Tag: Labor Law

The DEI Stalemate: Paying the Price for the Wrong Move

In a unique, interactive session that was part of the firm’s annual In-House Counsel seminar, participants evaluated potential DEI outcomes by analyzing three fictional scenarios. With elements pulled from real-life cases, the discussion illustrated how the stakes can become increasingly high with DEI practices.

Each participant assumed a different role, from in-house counsel and employee to accuser and accused, creating a lively examination of the benefits of DEI and the challenges associated with implementation, as well as how to develop solutions for evolving issues in the DEI landscape.

The discussion was led by Ken Gray, leader of the Labor and Employment Law Group, X. Lightfoot, an employment and personal injury attorney, and Avery J. Locklear, a labor and employment attorney.

The Technology Company Scenario

The first scenario involved a well-intentioned technology company that recently hired a new SVP in charge of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), Jordan Ellis. The business in question is a tech leader with over 10,000 employees across the U.S.

Ellis was asked to perform an assessment of the company’s workforce and leadership diversity. He found a number of areas in need of improvement, including female representation in leadership, Black/African American representation in leadership, and Asian/Hispanic representation in leadership.

Tasked with improving these metrics by the CEO, Ellis re-evaluated the Director of Communications role held by John Roe, a White man with a strong track record. Ellis then made the decision to inform Roe of a strategic shift within the company and relieved him of his duties.

The role was split into two new positions that were filled by two qualified deputies: one a White woman, the other a Black woman. Ellis believed the move aligned with the company’s DEI goals, representing a strategic step in making the leadership more inclusive and diverse.

Potential Response to Litigation?

The audience was asked to determine if any possible defense asserted by the company in response to a claim made by Roe represented a house of cards. “This was a fairly clear example of discrimination in relation to Title VII,” noted Gray, “which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin.”

The scenario was based on a real case, Duvall v. Novant Health, Inc. “In this case, a white management level employee who received above average evaluations got the axe,” said Gray. “It was a one-week jury trial, and the jury awarded $10 million.”

The decision made clear that it is permissible for employers to use DEI programs; however, these programs may not form the basis for adverse employment decisions.

“Some call this reverse discrimination, but I just call it discrimination. It’s important to note that the Act doesn’t say in regard to sex, the female sex, or in regard to race, the Black race or the Brown race. It just says race, it just says sex,” Gray explained.

The case established a significant precedent and illustrated a pitfall associated with poorly implemented DEI programs.

A Venture Capital Fund’s Contested Contest

The next scenario involved a venture capital fund interested in supporting businesses led by women of color. To close the funding gap, the fund created a grant contest with a prize of $50,000, growth tools, and mentorship opportunities.

Eligibility was open to Black women who were U.S. residents, with businesses that were at least 51 percent Black woman-owned. The audience discussed potential legal issues an in-house attorney could face as a result of the contest, which included an entry form with official competition rules.

The rules were explicit, stating in all caps that, “BY ENTERING THIS CONTEST, YOU AGREE TO THESE OFFICIAL RULES, WHICH ARE A CONTRACT…”

Two companies with owners who were not Black women were rejected after submitting applications for the contest. The Chief Legal Officers for both companies, Vegan Now and Well Soul, were members of the Collective of Corporate Counsel (CCC), a national bar association promoting the common business interests of in-house counsel through education, networking, and advocacy.

Would it be permissible for CCC to sue on behalf of Vegan Now and Well Soul? Did the rules on the entry form constitute a contract? The audience considered these and other questions.

The contention of CCC was that the form constituted a contract since the potential contest winners entered into a bargain-for-exchange when they applied. CCC’s argument was based on 42 USC § 1981, a federal law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, and ethnicity when making and enforcing contracts.

CCC also contended that the contest violated section 1981 due to its terms, as it categorically excluded non-black applicants from eligibility because of race. “If this sounds familiar, the reason is that it mirrors the factual pattern of a case that went before the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals,” commented Lightfoot.

