Click here to subscribe to our Bowles Law e-letter
Click here to subscribe to our Bowles Law e-letter
An employer’s ability to legitimately discipline or terminate workers who use Facebook, Twitter and other social media to tee-off on allegedly improper work conditions or practices is likely to remain a hotly contested issue for years to come.
An employer’s ability to legitimately discipline or terminate workers who use Facebook, Twitter and other social media to tee-off on allegedly improper work conditions or practices is likely to remain a hotly contested issue for years to come.
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is currently attempting to help draw a sensible line between the rights of union workers to publicly express grievances and management’s right to control the disclosure of internal, confidential or otherwise private information.
In its January 25, 2012 Operations Management Memo, the second such report in the last five months, the NLRB highlights 14 social media cases it has handled in the last year. The report advises:
● Employer policies should not be so sweeping that they prohibit the kinds of activity protected by federal labor law, such as discussion of wages or working conditions among employees, and, on the other hand;
● An employee’s comments on social media are generally not protected if they are mere gripes not made in relation to group activity among employees.
The two NLRB memos to date underscore the importance to employers of issuing social media rules not so broad that they create potential worker claims for unlawful restrictions on discourse over work conditions. An experienced labor and employment lawyer can likely assist in the process.
The U.S. Supreme Court has issued its first decision on the “ministerial exception” to workplace discrimination laws,Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission(January 11, 2012). In a unanimous ruling, the Court found that while certain laws authorize workers to sue their employers for employment discrimination seeking reinstatement and damages, the constitutional protections for religious free exercise and from excessive state intrusion into c
The U.S. Supreme Court has issued its first decision on the “ministerial exception” to workplace discrimination laws, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (January 11, 2012). In a unanimous ruling, the Court found that while certain laws authorize workers to sue their employers for employment discrimination seeking reinstatement and damages, the constitutional protections for religious free exercise and from excessive state intrusion into church affairs bar such suits “when the employer is a religious group and the employee is one of the group’s ministers.”
“The interest of society in the enforcement of employment discrimination statutes is undoubtedly important,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. “But so, too, is the interest of religious groups in choosing who will preach their beliefs, teach their faith and carry out their mission.”
After completing training that included a course in theology, Cheryl Perich accepted the Hosanna-Tabor Church and School’s invitation to teach fourth grade as a “commissioned minister” of the Lutheran faith. Ms. Perich taught secular subjects as well as a religion class. She also lead her students in daily prayer and took them to a weekly school-wide chapel service.
Ms. Perich had to take a long leave of absence at the beginning of the 2004-05 school year to address a narcolepsy condition. When Ms. Perich notified the school a few months later that she was ready to return to work, the principal responded that the school had already filled her position with a lay teacher for the remainder of the academic term.
She refused the school’s offer to pay her additional benefits if she resigned. As the relationship degenerated with Ms. Perich threatening suit, the school fired her for insubordination and disruptive behavior. Ms. Perich filed a charge of disability discrimination with the EEOC. The EEOC then sued Hosanna-Tabor for alleged retaliation against Ms. Perich for her threatening to file suit.
The church responded that Ms. Perish was subject to the “ministerial exception” and thus prevented from suing for supposed violation of the anti-employment discrimination laws. The Supreme Court has now agreed, holding the First Amendment’s Religion Clauses immunized the church from such a suit brought by one of its ministers. This was true, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, even though “her religious duties consumed only 45 minutes of each workday and … the rest of her day was devoted to teaching secular subjects.”
The Court observed that the EEOC and Ms. Perich foresaw “a parade of horribles” that would follow upholding the ministerial recognition, including protecting churches from suits for retaliation against priests who report child abuse or other criminal misconduct. However, the Court emphasized it was only ruling that the ministerial exception barred an employment discrimination claim brought by or on behalf of a minister. “We express no view on whether the exception bars other types of suits…”
We recently warned of the economic risks for an employer who chooses to cut corners by classifying a regular worker as an independent contractor. A wide range of California and federal agencies have the power to impose back taxes, interest and penalties upon companies who unsuccessfully attempt the tactic.See, “Independent Contractors and Employees Avoiding Misclassification of Hired Workers in California.”
We recently warned of the economic risks for an employer who chooses to cut corners by classifying a regular worker as an independent contractor. A wide range of California and federal agencies have the power to impose back taxes, interest and penalties upon companies who unsuccessfully attempt the tactic. See, “Independent Contractors and Employees Avoiding Misclassification of Hired Workers in California.”
The potential costs are about to escalate significantly. At midnight January 1, 2012, California Senate Bill 459 (S.B. 459) becomes Labor Code sections 226.8 and 2753, authorizing the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency, the state’s Labor Commissioner or a court to impose civil penalties between $5,000 and $25,000 for each instance of willful misclassification. Employers, as well as any outside “person [but not a lawyer] who, for money or other valuable consideration, knowingly advises an employer to treat an individual as an independent contractor to avoid employee status” can be liable.
The mathematics can be straightforward. A business that has deliberately mislabeled even ten workers as independent is exposed to total fines between $50,000 and $250,000. There are few small to moderately sized employers that can afford to that kind of a hit.
In the modern equivalent of the Elizabethan and Puritan stocks, the state agency or court directing payment of any such penalty must also direct the business or person to “display prominently on its [,her or his] Internet Web site … a notice” for one year, signed by a company officer (as applicable), specifying:
(1) That the State of California or a California court “has found that the person or employer has committed a serious violation of the law by engaging in the willful misclassification of employee”;
(2) “That the person or employer has changed its business practices in order to avoid committing further violations of this section”;
(3) “That any employee who believes that he or she is being misclassified as an independent contractor may contact the Labor and Workforce Development Agency. The notice shall include the mailing address, e-mail address, and telephone number of the agency”; and
(4) “That the notice is being posted pursuant to a state order.”
If the subject employer or other person does not have a website, then he, she or it must display the notice prominently “in an area that is accessible to all employees and the general public at each location where a violation occurred.”
With the potential costs of misclassification now higher than ever and with greater scrutiny by representatives of an income-hungry, deficit-challenged state government, California companies who regularly hire independent contractors should carefully review worker classifications before the new year. Consult an experienced labor law attorney for assistance.
On January 1, 2012, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) will prohibit businesses from discriminating against applicants and employees based on genetic information. The new law will impose California standards tougher than the federal 2008Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act (GINA).
On January 1, 2012, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) will prohibit businesses from discriminating against applicants and employees based on genetic information. The new law will impose California standards tougher than the federal 2008Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act (GINA).
Both the federal and California law are aimed at curbing discrimination of qualified and performing employees due to genetic traits. GINA applies to employers nationwide with 15 or more persons on payroll. The new FEHA prohibitions will apply to California employers with five or more individuals on payroll.
GINA and FEHA define genetic information similarly, including a potential or existing employee’s genetic test results, the test results of a family member, the “manifestation of a disease or disorder” in the individual’s family, or the receipt of “genetic services” by an individual or his/her family. Examples would include results of tests for genetically carried diseases, such as sickle cell anemia, the contracting of a gene-based disease by a relative, and even an employee’s or family member’s seeking such testing.
A key difference between GINA and the upcoming FEHA provisions is the greater potential for damages under the California law. GINA’s damages cap at $50,000 for small employers and at $300,000 for the largest ones. There are no caps on FEHA damages.
These federal and California laws stem from a 1998 federal court decision, Norman-Bloodsaw v. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (9th Cir. 1998) 135 F.3d 1260, which found the University of California’s conduct of medical tests on its employees to determine intimate medical conditions without their knowledge or consent violated employee rights to privacy.
The new law creates an immediate need for those California employers affected to educate themselves and to distribute information internally on the applicable company obligations and workers’ rights. Actions should include policy and posted-notice revisions as well as training supervisors and human resources personnel to ensure compliance and to ensure the privacy of such genetic information.
For assistance revising your company’s anti-discrimination policies to include this and other workplace laws new for 2011, contact an employment legal specialist.
Gender discrimination has been outlawed in the United States since the Civil Rights Act of 1964. See, “Gender Equality and Discrimination in the Workplace.” On January 1, 2012, California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) will expand the concept of gender to bar discrimination for “gender identity” and “gender expression.”
Gender discrimination has been outlawed in the United States since the Civil Rights Act of 1964. See, “Gender Equality and Discrimination in the Workplace.” On January 1, 2012, California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) will expand the concept of gender to bar discrimination for “gender identity” and “gender expression.”
Under this new FEHA provision, those who regard themselves as the sex opposite their original physical gender (e.g., trans-gender individuals) and those who dress and/or act outwardly as the opposite sex (e.g., cross-dressers) will be entitled to the same protections against mainstream gender discrimination (e.g. paying women less than men at the same or equivalent jobs).
While the law doesn’t give a specific definition of “gender identity,” it does define gender expression as “A person’s gender-related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person’s assigned sex at birth.”
