Tag: Labor Law

Seventh Circuit Addresses Obligations Regarding the Interactive Process under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)

SchiffHardin-logo_4c_LLP_www

A common scenario often faced by employers under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) involves an employee’s request for time off as a reasonable accommodation. In Basden v. Professional Transportation, Inc., No. 11-2880 (7th Cir, May 8, 2013), the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals provides guidance in this area. There, the court explained that the employer was not liable under the ADA, even though it failed to engage in the interactive process, because the employee failed to show that the requested accommodation (a 30-day leave) would have resulted in her ability to perform the essential functions of the job.

Employee Two Weeks Shy of Leave Entitlement

Professional Transportation, Inc. (PTI) provides 24-hour ground transportation services. Terri Basden was hired as a dispatcher in June, 2007. After numerous absences in 2007 and early 2008, she received a verbal warning for absences in March 2008 and a written warning for further absences in April 2008.

Basden provided doctors’ notes reflecting that she had been referred to a neurologist with a possible diagnosis of multiple sclerosis after emergency room tests showed brain abnormalities indicative of the disease. After several job transfers, Basden was granted a request for a part time position on May 1, 2008. She incurred additional absences in May which resulted in suspension. While on suspension, Basden submitted a request for a 30-day leave of absence due to “complications due to medical illness (MS).” PTI policy provides employees with one year of service may be eligible to take a 30-day, unpaid leave of absence. However, Basden had not been employed for one year. PTI denied her request for leave, and thereafter terminated Basden when she failed to return to work following her suspension.

Employee Could Not Show Leave Would Enable Her to Perform Essential Functions

Basden sued PTI, claiming that PTI violated the ADA by terminating her instead of accommodating her request for 30 days leave, that PTI failed to engage in the interactive accommodation process required by the ADA, and that PTI did not show that the requested leave was unreasonable. The district court granted summary judgment for PTI.

On appeal, the Seventh Circuit first observed that an employee’s request for an accommodation under the ADA requires the employer to engage in a flexible, interactive process to identify a reasonable accommodation. In this case, the employee requested a 30-day leave that, according to the employer’s policy, she would have been eligible for with two weeks’ additional seniority. The court noted that PTI’s response to this request, specifically, failing to engage in an interactive process, denying the leave, and terminating her, was not an appropriate employer response under the ADA.

However, the court held that PTI’s actions did not violate the ADA. The failure to engage in the interactive process is not an independent basis for liability under the statute, and in any event, such a failure is actionable only if it prevents identification of an appropriate accommodation. Thus, even if an employer fails to engage in the interactive process, that failure need not be considered if the employee fails to show that she was able to perform the essential functions of her job with an accommodation.

Here, PTI cited regular attendance as an essential function of Basden’s job. Yet, Basden did not demonstrate that she was able to come to work regularly at the time of her termination, or that her regular attendance could have been expected either following the requested leave or with any other accommodation. Therefore, the court held, summary judgment for PTI was appropriate on the ADA claim despite any shortcomings in PTI’s response to Basden’s request. (Basden also alleged violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act, which the court also affirmed summary judgment on because Basden had not worked for PTI for 12 months at the time of her leave request and thus was not eligible for leave under the statute.)

Identify and Document Essential Functions

Of course, employers should continue to comply with their obligations to engage in the interactive process. However, as this case suggests, the obligation to explore and provide accommodation does not necessarily extend to accommodations that are or would be futile and would not enable the employee to perform essential functions. This case highlights the importance of well-written job descriptions that clearly set forth essential job functions. An employer’s identification of and ability to prove essential functions of the job can be used to guide the interactive process and its obligations to provide accommodation under the ADA, and can play a key role in defending a lawsuit under the ADA.

National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Issues Guidance on Lawful Confidentiality Language

DrinkerBiddle

On July 30, 2012, the NLRB (“Board”) issued a decision in Banner Health System dba Estrella Medical Center, 358 NLRB No. 93 holding, among other things, that the employer violated Section 8(a)(1) (which prohibits employers from interfering, restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of their rights), by restricting employees from discussing any complaint that was then the subject of an ongoing internal investigation.

To minimize the impact of such a confidentiality mandate on employees’ Section 7 rights, the Board found that an employer must make an individualized determination in each case that its “legitimate business justification” outweighed the employee’s rights to protected concerted activity in discussing workplace issues.  In Banner Health, the employer did not carry its burden to show a legitimate business justification because it failed to make a particularized showing that:

  • Witnesses were in need of protection;
  • Evidence was in danger of being destroyed;
  • Testimony was in danger of being fabricated; or
  • A cover-up must be prevented.

The Board concluded that the employer’s one-size-fits-all rule, prohibiting employees from engaging in any discussion of ongoing internal investigations, clearly failed to meet these requirements.