The case involved the American Alliance for Equal Rights and a venture capital fund out of Atlanta, the Fearless Fund. “Ultimately, the court ruled that the membership organization did have standing to sue on behalf of its members, and the contest likely violated Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866,” added Lightfoot.

The Fearless Fund settled the lawsuit and discontinued the contest as a response.

Breaking Boundaries Baristas

In the final scenario, the team explored how a well-intentioned coffee shop owner brewed trouble in her organization with a DEI policy gone wrong. Hiring people of diverse backgrounds and creating a welcoming environment for her team was a central focus for the owner, Linda Harper, who operates three local branches with 20 employees.

One of Linda’s employees, Sam Rowe, was assigned female at birth. “Sam has been living as a man and recently shared that his new pronouns are he/him,” said Locklear. “Though Sam’s announcement was mostly accepted, some of the team didn’t felt comfortable with his transition.”

A heterosexual female colleague, Olivia Spencer, struggled to adapt to Sam’s pronouns and had to be corrected multiple times. A heterosexual male colleague, Ben Paulson, admits the transition makes him somewhat uncomfortable. However, he has respected Sam’s pronouns.

Locklear asked whether Olivia’s and Ben’s behavior has risen to the level of creating a hostile work environment. The answer, of course, is that it depends and, as it is with so many other topics within the legal profession, there is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all, bright-line rule that can be applied to every situation.

Slurs and the misuse of pronouns by co-workers can encourage similar behavior from customers. To illustrate this idea, Gray described a case in which he assisted a client in 2016. “People would approach the coworkers and ask whether their colleague was a man or a woman,” he said. “This would occasionally result in slurs, and the customers would pick up on that, perpetuating the hostile work environment.”

The facts have to be evaluated in the context of every situation. “It boils down to whether the behavior was so severe and pervasive it created a hostile work environment. There’s no magic number of how many harassing events need to occur,” advised Locklear. “It’s based on all the circumstances.”

The EEOC issued new guidance on transgender employees in the workplace in April of 2024. A key aspect of this guidance was the misgendering of employees in front of coworkers and customers to the extent it made them uncomfortable.

“If it’s a long-term employee, there are going to be mistakes, and everyone has to give each other a little bit of grace, but whenever in doubt, you can always just use that person’s name,” added Locklear.

Mandatory Work Events

In an effort to foster unity and celebrate Pride Month, Linda organizes a mandatory drag queen night for the entire workforce. Her hope is that an evening with celebrity impersonator, Holly Wood, could bring the team together through a shared experience emphasizing inclusion.

While some employees are pumped about the event, some, including Ben and Olivia, are not comfortable attending. Sam also feels uneasy, sensing the event is directed at him in a way that feels awkward instead of supportive.

Ben asks to be excused from the event; Linda reiterates that attendance is mandatory and disciplinary action will follow if employees fail to attend.

The day after, Olivia tells Linda she feels the company is “too woke,” and she no longer enjoys working there. Sam describes new tension with his colleagues and feels some are treating him differently as a result of the event.

After some reflection, Linda realizes her approach may have inadvertently caused discomfort among the employees she wanted to support with her commitment to inclusivity. To move forward, she begins considering new ways to promote understanding and respect within her team.

The audience considered what went wrong and there was vast consensus that the event should not have been mandatory.

“This could have been fun, but making it mandatory was a bad idea, especially since it was a social event and an employee had already expressed discomfort,” Locklear explained.

Though the scenario was farfetched, it holds a number of important lessons for employers, Locklear added. “One is to educate your workforce,” she said. “Another could be to update your policies so a person who is transitioning knows who they can talk to about it.”

Any information provided in confidence should remain confidential. Being open about new ideas and willing to have frank discussions with employees is advisable. Assessing whether dress codes are gender-neutral could be another proactive way to foster a positive work environment.

Conclusion

The employment attorneys highlighted well-intentioned actors taking steps that caused issues for members of their fictional workforces. The team cautions in-house counsel against unintended consequences and offers training insights in Part 2 of the session.

