Category: Termination

March 30, 2023

NLRB Deems Many Severance Agreements Unlawful

A February 21, 2023, decision by the National Labor Relations Board found it unlawful for employers to include some routine provisions in severance agreements. NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo issued a memorandum dated March 22, 2023, elaborating on her broad interpretation of the ruling. Consequently, employers may now face federal labor law claims if they even offer a severance agreement to an employee that includes previously common restrictions.

McClaren Macomb Decision

In McClaren Macomb, 372 NLRB No. 58, the NLRB found that a hospital committed an unfair labor practice in violation of the National Labor Relations Act merely by offering a severance agreement to 11 permanently furloughed employees. The NLRB deemed the proposed agreements unlawful because they contained these non-disclosure and non-disparagement provisions:

“Confidentiality Agreement. The Employee acknowledges that the terms of this Agreement are confidential and agrees not to disclose them to any third person, other than spouse, or as necessary to professional advisors for the purposes of obtaining legal counsel or tax advice, or unless legally compelled to do so by a court or administrative agency of competent jurisdiction.”
“Non-Disclosure. At all times hereafter, the Employee promises and agrees not to disclose information, knowledge or materials of a confidential, privileged, or proprietary nature of which the Employee has or had knowledge of, or involvement with, by reason of the Employee’s employment. At all times, hereafter, the Employee agrees not to make statements to Employer’s employees or to the general public which could disparage or harm the image of Employer, its parent and affiliated entities and their officers, directors, employees, agents and representatives.

The severance agreement also identified penalties if the employee violated those provisions, including paying the employer’s attorneys fees.

The Board held that these provisions unlawfully interfere with employees’ exercise of rights protected by Section 7 of the NLRA. Section 7 rights include protection for employees engaging in concerted activity for their mutual aid and protection. The NLRB emphasized that just offering the agreement was unlawful even though the employees didn’t sign it and thus didn’t become bound by its terms.

General Counsel Memorandum 23-05

General Counsel Abruzzo has already established through earlier actions and memorandums that she has extremely pro-labor views of the NLRA. She demonstrated these sentiments again through this memorandum elaborating on the Board’s McClaren Macomb decision. Though not formally binding, the GC’s memo establishes her prosecutorial viewpoint and puts employers on notice that she will challenge a broad array of severance agreement provisions.

Here are summarized versions GC Abruzzo’s answers to the following questions:

Are severance agreements now banned?

No, as long as they’re limited to a release of the signing employee’s employment claims arising before the date of the agreement. But once seemingly any of the various other common components of severance agreements are added, her view shifts.

Do the circumstances surrounding the severance offer matter?

Probably not, as “an employer can have no legitimate interest in maintaining a facially unlawful provision in a severance agreement.”

What if the employee doesn’t sign the agreement?

As the Board held, it doesn’t matter. “[T]he proffer itself inherently coerces employees by conditioning severance benefits on the waiver of statutory rights such as the right to engage in future protected concerted activities and the right to file or assist in the investigation and prosecution of charges with the Board.”

What about severance agreements offered to supervisors?

Even these may be unlawful. Typically, the NLRA doesn’t protect “supervisors,” as defined by the law. However, the GC still has a (highly dubious) theory of how offering a severance agreement with prohibited language to a supervisor nonetheless constitutes an unfair labor practice.

How does this affect severance agreements before the February 2023 McClaren Macomb decision?

They could also be challenged. The GC even suggests she could prosecute back beyond the standard 6-month NLRA statute of limitations where the severance agreement provisions have ongoing effect. She notes that the NLRB has “settled cases involving severance agreements which had unlawfully broad terms that chilled the exercise of Section 7 rights by requiring the employer to notify its former employees that the overbroad provisions in their severance agreements no longer applied.” But she does not guarantee that would be the extent of the potential penalties.

Would the entire severance agreement be null and void due to just one overbroad provision?

It depends. The GC suggests the NLRB “generally make[s] decisions based solely on the unlawful provisions and would seek to have those voided out as opposed to the entire agreement, regardless of whether there is a severability clause or not”. She further offers that “while it may not cure a technical violation of an unlawful proffer, employers should consider remedying such violations now by contacting employees subject to severance agreements with overly broad provisions and advising them that the provisions are null and void and that they will not seek to enforce the agreements or pursue any penalties, monetary or otherwise, for breaches of those unlawful provisions.”

Why does the NLRA protect former employees in this situation?

Good question. Because the Board said so. But the GC adds, “In addition, former employees can play an important role in providing evidence to the NLRB and otherwise sharing information about the working conditions they experienced, in a way that constitutes both mutual aid and protection.”