More recently, the NLRB’s Office of the General Counsel clarified the limits of how such policies could be drafted without running afoul of Section 7 in an advice memorandum released on April 24, 2013 (dated January 29, 2013).   The Region had submitted Verso Paper, Case 30-CA-089350 (January 29, 2013) to the Office of the General Counsel for advice regarding the confidentiality rule at issue and whether it unlawfully interfered with employees’ Section 7 rights.  Specifically, the Verso Code of Conduct contained this provision prohibiting employees from discussing ongoing internal investigations:

Verso has a compelling interest in protecting the integrity of its investigations.  In every investigation, Verso has a strong desire to protect witnesses from harassment, intimidation and retaliation, to keep evidence from being destroyed, to ensure that testimony is not fabricated, and to prevent a cover-up.  To assist Verso in achieving these objectives, we must maintain the investigation and our role in it in strict confidence.  If we do not maintain such confidentiality, we may be subject to disciplinary action up to and including immediate termination.

Reiterating that employees have a Section 7 right to discuss disciplinary investigations of their co-workers, the General Counsel’s Office found that the Verso Paper provision did not allow for a case-by-case analysis of whether or not the employer’s business justification for the restriction outweighed the employees’ Section 7 rights as required by Banner Health.  According to the General Counsel’s Office, the employer may establish this by presenting facts specific to a given investigation that give rise to a legitimate and substantial business justification for imposing confidentiality restrictions.

However, in footnote 7 of its advice, the General Counsel’s Office, after noting that the first two sentences of the Verso Paper rule lawfully set forth the employer’s interest in protecting the integrity of its investigations, surprisingly put forward a modified version of the remainder of the Verso Paper provision that it said would pass muster under Banner Health:

Verso may decide in some circumstances that in order to achieve these objectives, we must maintain the investigation and our role in it in strict confidence.  If Verso reasonably imposes such a requirement and we do not maintain such confidentiality, we may be subject to disciplinary action up to and including immediate termination.

Although this guidance is not binding, combining this language above with the first two sentences of the Verso Paper provision could certainly strengthen an employer’s argument that its intent was not to violate an employee’s Section 7 rights, but rather, to lawfully put employees on notice that if the employer “reasonably” imposes a confidentiality requirement, they must abide by it or face discipline.  However, employers must remain mindful that using a provision like this suggested does not obviate the need for the employer to engage in the particularized case-by-case determination of its substantial and legitimate business need that would permit it to impose confidentiality restrictions on the investigation.

Article By:

 of

Twitter: Little Statements with Big Consequences for Companies

McBrayer

Twitter is under attack. In recent months, accounts belonging to media giants CBS, BBC, and NPR have all been temporarily taken over by hackers. The Associated Press is the most recent victim. On April 23, 2013, a false statement about explosions at the White House and the President being injured sent shock waves through the Twitter-sphere. The real surprise is the effect the single tweet had in the real world: the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index dropped so sharply moments after the frightening tweet that $136 billion in market value was wiped out. While the hacking of these massive media outlets make headlines, everyday businesses are not safe from the threat, either. In February of this year, a hacker changed the @BurgerKing feed to resemble that of McDonald’s, putting the McDonald’s logo in place of Burger King’s. The hackers posted offensive claims about company employees and practices. If accounts belonging to well-established companies like these are vulnerable, so is yours. If a tweet can have a profound impact on the nation’s stock market, imagine what an ill-contrived tweet could do to your business.

Business owners may have the knee-jerk reaction to delete their Twitter account, but despite the recent blemishes to its security, Twitter remains one of the most important social media sites out there. Just recently, the Securities Exchange Commission made clear that companies could use social media like Twitter when announcing key information in compliance with Regulation Fair Disclosure. Twitter is not just a marketing or PR tool—Twitter is business. And you should never turn your back on existing business. So instead of hanging up your hashtags, consider some steps that can make your Twitter account safer.

Limit Access

Not every employee should have access to the company’s Twitter account. In fact, hardly anyone should, except a few designated employees like the marketing director or business owner. While those with access may never do anything harmful to the account, the more people who have the log-in information, the more likely it is to fall into the wrong hands.

Create a strong password

I know, you already have too many passwords to remember. But a creative password is your best defense against someone seeking to break into your account. Employers should, at minimum, have unique passwords for their most commonly used media sites; please do not use the same word for your Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter account. Once a hacker figures it out, they have control of your entire social media presence.

When creating a password, avoid using anything that would be too common. “Password,” “1234,” or the business’s name should never be the only thing standing between you and a hacker. The longer the password, the better. Use a mix of uppercase and lowercase letters, numbers, and symbols.

Article By:

 of

Takeover Code Amendments Extend the Rights of Pension Scheme Trustees

Morgan Lewis logo

Amendments include new requirements regarding offerors’ intentions, documents provided to trustees, trustees’ opinions on offers, and publication of agreements between offerors and trustees.

On 22 April, the Code Committee of the UK Panel on Takeovers and Mergers (the Panel) published response statement RS 2012/2 (the Response Statement), which introduces amendments to the City Code on Takeovers and Mergers (the Code).[1] The Response Statement follows a consultation to consider extending the rights of trustees of offeree company pension schemes. Broadly, the amendments to the Code provide the following:

  • An offeror is required to state its intentions with regard to the offeree company’s pension scheme.
  • Certain information is required to be published in the offer document or otherwise provided to pension scheme trustees.
  • Trustees are allowed to provide an opinion on the effects of an offer on the company’s pension scheme.
  • Agreements between an offeror and pension scheme trustees that relate to pension scheme funding may be required to be published if they are material.

