The Boston Celtics recently suspended its head coach Ime Udoka for the entire 2022-2023 season and although the team did not disclose whether the suspension will be paid or unpaid, it noted that he will be subject to a “significant financial penalty” as a result of multiple unspecified violations of the organization’s policies stemming from Udoka’s conduct towards a female member of the organization.

Originally believed to have been a consensual relationship, it was subsequently reported that the female staff member accused Udoka of making unwanted advances, including inappropriate comments towards the staff member.  In response, the Celtics organization acted quickly and launched an internal investigation, which found “a volume of violations” of various policies.  Please note, it is unknown as to whether the Celtics had a consensual relationship policy in place for employees.

The Celtics scandal comes at a time when workplace harassment claims (as reported by the EEOC) are on the rise, yet consensual office romantic relationships remain fairly common.  While most employees do not want their employers placing limits on whom they may seek as a romantic partner, from an employer’s viewpoint, the risks of such romances are clear, as they can easily cause real issues in the workplace: interoffice gossip, lack of productivity, reduced moral, allegations of favoritism, or worse, claims of sexual harassment.

Fortunately, employers have several options available to minimize risk. Employers can rely on various types of anti-fraternization policies (also known as workplace romance or consensual relationship policies) and/or love contracts.  Separate, but related, employers should also implement robust anti-harassment policies and training for all employees (including management).

Relationship Policies

Some employers choose to implement a policy banning all romantic relationships between employees regardless of position or authority.  These policies discourage personal and romantic workplace relationships and threaten discipline against employees who violate the policy. Other employers opt for a more flexible policy, which only prohibits romantic relationships where one individual has the ability to affect the terms and conditions of the other’s employment, including but not limited to, compensation, assignments, and promotions. This latter policy is more common as it is often less intrusive and aimed at preventing favoritism or claims of sexual harassment or retaliation.

Regardless of the policy used, most employers also include a disclosure requirement, which then allows the employer to determine the best course of action forward (e.g. eliminating the reporting relationship)..

Further still, some employers, in addition to their relationship policy, have used “love contracts” that couples sign to confirm their consensual relationship status, affirm their awareness of the company’s sexual-harassment and workplace conduct policies and other expectations related to conducting themselves in the workplace, indicate that they understand the consequences if they fall short of the company’s expectations.

Employer Actions After A Relationship Disclosure

Such policies and related documents allow employees to come forward as early as possible so employers can proactively address a situation.  For example, it allows employers to remove any supervisory oversight or doubt that such a relationship is consensual, while also setting expectations with both employees about their conduct in the workplace during the relationship, and if and after the relationship ends.  As part of this expectation setting discussion, even in the absence of a reporting relationship, employers should make sure to provide a copy of its anti-harassment policy to the dating employees and have them reaffirm they will comply with its terms and conditions.  Employers should also confirm with each employee that they will immediately disclose when the relationship ends or is otherwise no longer consensual.

Anti-Harassment Policies & Training

Ultimately, and regardless of what policy an employer adopts, all employers should have a clear anti-harassment policy that, among other things, defines and clearly prohibits sexual harassment and requires all employees to report sexual harassment, including any unwanted advances or comments.

Such policies should include a complaint procedure that is readily accessible to employees and provides multiple avenues for raising complaints.  It should confirm that the company will promptly and thoroughly investigate all complaints and will not retaliate against any individual who reports or participates in an investigation of harassment (including sexual harassment).

It is crucial that employers think about responding in a fashion similar to the Celtics’ in promptly investigating and addressing alleged misconduct.  For example, the Celtics quickly engaged independent outside counsel to conduct a thorough investigation, which positioned the Celtics well to determine its appropriate next steps.  Critically, the Celtics did not appear to allow the employee’s status within the organization to interfere or impact its decision to enforce its policies and impose serious penalties.  By following the Celtics’ lead, employers can, among other things, create an environment where employees feel safe to complain and further eliminate the possibility of misconduct in the workplace, while also enhancing any legal defense in the event a lawsuit follows.

