Tag: employer

Food for Thought: Serving Up Unique Concerns for Restaurant Leases

Many aspects of commercial leasing are complex, but restaurant leases are a unique species of lease. Counsel to restaurants must be cognizant of operational and logistical issues posed by these hospitality businesses, and be prepared to address these key issues to protect the restaurant. Here are some of the most distinctive issues to be aware of when representing a restaurant tenant:

CONSTRUCTION ISSUES

Restaurant construction is different from other tenants’ fit-out work. It involves several moving parts, all of which come together to facilitate the restaurant’s successful operation. These include utilities, heating, ventilation, and air conditioning, managing odors, grease traps, hot water, and fire suppression systems. While counsel need not have the knowledge of a contractor or architect, one must understand the importance of the size of HVAC systems, design of fire suppression and sprinkler systems, the capacity and location of electrical conduit and electrical service, and sanitary and sewer lines and gas lines. For example, grease traps are imperative for restaurants, and it is important to determine (i) whether a grease trap is separate and external, or shared with other tenants, (ii) if shared, how maintenance responsibility and cost will be allocated among the shared users; and (iii) whether the grease trap’s location is convenient for operations.

Mitigation of cooking odors is another key issue, especially in a mixed-use development, shopping center, or an urban residential neighborhood. Some landlords and municipalities require expensive odor control systems, and negotiation is important in determining the size and scope of such measures, especially given the subjective perception of odors generally. It may also be helpful to include an objective standard of negative pressure for odor control. Noise mitigation is likewise an issue as to which landlords may be sensitive. Restaurants draw crowds of people who are out to enjoy themselves, which leads to loud voices, music, and other noise that emanates from the restaurant in a way that may affect other abutters and neighbors, especially residences or hotels.

OPERATIONAL ISSUES

  1. Hours of Operation: All businesses are sensitive to their hours or operation, but it is particularly important for restaurants to understand the impacts that may come with later hours, which often cause landlords concern (especially if the restaurant serves alcohol). If the restaurant has outdoor seating or a patio area, are those hours the same as for the interior space? Some liquor licenses or municipal regulations may also restrict operations, so it is important to understand and comply with the requirements and rules of governing bodies.
  2. Deliveries: Restaurants receive multiple deliveries daily, often greater than other types of businesses. The logistics of delivering food to the restaurant are critically important. Sometimes landlords desire to limit the hours during which deliveries may be made or the loading docks (if any) that may be used. Counsel should know how deliveries will be made and determine whether any restrictions on same will be troublesome to the restaurant’s operations.
  3. Trash: Restaurants generate a substantial amount of trash, both wet and dry, food and nonfood. The location and adequacy of trash storage as well as the frequency of removal are key issues to specify in the lease. Some landlords also require a cold storage area for food waste; and of course care should be taken to avoid vermin infestations. Where will the tenant need to take its trash? If the common trash room is far from the kitchen, that may pose problems for restaurant staff.
  4. Parking: Vehicle parking is an issue for all tenants, but it is often magnified for restaurants. Counsel should understand where the restaurant’s patrons are expected to park, and if desired seek to negotiate designated takeout parking spaces for the restaurant. If there is to be valet parking, or if a development designates certain areas as approved for ride share drop-off and pick-up and not others, counsel should understand whether those services and areas pose a business risk for the client.

EXCLUSIVE ISSUES

Many types of retail businesses seek exclusives in leases, but restaurants are particularly invested in ensuring that landlords do not lease other space to a competitor restaurant. If the development contains a hotel, the restaurant lease should contain an exclusive which prevents the hotel from operating a similar restaurant.

TIMING ISSUES

If the restaurant is located in a mixed-use project or shopping center, or otherwise not on its own parcel, the restaurant will want to negotiate the ability to determine when construction occurs and when it is obligated to open for business. Timing of construction can be a big risk, as delays and interruptions are expensive and set back the opening. Aside from construction timing, opening requirements may be important, especially in light of whether other tenants in the project are open and operating. Restaurant counsel may seek an opening co-tenancy requirement such that the restaurant will not be obligated to open until the major tenant or a substantial portion of the development is also open.

In summary, restaurant leases are more complicated than other retail leasing; and restaurant counsel should be aware of these unique business issues and strive to fully understand the details of its client’s business in order to set the restaurant on a successful path.

© 2024 SHERIN AND LODGEN LLP
For more information on Restaurant Leasing Issues, visit the NLR Real Estate section.

Clueless in the Cubicle

The Journal’s recent piece about managing employees with misperceptions about their employment self-worth reminds us once again why honest and timely performance feedback makes good business sense. I have written before about the benefit of candid performance reviews, even at the risk of hurt feelings. I have also defended performance evaluations as an important tool to mitigate potential liability for employment claims. The Journal’s piece states that nearly four in 10 employees who received the lowest grades from their managers last year rated themselves as highly valued by the organization based on almost two million assessments. If true, that represents an astounding disconnect between performance-related perception and reality.

Theory is one thing. Managers who are adept at giving feedback is another. While businesses are rightly focused on running the organization’s business, training managers how to deliver quality feedback is often assigned a low priority. Adding to that deficiency is the often unmet need for managers with the right EQ to deliver feedback. But despite those challenges, which exist even for employees who relish feedback, there are some important guidelines for managing employees with an inflated sense of employment worth. Here are a few suggestions for delivering feedback for performance-deniers, who clearly require a more exacting approach.

First, performance discussions (especially about the areas in which the employee is falling short) must be done regularly and ongoing, and especially promptly after an error or mistake is committed. Performance deniers will use a one-time annual review (even if negative) to point out the obvious: if they are falling so short, the manager would not have waited so long to deliver that message (and which, in their view, adds to the review’s inherent unreliability).

Second, managers should not shy away from a denier’s tendency to fight the feedback (they disagree with it, it is wrong, it is fake). Rather, managers should use the denier’s dispute to double down on feedback: the employee’s inability to accept criticism, consider it, and even hear it, are all key parts of an employee’s commitment to the organization to grow and do better. Growth requires introspection. The refusal to engage in that process is itself a performance deficiency.

Third, managers should not permit performance conversations to become a discussion about victimization, unfair treatment or perceived persecution (all of which may end up becoming a legal claim). Performance deniers are adept at deflecting: one key deflection is to blame others and make the discussion about things entirely outside performance parameters. Managers need to be empowered to insist on returning the feedback conversation back to the key and only focus: what is the employee doing well and how can (and must) the employee improve?

Finally, organizations need to assess the impact performance deniers have on employee morale. While not all employees will share the same perception, most people are aware when others aren’t pulling their weight – especially when they are tasked to pick up the pieces. Those on the downhill slope of these assignments – often the best performers because of the natural inclination to step up – may not stick around. The slippery slope here is clear and cluelessness at work is not a great look for the business or the employee.

©1994-2024 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.
by: Jennifer B. Rubin of MintzFor more news on Employer Performance Reviews, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.

Understanding How U.S. Export Controls Affect Manufacturers’ Hiring Practices

The U.S. government has adjusted export control regulations in an effort to protect U.S. national security interests. The revisions primarily affect export of electronic computing items and semiconductors to prevent foreign powers from obtaining critical technologies that may threaten national security. As manufacturers are facing increased demand for their products and critical labor shortages, they may find themselves seeking to hire foreign national talent and navigating U.S. export control and immigration and anti-discrimination laws.

Export Control Laws in United States

The primary export control laws in the United States are the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and Export Administration Regulations (EAR). Under these regulations, U.S. Persons working for U.S. companies can access export-controlled items without authorization from the U.S. government. U.S. Persons include: U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals, Lawful permanent residents, Refugees, and Asylees. Employers might need authorization from the appropriate federal agency to “export” (in lay terms, share or release) export-controlled items to workers who are not U.S. Persons, which the regulations call foreign persons. Employers apply for such authorization from either the U.S. Department of State or the U.S. Department of Commerce, depending on the item.

The release of technical data or technology to a foreign person that occurs within the United States is “deemed” to be an export to the foreign person’s “home country.” Whether an export license is required for a particular release may depend on both the nature of export controls applicable to the technology or technical data (including whether it is subject to the ITAR or EAR) and the citizenship of the foreign person.

Recent revisions to the EAR cover controls on advanced computing integrated circuits (ICs), computer commodities that contain such ICs, and certain semiconductor manufacturing items, among other controls. These revisions particularly affect semiconductor and chip manufacturers and exporters.

Intersection With Immigration and Anti-Discrimination Laws

The U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 1964 prohibit discrimination based on protected characteristics.

The INA prohibits discrimination based on national origin or citizenship, among other characteristics. Title VII prohibits discrimination based on race and national origin, which typically includes discrimination based on citizenship or immigration status. Furthermore, the INA prohibits “unfair documentary practices,” which are identified as instances where employers request more or different documents than those necessary to verify employment eligibility or request such documents with the intent to discriminate based on national origin or citizenship.

The intersection of export control laws, immigration, and anti-discrimination laws can create a confusing landscape for employers, particularly manufacturers or exporters of export-controlled items. Manufacturers and exporters, like all employers, must collect identity and employment authorization documentation to ensure I-9 compliance. At the same time, however, they must collect information relating to a U.S. Person in connection with export compliance assessments. To address these areas of exposure for employers, the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division released an employer fact sheet to provide guidance for employers that includes best practices to avoid discrimination.

Implications

To ensure compliance under these rules, employers should separate the I-9 employment authorization documentation process from the export control U.S. Person or foreign person identification process. Employers should implement or revisit internal procedures and provide updated training to employees.

The export rule revisions highlight the challenges for employers in avoiding discrimination when complying with export control laws. Manufacturers and exporters should review their compliance practices regarding U.S. export control, immigration, and anti-discrimination laws with experienced counsel. Employers should implement policies and procedures reasonably tailored to address export control compliance requirements while not engaging in discrimination on the basis of citizenship or national origin.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2024

by: Maurice G. Jenkins , Kimberly M. Bennett of Jackson Lewis P.C.

For more news on Export Control Laws, visit the NLR Antitrust & Trade Regulation section.

Your Employee As Your Arbitrator? Maybe!

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (“Court”) has, by its order dated August 24, 2009, in the matter of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors. (“Appellants”) Vs. M/s. Raja Transport (P) Ltd. (“Respondent”)1, once again upheld that the Court must give full effect and meaning to the appointment procedure set by the parties in the arbitration agreement before appointing arbitrator of their choice.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:

The Appellant and Respondent entered into an agreement dated February 28, 2005 (“Agreement”), where under, the Respondent was appointed as the dealer of the Appellant for the retail sale of petroleum products. Clause 692 of the Agreement provided for settlement of disputes by arbitration where the Director, Marketing of the Appellant, or a person appointed by him, was to act as the sole arbitrator.

On August 06, 2005, the Appellant terminated the dealership. The Respondent filed suit in the Civil Court, Dehradun, seeking (1) a declaration that the order of termination of dealership was illegal and void and (2) for a permanent injunction restraining the Appellant from stopping the supply of petroleum products to the retail outlet of the Appellant. In this same suit, the Appellant filed an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”), praying that the suit be rejected and the matter be referred to arbitration in terms of Section 69 of the Agreement. The Ld. Judge allowed the Appellant’s application and directed the parties to refer the matter to arbitration within two months and also directed the Appellant not to stop supplies to the Respondent for a period of two months.

Both parties challenged the said order before the District Court, Dehradun. The Respondent also filed an application under Section 9 of the Act seeking an interim injunction against the Appellant. Both appeals and the Section 9 application were disposed off by a common order dated January 20, 2006, whereby, both appeals were dismissed and the Section 9 application was allowed, retraining the Appellant from interrupting the supply of petroleum products to the Respondent for two months as well as directing the parties to refer the matter to arbitration as per the agreement, within the said period of two months.

While the appeals were pending, the Respondent issued letter dated January 04, 2006, through their counsel, wherein, the Respondent, referring to the Appellant’s insistence that only its Director, Marketing could be appointed as the Arbitrator, inter alia alleged that it (the Respondent) did not expect fair treatment or justice if the Director, Marketing or any other employee of the Appellant was appointed as the Arbitrator and called upon the Respondent to have a joint meeting so as to enable the parties to mutually agree on an independent arbitrator. This request was not accepted by the Appellant.

Thereafter, the Respondent filed an application before the Chief Justice of the Uttaranchal High Court under Section 11(6) of the Act for appointment of an independent arbitrator to decide the dispute. This application7 was allowed and a retired High Court Judge was appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to decide the dispute. The Ld. Chief Justice inter alia assigned the following two reasons to appoint a retired Judge as an Arbitrator instead of the persons as named in the arbitration agreement.

  1. The Director (Marketing) of the Appellant, being its employee, should be presumed not to act independently or impartially.
    1. The Respondent had taken steps in accordance with the agreed appointment procedure contained in the arbitration agreement and directions of the civil court by issuing notice dated January 04, 2006, calling upon the Appellant to appoint an arbitrator. After receipt of the said notice, the Appellant had to refer the matter to its Director, Marketing, which it did not do, nor did it take any steps for the appointment of an Arbitrator. The Appellant had, thus, failed to act as required under the agreed procedure.

    Aggrieved by the said order, the Appellant preferred an appeal before the Court.

    JUDGMENT:

    The facts and circumstances of this case raised three issues for the Court to consider:

    1. Whether the Ld. Chief Justice of the Uttaranchal High Court was justified in assuming that when an employee of one of the parties to the dispute is appointed as an arbitrator, he will not act independently or impartially.

    On this issue, the Court inter alia noted as under:

    • Arbitration is a binding and voluntary dispute resolution process by a private forum so chosen by the parties.
    • Where a party, with open eyes and full knowledge and comprehension of the said provision enters into a contract with a government/statutory corporation/public sector enterprise, where such arbitration agreements providing for settlement of disputes where the arbitrator will be one of its senior officers, were common, such party cannot subsequently turn around and contend otherwise unless performance of that part of the arbitration agreement is impossible, or is void being contrary to the provisions of the Act.
    • It was settled law that arbitration agreements in government contracts providing that an employee of the department (usually a high official unconnected with the work or the contract) will be the arbitrator are neither void, nor unenforceable.
    • Whilst the provisions relating to independence, impartiality and freedom from bias are implicit under the Arbitration Act, 1940, the same are made explicit in the Act.
    • This position may differ where the person named as the arbitrator is an employee of a company/body/individual other than the state and its instrumentalities e.g. a Director of a private company who is party to the arbitration agreement. In such cases, there may be a valid and reasonable apprehension of bias in view of his position and interest. In such cases, the court has the discretion not to appoint such a person.
    1. In what circumstances the Chief Justice or his designate can ignore the appointment procedure or the named arbitrator in the arbitration agreement to appoint an arbitrator of his choice.

    On this issue, the Court inter alia noted as under:

    • The court must first ensure that the terms of the agreement are adhered to or given effect to, as far as possible and those remedies, as provided for, are exhausted.
    • It is not mandatory to appoint the named arbitrator but at the same time, due regard has to be given to the qualifications required by the agreement and other considerations. Referring the disputes to the named arbitrator shall be the rule. Ignoring the named arbitrator and nominating an independent arbitrator shall be the exception to the rule, which is to be resorted to for valid reasons.

    Interestingly, the Court also proceeded to expound on the scope of Section 11 of the Act, which contains the scheme of appointment of arbitrators.

    1. Whether the Respondent had taken the necessary steps for the appointment of an arbitrator in terms of the agreement, and the Appellant had failed to act in terms of the agreed procedure, by not referring the dispute to its Director, Marketing for arbitration.

    On this issue, the Court inter alia noted as under:

    • In view of the order dated January 20, 2006, the Respondent ought to have referred the dispute to the Director (Marketing) of the Appellant within two months from January 2006. The Respondent had not done so and in light thereof, it was the Respondent that had failed to act in terms of the agreed procedure and not the Appellant.
    • As the Arbitrator was already identified, there was no need for the Respondent to ask the Appellant to act in accordance with the agreed procedure.

    The Court proceeded to hold that the Chief Justice had erred in having proceeded on the basis that the Respondent had performed its duty under the agreement and that there was justification for appointment of an independent arbitrator.

    The Court then proceeded to allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and appointed the Director (Marketing) of the Appellant as the sole arbitrator to decide the disputes between the parties.

    ANALYSIS:

    By this decision, the Court has once again upheld that when a person enter into a contract with a government/statutory corporation/public sector enterprise having an arbitration agreement providing for settlement of disputes where the arbitrator will be one of its senior officers, such person cannot subsequently turn around and contend otherwise unless performance of that part of the arbitration agreement is impossible, or is void being contrary to the provisions of the Act. However, this position may differ where the person named as the arbitrator is an employee of a company/body/individual other than the state and its instrumentalities e.g. a Director of a private company who is party to the arbitration agreement.

    Referring to its decision taken earlier in the matter of Northern Railway Administration, Ministry of Railway, New Delhi Vs. Patel Engineering Company Ltd. (please refer to our earlier hotline dated August 26, 2008) Court reiterated that it is important to first ensure that the terms of the arbitration agreement are adhered to or given effect to, as far as possible and those remedies, as provided for, are exhausted, before they intervene in any manner.

    However, If circumstances exist, giving rise to justifiable doubts as to the independence and impartiality of the person nominated, or if other circumstances warrant appointment of an independent arbitrator by ignoring the procedure prescribed, the Chief Justice or his designate may, for reasons to be recorded ignore the designated arbitrator and appoint someone else.

    FOOTNOTES

    1 Civil Appeal No. 5760 of 2009 arising out of SLP (C) No. 26906 of 2008.

    2 “69. Any dispute or a difference of any nature whatsoever or regarding any right, liability, act, omission or account of any of the parties hereto arising out of or in relation to this Agreement shall be referred to the sole arbitration of the Director, Marketing of the Corporation or of some officer of the Corporation who may be nominated by the Director Marketing. The dealer will not be entitled to raise any objection to any such arbitrator on the ground that the arbitrator is an officer of the contract related or that in the course of his duties or differences. ………………..It shall also be a term of this contract that no other person other than the Director, Marketing or a person nominated by such Director, marketing of the Corporation as aforesaid shall act as arbitrator hereunder…………………….”

    Nishith Desai Associates 2022. All rights reserved.

Article By Sahil Kanuga and Vyapak Desai with Nishith Desai Associates.

For more articles on international law updates, visit the NLR Global section.

Preparing Your Workplace to Address Coronavirus Risks: FAQs for Employers

Employers in the United States should continue to prepare for a widespread outbreak of COVID-19, commonly referred to as the coronavirus, as new cases are confirmed daily. These preparations include assessing work-related travel (as well as employee personal travel) and implementing more expansive work-from-home policies.

Although COVID-19 is new, the steps employers should take are not unlike the approaches recommended to address the annual flu season as well as prior outbreaks such as H1N1 (the “Swine Flu”), Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (“SARs”) or Ebola.

Employers should carefully monitor recommendations from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) and other public health agencies in connection with the creation of workplace plans and strategies. As this is an evolving situation, best practices for the workplace will continue to develop as conditions change. Carefully tailoring an employer’s plan so as to act consistently with current public health guidance will help keep employees, patients, customers and clients safe as well as reduce an employer’s legal risks. If an employer has an on-site medical professional, partnering with such an expert regarding the implementation of such a plan is strongly advised.

What is the coronavirus and how does it spread?

The novel coronavirus causes coronavirus disease 2019 or COVID-19. Reported cases include respiratory illness with symptoms of fever, cough and shortness of breath. It is spread mainly from person to person either in close contact with each other or through the transmission of respiratory droplets when an infected person coughs or sneezes. The number of cases continues to grow, but for now, most cases continue to be mild.

What steps should employers take to reduce the risk of the coronavirus spreading in their workplaces?

There is no vaccine to prevent the coronavirus. The best way to prevent the spread of any respiratory illness in the workplace is to exercise commonsense measures. Health officials, including the CDC, recommend the following preventive measures:

  • Sick employees should stay home from work until they are free of fever, signs of a fever, or any other symptoms for at least 24 hours without the use of fever-reducing or symptom-altering medicine.
  • Wash hands vigorously with soap and water or an alcohol-based hand rub for at least 20 seconds.
  • Avoid touching one’s face, especially eyes, nose and mouth.
  • Exercise respiratory etiquette and cover one’s mouth when coughing or sneezing.
  • Clean frequently touched surfaces.
  • Maintain at least three feet of distance between oneself and others, including those who are coughing, sneezing or have a fever.

What steps should employers take to prepare for employee communications?

Employers should take steps to be prepared for communicating important health and safety information to all their employees whenever such information needs to be shared. Employers may need to reach employees while outside the workplace and outside regular working hours. Employers should ensure that they have up-to-date contact information for all employees in case health and safety updates need to be communicated. Messaging regarding the coronavirus should come from a dedicated workplace representative to avoid the sharing of conflicting information and to prevent employee confusion and undue alarm.

What employment laws should employers consider when making decisions regarding the coronavirus?

Employers should consider the Occupational Safety and Health Act (“OSH Act”), the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (“Title VII”), the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (“PDA”), the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), state workers’ compensation laws and any federal or state anti-discrimination or disability laws as employers develop plans regarding the coronavirus.

Employers have a legal obligation to provide a safe and healthy working environment free from serious recognized hazards under the OSH Act. Taking reasonable steps to prevent the spread of communicable diseases, like COVID-19, may fall under this requirement. Employers should consider potential discrimination claims that could arise under the ADA, Title VII or the PDA. The ADA protects individuals who are disabled or who are regarded as disabled. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has stated that while the ADA’s requirements continue to apply, they do not interfere with or prevent employers from following CDC guidelines and recommendations regarding the coronavirus. The EEOC also has indicated that its previously issued guidance regarding the H1N1 pandemic is applicable here. Similar to the EEOC’s approach during the H1N1 pandemic, employer actions that might be viewed as discriminatory under other circumstances (such as requiring an employee to remain at home for a period of time upon returning from travel to certain countries) would not run afoul of the ADA when taken to limit workplace exposure to the coronavirus. This is because either COVID-19 will not be considered a disability because the resulting illness is mild or, alternatively, if COVID-19 becomes more severe and/or widespread, an employer’s actions to limit the spread of the coronavirus will likely be deemed justified given the direct threat posed to other employees, customers, patients or the public at large.

Employers should also take care not to discriminate against employees based on their national origin. Accordingly, employers should establish consistently applied and clearly communicated practices with regard to self-quarantining of employees. For instance, consistent and science-based practices should be followed when employees return from travel to certain countries facing significant outbreaks, rather than singling out employees on an ad hoc basis who may have visited their countries of origin. Recent reports suggest a heightened concern regarding possible workplace discrimination against employees of Asian descent.

While pregnant women may be more susceptible to viral respiratory infections or severe illness, the CDC has released no guidance establishing that such individuals are more susceptible to COVID-19 than the general population. Employers should thus ensure they are not engaging in disparate treatment of pregnant employees.

In addition to discrimination concerns, employers should consider what reasonable accommodations they may need to provide employees under the ADA or the PDA.

Employers also should be prepared to grant FMLA leave to employees who test positive for (or display symptoms of) COVID-19 or who require leave to care for an individual with COVID-19.

Lastly, employees who contract COVID-19 in the scope of their employment may be entitled to make claims under their employers’ workers’ compensation policies.

Should employers cancel work-related travel?

As of March 6, 2020, the CDC recommends avoiding all nonessential travel to China, Iran, Italy and South Korea and has issued travel alerts recommending that travelers practice enhanced precautions in Japan. These travel advisories extend to layovers in the affected areas. Moreover, entries into the United States of foreign nationals who have been in China or Iran in the 14 days prior to entering the United States have been suspended in many circumstances.

Employers should consider these travel advisories when formulating their business travel plans. Many employers are suspending all business travel to the affected areas. Employers face potential risk when requiring employees to travel to areas where the CDC and other federal agencies have advised against non-essential travel. Other employers are limiting or suspending all non-essential travel or canceling in-person attendance at conferences or meetings in light of the potential spread of the coronavirus.

In assessing work-related travel plans, employers should ensure that they do not single out certain groups (e.g., limiting a pregnant employee’s travel due to the risk of exposure to the coronavirus, but allowing other employees to travel).

Should employers cancel large conferences or other community events?

Employers planning events should stay informed about local coronavirus risks. The CDC is recommending event organizers and staff review existing emergency operations plans and focus on prevention strategies, such as frequent handwashing and encouraging both staff and patrons who are sick to stay home. If events are proceeding, the implementation of flexible refund policies may help encourage sick individuals to stay home. And organizers should have supplies that help prevent the spread of viruses such as soap, hand sanitizer and facial tissue available to employees and attendees. Organizers should also establish criteria with the venue and local public health officials to determine under what specific circumstances events will be postponed or canceled.

What should employers do when they suspect an employee was exposed to the coronavirus and is symptomatic?

An employer should send such an employee home and advise him or her to seek immediate medical attention. The employee should be required to remain at home until he or she no longer displays symptoms and is not contagious. The decision to discontinue home isolation should be made on a case-by-case basis, in consultation with health care providers and state and local health departments.

Are employees sent home due to exposure to the coronavirus (self-quarantined) entitled to paid leave?

Employers typically are not legally obligated to provide paid leave to employees who are sent home due to suspected COVID-19 infection or exposure unless state or local paid sick leave laws apply. However, employers should consider allowing employees to utilize paid leave under any available employer leave policies. If the employee is able to perform his or her job remotely, and is physically able to work, employers should consider allowing remote work during such self-quarantine period, even if such remote work is not consistent with the employer’s regular practices. Employers should consult with counsel to determine whether and when to offer paid or unpaid leave to employees facing quarantine situations. And any modification of an employer’s routine policies and practices to address this unique circumstance should be implemented consistently.

What should employers do if employees travel to affected areas (currently China, Iran, Italy, South Korea and Japan ) but do not display any symptoms upon return?

Many employers are encouraging (but not requiring) self-quarantining regardless of whether the employee is symptomatic. Others are requiring employees to self-quarantine for up to 14 days (the commonly presumed incubation period for the coronavirus) after returning from these areas. As the list of affected countries continues to expand and risk levels continue to change, employers should carefully monitor and reevaluate their practices.

Requiring self-quarantining protects other employees. On the other hand, requiring self-quarantining for those who have traveled to affected areas may expose an employer to potential claims under the ADA, Title VII, or other anti-discrimination statutes, especially where a forced quarantine situation results in the employee’s loss of income or other benefits. Such legal risks may be reduced where an employee is able to work remotely and thus is compensated during the quarantine period.

When employees work from home, are they entitled to a reasonable accommodation under the ADA, the PDA or other equal employment opportunity laws?

Employees are entitled to reasonable accommodations that will enable them to perform the essential functions of their positions. For example, if an employee has been provided the accommodation of a low-vision screen reader on his or her work computer, that employee should have access to such a screen reader as a reasonable accommodation when required to work at home.

Can employers ask employees if they have traveled to one of the affected areas?

Yes. Given the ongoing travel advisories and the recommendations of the CDC and other federal agencies regarding travel to affected areas and self-quarantining to limit the spread of the coronavirus, there is likely low risk in requiring employees to disclose their recent travel destinations.

Can employers require a return to work or fitness for duty exam to allow employees to return to work?

Employees who have been diagnosed with COVID-19 should only discontinue isolation after consulting health care providers and state and local health departments. Employers may require the employee to provide proof that isolation can be discontinued before the employee returns to work.

But for employees who have not been diagnosed with COVID-19, it practically may be difficult to receive a return to work exam given that there has been a shortage of testing kits to test for COVID-19. The CDC has also recognized that health care offices may be busy and it may be difficult for an employee with acute respiratory illness to validate their illness or return to work. Employers must take care to treat employees with similar symptoms in a consistent manner.

What should an employer do if an employee fears coming to work due to possible exposure in the workplace?

Creating and implementing consistent plans for preventing and addressing potential workplace exposure and communicating such measures clearly and effectively will go a long way to reducing employee fears of workplace exposure. Employers should assess the specific risk in the workplace on a case-by-case basis. Currently, federal guidance is focused on encouraging those who are sick (or may have been exposed to the coronavirus) to stay home. In the event of a more particularized risk, such as an actual case of exposure to the coronavirus in the workplace, employers may wish to encourage (or require) working from home or offer more lenient work from home options to its employees.

Should employers inform employees if there is an identified case of COVID-19 in the workplace?

Yes. Employees should be informed of confirmed cases in the workplace. But employers must ensure that employee confidentiality is maintained as required under the ADA, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) and any other state or federal law.

Should employees be encouraged to wear face masks?

The CDC has not recommended that healthy persons wear face masks. Face masks are reported to have no benefit for a healthy person in preventing their exposure to the coronavirus, although masks may provide some benefit if worn by sick persons in limiting their spread of the virus to others. The CDC has urged people to stop buying masks because such consumer behavior is depleting necessary resources from health care professionals who need them.

What about specific guidance for health care employers?

The CDC has issued specific guidance to try to prevent the spread of the coronavirus into, among, and between health care facilities, including monitoring patients and employees for fever or respiratory systems, encouraging employees to stay home if they have symptoms of respiratory infection and identifying which employees will care for patients with COVID-19. It is critical for health care facilities to have a plan in place to respond to any outbreak. There are potentially severe risks to patients facing health challenges if they are being cared for by employees who have been exposed to the coronavirus.

Is there a special risk for employees who handle packages or products shipped from an affected area?

The CDC has issued guidance that it is unlikely that the coronavirus can spread vis-à-vis products or packaging. Some employers may nevertheless decide to offer specific personal protective equipment (“PPE”) to those employees handling packages or products from affected areas, simply in an effort to mitigate employee fear or concern. In such cases, employees should be properly trained on the use and disposal of the PPE.

What other issues may employees working abroad face?

Consular offices may be closed due to the coronavirus outbreak. Currently, field offices in Beijing and Guangzhou are closed. Such closures may delay any communications with immigration officials

© 2020 Vedder Price

For more on the coronavirus, see the National Law Review’s New Coronavirus News section.

Coronavirus: Employers Should Plan, Not Panic

Coronavirus, whose formal name is COVID-19, has been the subject of much media attention since the first outbreak in Wuhan, China, late last year.  Just like recent outbreaks of the swine flu, the avian flu, SARS and the West Nile virus, each new “bug” creates fear surrounding a previously unknown threat.  While there are tens of thousands of cases in China, as of February 19, 2020, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), there were 15 confirmed cases of coronavirus in the U.S.  The confirmed cases were limited to seven states located on the perimeter of the country.

According to the CDC, coronaviruses are a large family of viruses that are common in many different species of animals, including camels, cattle, cats and bats. Rarely, animal coronaviruses can infect and then spread between people.

To put the current coronavirus outbreak in context, the CDC estimates there have been between 26 MILLION and 36 MILLION cases of flu in the U.S. this season and an estimated 15,000 to 36,000 deaths.  In fact, this year’s flu season is the worst in almost 20 years.  While the majority of these deaths and hospitalizations have occurred in people over age 65, this year’s flu has impacted children and younger adults in greater numbers than usual.

