Tag: labor and employment

Mexico’s Minimum Wage Set to Increase on January 1, 2023

On December 1, 2022, Mexican President Andrés Manuel Lopez Obrador announced that, unanimously, the business and labor sectors, as well as the government, had agreed to increase the minimum wage by 20 percent for 2023, which will be applicable in the Free Zone of the Northern Border (Zona Libre de la Frontera Norte or ZLFN), as well as the wage applicable in the rest of the country. The increase will become official when it is published in the Official Gazette of the Federation (Diario Oficial de la Federación).

Before the increase was determined, the Mexican National Commission on Minimum Wages (Comisión Nacional de los Salarios Mínimos, or CONASAMI) applied an independent recovery amount (Monto Independiente de Recuperación or MIR) in accordance with the following:

  • MIR for the ZLFN: MXN $23.68
  • MIR for the rest of the country: MXN $15.72

On top of the MIR, the CONASAMI approved a 10 percent increase from the 2022 rate to the daily minimum wage applicable to the ZLFN and the rest of the country, resulting in MXN $312.41 (approximately USD $16.11) for the ZLFN and MXN $207.44 (approximately USD $10.69) for the rest of the country. The new rates would be effective as of January 1, 2023.

The MIR and the 10 percent increase—combined—would represent a 20 percent increase in the daily minimum wage rate which translates to more than MXN $30 per day.

Finally, Secretary of Labor Luisa Maria Alcalde stated that the above increases would directly benefit 6.4 million workers in Mexico.

Article By Pietro Straulino-Rodriguez, Nora M. Villalpando Badillo, and Ana Paula Delsol Espada of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

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

© 2022, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.

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 ©

Employment Tip of the Month – December 2022

Q:  As an employer, am I legally required to allow employees to bring marijuana to an office holiday party?

A:  No.  While adult recreational use of marijuana is now legal in 21 states and the District of Columbia, the use of marijuana remains illegal under federal law and employers with drug-free and smoke-free workplace policies can prohibit marijuana consumption in the workplace and during employer-sponsored events. Employers who wish to prohibit use of recreational marijuana at the office holiday party should remind employees of the policies and ensure that they understand the policies apply at all employer-sponsored events – even if the event is held after work hours and off company premises.

Laws surrounding the recreational use of marijuana differ from one state to another and evolve quickly.  Before taking adverse action against an employee for marijuana use, an employer should consult the specific laws governing their jurisdiction.

Article By Laura Stutz of Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP

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

© 2022 Wilson Elser

U.S. Supreme Court Refuses Review of Case Involving Technical Issue With Plaintiff’s EEOC Charge

Refusing to weigh in on the impact of a plaintiff’s failure to verify her discrimination charge filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the U.S. Supreme Court lets stand the lower court’s conclusion that the plaintiff’s failure to verify her charge barred her from filing a lawsuit. Mosby v. City of Byron, No. 21-10377, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 10436 (11th Cir. Apr. 18, 2022), cert. denied, No. 22-283 (U.S. Nov. 7, 2022).

Background

Rachel Mosby served as the fire chief of Byron, Georgia, for 11 years. One month after she came out as transgender, the city fired her.

Mosby filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC, alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Title VII states that charges filed “shall be in writing under oath or affirmation and shall contain such information and be in such form as the Commission requires.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5. This process is called “verification.” The parties did not dispute that Mosby did not properly verify her charge.

The City of Byron submitted a position statement with the EEOC on the merits of Mosby’s claim, but it did not raise the fact that Mosby failed to verify her charge. Mosby never amended her charge to meet the verification requirement.

After receiving a “right to sue” letter from the EEOC, Mosby sued the City of Byron. Before answering Mosby’s complaint, the City of Byron moved to dismiss because Mosby failed to verify her charge, requiring dismissal as a matter of law. After converting the City’s motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment, the district court held the failure to verify the charge barred Mosby’s Title VII and ADA claims.

Jurisdictional or Procedural?

