Tag: employee rights

Privacy Rights in a Remote Work World: Can My Employer Monitor My Activity?

The rise in remote work has brought with it a rise in employee monitoring.  Between 2019 and 2021, the percentage of employees working primarily from home tripled.  As “productivity paranoia” crept in, employers steadily adopted employee surveillance technologies.  This has raised questions about the legal and ethical implications of enhanced monitoring, in some cases prompting proposed legislation or the expanded use of laws already on the books.

Employee monitoring is nothing new.  Employers have long used supervisors and timeclock programs, among other systems, to monitor employee activity.  What is new, however, is the proliferation of sophisticated monitoring technologies—as well as the expanding number and variety of companies that are employing them.

 While surveillance was once largely confined to lower-wage industries, white-collar employers are increasingly using surveillance technologies to track their employees’ activity and productivity.  Since the COVID-19 pandemic started in March 2020, one in three medium-to-large companies has adopted some form of employee monitoring, with the total fraction of employers using surveillance technologies closer to two in three.  Workers who are now subject to monitoring technologies include doctors, lawyers, academics, and even hospice chaplains.  Employee monitoring technologies can track a range of information, including:

  • Internet use (e.g., which websites and apps an employee has visited and for how long);

  • How long a computer sits idle;

  • How many keystrokes an employee types per hour;

  • Emails that are sent or received from a work or personal email address (if the employee is logged into a personal account on a work computer);

  • Screenshots of a computer’s display; and

  • Webcam photos of the employee throughout the day.

These new technologies, coupled with the shift to remote work, have blurred the line between the professional and the personal, the public and the private.  In the face of increased monitoring, this blog explores federal and state privacy regulations and protections for employees.

What are the legal limitations on employee monitoring?

 There are two primary sources of restrictions on employee monitoring: (1) the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA), 18 U.S.C. §§ 2510 et seq.; and (2) common-law protections against invasions of privacy.  The ECPA is the only federal law that regulates the monitoring of electronic communications in the workplace.  It extends the Federal Wiretap Act’s prohibition on the unauthorized interception of communications, which was initially limited to oral and wire communications, to cover electronic communications like email.  As relevant here, the ECPA contains two major exceptions.  The first exception, known as the business purpose exception, allows employers to monitor employee communications if they can show that there is a legitimate business purpose for doing so.  The second exception, known as the consent exception, permits employers to monitor employee communications so long as they have consent to do so.  Notably, this exception is not limited to business communications, allowing employers to monitor employees’ personal communications if they have the requisite consent.  Together, the business purpose and consent exceptions significantly limit the force of the ECPA, such that, standing alone, it permits most forms of employee monitoring.

In addition to the ECPA’s limited protections from surveillance, however, some states have adopted additional protections of employee privacy.  Several state constitutions, including those of California, South Carolina, Florida, and Louisiana, guarantee citizens a right to privacy.  While these provisions do not directly regulate employers’ activity, they may bolster employees’ claims to an expectation of privacy.  Other states have enacted legislation that limits an employer’s ability to monitor employees’ social media accounts.  Virginia, for example, prohibits employers from requiring employees to disclose their social media usernames or passwords.  And a few states have enacted laws to bolster employees’ access to their data.  For example, the California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), which comes into full effect on January 1, 2023, and replaces the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), will provide employees with the right to access, delete, or opt-out of the sale of their personal information, including data collected through employee monitoring programs.  Employees will also have the right to know where, when, and how employers are using their data.  The CPRA’s protections are limited, however.  Employers will still be able to use surveillance technologies, and to make employment decisions based on the data these technologies gather.

Finally, several states require employers to provide notice to employees before monitoring or intercepting electronic communications.  New York recently adopted a law,  Senate Bill (SB) S2628, that requires all private-sector employers to provide notice of any electronic monitoring to employees (1) upon hiring, via written or electronic employee acknowledgment; and (2) in general, in a “conspicuous place” in the workplace viewable to all employees.  The new law is aimed at the forms of monitoring that have proliferated since the shift to remote work, and covers surveillance technologies that target the activities or communications of individual employees.  Delaware and Connecticut also have privacy laws that predate SB S2628.  Delaware requires notice to employees upon hire that they will be monitored, but does not require notice within the workplace.  Meanwhile, Connecticut requires notice of monitoring to be conspicuously displayed in the workplace but does not require written notice to employees upon hire.  Accordingly, in many states, employee privacy protections exceed the minimum standard of the ECPA, though they still are not robust.

How does employee monitoring intersect with other legal rights?

Other legal protections further limit employee monitoring.

First, in at least some jurisdictions, employees who access personal emails on their work computer, or conduct other business that would be protected under attorney-client privilege, maintain their right to privacy for those communications.  In Stengart v. Loving Care Agency, Inc., 408 N.J. Super. 54 (App. Div. 2009), the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, considered a case in which an employee had accessed her personal email account on her employer’s computer and exchanged emails from that account with her attorney regarding a possible employment case against her employer.  The employer, who had installed an employee monitoring program, was able to access and read the employee’s emails.  The Court held that the employee still had a reasonable expectation of privacy and that sending and receiving emails on a company-issued laptop did not waive the attorney-client privilege.  The Court thus required the employer to turn over all emails between the employee and her attorney that were in its possession and directed the employer to delete all of these emails from its hard drives.  Moving forward, the Court instructed that, while “an employer may trespass to some degree into an employee’s privacy when buttressed by a legitimate business interest,” such a business interest held “little force . . . when offered as the basis for an intrusion into communications otherwise shielded by the attorney-client privilege.”  Stengart, 408 N.J. Super. at 74.

