Workplace Archives - The National Law Forum

It’s Election Time: Time Off to Vote, Political Activities, and Political Speech in the Workplace

With Election Day quickly approaching, it is the right time for employers to refresh themselves on the various protections that may exist for their employees when it comes to voting and other political activities. Below is an overview of employees’ rights related to voting and other political activities leave, as well as protections for political speech and activity both in and outside the workplace.

Voting Leave Laws

Approximately thirty states require that employers provide their employees with some form of time off to vote. Twenty-one of these states require that the leave be paid. The exact contours of these laws – such as the amount of leave, notice requirements, and whether there is an exception when the employee has sufficient time outside of working hours to vote – vary by state. For example:

In New York, employers must provide leave to employees who do not have sufficient time outside of working hours to vote. An employee is deemed to have sufficient time to vote if the polls are open for four consecutive hours before or after the employee’s shift. Employees who do not have such a four-hour window are eligible to take the amount of leave that will – when added to their voting time outside working hours – enable them to vote, up to two hours of which must be without loss of pay. Employees may take time off for voting only at the beginning or end of their shift, as designated by the employer, unless otherwise mutually agreed to between the employee and employer. Employees are required to notify their employer that working time off to vote is needed between two and ten working days before the election.
Similarly, in California, employees are entitled to sufficient time off to vote, up to two hours of which must be paid. Unless the employer and employee agree otherwise, the employee must take the leave at the beginning or end of the employee’s shift, whichever allows the most time to vote and the least time off from work. Employees are required to provide notice that time off to vote is needed at least two working days before the election.
In the Washington, D.C., employees are entitled to up to two hours of paid leave to vote in either an election held in D.C. if the employee is eligible to vote in D.C., or in an election held in the jurisdiction in which the employee is eligible to vote. Employees must submit requests for leave a reasonable time in advance of the election date. Employers may specify the hours during which employees may take leave to vote, including requiring employees to vote during the early voting period or vote at the beginning or end of their shift during early voting or election day.
In Illinois, employers must provide two hours of paid voting leave to employees whose shifts begin less than two hours after the opening of the polls and end less than two hours before the closing of the polls. Employees must provide notice of the need for leave before the day of the election.
In Maryland, employees are entitled to up to two hours of paid voting leave, unless the employee has at least two non-working hours to vote while the polls are open. Employees must furnish proof to their employers that they either voted or attempted to vote, which can be in the form of a receipt issued by the State Board of Elections.

Certain states, includingNew York, California, and Washington, D.C., require that employers post a notice of an employee’s right to take leave in a conspicuous location before the election. Sample notices have been published by the New York State Board of Elections, the California Secretary of State, and D.C. Board of Elections.

Other Political Leave Laws

Some states require that employers provide leave for political-related reasons beyond just voting. For example:

Alabama, Delaware, Illinois, Kentucky, Nebraska, Ohio, Virginia, and Wisconsin require that certain employers provide unpaid leave for employees to serve as election judges or officials on Election Day. In Minnesota, employees are entitled to paid leave for this reason; however, employers may reduce an employee’s salary or wages by the amount the employee receives as compensation for their service as an election judge.
Minnesota and Texas require that certain employers provide employees with unpaid leave to attend party conventions and/or party committee meetings.
Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Nevada, Oregon, South Dakota, and Vermont require that certain employers provide employees with an unpaid leave of absence to serve as elected members of state government. In Iowa, employees are also entitled to leave to serve in a municipal, county, or federal office.
In Vermont, employees may take unpaid leave to vote in annual town hall meetings.

Some of these laws only apply to larger employers. For example, in Nevada, employers with at least fifty employees are required to provide leave for employees to serve as members of the state legislature. State laws also vary with respect to the amount of notice that employees must provide to their employers in order to be eligible for leave.

Political Speech in the Workplace

In our current political climate, many employers are concerned with what steps they can take regarding political speech and activity in the workplace. When these discussions or activities occur during working hours, they have the potential to negatively impact performance, productivity, or even possibly cross the line into bullying or unlawful harassment.

When employees publicly attend political rallies or support causes on social media, they may also (intentionally or not) create an actual, or perceived, conflict of interest with their employer. The complicated question of what exactly employers can do around employee political speech and activity is governed by various sources of law, some of which is discussed below.

