Texas Employment Law Update : Texas Employment Lawyer & Attorney : Russell D. Cawyer : Kelly Hart & Hallman Law Firm : Dallas TX Labor Updates

There has been significant coverage of the unfair labor practice charges that have been filed by employees who were terminated over their postings made on Facebook, Twitter and other social media applications.  (Examples here, here and here).  The NLRB actions in some of these cases have lead to the belief by some union agents and employee representatives that comments made by employees (whether working at union or nonunion shops) through social media have greater protection than comments made in person. 

Recently, the NLRB Office of General Counsel issued three advice memoranda clarifying what does and does not constitute protected concerted activity in the social media context.  This advice dispells the argument that comments made through social media gain any greater protection under labor law than comments made in person.  This guidance is important in that it makes clear that employers may discipline employees for their personal comments made in the social media world when:

• the comments are merely expressions of an individual's gripe or frustration with an individual in management rather than an attempt to initiate or induce coworkers to engage in group action.
• the comments are made to those who are not co-workers of the employee (and the employee wasn't Facebook friends with any co-workers).
• merely communicating with friends about happenings at work.

Whether an employee's comments, whether made through social media or in person, constitutes protected concerted activity is an incredibly fact-intensive analysis.  It may depend on whether the employee has any co-worker Facebook friends, Twitter followers or included in Google+ circles; what comments or feedback co-workers provide to the posts; whether posts are discussed with or seen by co-workers; and of course, the content of the communications themselves.  The General Counsel guidance provide useful parameters for determining whether the conduct is protected under federal labor law.

You can download a copy of the Advice Memorandum here, here and here.

Follow me on Twitter @RussellCawyer

Like this on Facebook.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Verizon agreed to pay $20 million dollars and ceasing using its no-fault attendance policy for  absences caused by impairments qualifying as disabilities under the ADAAA.  Whatever the size of Verizon's Human Resources Department, it looks like its going to need to be a lot larger.

As part of the settlement with the EEOC, Verizon agreed that before it would charge ANY absence against an employee under its no-fault attendance policy, it would determine whether:

• the employee has a mental or physical impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual as defined by the ADA;
• the employee's absence was caused by a disability;
• the employee, or someone else on the employee's behalf, requested a period of time off from work due to a disability;
• the employee's absence have been unreasonably unpredictable, repeated, frequent or chronic;
• the employee's absences are expected to be unreasonably unpredictable, repeated, frequent or chronic;
• Verizon could determine, from the request by or on behalf of the employee or through an interactive reasonable accommodation process, a definite or reasonably certain period of time off that the employee would need because of a disability; and
• the employee's need for time off from work poses a significant difficulty or expense for the business.

Let me say this again; Verizon agreed that it would investigate every single absence before it applies that absence against the employee under its attendance policy.  Don't believe me, here is the link to the consent decree entered in the case.  (Consent Decree).

So, if you are a Human Resources professional in transition or looking for a transition, consider applying at Verizon; its going to need the additional help.

Follow me on Twitter @RussellCawyer

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

There's an old saying in rural America that "pigs get fat and hogs get slaughtered."  We used the phrase to describe someone who, instead of being satisfied with what he has, gets greedy.  In the litigation context it can be used to describe a party that takes overly aggressive, unreasonable and untenable positions.  My fellow bloggers, Work Blawg and Employment and Labor Insider posts last week about the EEOC's apparent position that attendance is not an essential job function (or not working as Work Blawg refers to it) makes me think the EEOC might be getting a little Hog-like in its attack on employer leave of absence and attendance policies.  The issues comes up in discussions of Verizon's record-setting $20 million settlement with the EEOC over its no-fault attendance policy.  As Robin Shea points describes the dispute that was settled:

The case was about charging absences under a no-fault attendance policy to employees who missed work because of medial conditions that were 'disabilities' within the meaning of the ADA.  It does not appear that medical leaves were at issue.  Exempting ADA conditions from no-fault attendance policies is a huge deal.