Second, employee monitoring can run afoul of protections related to union and other concerted activity.  The General Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) recently announced a plan to curtail workplace surveillance technologies.  Existing law prohibits employers from using surveillance technologies to monitor or record union activity, such as by recording employees engaged in picketing, or otherwise interfering with employees’ rights to engage in concerted activity.  The General Counsel’s plan outlines a new, formal framework for analyzing whether employee monitoring interferes with union or concerted activity.  Under this framework, an employer presumptively violates Section 7 or Section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) where their “surveillance and management practices, viewed as a whole, would tend to interfere with or prevent a reasonable employee from engaging in” protected activities.  Examples of technologies that are presumptively violative include key loggers, webcam photos, and audio recordings.

Do I have a claim against my employer?

While federal and state restrictions on employee monitoring are limited, you may have a legal claim against your employer if its monitoring is overly intrusive or it mishandles your personal data.  First, an invasion-of-privacy claim, for the tort of intrusion upon seclusion, could exist if your employer monitors your activity in a way that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, such as by accessing your work laptop’s webcam or internal microphone and listening in on private affairs in your home.  Second, you may have a claim against your employer for violating its legal duty to protect your personal information if data it collects in the course of monitoring your work activity is compromised.  In Dittman v. UPMC, 196 A.3d 1036 (Pa. 2018), employees at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center and UPMC McKeesport (collectively, UPMC) filed a class-action complaint alleging that UPMC breached its legal duty of reasonable care when it failed to protect employees’ data, which was stolen from UPMC computers.  The Pennsylvania Supreme Court found for the plaintiffs, holding that employers have an affirmative duty to protect the personal information of their employees.  Because the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s holding was grounded in tort principles that are recognized by many states (i.e., duty of care and negligence), it may pave a path for future cases in other jurisdictions.  Third, if any medical information is accessed and improperly used by your employer, you may have a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which requires that employers keep all employee medical information confidential and separate from all other personnel information.  See 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(3)(B)-(C), (4)(B)-(C).

Conclusion

Employees are monitored more consistently and in more ways than ever before. By and large, employee monitoring is legal.  Employers can monitor your keystrokes, emails, and internet activity, among other metrics.  While federal regulation of employee monitoring is limited, some states offer additional protections of employee privacy.  Most notably, employers are increasingly required to inform employees that their activity will be monitored.  Moreover, other legal rights, such as the right to engage in concerted activity and to have your medical information kept confidential, provide checks on employee surveillance.  As employee monitoring becomes more commonplace, restrictions on surveillance technologies and avenues for legal recourse may also grow.

Article By Bonnie Henry of Katz Banks Kumin LLP

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

Katz Banks Kumin LLP Copyright ©

New Jersey Employers Are Now Required to Provide Written Notice Before Using Tracking Devices in Employee-Operated Vehicles

Earlier this year, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy signed into law Assembly Bill No. 3950, which requires employers in the State to provide written notice to an employee before using a tracking device on a vehicle used by the employee. The new law, which went into effect on April 18, 2022, recognizes that employers may have a legitimate business interest in being able to track their workforce’s whereabouts—particularly when traveling or working offsite—while also reconciling that with the protection of workers’ privacy rights. At the very least, the days of covertly tracking employee vehicles appear to be a thing of the past.

The law defines “tracking device” as any “electronic or mechanical device which is designed or intended to be used for the sole purpose of tracking the movement of a vehicle, person, or device,” with a specific carveout for devices used solely for the purpose of documenting employee expense reimbursement.

Significantly, the written notice requirement applies to the use of tracking devices in any vehicles used by an employee. It does not matter whether it is an employee’s personal vehicle (whether owned or leased) or company-owned or provided. Written notice must be provided regardless.

Failure to comply with the law’s notice requirements can carry substantial penalties. An employer who knowingly makes use of a tracking device in a vehicle used by an employee without providing written notice to the employee shall be subject to a civil penalty up to $1,000.00 for the first violation, and then up to $2,500.00 for each subsequent violation. These fines can add up quickly, especially for service businesses with large vehicle fleets, among others. Additionally, it is possible that failure to comply with the law’s notice requirements may implicate employee privacy rights that could lead to further civil exposure.

Private employers within the State must ensure they have appropriate policies and procedures in place to comply with the new law’s requirements and insulate their businesses from potential liability for violations. While it does not specify what the required “written notice” must look like or how it must be conveyed to employees, at minimum employers should update their employee handbooks as well as provide a stand-alone, written notice to employees, with signed confirmation and acknowledgement of receipt. Additionally, rule and regulations regarding GPS tracking of employee vehicles may vary from state to state, so employers with a multi-state presence or service area need to be aware of the different laws that may apply to them depending on where their employees are working.