Whether EEOC’s charge filing requirements are prerequisite to filing a lawsuit is jurisdictional or procedural remains in dispute. While procedural requirements can be waived or cured, jurisdictional requirements cannot. In 2019, the Supreme Court provided guidance in Fort Bend City v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 1843, in which it held that a charge’s lack of verification does not strip the federal courts of jurisdiction to consider in a subsequent federal lawsuit. Unlike a jurisdictional issue, the Court reasoned, the lack of verification can be waived or forfeited by the parties. Accordingly, the Court held that an employer forfeited the issue of verification when it failed to raise it promptly at the outset of litigation.

Eleventh Circuit’s Reasoning

In appealing the dismissal of her claims to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (which has jurisdiction over Alabama, Florida, and Georgia), Mosby argued that Fort Bend required a finding that the City of Byron waived its verification defense because it did not raise the defense in its position statement submitted with the EEOC. The Eleventh Circuit disagreed. In the Supreme Court decision, the Eleventh Circuit said, Fort Bend City did not raise the verification defense until four years and “an entire round of appeals all the way to the Supreme Court” had passed. By contrast, the City of Byron raised the defense in a pre-answer motion to dismiss before causing “a waste of adjudicatory resources.”

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the lower court, holding that “a charge neither filed under oath or affirmation nor subsequently cured by amendment fails to satisfy the statutory requirement that an employee submit [her] charge to the Commission.” The Fifth Circuit reached a similar conclusion in 2021, making these the only two circuits that have addressed the issue. See Ernst v. Methodist Hosp. Sys., 1 F.4th 333.

Takeaway for Employers

An employer responding to a charge of discrimination filed with the EEOC should evaluate whether the claimant properly verified the charge. If not, preserve the defense by raising it as soon as practicable at the EEOC charge stage and in any ensuing litigation.

Article By Stephanie L. Adler-Paindiris and Stephanie E. Satterfield of Jackson Lewis P.C.

For more litigation and Supreme Court legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2022

Five New Employment Laws that Every California Employer Should Know

A new year brings new employment laws for California employers.  California employers will want to begin revising employee policies and handbooks now, so that they are prepared to comply with these new laws when the majority of them go into effect on January 1, 2023.  Here are five new employment laws that every California employer should know:

AB 1041 (Expanded Definition of “Family Member” for Medical and Sick Leave)

Through AB 1041, the California legislature amended Government Code section 12945.2 and Labor Code section 245.5 to expand the definition of “designated person” for purposes of employee medical leave.  Section 12945.2 provides qualifying employees with up to 12 workweeks in any 12-month period for unpaid family care and medical leave.  Section 245.5 relates to California paid sick leave.  Both sections permit an employee to take protected leave to care for a “family member,” which is currently defined as a child, parent, grandparent, grandchild, sibling, spouse, or domestic partner.  With the passage of AB 1041, the Legislature added a “designated person” to this list of “family members” for whom an employee may take protected leave.  A “designated person” is defined as “any individual related by blood or whose association with the employee is the equivalent of a family relationship.”  In light of this broad definition, employers should be prepared to provide employees with leave to care for a wider range of persons.  An employee may identify his or her designated person at the time of requesting protected leave.  However, an employer may limit an employee to one designated person per 12-month period.

AB 1949 (Bereavement Leave)

AB 1949 adds section 12945.7 to the Government Code, in order to provide employees with protected leave for bereavement.  Under this new law, eligible employees may request up to five days of bereavement leave upon the death of a qualifying family member.  Family member is defined as a spouse, child, parent, sibling, grandparent, grandchild, domestic partner, or parent in law.  Although the employee must complete bereavement leave within three months of the family member’s death, the employer may not require that the five days be used consecutively.  Statutory bereavement leave is unpaid, but the employer must allow the employee to use any accrued and unused paid vacation, personal leave, sick leave, or other paid time off for this purpose.  Section 12945.7 prohibits discrimination, interference or retaliation against an employee for taking bereavement leave; also, the employer must maintain confidentiality when an employee takes bereavement leave. Finally, section 12945.7 does not apply to certain union employees, with an existing agreement regarding bereavement leave.