Can the NLRB come between private contracting parties?

Yes, though the General Counsel doesn’t really answer that. Instead, she shifts the focus to the Board’s role “to address the inequality of bargaining power between employees, who do not possess full freedom of association or actual liberty of contract, and their employers . . . .”

What if employees request broad confidentiality or non-disparagement clauses?

They can ask, but the employer can’t provide it. Per the GC, “In that unlikely scenario, I would reiterate that the Board protects public rights that cannot be waived in a manner that prevents future exercise of those rights regardless of who initially raised the issue.” She also notes that unions could not waive these rights on behalf of employees.

What about other forms of employer-employee communications?

Pre-employment agreements or offer letters could be unlawful on the same theories as severance agreements.

Could any confidentiality provision in a severance agreement be lawful?

Yes, but not really. “Confidentiality clauses that are narrowly-tailored to restrict the dissemination of proprietary or trade secret information for a period of time based on legitimate business justifications may be considered lawful.” Such restrictions were likely already in place before the severance agreement, which may only be restating them for clarification/reiteration. The typical purpose of a confidentiality agreement in a severance agreement, especially if used to settle a pending claim, is to prevent public dissemination of information related to the employee’s potential claims against the employer. Any such restrictions would now likely violate McClaren Macomb.

Could any non-disparagement provision in a severance agreement be lawful?

Yes, but not really. “[A] narrowly-tailored, justified, non-disparagement provision that is limited to employee statements about the employer that meet the definition of defamation as being maliciously untrue, such that they are made with knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity, may be found lawful.” That is a non-defamation provision, not a non-disparagement provision. And state laws already protect against defamation, so there’s probably not much to be gained by putting such a clause in a severance agreement–especially at risk that the GC will somehow still find it’s overbroad.

Would a savings clause or disclaimer save overbroad provisions in a severance agreement?

Probably not. The General Counsel might be somewhat persuaded by a very extensive recitation of all possible rights protected by the NLRA and clear language that no such rights are being limited. However, there’s no guarantee that will help, and it’s unlikely many employers would be interested in taking that approach.

Does the GC view any other common severance agreement provisions as problematic?

Yes, of course. In particular, she points to non-compete clauses; no solicitation clauses; no-poaching clauses; broad liability releases and covenants not to sue; and cooperation requirements. There’s hope some of these might be acceptable in some situations, but employers proceed at their own risk.

Employer Response

What does all of this mean? Private companies in the U.S. have reason to fear that the NLRB will object to the severance agreements they’ve regularly used in the past. The same legal issues likely apply to settlement agreements used to resolve pending lawsuits and administrative proceedings.

If you use severance agreements with your separating employees, you should review them and reconsider your approach given these new pronouncements. However, that doesn’t necessarily mean every employer should adopt new agreements that don’t include confidentiality, non-disparagement, and other potentially challengeable provisions. NLRB rulings are not final, and there may be court challenges to the theories applied in McClaren Macomb and by the General Counsel. But it is critical to carefully weigh the risks and rewards of various approaches with the assistance of experienced labor counsel.

For more employment law updates, sign up for the Horton Law email newsletter and follow us on LinkedIn.

December 8, 2021

New York Strengthens Worker Whistleblower Protections

Beginning January 26, 2022, amendments to the New York Labor Law will expand workers’ rights to assert claims of wrongdoing without reprisal. Among the significant changes, New York Labor Law Section 740, which only applies to private entities (not governmental employers), will now provide protections to independent contractors and former employees in addition to current employees. It also expands the covered whistleblower activities and provides new protections beyond adverse employment actions. This law will now broadly prohibit private businesses from retaliating in any manner against covered workers.

Pre-Existing Protections

Before these amendments, Labor Law Section 740 only protected “employees” who had disclosed to a supervisor or public body an unlawful activity, policy, or practice of their employer that creates and presents a substantial danger to the public health or safety” or “health care fraud.”

In addition, courts have applied the law to require proof of an actual violation of law by the employer to afford whistleblower protections.

Read this earlier article for more on New York whistleblower protections generally and before these amendments to Labor Law Section 740,

Areas of Expansion

With the amendments, NY Labor Law Section 740 will cover more workers in more circumstances. There are also additional penalties available in cases of proven retaliation.

Worker Coverage

For purposes of this whistleblower law, the definition of “employee” is defined to include people who are, in fact, not employees. Covered workers will now include “former employees, or natural persons employed as independent contractors to carry out work in furtherance of an employer’s business enterprise who are not themselves employers.”