Employers who have not yet updated their forms and procedures should immediately contact counsel and take steps to ensure that they are in compliance. Similarly, it may be prudent for employers who drafted their own policies to have experienced employment counsel perform a policy or handbook review and provide advice and guidance regarding employer responsibilities and obligations, including but not limited to ensuring compliance with New Jersey’s new vehicle tracking device law.

COPYRIGHT © 2022, STARK & STARK
Article By Cory Rand with Stark & Stark.
For more articles about New Jersey Legislation, visit the NLR New Jersey law section.

SCOTUS Favors Employers’ Religious Liberties Over Employee Rights

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) issued two important decisions this week in cases reflecting the ongoing legal tensions between employers’ religious liberties and the right of employees to be free from discrimination; and in both cases, SCOTUS tipped the scales decidedly in favor of employers’ religious liberties.

First Amendment Supersedes Employment Discrimination Claims

The Supreme Court issued a decision in two similar cases – essentially dismissing the discrimination claims brought by two Catholic school teachers who were discharged from their instructional positions at two different Catholic schools in southern California. In Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru (19-267), and St. James School v. Biel (19-348), the Supreme Court held by a 7-2 majority that the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment Religion Clauses foreclose the teachers’ employment discrimination claims. In the OLG case, the former teacher sued for age discrimination; in the St. James case, the teacher was dismissed after she sought a leave of absence for cancer treatment. The teacher later passed away.

Relying on the “ministerial exception” outlined in the 2012 SCOTUS decision in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church v. EEOC, 565 U.S. 171 (2012), the majority opinion, authored by Justice Samuel Alito, noted that “religious education and formation of students is the very reason for the existence of most private religious schools, and therefore the selection and supervision of the teachers upon whom the schools rely to do this work lie at the core of their mission. Judicial review of the way in which religious schools discharge those responsibilities would undermine the independence of religious institutions in a way that the First Amendment does not tolerate.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in dissent, criticizes the majority for its distillation of the Hosanna-Tabor standard into “a single consideration: whether a church thinks its employees play an important religious role,” and observes that it “strips thousands of schoolteachers of their legal protections.”

Religious Exemptions From Birth Control Mandate Under the Affordable Care Act

In a similar but procedurally more complicated ruling, the Supreme Court upheld the federal government’s expansion of a federal rule that exempts employers with religious or moral objections from being required to provide employees with health insurance coverage for birth control under the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

In a 7-2 decision in Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania (19-431), SCOTUS tackled the latest skirmish of the ACA’s birth-control mandate. The ACA mandate generally requires employers to provide female employees health insurance with access to contraception. Religious entities have repeatedly challenged the rules, as well as the opt-out accommodation process developed under the Obama administration for employers with religious or moral exemptions.  (The Trump administration had expanded those exemptions.)

With the majority opinion authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, SCOTUS held that the departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and the Treasury had authority to issue rules for employers. In a concurring opinion, Justice Elena Kagan (joined by Justice Stephen Breyer) acknowledges the statutory authority of the federal agencies, but cautions, “that does not mean the Departments should prevail when these cases return to the lower courts. The States challenged the exemptions not only as outside the HRSA’s [Health Resources and Services Administration’s] statutory authority, but also as ‘arbitrary [and] capricious.’”

In her dissenting opinion, Justice Ginsburg (joined by Justice Sotomayor) notes, “Today, for the first time, the Court casts totally aside countervailing rights and interests in its zeal to secure religious rights to the nth degree.”

Takeaways for Discerning Employers

While these Supreme Court decisions, in tandem, may bolster employers’ confidence in their sincerely held beliefs and moral objections about certain employment-related decisions, it is also important to recognize its limitations.  Employers should strategize with their leadership and legal counsel to carefully weigh whether and to what extent these decisions should (or will) inform their own policies and practices, as well as any resulting reputational impact and workplace morale considerations.

© 2020 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

For more recent SCOTUS employment decisions, see the National Law Review Labor & Employment law section.

Temperature Screening: New Guidance From the CDC, FAQs, and Best Practices

With states beginning to ease stay-at-home orders, employers are formulating plans to return employees to the workplace. As part of this process, many employers are considering implementing regular employee temperature checks in an effort to keep employees safe. While this measure may have seemed unthinkable and fraught with risks even just a couple of months ago, we expect that health screenings, including temperature checks, will become increasingly prevalent in the workplace. In fact, just last week, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) issued guidance on how employers and businesses can safely conduct temperature checks. Key portions of that guidance are summarized below, along with a list of common questions and best practices employers should consider before requiring employees to undergo regular temperature checks.

1. Are employers required to screen employees’ temperatures before they enter the workplace?

The answer depends on the state(s) in which the employer operates.  Some states are now requiring employers to conduct regular temperature checks on employees.  For example, Colorado requires certain critical and noncritical businesses to conduct daily temperature checks and monitor employees’ symptoms, and employers with 50 or more employees at one location must implement stations for symptom screenings and temperature checks.  Other states such as Indiana require all employers to implement a COVID-19 response plan, which includes implementing a health screening process for employees that may include regular temperature checks.  Additionally, employers may be subject to different temperature check requirements based on industry.  For example, Washington requires construction contractors to screen all workers at the beginning of their shift by taking their temperature and asking them if they have symptoms.  Any worker found to have a temperature of 100.4 degrees or higher must be sent home.  That said, many states currently have no temperature check mandate, including–for now–Illinois (with limited exceptions such as certain health care and long-term care employees), giving many employers some flexibility to determine how best to screen employees for symptoms, if at all.  Employers should consult and keep a close eye on ever-changing state and local guidelines to determine if and when temperature checks are required.