© 2025 Ward and Smith, P.A.. All Rights Reserved.
For more on the DEI Stalemate, visit the NLR Labor Employment and Civil Rights sections.

Final Rule Raises Salary Threshold to $58,656 for Employee Overtime Exemptions

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has released a final rule that increases the salary threshold for the white collar overtime exemptions from the current $35,568 yearly minimum to $43,888 on July 1, 2024, and then to $58,656 on January 1, 2025. This means that, beginning January 1, 2025, most employees making less than $58,656 must receive overtime pay—time and a half their regular hourly rate—for any time worked more than 40 hours in one workweek. The changes also raise the salary requirement for what is known as the “highly compensated individual exemption” from the current $107,432 per year to $132,964 on July 1, 2024, and then to $151,164 on January 1, 2025. Notably, the DOL final rule requires automatic updates to the salary threshold every three years.

The DOL initially proposed to raise the overtime exemption to $55,068 and the salary requirement for the “highly compensated individual exemption” to $143,988. The final rule modifies those numbers and now involves incremental increases in a two-step process.

The DOL estimates that this impacts almost 4 million workers who are currently salaried. Employers must face the decision to either increase salaries for many exempt workers to the proposed minimum of $43,888 by July 1, 2024 and then $58,656 by January 1, 2025, or convert those exempt employees falling under the minimum salary to non-exempt hourly workers.

This rule will likely be challenged in the courts. However, it is uncertain whether these challenges will be successful. Therefore, businesses should take steps now to prepare:

  1. Review current exempt employees who earn between $35,568 and $55,656 per year. You can track employees’ actual hours worked now to learn the potential impact of converting them to overtime pay.
  2. Review current compliance. Although the proposed rule changes the salary threshold but not the other factors for an employee to be eligible for the “white collar” federal overtime exemption, the rule may cause employees to scrutinize their exempt classification. Employers should ensure that their exempt employees meet the three exception requirements: (1) paid on a salary basis; (2) paid at least the designated minimum salary; and (3) perform certain duties (which vary based on the exemption.)
  3. Plan to give advance notice to employees and provide training to managers and those workers impacted. If converted to non-exempt status, employees will need to be trained in record keeping requirements, timekeeping procedures, overtime approval policies, and other specifics that may vary from business to business.
© 2007-2024 Hill Ward Henderson, All Rights Reserved
by: Carmen M. Cato, S. Gordon Hill, Jeffrey J. Wilcox of Hill Ward Henderson
For more news on the DOL’s Overtime Salary Threshold, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.

Governor Signs Bill to Exempt Certain Businesses from Fast Food Minimum Wage

On March 26, 2024, Governor Newsom signed Assembly Bill (AB) 610, which amends the definition of “fast food restaurant” to exempt restaurants in airports, hotels, event centers, theme parks, museums, and certain other locations from the requirements set forth under the Fast Food Council requirements.

Last year, Newsom signed AB 1228, which repeals the FAST Recovery Act but establishes a modified version of the Fast Food Council (Council) until January 1, 2029. The bill also sets forth the minimum wage increases for fast food workers, with an increase to $20.00 effective April 1, 2024.

The bill includes an urgency clause which means it takes effect immediately. As such the exempted businesses will not need to comply with the minimum wage requirements past in 2023.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2024
For more news on Fast Food Minimum Wage Laws, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.

Chicago’s New Paid Leave and Paid Sick Leave Ordinance Delayed Six Months

Just over a month after passing the Chicago Paid Leave and Paid Sick Leave Ordinance (the Ordinance), which brought sweeping new paid leave and paid sick leave requirements to employers with Chicago employees, the city has amended the Ordinance to delay its effective date and limit the number of covered employees.

As amended, the Ordinance will not take effect until July 1, 2024, rather than December 31, 2023. In addition, the Ordinance no longer covers employees who have worked merely two hours within the city in any two-week period. Instead, the Ordinance now reverts to the definition of “Covered Employee” found in the current Chicago and Cook County paid sick leave ordinances: an employee who has worked at least 80 hours in any 120-day period within the city’s geographic limits.