Background

On 19 September 2011, significant changes were made to the Code, including an extension of the obligations of the offeror and offeree in relation to information to be provided to, and the obligation to publish opinions of, the offeree company’s employees and employee representatives. During the Panel’s consultation on those changes, the pensions industry lobbied significantly for similar provisions to be added to the Code in relation to trustees of pension schemes. Proposed amendments to the Code were published in public consultation paper PCP 2012/2 (the PCP)[2] on 5 July 2012, and a period of consultation followed. The Response Statement sets out the Panel’s response to that consultation and the resulting changes to be made to the Code. Although many of the changes will be adopted as originally proposed in the PCP, certain modifications have been made.

In determining the new regime, the Panel has been mindful that the intended effect of the changes is to create a framework within which the effects of an offer on an offeree company’s pension scheme can become (i) a debating point during the course of the offer and (ii) a point on which the relevant parties can express their views.

Application of New Code Provisions to Defined Benefit Schemes

The new provisions of the Code are limited to funded pension schemes sponsored by the offeree (or any of its subsidiaries) that (i) provide pension benefits (either in whole or in part) on a defined benefit basis—and (ii) have trustees (or managers, in the case of non-UK schemes). The Code provisions are not limited to UK pension schemes and apply to all such schemes, regardless of size or materiality in the context of the offeree’s group.

The new provisions do not apply to pension schemes that provide pension benefits only on a “defined contribution” basis, as the Panel believes that the provisions of the Code granting rights to employees and employee representatives already create an appropriate framework for discussion in relation to the impact of an offer, and the offeror’s intentions, in relation to such schemes.

Publication of Offeror’s Intentions in Relation to Pension Scheme

An offeror will now be required to include in the offer document a statement of its intentions with regard to relevant offeree pension schemes, including with respect to employer contributions and arrangements for deficit funding, benefits accruals for current members, and the admission of new members to the scheme. However, the Panel has not required that the offeror include a statement on the likely repercussions of its strategic plans for the offeree company on relevant pension schemes. Similarly, the Panel has confirmed that such statements do not need to include an assessment of the future ability of the offeree company to meet its funding obligations to its pension scheme.

The Panel also confirmed that the general rule under Note 3, Rule 19.1 of the Code will apply to statements of intention made in respect of pension schemes. This means that an offeror will be considered to be committed by any such statements for 12 months after the offer ends (or such other period of time as is specified in the offeror’s statement), unless there has been a material change of circumstances.

Under the PCP, the Panel originally proposed to require the offeree to include in its offeree circular its views on the effects of the implementation of the offer—and the offeror’s strategic plans for the offeree—on the offeree’s pension schemes. However, following the consultation, the Panel did not make these changes but did confirm that the offeree board may include its views on these subjects in the offeree circular should it wish to do so.

Provision of Information to Pension Scheme Trustees

The amendments to the Code provide that trustees of the offeree company’s pension scheme will be entitled to receive the same documents that offerors and offerees are required to make available to employee representatives. These documents include the following:

  • The announcement that commences the offer period
  • The announcement of a firm intention to make an offer
  • The offer document
  • The offeree board circular in response to the offer document
  • Any revised offer document
  • The offeree board circular in response to any revised offer document

Pension Scheme Trustees’ Opinion on the Offer

Under the revised Code, pension scheme trustees will have the right to require the offeree’s board of directors to publish the trustees’ opinion on the effects of the offer on the pension scheme, and the offeree will be obliged to notify such trustees of this right at the commencement of the offer. As with employee representatives’ opinions, if the trustees’ opinion is received in good time, the opinion must be appended to the offeree board circular. If it is not received in good time, it must be published on a website, with such publication to be announced on a Regulated Information Service.[3] The Panel has confirmed that the trustees’ opinion may cover more than the impact of the offer on the benefits that the scheme provides to members (and other matters to be included in the offeror’s statement in the offer document) and that the opinion may also extend to the trustees’ views on the impact of the offer on the post-offer ability of the offeree company to make future contributions to the pension scheme (i.e., the strength of its funding covenant).

Unlike employee representative opinions, the offeree will only be responsible for the costs incurred in the publication of the trustees’ opinion and not for any other costs incurred in relation to its preparation or verification.

Agreements Entered into Between an Offeror and Pension Scheme Trustees

The revised Code also contains certain provisions relating to any agreements between an offeror and the trustees of an offeree pension scheme, for example, in relation to the future funding of that scheme. Following the consultation, the Panel determined that any such agreements should be treated in the same manner as any other offer-related agreement, with certain variations. As a result, the amendments contain the following requirements for agreements between offerors and pension scheme trustees:

  • Where any such agreement is a material contract for the offeror within the meaning of the Code, it should be published on a website in the same manner as any other material contract.
  • Where such an agreement is not material, but is nevertheless referred to in the offer document, there will be no requirement to publish it on a website.
  • Where such an agreement relates only to the future funding of the pension scheme, it will be excluded from the general prohibition on offer-related agreements contained in Rule 21.2(a).[4]

Pensions Regulator

The Panel has confirmed, following discussions with the UK Pensions Regulator, that there will be no obligation under the Code for the offeror or offeree to send offer-related documentation to the Pensions Regulator, nor will there be any obligation on the Panel to notify the Pensions Regulator of takeover offers. Accordingly, it is for the offer parties (and any other interested parties) to decide whether they wish to engage with, or seek clearance of the offer from, the Pensions Regulator.

Entry into Force

The amendments introduced by the Response Statement will take effect on 20 May 2013, and an amended version of the Code will be published on this date.

[1]. View the Response Statement here.

[2]. View the PCP here.

[3]. The UK Financial Conduct Authority has published a list of information services that are approved Regulated Information Services in Appendix 3 of the Listing Rules, which is available here.

[4]. The Panel, however, emphasised that any obligations or restrictions on the trustees regarding any other offeror or potential offeror would not be permissible.

Article By:

 of

Supreme Court (Sort Of) Approves “Picking Off” Strategy in Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Collective Action Cases

GK_Logo_Full-Color (CMYK)

If you have ever received a complaint alleging minimum wage or overtime violations from one of your employees, the United States Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division, or a similar state agency (in Wisconsin, the Labor Standards Bureau of the Equal Rights Division), you have probably considered the possibility that other employees might raise similar claims.  Depending on the size of your workforce, this single-employee headache could quickly evolve into a class action or collective action migraine.

Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), a single employee may file a wage and hour lawsuit on behalf of himself and other “similarly situated” employees.  The FLSA’s collective action mechanism requires potential plaintiffs to opt into the lawsuit, meaning that individuals must choose to participate in the case.  This mechanism differs from a class action lawsuit because individuals covered by a class certified by the court mustopt out of the case.  In other words, in a class action, an individual covered by a certified class must choose to not participate in the case.

Defense counsel have typically attempted to protect employers from prolonged and costly collective action litigation by “picking off” the named plaintiff(s) in lawsuits filed under the FLSA.  This “picking off” strategy refers to Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows a defendant to make an offer of judgment to the plaintiff.  An offer of judgment amounts to giving the plaintiff the full relief requested in the complaint and costs accrued by the plaintiff.  A plaintiff’s acceptance of a Rule 68 offer of judgment moots (i.e., a dispute no longer exists) the case as to the plaintiff, thereby depriving the court of jurisdiction.

In the collective action context, however, employers have had mixed results on the issue of whether acceptance of a Rule 68 offer by the named plaintiff(s) also moots the claims of the potential collective group of affected employees.  The question also remained:  what happens when the named plaintiff(s) rejects the Rule 68 offer of judgment?

On Tuesday, April 16, 2013, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision, Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, that attempted to answer this question.  In this case, the employer, Genesis, made a Rule 68 offer of judgment to the plaintiff, Symczyk, while simultaneously answering the complaint and prior to Symczyk moving for conditional certification.  By its terms, the offer automatically expired after ten days.  Symczyk did not accept the offer, and Genesis moved for judgment in its favor, arguing that its offer of judgment mooted Symczyk’s claim and the potential collective action.  Symczyk did not contest Genesis’ argument that the offer fully satisfied her claim.  The district court agreed with Genesis and dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit agreed with the district court that Genesis’ Rule 68 offer mooted Symczyk’s claim, but it disagreed about the effect the offer had on the potential collective action.  The court of appeals held that allowing a defendant to “pick off” named plaintiffs for the purpose of avoiding the certification of a collective action would run contrary to the purpose of the collective action mechanism permitted by the FLSA.

On appeal, the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff “has no personal interest in representing putative, unnamed claimants, nor any other continuing interest that would preserve her suit from mootness.”  According to the Supreme Court, a Rule 68 offer of judgment that renders the claims of the named plaintiff(s) moot also eliminates the plaintiff’s interest in the collective action.  More importantly, the Supreme Court held that a collective action under the FLSA, even if “conditionally certified” by a court, does not give the “class” of potential plaintiffs “an independent legal status.”  A “conditional certification” simply results in “the sending of court-approved written notice to employees[.]“  Thus, the Supreme Court has given some legitimacy to the strategy of “picking off” named plaintiffs by offering them full relief through a Rule 68 offer of judgment.

Note, however, that the Supreme Court did not hold that an unaccepted Rule 68 offer renders a claim (the named plaintiff’s or the collective action claim) moot.  Because Symczyk waived these arguments in the lower courts, the Supreme Court simply assumed, without deciding, that the unaccepted Rule 68 offer rendered her claim moot.

While, at first blush, the decision seems like a great win for employers, it has potential limitations, many of which Justice Elena Kagan points out in her dissent, including the following:

  1. Symczyk waived several important arguments throughout the litigation, including the argument that the unaccepted Rule 68 offer in fact did not moot her individual claim.
  2. The Genesis case addresses a scenario in which no other plaintiffs had yet joined the collective action (due in part to the timing of Genesis’ offer to Symczyk and her failure to move for certificaiton).
  3. The Court simply ignored the limitations of a Rule 68 offer of judgment, including that Rule 68 only gives courts authority to enter judgment when the plaintiff accepts the offer and that “[e]vidence of an unaccepted offer is not admissible except in a proceeding to determine costs.”

Despite the limitations of the Genesis decision, employers can take comfort in the Court’s indication of its leanings regarding collective actions.  In addition to the Court’s holding regarding the mootness issue, employers can also point to the Court’s statements calling into question the legitimacy of applying class action rules and precedent to collective actions under the FLSA.

Article By:

 of

Recent Social Media Developments Impacting Employers

Sills-Cummis-Gross-607x84

NLRB: Latest Decisions Addressing Social Media Policies and Activities

Within the past several months, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB“) has issued four precedent-setting opinions addressing the legality of an employer’s use of social media as a basis for taking adverse employment action. These decisions apply to both unionized and non-unionized workforces.

The key issue in each of these cases was whether the employer’s actions compromised the right of employees to engage in “protected concerted activities” for the purpose of their “mutual aid and protection.” However, as noted in a prior alert, recent federal case law could void all NLRB decisions dating back to January 4, 2012 (including those discussed below). Until there is clarity the NLRB decisions continue to be significant in shaping social media use, policy and practice.

On April 19, 2013, the NLRB, in Design Technology Group, LLC, found that an employee’s Facebook posts that criticized a manager’s handling of employee concerns were a “classic connected protected activity” under the National Labor Relations Act (“the Act”).

In that case, workers had approached their manager about closing the store they worked in at 7 PM instead of 8 PM, because of safety concerns. The manager advised that she would discuss those concerns with corporate officials, but the issue was never resolved. Subsequently, two employees posted messages on Facebook that were critical of how the manager handled that issue. Another employee showed the manager those posts and six days later, both employees who made the critical Facebook posts were fired by the manager.

The NLRB determined that the Facebook posts were part of the employees’ efforts to convince their employer to close the store earlier in the evening, based on their concerns about working late in an unsafe neighborhood. The NLRB found that those posts were protected under the Act and that the employees’ terminations constituted unfair labor practices.

Design Technology comes on the heels of three other NLRB social media rulings issued late last year.

In Hispanic United of Buffalo (December 14, 2012), the NLRB held that the termination of five employees for violating an employer’s policies on the basis of their social media activity was unlawful. In that case, five employees posted comments on Facebook that were critical of a co-worker who was scheduled to meet with and complain to management about their work performance. The employer terminated the five employees for “bullying and harassing” the co-worker in violation of its policies.

Hispanics United of Buffalo applied settled NLRB law regarding oral communications among co-workers to the social media context. Under NLRB precedent, employees’ comments regarding the terms and conditions of their employment are protected if their comments are “concerted” — meaning they are “‘engaged in, with or on the authority of other employees,” not only by “one employee on behalf of himself.” Finding the actions of these employees to be protected, the NLRB set a relatively low threshold for interpreting social media activity as protected concerted activity under the Act.

The Hispanics United decision is especially controversial because it may conflict with an employer’s competing obligation under federal and state discrimination laws to prevent workplace harassment. And, the decision may ultimately be in conflict with workplace anti-bullying laws in those states where such legislation is being actively considered. In Karl Knauz Motors, Inc. (September 28, 2012), the NLRB ordered another employer to rescind its social media policy. In that case, the employer terminated the employee for multiple reasons, including violation of the employer’s “Courtesy” rule requiring employees to be “courteous, polite and friendly” to customers, vendors, suppliers and fellow employees and not to use “language which injures the image or reputation of the Dealership.”

The NLRB held that the “Courtesy” rule violated the NLRA because employees could “reasonably construe its broad prohibition against ‘disrespectful’ conduct and ‘language’ which injures the image or reputation of the Dealership as encompassing Section 7 activity.” However, the NLRB upheld the employee’s termination, finding it was not motivated by protected concerted activity, but rather was solely based on the employee’s Facebook postings that did not relate to the terms and conditions of his or any other employee’s employment. The NLRB did not address whether other posts would be protected by the Act.

In Costco Wholesale Corp. (September 7, 2012), the NLRB ruled that an employer’s overbroad social media policy violated the National Labor Relations Act because it prohibited employees from posting statements “that damage the Company, defame any individual or damage any person’s reputation or violate the policies outlined in the Costco Employee Agreement.” The NLRB ordered Costco to rescind the policy based on its finding that the policy inhibited employees from engaging in protected concerted activity.

NJ Legislative Update: Proposed Law Seeks to Protect Employee and Job Applicant Passwords

A-2878, a bill that prohibits employers from requiring, or requesting, a current or prospective employee to reveal, as a condition of employment, his or her user name, password or other means of accessing the employee’s personal social media account, has passed both houses of the NJ Legislature and is awaiting further action by Governor Chris Christie. While it is not clear as of this writing whether Governor Christie will sign or veto this bill, the implications to employers of this potential new law are far reaching.

If enacted, this bill would prohibit employers from even asking an employee or prospective employee whether he or she has a profile on a social media site. In addition, the bill would prohibit employers from requiring prospective employees to waive or limit any protection granted to them under the law as a condition of applying for or receiving an offer of employment. It provides for a $1,000 civil penalty for the law’s first violation and $2,500 for each subsequent violation. If Governor Christie signs this bill into law, New Jersey would join other states that have enacted legislation preventing employers from requesting social media access information, including Arkansas, California, Delaware, Illinois, and Michigan, though it would be the first state to prevent employers from inquiring if employees or applicants have a social media account.

Notably, the bill does not prevent employers from performing their own online search to determine if a prospective or current employee is on a social media site. Accordingly, if a social media account is publically available, an employer would not run afoul of this proposed law by independently viewing an employee’s or prospective employee’s social media account. This type of activity could have other potential pitfalls associated with it however, such as learning protected class information about applicants.

We will continue to monitor the signing status of this bill.

What These Decisions and the Prospective NJ Statute Mean to Employers

In light of the foregoing, we recommend the following:

  • Employers should review and consider revising social media polices and hiring practices to address the NLRB decisions, the new NJ legislation, if enacted, and EEO issues associated with searches on applicants.
  • With respect to policies, employers should ensure that prohibitions placed on employees’ communications do not prohibit employees’ rights to engage in protected concerted activity.
  • Employers should continue to exercise caution when disciplining or terminating any employee based on his/her social media activities and should also consider training its managers in this area so that they do not inadvertently run afoul of these laws.
  • It is important to consult with counsel to consider whether an employee’s comments or posts would be deemed to be protected concerted activity under the Act before any disciplinary action is taken by the employer based on those comments or posts.
Article By:

of

Pregnancy and Disability Discrimination the Focus of EEOC Enforcement Activity

Poyner SpruillSince Congress’ enactment of amendments to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in 2008, making it easier to establish disability status under that law, the EEOC has directed more of its attention to claims of pregnancy and disability discrimination and accommodation of pregnancy-related limitations. In its 2012 Strategic Enforcement Plan, the Commission identified the investigation and pursuit of this type of claim as a national priority.  This enforcement initiative was recently demonstrated in a lawsuit filed by the EEOC against an employer which allegedly denied accommodations to an employee who suffered from complications arising from her pregnancy. The suit, EEOC v. Engineering Documentation Systems, Inc.,settled for $70,000 before a judgment on the merits was reached. However, the case serves as a reminder to employers that the issue of pregnancy-related disability is now being targeted by the EEOC.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), prohibits discrimination against employees or job applicants on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions. The EEOC takes the position that Title VII and the PDA require employers to treat pregnant employees in the same manner as other employees with temporary medical conditions. For example, according to the EEOC, if an employer provides leaves of absence or light duty to employees with short-term medical conditions which render those employees unable to work, then an employee unable to work due to her pregnancy must also be afforded the same treatment.1   But Title VII is not the only potentially applicable law in this circumstance. The ADA requires employers to provide “reasonable accommodation” to an employee with an actual (or record of) disability. This raises the question whether a pregnant employee has a “disability” within the meaning of the ADA.

Under the ADA, a disability is defined in part as a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits a major life activity. Prior to the amendments to the ADA, temporary medical conditions generally were not found by the courts to constitute disabilities, on the grounds that short-term impairments were not “substantially limiting.” However, the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA) has led to a more expansive interpretation of the term “disability.” Specifically, the EEOC’s regulations implementing the ADAAA state that an impairment may be substantially limiting of a major life activity, and thus a disability, even if it is of a duration of less than six months. While the EEOC still considers pregnancy itself not to constitute a disability (See EEOC’s “Questions and Answers on the Final Rule Implementing the ADA Amendments Act of 2008”), it recognizes that certain impairments resulting from pregnancy may be disabilities if they substantially limit a major life activity. As stated on the EEOC’s webpage regarding pregnancy discrimination, this could include short term complications of pregnancy such as gestational diabetes or preeclampsia.

With the possibility that more medical conditions and complications arising from pregnancy will now fall within the definition of disability under the ADAAA, employers must be more cognizant of when an obligation to consider and provide reasonable accommodation to employees with a pregnancy-related disability arises. Such accommodations might include leaves of absence, job reassignment, light duty, or job modifications, unless such accommodations would result in an undue hardship to the employer. It is also imperative that employers engage in the “interactive process” with such employees to identify reasonable accommodation. The failure to take such proactive measures can result in liability for an employer, particularly given that the EEOC is now focused on this area of enforcement.

Article By:

 of

Court of Appeal Reminds Litigants That Settling With Named Plaintiff Does Not Necessarily End Putative Class Action

An article recently published in the National Law Review by Neil A.F. Popović and Lai L. Yip of Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP  regarding Putative Damages and Class-Action Lawsuits:

 

If a defendant in a putative class action settles with the class representative prior to class certification, does the defendant nonetheless have to respond to pre-settlement discovery requests to identify absent class members? According to the California Court of Appeal in Pirjada v. Superior Court, 2011 WL 6144930, Case No. B234813 (Cal. App. Dec. 12, 2011), the answer is no, although the appellate court left open the possibility that the trial court could require some form of notice to protect the interests of absent class members.

Plaintiff Seeks Discovery Identifying Putative Class Members

Putative class representative Obaidul Pirjada (“Pirjada”) brought a purported class action on behalf of all security guards who had been employed in California by defendant Pacific National Security, Inc. (“Pacific National”) during the preceding four years, alleging violations of the California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions Code. Pirjada propounded discovery requesting, among other things, the names and addresses of all putative class members. Pacific National did not object or respond to the discovery requests.

Plaintiff, Without Counsel Involvement, Settles Directly With Defendant

Without the involvement of his attorneys, Pirjada settled directly with Pacific National after negotiating with its CEO. Then, by letter to his counsel, Pirjada requested that his claims be dismissed with prejudice, and enclosed the settlement agreement along with payment for legal services.

Plaintiff’s Counsel Files Motion for Order Providing Notice to Putative Class Members; Defendant Files Motion to Dismiss

Instead of dismissing the lawsuit, however, Pirjada’s counsel filed a motion seeking to provide notice to absent members of the proposed class that substitution of a suitable class representative was necessary. Pacific National filed a motion to dismiss based on the parties’ settlement, which Pirjada joined.

Superior Court Denies Both Motions

The superior court denied Pacific National’s motion to dismiss, noting that a plaintiff’s individual settlement does not vitiate plaintiff’s or his counsel’s fiduciary obligations to the putative class members. The court granted sixty days leave to amend to add a new plaintiff as class representative. The court denied counsel’s motion for notice, finding it unnecessary because unlike in CashCall, Inc. v. Superior Court, 159 Cal. App. 4th 273 (2008), and Best Buy Stores, L.P. v. Superior Court, 137 Cal. App. 4th 772 (2006), members of the putative class of security guards know whether they were injured and thus can determine without notice whether to assert claims against Pacific National. The court specifically noted, however, that regardless of notice, plaintiff’s counsel was authorized to communicate with potential class members.

Plaintiff’s Counsel Moves to Compel Discovery to Identify New Class Representative, Which Superior Court Denies

Plaintiff’s counsel then moved to compel responses to the previously propounded requests for information identifying putative class members, arguing that Pacific National had waived its objections by failing to respond; that Pirjada could not provide contact information for other putative class members because he worked at only one Pacific National location and was the only guard assigned there; and that Pirjada contacted counsel only after his employment at Pacific National had ended. The superior court denied the motion to compel, stating that Pirjada had settled his claims and that his discovery requests were therefore moot. The court reiterated, however, that counsel were free to communicate with class members, even if it they were not entitled to discovery.

Court of Appeal Denies Petition, Deciding Superior Court Did Not Abuse Discretion

Plaintiff’s counsel filed a petition for writ of mandate challenging the superior court’s denial of the motion to compel, as well as the denial of the motion to provide notice.

The Court of Appeal concluded that the superior court acted within its broad discretion in denying the motion to compel, and choosing instead to protect absent class members by allowing counsel leave to amend the complaint after using informal means to identify potential replacement class representatives.

With respect to notice, the Court stated:

[P]recertification discovery may be allowed in appropriate circumstances to identify a substitute class representative in place of one who is not able to serve in that capacity, as well as to assist the lead plaintiff in learning the names of other individuals who might assist in prosecuting the action. But the obligation to notify absent class members before dismissing the case rests with the superior court, not the lead plaintiff or class counsel. The nature and extent of that notice must be decided by the court itself.

Pirjada, 2011 WL 6144930. at *14. The Court noted that under California Rule of Court 3.770, no notice to absent class members is required at all “if the court finds that the dismissal will not prejudice them.” Id. Moreover, because the superior court issued an order to show cause regarding dismissal, counsel will have the opportunity at that hearing to demonstrate that some form of notice is required to avoid prejudice to absent class members.

Lessons for Class Action Defendants

The somewhat unique circumstances in Pirjada highlight the importance of making sure to tie up procedural loose ends, such as outstanding discovery, when a defendant settles with the named plaintiff(s) prior to class certification. More broadly, the case serves as a reminder that named plaintiffs and their counsel have an ongoing fiduciary duty to potential class members, and courts must take reasonable steps to protect those interests, including through potential discovery and notice procedures.

Under Parris v. Superior Court, 109 Cal. App. 4th 285 (2003), and its progeny, “‘trial courts must apply a balancing test and weigh the actual or potential abuse of the class action procedure against the potential benefits that might be gained'” by allowing precertification discovery to identify a substitute class representative.Pirjada, 2011 WL 6144930, at *5 (quoting Starbucks Corp. v. Superior Court, 194 Cal. App. 4th 820, 825 (2011)). Addressing that standard remains a key consideration for defendants who seek to avoid ongoing class action litigation when they settle with a named plaintiff.

Copyright © 2011, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

Recent NLRB Memo Identifies “Hot Topic” Cases for 2012

Recently an article appeared in the National Law Review by Peter T. Tschanz of Barnes & Thornburg LLP regarding Hot Topic cases:

 

The NLRB recently circulated a memorandum asking all Regional Directors, Officers-in-Charge and Residential Officers to begin tracking what the Agency has defined as “Hot Topic” Cases.  The categories include:

– Cessation of Dues Check-Off;

– Information Requests for Financial Records;

– Post Arbitration Deferral;

– Social Media; and

– Use of Employer e-Mail.

The memorandum provides insight into the types of issues likely to grab the NLRB’s attention in 2012.  The memorandum can be accessed here.

California Appellate Court Issues a Decision That Mutual of Omaha Insurance Agents Qualify as Independent Contractors as a Matter of Law

From a recent posting in the National Law Review an article by attorney Thomas R. Kaufman of Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP regarding the way insurance companies treat their independent agents:

December 31, 2011, as a final act for the year, the First Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal issued a good appellate decision for employers on the issue of independent contractor status, Arnold v. Mutual of Omaha. The case creates a veritable roadmap for insurance companies on how to treat agents so that they maintain their status as independent contractors rather than employees.

The Key Facts

Ms. Arnold worked as a non-exclusive insurance agent for Mutual of Omaha, which meant she was authorized to sell their products but was free to (and did) sell products of other insurance companies. Nonetheless, she claimed she was actually an employee rather than an independent contractor (IC), and that she therefore was entitled to recover for reimbursement of expenses and waiting time penalties for unpaid final wages on behalf of herself and a purported class of similarly situated agents. The factual record was very strong for the defense as to the limited control Mutual of Omaha exercised over Arnold (and its other agents):

  1. The contract Arnold signed with Mutual of Omaha expressly stated that the parties understood it was an independent contractor agreement.
  2. Her chief duties were to procure and submit insurance applications, collect money, and service clients.
  3. She was compensated entirely on commissions for products sold, with a chargeback if money was uncollected or refunded.
  4. She received no performance evaluations and nobody at Mutual of Omaha monitored or supervised her work schedule.  Plaintiff decided when, where, and to whom she would market insurance.
  5. Although Mutual of Omaha provided some training on its products and sales techniques, it was not mandatory for ICs to take the training.  The only mandatory training was as to compliance with certain state insurance laws and regulations.
  6. Mutual of Omaha provided some office space if agents wanted to use it, but it was optional, and agents had to pay for the “workspace and telephone service.”  Mutual of Omaha also did not pay for business cards or any other business expenses, although it provided certain services for a fee if an IC wanted them.
  7. Under the IC agreement in place, either party could terminate the relationship at any time with or without cause, or if Arnold failed to sell a Mutual of Omaha product for 180 days.

On this record, the trial court granted summary judgment to Mutual of Omaha that Arnold was an independent contractor rather than an employee.  Arnold appealed.

What Makes the Case Noteworthy

The court of appeal affirmed, declaring that it was not even a close case.  As a preliminary matter, the court held the common law test of employee v. IC applies to claims under Labor Code Section 2802.  This is a multi-factor test (roughly 10 factors depending how you count them), codified in a decision called S.G. Borelli & Sons, Inc. v. DIR, 48 Cal. 3d 341 (1989).  This holding is not exactly earth-shaking as the plaintiff’s argument of statutory interpretation was not particularly cogent.  It is the summary judgment aspect of the case that makes it notable, because the case sets forth a pretty good roadmap of what an insurance company who wants to have independent contractor agents should follow to preclude a lawsuit that the agents are really employees.  The court pointed to the existence of undisputed facts on several specific issues as justifying summary judgment:

“After a careful review of the opposing evidence, we find nothing that raises a material conflict with the supporting evidence summarized above. The salient evidentiary points established Arnold used her own judgment in determining whom she would solicit for applications for Mutual’s products, the time, place, and manner in which she would solicit, and the amount of time she spent soliciting for Mutual’s products. Her appointment with Mutual was nonexclusive, and she in fact solicited for other insurance companies during her appointment with Mutual. Her assistant general manager at Mutual’s Concord office did not evaluate her performance and did not monitor or supervise her work. Training offered by Mutual was voluntary for agents, except as required for compliance with state law. Agents who chose to use the Concord office were required to pay a fee for their workspace and telephone service. Arnold’s minimal performance requirement to avoid automatic termination of her appointment was to submit one application for Mutual’s products within each 180-day period. Thus, under the principal test for employment under common law principles, Mutual had no significant right to control the manner and means by which Arnold accomplished the results of the services she performed as one of Mutual’s soliciting agents.”

The court mentioned that several other factors further tilted in Mutual of Omaha’s favor, but it appears that establishing undisputed facts on the above items would generally be sufficient to support summary judgment.  Furthermore, the court recognized that a plaintiff cannot avoid summary judgment simply by raising a triable issue of fact on one or two minor factors of IC status.  Rather, the court held that if a reasonable factfinder considering all of the evidence together could not conclude that the agent was an employee, the employer is entitled to judgment:

“The existence and degree of each factor of the common law test for employment is a question of fact, while the legal conclusion to be drawn from those facts is a question of law. (Harris v. Vector Marketing Corp. (N.D. Cal. 2009) 656 F.Supp.2d 1128, 1136.) Even if one or two of the individual factors might suggest an employment relationship, summary judgment is nevertheless proper when, as here, all the factors weighed and considered as a whole establish that Arnold was an independent contractor and not an employee for purposes of Labor Code sections 202 and 2802. (SeeVarisco, supra, 166 Cal.App.4th at p. 1106.)”

Copyright © 2011, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.