With the Verizon settlement, the EEOC is apparently signaling that it believes an employer commits a violation of the ADA when it charges an employee absence against a no-fault attendance policy when the absence results from a medical condition that qualifies as a disability.  Because the ADAAA now renders everyone disabled, the EEOC's position is troubling.  It suggests that the EEOC believes that attendance is not an essential function of most jobs. 

The problem with the EEOC's position (and where it crosses the line from being piggish to hoggish) is that the ADAAA made no changes to what is considered an essential job function or the well-settled standard that an employer need not eliminate essential job functions in providing reasonable accommodation.   Certainly, the ADAAA has given the EEOC ample reason to be aggressive in litigating issues on what constitutes a disability or is a substantial limitation on a major life activity.  However, the ADAAA made no changes to the statute regarding what constitutes reasonable accommodation or essential job functions.  Most courts have held that attendance is an implicit, essential job function of most employment.  Consequently, the EEOC's position that attendance is not an essential job function and employees cannot consider absences caused by "disabilities" under no fault attendance policies is puzzling.  If accepted by the Courts, the EEOC's position would require employer's to investigate each and every absence to determine whether the employee is disabled and whether absence was caused by a disability. 

Follow me on Twitter @RussellCawyer.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Once the employer makes the decision to terminate the employment relationship with an employee, there is often (or should be) a discussion about when to have the meeting with employee to communicate the decision.  There are two primary schools of thought.  One thought is to communicate the decision at the end of the business day at the end of the workweek.  The rationale for communicating the decision at the end of the workweek is that it will have less of a disruption on the workforce by having an intervening weekend between the termination and the next time employees gather together for work.

Another school believes that the decision should be communicated to the employee at the beginning or middle of the workweek.  The thinking here is that the employee can use his or her time during the business week productively to file for unemployment benefits; begin looking for and applying for work;  contacting recruiters; and attempting to schedule interviews.  It may be in the employer's interest to have the employee use the time productively looking for work rather than sitting around obsessing over the termination decision over a weekend when they cannot apply for benefits or make progress in obtaining another job and instead may spend the time searching the yellow pages or Internet for a lawyer.  

I believe that, with few exceptions, the termination decision should be communicated as soon after the decision is made as is possible regardless of the time of the week.  Once the employer has gathered all of the information it believes is necessary to make its informed decision to terminate, advising the employee as soon as possible reduces the likelihood that intervening acts occur that might give the employee grounds to challenge the decision.  For example, some employees who are under investigation for workplace misconduct may a charge of discrimination under the belief that the employee will not terminate the relationship shortly after the filing of a  "blocking" charge.  Similarly, employees that believe their job is on the line may have a suspicious workplace injury. 

As I said above, there are exceptions to any rule regarding when to communicate a termination decision.  Employers should avoid communicating termination decision on significant dates like birthdays, anniversaries or immediately before holidays.  A termination decision is difficult enough for the affected employee and if additional anguish can be avoided by waiting a day or two before communicating the decision, the employer should try and do so.

Follow me on Twitter @RussellCawyer.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The U.S. Supreme Court will decide next term whether it is law enforcement's warrantless placement of GPS devices on a suspect's vehicle amounts to an unlawful search or seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment.  The Fifth Circuit has already authorized law enforcement's use of this warrantless tactic.  Similarly, a New Jersey court has blessed a spouse's use of GPS tracking technology to gather evidence of her partner's infidelity in preparations for a divorce proceeding. 

One of the most frustrating human resources issues to manage is proving the case against an employee who is suspected of abusing intermittent FMLA. I'm not referring to the intermittent use of FMLA that is scheduled or reasonably anticipated.  I'm talking about the unscheduled, unanticipated use of intermittent FMLA where the employee calls in shortly before the start of his scheduled shift (normally right before or after a weekend) to report an absence that is due to a serious health condition.  This can occur frequently with certain respiratory conditions or migraine headaches.  How can an employer confirm that the employee is really absent on these occasions for the serious health condition and not because the employee stayed up too late the night before?