SB 1162 (Posting Pay Ranges and EEO Reporting Requirements)

SB 1162 modifies Government Code section 12999 and Labor Code section 432.3 to require employers to provide candidates with salary ranges on job postings, report employee compensation and demographic information to the California Civil Rights Department (formerly the DFEH) on an annual basis, and retain relevant records.  For job postings (including those posted by third parties), employers with 15 or more employees will be required to include a pay range, which is defined as the salary or hourly wage range that the employer reasonably expects to pay for the position.  In addition to the current requirement that, upon request, the employer must provide a candidate a pay range, the employer must now also provide existing employees with a pay range, when requested.  Failure to comply with the pay range disclosure or record retention requirements can result in penalties of up to $10,000 per violation.

The new reporting requirement concerns annual employer pay data reports.  Employers must now report the median and mean hourly rate by each combination of race, ethnicity, and sex, within each job category, with the first report due on May 10, 2023, based on 2022 pay data.  Employers with 100 or more employees hired through labor contractors must now produce data on pay, hours worked, race/ethnicity, and gender information in a separate report.  Employers who fail to timely file these required reports face civil penalties of up to $200 per employee.

Finally, employers must retain records of job titles and wage rate histories for each employee for the duration of the employee’s employment and three years after termination.  Failure to comply with these retention requirements can result in penalties of up to $10,000 per violation.

AB 2188 (Off the Job Cannabis Use Protection)

Effective January 1, 2024, AB 2188 adds section 12954 to the Government Code, which prohibits employers from discriminating against a person because of cannabis use while off the job, with some exceptions.  Employers may take action against a person who fails a pre-employment drug test, or other employer-required drug test, that does “not screen for non-psychoactive cannabis metabolites.”  This is because, according to the California Legislature, cannabis “matabolites do not indicate impairment, only that the individual has consumed cannabis in the last few weeks.”  The employer may administer a performance-based impairment test, and terminate any employee who is found to be impaired in the workplace.  This new law does not apply to employees in the building or construction industry, or in positions requiring a federal background investigation or clearance, and does not preempt state or federal laws that require employees to be tested for controlled substances.

AB 152 (COVID-19 Supplemental Paid Sick Leave Extension)

AB 152 modified Labor Code section 248.6 and 248.7 in order to extend COVID-19 Supplemental Paid Sick Leave (SPSL), previously blogged about here, which was expected to expire on September 30, 2022.  This new modification allows California employees to use any remaining SPSL through December 31, 2022.  It does not provide employees with new or additional SPSL.  In a departure from the original version of the law, when an employer requires an employee to take a COVID-19 test five days or later after a positive test result, the employer is now permitted to require the employee to submit to a second diagnostic test within no less than 24 hours.  If the employee refuses, the employer may decline to provide additional SPSL.  The employer obligation to cover the cost of any employee COVID-19 tests remains in effect.

Article By Kate Gold and Wesley C. Shelton of Proskauer Rose LLP

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

© 2022 Proskauer Rose LLP.

OSHA Expands Criteria for Severe Violator Enforcement Program

In an announcement that expands the criteria for entry into the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) Severe Violator Enforcement Program, OSHA has signaled that it is making enforcement a priority and that employers with willful, repeat, and failure-to-abate violations will be subject to significant consequences.

Key Takeaways

  • On September 15, 2022, OSHA announced that it was expanding its criteria for entering employers into its Severe Violator Enforcement Program (“SVEP”). The updated SVEP directive is available here.
  • Previously, entry into the program was limited to cases involving fatalities, three or more hospitalizations, high-emphasis hazards, the potential release of a highly hazardous chemical, and enforcement actions classified as egregious.
  • Now, an employer can be entered into the program in cases involving two or more willful, repeat, or failure-to-abate violations, regardless of the hazard involved. They will continue to be subject to entry in the program in certain cases involving fatalities, three or more hospitalizations, and enforcement actions classified as egregious.
  • In light of this expansion, employers should review their compliance records and current health and safety practices and consider whether further actions are needed to mitigate enforcement risks.