Additionally, for employers with designated tax statuses, certain political speech can give pose risk to an organization’s tax-exempt status. Many tax exempt-organizations are subject to significant restrictions on lobbying and political activities. For example, 501I(3) organizations risk losing their tax-exempt status if they engage in political campaign activities or if a substantial part of its activities involves lobbying. Speech by an employee that constitutes political campaign or lobbying activity risks being attributed to an organization if an employee’s speech is seen as representative of the organization and being ratified by the organization. For example, if an employee urges their social media followers to contact their state representative about proposed legislation, this risks carrying the inference that the employee was speaking on behalf of the organization.

Employee “Free Speech”

There is no general right to “free speech” in a private sector workplace. Because the U.S. Constitution is primarily concerned with state actors, the First Amendment does not prevent private employers from prohibiting or restricting political speech in the workplace. Therefore, subject to certain exceptions discussed below, private sector employers are generally able to enact prohibitions around discussing politics at work and discipline employees for violating such policies.

However, as noted, an employer’s ability to restrain political speech in the workplace comes with some restrictions. At the federal level, Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”), which applies to both unionized and non-union employees, protects certain “concerted activities” of employees for the purposes of “mutual aid or protection.” Political speech or activity that is unrelated to employment, such as an employee distributing pamphlets generally encouraging co-workers to vote for a candidate or support a political party, would not likely be covered or protected by the NLRA. The NLRA therefore does not universally prevent employers from prohibiting political discussions or activities in the workplace.

However, political speech may be protected by the NLRA when it relates to the terms or conditions of employment, such as communicating about wages, hours, workplace safety, company culture, leaves, and working conditions. Therefore, an employee encouraging co-workers to vote for a candidate because the candidate supports an increase in the minimum wage might claim to come under the protection of the NLRA.

State laws may also place certain limitations on employer attempts to restrict employee political speech. For example, Connecticut law prohibits employers from taking adverse action against employees for exercising their First Amendment rights, provided that such activity does not interfere with the employee’s job performance or the employment relationship.

Lawful Outside Activity/Off-Duty Conduct

Many states have laws that prohibit adverse action against employees based on lawful activities outside the workplace, which may include political activities. For example:

In approximately a dozen states, employers are prohibited from preventing employees from participating in politics or becoming candidates for public office. New York Labor Law § 201-d prohibits employers from discharging or otherwise discriminating against employees because of their “political activities outside of working hours, off of the employer’s premises and without use of the employer’s equipment or other property, if such activities are legal.” Political activities include (1) running for public office, (2) campaigning for a candidate for public office, or (3) participating in fund-raising activities for the benefit of a candidate, political party, or political advocacy group. Similar laws exist in California, Louisiana, and Minnesota, among other states.
Other states – including Delaware, Florida, Massachusetts, and New Jersey– prohibit employers from attempting to influence an employee’s vote in an election. In Florida, “[i]t is unlawful for any person … to discharge or threaten to discharge any employee … for voting or not voting in any election, state, county, or municipal, for any candidate or measure submitted to a vote of the people.” A dozen or so states approach this issue in a more limited fashion by prohibiting employers from attaching political messages to pay envelopes.
At least two states, Illinois and Michigan, prohibit employers from keeping a record of employee’s associations, political activities, publications, or communications without written consent.
Washington, D.C. prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of political affiliation. Despite its seemingly broad scope, this statute has been interpreted to only protect political party membership and not (1) membership in a political group, or (2) other political activities, such as signing a petition.

These laws vary considerably from state to state, so it is important for employers to consult the laws when considering policies or rules around employee political activity.

* * *

As the election approaches and early voting takes place, employers should review the applicable laws for each jurisdiction in which they operate and ensure that their policies and practices are compliant. Employers should also ensure that managers are well versed in the employer’s policies around voting and political speech and activities so that they can properly respond as situations arise.

The Spooky Consequences of Halloween Celebrations in the Workplace

There is no greater Halloween horror for employers than a workplace celebration that creates legal risks such as inappropriate costumes or safety hazards, among other issues. Thus, there are many considerations when planning an office celebration for this spooky holiday. If you are a manufacturer hosting an office Halloween party, consider following these three tricks to make the best out of your workplace treat.

1. Provide Guidance on Expectations

First and foremost, manufacturers should be transparent about expectations surrounding employee participation including costumes. With regard to costumes, when crafting guidance, manufacturers should consider both civility as well as safety, especially if the employees will be permitted to wear their costumes during the workday. For example, employees should understand what costumes or outfits do and do not meet manufacturing floor safety guidelines. Employees should also be expressly reminded that costumes must conform to all employer policies including anti-harassment, discrimination and respect policies and that costumes, outfits or accessories that violate such policies will not be tolerated.