2. Even if there is no state or local mandate, can employers still require employees to submit to routine on-site temperature checks as a condition of employment?

Yes, provided that temperature checks are administered safely, consistently and in a non-discriminatory manner.  The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has issued guidance confirming that temperature checks are a permissible screening mechanism to use during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, to avoid discrimination claims, employers generally should not pick and choose who is subject to temperature screening unless it is part of a nondiscriminatory plan (e.g., screening only that portion of the workforce where social distancing measures may not be feasible, such as warehouses or manufacturing plants).  Note that if employers choose to screen every employee entering a facility, employers may need to conduct such checks on anyone entering the workplace–not just employees–to minimize the risk of discrimination claims and to reduce the risk of transmission.

3. What are the key CDC guidelines for conducting on-site temperature screenings?

The CDC outlines two options for on-site screenings. The first approach relies on barrier/partition controls and personal protective equipment (“PPE”) and the second approach relies exclusively on PPE.

Under the first approach, the screener stands behind a physical barrier, such as a glass or plastic window or partition.  Using disposable gloves, the screener checks the employee’s temperature by reaching around the partition or through the window.  It is critical that the screener’s face remain behind the barrier at all times during the screening.

Under the second approach, the screener uses a face mask, eye protection (goggles or disposable face shield that fully covers the front and sides of the face), disposable gloves and a gown (if physical contact with an employee is anticipated) when taking employees’ temperatures.

When conducting temperature checks on multiple employees, the screener should use a clean pair of gloves for each employee and ensure that the thermometer is thoroughly cleaned after each use.  If the screener is using a disposable or non-contact thermometer (i.e., non-contact infrared thermometers, tympanic thermometers, and thermal scanners) and he or she does not make physical contact with the employee, then the CDC states that the screener need not change his or her gloves after each check.

Under either approach, the CDC confirms that employees found to have a temperature of 100.4 degrees or higher should be sent home immediately and instructed to promptly contact their doctor.  Employers should follow up with employees who are sent home with additional information about any available benefits and return-to-work protocol.  The CDC further recommends that employees maintain social distancing when waiting for their turn to be screened, and to the extent possible, screening should take place before an employee enters the physical workplace.

The CDC guidance can be found here:  https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/general-business-faq.html

4. How should the temperature screeners be selected and trained?

An obvious first choice for a screener is often a medical officer or nurse, if such an employee is available and on staff.  If not, employers should carefully select an appropriate screener, ensure that the individual is comfortable with the role, and consider providing such individual with additional compensation or hazard pay.  Alternatively, there are third-party vendors who now offer these types of services, though such vendors should be carefully vetted.  Finally, employers are even turning to robots or robotic arms to conduct screens in order to reduce the risk of exposure during the screening process.

No matter who is selected, screeners should be trained on how to safely complete temperature screens, the proper use and disposal of PPE, and maintaining employee privacy.  As a best practice, we recommend that employers retain a medical professional to train screeners on how to safely and effectively conduct a temperature check, or at a minimum, employers should consult a medical professional to provide and confirm such information.  We also recommend that screeners sign a document establishing the protocol, requiring confidentiality of employee medical information, and confirming that the individual has been informed of and consents to the risks of serving as a screener.

5. What kind of thermometer should be used?

As a practical matter, we strongly advise that employers use a disposable or no-contact thermometer to prevent the spread of the virus. In fact, without a disposable or contactless device, employers may want to consider abandoning temperature checks altogether (if doing so will not run afoul of state or local law) and instead rely on other screening measures.  The risk of inadvertently using a contaminated device may outweigh any potential benefits gained from implementing a screening protocol in the first place.

However, if an employer uses a sophisticated device, including robots, to screen employees’ temperatures, Illinois employers should be aware of yet another potential legal pitfall.  Some devices and robots rely on artificial intelligence, including in some cases, facial recognition capabilities.  Such equipment could implicate the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”), which has strict notice, disclosure and consent requirements.  Employers should discuss these risks with counsel before using any such devices.

6. If employees are required to undergo a temperature screening before clocking into work, must the employer compensate them for that time?

In most cases, yes.  While the answer to this question may depend, in part, on state law, we generally recommend that employers compensate employees for any time spent waiting to be screened and participating in the screening process in order to comply with the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and state wage and hour laws.  Running afoul of these laws by not paying employees for otherwise compensable pre-shift activities can be much more costly in the long run than paying employees for the time spent in the screening process itself.

7. What are the privacy concerns related to temperature checks?

The Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) requires employers to maintain the confidentiality of all information obtained through disability-related inquiries and medical examinations.  Temperature screening is a medical examination under the ADA. Accordingly, any information collected as part of the screening process must be treated as a confidential medical record and maintained separately from the employee’s personnel file.  It may be disclosed only in limited circumstances. Employers should also consider how to best protect the privacy of those employees who are found to have an elevated temperature and need to be sent home (e.g., allowing for an inconspicuous exit, private screening, drive-through screening, etc.).