Background

In 2010, OSHA created the Severe Violator Enforcement Program to “concentrate[] resources on inspecting employers who have demonstrated indifference to their OSH Act obligations by willful, repeated, or failure-to-abate violations.” Under the original SVEP, OSHA would designate employers as “severe violators” if they were involved in an enforcement action:

  • Involving a fatality in which OSHA found one or more willful, repeat, or failure-to-abate violations;
  • Involving a catastrophe (three or more hospitalizations) in which OSHA found one or more willful, repeat, or failure-to-abate violations;
  • Involving a high-emphasis hazard in which OSHA found two or more high-gravity willful, repeat, or failure-to-abate violations;
  • Involving the potential release of a highly hazardous chemical in which OSHA found three or more high-gravity willful, repeat, or failure-to-abate violations; or
  • Classified by OSHA as “egregious.”

Employers entered into the SVEP were subject to consequences that included mandatory enhanced follow-up inspections, a nationwide inspection of related workplaces, negative publicity, enhanced settlement provisions, and the potential for federal court enforcement under Section 11(b) of the OSH Act.

Updated Criteria

Under the new criteria, employers will continue to be entered into the SVEP in enforcement actions involving a fatality or catastrophe in which OSHA found one or more willful, repeat, or failure-to-abate-violations and in enforcement actions classified as egregious.

In a departure from the original criteria, cases involving two or more high-gravity willful, repeat, or failure-to-abate violations will also be entered into the SVEP, regardless of whether they are linked to a certain hazard or standard. As a result of this change, OSHA expects that more employers will be entered into the SVEP.

Other Key Changes

In addition to expanding the criteria for entry into the SVEP, OSHA made key changes regarding follow-up inspections and removal from the SVEP.

  • Follow-up OSHA inspections must occur within one year, but not longer than two years after the final order. Previously, there was no required timeframe for conducting follow-up inspections.
  • Eligibility for removal will begin three years after the date an employer completes abatement. Previously, that period began running on the final order date.
  • If an employer implements an enhanced settlement agreement that includes the use of a safety and health management system that follows OSHA’s Recommended Practices for Safety and Health Programs, the employer can be eligible for removal after two years.

Implications

These changes signify that OSHA is prioritizing enforcement and intends to impose significant consequences on employers that repeatedly and/or willfully violate OSHA requirements. Employers should review their compliance records and current health and safety practices and evaluate whether additional action is needed to mitigate the risk for willful, repeat, or failure-to-abate violations and entry into the SVEP.

Article By Jayni A. Lanham and Mark N. Duvall of Beveridge & Diamond PC

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

© 2022 Beveridge & Diamond PC

Monkeypox Outbreak Declared a Public Health Emergency

On August 4, 2022, the Biden administration declared the monkeypox outbreak a public health emergency. This comes at a time where the number of cases in the United States are rapidly rising and with cases found in almost every state. This declaration primarily affects testing and vaccination. The government’s focus on vaccination has primarily been on health care workers treating monkeypox patients and men who have sex with men. The declaration follows the World Health Organization’s (WHO) declaration last month of monkeypox as a public health emergency of international concern.

The information affecting the workplace is still somewhat limited. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends that people with monkeypox remain isolated at home or in another location for the duration of the illness, which typically can last two to four weeks.

It is still not known if monkeypox can be spread through respiratory secretions. Accordingly, a well-fitting mask and frequent handwashing are likely important preventive measures.

Monkeypox can spread to anyone through close, personal, often skin-to-skin contact, including:

  • via direct contact with monkeypox rash, scabs, or body fluids from a person with monkeypox;

  • by touching objects, fabrics (clothing, bedding, or towels), and surfaces that have been used by someone with monkeypox; and

  • possibly through contact with respiratory secretions.

Employers may wish to educate their employees about monkeypox, including that employees with concerns should consult their physicians or health department, and may wish to inquire about testing and vaccination. Employers may also wish to consider how they will handle absences of up to one month, if remote work is not a possibility and/or when remote work is a possibility. Knowledge is often a way to avoid panic in the workplace and both the CDC and WHO have excellent fact sheets on their websites. State health agencies are likely to have them as well.