This election year in particular, some employees may don political costumes. The free speech rights under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution do not apply to employees working for private manufacturers. Thus, private manufacturers can generally establish rules that, for example, prohibit costumes that support (or criticize) a political candidate or party. That said, manufacturers should be aware that several states have laws regulating when employers can lawfully discipline employees for political activity; further, there are state and federal laws that may be implicated with regard to employees expressing political views. If manufacturers are considering disciplining an employee for a political costume, they should first consult with legal counsel.

2. Prioritize Safety

There are more safety hazards at workplace Halloween parties than the cavity causing candy. This is especially true if the celebration is being held on the manufacturer’s shop floor. Manufacturers should ensure that all of the decorations in the workplace comply with the fire and safety codes set forth by local governments and by OSHA. Manufacturers should also avoid activities that inherently involve risks and could result in workplace injuries, such as pumpkin carving contests.

Lastly, manufacturers should carefully consider whether to serve alcohol. If the celebration is being held on the shop floor, it is highly recommended that alcohol is not served, especially if heavy machinery is accessible. For celebrations held elsewhere, manufactures should consider taking steps to ensure alcohol is consumed in moderation and is not central to the party, and follow best practices for serving alcohol; when considering tips for limiting alcohol consumption or its impact on employees, employers should consider only serving beer and wine, serving a meal (as compared to light appetizers), limiting the amount of alcohol served by, for example, using a drink ticket system, using bartenders to serve alcohol, serving non-alcoholic options; among other practices. In some circumstances, manufacturers may be legally responsible for the conduct of their intoxicated employees.

3. Make it Optional

Workplace celebrations are a great way to boost employee morale and help foster employee relationships. That said, these celebrations should generally be optional. Manufacturers should keep in mind that employees may not want to attend a Halloween party for various reasons, including, for example, their religious practices and beliefs; therefore, ensuring that the party is optional may support all employees including those that do and do not celebrate Halloween.

If attendance is mandatory, there may be implications from a workers’ compensation perspective if there are any injuries or illnesses. Further, manufacturers should pay the employees for their time pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and applicable state laws regardless of whether the celebration was held outside of normal working-hours. Requiring non-exempt employees to attend unpaid celebrations can expose the manufacturer to wage and hour claims in the future.

by: Abby M. Warren, Madison C. Picard of Robinson & Cole LLP

For more news on Workplace Halloween Party Considerations, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.

(Employee) Therapy Anyone?

The recent WSJ article about employer-provided in-office therapy sessions raises some good points about destigmatizing mental health in the workplace and promoting overall wellness generally. But the article also reminds us about the risks of blurring lines between an employee’s personal and professional life and the potential dangers inherent in the spillover of confidential (personal, medical, and other information) in the workplace. I have written previously about the beneficial role performance evaluations may have as “talk therapy” in an employee’s career based upon the learning that comes with balanced feedback. But it seems to me that true talk therapy – undertaken by a licensed and trained professional in an appropriate diagnostic setting – does not belong in the workplace.

The article features an employer who provides an annual benefit of a dozen free on-site therapy sessions to its employees. While it is commendable to care about the whole employee, providing on-site therapy touches upon a few somewhat sensitive employment topics. The first concerns confidentiality of health information, which includes an employee’s decision to seek (or even not seek) medical treatment. The employer in the article was reported to have taken steps to provide a separate location for the therapy sessions so employees did not encounter each other during on-site therapy visits, as well as other privacy preservation measures. But the simple fact is that confidentiality is hard to guarantee for on-site employment activities. And even though GenX employees (and the generation of workers who follow them) do think differently about mental health and wellness than the generations preceding them, there is a real risk that an employee’s use of this benefit will become the topic of what used to be known as water cooler – now Slack – talk.

The other employment risk on-site therapy poses is the potential use of information that is disclosed during a therapy session. Ethical, licensing and medical rules govern what a therapist must and must not do with information learned about a patient, but what about information the therapist learns about an employer? This is particularly a concern if the information source and content is confirmed by several different employees and might be information that merits action (such as information suggesting that a manager is engaging in harassing or other actionable or illegal conduct). There is a reason employers follow guidelines when reports or complaints are made concerning such conduct. It is unclear how those guidelines should be followed if the contents of a therapy session are supposed to remain confidential, for good legal, therapeutic and ethical reasons.

It seems to me a far better approach for employers wishing to explore this benefit is to provide employees with a set amount of money (perhaps as part of a tax-advantaged benefit plan ) that the employee is encouraged to use at the employee’s discretion as part of well-being program designed to support all aspects of health (mental, physical and even financial fitness). That way therapy can be encouraged and supported, but kept separate in all other respects from the workplace. Therapy for all may be an excellent idea, but conducting it outside the confines of the workplace seems like a better one.