8. What if an employee refuses to participate in on-site temperature checks?

As a general matter, employees can be required to undergo temperature checks as a condition of employment, and those who refuse to do so should be sent home.  Employers should communicate the requirements for temperature checks and the consequences for failing to cooperate in a clearly written notice or policy that is distributed to all employees in advance of the implementation of the screening protocol.  Employees who refuse to adhere to those requirements may be disciplined, provided that any such discipline is administered in a consistent and nondiscriminatory manner.  However, for a variety of reasons (including employee morale), employers should consider whether discipline is truly necessary.  The better option may be to simply send the employee home or deny them access to the workplace.  When in doubt, employers should consult counsel before implementing discipline.

9. Is fever alone a reliable indicator of COVID-19?

According to the medical community, no.  Unfortunately, an elevated temperature is not a definitive indicator of the illness, and an employee may be contagious even without a fever. For that reason, and as discussed further below, employers should consider implementing other screening mechanisms either in lieu of on-site temperature screening (if allowed under applicable law) or in addition to temperature screening.

10. If fever is not a reliable indicator of COVID-19, why are employers implementing temperature screening?

Employers are looking for concrete steps they can take to reduce the risk of exposure in the workplace.  Unlike most COVID-19 symptoms, body temperature can be objectively screened and verified.  While temperature screening will not effectively identify asymptomatic cases, it still has the ability to catch positive cases and help prevent a potential outbreak in the workplace.  In many instances, employers are implementing temperature screening in an attempt to alleviate employee anxiety.  Some employers are reporting that employees actually want to have temperature checks in place to know that their employer is taking meaningful, proactive steps to keep them safe.  In other words, temperature screening may be as much of an employee relations (and public relations) tool as it is a prevention mechanism. In weighing the decision to implement on-site screening, employers should consider whether employees will be comforted by the process of temperature checks or if it will instead stoke fear and panic.

11. How should employees be notified of on-site screening measures?

We recommend that employers provide employees with advance, written notice of temperature checks and any other screening measures.  The notice or policy statement should explain the basis and method for conducting the screening, the steps the employer is taking to protect employee safety and privacy, and the consequences for failing to comply.  To avoid a false sense of security, the notice should also make clear that just because someone does not have a fever does not necessarily mean that the person does not have the virus.  The notice should explain that many people who test positive for COVID-19 are asymptomatic, and that employees should continue to take appropriate precautions and self-monitor and report to the employer the presence of any other symptoms.

12. What are the alternatives to on-site temperature screening?

As discussed above, on-site temperature screening presents potential logistical and legal issues that may steer some employers away from taking such measures.  As an alternative to on-site temperature screening, many employers are instead considering and implementing some type of employee self-assessment or self-monitoring protocol.  This can be accomplished through completion of daily self-assessment and/or certification forms in which the employee is asked to self-report temperature, other symptoms, or potential exposure events.  Other employers are relying on a one-time policy document whereby employees acknowledge and agree that by reporting to work each day, they are certifying that they have no symptoms.  Some employers are even incorporating the daily certification into timekeeping software (without disclosing medical information).

According to the CDC, it is reasonable to ask employees to take their own temperature before arriving to work.  This helps reduce the risk that those who are experiencing symptoms of COVID-19 will expose others to the virus by traveling to or reporting to work.  Therefore, some employers may opt to have employees conduct their own temperature checks before arriving at work, which alleviates some of the logistical and legal concerns.  However, note that employers in some states, like California and Illinois, may need to foot the bill for supplying employees with thermometers needed to complete any such self-assessment.

Regardless of the approach taken, we believe that employers should implement some type of symptom screening mechanism, even if it is not an on-site temperature check. And if an employer does decide to conduct on-site temperature screening (or is required to do so by law), we believe temperature checks should be used in conjunction with other screening efforts such as requiring employees to identify other symptoms or potential exposure incidents.  In other words, temperature screening should be just one of many potential tools in the employer’s arsenal to combat COVID-19 in the workplace.

© 2020 Vedder Price

For more on the return to work after COVID-19 process, see the National Law Review Coronavirus News legal section.

OSHA Issues New COVID-19 Alert to Restaurants & Beverage Vendors

On May 1, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued a new safety alert for restaurant and food and beverage businesses operating during the pandemic. In the alert, OSHA suggests that restaurants providing curbside and takeout service should reserve parking spaces near the front door for pickup, avoid handing food off directly when possible, and allow workers to wear masks.

OSHA also urged businesses to display signs detailing their services such as pickup instructions and hours; take “sensible social distancing” measures such as moving workstations or installing plexiglass partitions; provide alcohol-based hand rubs and a place to wash hands; train workers in proper hygiene practices and the use of workplace controls; and encourage workers to report safety and health concerns.

This alert is the latest in a series of industry-specific documents OSHA has issued offering recommendations on ways to protect workers and patrons during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The agency has made the tips available in a one-page poster employers can display in the workplace.

© 2020 Jones Walker LLP

For more reopening regulations, see the National Law Review Coronavirus News section.