The amended Ordinance also potentially gives employers an opportunity to remedy Ordinance violations before being subject to claims for non-compliance. Specifically, employees will be prohibited from filing claims against their employers until the earlier of 16 days or the next regular payday after the employer’s alleged violation. While described by some as a “cure” period, there is no requirement that an employee actually notify their employer of an alleged violation before bringing a claim. For employers concerned about fielding claims for inadvertent violations, this change may be small comfort.

With the effective date of the Ordinance delayed until July 1, 2024, Chicago employers now have six more months to prepare for its new requirements. In the meantime, the city’s current paid sick leave ordinance remains in effect, so for now that benefit is business as usual for Chicago employers.

© 2023 Much Shelist, P.C.
For more news on Chicago’s Paid Sick Leave Ordinance, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.

DOJ Fighting for E-Sports Player Compensation

The Biden administration continues its campaign against wage suppression as a source of harm to workers, competitive markets, and the economy. In its latest move, the Department of Justice is supporting players in professional e-sports leagues with a suit to stop Overwatch and Call of Duty developer, Activision Blizzard, Inc., from capping player compensation. Unlike salary restrictions in traditional sports leagues, those implemented by Activision were not produced through collective bargaining and, therefore, are not exempt from antitrust scrutiny.

Complaint and Consent Decree

The DOJ filed suit to challenge Activision’s wage restrictions on April 3rd, alleging Activision and independently-owned teams in two e-sports leagues agreed to implement certain wage restrictions, including a “Competitive Balance Tax.” The tax penalizes teams in the Overwatch and Call of Duty leagues if player compensation exceeds a threshold set by Activision. According to the complaint, this agreement violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

The DOJ concurrently filed a consent decree to address the competition issues. If approved by the court, the consent decree would prohibit Activision from implementing any restriction that would limit player compensation directly or indirectly. It would also require Activision to, among other things, certify it has terminated competitive balance taxes and implement antitrust compliance and whistleblower policies.

Ongoing Antitrust Issues Concerning Activision-Microsoft Merger

 While Activision was negotiating the consent decree with the DOJ, its potential parent company, Microsoft, was continuing to defend its proposed $69 billion acquisition of Activision. In December 2022, the FTC sued to block the merger, claiming “the largest ever [acquisition] in the video gaming industry” would enable Microsoft to suppress competitors of Xbox and its rapidly growing subscription content and cloud-gaming business. This case remains pending.

[Read Jonathan Rubin’s Dec. 12, 2022, commentary on the FTC’s challenge, titled, “An Unstoppable Force Meets an Immovable Object: Microsoft to Fight FTC Over Activision Deal.”]

Microsoft has had more success with antitrust agencies overseas. While the European Commission initially put the deal on hold in December 2022, Reuters and Polygon.com reported the Commission’s concerns have been mollified by Microsoft’s commitment to offer licenses to rival gaming companies. Polygon has also reported that the U.K. Competition and Markets Authority has “set aside some of its main concerns” about the merger. It quotes the CMA as stating that “the cost to Microsoft of withholding Call of Duty from PlayStation would outweigh any gains from taking such action.” The deal has also been approved in Japan, Chile, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, and Serbia, Polygon reports.

Non-Statutory Exemption Inapplicable to E-Sports Salary Restrictions

Readers may be wondering why salary caps are commonplace in traditional sports leagues like the NFL, NBA and NHL but not permitted in e-sports leagues. The key distinction is that the salary caps in traditional sports leagues are negotiated and agreed to by player unions as part of the collective bargaining process. As a result, these salary caps (and the agreements containing them) fall under the “non-statutory antitrust exemption,” which was created by the Supreme Court to resolve the inherent conflict between the underlying goals of antitrust laws and labor laws.

Specifically, the non-statutory exemption relieves parties to an agreement restraining trade from antitrust liability where (1) the restraint primarily affects the parties to the agreement and no one else, (2) the agreement concerns wages, hours, or conditions of employment that are mandatory subjects of collective bargaining, and (3) the agreement is produced from bona fide, arm’s-length collective bargaining. The restraints at issue here do not satisfy either the first or third prongs because they affect the e-sports players, who were not parties to the agreement, and were not produced through collective bargaining. Therefore, unlike salary restrictions in other professional sports leagues, those agreed to by Activision and the independent teams are subject to the antitrust laws.

© MoginRubin LLP
For more Antitrust legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review

Sexual Harassment Prevention Training Deadline Approaches for Chicago Employers

As a reminder to employers in Chicago, anti-sexual harassment training is required by Chicago’s Human Rights Ordinance and must be completed by July 1, 2023.  This requirement applies to all Chicago employers, regardless of size or industry.

The training consists of one (1) hour of anti-sexual harassment training for all non-supervisory employees and two (2) hours of anti-sexual harassment training for supervisory employees.  Regardless of supervisory status, all employees must also undergo one (1) hour of bystander training.  Employers must provide training on an annual basis.  Additional information about training requirements can be found here. Employers who fail to comply may be subject to penalties.

Article By Audrey H. Shinn of Vedder Price

© 2023 Vedder Price

Michigan House Moves Quickly to Repeal Michigan Right to Work Act

The Michigan House of Representatives moved quickly yesterday to advance legislation repealing Michigan’s Right to Work law, which has been in effect for the last decade. Right to Work prohibits the inclusion of a clause in a union labor contract that conditions access to employment (and continued employment) on becoming and remaining a Union member in good standing. Before enactment of Michigan’s Right to Work law, Unions could legally negotiate a union security clause into a labor contract. In a nutshell, union security means that employees performing work covered by a labor contract must join the union and remain in good standing with the union or be terminated. On March 8, the House passed both House Bill 4005 (private sector unions) and House Bill 4004 (public sector unions). The bills will now be taken up by the Michigan State Senate.

What Does Repeal of Right to Work Mean for Michigan Companies?

If Right to Work is repealed, employers with Union labor contracts can expect requests to meet and bargain regarding union security clauses. If repealed, existing labor contracts will not be presumed to include such clauses. Rather, union security clauses and the terms and scope of such provisions are a subject of negotiation. Existing labor contracts should be reviewed with labor counsel to determine the employer’s obligations to engage in mid-contract bargaining on this important topic. Labor contracts on this issue vary. For example, labor contracts may contain:

  • A union security clause that becomes effective upon a change in the law;
  • An obligation to meet and negotiate with the Company upon a change in the law; or,
  • The labor contract may be silent on the issue.

Article By Maureen Rouse-Ayoub and Ashleigh E. Draft of Varnum LLP

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

© 2023 Varnum LLP

NLRB Determines Confidentiality and Non-Disparagement Provisions to be Unlawful in Severance Agreements

The National Labor Relations Board (the NLRB or the Board) issued a decision earlier this week that purports to ban confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions from most employee severance agreements.

In McLaren Macomb, the Board scrutinized severance agreements an employer gave to 11 employees who had recently been laid off. The confidentiality provision stated that the terms of the severance agreement were confidential and must not be disclosed to anyone with few exceptions (e.g., the employees’ spouses). The non-disparagement provision barred the employees from making statements to anyone that could disparage or harm the image of the employer or its officers, directors, employees, etc. These provisions are obviously common in severance agreements.

Among other things, the Board determined that both provisions unlawfully prevented the former employees from speaking out about working conditions and compensation (including the severance) offered by the employer and assisting with NLRB and other government investigations. Historically, the NLRB has gone back and forth on whether such provisions are lawful. However, the position taken this week is the NLRB’s most aggressive position to date. Specifically, the Board determined that the mere inclusion of such provisions in a severance agreement is unlawful because they have a deterrent and chilling effect on worker’s rights, even if the employee does not sign the agreement or the employer does not enforce the provisions against an employee who breaches confidentiality or disparages the company after signing.