For more news on Employer Provided Therapy, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.

Employment Tip of the Month – February 2024

Q: Can my company treat employees adversely because of their personal political beliefs? If they wear a shirt of their favorite candidate? Or proselytize about their candidate?

A: The short answer: There exists no “First Amendment Right to freedom of expression” in a private workplace, and that extends to political expression. See Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, 139 S.Ct. 1921 (2019) (Only “State actors subject to First Amendment constraints.”)

So, yes, legally a private employer can refuse to hire Democrats or Republicans, and can fire an employee for wearing a shirt of their candidate or vocalizing a particular political position.

On the other hand, other laws can apply, such as the right to “concerted action” under the National Labor Relations Act. Overt adverse action also could be ripe for allegations of selective enforcement, such as “you only selectively enforce this rule against me because I am ___________”, where Title VII covers race, sex, religion, color and national origin; ADA covers disability; ADEA age, etc. Some political positions could easily bleed over into religious beliefs.

Even if legally permissible for a private employer to discriminate against holders of one particular political belief, from a practical management perspective, it cannot be recommended, and would be loaded with risk. Also, it could simply make for bad optics and make it harder to attract and retain the best talent.

Finally, this answer changes entirely for public employers and government employers, where employees do possess First Amendment rights, so long as, in general, they are speaking (1) as a private citizen, (2) about a matter of public concern, and (3) their speech does not interfere with the job. There are exceptions for high-ranking individuals, political appointees or someone trying to release classified information, though in many instances they would still be protected from retaliation.

Reminder to Employers Regarding Mandatory Workplace Posters

As employers march through the beginning of the new year, they should ensure they are in compliance with the various mandatory workplace notice and posting requirements under applicable state and federal laws.

To that end, the U.S. Department of Labor provides a poster advisory tool for employers to reference. Similarly, most state department of labor websites will, at the very least, provide a list of required state employment posters. Many of these websites also provide links for employers to download mandatory posters for free.

For Texas employers, for example, the Texas Workforce Commission’s website contains a list of optional and required posters. In addition to federally mandated posters, private Texas employers are required to post information related to the Texas Payday law and unemployment compensation, and workers’ compensation, if the employer has workers’ compensation insurance coverage. Further, as of January 8, 2024, Texas employers must post a “Reporting Workplace Violence” notice in both English and Spanish.

Federal and state laws typically require that required posters be physically posted conspicuously at each of the employer’s facilities and/or work sites that are convenient and easily accessible to employees and, in some cases, job applicants. Because many employers have transitioned to or otherwise permitted hybrid and remote-work environments, such employers should remember that federally mandated notices may be electronically provided to remote employees, as well as displayed in the physical workspace for hybrid workforces. But, according to the U.S. Department of Labor’s guidance, electronic posting or access should be at least as effective as a physical posting, and employees should be able to access the electronic posting without having to request permission to view it. Employers should verify whether the applicable state law allows for electronic delivery or posting of mandatory notices to remote and hybrid employees. In Texas, employers should look to federal guidance regarding the same.

2024 FLSA Checklist for Employers in the Manufacturing Industry

Wage and hour issues continue to challenge most employers, especially those in the manufacturing industry. The manufacturing industry tends to be more process- and systems-oriented and generally employ many hourly workers who are not exempt from overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

It is imperative manufacturers ensure they are on the right side of legal compliance. Indeed, non-compliance can trigger audits, investigations, and litigation — all of which can be disruptive, time-consuming, and costly for manufacturers. The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), which is charged with investigating alleged violations under the FLSA, assesses hundreds of millions of dollars each year in penalties to employers.

With the new year, we offer this short (by no means exhaustive) checklist of common pay issues the manufacturing industry:

1. Donning and Doffing

The FLSA requires employers to compensate non-exempt employees for all time worked, as well as pay the minimum wage and overtime compensation. Whether pre-shift (donning) and post-shift (doffing) activities are included as compensable time is not always clear. Activities including putting on or taking off protective gear, work clothes, or equipment could be compensable time under the FLSA depending on the unique facts of the situation. At bottom, to be compensable, such activities must be found to be integral and indispensable to the “principal activity” of the employer’s work under the FLSA and the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947.

Courts differ on whether time spent donning and doffing is compensable because these issues often implicate mixed questions of law and fact. Moreover, collective bargaining agreements can affect whether time spent changing clothes and washing is compensable for the purposes of determining hours worked for minimum wage and overtime calculations under the FLSA. Employers should carefully review their policies to ensure the compensability of pre-shift or post-shift activities being performed by non-exempt employees.