Chicago City Council Introduces COVID-19 Anti-Retaliation Ordinance, Reflecting Growing Trend

On April 22, 2020, Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot, with the backing of several Aldermen, introduced the COVID-19 Anti-Retaliation Ordinance (the “Ordinance”), which, if enacted, would prohibit Chicago employers from retaliating against employees for obeying a public health order requiring an employee to remain at home as a consequence of COVID-19.  This reflects a growing trend among states and local governments in enacting protections against retaliation amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Ordinance would prohibit employers from demoting or terminating a “Covered Employee”[1] for obeying an order issued by the Mayor, the Governor of Illinois or the Chicago Department of Public Health requiring the Covered Employee to:

(1) Stay at home to minimize the transmission of COVID-19;

(2) Remain at home while experiencing COVID-19 symptoms or sick with COVID-19;

(3) Obey a quarantine order issued to the Covered Employee;

(4) Obey an isolation order issued to the Covered Employee; or

(5) Obey an order issued by the Commissioner of Health regarding the duties of hospitals and other congregate facilities.

An employer would also be prohibited from retaliating against a Covered Employee for obeying an order issued by the employees’ treating healthcare provider relating to subsections (2), (3) and (4) above.

Finally, the anti-retaliation protections would extend to Covered Employees who are caring for an individual who is subject to subsections (1)-(3) above, and would apply even if workers have exhausted any earned sick-leave time available pursuant to Chicago’s Paid Sick Leave Ordinance.

Affirmative Defense

The Ordinance would allow an employer to assert an affirmative defense if it relied upon a reasonable interpretation of the public health order at-issue and, upon learning of the violation of the Ordinance, cured the violation within 30 days.

Penalties/Damages

The Ordinance has teeth:  violations can lead to fines of up to $1,000 per offense per day, and Covered Employees who have been retaliated against may pursue the following recovery in a civil action: (i) reinstatement; (ii) damages equal to three times the full amount of wages that would have been owed had the retaliatory action not taken place; (iii) actual damages caused directly by the retaliatory action; and (iv) costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees.

Next Steps

The Ordinance has been referred to the Chicago Committee on Workforce Development for further deliberation.

A Growing Trend

The protections the Ordinance would afford to employees are consistent with a growing trend among state and local governments in response to the COVID-19 crisis.  Similar protections have been established through emergency orders or rules in New Jersey, Michigan and Washington which prohibit employers from disciplining or terminating employees for requesting or taking time off after contracting or, in some circumstances, being exposed to COVID-19.  Other states, such as New York and California, have issued guidance applying existing federal, state, and local anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation laws to prohibit employers from discriminating against or refusing to provide reasonable accommodations for employees who contract or are otherwise impacted by the virus. As state legislative and executive responses continue to rapidly evolve, employers should ensure that they are familiar with the latest guidance in each state where their employees are located.

[1] “Covered Employee” generally means any employee who, in any particular two-week period, performs at least two hours of work for an employer while physically present within the geographic boundaries of the City of Chicago.  Chicago, Ill., Mun. Code § 1-24-010.

© 2020 Proskauer Rose LLP.
For more on COVID-19 related employment ordinances, see the National Law Review Coronavirus News section.

EMPLOYERS BEWARE: $2.4M Jury Verdict Serves as a Reminder of the Duty Employers Owe to Their Employees

A recent New Jersey Superior Court case involving PNC Bank as a defendant should serve as an eye-opening reminder to all employers that it has a duty to maintain a safe and healthy workplace for all employees, free from harassment, discrimination and any other tort or prohibited conduct. Notably, this duty to maintain a safe and healthy workplace not only applies to the eradication of wrongdoing by employees, but also affords protection to employees from improper acts of non-employees such as customers, clients, vendors, independent contractors, etc.

Following a jury trial in Essex County, PNC Bank was deemed liable in the amount of $2.4 million in damages, consisting of both back and front pay, as well as past and future emotional distress damages, awarded to a former employee who claimed she was the victim of a sexual assault/gender discrimination by a bank customer in 2013. The Plaintiff argued that the customer in question was known by the Bank to have groped and harassed others in the past, yet the Bank did not take the appropriate, remedial measures to ensure her safety and prevent it from happening again.

Although the Bank claims that it had no such knowledge of the prior bad acts of the customer and had no way of knowing any such assault would occur towards the Plaintiff, the jury clearly did not accept that defense.

This case is yet another example on how important it is to have a well-established and widely distributed anti-harassment and discrimination policy and training for all staff in the workplace, applicable to all those susceptible to harassment or discrimination in the workplace, whether it be by fellow employees or otherwise, such as customers or guests.

© 2020 Giordano, Halleran & Ciesla, P.C. All Rights Reserved

For more about employer responsibilities, see the National Law Review Labor & Employment law section.

Can an Employer Implement a Nicotine-Free Hiring Policy?— It Depends on State Law (US)

Nicotine products are highly addictive and have been linked to a variety of serious health issues, including lung cancer and other respiratory illnesses.  In addition to the numerous health risks associated with nicotine use, there is also a causal connection between employee nicotine use and lower productivity in the workplace, as well as higher healthcare costs for employers.  In response to these issues, and in an effort to promote and empower a healthy workforce, more employers are enacting health-conscious workplace policies and anti-smoking/vaping initiatives.