While no one knows for sure the extent to which the coronavirus will take hold in the U.S., employers should take steps now to plan ahead so that they will be able to maintain normal business operations.  The challenges for any business facing coronavirus or any other disease outbreak involve a multitude of conflicting legal obligations.  Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) and similar state laws, employers have a general duty and obligation to provide a safe and healthy work environment, even when the work occurs outside the employer’s physical premises. Furthermore, under these health and safety laws, employers must not place their employees in situations that are likely to cause serious physical harm or death.

Conversely, overreacting by implementing broad-based bans and making business decisions about employees that are not based on statistical realities could get an employer sued under laws that prohibit discrimination based upon disability (perceived or real) and national origin discrimination, among others.

Properly planning for and implementing plans to deal with the coronavirus is legally and operationally complex.  Listing all of the considerations for such plans are too numerous for this brief blog article. By way of example, employers who have operations in Hubei Province in China, the epicenter of the coronavirus outbreak, will face far more difficult and complex challenges than an employer with a single facility in the middle of the U.S.  However, at a minimum here are some things every business should be doing:

  • If you have not already done so, institute a ban on all business travel to China.  This may be a moot point given the cancellation of most flights into and out of mainland China.  Under the circumstances, it is also totally appropriate to require that any of your employees who choose to travel to China for personal reasons notify a designated company official and let the official know of their plans.

  • If employees must use a company-designated travel agent to arrange business travel, get the agent to provide reports on all international business travel.  But don’t overreact and implement a broad-based travel ban to countries that do not pose a risk of harm.  However, if an employee expresses fear of any international travel, have a rational discussion and review the relevant outbreak statistics to see if those fears are real or inflated.  Even if fears are irrational, consider the negative impact on employee morale by forcing someone to travel.

  • Designate a management official to check the CDC website daily to see the latest tracking of the virus’ spread.  This person should be the in-house resource and should be involved in ban or no-ban decisions.

  • If an employee has been to a real coronavirus “hotspot,” consider making him or her stay home for the full 14-day incubation period.  Whether employees work remotely or do not work, the decision whether they should be paid to stay home during this time is an individualized determination.  However, employers need to be flexible and should consider bending the rules if they want to appear humane and seriously concerned about health issues.  If employers force someone to stay home for two weeks without pay or make them use precious PTO, they may push people to hide where they have been, which will defeat planning to ensure that management is taking all reasonable steps to prevent the spread through the workplace.

  • Do not panic or overreact but rather engage in sound business contingency planning.  Begin by developing contingency plans based upon the industry you are in, the size of your business and how you will operate in the event absenteeism rates greatly exceed those of a normal flu season.

  • Use this opportunity to communicate with your employees about seasonal flu prevention strategies, such as minimizing contact and engaging in sound hygiene and sanitation.  As the statistics above demonstrate, seasonal flu poses a far greater and more immediate threat to your employees’ health than does the coronavirus.

  • Develop a plan for communicating with your employees if a major pandemic breaks out, regardless of where they are located, including the workplace, at home or on the road.
    Regardless of how bad things may get, it is important that management not panic or overreact.  Plan for worst case scenarios now so you can effectively respond to what will likely be a rapidly changing situation. To do this, your management should anticipate and prepare for how you will answer the plethora of questions that will almost certainly be raised.

Proper planning for and dealing with individualized employee situations implicates a whole range of employment laws, such as ADA, GINA, OSHA, Title VII, ERISA, as does the nature of your business.  To deal with these legal issues, you should consult with your attorney.

Finally, there are a variety of web-based resources available to assist you in planning, preparation, and monitoring the spread of the coronavirus on a global basis, including the CDC at www.cdc.gov, OSHA at https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/covid-19/, and the World Health Organization https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019.

© 2020 Foley & Lardner LLP

For more on the coronavirus see the National Law Review Health Law & Managed Care 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.

Employer Concerns with Employee Substance Abuse and Drug Use: A Q&A with Caroline J. Berdzik of Goldberg Segalla

With headlines and staggering statistics extolling the impact of the opioid epidemic ripping through the United States, and marijuana (medical and recreational) legalized and decriminalized and a patchwork of state, federal and municipal laws across the country; employers dealing with employee substance abuse and drug use issues have a lot of things to consider. Caroline J. Berdzik, a partner with Goldberg Segalla and chair of the firm’s Labor and Employment and Health Care Groups,  focuses on counseling employers on human resources and employment matters, and was kind enough to share her thoughts on the thorny issues of employers navigating employee substance abuse and drug use.  Read on for more insight and ideas on  how employers should proceed when an employee demonstrates some indication of substance abuse, what the concerns are for employers, and some thoughts on how to move forward keeping in mind changing attitudes on addiction and the laws that may apply.

Can you outline some of the dangers employers face when employing an individual who is struggling with addiction?

Unfortunately, substance abuse addiction and its ramifications cannot avoid the workplace. There is an acknowledgment that this is not an issue that has social or economic boundaries, anyone from highly compensated executives to hourly employees may struggle with addiction. Addiction can take many forms including alcohol abuse, opioid dependency, or the use of other illegal or legally prescribed substances. Employers need to be concerned about legal issues when dealing with an employee who is struggling with addiction. It may be difficult to confirm that an employee has an addiction as they may try to hide it and depending on the circumstances, there may be limits of how far an employer can pry into these concerns.

Once the problem is confirmed, some consideration needs to be given as to whether the employee can continue to do their job while working through addiction. If they are unable to perform their job responsibilities, there are options or reasonable accommodations available to the employee or employer (i.e., leave of absence for treatment). Other components to consider include the availability of drug and alcohol testing permitted under the law in their specific jurisdiction; whether the employee’s conduct has violated any company policies; and if the behaviors associated with the employee’s addiction is negatively impacting the quality of their work and interactions with co-workers, supervisors, clients, and others outside the workplace.

What are some of the issues employers must consider when discussing an employee’s addiction problems with an employee? What are the concerns, especially since addiction can be difficult to identify? 

Employers need to be very careful in this regard. Generally, potential addiction is brought to an employer’s attention through observation or by reports from other employees, supervisors, clients, or even customers. If alcohol is the issue, it may be difficult to detect when someone is under the influence, particularly if the consumption is during non-working hours and if the employee is merely coming to work hungover―as opposed to being intoxicated on the job. If the suspected addiction involves drugs (e.g., whether legal or illegal), there are states that don’t allow for reasonable suspicion testing and some states that make it virtually impossible to test at all. Additionally―depending on the nature of the drug―it may also not show up in the drug test depending on when the test is done.

Many times, this is a difficult conversation to have with an employee since they will most likely deny having any issue because they don’t want to jeopardize their income or employment prospects. Employers need to be careful not to potentially run afoul of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and other state anti-discrimination laws when discussing a suspected substance abuse problem. Merely perceiving the employee as having a disability can open the employer up to legal risk. Therefore, it is critical to proceed with caution and consult internally or externally with legal counsel and human resources on how to best handle the situation.

How does the legality of the substance the employee is addicted to impact the employer’s actions?  For example, an employee addicted to legal opioid painkillers vs. an employee who is addicted to cocaine or other illegal substances?

The laws are greatly evolving in this area, particularly with respect to cannabis. More and more states have legalized medical marijuana and recreational marijuana. With respect to alcohol, it’s legal to drink alcohol as long as the individual is of age; however, alcohol abuse can cause just as many problems as an employee struggling with a substance abuse problem.

While it may seem easier to take certain actions when managing employees with addictions to other substances (e.g., opioids and cocaine), there are still considerations that come into play. For example, employers in some states cannot take actions against employees based on what activities that they do during off-duty hours.

Irrespective of the legality of the substance, the employer needs to focus on whether the employee is impaired at work or at work functions (e.g., on a business trip, attending a conference, meeting with clients, etc.). They also need to consider the impact of those behaviors on the individual, the company, and anyone else involved. Employers also need to be cognizant of the laws in their jurisdictions and the policies the company may have regarding the use of alcohol and drugs in the workplace. If someone is a current user of an illegal substance, there is typically no protection afforded to them under the ADA or similar anti-discrimination laws. However, if an employee can tie their addiction to an underlying mental health disorder, it becomes murkier. For employees who are recovering drug addicts or alcoholics, there is likely more protection afforded under anti-discrimination laws.

The key thing for employers to remember is to not make any knee-jerk decisions when evaluating these issues. Employers should take time to fully analyze the circumstances before taking any action and determine what legal obligations, if any, it may have to try to accommodate employees.

What legal requirements come into play when human resources intervene with an employee struggling with addiction?  For example, can this be a situation where the ADA applies?

The ADA is typically something that would come into play when dealing with an employee struggling with addiction. Human resources should consult with legal counsel while navigating through this type of issue. There are a myriad of laws that are intertwined that could potentially be relevant including the federal Family Medical Leave Act, as well as other state or local counterparts. In many circumstances, the employer may need to provide a reasonable accommodation to assist an employee struggling with addiction. Best practices may dictate this type of documented discussion with the impacted employee, even without a legal requirement to do so.

Attitudes toward addiction are changing with addiction increasingly being seen as a disease that should be treated without judgment–how does this shift change an employer’s reaction to employees with addiction issues?

As these issues become more prevalent, including the revelation that they impact individuals at higher level positions at companies, employers are increasingly willing to work with employees to get them the help they need. I have seen an uptick in counseling calls where employers are genuinely concerned about their employees’ well-being and want to find ways to assist them. However, I have seen situations where employers have gone above and beyond to work with a struggling employee and the employee failed to help themselves with the assistance being offered.

Rates of prescription opioid abuse are skyrocketing. How is this worrisome trend affecting employers, and are there any proactive steps employers can take?

Opioid use is a very serious problem impacting the workplace. Employers are well advised to have employee assistance programs (EAPs) in place. They should also have open-door policies to encourage employees to come to human resources to seek help for their addiction.

Many thanks to Caroline J. Berdzik of Goldberg Segalla for sharing her thoughts and insights on this complicated, yet increasingly relevant employment law issue.

Copyright ©2019 National Law Forum, LLC

More employment law issues on the National Law Review Labor & Employment page.

Don’t Slip Up: When Are California Employers Required to Pay for Employees’ Shoes?

A hot-button issue in California is whether an employer is required to pay for or reimburse an employee for shoes that are required as a condition of employment. A recent ruling by the California Court of Appeal highlights the complexity of the issue and lack of concrete guidance on a critical question: whether California workplace safety law requires an employer to pay for nonspecialty safety shoes, such as generic steel-toe boots, that the employer allows the employee to wear off the jobsite.

An employer’s failure to properly pay for or reimburse for the shoes it requires its employees to wear as a condition of employment can expose the employer to civil liability and/or regulatory enforcement by California’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA). Indeed, there has been a dramatic uptick in both civil class action claims against employers and regulatory enforcement by Cal/OSHA alleging failure to pay for or reimburse for the cost of shoes required as a condition of employment. These difficult scenarios range from generic waterproof shoes requirements in food processing plants to nonspecific requirements for work boots to be worn on construction sites.

In Townley v. BJ’s Restaurants, Inc., No. C086672 (June 4, 2019), the California Court of Appeal ruled that under California Labor Code section 2802 and the Industrial Welfare Commission’s Wage Order No. 5 applicable to the restaurant industry, BJ’s Restaurants was not required to pay for the cost of the slip-resistant shoes that it required its employees to wear as a condition of employment. In so holding, the court relied on Wage Order No. 5, which provides that a restaurant employer must pay for its employees’ work apparel only if it is a “uniform” or if it qualifies as certain protective apparel regulated by Cal/OSHA or the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

Section 2802 provides that employers are required to reimburse their employees for “necessary expenditures … incurred by the employee[s] in direct consequence of the discharge of [their] duties.” Thus, if slip-resistant shoes were part of a uniform or apparel regulated by Cal/OSHA or OSHA, then pursuant to section 2802, BJ’s Restaurants would have been required to reimburse its employees for the cost of the shoes. The court relied on a California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) opinion letter to find that the plaintiff had not demonstrated that the slip-resistant shoes constituted a “uniform” within the meaning of the Wage Order No. 5:

The definition and [DLSE] enforcement policy is sufficiently flexible to allow the employer to specify basic wardrobe items which are usual and generally usable in the occupation, such as white shirts, dark pants and black shoes and belts, all of unspecified design, without requiring the employer to furnish such items. If a required black or white uniform or accessory does not meet the test of being generally usable in the occupation the emplolyee [sic] may not be required to pay for it.