Protected Activity

Under the amended whistleblower law, covered workers may not be retaliated against for:

Disclosing or threatening to disclose to a supervisor or public body an activity, policy, or practice of the employer that the employee reasonably believes is in violation of law, rule, or regulation or that the employee reasonably believes poses a substantial and specific danger to the public health or safety.
Providing information to, or testifying before, any public body conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry into any such activity, policy, or practice by such employer.
Objecting to, or refusing to participate in, any such activity, policy, or practice.

With these expanded protections, workers are now entitled to be free from retaliatory action based on virtually any activity they take based on any employer activity, policy, or practice that the employee reasonably believes is against any law. Neither relation to health or safety nor actual violation is required.

Notice to Employer

Before the amendments, an employee had to bring the objected to activity to their employer’s attention before disclosing it to a public body. As amended, the law only requires employees to make a “good faith effort” to notify the employer in advance. Moreover, no such notice (or effort to provide notice) is required where:

There is an imminent and serious danger to the public health or safety;
The employee reasonably believes that reporting to the supervisor would result in a destruction of evidence or other concealment of the activity, policy, or practice;
Such activity, policy, or practice could reasonably be expected to lead to endangering the welfare of a minor;
The employee reasonably believes that reporting to the supervisor would result in physical harm to the employee or any other person; or
The employee reasonably believes that the supervisor is already aware of the activity, policy, or practice and will not correct such activity, policy, or practice.

Retaliatory Action

Previously, employers could not take the following action against employees protected by the whistleblower law: “discharge, suspension or demotion . . . or other adverse employment action taken against an employee in the terms and conditions of employment.”

Now, employers are prohibited from engaging in a limitless scope of “retaliatory action,” defined broadly to include any manner of discrimination. Without limitation, the statute specifically includes the following examples:

Adverse employment action or threats to take such adverse employment actions against an employee in the terms [or] conditions of employment including but not limited to discharge, suspension, or demotion.
Actions or threats to take such actions that would adversely impact a former employee’s current or future employment.
Threatening to contact or contacting United States immigration authorities or otherwise reporting or threatening to report an employee’s suspected citizenship or immigration status or the suspected citizenship or immigration status of an employee’s family or household member.

Penalties

Labor Law Section 740 permits employees to sue their employers for whistleblower retaliation. As amended, the law will now offer additional remedies for employees to recover and penalties for employers to pay.

Existing remedies included the availability of injunctive relief, orders of reinstatement to employment, compensation for lost pay and benefits, and payment of the employees’ attorneys’ fees and costs. The amendments provide for a new civil penalty of up to $10,000 and the payment of punitive damages for “willful, malicious or wanton” violations.

The amendments also expand the statute of limitations for whistleblower actions under this law from one to two years.

Notice by Employer

The amendments also impose a new affirmative obligation on all employers to inform their employees of the protections and rights afforded by Labor Law Section 740. Employers must do this by posting a notice “conspicuously in easily accessible and well-lighted places customarily frequented by employees and applicants for employment.”

Recognize that this may create a posting requirement for individuals and/or entities who do not qualify as an “employer” for any other purpose. Anyone (other than a governmental entity or agent thereof acting in that capacity) who uses the services of an independent contractor (who is not him/herself an employer) for a business purpose would seemingly qualify as an employer under this law and be obligated to make such posting.

While it’s likely the New York State Department of Labor will publish a model notice for this purpose, it does not appear to have done so at the time of publication of this article.

What “Employers” Should Do?

Other than satisfying the new notice posting requirement, there may be relatively little that employers must affirmatively do. But that doesn’t mean you should ignore these very significant amendments.

Most fundamentally, the amendments primarily require that employers follow the law–that is, all laws. Any legal violation could entitle a worker to protection from retaliation. And given the broad definition of what now constitutes retaliation, it is realistic to expect a substantial expansion of claims alleging whistleblower retaliation.

Otherwise, the expanded retaliation prohibitions do make some previously permissible business activities unlawful. Consequently, employers should carefully consider all actions that may negatively impact any employee who has engaged in any potentially protected whistleblower conduct. Consulting with an experienced employment attorney is advised.

To stay informed of our latest updates for New York employers, follow Horton Law on LinkedIn.

January 21, 2021

NYC Adds Protections for Employees with Criminal Arrests or Convictions During Employment

New York City joined the ranks of municipalities with a “ban-the-box” law in 2015. The original law prohibited employers with 4 or more employees from asking about an applicant’s pending arrest or criminal conviction record until after making a conditional job offer. Recent amendments to the New York City Fair Chance Act will add new protections for employees with arrests or convictions during employment.

The New York City Council passed the local law on December 10, 2020. Mayor Bill DeBlasio did not sign or veto the law in the time allowed. As a result, the amendments became law on January 10, 2021. The changes will take effect on July 28, 2021.

NYC’s Ban-the-Box Law

In addition to New York laws favoring the re-employment of individuals with criminal records, covered New York City employers must follow the city’s Fair Chance Act when hiring new workers.

Like other ban-the-box ordinances, the 2015 NYC law forced employers to remove questions about criminal histories from job applications. It further precluded employers from inquiring about an applicant’s criminal conviction record until after a conditional offer of employment.

The law separately prohibited employers from searching public databases for information about an applicant’s criminal record (e.g., “background check”) before a conditional offer of employment.

For more on similar laws in other New York cities, read my earlier post Checking in on New York Ban-the-Box Laws.

Criminal Convictions During Employment

The NYC Fair Chance Act will no longer only affect hiring decisions. It will also protect employees convicted during employment.

As with pre-employment convictions, an employer must evaluate the various legally-established factors and determine whether one of the following applies before taking adverse action:

there is a direct relationship between the criminal conviction and the employment held by the person; or
the continuation of the employment would involve an unreasonable risk to property or to the safety or welfare of specific individuals or the general public.

Pending Arrests and Criminal Accusations

The amendments also add new protections for employees with pending arrests or accusations of criminal wrongdoing. Employers similarly must consider the “fair chance factors” to decide whether adverse action may be taken either because there is a direct relationship between the alleged wrongdoing and the job or employment would involve an unreasonable risk to property or people’s safety.

Fair Chance Factors for Convictions and Arrests During Employment

When considering discipline for existing employees based on convictions or arrests during employment, employers must consider all of these factors:

the policy of New York City to overcome stigma toward and unnecessary exclusion of persons with criminal justice involvement in the areas of licensure and employment;
the specific duties and responsibilities necessarily related to the employment held by the person;
the bearing, if any, of the criminal offense or offenses for which the applicant or employee was convicted, or that are alleged in the case of pending arrests or criminal accusations, on the applicant or employee’s fitness or ability to perform one or more such duties or responsibilities;
whether the person was 25 years of age or younger at the time of occurrence of the criminal offense or offenses for which the person was convicted, or that are alleged in the case of pending arrests or criminal accusations;
the seriousness of such offense or offenses;
the legitimate interest of the public agency or private employer in protecting property, and the safety and welfare of specific individuals or the general public; and
any additional information produced by the applicant or employee, or produced on their behalf, in regards to their rehabilitation or good conduct, including history of positive performance and conduct on the job or in the community, or any other evidence of good conduct.

These factors are similar, but not identical, to the factors that apply in making hiring decisions based on a criminal conviction record.

Decisionmaking Process

Before taking any adverse employment action against a current employee based on a criminal conviction or pending arrest, an employer must:

Request information from the employee regarding the fair chance factors.
Consider the impact of the factors on the direct relationship and unreasonable risk analysis.
Give the employee a written copy of such analysis with supporting documents and the employer’s reasons for taking the employment action.
Allow the employee a reasonable time to respond before taking adverse action.

Specific Employer Rights

Temporary Suspensions

Employers may place employees on unpaid leave “for a reasonable time” while completing the process the law requires before taking adverse employment actions.

Intentional Misrepresentations

The law also permits employers to discipline applicants and employees from making intentional misrepresentations about their arrest or conviction history. This carveout doesn’t apply if the misinformation was provided in response to an inquiry prohibited by the law. And, in the case of apparent misrepresentation, the employer must give the individual a copy of the documents demonstrating an intentional misrepresentation and allow them reasonable time to respond.

Exceptions

The New York Fair Chance Act will now apply to all employers regarding employees in NYC with only some exceptions for police, law enforcement agencies, and public employees subject to certain other disciplinary procedures.

The law also does not require employment when another law prohibits it based on the nature of the conviction and/or job.

Preparing to Comply

Employers have until July 28, 2021, to become familiar with these new employee protections and plan accordingly. Employees who engage in crimes before then will remain subject to discipline without these protections. However, once the law takes effect, employers will need to follow the mandatory evaluation process before acting based on employee criminal activity. Though many criminal acts may still warrant dismissal or other discipline, employers will need to request information from employees and document their reasons for taking any resulting action. This process will be a significant change in many employers’ disciplinary practices.

New York City provides more information about the Fair Chance Act here.

For more updates on escalating restrictions on New York employers, follow Horton Law on LinkedIn.