engaging in this type of conduct, strikers effectively deny the employer the ability to run its business either by relying on its regular employees or by hiring replacements. The NLRA does not prevent the employer from issuing discipline or discharging employees who participate. However, before taking action, employers should consult counsel and be absolutely certain the particular job action is unprotected.

Other activities that are unprotected include stay-ins or sit-down strikes. A stay-in or sit-down strike occurs when employees refuse to work and also refuse to vacate the employer’s premises. Strikers seek to force the employer to accede to their demands by bringing operations to a halt, preventing the employer from operating. This type of trespasser activity generally is unprotected.

Slow-downs are another tactic sometimes used to impede production. Work is deliberately performed ever more slowly; the employer cannot conduct business and customers fume. Slow-downs are not protected and can be addressed by discipline or discharge.

Lawful Responses to Unprotected Activity

Strikers, of course, are allowed to picket on public property near their place of employment to publicize a labor dispute. They, however, are not privileged to engage in threats, physical assaults, trespass, or property destruction. When they do, employers have these remedies available:

1. Law Enforcement: The most immediate relief available is to call the police. Just because employees ostensibly are engaged in a strike does not immunize them from prosecution when they commit crimes.

2. State Court Injunction: Another remedy is to seek a state court injunction to prohibit violence. This is particularly helpful when there is mass picketing, obstruction of traffic, and blockages of entrances, and the police have difficulty controlling the situation. In these kinds of cases, employers seek court orders prohibiting further violence or destructive activities and limiting to a reasonable number the number of picketers at a particular location at any given time, so police can assure public order.

3. Employer Discipline and Discharge: If the threats, violence and property destruction are egregious enough, the employees involved lose the protection of the NLRA, which means they can be discharged or disciplined. (However, a full investigation should be conducted before the employer takes action to determine what the employee actually did or said. In addition, investigation of past discipline in similar situations not involving protected concerted activity is important because the rules (under the NLRA) prohibit discrimination against employees who engage in such activity. In other words, if, in the past, an employee who was not participating in protected concerted activity engaged in violence for which he was suspended, an employee who engages in similar violence while partaking in protected concerted activity generally also should be suspended, rather than discharged.) Employees should not suffer greater discipline for their misconduct because it occurs while they engage in activity the law protects.

While there is no bright line for evaluating when misconduct becomes unprotected, some general guides may be kept in mind. For example, simple name-calling, momentary blocking of ingress and egress at employer facilities, and simple trespass onto an employer’s property, without any accompanying destruction or violence, probably will not be sufficient to cause the employee to lose the protection of the NLRA. However, physical assaults, participating in extended blocking of ingress or egress, and property destruction are generally the types of conduct that will cause an employee to lose the protection of the NLRA.

Article By Jonathan J. Spitz, Philip B. Rosen, Timothy J. Ryan & Peter N. Moss of Jackson Lewis P.C.
Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2015

Target Faces First Ever Union

The Wall Street Journal reports the NLRB has rejected an appeal from Target Corp. seeking to invalidate an employee vote in favor of unionization.  In September, a “micro-unit” of about one dozen pharmacy workers in Brooklyn, NY voted in favor of unionization.  The company appealed, but the NLRB affirmed the vote yesterday.

As reported in the article, “The group of less than a dozen employees in Brooklyn, N.Y., would be the first union among Target’s nearly 350,000 employees, marking a significant milestone for a company that has fought to keep unions out of its stores.”  The complete article can be found here.

Article By John T.L. Koenig of Barnes & Thornburg LLP

© 2015 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

Lawrence of Arabia Makes Surprise Contribution to UK Holiday Pay Debate

There is a line in, I think, Lawrence of Arabia where a terrified young soldier trapped under fire with a small group of his colleagues asks Peter O’Toole as Lawrence what they  are going to do.  “Nothing”, drawls O’Toole languidly, “After all, it’s generally best”.

And so by a tenuous little link to the question of amending your holiday pay calculations to reflect the new jurisprudence around including an allowance for overtime and/or commission.  Have you been sitting in your office wondering why no one seems able to tell you exactly what you need to do?  Have you been approached for a deal by your union on the basis that everyone else has sorted it out and only your company still has its head over the parapet?

You are not as alone as you may feel.  A survey of over 1,000 companies of a wide variety of sizes, sectors and employee representation structures provides the answers and a number of interesting statistics:-

  • Of all respondents, a full 73% have yet to take any steps to amend their holiday pay calculations. Those union claims may perhaps be taken with a pinch of salt.

  • Of the 27% who have changed their holiday pay arrangements, only a small majority (less than 60%) have unionised workforces.

  • Where changes to holiday pay include use of a reference period, the period invariably picked has been twelve weeks. That is even though that period has yet to be enshrined in law and even though those responses came from sectors as diverse as construction, aviation, retail and banking.  Employee numbers in those businesses ranged from less than 100 to over 45,000.  It therefore appears that for all the uncertainties and injustices both ways which such a reference period can generate (and despite the enormous spread of overtime and commission schemes in use over that population) twelve weeks will likely be the default position for voluntary holiday pay agreements.

  • Where respondents have reached agreements with their workforces about alterations to holiday pay calculations, these have all been forward-looking. None of respondents refer to any accommodation being reached in relation to any notional arrears.

  • The principal factors leading to changes in those 27% of employers were (i) awareness of the case law (i.e. the perceived inevitability of having to do something at some stage) followed by (ii) union/employee pressure (though of the 73% who had made no change, only one admitted to receipt of a Tribunal claim), and (iii) brand/reputational factors.

  • Where changes have been made, half had applied them to the full UK 5.6 week holiday entitlement. About a quarter of respondents had limited the changes to the Working Time Directive four week minimum and a further quarter did not specify which.

  • Of those cases where changes had not been made, nearly 85% of employers had also taken no steps to amend their commission/overtime structures to minimise the scope for employee claims.

So in other words, whether or not it is generally best, doing nothing does seem thus far to be the principal employer response to the holiday pay question.  There are good objective reasons to support such a stance at this point, including in particular the absence of Government guidance, the uncertain direction (in matters of detail, at any rate) of the case law, and the relatively limited number of unions willing to undertake the colossal logistical exercise of collective Tribunal claims.  There is no reason to expect much change in the first two factors in the near future, but whether that last point will remain valid if employer indifference persists at such a high rate is an open question.

Article By David Whincup of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

© Copyright 2015 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

EEOC Seeks to Clarify Application of GINA to Wellness Programs

Earlier this year, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) published a proposed rule that would amend the agency’s regulations and interpretive guidance implementing Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) as they relate to employer wellness programs. Now, the EEOC has turned its attention to Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (“GINA”) as it relates to employer wellness programs that are part of group health plans.

On October 20, 2015, the EEOC issued a proposed rule, or Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”), to amend the regulations implementing Title II of GINA, together with a fact sheet and a series of questions and answers. The proposed rule, which is available in its entirety online, would allow employers that offer wellness programs as part of group health plans to provide limited financial and other incentives or “inducements” in exchange for an employee’s spouse providing information about his or her current or past health status.

Title II of GINA protects job applicants and current and former employees from employment discrimination based on their genetic information. As stated in the NPRM, Congress enacted GINA to address concerns prevalent at the time that individuals would not take advantage of the increasing number of genetic tests that could inform them as to whether they were at risk of developing specific diseases or disorders due to fear that genetic information would be used to deny health coverage or employment. Consequently, GINA expressly prohibits employers with 15 or more employees from using genetic information in making decisions about employment in all circumstances, without exceptions. It also restricts employers from requesting, requiring or purchasing genetic information. In addition, it strictly limits employers from disclosing genetic information. Genetic information includes, among other things, information about the manifestation of a disease or disorder in the family members of an individual. The term “family members” includes spouses.

There are only six very limited circumstances under GINA in which an employermay request, require, or purchase genetic information about an applicant or employee. One of the six exceptions applies when an employee voluntarily accepts health or genetic services offered by an employer, including such services offered as part of a wellness program. The proposed regulations are in response to the numerous inquiries received by the EEOC questioning whether an employer violates GINA by offering an employee an inducement if the employee’s spouse who is covered under the employer’s group health plancompletes a health risk assessment that seeks information about the spouse’s current or past health status, in connection with the spouse’s receipt of health or genetic services as part of an employer-sponsored wellness program.

The proposed regulations would clarify that GINA does not prohibit employers from offering limited inducements (whether in the form of rewards or penalties avoided) for the provision by spouses covered by the employer’s group health plan of information about their current or past health status as part of a health reimbursement account, which may include a medical questionnaire, a medical examination (e.g., to detect high blood pressure or high cholesterol), or both, as long as the provision of the information is voluntary and the individual from whom the information is being obtained provides prior, knowing, voluntary, and written authorization, which may include authorization in electronic format. The proposed regulations do not allow inducements in return for the spouse’s providing his or her own genetic information (including results of his or her genetic tests), for the current or past health status information of an employee’s children, or for the genetic information of an employee’s child.