Our October 21, 2011 blog “Added Notice Requirement for California Employers” alerts employers to a required notice to newly hired workers, effective January 1, 2012, specifying basic but vital information. Under theWage Theft Protection Act (Assembly Bill [A.B.] 469),the notice must include:
Our October 21, 2011 blog “Added Notice Requirement for California Employers” alerts employers to a required notice to newly hired workers, effective January 1, 2012, specifying basic but vital information. Under the Wage Theft Protection Act (Assembly Bill [A.B.] 469), the notice must include:
The Act also specifies that the Labor Commissioner and its Department of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) issue as soon as possible a template notice for employer use. This state-recommended on-line template is now available. The DLSE FAQ page adds that although the state has thus far only issued the template in English, employers must provide the notice “in the language the employer normally uses to communicate employment-related information to the employee.” Thus, if management normally communicates with workers in another language, such as Spanish or Chinese, the notice must be in the applicable tongue. The DLSE plans to provide templates in other languages soon.
Over the past several months, we have been alerting our readers to important California labor laws new in 2012. Here’s a summary:
Over the past several months, we have been alerting our readers to important California labor laws new in 2012. Here’s a summary:
California’s Wage Theft Prevention Act; Employers Must Supply an Additional Detailed Written Notice to Most New Hires: In addition to existing written notification requirements (including rights to equal employment opportunity, minimum wage and many other points), employers now must provide a notice specifying fundamental workplace information “in the language the employer normally uses to communicate employment-related information” to every hourly employee at the time of his or her hire. See, “California Wage Theft Protection Act.”
Stiffer Penalties for Deliberately Misclassifying Employees as Independent Contractors: Labor Code sections 226.8 and 2753 authorize the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency, the state’s Labor Commissioner or a court to impose civil penalties between $5,000 and $25,000 for each instance of willful misclassification of an employee as an independent contractor. Thus, a business that has deliberately mislabeled even ten workers as independent is exposed to total fines between $50,000 and $250,000. See, “Personal Liability and Mandatory On-Line Flogging for Misclassifying Employees as Independent Contractors.”
Gender Identity and Expression Protections: Discrimination for a person’s gender has been illegal in the U.S. since the 1960s. California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) now expands the concept of gender to bar discrimination for “gender identity” and “gender expression.” See, “Gender Identity and Expression Protection.”
Genetic Information Discrimination Prohibited: Beginning January 1, 2012, FEHA also prohibits businesses from discriminating against applicants and employees based on genetic information. The new law imposes California standards tougher than the federal 2008 Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act (GINA). See, “Genetic Information Discrimination.”
Additional Protections for Pregnant Employees: FEHA also now requires all California employers to keep a pregnant employee’s group medical coverage in effect during pregnancy leave and to pay the employer portion of the premium during that period. See, “Expanded Pregnancy Health Benefits Law for Most California Employees.”
If you have any questions or concerns on implementation of these laws into your business practices, contact an experienced employment law attorney.
Employers should review the new law and contact aCalifornia labor law attorneyif they have any questions on the new requirements.
California Governor Jerry Brown recently signed Senate Bill 299 into law extending health insurance coverage benefits for employees out on pregnancy disability leave, effective January 1, 2012. As covered in “Pregnancy Disability Leave,” California employers with five or more persons on payroll (whether full- or part-time) must provide any female employee up to four months of unpaid leave for her pregnancy, delivery and newborn care. (California employers with 50 or more on payroll must also provide any qualified female employee with up to 12 additional weeks of medically required maternity leave under the California Family Rights Act (CFRA) or the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).)
Currently, employers may opt to make group health insurance coverage available to their workers. The new law requires that if a California employer provides such benefits, it must continue to make them available to a pregnant or new mom out on pregnancy disability leave. The employer must continue that coverage on the same terms and conditions applied to active employees. For example, if the employer normally pays an employee’s premium in full when she’s actively on the job, that company must now continue to pay full premium while she’s out on the four month pregnancy leave.
A business may recover from the employee the premiums it paid to maintain such coverage during the leave if the worker fails to return at the end of the four month maximum period and if that failure was not due to exercise of additional leave rights under FMLA/CFRA or not due to a circumstance beyond the employee’s control. .
Employers should review the new law and contact a California labor law attorney if they have any questions on the new requirements.
Effective January 1, 2012,California Assembly Bill AB 469will require private employers to distribute a document “in the language the employer normally uses to communicate employment-related information” to all hourly employees at the time of their hire.
Effective January 1, 2012, California Assembly Bill AB 469 will require private employers to distribute a document “in the language the employer normally uses to communicate employment-related information” to all hourly employees at the time of their hire.
The written notice must include:
The Labor Commissioner is to make available a template for employers to follow for such a document. This new requirement does not eliminate existing employer notice rules.
Contact a California labor law attorney with any questions about compliance with and implementation of this new law.