The recent cases highlighting law enforcement's use of GPS tracking technology (without a warrant) to track persons of interest made me start wondering about the legality of an employer's use surrepticious use of GPS tracking technology on an employee who is suspected of intermittent FMLA abuse.  A search of the reported cases did not uncover any cases where an employer use GPS technology to prove an employee fraudulent use of FMLA leave.  However, there are several reported cases where employers have used private investigators to follow employees to prove a case of FMLA abuse.   Is the placement of tracking technology much different than that so long as the potential tracking is disclosed to the employee in either handbooks or other notices?  Would it make a difference if the GPS device is first placed on the employee's vehicle when it is on public streets or even the employer's parking lot?  Would an employer have more latitude to track the employee if the employee is using an company-owned vehicle?  Could an employer subpoena the GPS data file, in the defense of an FMLA case, from the employee's Onstar system installed in the employee's car?  All of these questions are interesting and I confess I don't readily know how a court would rule on these issues.

The legality of this conduct likely depends on the state where the tracking occurs (different states have different levels of privacy protection and some states --not Texas --have private causes of action for constitutional violations).  The circumstances under which the GPS tracker was placed (i.e., was the employer able to place the device on a vehicle when it was on public or employer-owned property or on the employee's property) and ownership of the vehicle (i.e,. company or employee owned) are also likely key questions.  Employer disclosure of the practice, in either handbooks, policies or elsewhere, could also be important and perhaps determinative.  Certainly, this practice is fraught with interesting potential legal issues.  

If you have had any experiences where an employer used Onstar or GPS tracking technology to prove an employee's abuse of FMLA leave, I'd like to hear about it in the comments.

Follow me on Twitter @RussellCawyer.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Employment Practices Liability Insurance, or EPLI, is business insurance an employer can purchase that will provide protection from losses caused by certain employment disputes with current or former employees. EPLI is in addition to commercial general liability or umbrella policies that normally contain exclusions for most employment claims.

EPLI normally covers the employer, its employees and executives for losses (including defense costs) attributed to claims for discrimination, harassment and retaliation; wrongful discharge; defamation (i.e., libel and slander); invasion of privacy and false imprisonment.  It normally does not include coverage for wage and hour claims (FLSA); claims for breach of contact or claims by independent contractors; claims arising under WARN, NLRA, OSHA, ERISA, COBRA and some ADA claims. It will also not include coverage for attorney’s fees associated with claims brought by the employer against the former employee such as counter claims (e.g., breach of contract, theft of trade secrets). Depending on the state where the claim is made, punitive damages may also be excluded or uninsurable.

Defense costs, including attorney’s fees, are often the largest expense an employer faces in defending an employment claim brought by a former employee. Even a frivolous claim or a claim the employer eventually wins is expensive to defend. These fees and costs are usually covered by EPLI but have the effect of decreasing the amount of coverage available to pay a judgment or settlement. Another potential limitation of EPLI coverage is that the insurance company normally gets to select the defense counsel that will defend the employer for covered claims. If selection of or use of particular lawyer is important (i.e., your normal labor and employment counsel), the employer should have included in its policy a provision that gives it the right to select defense counsel. 

EPLI policies are normally claims made policies. A "claims made" policy means that it will only protect against losses that occurred during the policy period and that are reported within a short period following the end of the policy period. Because an employer may learn of a potential claim until months after the employee leaves employment (and potentially after the expiration of the policy period), the employer may want to consider purchasing additional coverage that will extend the protection the employer has for up to a year after the end of the policy period (aka tail coverage).  Failure to timely make a claim and put the insurance carrier on notice of the potential claim can be grounds for the carrier to deny the claim.

EPLI can also be expensive. Rates depend on a variety of factors including the location(s) where the employer has employees; the number of employees; the employer turnover rate; and prior history of employment litigation among others. However, EPLI can be an important part of many business' overall risk avoidance or minimization strategy. If you have questions about whether EPLI is right for your business, contact your insurance broker or your labor and employment attorney.  