2. Rounding Time

Accurately keeping up with time worked by non-exempt employees is critical to compliance with the FLSA. Further, employees forgetting to clock-in and clock-out timely is a persistent issue. While the FLSA allows employers to round employees’ clock-in and clock-out times rather than pay by the minute, it is generally unnecessary (and not recommended) with today’s sophisticated time clocking systems. If employers choose to round time, they must ensure that any rounding policy is neutral on its face and neutral in practice — that is, the policy rounds both in the favor of the employer and the employee at roughly an equal weight. For employers engaging in rounding, audits are crucial as even a facially neutral rounding policy that, in practice, has disproportionately benefited the employer and cumulatively underpays the employees can be found to violate the FLSA.

3. Meal Breaks

Under the FLSA, employers must compensate for short rest breaks that last 20 minutes or less. However, employers do not have to compensate employees for a bona fide meal break, which ordinarily lasts at least 30 minutes. Importantly, an employee must be completely relieved from work duties during this uncompensated time and cannot be interrupted by work (even for a short time). Indeed, some courts have held that, where a meal break has been interrupted by work, the entire meal break (not just the time when work was performed) becomes compensable.

To ensure compliance under these rules, employers should have policies and practices in place so that employees can take an uninterrupted meal break. Employers should also have a well-communicated reporting system in place for employees to record any interrupted meal break to ensure the employee is compensated for the meal break or, when possible, a new meal break is scheduled.

4. Regular Rate

A common and incorrect assumption many employers make is that overtime pay under the FLSA is calculated at one-and-a-half times a non-exempt employee’s hourly rate when they work more than 40 hours in a workweek. In fact, the FLSA states overtime is calculated based on the non-exempt employee’s “regular rate” of pay. The FLSA requires that all payments to employees for hours worked, services rendered, or performance be included in the “regular rate” unless the payment is specifically excluded in the law. Thus, any non-discretionary bonuses, shift differential pay, and other incentive payments such as commissions should be included in the regular rate of pay calculation for purposes of calculating overtime under the FLSA.
This is relatively easy when a bonus is paid during a week where the non-exempt employees work more than 40 hours, but it can become complicated when the additional pay is paid on a monthly or quarterly basis. In this scenario, the payment must be averaged out over that longer time period to determine the regular rate such that overtime can be properly calculated. Thus, employers should review their payment processes on the front end to ensure compliance before any small errors or omissions (quite literally) multiply out of control.

Finally, state wage laws should always be top of mind as well. Employers should work with their employment counsel to ensure compliance with all state wage requirements.

OSHA Proposes More Changes to Recordkeeping Rules

Employers across numerous industries may soon face additional recordkeeping and reporting obligations based on a new rule proposed by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

In March 2022, OSHA proposed amendment of its injury and illness tracking rule, which requires certain employers to file illness and injury data with the agency each year. The tracking rule was first implemented in 2016, and required reporting of fatalities, hospitalizations, and other serious injuries for all covered employers with 250 or more employees, and for employers with 20-249 employees in certain “high hazard industries.” The rule required most covered employers to submit their Form 300A “Summary of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses” annually. It also required certain employer establishments with 250 or more employees to submit their complete Form 300 Logs of Work-Related Injury and Illnesses, and their Form 301 Injury and Illness Incident reports annually. Finally, the rule called for creation of a public database of employer illness/injury data, including business names and illness/injury locations.

The rule generated immediate objections from the business community based on privacy concerns. Both the Form 300 Logs and the Form 301s Incident Reports contain personal employee information related to their health status. Employers worried that if OSHA required broad disclosure of these documents and created a public database based on their content, it would jeopardize employee privacy. Even though OSHA claimed it would not make personal identifying information available, employers were not confident the agency could prevent inadvertent disclosure. Also, employers saw myriad ways in which the information could be used against them that have nothing to do with worker safety.

In response to this criticism and after a change in the presidential administration, OSHA rolled back the tracking rule in 2019. The 2019 Rule rescinded the requirement for employers of 250 or more employees to electronically submit Form 300s and Form 301s, but continued to require them to submit Form 300A summaries each year. Because the summaries did not contain personal information, the modified rule alleviated employee privacy worries.