The proposed regulations would include a requirement that any health or genetic services provided in connection with the requests for genetic information be reasonably designed to promote health or prevent disease, thereby aligning GINA’s regulations with those promulgated under the ADA as they relate to wellness programs. (The ADA permits employers to collect medical information as part of a wellness program only if the program and the disability-related inquiries and medical examinations that are part of the program are reasonably designed to promote health or prevent disease.) As discussed in the NPRM, collecting information on a health questionnaire without providing follow-up information or advice would not be reasonably designed to promote health or prevent disease. Additionally, a program would not be deemed reasonably designed to promote health or prevent disease if it imposes, as a condition of obtaining a reward, an overly burdensome amount of time for participation, requires unreasonably intrusive procedures, or places significant costs related to medical examinations on employees. A program is also not reasonably designed if it exists merely to shift costs from the employer to targeted employees based on their health.

The proposed regulations would limit the total inducements (both financial and in-kind inducements, such as time-off awards, prizes, or other items of value, in the form of either rewards or penalties) to the employee and spouse to participate in a wellness program that is part of a group health plan and collects information about current and past health status to not more than 30 percent of the total cost of the plan in which the employee and any dependants are enrolled. The maximum portion of an incentive that may be offered to an employee alone may not exceed 30 percent of the total cost of self-only coverage.

Finally, it is important to note that this proposal would not alter GINA’s absolute prohibition against the use of genetic information in making employment decisions.

The EEOC’s approach to wellness programs is still developing, and interested members of the public have until Tuesday, December 29, 2015, to submit comments on the NPRM to the EEOC in order to seek clarity or request changes and/or additions to the proposed rules.

Article By Mary Pat Gallagher of Gonzalez Saggio & Harlan LLP

Gonzalez Saggio & Harlan LLP | Copyright (c) 2015

Marijuana in the Workplace: The Growing Conflict Between Drug and Employment Laws

Despite the growing number of states that have legalized the use of marijuana, the drug remains illegal under federal drug laws. The legal landscape is made more confusing when considering the differing levels of employment protection that these state laws offer to marijuana users. With this patchwork of state laws, employers are left to grapple with whether and how to accommodate their employees who use marijuana for medical purposes or for off-duty personal consumption.

The Legal Landscape

Twenty-three states and the District of Columbia have legalized medical and/or recreational use of marijuana. These jurisdictions provide marijuana users with varying levels of protection against employment discrimination. The majority—Alaska, California, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington—merely decriminalize use. Other jurisdictions—Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, and Rhode Island—in addition to decriminalizing use, also provide statutory protections against discrimination. Some of these jurisdictions even require accommodation of underlying disabilities.

However, marijuana is still classified as a Schedule I drug (high potential for abuse, no acceptable medical use) and remains illegal under the federal Controlled Substance Act (“CSA”). While last year Congress passed a bill to defund the Department of Justice’s efforts to challenge state-legal medical marijuana programs, the Obama administration’s public position is that it “steadfastly opposes legalization of marijuana.”

Federal precedent in this area has provided employers with broad rights to take adverse action against individuals who use marijuana, whether or not for medical purposes and/or protected under state law. For instance, under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), courts have held that marijuana users—regardless of the legality of the use under state law—are not qualified individuals with a disability entitled to anti-discrimination protections. See, e.g., James v. City of Costa Mesa, 700 F.3d 394 (9th Cir. 2012).

Employers, however, must be careful not to rely on medical marijuana use as a pretext for firing an employee with an underlying disability. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) recently took aim at a Michigan-based assisted living center that fired a nursing administrator who used medical marijuana to treat her epilepsy and thus failed a drug test on her second day of work. EEOC v. Pines of Clarkston, Inc., No. 13-CV-14076, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55926 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 29, 2015). The district court denied the employer’s motion for summary judgment on the individual’s ADA claim. Although acknowledging that a positive test for medical marijuana constituted a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for discharge, the district court concluded that the EEOC raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the articulated reason was a pretext for disability discrimination, particularly because the employee had been questioned about her disability during her interview and subsequently after the positive drug test. The case eventually settled but should be heeded by employers as a warning that a positive drug test for marijuana may not insulate them from discrimination claims under the ADA.

Unresolved Conflict Between Employer and Employee Rights Under State Law

State law provides greater protections to marijuana users. However, while courts have infrequently addressed the conflict between state law employment protection and marijuana use, those that have considered such issues generally have found in favor of an employer’s right to take adverse action against an employee who tests positive for marijuana.

The Colorado Supreme Court highlighted this issue when, in Coats v. Dish Network, 350 P.3d 849 (Colo. 2015), it held that an employee may be fired for using marijuana even though he legally used the drug off duty. Colorado law prohibits termination for lawful off-duty conduct, and Coats was a registered medical marijuana patient who only consumed marijuana during non-work hours. Nevertheless, because smoking marijuana was still illegal under the federal CSA, the court held that such use did not constitute lawful conduct under the Colorado statute.