Having written policies is key, but it is equally important that employees, particularly supervisors or managers, are thoroughly trained on how to recognize potentially problematic situations, including when employees are dating, and how to respond to and further report potential policy violations.  Some jurisdictions even make training a statutory requirement.

Key Takeaways for Employers

The reality is that romantic relationships in the workplace occur and those employers that are proactive in anticipating such relationships and responding to them when they occur will be best positioned to limit potential liability.  Employers should consider taking the following actions:

• Adopting a consensual relationship policy that is best suited for the company;
• Ensure the use of a robust anti-harassment policy;
• Periodically conduct anti-harassment training; and
• Be prepared to monitor and respond upon learning of a relationship between your employees.

The post Love and Basketball … and Romantic Workplace Relationships? Key Takeaways for Employers from the Boston Celtics’ Recent Suspension of its Head Coach appeared first on The National Law Forum.

A key aspect of trademarks has been at the forefront of both fiction and real-life sports news over the past few weeks: what makes a name a name and who can use a name as a trademark? While trademarks are commercial rights, trademark law also protects a person’s right to control their own identity, including well-known pseudonyms and nicknames.

Marvel’s She-Hulk: Attorney-at-Law is, like most TV shows about lawyers, often cavalier with how it represents the law, but when the question of the protagonist’s rights in her nom de guerre came up, it was more accurate than most courtroom dramas. Jen Walters (the civilian identity of the titular She-Hulk) discovers a “super-influencer” has launched a line of cosmetics under the SHE-HULK brand and based on that use, is claiming trademark rights in SHE-HULK, going so far as to sue Jen Walters for her use of the name She-Hulk. While much of the terminology is mangled, the show’s hearing on the issue reaches points that are relevant in the real world. First, does “She-Hulk” identify a living person? And second, would another’s use of SHE-HULK be “likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association” (as set forth in 15 U.S. Code § 1125) of that user and the person known to the public as SHE-HULK? It being a superhero show, Jen Walters ultimately vindicates her rights to the She-Hulk name and SHE-HULK Mark.

Circumstances in the real world are rarely as cut-and-dried. In a proceeding before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, NBA player Luka Doncic is attempting to reclaim the trademark rights in his own name from his ex-manager, his mother. Doncic, born in 1999, was a basketball star from his early teens. During his meteoric rise in European basketball, his mother, with his consent at the time, registered a design trademark (consisting mainly of his name) for goods and services including soaps, recorded basketball games, apparel, sports equipment, and promotional and educational services, starting with an application in the European Union in 2015 (when Doncic was 16) and filing in the U.S. in 2018 (when he was 19).

Doncic, as stated in his petition to cancel that U.S. Registration, has since withdrawn his consent to his mother’s use and registration of his name as a trademark. Instead, he has, through his own company, Luka99, Inc., applied to register a few marks including his own name, which have been refused registration because of the existing registration owned by his mother. To clear the way for his own registrations, he is seeking to cancel hers on the basis that (as in the fictional example above) her use or registration is likely to make consumers believe the goods and services offered with her authorization are associated with or endorsed by him, and because he has withdrawn his consent, her registrations are no longer permitted to remain on the register.

As Doncic was a minor when he gave consent, he has a good chance of regaining control of his name. Not everyone is so lucky, so you should be especially careful when entering any agreement that allows someone to use your name as a trademark.

The post Names and Brand Names appeared first on The National Law Forum.

Adrian Wojnarowski and Zach Lowe dropped, what is known as a Woj Bomb, last week as they announced that the NBA is in high level discussions with the NBPA (the National Basketball Players Association) and broadcasting partners concerning “sweeping and dramatic changes to the league calendar that include a reseeding of the four conference finalists, a 30 team in-season tournament, and a postseason play-in”.

Reasons for change

There are a number of reasons why the NBA may consider changing the league format.

A culture of ‘load management’ has emerged in the league, which involves players opting to rest for certain matches, especially where teams play back-to-back games. Players are resting in the regular season so that they are fresh and healthy for the playoffs. The intense regular season takes its toll on players with a commitment of 82 games between October and April coupled with the demands of travel across North America.

TV viewing figures have dropped this season – broadcast audiences have declined by 18% compared to this point last season.

The Western Conference is also “stacked” when compared to the Eastern Conference. Teams in the West are perceived to have a large number of title contenders whereas the East is considered to have very few title contenders. The current format splits the 30 NBA teams into two conferences of 15 teams: East and West. At the end of the regular season, the top eight teams in each Conference qualify for the playoffs, where they compete against other teams within their Conference. The winners of the respective Conference playoffs meet in the NBA Finals. There is growing pressure on the NBA to change this format so the 16 best teams across the NBA compete in the playoffs, potentially skewing the playoffs so that more Western Conference teams qualify.

Proposed changes

 The proposed changes include:

• shortening the regular season from 82 games to 78 games;

• an in-season tournament;

• play-in games for the playoffs; and

• re-seeding the final four.

In-season tournament: the NBA is separated into a number of divisions based on location. Teams will play a round-robin schedule against teams within their division and the top three teams from each division will advance to the quarterfinals. Reports indicate this may take place in December, possibly in Las Vegas. The NBA could incentivise teams to compete in this additional tournament by giving better draft odds to the winner or by counting victories in the tournament towards a team’s regular season record. Whilst this may encourage teams to compete seriously in the tournament, it may not encourage the players. James Harden and PJ Tucker, of the Houston Rockets, criticised the tournament with Tucker stating, “you fight for an NBA championship. I don’t want to play for anything else.” Additional financial incentives for players may be required.

Play-in games for the playoffs: this proposal involves two four-team tournaments featuring the seventh, eighth, ninth and 10^th seeds in each Conference who would compete for the last two playoff spots available in each Conference.

Re-seeding the final four: this would involve re-seeding the top four teams left in the playoffs at the point they reach the Conference finals. The top seeded team would play against the lowest seeded team of the final four, regardless of Conference, whilst the teams with the second and third best records in the regular season would compete against one another. So the NBA Finals could include two teams from one Conference. This would appear to be an avenue to ensure the two best teams compete in the NBA Finals.

Implementing the changes

The NBA intends to implement these changes for the 2021-22 season, which will mark the NBA’s 75^th anniversary. These changes will require approval from the Board of Governors and amendments to the current Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between the league and the players. The CBA is due to run until the 2023-24 season, with an opt-out provision in its final year. Amending the CBA will pose a difficult challenge for the NBA, requiring significant negotiation with the NBPA (which represents the players’ interests). The CBA sets out numerous rules that govern the format and mechanics of the regular season and the revenue split between the league and its players, amongst other things. Its renegotiation is crucial in order to process and validate the proposed changes.

However, amending the existing CBA will present a number of challenges. The CBA is a mutual agreement, which requires compromise from both sides of the table. The NBPA will ensure that any changes to the league format confer certain rights and benefits on its players and that such changes are not detrimental to the interests of NBA athletes.

The NBA will also need to negotiate existing arrangements it has with sponsors and broadcasting partners. The changes present sponsorship and revenue-generating opportunities for the league. Although regular season games are likely to decrease in number (which will need to be reflected in existing agreements with broadcasters and partners), the introduction of an in-season tournament will likely generate interest from current and new fans. Similarly, the play-in games to secure the seventh and eighth playoff spots in each Conference should create an extra buzz at the end of the regular season.

Comment

Under Adam Silver’s stewardship, the NBA has progressed year on year financially and in terms of popularity across the world. Silver is certainly not resting on his laurels and the proposed innovations should be welcomed but there are significant logistical hurdles to overcome before they are implemented.

The post A Slam-Dunk? Sweeping and Dramatic Changes may be Coming to the NBA appeared first on The National Law Forum.

The NBA commenced its new season on 22 October with the battle for Los Angeles, as Kawhi’s Clippers edged the Lakers this time. But, less than three weeks into the new season, attention has turned to off-the-court matters; three NBA players who were active on rosters last season have been suspended for testing positive for banned substances.