It is important to note that this decision has some limitations:

  • First, it does not apply to “supervisors” (as defined by the NLRA) or to independent contractors. Who is a “supervisor” under the NLRA involves several factors, including whether the employee has the authority to hire, fire, discipline, or direct the work of another employee. Therefore, it is clear that executives and upper-level management are not covered by this ruling, and, depending on the circumstances, middle and even lower level managers may not be covered either.
  • Second, some have questioned whether a smartly worded disclaimer may permit employers to include limited confidentiality and limited non-disparagement provisions in severance agreements given to rank-and-file employees. For instance, in the past, employers often included a broad statement that the severance agreement is not intended to and in fact does not infringe upon any rights the employee may have under the NLRA. Unfortunately, the Board did not specifically address this issue, but, given the aggressive position taken in the Board’s decision this week, there is definitely some risk of liability even with such disclaimers. That determination should be made based on the employer’s risk-tolerance, along with the circumstances of the individual severance agreement, and is best determined by speaking with legal counsel.

The NLRB General Counsel is expected to release additional guidance on this issue in the coming months. Until that happens, employers should seriously consider this decision when drafting severance agreements.

© 2007-2023 Hill Ward Henderson, All Rights Reserved
For more Labor Law news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

The NLRB Curtails the Scope of Nondisparagement and Confidentiality Provisions in Severance Agreements

On Tuesday, February 21, 2023, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) issued McLaren Macomb, a decision that curtails the permissible scope of confidentiality agreements and non-disclosure provisions in severance agreements. See McLaren Macomb, 372 NLRB No. 58 (2023). Analyzing the broad provisions in the agreements at issue in this case, the Board held that simply offering employees severance agreements that require employees to broadly waive their rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA” or “the Act”) was unlawful. The Board held:

Where an agreement unlawfully conditions receipt of severance benefits on the forfeiture of statutory rights, the mere proffer of the agreement itself violates the Act, because it has a reasonable tendency to interfere with or restrain the prospective exercise of Section 7 rights, both by the separating employee and those who remain. Whether the employee accepts the agreement is immaterial.

The Board’s decision is part of a broader trend by courts and administrative agencies applying heightened scrutiny to contractual provisions that limit employees’ rights. The decision also provides a crucial reminder to union and nonunion workers alike of the relevance of federal labor law in providing legal protections for most private-sector workers.

Case Background

The case arose when Michigan hospital operator McLaren Macomb permanently furloughed eleven employees, all bargaining unit members of Local 40 RN Staff Council, Office of Professional Employees International Union (OPEIU), AFL-CIO, because it had terminated outpatient services during the COVID-19 pandemic in June 2020. After McLaren Macomb furloughed these employees, it presented them with a “Severance Agreement, Waiver and Release” that offered severance amounts to the employees if they signed the agreement. All eleven employees signed.

The agreements provided broad language regarding confidentiality and nondisparagement. The confidentiality provision stated, “The Employee acknowledges that the terms of this Agreement are confidential and agrees not to disclose them to any third person, other than spouse, or as necessary to professional advisors for the purposes of obtaining legal counsel or tax advice, or unless legally compelled to do so by a court or administrative agency of competent jurisdiction.” (emphasis added). The non-disclosure provision provided, in relevant part, “At all times hereafter, the Employee agrees not to make statements to Employer’s employees or to the general public which could disparage or harm the image of Employer…” The employees faced substantial financial penalties if they violated the provisions. The Employer conditioned the payment of severance on Employees’ entering into this agreement.

The NLRB’s Decision

In McLaren Macomb, the Board held that simply offering employees severance agreements that contain these broad confidentiality and nondisparagement provisions violates the NLRA.