The decision in Coats is consistent with earlier decisions in California, Montana, Oregon, and Washington that have held that decriminalization laws do not confer a legal right to smoke marijuana and that employers may take adverse action against users. See Ross v. RagingWire Telecomms., Inc., 174 P.3d 200 (Cal. 2008); Johnson v. Columbia Falls Aluminum Co., LLC, No. 08-0358, 2009 Mont. LEXIS 120 (Mont. 2009); Emerald Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. Bureau of Labor & Indus., 230 P.3d 518 (Or. 2010); Roe v. TeleTech Customer Care Mgmt. (Colo.) LLC, 257 P.3d 586 (Wash. 2011). Of course, statutes in these states have decriminalized marijuana use but do not expressly provide employment protections to users.

Employers must tread more carefully in jurisdictions that grant express protections to marijuana users. Courts in these states have not decided whether an employee’s rights under such a state statute trump the rights of an employer to take adverse action against the use of a drug categorized as illegal under federal law.

Advice for Employers

While many implications of legalizing marijuana use are yet to be decided by the courts, employers clearly may continue to prohibit the on-duty use of, or impairment by, marijuana. Employers, particularly federal contractors required to comply with the Drug Free Workplace Act, also may continue the implementation of workplace drug testing programs.

Employers, however, must treat positive tests for marijuana cautiously. Decisions in California, Colorado, Montana, Oregon, and Washington collectively provide support to take adverse action against employees who use marijuana, recreationally or medicinally, and may suggest that such employer-favorable rulings will issue even from courts reviewing state statutes providing employment protections. Thus, a bright-line approach to discharging or refusing to hire marijuana users may be defensible related to marijuana use. But given the uncertain state of the law, employers should consider taking the following steps to reduce potential liability:

  • Engage in the interactive process to determine whether medical marijuana use can be accommodated.

  • Particularly in jurisdictions providing employment protections for medical marijuana users, engage in a fact-based inquiry to determine whether the individual is a medical marijuana cardholder and whether the job can accommodate the individual’s use of medical marijuana.

  • Develop and/or review policies that expressly address the right to take adverse action upon a finding of marijuana use.

  • When taking such adverse action, document the reasons to avoid a pretext argument.

Of course, employers should work with legal counsel to closely monitor the changing legal landscape in their jurisdictions as this area of unsettled law is ripe for future litigation.

Article By Nathaniel M. Glasser & Jonathan K. Hoerner of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.
©2015 Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights reserved.

Facebook: Second Circuit “Likes” Employee Rights Under the NLRA

Employers should continue to proceed with caution before disciplining employees for their Facebook activity. In Three D, LLC d/b/a Triple Play Sports Bar and Grille v. NLRB, the Federal Appeals Court for Connecticut, New York and Vermont recently upheld a National Labor Relations Board decision that found that one employee’s “liking” another employee’s comments about the terms and conditions of their employment deserved protection under the National Labor Relations Act. The Court upheld the Board’s decision that terminating those employees was illegal.

In Three D, LLC, the employees of a sports bar had a discussion on Facebook about their employer’s alleged mishandling of their tax withholding. The exchange included both negative comments about their workplace and profanity. One of the employees joined into the conversation by writing a response, while another simply “liked” a co-worker’s statements. The employees happened to be Facebook friends with the bar’s owner’s sister, who told the owner about the post. The owner fired the employees, some of whom were interrogated about the posting and threatened with legal action before their termination. The Board found that this was illegal, and the Employer appealed to the Second Circuit.

In recent years the NLRB has been very open about focusing its efforts on the non-unionized workforce. Many employers assume that because they do not have a union, they do not have to worry about the National Labor Relations Act. However, the Act protects the rights of all employees-unionized or not-to engage in concerted activities for their mutual aid or protection. This includes talking together about their working conditions, wages, and even criticizing management. Interfering with that right may be considered an unfair labor practice.

Before the decision in Three D, LLC, the Board had held that the Act protected Facebook posts/conversations about working conditions. The Board did not make clear whether or not simply “liking” a post constituted enough employee participation to count as protected activity. Three D, LLC made clear that at least in Connecticut, Vermont and New York, such activity merits NLRA protection.

An Employer naturally wants to act when its employees post negative or obscene comments about their workplace or their supervisor on Facebook. It is a public forum that the Employer cannot control, and interesting messages can go viral. Three D, LLC does not change the law that Employers have an interest in preventing negative comments about their products or services and protecting their business reputation. An employee’s public communications may lose protection of the Act if sufficiently disloyal or defamatory. This can happen if the statements are not connected with an ongoing labor dispute or are made maliciously and with knowledge of their falsity. However Employers must tread carefully before disciplining employees for their social media use to air workplace grievances.

All in all, Employers should continue to take a close look at their actions in response to employee Facebook posts, even if they do not “like” it.

Article By Michael Colgan Harrington & Jennifer A. Corvo of Murtha Cullina

© Copyright 2015 Murtha Cullina