Wilson Chandler of the Brooklyn Nets tested positive for Ipamorelin, a growth hormone during the summer. The number 1 pick of last year’s draft, DeAndre Ayton tested positive for a diuretic whilst the Atlanta Hawks’ John Collins tested positive for Growth Hormone Releasing Peptide-2, a synthetic drug found to increase appetite and food intake.

The three players have been suspended without pay for 25 games for violations of the NBA/National Basketball’s Player Association (NBPA) Anti-Drug Program.

The terms governing the Anti-Drug Program are set out in the NBA’s Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), entered into between the NBA and the NBPA. The NBPA negotiates the terms of the CBA on behalf of NBA players. The CBA regulates a wide variety of matters relevant to the operation of the NBA.

Amongst other things, the CBA governs:

• the share of “Basketball Related Income” between the players and the league;
• the team salary cap and tax structures;
• rules on player contract terms, including salaries and duration;
• free agency – the process by which out-of-contract players can engage in contract discussions with other NBA teams;
• rules on trading players; and
• the aforementioned Anti-Drug Program.

The current CBA was entered into in 2017, and is due to run until the end of the 2023-24 season. The terms of the Anti-Drug Program are set out in Article XXXIII of the current CBA. The new CBA increased penalties for positive tests for performance-enhancing drugs from 20 games to 25 games for first violations. There was also an increase in suspension periods for second violations from 45 games to 55 games. A third positive test continues to result in the player’s expulsion from the league.

Section 9 of the Anti-Drug Program provides that players who have been found to have taken performance-enhancing drugs may have penalties reduced or rescinded through arbitration. Section 19 provides a defence if the player can present:

clear and convincing evidence that he bears no significant fault or negligence for the presence of the drugs in his test result.

This means the player must not have known or suspected, and could not have reasonably known or suspected, that he was taking, ingesting, applying or using the banned substance. Further, the player must establish how the substance entered his system. This is a high evidential bar to meet.

Nevertheless, Ayton is appealing the findings. Diuretics can be used to help the body remove evidence of other banned substances. Ayton’s follow-up tests revealed no traces of other banned substances. The NBPA is preparing to take the case to arbitration, invoking the section 19 ‘unintentional ingestion’ defence, to appeal the decision. Collins intends to appeal the test results on the same basis, claiming that the offending substance derived from a supplement that “unbeknownst to me, had been contaminated with an illegal component”.

An impartial arbitrator will now review the arguments raised by the players and sustain, reduce or rescind the suspensions.

Performance-enhancing drug suspensions are relatively rare in the NBA. ESPN analyst Bobby Marks described the recent spate of suspensions as “unprecedented”. It will be interesting to see how the arbitration proceedings unfold and whether the penalties are changed.

The post Three NBA Players Suspended for Drug Violations appeared first on The National Law Forum.

The NBA has announced that it will introduce a new rule in the upcoming NBA summer leagues. If successful, the rule could be implemented next season in the NBA. The NBA anticipates “the rule will be in effect in the NBA next season as a one-year pilot program”.

The rule provides for a new “coach’s challenge” during a game. Coaches will be entitled to one challenge per game. Once used, even if successful, the coach has used their challenge for the entire game. The challenge may be used for called fouls, goal-tending, basket interference and instances where the ball is out of bounds. The challenge cannot be used where referees have missed calls.

To use a challenge, coaches must have a timeout remaining. This means that coaches may start to retain a timeout tactically in particularly important games in order to be able to use their challenge, especially in the dying seconds of a close contest. However, only challenges for personal fouls are permitted in the last two minutes of the fourth quarter or the last two minutes of overtime. To use the challenge, the head coach will call a timeout and indicate they are challenging the call. If successful, the team retains their timeout. If not, the timeout is used.

The NBA’s sister league, the G League, has implemented this rule for the past two seasons. In its first season, there were 232 challenges of which 75 original calls were overturned, representing a 32.3% success rate. The following season saw 81 successful challenges from 249 challenges, representing a similar success rate of 32.5%.