In fact, over the last decade, employers—particularly hospitals and businesses in the medical field—have adopted anti-smoking/vaping policies in those states in which it is lawful to do so, with the goal of encouraging a more healthy work environment, as well as to increase worker productivity and reduce healthcare costs.  As the health risks associated with nicotine use become increasingly apparent (particularly with the recent wave of vaping-related illnesses), it is likely that more employers will consider their policies toward these important health issues. For example, on December 30, 2019, U-Haul International announced a new nicotine-free hiring policy that will go into effect in 21 states on February 1, 2020.  Although U-Haul subsidiaries operate in all 50 US states and 10 Canadian provinces, due to legal restrictions in some jurisdictions, the policy will be implemented only in the following 21 US states: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington.  Prospective employees in those states will see statements regarding the nicotine-free hiring policy on application materials and will be questioned about nicotine use. Further, to be considered for employment in states where nicotine testing is allowed, applicants will be required to consent to submit to nicotine screening in the future.  U-Haul employees hired prior to February 1, 2020 will not be affected by the new policy.

U-Haul will be the first major company in its field to refuse to hire applicants who are nicotine users, and the new policy has caused some to question whether companies which, like U-Haul, are deeply invested in the well-being of their employees, are allowed to enact such policies.  The answer to that question depends on the jurisdiction in which the company operates.  Nicotine users are not a “protected class” under any federal anti-discrimination law, and thus state law governs this issue.  In each of the 21 states in which U-Haul companies will implement its policy, there are no laws that protect the rights of nicotine-users or prohibit employers from declining to hire applicants due to their engaging in otherwise lawful conduct outside the workplace.  Therefore, a policy refusing to hire nicotine users is perfectly legal in those jurisdictions, and employers in those states are free to enact nicotine-free hiring policies if they so choose.

However, employers who are considering implementing such nicotine-free hiring policies should tread carefully.  The rest of the 29 states where U-Haul subsidiaries are not implementing its policy (and the District of Columbia) have various anti-discrimination or employee privacy laws preventing employers from enacting such policies.  These states provide varying degrees of protection to employees.  For example, some states broadly forbid employers from discriminating against applicants or employees based on the use of “lawful products” or for “lawful conduct,” whereas other state laws specifically protect an applicant’s or employee’s right to smoke or use other tobacco products.  Although these states are generally more employee-friendly in this context, in some of these jurisdictions, employers can require smokers to pay higher health insurance premiums, so long as the additional amount reflects the actual differential cost to the employer.  Further, employers can still regulate and limit an employee’s on-site smoking, and can typically offer financial incentives for employees who participate in wellness programs to help them quit smoking.

Given the state-specific nuances associated with this issue, employers thinking about implementing a nicotine-free hiring policy should consult with an attorney before implementing such a policy to ensure it may lawfully do so.

© Copyright 2020 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

For more on employers’ healthy-workplace initiatives, see the National Law Review Labor & Employment law section.

Dealing With “Attitude” at Work, Part 3 – Helping Staff Help Themselves

In the first two posts in this series, I looked at the law around workplace attitudes which might stem from some form of disability. But what if your employee is fit and well in all respects bar being exceptionally painful to work with?

He may be relentlessly negative, make heavy weather out of every instruction, or just operate on a very short fuse, often perfectly civil but prone to detonation when colleagues overstep some clearly very important, but also absolutely invisible, line in their dealings with him. He is, in every sense, grit in the gearbox of your business. But without obvious performance or conduct concerns, what can you do?

Probably the first point is to ascertain whether the employee himself recognises the problems he is causing to his colleagues. This won’t be an easy conversation but it forces him to confront the problem head-on. He may demand to know who has complained and require detailed examples of where others have been offended. By the very nature of a poor attitude, however, individual manifestations of it seem trivial and raising them individually with the employee like a series of miniature disciplinary charges is just going to lead to a precipitous further decline in workplace relationships. So I would suggest in many cases that the attitude issue is put as a collective perception without the identification of either individual complainants or specific examples. This is the view people have on you. You don’t need details of individual complainants or examples to decide whether you recognise that as having any truth in it. If you do accept that there is something in it, you can do something about it. If you can’t/don’t do anything about it, the employer will need to do so instead.

That meeting will best take place in private and without any offer of a companion, so it is not disciplinary action and cannot be relied upon as a warning at a later stage. It is intended to be no more than a word to the wise.

This leaves the employee with some choices. Is he going to be wise or not? If secretly he recognises that this is how he might come across, then without admission and without formal disciplinary proceedings he can amend his behaviours and all will be well at minimum disruption and cost. Alternatively he may flatly deny those behaviours both to you and (more importantly) to himself. However, he will then have to address in his own head the question of why so many of his colleagues say otherwise. Or he may accept the behaviours in broad terms, but allege that they are the product of some treatment he has received from the employer or his colleagues. He withdrew from social interaction with them because they withdrew from such interaction with him, and they did it first, so there. He is being passive-aggressive because they are being aggressive-aggressive. He doesn’t trust them because they didn’t support him about something a long time ago which he has been unable to get over, and so on.

Of course, you can make such a response the subject of a formal grievance and disciplinary process, but this will have more oh yes you did and oh no I didn’t than the average Christmas panto and at the end of it you will find the same two things every time: first, that no one is completely blameless and second, that by conducting the effective artillery duel which those formal procedures encourage, you have converted a relationship which didn’t work very well into one which no longer works at all.