The NLRA provides broad protections of employees’ rights to engage in collective action. Section 7 of the NLRA vests employees with a number of rights, including the right “to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.” Section 8(a)(1) of the Act makes it an unfair labor practice (ULP) for an employer to “interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7.” As the Supreme Court, federal courts, and the NLRB have repeatedly held and reaffirmed, Section 7 provides broad rights for employees and former employees—union and nonunion alike—to engage in collective action, including discussing terms and conditions of employment and workplace issues with coworkers, a union, and the Board. As the Supreme Court has stated in elaborating on the broad construction of Section 7, “labor’s cause often is advanced on fronts other than collective bargaining and grievance settlement within the immediate employment context.” Eastex, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 437 U.S. 556, 565 (1978).

Applying these foundational principles to the severance agreements at hand, the Board reversed Trump-era NLRB precedent and concluded that the employer’s proffer of these broad nondisparagement and confidentiality provisions contravened the employees’ exercise of Section 7 rights, which is an unfair labor practice under Section 8(a)(1). Notably, the Board held that an employer’s merely offering such broad provisions violates the Act—it does not matter whether the employee signs the agreement or not.

The Board determined that the nondisparagement provision substantially interfered with employees’ Section 7 rights on its face. That provision prohibits the furloughed employee from making any “statements to [the] Employer’s employees or the general public which could disparage or harm the image of [the] Employer.” Analyzing this language, the Board reasoned that the provision would encompass employee conduct or critiques of the employer regarding any labor issue, dispute, or term and condition of employment. Accordingly, this proscription sweeps far too broadly—it prohibits employees from exercising their right to publicize labor disputes, a right which is protected by the Act. Moreover, the nondisparagement provision chills employees from exercising Section 7 rights, including efforts to assist fellow employees, cooperate with the Board’s investigation and litigation of unfair labor practices, and raise or assist in making workplace complaints to coworkers, their union, the Board, the media, or “almost anyone else.” As the Board underscored, “Public statements by employees about the workplace are central to the exercise of employee rights under the Act.”

The Board then concluded that the confidentiality provision also interfered with employees’ Section 7 rights in at least two ways. First, the Board explained that because the confidentiality provision prohibits the employee from disclosing the terms of the agreement “to any third person,” the agreement would reasonably tend to coerce the employee not to file a ULP charge with the Board or assist in a Board investigation. (emphasis added). Second, the same language would also prohibit the furloughed employee from discussing the terms of the agreement with former coworkers in similar situations, which would frustrate the mutual support between employees at the heart of the Act. As the Board summarized, “A severance agreement is unlawful if it precludes an employee from assisting coworkers with workplace issues concerning their employer, and from communicating with others, including a union, and the Board, about his employment.”

Takeaways for Employment Lawyers and Plaintiffs

First, while one might assume that labor law is exclusively the province of unions, their members, and their lawyers, McLaren Macomb demonstrates the relevance of the NLRA for employees regardless of union status. Although the workers in this case were unionized, the Section 7 rights at the heart of the NLRA apply to most private-sector employees, including nonunion employees. Indeed, because nonunion workers often have fewer workplace protections than their unionized counterparts, Section 7’s protections are critically important for nonunion employees. Employees who are asked to sign confidentiality and nondisparagement provisions and their attorneys should be aware that broad restrictions on employees’ concerted activity may be illegal.

Second, this decision is part of a broader effort to protect workers from being muzzled by their employers. For instance, the recent federal Speak Out Act establishes that predispute nondisclosure clauses and nondisparagement clauses—often included in employment contracts—are unenforceable in disputes involving sexual assault or sexual harassment. These recent developments in the law should be on the radar of workers and their attorneys who are navigating employer’s contracts, policies, handbooks, and proposed severance agreements.

Article By Kyle Bigley of Katz Banks Kumin LLP

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

Katz Banks Kumin LLP Copyright ©

DOL Issues Guidance on Handling Telework Under FLSA, FMLA

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has issued guidance on the application of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to employees who telework from home or from another location away from the employer’s facility.

The Field Assistance Bulletin (FAB) 2023-1, released on February 9, 2023, is directed to agency officials responsible for enforcement and provides employers a glimpse into how the DOL applies existing law and regulations to common remote-work scenarios. FAB 2023-1 addresses FLSA regulations governing “hours worked,” rules related to break time and privacy for nursing employees, and FMLA eligibility factors.

Hours Worked

In the FAB, the DOL reviews the rules governing compensability of work time, explaining that, regardless of work location, short breaks (typically, 20 minutes or less) generally are counted as compensable hours worked, whereas, longer breaks “during which an employee is completely relieved from duty, and which are long enough to enable [the employee] to use the time effectively for [their] own purposes[,] are not hours worked.” Examples of short breaks, whether at home or in the office, include when an employee takes a bathroom or coffee break or gets up to stretch their legs.

Longer rest breaks and periods of time, when employees are completely relieved from duty and able to use the time for their own purposes, are not considered work time. Just as would be the case when an employee is working in the office, if during remote work an employee’s 30-minute lunch break is interrupted by several work-related phone calls, that 30-minute period would be counted as hours worked. Conversely, if an employee working from home takes a three-hour break to pick up their child or to perform household chores, that time does not count as work time under the FLSA. In short, the FAB reiterates the telework guidance set forth by the DOL in a Q&A series published during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The FAB emphasizes that, regardless of whether an employee performs duties at home, at the worksite, or at some other location, if the employer knows or has reason to believe that work is being performed, the time must be counted as hours worked. Importantly, the FAB notes that an employer may satisfy its obligation to exercise reasonable diligence to acquire knowledge regarding employees’ unscheduled hours of work by providing a reasonable reporting procedure for employees to use when they work non-scheduled time and paying employees for all hours worked. This guidance was addressed in greater detail in FAB 2020-5.

Guidelines for Nursing Employees

The FAB further clarifies that, under the FLSA, an employer’s obligation to provide employees “reasonable break time,” as well as an appropriate place to express breast milk, extends to employees who are teleworking or working at an off-site location. Just as an employer has an obligation to provide an “appropriate place” for an employee to express milk while working at a client site, the employer should ensure a teleworking employee has privacy from a “computer camera, security camera, or web conferencing platform” to express milk.

Employers are not required to pay employees for otherwise unpaid breaks simply because the employee is expressing breast milk during the break, but if an employee is working while pumping (or if the pumping occurs during an otherwise paid break), they must be paid for that time. For example, in most cases, if a remote employee attends a call or videoconference off camera while pumping, that employee would be considered on duty and must be paid for that time.

The recently enacted PUMP Act expanded existing employer obligations under the FLSA to cover exempt employees, as well as non-exempt employees. The DOL has published more guidance on breast milk pumping during work.

Eligibility Under FMLA

The DOL also addresses FMLA eligibility requirements for remote employees both in terms of hours worked (employee must work 1,250 hours in the previously 12 months) and the small worksite exception (employee must work at a worksite with at least 50 employees in a 75-mile radius).

As with the FLSA, it is important for employers to have a system to track their remote workers’ hours. With respect to hours worked, the FAB reiterates that the 1,250 hours determination for remote worker is based on compensable hours of work under FLSA principles.

With respect to the worksite size determination, the FMLA regulations explain that an employee’s personal residence is not a worksite. Instead, whether a remote employee is FMLA-eligible is based on the size of the worksite from which “they report to” or “their assignments are made.” If a remote employee reports into or receives assignments from a site with 50 or more employees working at that site (or reporting to or receiving assignments from that site) or within 75 miles, then that employee would meet that eligibility factor.

The DOL provided two examples of this rule:

  • When both a store employee and their supervisor are working from their homes temporarily due to a weather emergency, for FMLA eligibility purposes, the store remains their worksite.

  • When remote employees are working in various cities more than 75 miles away from the company headquarters but receiving assignments from a manager working at the headquarters, for FMLA-eligibility determination, the company’s headquarters would be considered the workplace for the remote employees.

Employers are reminded to review state and local wage and hour laws, paid and unpaid leave laws, and lactation accommodation laws.

Article By Jenifer M. Bologna, Justin R. Barnes, and Jeffrey W. Brecher of Jackson Lewis P.C.

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

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2023