Follow me on Twitter @RussellCawyer

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Yesterday, the Congressional Education and the Workforce Subcommittee on Workforce Protections heard suggestions on how the FLSA can and should be modernized to better reflect the realities of the 21st Century Workforce.  The following summarizes the suggestions made by business and employer representatives on how the FLSA should be modernized:

• Update the computer professional exemption by broadening the exempt computer-related duties such as securing, updating, maintaining and testing existing applications even if the duties do not include modifying the programming code.
• Clarify the rule of what constitutes “de minimus” time that need not be compensated in the context of insignificant IT-related activities such as remotely checking e-mail, calendar and voice mails or checking a schedule change using PDA devices.
• Expand the exemption for highly compensated commissioned inside sales people. Changes in technology and customer purchasing habits make a distinction between inside and outside sales representatives is artificial and outdated.
• Remove disincentives for performance based bonuses by permitting employers to exclude performance-based bonuses from the regular rate of pay.
• Allow for the preemption of state and local wage and hour laws or create a safe harbor for multistate employers operating in compliance with the FLSA.
• Better define what constitutes “work” to account for the modern world where employees have 24 hour access to e-mail and their company’s computer systems through remote devices like PDA’s, laptops or remote computer access.
• Provide more clarity, predictability and consistency in being able to determine whether a particular employee qualifies for the white collar exemption.

While these are all good, needed changes to the FLSA to update and modernize it, the proposed changes are unlikely to occur overnight and there are unlikely to be meaning changes proposed by the business community until there is a change in the administration. You can access a full webcast of yesterday's hearing here and the printed remarks of the witnesses here.

Other Resources

Congressional Subcommittee to Examine the Effect of the FLSA and the Modern Workforce

Congressional Hearing Examines Problems with Fair Labor Standards Act

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This morning the Education and the Workforce Committee Subcommittee on Workforce Protections will examine whether the FLSA is outdated in today's modern workforce.  The hearing is entitled  “The Fair Labor Standards Act: Is It Meeting the Needs of the Twenty-First Century Workplace?”

According to the Subcommittee's media advisory:

Despite the broad impact of the [FLSA] on the American workforce, it is largely outdated and does not accurately reflect the realities of modern technology or today’s economy. The law has also created an environment of uncertainty with employers facing a patchwork of conflicting interpretations of the law and employees facing difficulty understanding their rights under the law.

As the committee continues to review laws and regulations affecting American workers, Thursday’s hearing will give members an opportunity to examine the effects of the Fair Labor Standards Act on the American workforce.

Representatives from the business and legal communities as well as workers' advocacy groups are expected to testify.  You can watch a webcast of the hearing beginning on July 14, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. CST here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This morning the meteorologist advised that our high temperatures in Texas won't dip below 100 for the foreseeable future.  I'm thankful I heeded my Kindergarten teacher's (Wanda Kite) advice to avoid anything ending up on my permanent record and I don't have to dig ditches for a living.  However, many Texans work outdoors everyday in these conditions and Texas employers need to take steps to ensure their employees have safe working conditions.

Secretary of Labor, Hilda Solis, has the following comments and recommendations:

Record heat is hitting the nation, putting outdoor workers at risk of heat-related illnesses, including heat exhaustion and heat stroke. Plan now so that you can take the precautions needed to protect outdoor workers during this heat wave:

• Have a work site plan to prevent heat-related illnesses and make sure that medical services are available to respond to an emergency should one occur.

• Provide plenty of water at the job site and remind workers to drink small amounts of water frequently — every 15 minutes.

• Schedule rest breaks throughout the work shift and provide shaded or air conditioned rest areas near the work site.

• Let new workers get used to the extreme heat, gradually increasing the work load over a week.

• When possible, schedule heavy tasks for earlier in the day.

OSHA has a number of resources to educate employees and employers on precautions that should be taken during this time of extreme heat.  You can check out those resources here. In the meantime, stay hydrated and cool to the extent  you can until late October when this heat is finally expected to break.

Follow me on Twitter @RussellCawyer.