The League anticipates that the challenge rule will be rolled out next season on a trial basis and reviewed at the end of the season. For the rule to be implemented, two-thirds of the League’s teams must vote in its favour during a formal vote expected to take place this summer. If the vote goes ahead, it is likely to succeed. Coaches are generally in favour of the rule as it provides another tool for them to use in-game. Coaches gain greater powers of intervention whilst more decisions are ultimately correct due to incorrect calls being overturned. It could also ease tensions between referees and players. Sports Shorts recently addressed the heightening tensions between NBA players and match officials during the Playoffs this season.

The post Another Tool for NBA Coaches appeared first on The National Law Forum.

Williamson has filed suit against the Florida-based company and its president, Gina Ford, to have the marketing contract he signed with Prime Sports declared null and void. After signing a five-year agreement with Prime Sports and an accompanying letter of authorization reaffirming his desire to have Gina Ford begin representing him as his Global Marketing Agent, Williamson changed his mind.

Williamson alleges the agreement was entered into in violation of North Carolina’s Uniform Athlete Agent Act (UAAA) and should be declared void.

In his complaint, Williamson alleges that Prime Sports and Gina Ford violated the specific provisions of the North Carolina law that forbids a person from acting as an agent in the state unless that person has previously registered with the North Carolina Secretary of State’s office. The law applies to any agency contract, including employment agreements and marketing agreements.

In addition, the law mandates any agent to follow a series of procedural requirements to protect student-athletes from unknowingly forfeiting their remaining NCAA eligibility. Any contract between a registered agent and a student-athlete must contain a specific, capitalized notice in boldface print cautioning the athlete of the rights he will be giving up by entering into the contract. Among the many required notices, the contract must state the following:

WARNING TO THE STUDENT-ATHLETE IF YOU SIGN THIS CONTRACT

• YOU SHALL LOSE YOUR ELIGIBILITY TO COMPETE AS A STUDENT-ATHLETE IN YOUR SPORT;
• YOU MAY CANCEL THIS CONTRACT WITHIN 14 DAYS AFTER SIGNING IT. CANCELLATION OF THIS CONTRACT SHALL NOT REINSTATE YOUR ELIGIBILITY.

The agreement Williamson signed with Prime Sports did not contain any of these required notices mandated by the North Carolina law.

Of particular significance will be a judicial determination as to whether Williamson remained a student-athlete when he signed the agreement with Prime Sports and still protected by the North Carolina law. Williamson declared himself eligible to be drafted by an NBA team on April 15, arguably ending his status as an NCAA-eligible athlete. He signed the agreement with Prime Sports on April 20, when he had arguably given up his amateur status and was no longer protected by the state law. While a student-athlete’s declaration for the draft was irreversible at one time, current NCAA bylaws allow a student-athlete to “test the waters” regarding potentially becoming draft-eligible and withdraw his name from consideration as late as May 29 without risking the loss of any remaining eligibility. Here, Williamson lost the option to exercise his rights pursuant to NCAA bylaws and return to Duke University when he signed the contract with Prime Sports.

As the federal court considers Williamson’s complaint and the anticipated defenses and potential counterclaims to be asserted by Prime Sports (which has alleged the potential for $100 million in damages in a pre-complaint letter to Williamson’s attorney), the significance of Gina Ford’s failure to register as an agent with the State of North Carolina before her initial meeting with Williamson could be of crucial importance in determining the enforceability of the agreement between Williamson and Prime Sports.

The post Agents Beware: Representation Agreement May Not Be Enforceable If It Violates State Sports Agent Laws appeared first on The National Law Forum.

With the 2017-18 National Football League (NFL) regular season and National Basketball Association (NBA) pre-season underway, many spectators are excited to don their favorite players’ jerseys and cheer on their teams. Yet in recent years, many fans also find themselves equally entrenched in controversial debates that have little to do with who wins or loses the game.

