Photo of Lori Armstrong Halber

The National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) issued a decision on July 21, 2020, which will aid employers in their ability to discipline or discharge an employee who engaged in abusive or offensive conduct in connection with protected concerted activity. In General Motors LLC, 369 NLRB No. 127 (2020), the Board modified its standard for determining under what circumstances profane language or sexually or racially offensive speech loses the protection of the National Labor Relations Act (the “Act”).

Before today, there were several circumstance-specific standards used by the Board in determining whether an employee was lawfully disciplined or discharged when they made profane, racist or sexually harassing comments in connection with Section 7 activity. There was one standard for workplace confrontations with supervisors or managers as applied in Atlantic Steel. A second standard was used for examining social media posts and most other  interactions between employees, referred to as the “totality of circumstances.”  Still, another standard was used when offensive statements or conduct occurred on the picket line, as set forth in Clear Pine Mouldings. All of these standards assumed that the employee’s Section 7 activity was inseparable from the abusive comments and conduct. Additionally, in many circumstances the outcome of those cases conflicted widely with an employer’s obligations under federal, state and local discrimination laws.Continue Reading NLRB ends long-time standard which protected obscene, racist and sexually harassing speech in connection with Section 7 activity

As we previously posted, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) CDC recently issued guidance on reopening the workplace. In its latest update on June 11, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) updated its COVID-19 Frequently Asked Questions (the Guidance) to provide further guidance on returning employees to the workplace. Notably, the Guidance covers (1) the return of high-risk workers to the workplace, (2) how to properly handle COVID-19-related accommodations requests, and (3) how to appropriately respond to pandemic-related harassment. As we discussed in our last post, employers should be wary of toeing the line on the issues highlighted below, as they may become prevalent in the wave of litigation expected to arise in the wake of the pandemic.

Employers may not involuntarily exclude older or pregnant workers from the workplace

In its updated Guidance, the EEOC cautions that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) – which prohibits discrimination in the workplace against individuals aged 40 and older – does not permit an employer to involuntarily exclude an employee from the workplace based solely on their age, “even if the employer acted for benevolent reasons such as protecting the employee due to a higher risk of severe illness from COVID-19.” The Guidance specifically pertains to employees aged 65 years and older, who are considered by the CDC to be at a higher risk of serious illness due to COVID-19. Moreover, the EEOC has stated that employers may still provide flexible working arrangements for workers aged 65 and older, and that doing so will not be viewed as treating younger workers (ages 40 to 64) less favorably.

Additionally, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (Title VII), employers are prohibited from involuntarily excluding from the workplace, furloughing, or placing on leave, pregnant employees, even if the intent behind the decision is to protect the employee’s health and safety.Continue Reading EEOC provides updated guidance related to excluding high-risk workers, required accommodations, and pandemic-based harassment

On June 15, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, No. 17-1618 (U.S. Jun. 15, 2020), which held that an employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In a 6-3 opinion authored by

On May 1, 2020, Councilmember Kendra Brooks (At Large) announced a proposed bill, co-sponsored by Helen Gym (At Large) and Bobby Henon (6th District), that would increase the amount of paid sick leave available to workers who continue to physically report to their jobs during a “public health emergency.” This bill comes on the heels of much outcry from state and local officials hoping to address the fact that millions of workers have been excluded from federal emergency paid leave during the COVID-19 pandemic. While the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) and the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act create certain emergency sick time provisions for workers, these statutes exclude many employees. In Pennsylvania alone, more than 3 million workers have been excluded the law’s exemptions. The Brooks bill would certainly address these shortcomings.
Continue Reading Philadelphia councilmembers propose bill to increase paid sick leave for many federally excluded employees

As shutdown orders begin to subside and states across the nation take steps toward reopening, employers should prepare for a potential spike in employment claims arising out of new legislation, the application of existing laws to novel workplace circumstances and a sudden downturn in the economy. Below is a summary of some of the claims that employers can expect to receive in the coming months.

Claims stemming from layoffs, furloughs and recalls to work

Employers may see claims brought by individuals who allege that they were not given proper notice of, and/or were discriminated against, in an employer’s selection of employees to terminate, furlough or recall following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) and parallel state “mini-WARN” acts generally require covered employers to provide advance notice (usually 60 days) of a mass layoff or a significant reduction in hours.  As a result of the shutdown orders across the country, many non-essential businesses were abruptly forced to significantly slow or completely halt operations. Consequently, these businesses were forced to furlough or lay off their workforces with little or no notice. Employers that were unable to give requisite WARN notice (or gave no notice at all) may see an influx of claims seeking potential damages for back pay and fringe benefits for each day of violation, as well as for civil penalties. Unfortunately, the U.S. Department of Labor has yet to provide clear guidance as to whether the unforeseeable business circumstances or natural disaster exceptions will apply to businesses impacted by these shut-down orders.
Continue Reading Employers Beware: Post-pandemic litigation traps

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently released new guidance (the Guidance) and a flowchart (the Flowchart) detailing how states can safely reopen businesses and schools in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. The 60-page guidance document covers a wide range of topics, including surveilling, contact tracing, and controlling COVID-19 cases.

The Guidance provides generalized recommendations, while simultaneously cautioning employers to tailor the Guidance based on the state and industry within which the employer operates. For each set of recommendations, the CDC creates a three-step program to safely scale up operations, with Step One requiring the most stringent measures of mitigation and Step Three requiring the least. The Guidance also provides more specific recommendations that highlight additional considerations for reopening mass transit, childcare programs, day camps, restaurants, and bars, as well as businesses that employ workers at high risk for severe illness due to COVID-19.
Continue Reading CDC issues new guidance on reopening the workplace

In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, many U.S. businesses remain shuttered or operating at reduced levels. While the ultimate decision to allow employees to return to “in-person” work will likely involve a staggered, multi-faceted, jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction approach, on April 16, 2020, the federal government nevertheless announced a three-phase plan for “reopening America,” including guidance for state and local officials.

In the first phase, businesses are encouraged to continue remote work, returning to “in-person” work in phases. For businesses that do reopen “in-person” operations, common areas should remain closed and strict social distancing protocols should be enforced. Non-essential travel should remain limited. Special accommodations are recommended for workers who are at high risk. In the second phase, business should continue to encourage remote work and, for “in-person” operations, keep common areas closed. Moderate social distancing protocols should be enforced and businesses can resume non-essential business travel. Special accommodations for high risk workers should continue. During the third phase, in states and regions with no evidence of a rebound of COVID-19 cases, employers can resume unrestricted “in-person” staffing of worksites.
Continue Reading What comes next: Reopening the workplace after COVID-19

On April 1, 2020, U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper said that states have the option of using the National Guard to enforce stay-at-home orders amid the coronavirus pandemic. He compared having the National Guard deal with the coronavirus to its duties when a hurricane or another natural disaster strikes the country, saying the force would be used to curb the outbreak’s effects.

How does this affect employers? National Guard members (and National Disaster Medical System reservists) are protected under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA). USERRA, which applies to virtually all U.S. employers, regardless of size, and covers nearly all employees, including part-time and probationary employees, protects the job rights of individuals who voluntarily or involuntarily leave employment positions to perform service in the uniformed services. Under the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Response Act of 2002, certain disaster response work (and authorized training for such work) is considered “service in the uniformed services.” Uniformed service includes active duty, active duty for training, inactive duty training (such as drills), initial active duty training, and funeral honors duty performed by National Guard and reserve members, as well as the period for which a person is absent from a position of employment for the purpose of an examination to determine fitness to perform any such duty.Continue Reading National Guard members are protected under USERRA – What employers need to know about employees in the National Guard

While all employers are facing an unprecedented whirlwind of rapidly changing circumstances as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, employers with unionized workforces face additional challenges as they take action in response to the outbreak while trying to avoid running afoul of the requirements of their collective bargaining agreements and the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Here are a few suggestions for employers to consider as they navigate this new landscape.
Continue Reading Responding to COVID-19 in a unionized workplace

On March 24, 2020, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) decided to postpone the effective date of its final rule modifying the Agency’s regulation on union representative-case procedures, from April 16, 2020 to May 31, 2020, in order to facilitate the resolution of legal challenges.

The NLRB’s final rule, which rolled back some of the burdensome requirements of the “quickie election” rule issued under the Obama Administration, was published on December 13, 2019. Many employers argued that the original quickie election rule stripped them of the proper due process that they should have been afforded when served with a union representation petition. Further, employers complained that the rule inherently shortened the election campaign timeframe and impeded those employers that had hoped to give employees guidance about union representation, leaving such employees with substantially less time to consider important facts necessary for making a thoughtful choice during a union election.
Continue Reading NLRB extends effective date of its final rule modifying representation case procedures – Now effective May 31, 2020