Therefore if you can catch your employee’s attitude issue early enough to avoid having to go through a formal process, why not try to mediate a resolution? Use the safe space created by that process to exchange some views about how each side’s conduct makes the other feel. It may be the first time your employee has heard this “from the heart”. Ideally this should be in non-aggressive terms – “You intimidate me” cries out to be whacked back over the net with added topspin, but “I feel intimidated by you” cannot so easily be argued with because it is about what someone feels, not what someone else did.

You might reasonably expect emotion and tears at such a mediation (dawning self-awareness can be very painful) so it won’t necessarily be an easy process. But at the end, if it works, you will have a newly functioning working relationship and not the cratered and smoking wreckage of what used to be the team spirit.

If it doesn’t work? More next week.

 

See Parts 1 & 2:

© Copyright 2019 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

For more on workplace attitudes, see the National Law Review Labor & Employment law section.

Employee Advocacy for Nonemployee, Unpaid Interns Is Not Protected by National Labor Relations Act

Unpaid interns are not “employees” as defined by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), and employee advocacy on their behalf is not protected concerted activity under Section 7 of the NLRA, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has ruled. Amnesty International of the USA, Inc., 368 NLRB No. 112 (Nov. 12, 2019).

The NLRB also concluded the employer’s expression of frustration and disappointment with its employees’ actions on behalf of the interns was not an unlawful implied threat.

Background

Amnesty International is a nonprofit advocacy organization that typically hires 15 unpaid interns to volunteer each academic semester.

In February 2018, a group of interns, assisted by an employee, circulated a petition requesting the organization pay them for their volunteer work. Nearly all the organization’s employees signed the petition. At the same time, the organization’s executive team was considering a paid intern program with only three interns.

On April 2, 2018, unaware of the unpaid intern’s petition, the Executive Director of the organization shared the organization’s plans for a paid internship program during an employee meeting. The unpaid interns sent their petition to the Executive Director the next day.

On April 9, 2018, the Executive Director held separate meetings with the current interns and the employees who signed the petition to announce plans to implement the paid internships that fall. The employees reacted negatively and expressed concern about the reduced number of interns. The Executive Director stated that she was disappointed the employees did not take advantage of the organization’s open-door policy to discuss the matter with management before using a petition. The Executive Director also stated that she viewed the petition as adversarial and felt it threatened litigation.

On May 9, 2018, the employee who assisted the unpaid interns with their petition met privately with the Executive Director. The employee recorded the conversation. The Executive Director stated she was “very embarrassed” that her employees felt unable to approach her about the issue and “disappointed that she did not ‘have the kind of relationship with staff’ that she thought she had.” The Executive Director said that it would have been “really helpful” to know about the intern’s interest in paid internships in advance and that the employee could have told the interns to “give me a heads-up to let me know it’s coming.” The Executive Director indicated that a petition “sets off a more adversarial relationship” and is not effective when the demand could “be met without applying that pressure.” She further stated, “you could try talking to us before you do another petition.”

Administrative Law Judge Decision

After a trial, ALJ Michael A. Rosas held that the employees had engaged in protected activity under Section 7 of the NLRA by joining the interns’ petition. He also determined the organization violated Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA by: (1) instructing employees to make complaints orally before making them in writing; (2) threatening unspecified reprisals because of the employees’ protected concerted activity; (3) equating protected concerted activity with disloyalty; and (4) requesting employees to report to management other employees who are engaging in protected concerted activity. He dismissed the allegation that the Executive Director’s statements “impliedly threatened to increase employees’ workloads as a result of the petition.”

NLRB Decision

The NLRB reversed the ALJ’s conclusions and dismissed the complaint.

Holding that “[a]ctivity advocating only for nonemployees is not for ‘other mutual aid or protection’ within the meaning of Section 7,” the NLRB reasoned that the unpaid interns were not employees because they did not “receive or anticipate any economic compensation from [Amnesty International].”

The NLRB also held that the Executive Director’s statements did not coerce the employees. It concluded the Executive Director’s statements fell within Section 8(c) of the NLRA, which permits employers to express views, arguments, or opinions that are not accompanied by coercion (e.g., threats or promises of benefits). Considering the timing of the petition and the employees’ reaction, the NLRB determined that the Executive Director’s “opinions about how to handle petitions in the future to be, at most, suggestions, rather than commands or even direct requests.” Her statements “clearly expressed her frustration that, as a result of the lack of communication, management’s attempt to provide a positive response to the 
 petition had instead resulted in a backlash from employees.” However, the comments did not rise to the level of conveying anger, threaten reprisal, or accuse the employees of disloyalty, the NLRB ruled. Therefore, it concluded they did not violate Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA.

***

The NLRB has been signaling a hesitancy to impose obligations on employers outside the traditional employment context. It has proposed exempting paid undergraduate and graduate students from the NLRA, for example. Over the last several years, as employers are forced by the low employment rate to increase their use of nonemployees, unions have increased their efforts to expand the NLRA’s reach by organizing non-traditional workers, including temporary campaign workers and graduate students.

 

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2019
Read more about NLRB rulings on the National Law Review Labor & Employment law page.