Related Link:

Austin Enacts Mandatory Rest Breaks for Construction Industry

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In an issue of first impression in the Fifth Circuit, the U.S. Court of Appeals holds that Title VII's damages cap apply on a "per party" basis rather than on "per claim."  In Black v. Pan American, the Plaintiff, Carleen Black, prevailed on her Title VII and TCHRA claims of sex discrimination and retaliation.  The jury awarded Black $3.45M in back pay and compensatory damages.  Prior to entry of judgment, the trial court reduced the jury's award to $500,000 representing $300,000 in back pay and $200,000 in compensatory and punitive damages.

On appeal, plaintiff argued that the Title VII damage caps ($200,000 in this case based on the size of the employer) should be applied on a "per claim" rather than on a "per party" basis.  If the Plaintiff's argument was accepted, her judgment would include $600,000 for capped compensatory and punitive damages rather than $200,000 because she prevailed on three capped claims.  In holding that Title VII's damage caps apply "per party" rather than "per claim," the Court first noted that the Sixth, Seventh, Tenth and D.C. Courts of Appeals had held that caps apply per party.  The Court then examined the statute and concluded that "the plain language of Section 1981a(b)'s cap applies to each party in an action." Consequently, the Court affirmed the trial court's judgment that capped Black's compensatory and punitive damages at $200,000.

You can download a complete copy of the Court's opinion in Black v. Pan American Laboratories, LLC here.

Follow me on Twitter @RussellCawyer.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In an issue of first impression, the El Paso Court of Appeals has held that the Assisted Living Facility Licensing Act creates a private right of action for an employee who has filed a complaint, grievance of providing information in good faith relating to personal care services of the assisted living facility.

In Emeritus Corp. v. Blanco, Blanco was Interim Executive Director for an Assisted Living Facility in El Paso.  During her employment, she complained about inadequate staffing and training to her superiors.  Ultimately, Blanco tendered her two week notice of resignation.  Shortly before her scheduled final day of employment, she sent  an email to seven Emeritus employees and supervisors further detailing her concerns that patient care and safety she attributed to the lack of staff and inadequate training.  Her resignation was accepted the following day.

She brought suit alleging that she had been retaliated against and constructively discharged because of her complaints about patient care and safety.  A jury returned a verdict in her favor for lost wages and mental anguish in the amount of $128,500.  Emeritus appealed, in part, arguing that the ALFLA provided no private cause of action for retaliation because the Act, while expressly prohibiting retaliation, provided not right to bring a lawsuit.

In reaching its decision, appellate court reviewed a variety of the statutes under the Health & Safety Code.  It noted that some of the provisions contain anti-retaliation provisions and create private rights of action; some have anti-retaliation provisions but only provide for administrative penalties; and one that prohibits retaliation but provides neither an administrative penalty or private right of action.  The Court reasoned that by interpreting the ALFLA to expressly prohibit retaliation but not provide a remedy for retaliation would lead to an absurd result and render the retaliation provisions meaningless.  Therefore, it recognized an implied private cause of action for an employee believing he or she has been retaliated against.

This opinion appears to be in contrast to the longstanding rule in Texas that it is for the Legislature to create new causes of action and not for judicial bodies to do so.  Given the lack of an express private right to file a lawsuit under the statute (when other provisions of the Health & Safety Code provide a remedy), I expect an appeal to the Texas Supreme Court with amicus briefs from the Assisted Living Facility interest and business groups that think a judicially created private cause of action in the absence of express statutory provision providing for such is unsupported by Texas jurisprudence.

You can download a complete copy of the Court's opinion in Emeritus Corp. v. Blanco here.

Follow me on Twitter @RussellCawyer.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Most Texas employers handle claims for unemployment compensation in-house (i.e., they don't use an outside lawyer).  A good resource to consult when handling these claims (and for answers to many Texas specific employment-related legal issues generally) is published by the Texas Workforce Commission titled "Especially for Texas Employers".  According to its introduction, 
 

Especially for Texas Employers has been written to explain the sometimes confusing "legalese" of federal and state employment law in easy to understand language that makes sense in the everyday business setting. This publication is an effort to bring you the kind of information and assistance that you can use on a daily basis, and which you as a taxpayer deserve. 

ETE contains sections on: Hiring: Basic legal Issues for Employers; Pay and Policy Issues; Work Separation Issues; Post-Employment Problems and a resouce page Employment Law-Related Web Sites.  Guidance related to handling unemployment benefit claims is found under Post-Employment Related Problems. 

Follow me on Twitter @RussellCawyer.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I keep reading reports that Wal-Mart v. Dukes, where the Court reversed a class certification including 1.5 million women (who worked all over the U.S. under different supervisors at different stores) that was based on the company giving supervisors too much discretion, 125 anecdotal stories and an expert report employing dubious social framework analysis, demonstrates that the Court has a pro-business slant.  (Examples here, here and here).  These articles are prompted largely by the Senate Judiciary hearing held June 29, 2011 entitled "Barriers to Justice and Accountability: How the Supreme Court's Recent Rulings will Affect Corporate Behavior."  I disagree that the Court has a pro-business bias in employment discrimination, harassment and retaliation cases.

In the four employment cases heard this term, the Court found for the employee/plaintiff on three of those cases --all retaliation cases.  For example, in Kasten the Court held that employees can engage in FLSA-protected activity by making complaints orally rather than just in writing.  In Thompson, the Court held that an employee who has never engaged in Title VII protected activity can bring a retaliation claim if they are closely associated with another that has engaged in protected activity.  Finally, in Staub, the Court held that an employee can maintain a USERRA retaliation case even where the decision maker is unaware of the employee protected activity if the plaintiff can show that

Dukes is an example of a case that should have never been certified as a disparate treatment (i.e., intentional discrimination) case in the first place.  Nothing more; nothing less.  In fact, Dukes was more of a procedure case than it  ever was an employment discrimination case.  Certainly, it is not proof that the Supreme Court has a pro-business bias.

Follow me on Twitter @RussellCawyer.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Texas employees are ineligible for unemployment benefits if the are terminated from employment for "misconduct connected with the work."  Misconduct connected with the work includes "mismanagement of a position of employment by action or inaction, neglect that jeopardizes the life or property of another, intentional wrongdoing or malfeasance, intentional violation of a law, or violation of a policy or rule adopted to ensure the orderly work and the safety of employees."  

A frequently litigated issues is whether termination due to excessive absences or tardiness constitutes misconduct connected with the work.  In the recent opinion of Murray v. Texas Workforce Commission, the Dallas Court of Appeals confirms that termination due to violations of employer's written attendance or tardiness policy constitutes misconduct connected with the work rendering the employee ineligible for unemployment benefits.

This is a useful case for employers to cite to hearing officers and examiners in unemployment compensation hearings when the employee has been terminated pursuant to a written time and attendance policy.  Timely and successful challengers to claims for unemployment compensation is one way an employer can keep its unemployment tax in check.  (See post, post).

 You can download the full opinion of Murray v. Texas Workforce Commission here.

Follow me on Twitter @RussellCawyer. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Governor Perry signed SB 1024 eliminating a loophole that previously existed for a criminal theft of service charge.  Under prior law, a party obtaining services from another under a promise to pay could avoid a criminal charge of theft of service so long as the party was making minimal payments.  According to the bill's analysis:

Theft of wages occurs when employers fail to pay workers their promised wages. This is a frequent occurrence in Texas. In certain industries, such as construction, one in every five workers experiences wage theft. In addition, 50 percent of day laborers have experienced wage theft. The impact of this theft is widespread and has caused many workers to be unable to meet their family's basic needs. 

S.B. 1024 addresses instances when workers receive periodic or partial payment of wages. The bill also amends current law to maintain that a person commits theft of service if, with intent to avoid payment, that person fails to make full payment after receiving notice demanding payment if the compensation was to be paid periodically. The intent to avoid payment for a service may be formed at any time during or before a pay period, and the partial payment of wages alone is not sufficient evidence to negate the actor's intent to avoid payment for a service.

SB 1024 creates a criminal offense when the actor fails to make "full" payment after rendition of the services and further clarifies "that partial payment of wages alone is not sufficient evidence to negate the actor's intent to avoid payment for service."

The law takes effect September 1, 2011.

Follow me on Twitter @RussellCawyer.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link