Now, OSHA is poised to revive the original tracking rule, but expand the application of the most onerous requirements to smaller establishments. On March 30, 2022, OSHA published its proposed rule in the Federal Register. If the final rule mirrors the proposed rule, it would largely restore the 2016 rule, but apply the Form 300 and 301 reporting requirements to covered establishments with 100 or more employees instead of 250 employees. Those employers covered by the new 100+ rule are limited to the industries in Appendix B of the proposed rule. The list is lengthy and includes many farming, manufacturing and packaging industry employers, healthcare employers as well as grocery, department and furniture stores.

OSHA received public comment on the proposed rule through June 30, 2022. OSHA received 83 comments from a mix of private and public entities, citizens, and industry groups. OSHA will review the comments and employers should expect the agency to issue a Final Rule by the end of the calendar year, which would become effective 30 days after publication.

If OSHA enacts its proposed rule, covered employers will face significant additional burdens. Employers must ensure that their Form 300 and 301 Forms are maintained accurately and filed in time to comply with the rule. They can expect that OSHA will scrutinize these forms and potentially use them for inspection purposes or to develop industry-specific enforcement programs. Moreover, OSHA may impose redaction burdens on employers and force them to remove personal identifying information from the forms before submission, which can be an administrative burden with potentially significant privacy implications if not followed carefully. Finally, with additional data publicly available, employers should expect enhanced media and interest group activity based on their injury and illness data. Even if personal information is not disclosed, interest groups and labor organizations will certainly seize on the available data to criticize employers or push for regulations, without consideration of the fact that employer fault cannot be determined from the data alone.

Employers should take steps now to prepare for the proposed rule and continue to ensure their safety and health programs minimize employee illness/injury risk. The new rule would greatly increase potential legislative and public relations risks associated with poor safety and health outcomes, and effective illness/injury prevention programs can help employers avoid such scrutiny before the enhanced disclosure requirements take effect.

Article By Susan F. Wiltsie and Reilly C. Moore of Hunton Andrews Kurth. Scott W. Burton also contributed to this article.

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

OSHA’s Next Steps with the Vaccine or Test Rule

On Tuesday, January 25, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) announced the withdrawal of the “Emergency Temporary Standard” (ETS) that would have required large private employers of 100 or more employees to implement a vaccine or test policy. This announcement came after the U.S. Supreme Court stayed enforcement of the ETS on January 13, 2022 pending a decision from the Sixth Circuit on the underlying proceedings challenging the ETS. The withdrawal of the ETS is effective as of January 26, 2022.

The announcement from OSHA made it clear that the withdrawal is not complete, stating:

“Although OSHA is withdrawing the Vaccination and Testing ETS as an enforceable emergency temporary standard, OSHA is not withdrawing the ETS to the extent that it serves as a proposed rule under section 6(c)(3) of the Act, and this action does not affect the ETS’s status as a proposal under section 6(b) of the Act or otherwise affect the status of the notice-and-comment rulemaking commenced by the Vaccination and Testing ETS.” OSHA’s complete withdrawal can be found here.

OSHA intends to keep the ETS as a proposed rule under OSHA’s rulemaking authority. This means that OSHA may choose to modify the previously published ETS and may rely on the Supreme Court’s opinion in doing so. OSHA may choose to implement ideas from the Supreme Court justices such as an industry or workplace-specific analysis. Additionally, OSHA is also likely to review the comments submitted during the notice and comment period for direction with respect to a potential final ETS.

While Tuesday’s announcement does not necessitate action by employers, it does leave the door open for future directives.

Article by Maureen Rouse-Ayoub, Stephanie R. Setterington, Williams J. Whalen with Varnum LLP.

For more on OSHA, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.

Protections for Employees Who Report Workplace Discrimination

While thousands of employees each year submit complaints of discrimination against their employers, many more experience workplace discrimination and do not submit a formal complaint or even report it internally. A 2016 study by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) noted that three out of four individuals who experienced harassment never spoke with a supervisor, manager, or union representative about the harassment. Other studies estimate that only one percent of people who experience workplace discrimination file a formal discrimination charge.

Types of Discrimination Charges Filed

Even with a high level of underreporting of harassment and discrimination in the workplace, the EEOC reported that workers filed 67,448 charges of workplace discrimination in fiscal year 2020.[1] The EEOC breaks down the data by the characteristics of the individual who filed the complaint. The breakdown reflects the various bases for protection under federal anti-discrimination laws, specifically disability, race, sex, age, national origin, color, religion, and genetic information. In the EEOC data from fiscal year 2020, retaliation claims made up 55.8% of all charges filed, which was the most common claim asserted. Retaliation claims are often coupled with claims of discrimination because they generally require complaints about, or opposition to, discrimination in the workplace. Because of this overlap in claims and the reality that workers may have multiple characteristics or identities that entitle them to protections, the total of the percentages of the types of claims asserted is greater than 100%.

