Category: Workforce Trends

Coronavirus Webinar

Combating Coronavirus (COVID-19) Concerns at Work (Webinar Recap)

On March 24, 2020, Julie Bastian and I presented a complimentary webinar called “Combating Coronavirus (COVID-19) Concerns at Work”. For those who couldn’t attend the live webinar, we’re happy to make it available for you to watch at your convenience.

In the webinar, we discuss:

  • Workforce Restrictions
  • Working from Home
  • Unpaid and Paid Leave
  • FMLA/Disability Leave
  • Travel Issues
  • WARN Act Compliance

The novel coronavirus (COVID-19) has already had a deep and lasting impact throughout the United States, and especially in New York State.

Numerous businesses have been forced to shut down, or at least send much or all of their workforce home. Some employees can work remotely, others can’t.

State legislatures and Congress are addressing various health and financial issues on an emergency basis. This webinar includes updates on new laws and other legal requirements.

Don’t have time to watch the whole webinar right now? Click here to download the slides from the webinar.

Why You Should Watch “Combating Coronavirus (COVID-19) Concerns at Work”

There are so many difficult questions that must be answered quickly these days. We’ve tried to cover as many as possible in this webinar.

Do you have employees working from home and need direction on what that means legally?

Are you closed and have questions about unemployment issues?

Is your business declining and confronting a reduction in force? Find out what your notice obligations might be under the WARN Acts.

New state and federal laws give some employees the right to leave–with pay in many cases. What does that mean for your organization?

These are the types of issues, among others, we’ve discussed in this webinar.

Don’t Miss Our Future Webinars!

Click here to sign up for the Horton Law email newsletter to be among the first to know when registration is open for upcoming programs!

And follow us on LinkedIn for even more frequent updates on important employment law issues.

NLRB New Joint Employer Standard

NLRB Finalizes New Joint Employer Standard

On February 26, 2020, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) published its final rule on a new joint employer standard. The new rule will take effect beginning April 27, 2020. NLRB Chair John Ring proclaimed, “This final rule gives our joint-employer standard the clarity, stability, and predictability that is essential to any successful labor-management relationship and vital to our national economy.”

Joint Employer Implications

The question of joint employment status under the National Labor Relations Act affects employee rights and employer obligations for private sector companies. Employers found to be joint employers:

  • must bargain with a union that represents any jointly employed workers,
  • face potential liability for unfair labor practices that the other employer committed, and
  • could be subject to union picketing or other economic pressure.

New NLRB Joint Employer Standard

Under the new standard, the NLRB will only find joint employment where a business possesses and exercises substantial direct and immediate control over one or more essential terms and conditions of employment of another employer’s employees.

The rule further defines the operative terms of the new standard.

“Essential terms and conditions of employment” means “wages, benefits, hours of work, hiring, discharge, discipline, supervision and direction.”

“Substantial direct and immediate control” means “regular or continuous consequential effects”. The rule clarifies that any direct control that is “sporadic, isolated, or de minimis” will not be enough to warrant a finding of joint employment.

The rule contains additional analysis regarding “direct and immediate control” for each of the eight “essential terms and conditions of employment”. For example, “An entity exercises direct and immediate control over wages if it actually determines the wage rates, salary or other rate of pay that is paid to another employer’s individual employees or job classifications.”

History of the NLRB’s Joint Employer Doctrine

Browning-Ferris

The NLRB had relied on a similar employer-friendly joint employment standard for decades until 2015. Then, in a case involving Browning-Ferris Industries of California, a pro-labor NLRB took a more expansive view of the joint employer relationship. In Browning-Ferris, the Board found two businesses to be joint employers where they both met the common law definition of employer and shared or codetermined matters governing the essential terms and conditions of employment. Under Browning-Ferris, an entity could become a joint employer even without actually exercising control over another employer’s employees. It was sufficient that the entity reserved the right to exercise control over the terms and conditions of employment of another employer’s employee.

The International Franchise Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce conducted a study on the financial impact of the Browning-Ferris decision on the American economy. They reported that the Browning-Ferris joint employer standard cost the U.S. economy $33.3 billion per year, considering lost jobs, stunting of job growth, and a significant increase in litigation involving franchise businesses.