Rather, these dialogues relate to the frequent media coverage over the alleged “blacklisting” of former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick after he took a knee during the national anthem last season to protest police brutality against minorities, related demonstrations held in front of the NFL’s corporate offices, and actions of solidarity on football fields across the country by athletes like Marshawn Lynch and members of the Cleveland Browns virally trending with the hashtag #ImWithKap. Most recently ESPN sports host, Jemele Hill, drew the attention of the White House and placed her own employment in the cross-hairs by stating in a series of tweets that President “Donald Trump is a white supremacist who has largely surrounded himself w/ other white supremacists” and is “unqualified and unfit to president.” and in In response, the White House press secretary called Hill’s statements a “fireable offense.”

As athletes and other public figures use their careers to bring awareness to social movements and other world events such as the Charlottesville tragedy, the implications of social movements on employee relations remains a hot topic that poses challenging issues for employers related to diversity, inclusion, and free speech. Here are a few of those related topics and some practical suggestions of ways employers can address these issues in the workplace:

Does the First Amendment Apply to Athletes or Employees Generally?

People often mention their First Amendment guarantees without understanding that this right is not without certain limitations, especially in the employment context. Specifically, while this protection covers federal, state, and local government employees, courts have held that First Amendment protections do not generally extend to the employees of private-sector employers.

Does Social Media Change Things?

As evidenced by legendary athletes Dale Earnhardt Jr.’s and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar’s Twitter posts in response to the Charlottesville tragedy, many athletes and employees use social media to vocalize their positions on social issues. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has taken on cases where employers have fired or taken disciplinary actions against employees who have engaged in certain protected speech via various social media platforms. On the agency’s website, the NLRB states: “The National Labor Relations Act protects the rights of employees to act together to address conditions at work…. [t]his protection extends to certain work-related conversations conducted on social media”.

This raises the question: Can an employee be disciplined for making racially- or politically- charged speech via social media?

The standard that the NLRB considers is whether the employee is engaging in “protected concerted activity” involving the terms and conditions of employment. Courts have used a multi-factor assessment to determine whether discipline or discharge violates Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA, which evaluates whether:

1. the activity in which the employee was engaged was “concerted” within the meaning of Section 7 of the NLRA;
2. the employer knew of the concerted nature of the employee’s activity;
3. the concerted activity was protected by the NLRA; and
4. the discipline or discharge was motivated by the employee’s protected, concerted activity.

If the employer alleges that an employee engaged in misconduct during otherwise protected activity, the NLRB generally considers four factors in determining whether speech is protected:

1. the place of the discussion;
2. the subject matter of the discussion;
3. the nature of the employee’s outburst; and
4. whether the outburst was, in any way, provoked by an employer’s unfair labor practice

In many instances, purely individual speech about a social or political topic that in no way involves an employee’s work conditions will not be protected by the NLRA. Because of the fact-specific nature of the inquiry, a determination must be made on a case-by-case basis.

So What Now?

Even employers not covered under the First Amendment and NLRA’s protections are finding themselves examining some weighty questions. For example:

• Although there may be legally sanctioned limitations to free speech in the workplace, does the modern day work culture require employers to facilitate an employment experience that goes beyond what the law requires?
• Are employers tasked with creating a workplace that is inclusive but also allows people to express unique (and sometimes controversial) viewpoints on social or political issues?
• If so, how does this work and does it ultimately help the business to thrive long term?

Last year the NBA and the NBA’s Players Association (NBAPA) appeared to have answered this question in the affirmative and implemented this approach with its players. Despite having player agreements with language that can, in some cases, regulate players’ conduct, NBA athletes have expressed their positions on social issues both on and off the court.  For example, during pre-game warm ups LeBron James wore a t-shirt stating “I Can’t Breathe,” bringing awareness to the death of Eric Garner. Similarly, Carmelo Anthony and Dwyane Wade made a social action appeal during the 2016 ESPY awards.

Many players have been so outspoken that last year NBA Commissioner Adam Silver and NBPA Executive Director Michele Roberts penned a letter noting that both organizations were addressing the best ways they could move forward in “developing substantive ways . . . to come together and take meaningful action.” The letter noted that, in recent weeks, many teams had reached out to the organizations to figure out how they could “create positive change” and garner support with team efforts.

Employers may want to take note of the ways that the NBA and the NBAPA are attempting to address this topic. Additionally, employers may also want to review the following considerations.