Following retaliation claims, discrimination claims based on disability were the most common in fiscal year 2020, making up 36.1% of all workplace discrimination claims. Fiscal year 2020 may have seen an even greater increase in disability-related charges due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The EEOC continues to update its guidance periodically on the impact of COVID-19 on workplace discrimination laws related to disability. Discrimination based on race made up 32.7% of claims, and discrimination based on sex made up 31.7%.

The breakdown by category is consistent with charge filing patterns in past years. One study conducted by the Center for Employment Equity of the University of Massachusetts Amherst analyzed all discrimination charges filed with the EEOC (or a comparable state agency) from 2012 to 2016. It determined that discrimination charges based on disability and race were the most common and that disability-related claims had become more frequent than charges based on other protected categories. In an article published by staff at the Center for Employment Equity, they determined that 63% of employees who filed a complaint eventually lost their jobs.

Protections from Retaliation

The data from the EEOC and Center for Employment Equity underscores an unfortunate reality for employees who come forward to report discrimination—they face the possibility of retaliation by their employer, which, at its most extreme, results in a loss of their job. Fortunately, there are legal protections in place for employees who face retaliation for complaining about workplace discrimination.

Employees who engage in protected activity, either by participating in an investigation of workplace discrimination, complaining of workplace discrimination, or opposing discrimination in the workplace, are protected from retaliation. This means that an employer cannot take any “materially adverse action” against these employees. Such actions include anything that would deter a reasonable worker from coming forward to complain about discrimination in the workplace. This includes actions short of termination, like demotions or salary reductions. The law protects not only current employees and applicants, but also former employees and third parties who have a close relationship with the employee who experienced discrimination. Employees who face retaliation for reporting discrimination in the workplace may be entitled to monetary compensation for the harm caused by the retaliation, including back wages, reinstatement to their former position if they were terminated, compensation for emotional distress caused by the employer’s actions, and reimbursement of their attorneys’ fees and costs.

While no employee should face retaliation for reporting workplace discrimination or harassment, the data demonstrates that it is an unfortunate reality in workplaces. If you believe you have faced discrimination, harassment, or retaliation, you should contact an employment attorney to determine your options and how to proceed.

Importance of Seeking Legal Counsel

The Center for Employment Equity’s analysis highlighted another reality faced by employees who filed discrimination charges with the EEOC. Upon examining the outcome of each charge and excluding charges that were closed because of administrative reasons, it noted that monetary benefits and changes to workplace practices were relatively infrequent. In less than 20% of charges, employees received a monetary benefit. Less than 10% resulted in changes to employer practices. This data does not account for employees who made complaints of discrimination and were able to reach a resolution with their employer prior to filing a charge.

This data showing the poor outcomes from filing discrimination charges demonstrates the importance of seeking legal counsel if you believe that you have faced discrimination in the workplace. An attorney can advise you on the merits of your claim as well as the appropriate deadlines for filing a charge and lawsuit, and can advocate for you before the employer, both before and after submitting a discrimination charge. For current employees, such advocacy may help to shield you from retaliation or to exit from your employment on more favorable terms. In addition to seeking legal counsel, you can begin to take other steps to assist your case by doing the following:

Document the mistreatment you experience.
Create a detailed timeline of instances of discrimination, which will assist an attorney who may assess your potential claims.
Retain employment-related documents, like employee manuals; employment offer letters and agreements; and information concerning commission, equity, and benefits plans.
Do not record conversations without the consent of the other party and without first seeking advice from legal counsel. Each state has different recording law statutes that require all parties or at least one party to consent to recording. It is important not to violate these laws, which can carry civil and sometimes criminal liability.

This list only identifies basic steps that you can take if you believe you have experienced discrimination or harassment in the workplace. If you have faced workplace discrimination, you should consult with an employment attorney for advice on your potential claims

[1] The number of charges filed has decreased steadily in recent years, with 72,675 charges of workplace discrimination filed with the EEOC in fiscal year 2019 and 76,418 filed in 2018. There may be multiple explanations for this decrease, though this year’s decline may be in part explained by the COVID-19 pandemic, which left many employees without work for much of 2020 and required others to work remotely.

This article was written by Alia Al-Khatib of Katz, Marshall & Banks, LLP.

For more articles regarding workplace discrimination, please visit our Labor and Employment News section.