Hy-Brand

On December 14, 2017, the NLRB issued a unanimous decision in a case involving Hy-Brand Industrial Contractors, Ltd. that overruled the Browning-Ferris joint employer test. The Hy-Brand decision reverted to the pre-Browning-Ferris joint employer standard. However, the NLRB vacated its decision in Hy-Brand after ethics concerns arose regarding Board Member Bill Emanuel’s participation in the case. Member Emanuel had worked for the Littler Mendelson firm when it represented a party that had been involved in the Browning-Ferris case that Hy-Brand reversed. Emanuel explained that he had not known of his firm’s past involvement in that previous case.

Response to the New Joint Employer Rule

Worker Advocate groups and unions strongly opposed the new joint employer standard. They argue that it hurts low-wage, African American, and Hispanic employees and incentivizes businesses that mistreat workers to continuing doing so. Given the strong opposition, legal challenges to the rule are likely.

However, other groups emphasize that the new rule will allow businesses to contract with third parties for the supply of temporary employees with confidence that they will not be responsible for the other employer’s employment violations. This should provide an overall boost to the economy.

Sean P. Redmond, Executive Director of Labor Policy for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, commented, “the new rule restoring common sense is cause for celebration, to be sure.”

Why Rulemaking?

As in Browning-Ferris and Hy-Brand, the NLRB has historically interpreted the National Labor Relations Act by adjudicating actual controversies between parties. The NLRB took the rulemaking approach here in an attempt to lock the joint employer rule in place and make it less vulnerable to future changes without warning.

The proposed joint employer rule appeared in the Federal Register on September 13, 2018. The NLRB received and considered approximately 29,000 comments from employee rights advocates and businesses.

What This Means for Companies with “Shared” Workforces

The new rule should come as a big relief for franchisors. But it still leaves a gray area in other contexts.

If your company participates in potential joint employer arrangements either through the supply of labor or as the recipient of the services of another employer’s employees, you should review the relevant contractual terms in light of the NLRB’s new standard. You should also reevaluate the policies and procedures governing your company’s relationship with other employer’s employees. Give particular attention to the “essential terms and conditions of employment”: wages, benefits, hours of work, hiring, discharge, discipline, supervision, and direction.

Generally, placement and temporary employment agencies should make the employment decisions in these areas. This will help to reduce joint employer claims against both parties, allocating the legal responsibility as usually intended—with the agency taking the role of employer and easing its client’s concerns of joint employer liability.

While this rule is good news for employers, it is critical to watch out for future developments. Beyond the anticipated legal attacks to the rule, a change in NLRB composition could again result in a policy reversal.

To stay up-to-date on important labor law topics affecting your business, sign up for our email newsletter and follow us on LinkedIn.

Workplace Bullying

Workplace Bullying

Most agree that all bullying is inappropriate, but is workplace bullying unlawful? Technically, it usually isn’t. While physical attacks are illegal, mere insults, shouting, generating rumors, or giving “the cold shoulder” typically are not enough to produce a valid legal claim. However, there are some notable exceptions. Under certain laws, bullying may be a basis for a lawsuit if it is directed towards legally protected characteristics.

Generally, bullying is defined as intentional harmful conduct towards others. This can include verbal harassment, threats, insults, or physical violence. Bullying can also occur in the form of coercion, such as manipulation, generating rumors, or blackmail. This conduct can also extend to outside the workplace, such as stalking. Although there can be one singular occurrence, workplace bullying tends to occur in patterns. There is often an imbalance of power between the harasser and victim, such as a supervisor harassing employees.

Effects of Workplace Bullying

Clearly, bullying can cause physical and psychological distress for the victim. Moreover, bullying can also have harmful effects on an organization as a whole. If offensive conduct continues, it can lead to an organizational culture that accepts this type of behavior. This leads to lower employee morale and higher turnover. It can also lessen overall productivity.

Workplace Harassment

Harassment based on protected characteristics is a type of discrimination. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees from harassment based on sex, color, national origin, race, and religion. This includes protection from sexual harassment. Other federal laws, such as the Age Discrimination and Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act also prohibit harassment. State laws also prohibit discrimination on these and other characteristics.

Harassment involves conduct that results in changing the terms or conditions of the victim’s employment. If offensive comments are directed at an employee’s protected characteristic or only to employees of a specific characteristic, there may be a basis for legal action. The standard for determining harassment is how a reasonable employee perceived the comment or statement. The speaker’s intent is not a relevant factor.

If an alleged victim can prove that unlawful harassment occurred, the employer can be held liable for the conduct. This could be the case even if the employer was unaware of the behavior, if the court finds that they should have known.

For more, read “What Makes Workplace Harassment Unlawful?”

Equal Opportunity Harasser Defense

Employers occasionally assert an “equal opportunity harasser” defense to refute the assertion that the offensive conduct was directed at a protected characteristic. For instance, a supervisor shouts at all employees regularly. When an employee attempts to bring a lawsuit where one of the allegations is harassment due to his race, etc., the employer will respond the conduct was not directed towards any protected characteristic because that supervisor shouts at all employees regardless of race. This can be a legally valid and effective defense to a claim of harassment. However, allowing this management style is not necessarily good for employee morale or deterring harassment complaints in the first place.

Common Law Tort Claims

Even if the conduct does not relate to a protected category, there is still a risk of litigation. If the offensive conduct becomes sufficiently outrageous, employees might have grounds for a tort claim. The legal standard for these claims is usually higher for plaintiffs than under the employment discrimination statutes. Where successful, damage calculations in these cases relate to the alleged mental suffering by the plaintiff as a result of the defendant’s conduct.

Protected Concerted Activity

The National Labor Relations Act protects employee activity in furtherance of collective goals. This means harassment, intimidation, or bullying of other employees on behalf of union objectives is protected under this federal law that applies to many private employers even if their employees are not unionized. For example, employees who repeatedly pressure other employees to call in sick on a particular day to stage a “sick-out” protest of company policy may have protection from discipline. This protection even extends to workplaces without unions, so long as the activity at issue aims at benefitting employees collectively in their employment.

Workplace Civility Policies

Although workplace bullying is not illegal, employers often have workplace civility policies. These prescribe discipline or termination of employees who bully other employees. These policies are most effective when there are clear definitions of terms like “bullying” and “harassment.”

Potential Workplace Bullying Laws

So far, at least 29 states have introduced bills aimed at making workplace bullying illegal. However, none of these bills have passed, so bullying in the workplace is currently not expressly illegal in any state. Remember, however, that many states have harassment laws similar to or more extensive than federal laws.

New York is one state where the Legislature might finally pass anti-bullying legislation before too much longer. There, the “Healthy Workplace Bill” has been reintroduced several times, but has not yet passed. If the bill ever succeeds, it will create a legal claim against employers who allowed bullying to occur.

The Healthy Workplace Bill, as previously proposed, would make it unlawful for employers to subject employees to an “abusive work environment.” This is defined as “a workplace in which an employee is subjected to abusive conduct that is so severe that it causes physical or psychological harm to such employee, and where such employee provides notice to the employer that such employee has been subjected to abusive conduct and such employer after receiving notice thereof, fails to eliminate the abusive conduct”. Potential remedies under this bill include reinstatement, removal of the harasser from the plaintiff’s work environment, back pay, medical expenses, punitive damages, and attorney fees.

Employer Precautions

Although workplace bullying itself isn’t (yet) per se illegal, it’s not something employers should tolerate. If nothing else, with so many protected categories under state and federal employment discrimination statutes, any bullying could prompt a harassment complaint. Of course, beyond the risk of litigation, bullying hurts employee morale and hence productivity.

Still, anti-bullying laws would be very burdensome for employers. They would go far beyond traditional legal risks. Employers would need to become even more proactive in ensuring employees are nice to each other. That will be a tall task for many companies on short notice. That’s another good reason to start now in trying to improve interpersonal relationships between co-workers and with their supervisors. And, hopefully, there would be many positive impacts on the business beyond avoiding lawsuits.

 

Special thanks to University at Buffalo Law School student Erin Killian for her work on the preparation of this article.