The court found that because the plaintiff did not argue that the slip-resistant shoes were part of a “uniform” or were not usual and generally usable in the restaurant occupation, the employer was not required to reimburse the plaintiff for the slip-resistant shoes under Labor Code section 2802.

However, even though the court held as such, given that the plaintiff had not attempted to characterize the shoes as apparel regulated by Cal/OSHA or OSHA, the court did not reach the issue of whether the employer could be obligated to pay for the slip-resistant shoes under Cal/OSHA or OSHA. This unanswered question is bad news for California employers, as it is unsettled whether an employer is required to pay for nonspecialty protective shoes required as a condition of employment, such as generic work boots. It remains unsettled because there is a conflict between Cal/OSHA and OSHA regulations regarding generic nonspecialty protective shoes.

Shoes as Personal Protective Equipment

Under federal OSHA regulations, which were amended in 2008, an employer is required to provide personal protective equipment, including certain specialty protective shoes, at no cost to the employee. However, the federal OSHA regulations also contain an exemption that does not require the employer to pay for generic nonspecialty shoes, such as steel-toe boots, which the employer permits to be worn off the jobsite. Further, a 2011 OSHA directive interpreted this regulation as not requiring employers to “pay for non-specialty shoes that offer some slip-resistant characteristics, but are otherwise ordinary clothing in nature.”

Consistent with the federal OSHA regulations, Cal/OSHA regulations provide that “[a]ppropriate foot protection shall be required for employees who are exposed to foot injuries from electrical hazards, hot, corrosive, poisonous substances, falling objects, crushing or penetrating actions, which may cause injuries or who are required to work in abnormally wet locations.” Also consistent with federal law, California law generally provides that, if protective equipment is required by Cal/OSHA, the employer is responsible for the cost of the protective equipment.

However, California law significantly diverges from federal law when it comes to nonspecialty safety shoes that can be worn off the jobsite. Under Cal/OSHA, there is no corresponding provision that specifically exempts employers from paying for the cost of generic nonspecialty safety shoes, such as steel-toe boots. Indeed, in 2012, the California Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board proposed the adoption of a regulation similar to the federal regulation, which exempted employers from paying for the cost of nonspecialty safety footwear. The proposed regulation initially contained exceptions despite the California Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board’s having noted that “existing case law requiring employers to pay for [personal protective equipment] is more effective than the federal standard, because California enforces the employer’s duty to pay for safety devices and safeguards without the exceptions provided in the federal standard.” The regulation was ultimately not adopted. Consistent therewith, Cal/OSHA has taken the stance that if an employer requires shoes for safety purposes, whether specialty or nonspecialty, the employer must pay for the cost of those shoes.

In contrast, California employers have argued that the federal OSHA regulation exempting employers from paying for the cost of generic nonspecialty safety shoes should control in California. Indeed, in Townley, the trial court originally granted BJ’s Restaurant’s motion for summary judgment finding that the federal OSHA regulation exempting employers from paying for the cost of nonspecialty safety shoes controlled in California because California did not adopt a Cal/OSHA regulation requiring employers to reimburse employees for the cost of such shoes—and thus, BJ’s Restaurants was not required to reimburse for the cost of the slip-resistant shoe. However, as noted above, the California Court of Appeal did not reach the issue of the applicability of Cal/OSHA and OSHA to these types of situations.

Key Takeaways

What does this all mean for California employers? The short answer is that, if an employer requires employees to wear shoes with safety characteristics as a condition of employment, it may want to assess whether it is required to reimburse employees for the cost of the shoes. An employer’s failure to pay for or reimburse an employee for the cost of shoes could expose the employer to potential civil claims or regulatory enforcement by Cal/OSHA.

© 2019, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.
For more on employer safety requirements, see the National Law Review Labor & Employment page.

New York Legislature Passes Bill Allowing Employees to Place a Lien on Employer’s Property for Wage Claims

The New York Senate and Assembly recently passed Senate Bill S2844B to strengthen current laws for employees who are victim of wage theft to secure and collect unpaid wages for work already performed from their employers. This bill would amend five sections of the law (Lien Law; Labor Law; Attachment under the Civil Practice Law and Rules; the Business Corporations Law; and the Limited Liability Law). If signed by the Governor, this bill would create a broad right for any employee to obtain a lien on an employer’s property based on the allegation of a wage claim and would significantly increase employee power in such disputes.

This bill would expand on current lien remedies and create an “employee lien,” that would allow an employee who has a wage claim to place a lien on his or her employer’s interest in property (real or personal property) for the value of that employee’s wage claim, plus liquidated damages. “Wage claim” is defined as any claim constituting a violation of New York Labor Law § 170 (overtime), § 193 (improper deductions), § 196-d (gratuities) , or § 652 and § 673 (minimum wage). Wage claims also include claims for breach of employment contract where wages are not payed under the contract, and Federal minimum wage claims pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 206 and § 207. The employee’s lien cannot be placed on an employer’s deposit accounts or goods.

Notice of the lien must be filed within three years of the end of employment which gave rise to the wage claim. Real property notice must be filed in the clerk’s office of the county where the property is located. Personal property notice must be filed with a financing statement pursuant to section 9-501 of the Uniform Commercial Code. Employee’s liens may be filed by the employee or the New York State Department of Labor and the New York Attorney General for wage claims that are subject of their investigations, court actions or administrative agency actions. Notice of an employee’s lien must be served upon the employer within five days before or 30 days after filing notice. The lien is valid for one year unless extension is filed with the county clerk. If no action is commenced during the extension period, the lien will be automatically extinguished unless extended by a court order.

If passed, this bill would also streamline the procedures to which employees may hold the ten largest shareholders of a non-publicly traded corporation and the ten members with the largest ownership interests in a limited liability company personally liable for wage theft. The bill also contains a provision that would allow employees to examine a business corporation’s and limited liability company’s records to obtain the shareholders’ or members’ (as the case may be) names, addresses, and ownership value in the company.

Once the bill is signed by the Governor, it will take effect 30 days after becoming law and will apply to all claims for liabilities that arose prior to its passage.

Copyright © 2019 Robinson & Cole LLP. All rights reserved.
For more on wage-hour issues, see the National Law Review Labor & Employment page.