Supreme Court Will not Disturb Ruling that a False Rumor about “Sleeping Your Way to a Promotion” can be a Hostile Work Environment

The U.S. Supreme Court decided not to review an appellate court decision that held a false rumor about a woman “sleeping” her way to a promotion can give rise to a hostile work environment claim. This means that the February 2019 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Parker v. Reema Consulting Services, Inc. will stand. In Parker, the Fourth Circuit held that, where an employer participates in circulating false rumors that a female employee slept with her male boss to obtain a promotion, this constitutes Title VII gender discrimination.

Parker’s Discrimination Claim

Evangeline Parker started worked for Reema Consulting Services, Inc., (“RCSI”) at its warehouse facility as a low-level clerk. She was promoted six times, ultimately rising to Assistant Operations Manager. About two weeks after she was promoted to a manager position, she learned that some male employees were circulating “an unfounded, sexually-explicit rumor about her” that “falsely and maliciously portrayed her as having [had] a sexual relationship” with a higher-ranking manager to obtain her management position.

The rumor originated with another RCSI employee who was jealous of Parker’s achievement, and the highest-ranking manager at the warehouse facility participated in spreading the rumor. Parker’s complaint alleged that as the rumor spread, she “was treated with open resentment and disrespect” from many coworkers, including employees she was responsible for supervising.

At an all-staff meeting at which the rumor was discussed, the warehouse manager slammed the door in Parker’s face and excluded her from the meeting. The following day, the warehouse manager screamed at Parker and blamed her for “bringing the situation to the workplace.” He also stated that “he could no longer recommend her for promotions or higher-level tasks because of the rumor” and that he “would not allow her to advance any further within the company.” A few days later, the warehouse manager “lost his temper and began screaming” at Parker, and Parker then filed an internal sexual harassment complaint with RCSI Human Resources. Shortly thereafter, RCSI gave Parker two warnings and terminated her employment.

Parker brought a discrimination claim, alleging that she was subjected to a hostile work environment. The district court dismissed her claim on the grounds that 1) the harassment was not based upon gender and instead based upon false allegations of conduct by her, and 2) the conduct was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to have altered the conditions of Parker’s employment because the rumor was circulated for just a few weeks. Judge Titus found, “Clearly, this woman is entitled to the dignity of her merit-based promotion and not to have it sullied by somebody suggesting that it was because she had sexual relations with a supervisor who promoted her.” However, he continued “that is not a harassment based upon gender. It’s based upon false allegations of conduct by her. And this same type of a rumor could be made in a variety of other context[s] involving people of the same gender or different genders alleged to have had some kind of sexual activity leading to a promotion.” Ultimately, Judge Titus held that “the rumor and the spreading of that kind of a rumor is based upon conduct, not gender.

Gender-Based Rumors Can Constitute Sex Harassment

Taking into account all of the allegations of the complaint, including the sex-based nature of the rumor and its effects, the Fourth Circuit held that the rumor that Parker had sex with her male superior to obtain a promotion was gender-based in that it implied that she “used her womanhood, rather than her merit, to obtain from a man, so seduced, a promotion.” The court found that the rumor invoked “a deeply rooted perception — one that unfortunately still persists — that generally women, not men, use sex to achieve success.” This double standard precipitated by negative stereotypes regarding the relationship between the advancement of women in the workplace and their sexual behavior can cause superiors and coworkers to treat women in the workplace differently from men. Thus, the rumor about Parker sleeping her way to a promotion constituted a form of sexual harassment.

The Fourth Circuit also held that Parker sufficiently alleged severe or pervasive harassment:

[T]he harassment was continuous, preoccupying not only Parker, but also management and the employees at the Sterling facility for the entire time of Parker’s employment after her final promotion. The harassment began with the fabrication of the rumor by a jealous male workplace competitor and was then circulated by male employees. Management too contributed to the continuing circulation of the rumor. The highest-ranking manager asked another manager, who was rumored to be having the relationship with Parker, whether his wife was divorcing him because he was “f–king” Parker. The same manager called an all-staff meeting, at which the rumor was discussed, and excluded Parker. In another meeting, the manager blamed Parker for bringing the rumor into the workplace. And in yet another meeting, the manager harangued Parker about the rumor, stating he should have fired her when she began “huffing and puffing” about it.

Implications

Parker correctly recognizes that gender-based stereotypes can prevent women from advancing in the workplace and that Title VII bars employers from using negative gender stereotypes to harass employees.

ARTICLE BY Eric Bachman of Zuckerman Law.

More on workplace harassment via the National Law Review Labor & Employment law page.

Tag: Workplace

It’s Election Time: Time Off to Vote, Political Activities, and Political Speech in the Workplace

Like this: