Author: Scott Horton

Scott has been practicing Labor & Employment law in New York for almost 20 years. He has represented over 400 employers and authored 100s of articles and presentations and wrote the book New York Management Law: The Practical Guide to Employment Law for Business Owners and Managers. Nothing on this blog can be considered legal advice. If you want legal advice, you need to retain an attorney.

EEOC 2018 Sexual Harassment Charges

EEOC: 2018 Sexual Harassment Data Even Worse

On October 31, 2018, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reported final data on fiscal-year 2018 sexual harassment charges. The EEOC had issued preliminary numbers for its fiscal year ending September 30, 2018, earlier in October. The new figures show an even greater uptick in sexual harassment cases.

[Click for more on the EEOC’s preliminary 2018 sexual harassment data report.]

Final FY 2018 Sexual Harassment Statistics

The EEOC is now reporting a 13.6% increase in sexual harassment charges versus FY 2017. Based on prior-year data, this equates to approximately 7,632 sexual harassment cases filed between October 2017 and September 2018.

Initially, the EEOC reported a 12% rise in these charges.

Any meaningful increase in sexual harassment charges is notable. As shown in the chart below, there had been a consistent decline in such cases over the past decade.

EEOC Sexual Harassment Charges Chart

Ironically, the EEOC’s 2018 fiscal year began right at the beginning of the #MeToo movement. Although the statistics do not necessarily prove causation, the circumstances strongly imply a connection.

The EEOC also disclosed that hits on its sexual harassment webpage doubled over the past year.

EEOC Calls for “Holistic Approach” to Prevent Harassment

The EEOC released the updated statistics at a public meeting entitled “Revamping Workplace Culture to Prevent Harassment.” The meeting was held at the agency’s headquarters in Washington, D.C.

“Leadership and accountability set the tone and the expectation that harassment will not be tolerated in a workplace,” said Victoria A. Lipnic, Acting Chair. “Over the past year, we have seen far too many examples of significant gaps in both areas. Our witnesses today stressed how both leadership and accountability must also be driven throughout an organization from the line employees, to the supervisors, to the CEO, and to the Board.”

EEOC Commissioner Chai R. Feldblum co-chairs the agency’s Select Task Force on the Study of Harassment in the Workplace. She added that “No one element, alone, will suffice.  Instead, it takes a holistic effort that must start at the top with strong and committed leadership.”

Several witnesses representing various constituencies presented at the October 31, 2018 public meeting. These included Alejandra Valles, Secretary-Treasurer of SEIU United Service Workers West; Anne Wallestad, president and CEO of BoardSource; and Professor Christine Porath of Georgetown University.

The EEOC will also accept public comments into the record of the meeting for 15 days.

Additional information about the public meeting is available here.

An Issue We Can’t Ignore

The latest reports from the EEOC only underscore what has already become evident. Our workplaces are not yet free from sexual harassment and employees are coming forward more often.

Employers must acknowledge at least their legal obligation to prevent and redress incidents of sexual harassment. Failing to do so can have a devastating impact on your company.

 

 

For more updates on related topics of interest and to receive notice of our free informational webinars, click here to sign up for the Horton Law email newsletter.

Post-Accident Drug Testing OSHA

OSHA Permits Post-Accident Drug Testing

On October 11, 2018, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued a clarification of its position on post-accident drug testing. The new guidance addresses commentary that OSHA included with a May 2016 anti-retaliation rule. OSHA now asserts that the rule “does not prohibit . . . post-incident drug testing.”

[Note that the Drug-Free Workplace Act does not require any employers to drug test employees.]

29 C.F.R. § 1904.35

That’s the citation for the rule OSHA amended on May 12, 2016, to prohibit employers from retaliating against employees for reporting work-related injuries or illnesses.

Specifically, 29 C.F.R. § 1904.35(b)(1)(iv) states: “You must not discharge or in any manner discriminate against any employee for reporting a work-related injury or illness.”

The rule itself does not mention drug testing. But OSHA’s 2016 commentary accompanying it did.

At that time, the agency wrote: “OSHA believes the evidence in the rulemaking record shows that blanket post-injury drug testing policies deter proper reporting.” It then went on to say, “this final rule does not ban drug testing of employees. However, the final rule does prohibit employers from using drug testing (or the threat of drug testing) as a form of adverse action against employees who report injuries or illnesses.”

OSHA’s 2016 commentary included the following supposed standard: “To strike the appropriate balance here, drug testing policies should limit post-incident testing to situations in which employee drug use is likely to have contributed to the incident, and for which the drug test can accurately identify impairment caused by drug use.”

2018 “Clarification”

It’s hard to argue that OSHA’s recent announcement clarifies the above language from the 2016 commentary. Instead, it interprets the text of the rule itself, which never mentioned drug testing in the first place. Obviously, the current administration in D.C. has a different take on this issue than the previous one.

In the October 11, 2018 memorandum, OSHA explains that “Action taken under a safety incentive program or post-incident drug testing policy would only violate 29 C.F.R. § 1904.35(b)(1)(iv) if the employer took the action to penalize an employee for reporting a work-related injury or illness rather than for the legitimate purpose of promoting workplace safety and health.”

To emphasize this change in position, the new OSHA directive adds that “To the extent any other OSHA interpretive documents could be construed as inconsistent with the interpretive position articulated here, this memorandum supersedes them.” It then specifically identifies four OSHA documents from October and November 2016.

When to Conduct Post-Accident Drug Testing

OSHA’s new guidance memorandum approves of the following forms of drug testing:

  • Random drug testing.
  • Drug testing unrelated to the reporting of a work-related injury or illness.
  • Drug testing under a state workers’ compensation law.
  • Drug testing under other federal law, such as a U.S. Department of Transportation rule.
  • Drug testing to evaluate the root cause of a workplace incident that harmed or could have harmed employees. If the employer chooses to use drug testing to investigate the incident, the employer should test all employees whose conduct could have contributed to the incident, not just employees who reported injuries.

The last item in this list seems to set a new standard for post-accident drug testing under the anti-retaliation rule. It essentially replaces the 2016 “likely to have contributed to the incident” and “accurately identify impairment caused by drug use” analysis with a more straightforward permissive approach. That is, OSHA now suggests that post-accident testing is presumptively lawful. But if the employer only tests the employee who reported the injury, then this would imply a retaliatory purpose.

In other words, the takeaway for employers is that you generally can drug test employees following a workplace incident. But don’t do it in a way that only targets the reporter, hence discouraging people from reporting safety issues.

Employers May Revisit Post-Accident Drug Testing Protocols

Companies that changed their practices in response to the 2016 rule and OSHA commentary may now reconsider their approach.

To be clear, OSHA’s new interpretation does not require employers to conduct post-accident drug testing. Rather, the clarification relieves employers of much of the concern and uncertainty that the 2016 OSHA commentary created.

Employers who do utilize post-accident drug testing should do so rationally and consistently. Ad hoc or inconsistent testing could lead employees to complain of retaliation under OSHA rules or other legal authority.

 

New York employers should also read “Drug Testing New York Employers.”

 

New York Unemployment Benefits Severance Pay

Severance Pay Affects New York Unemployment Benefits

Since a 2014 reform to New York State’s Unemployment Insurance System, employees are generally not eligible to receive both severance pay and unemployment insurance at the same time. However, there are exceptions and nuances to this rule. As a result, employers sometimes have options that can affect their former employees’ receipt of New York unemployment benefits.

[You might also want to review this article on “Contesting New York Unemployment Claims”.]

New York Unemployment Benefits

In New York, employees must be completely unemployed and actively seeking work to be eligible for unemployment benefits. Most unemployed individuals with sufficient work history will be eligible for benefits. Employees who resigned or engaged in misconduct might not receive benefits.

Until several years ago, severance pay did not change employees’ New York unemployment benefits. Now, however, it often will.

What is Severance Pay?

New York’s unemployment insurance law defines severance pay as “payments made by an employer to an employee due to separation from employment.” Severance pay generally does not include payments regarding retirement, health insurance, accrued leave, or unemployment benefits.

The law recognizes that severance pay can be paid in several payments or one lump sum. And now the timing of the payment(s) matters for unemployment purposes.

Why Timing Matters

Whether severance pay affects unemployment benefits can depend on when the employer makes the payments.

If an employee receives severance pay within 30 days of his or her last day of employment, the severance may offset the unemployment benefits. In that scenario, the employee will not receive unemployment if the weekly severance payments (or pro rata portion of a lump-sum payment) are higher than the maximum weekly unemployment benefit rate. Once the severance payments have ended, the employee may be eligible to receive unemployment benefits (assuming they meet standard eligibility requirements).

On the other hand, if the employee does not begin receiving severance pay until more than 30 days have passed since their last day of employment, they can immediately collect unemployment. In this situation, the severance pay will not affect New York unemployment benefits at all.

(The “last day of employment” is the last day an employee was actually working or was on paid leave.)

Keep This in Mind

Eligibility to receive New York unemployment benefits is often an important issue for departing employees. Employers should carefully consider unemployment issues in developing severance packages.

When employers have options in structuring the severance payout, they should factor in the impact on unemployment benefits. The decisions involved can have meaningful financial implications for both the employer’s business and the former employee. The “right” choice will likely vary in different situations.