Be Aware of Blacklisting Laws

Many states have blacklisting laws that, generally, prohibit employers from limiting former employees’ opportunities. The following are a handful of state laws regulating blacklisting:

• North Carolina law prohibits employers from preventing or attempting to prevent any “discharged employee from obtaining employment with any other person, company, or corporation” whether by verbal or written action.
• The California Labor Code also prohibits any person from preventing or attempting “to prevent the former employee from obtaining employment” by misrepresentation and punishes any manager or employee who knowingly “fails to take all reasonable steps to prevent” such action.
• Indiana law makes it illegal for an employer to prevent a “discharged employee from obtaining employment with any other person” or employer.
• Florida law makes it illegal for two or more people to “agree, conspire, combine or confederate together for the purpose of preventing any person from procuring work . . .  or to cause the discharge of any person.” The law also prohibits verbal, written, or printed communication that “threaten[s] any injury to life, property or business of any person for the purpose of procuring the discharge of any worker . . . or to prevent any person from procuring work”.
• New York Labor Law says it is an unfair labor practice “[t]o prepare, maintain, distribute or circulate any blacklist of individuals for the purpose of preventing any of such individuals from obtaining or retaining employment because of the exercise by such individuals of any of the rights guaranteed by section seven hundred three,” which discusses the right to join a labor organization or to bargain collectively.
• Arizona law explicitly defines the term “blacklist” as “any understanding or agreement whereby the names of any person or persons, list of names, descriptions or other means of identification shall be spoken, written, printed or implied for the purpose of being communicated or transmitted between two or more employers of labor, or their bosses, foremen, superintendents, managers, officers or other agents, whereby the laborer is prevented or prohibited from engaging in a useful occupation. Any understanding or agreement between employers, or their bosses, foremen, superintendents, managers, officers or other agents, whether written or verbal, comes within the meaning of this section and it makes no difference whether the employers, or their bosses, foremen, superintendents, managers, officers or other agents, act individually or for some company, corporation, syndicate, partnership or society and it makes no difference whether they are employed or acting as agents for the same or different companies, corporations, syndicates, partnerships or societies.”

Be Proactive

Do not wait for your company to become the next trending hashtag on social media as a result of a workplace controversy! Instead, be prepared and take proactive measures in the event employees take a stand on controversial issues. Some options are to proactively address and be sensitive to diversity issues, and to recognize and understand the benefits of workforce diversity both as a source of varied ideas and a competitive advantage. Employers may also want to consider hiring a Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer or diversity and inclusion team responsible for addressing equity issues.

Be Current

Consider reviewing your employee handbooks, in addition to contracts you might have with individual employees (or athletes) and third parties to ensure your company’s policies regarding diversity and inclusion, nondiscrimination and harassment, and professional development are up to date. Employers may also want to consider evaluating successes and areas for growth in the following areas:

• the recruitment, hiring, promotion, and advancement of diverse employees;
• the availability of alternative work schedules for working parents;
• the evaluation of salaries and compensation levels of all employees in terms of current pay equity principles; and
• the stemming attrition rates of diverse employees.

Finally, employers may want to examine records to determine whether all employees, especially management employees, have participated in appropriate diversity and inclusion trainings, particularly on implicit or unconscious bias.

Be Careful

Employer-created bans on any socially- or politically-related speech rarely if ever actually work and may create exposure to liability under the First Amendment, the NLRA, or state-specific laws. Rather than imposing an outright ban on certain conduct, employers may want to slow down and engage in careful thought at the outset prior to taking any action on behalf of the organization. Employers may also find it beneficial to acknowledge that what happens in the world impacts the workplace. Accordingly, employers may want to develop affinity or employee resource groups, and/or maintain a diversity committee that facilitates well-thought-out inclusion initiatives. With many issues at play from reducing the risk of unlawful discrimination charges to preventing social media reputational harm, planning ahead may help to avoid potential risks.

The post Athletes and Employees Speak Out: Do Your Employment Practices Drop the Ball in Addressing Diversity, Controversial Speech, or Tensions at Work? appeared first on The National Law Forum.