It may also be worthwhile to consider how to protect employees who are required to handle linens used by other people, people who are frequently in close contact with others for extended periods, or who come into close physical contact with others. For example, in its monkeypox congregate settings guidelines, the CDC recommends that personal protective equipment (PPE) be worn when cleaning the area where an individual with monkeypox has spent time.

The CDC also stated in its monkeypox congregate settings guidelines that “[e]mployers must comply with [the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s] standards on Bloodborne Pathogens…, PPE…, Respiratory Protection…, and other requirements, including those established by state plans, whenever these requirements apply.”

Public health officials are emphasizing the fact that anyone can get monkeypox. The current outbreak is most prevalent among men having sex with other men, but can spread to anyone. Employers may want to stay attuned to any harassment or discrimination in the workplace resulting from misinformation about the disease.

Ogletree Deakins will continue to monitor and report on developments with respect to monkeypox.

Article By Katherine Dudley Helms of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

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

© 2022, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.

What Employers Need to Know in a Post-Dobbs Landscape

On June 24, 2022, in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the United States Supreme Court overturned both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey and held the access to abortion is not a right protected by the United States Constitution. This article analyzes several employment law issues employers may face following the Dobbs decision.

Federal Law

The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) prohibits employment discrimination “on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.” In construing the PDA’s reference to “childbirth”, federal courts around the country have held the PDA prevents employers from taking adverse employment actions (including firing, demotion, or preventing the opportunity for advancement) because of an employee’s decision to have an abortion as well as an employee’s contemplation of an abortion. The PDA also prohibits adverse employment actions based upon an employee’s decision not to have an abortion. So, for example, an employer would violate the PDA if it pressured an employee to have, or not to have, an abortion in order to keep her job or be considered for a promotion.

State Law

Several states have implemented “trigger laws,” which impose restrictions or categorical bans on abortion following Dobbs. In addition, states such as Texas have enacted laws that allow individuals to file civil actions against entities that “knowingly engage in conduct that aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion, including paying for or reimbursing the cost of an abortion through insurance or otherwise.” Relying on that law, Texas legislators have already threatened at least two high profile employers for implementing policies which reimburse travel costs for abortion care unavailable in an employee’s home state. Although the Texas statute is currently being challenged in court, its text provides for statutory damages “in an amount of not less than $10,000” for “each abortion . . . induced.”

Although the issue has not been litigated yet, courts will likely have to decide how the PDA’s protections interact with a state’s anti-abortion laws.

Employer Handbook Policies and Procedures

The Dobbs decision may also impact workplace morale and productivity. Accordingly, employers should consider reviewing their handbooks as well as policies and procedures, with human resources and managers to ensure requisite familiarity with the employer’s social media policy, dress code, code of conduct, and how the employer handles confidential health information. Employers should be prepared for increased public expression from the workforce—including social media posts, discussions with other employees and third parties, and wearing clothing or other accessories reflecting strong opinions. Human resources should also be prepared for an increase in leave requests and employee resignations.

Travel Benefits for Employees Seeking Reproductive Care

In the wake of Dobbs, many businesses in states where access to abortion will be prohibited or highly restricted are considering—or have already implemented—benefit or employee expense plan amendments that would cover travel and lodging for out-of-state abortions. Ultimately, the legal and regulatory future for such plans remains unclear; especially in states where abortion laws are the most restrictive and contain “aiding and abetting” liability.

At a high level, employers seeking to enact such benefit or expense plans may find some comfort in a statement contained in Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence in Dobbs. Specifically, Justice Kavanaugh wrote:

  • Some of the other abortion related legal questions raised by today’s decision are not especially difficult as a constitutional matter. For example, may a State bar a resident of that State from traveling to another State to obtain an abortion? In my view, the answer is no based on the constitutional right to interstate travel.

Thus, it appears that outright travel bans or similar prohibitive restrictions would face significant legal challenges, and could be declared void.

At this early stage in the post-Roe era, there appear to be several ‘paths’ emerging for employers seeking to provide travel benefits. Each comes with its own set of potential issues and considerations that employers, in conjunction with their counsel and benefit providers, should evaluate carefully. Below is a brief discussion of some of the travel-reimbursement plans employers have begun to implement or consider in the wake of Dobbs:

  1. Travel and lodging benefits under existing group health plans.
    • Assuming the plans are self-funded and subject to ERISA, they must also comply with other applicable rules such as HIPAA and the ACA.
    • Such benefits may not be available under non-ERISA plans in states restricting abortion access.
    • Generally would be limited to individuals enrolled in the employer’s plan.
  2. Travel and lodging benefits under Health Reimbursement Arrangements (HRA’s).
    • An HRA is a type of health savings account offering tax-free reimbursement up to a fixed amount each year.
    • HRA’s are generally subject to ERISA and cannot reimburse above the very minimal IRS limits (Section 213), such as mileage (.18 cents) and lodging ($50/per day).
    • Should be integrated with other coverage or qualify as an “Excepted Benefit HRA” or else it may violate certain ACA rules that prohibit lifetime annual dollar limits for certain benefits.
  3. Employee Assistance Programs (EAP’s).
    • EAP’s are voluntary benefit programs some employers use to allow employees access to certain types of care without accruing co-pays, deductibles, or out of pocket costs. Historically, EAP’s have been predominately used for mental health benefits such as therapy or substance abuse counseling.
    • In certain circumstances, EAP’s are exempt from the ACA. To be an “excepted benefit,” the EAP:
      • Cannot provide significant benefits in the nature of medical care or treatment;
      • Cannot be coordinated with benefits under another group health plan;
      • Cannot charge a premium for participation; and
      • Cannot require cost sharing for offered services.
    • The first of the above requirements (significant benefits of a medical nature) is highly subjective and may create risk for employers because it is difficult to determine whether a benefit is “significant.” Accordingly, it may be difficult to locate a third-party vendor or provider that would administer travel and lodging benefits through an EAP.
  4. Travel and lodging benefits to employees as taxable reimbursements.
    • Taxable reimbursements—up to a certain amount annually—for travel to obtain abortion or other medical care not available in the employee’s place of residence.
    • Some employers are requiring only receipts for lodging, but are not requesting substantiation of the employee’s abortion procedure. Some argue this might insulate an employer from liability in states with statutes prohibiting “aiding or abetting” an abortion, on the grounds that the employer does not know what the employee is using the benefit for. Ultimately, whether that is true remains largely untested and unclear.
    • Likely more costly for the employer, because the benefit is broader in scope. In addition, employers may run the risk that a payroll reimbursement of this kind could qualify as setting up a “new medical plan,” thereby raising compliance and other related issues.

Additionally, employer travel-and-lodging benefits of this type present innumerable other questions and issues. Such questions should include:

  1. Is the employer’s benefit plan subject to ERISA?
    • ERISA is the federal law applicable to qualifying employee benefits plans, including employer-sponsored group health plans. Plans subject to ERISA must also comply with HIPAA, the ACA, and other applicable rules and regulations. So-called self-funded employer plans are subject to ERISA.
    • With some exceptions, ERISA preempts or blocks the implementation of state laws that ”relate to” the ERISA plan.
    • However, ERISA does not:
      • Preempt a state law that regulates insurance companies operating in the state; or
      • Preempt state criminal laws of general applicability.
    • If a plan is self-insured and subject to ERISA it may not be required to comply with state laws related to abortion services based on ERISA preemption.
    • However, the impact of new and untested civil and/or criminal penalties remains unclear.
  2. What procedures does the plan cover?
    • In this environment—especially in states with the most restrictive abortion laws—employers should have a firm understanding of what specific type of abortion procedures the plan covers.
  3. Specific or “general” travel stipends?
    • As noted above, some companies are choosing to provide travel/lodging stipends and benefits to access abortion care in jurisdictions where the procedure is lawful.
    • Some employers are making this travel stipend more general—i.e., not requiring the stipend be used for abortion, or otherwise naming abortion in the benefit program. As an example, a policy that provides a stiped for an employee to “travel to receive medical care that is unavailable within 100 miles of the employee’s place of residence.”
    • Note that out-of-plan reimbursements to employees are likely taxable as wages. Some employees may choose to gross up such stipends to compensate.
  4. What about privacy concerns?
    • Employers should think carefully about how to provide any benefits or stipends while protecting employee privacy, not violating HIPAA, and—where applicable—not running afoul of so-called ‘aiding and abetting’ legislation.
    • To that end, as noted above, some companies are requiring only that employees provide travel receipts—not documentation of the underlying procedure—to qualify for the benefit, reimbursement, or stipend.
    • Of course, without any verification, there is always the potential for abuse—or otherwise using the program for something well beyond its core intent, such as travel, elective plastic surgery, etc. However, some employers may evaluate the risk of abuse as worth the potential lessening of privacy and other concerns.

Protected Activity

Employers must also be aware that certain speech in the workplace—including speech about abortion—may be legally protected. Although the First Amendment generally does not extend to private companies, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) prohibits retaliation against employees who discuss the terms and conditions of employment, commonly referred to as “protected concerted activity.” Thus, employees (1) discussing or advocating for an employer to provide benefits to women seeking reproductive and abortion-related healthcare services, (2) advocating for the employer to take a certain public stance on the issue, or (3) protesting the employer’s public position on the issue, may constitute protected activity under the NLRA.

Contacts and Next Steps

Employment law issues will continue to arise and evolve in the coming months following the Dobbs decision. The EEOC, DOL, and HHS may provide further guidance on how Dobbs impacts employment laws such as the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and PDA. Employers should consult with legal counsel concerning these developments.

Article By Denise E. Giraudo, Stephen E. Fox, Jonathan E. Clark, and Dan Syed of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP

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

Copyright © 2022, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

NYS Sexual Harassment Hotline Goes Live

Effective July 14, 2022 (pursuant to legislation amending the New York State Human Rights Law that was signed by New York State Governor Kathy Hochul in March 2022), New York established a telephone hotline that employees can use to report incidents of sexual harassment to the New York State Division of Human Rights.   The hotline number is 800-HARASS-3 ((800) 427-2773) and will be staffed, on a pro bono basis, by NYS attorneys who have expertise in employment law and sexual harassment issues.  The hotline can be called Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Because, under the law, information about the hotline must be contained in workplace policies and postings about sexual harassment, employers need to revise their anti-harassment policies promptly to include this information.

Article By Jonathan A. Wexler of Vedder Price

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

© 2022 Vedder Price

Crosshairs: Labor Board Targets Gig Economy, Noncompete Agreements, and More

Many employers in the “gig economy” – such as rideshare companies – rely heavily on independent contractors for various functions within their organizations. Because independent contractors are exempt from coverage under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which includes the right to form or join unions, this appears to have garnered the attention of the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) top lawyer. And it appears the NLRB may be seeking to disrupt those companies’ current staffing models.

According to a recent press release from the agency:

“National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) General Counsel Jennifer A. Abruzzo and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chair Lina M. Khan executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) forming a partnership between the agencies that will promote fair competition and advance workers’ rights. The agreement enables the NLRB and FTC to closely collaborate by sharing information, conducting cross-training for staff at each agency, and partnering on investigative efforts within each agency’s authority.”

The statement then goes on to describe specifically how the agencies will be targeting the gig economy:

“The MOU identifies areas of mutual interest for the two agencies, including: labor market developments relating to the ‘gig economy’ such as misclassification of workers and algorithmic decision-making; the imposition of one-sided and restrictive contract provisions, such as noncompete and nondisclosure provisions; the extent and impact of labor market concentration; and the ability of workers to act collectively.”

What does this mean for employers? For one thing, it reinforces that the NLRB is going to be taking a much closer look at workers classified as independent contractors – and likely finding independent contractor status more often. For another, it means the NLRB may soon be looking at noncompete agreements and similar restrictive covenants and finding the maintenance of overbroad terms to be violations of labor law. And while the memorandum calls out the gig economy, it is not limited solely to companies operating in that space.

Employers – in the gig economy and otherwise – should take note of these agencies’ moves and be aware that these issues are likely to receive much scrutiny in the coming months and years.

Article By David J. Pryzbylski of Barnes & Thornburg LLP

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

© 2022 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP