Category Archives: Employment

What Damages Can You Recover In A Non-Compete Case?

Contributed By Jeffrey Glass, May 6, 2021

employment law books and a gavel on desk in the library. concept of legal education.

In the typical non-compete lawsuit, an employer seeks to block the defendant, often an ex-sales representative, from calling on or doing business with the company’s clients. However, in some cases, the defendant succeeds in taking some business, thereby raising the issue of monetary damages.  So, how are damages calculated in a non-compete case? 

In a recent decision, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois addressed this issue. In Zurich American Ins. Co. v. Hill, the defendant insurance salesman admitted that he improperly did business with a certain client of the plaintiff; thus the only issue was calculating an appropriate monetary award. The court explained that, pursuant to Illinois law, the employer is entitled to recover “net lost profits” that were traceable to the defendant’s breach. Net lost profit is gross revenue based on the contract price, less any expenses necessary for plaintiff’s performance of the contract. Depending on the circumstances, a plaintiff’s expenses could include direct costs (e.g., labor, materials) and indirect costs (e.g., overhead expenses). Direct costs, along with any portion of indirect costs that can be avoided by defendant’s breach (“variable indirect costs”) are subtracted from the gross revenue. But any portion of indirect costs that cannot be reduced by defendant’s breach (“fixed indirect costs”) are not subtracted, because plaintiff already incurred and paid those costs.

Applying this framework, the employer established that the company’s overall customer retention record was over 90% and therefore the customer that the defendant “took” could reasonably have been expected to stay with the plaintiff for a year. Although the plaintiff argued that it should recover three years of net profit, the court declined this request based, among other things, on evidence that the customer in question had been somewhat inconsistent with its business in recent years. 

After holding that the employer was entitled to one year of net profit on the customer in question, the court then deducted direct costs. These were the commission that the sales representative would have received, and also insurable losses that reasonably could have been expected to have been paid out on the polices. 

Finally, there was a dispute over whether some amount of variable overhead should be deducted, which would have further reduced the employer’s net lost profit. The court stated that some type of variable overhead could only be deducted if the defendant could show that the overhead could have been avoided by the defendant’s breach. Because the defendant could not prove any such overhead, the court declined to deduct any type of variable overhead.   

Therefore, the final award represented the gross revenue that would have been received from the customer in question for one year, minus the sales representative’s commission and the losses that would have been paid out on the policy.

State Survey – Considering Criminal Convictions in Private Employment Decisions

Contributed By Suzanne Newcomb, April 22, 2021

cv review flat illustration. hand with magnifier over curriculum vitae

As we previously discussed, Illinois has moved beyond “ban-the-box” and now significantly restricts employers’ ability to consider criminal convictions when making employment decisions. (For more details see our employer’s guide and join our complimentary webcast on April 29, 2021.)

Illinois is not an outlier. Several states have enacted or are considering similar legislation. Below is a short summary of these state laws applicable to private employers. All of these statutes have exceptions. Note too, the fact that a state is not listed does not necessarily mean it has no restrictions. These laws are nuanced and rapidly changing and many local governments have enacted their own regulations. Seek advice from trusted counsel before basing an employment decision on an individual’s criminal history.

California: Employers with 5 or more employees may not deny a position based (in whole or in part) on a criminal conviction without first making an individualized assessment (in accordance with the statute) as to whether the conviction has a direct and adverse relationship to the job such that it justifies denying the position. The law sets forth a detailed process to regulate an employer’s consideration of criminal convictions and imposes notice, disclosure, and waiting period requirements if an employer acts on a conviction.

Connecticut: It is currently unlawful to deny employment with the state on the basis of a criminal conviction without considering factors set forth in the statute. Pending legislation would expand the law to private employers.

Hawaii: It is unlawful to base an employment decision on a conviction unless it is a felony conviction in the last 7 years, or a misdemeanor conviction in the last 5 years, and the conviction bears a “rational relationship” to the duties of the position. 

New York: It is unlawful to take an adverse action based on criminal history unless there is a direct relationship between the conviction and the employment position or if the employment would pose an unreasonable risk. The statute includes factors to be considered in making this assessment. Upon request, the employer must provide a written statement setting forth the reasons for denying employment on the basis of conviction. 

Pennsylvania: It is unlawful to consider a job applicant’s conviction history unless the conviction relates to the applicant’s suitability for the particular position sought. An employer also must notify the applicant if employment was denied, in whole or in part, on the basis of criminal history.

Washington D.C.: Private employers with more than 10 employees may not base employment decisions on criminal convictions unless there are reasonable and legitimate business reasons in accordance with factors set forth in the statute.

Wisconsin: It is unlawful to discriminate on the basis of an arrest record or conviction record. There are exceptions to this rule for convictions and pending criminal charges that substantially relate to the particular job.

In addition, ban-the-box laws apply to private employers in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Washington D.C., as well as many other cities and counties across the country (and a total of 36 states have some form of ban-the-box laws applicable to public employment). Many state and local governments also prohibit or regulate employers’ consideration of convictions that have been sealed or expunged, arrests that did not result in conviction, and/or juvenile convictions.

Illinois Legislature Considering Freedom To Work Act Amendments That Target Non-Compete And Non-Solicitation Clauses

employment law books and a gavel on desk in the library. concept of legal education.

Contributed By: Jeffrey Glass, April 19, 2021

In recent years, many states have enacted legislation directed at employment contracts containing non-compete and non-solicitation clauses. Illinois first did so in 2016 with the Freedom to Work Act (the Act), which bans certain Illinois employers from entering into non-compete agreements with low-wage employees.

Now, the Illinois General Assembly has taken the matter up again with additional proposed amendments to the Act.

Although the new legislation has not been finalized, some provisions that appear likely to be included in the final version are: income thresholds for employees who are not “low wage,” a requirement that the employer provide the employee with a copy of the contract in advance of signing it, employee-friendly attorney’s fee-shifting provisions, and exemptions for union workers.  While the legislation primarily is geared toward protecting employees, it also helps employers by clarifying the state of the law on several issues, including clearer standards for the enforceability of non-compete clauses.

The amendments are projected to take effect on June 1, 2021, and will not apply to contracts entered into before that date.  Employers should contact their employment counsel to make sure any agreements entered into on or after the effective date comport with the new law. SmithAmundsen attorneys are working closely with employer-side groups on the legislation and will update readers of this blog as further developments arise.

EEO-1 Report Portal Opening Soon – Deadline is Set

hand with pen over form

Contributed by Beverly Alfon, April 16, 2021

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC’s) EEO-1 Component 1 Online Filing System is set to open on Monday, April 26, 2021. Private employers with at least 100 employees, and federal contractors with at least 50 employees and a contract worth $50,000 or more, must file their EEO-1 data for years 2019 (previously postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic) and 2020, by Monday, July 19, 2021. Employers will be required to first file for 2019, then file for 2020 – after the 2019 report is submitted and certified.

As a reminder, EEO-1 reports require data from a “workforce snapshot period,” which is any single pay period during the last quarter of the year (October through December), as selected by the employer.  Employers may select different workforce snapshot pay periods for 2019 and 2020. 

Employees who telework must also be included in the EEO-1 report for the establishment to which they report. Practical tip: Do not include home addresses for these remote employees as a company location.

The 2019 and 2020 reports will only include “Component 1” data, which is comprised of the same workforce demographic information that has long been required on the EEO-1. As of right now, the controversial “Component 2” pay data information does not need to be reported to the EEOC. Last year, the EEOC did not renew its authority to collect the pay data information and is still evaluating the Component 2 data that it received for FY 2017 and 2018 to determine whether or not the information is useful, and whether or not the data collection form needs to be revised. 

It should also be noted that the U.S. Congress also could act on legislation pending in the form of the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would require the EEOC and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) to initiate pay data collection.

In the meantime, some states have implemented their own pay data collections. California has completed its first round of collection under the state’s pay data collection law, and Illinois has enacted a law that requires employers in the state to submit pay data starting in 2023 (and obtain an equal pay registration certificate by March 24, 2024). Notably, Illinois employers who are required to file a federal EEO-1 report, will also be required to file similar information with the Secretary of State, making the data publicly available.    

Bottom line: Employers should be prepared to begin submissions of their EEO-1 reports for 2019 and 2020 as soon as possible. Don’t stop there. Evaluate your EEO-1 data and strongly consider pay equity analysis, with the goal of identifying and correcting any potential issues, sooner rather than later.

US DOL Publishes Model Notices for American Rescue Plan COBRA Subsidy

Contributed By Rebecca Dobbs Bush, April 8, 2021

close up of the hands of a businessman in a suit signing or writing a document

The American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), signed by President Joe Biden on March 11, 2021, included a COBRA Subsidy covering 100% of COBRA premiums for “Assistance Eligible Individuals” during the period of April 1, 2021 through September 30, 2021.  The 100% premium subsidy will be reimbursed to employers through their quarterly payroll tax returns. 

Pursuant to ARPA, employers are required to notify certain individuals about potential eligibility and details of the subsidy by May 31, 2021. Individuals then have 60-days to elect.  And although Notice 2021-01 described extensions of various plan deadlines for potentially up to 1-year or 60-days after the expiration of the “Outbreak Period,” the US Department of Labor (DOL) now makes clear in its FAQ on COBRA premium assistance under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, that this extension of timeframes for employee benefit plans does not apply to notice periods related to the COBRA premium assistance.  Also noted within the published FAQ, a penalty of $100 per qualified beneficiary, not to exceed more than $200 per family, may be assessed on employers for each day they are in violation of the COBRA rules.

Model Notices Available:

The above model notices cannot be used without modification that customizes each with specific information about the relevant individual and the employer’s group health plan. As potential fines for noncompliance can be steep, employers should carefully set procedures for timely distribution of all requisite notices. 

Can I Ask My Employees If They Have Been Vaccinated?

Male doctor hand wears medical glove holding syringe and vial bottle with COVID-19 vaccine

Contributed by Heather A. Bailey, April 6, 2021

The short answer is: Be careful what you wish for!  During this COVID-19 pandemic, vaccinations have been at the front of everyone’s mind. Now, with the mass rollout of vaccinations across the country, employers’ main questions have been: i) Can we mandate vaccinations for our workforce or, alternatively, ii) can we ask employees whether they have been vaccinated or not (and to show proof of vaccination)? Our Labor & Employment blog has been at the forefront for the first question and provides more information on COVID-19 vaccination developments and what legal risks come into play for employers when mandating the vaccine in the workplace.

Whether you’ve chosen to mandate COVID-19 vaccinations or not, you still may be interested in asking your employees to show proof of their vaccination status.  This simple question comes with its own set of risks. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has given additional guidance in this area in Section K.3 of “What You Should Know About COVID-19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and Other EEO Laws.”   

The good news is that generally asking your employees for proof of their vaccination status is not considered a medical exam for reasons that include the fact that there are many reasons that are not disability-related that may explain why an employee may or may not have gotten a vaccination.  For example, they may not have one yet because they have been unable to secure an appointment, or they simply do not believe in the vaccination because they think COVID is a hoax.  This is different from someone not getting vaccinated due to a disability or religious belief.  Moreover, this general practice is not a HIPAA violation and HIPAA does not apply in this context.  The rub and risk come if you ask follow-up questions that may elicit whether the employee may have a disability.  Simply following-up with “why do you not have the vaccination yet?” could be treading into that risky territory that touches on whether an employee’s disability is the reason why the employee has not been vaccinated. 

If you find yourself in that territory,  you will have to evaluate the employee’s response within the framework of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (or Title VII, if the employee’s response implicates religious beliefs) requirement to justify proof of vaccination being “job-related and consistent with business necessity.”  This is the same analysis an employer must undertake when mandating vaccinations, and it can be a tedious and high standard to meet. View the Labor and Employment Blog for more information on the ADA and employers’ efforts to require mandatory vaccinations and health screenings for employees.

The same is true of follow-up questions that may elicit genetic information (e.g., I cannot get the vaccination due to my family’s history of being immuno-compromised).  (See Sections K.8 and K.9 of the EEOC guidance described above).  Once again, simply asking for vaccination proof does not run afoul of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) so long as you stop there in your inquiries.

Practice Tips:

  • Again, be careful what you wish for.  It’s one thing to ask the employee whether they were vaccinated and to show proof, and it’s another to ask why they were not vaccinated. Once you start eliciting disability, religious or genetic information with follow-up questions, you are placing your company at risk of knowing more information than you may have bargained for.
  • You need to ask yourself, first, why do I want to know information regarding why my employees have been vaccinated or not?  What are you going to do with this information?  Having a need and plan for this information will help ensure you have a business justification for why this information is necessary. If you don’t have a plan or a need, you may determine that knowing this information is not really necessary after all.
  • When asking employees to show proof of vaccination, it is good to remind them that you do not want them to include any other medical information that may be listed on their vaccination-related documents.
  • If you determine this is the route you want to take, always work with competent labor & employment counsel to help guide you through the process so you do not step on any landmines (even if it’s just a simple follow-up question). 

Families First Coronavirus Response Act: What It Means For Employers

Contributed by SmithAmundsen’s COVID-19 Task Force (Kelly Haab-Tallitsch, Rebecca Dobbs Bush, Suzannah Overholt, and Jeff Risch), March 15, 2020

On March 14, 2020, the U.S. House of Representatives passed House Bill 6201 (HR6201). The legislation seeks to protect private sector workers and government employees during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the legislation does not apply to any private sector employer with 500 or more employees. To be clear, the current legislation will regulate only those private sector employers who employ less than 500 employees. The Senate is expected to take up the bill early this week. The legislation would take effect within 15 days of enactment and expire on December 31, 2020.

HR6201 contains major changes to the FMLA as it seeks to provide job protected paid leave to any employee who has been on the job for at least 30 days – for up to 12 weeks – related to the COVID-19 pandemic. The legislation also mandates up to 80-hours of paid sick leave for reasons related to COVID-19. It also provides $1 billion in additional funding to the Unemployment Insurance (UI) System and encourages states to relax UI eligibility requirements. Tax credits are provided to employers to help offset the financial cost of the paid leave.

Highlights of the legislation include:

PAID TIME OFF:

Emergency Paid Sick Leave – up to 80-hours for ALL employees working for a private employer with less than 500 employees or any public sector employer

HR6201 requires employers with fewer than 500 employees and all government employers to provide all employees up to 80-hours of paid sick leave, paid at the employee’s regular rate of pay in order to:

  1. self-quarantine if diagnosed with COVID-19;
  2. seek a diagnosis or care for symptoms of COVID-19; or
  3. comply with an order or recommendation by a public health official or health care provider to self-isolate due to exposure to or symptoms of COVID-19.

Additionally, this paid sick leave entitlement must also be available – at two-thirds the employee’s regular rate of pay – for employees to care for a family member for such purposes or to care for a child (under 18 years of age) whose school has closed or paid child care provider is unavailable due to the coronavirus.

Full-time employees are entitled to 2 weeks (80 hours) of paid leave and part-time employees are entitled to the average number of hours that they work in a typical two-week period. Paid sick leave under HR6201 must be provided in addition to any paid time off provided under an employer’s existing policies and employers may not require employees exhaust existing accrued paid time off prior to using emergency paid sick leave. The bill ensures employees who work under a multiemployer collective agreement are also provided such benefits that meet the requirements of the Act.

EXPANDED COVERAGE FOR FMLA:

Paid Family and Medical Leave — up to 12 weeks for employees employed for 30 or more days by a private employer with less than 500 employees or any public sector employer

Employees of employers with fewer than 500 employees or government employers, who have been on the job for at least 30 calendar days, have the right to take up to 12 weeks of job-protected leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act to be used for any of the following reasons:

  • To comply with a requirement or recommendation by a public health official or health care provider that the presence of the employee in the workplace would jeopardize the health of others due to the employee’s exposure to or symptoms of coronavirus;
  • To care for a family member who is adhering to a requirement or recommendation by a public health official or health care provider to quarantine due to exposure to or symptoms of coronavirus; and
  • To care for a child (under 18 years of age) of an employee if the child’s school or place of care has been closed, or the child-care provider is unavailable, due to coronavirus

The first 2-weeks of time off for the above reasons are unpaid under the FMLA, but the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Law requires that an employee is paid during that time period, as described above.  After the first 2-weeks of leave under the FMLA, employees will be entitled to receive a benefit from their employers that will be no less than two-thirds (2/3rd) of the employee’s usual pay. The bill ensures employees who work under a multiemployer collective agreement and whose employers pay into a multiemployer plan are provided with leave.

Certain small employers can be exempt from this expanded FMLA coverage if they meet a “viability” exception.  While we can assume the general intent behind the exception, the precise mechanism and process for such an exception is subject to US DOL regulation yet to be published.

The Act also clarifies that individuals that are subject to a multiemployer collectively bargained agreement and whose employers pay into a multiemployer plan must be provided with leave and benefits on par with the benefits provided under the Act.

PAYROLL CREDIT FOR PAID LEAVE

HR6201 provides a refundable tax credit applied to the employer portion of the Social Security payroll tax equal to 100 percent of paid sick leave and family leave wages paid by an employer for each calendar quarter, subject to the following caps: Sick leave wages paid with respect to employees who must self-quarantine, obtain a diagnosis or care for symptoms, or comply with a self-isolation recommendation or order from a public health official or health care provider are capped at $511 per day for purposes of the payroll tax credit; Sick leave wages paid to employees caring for a family member or for a child whose school or place of care has been closed, are capped at $200 per day; and  Family leave wages under the expanded FMLA taken into account for each employee are capped at $200 per day and $10,000 for all calendar quarters.

If the credit exceeds the employer’s total Social Security payroll tax liability for any calendar quarter, the excess credit is refundable to the employer. Employers may elect to not have the credit apply. A similar refundable tax credit is available for self-employed individuals.

SmithAmundsen’s Labor & Employment COVID-19 Task Force is continuing to monitor all local, state and federal orders and legislative initiatives in these unprecedented times. Be assured that we will continue to provide updates where and when warranted. We will also be providing ongoing webinars on the subject to try and help employers operate as effectively and safely as possible. With that in mind, please do not hesitate to contact your SA relationship attorney in the days and weeks ahead for direct guidance. We are here 24/7.

BREAKING NEWS: Illinois Recreational Cannabis Law Protections for Employers & the Workplace Clarified!

Contributed by Jeffrey A. Risch, November 15, 2019As Illinois set out to become the first state to legalize recreational cannabis through statutory authority, the legislative intent for protections for employers and the workplace were intended to include some of the strongest in the nation. However, when the dust settled and the statutory framework was analyzed, there appeared to be room for reasonable minds to have differing opinions on what the law actually meant for the workplace.

22712583 - vector form icon

clipboard and pen.

On one hand, could employers lawfully implement reasonable, non-discriminatory drug testing policies aimed at prohibiting applicants and employees from lawfully using recreational cannabis and gaining or maintaining employment? On the other hand, would employers be violating the law if they did not hire someone who tested positive for THC or if they could not ultimately demonstrate that an employee was actually impaired while on the job? These sorts of questions lingered. A quick online search trying to find answers would only frustrate HR professionals, safety managers, and business owners further. Clarity was needed.Therefore, through the efforts of several business groups and trade associations (including the Illinois Chamber of Commerce) working across both political aisles, SB1557 passed the Illinois General Assembly on November 14, 2019. While SB1557 includes wrinkles for the licensing, manufacturing and distribution of recreational cannabis in Illinois, it also contains language found below designed to protect employers from litigation.In essence, the language attempts to clear up concern that an employer may have been required to show actual impairment in the workplace vs. simply being able to implement and follow a reasonable, non-discriminatory drug testing policy.   Specifically, Section 10-50 of the law will now read as follows (changes in bold):

(410 ILCS 705/10-50) Sec. 10-50. Employment; employer liability.(a) Nothing in this Act shall prohibit an employer from adopting reasonable zero tolerance or drug free workplace policies, or employment policies concerning drug testing, smoking, consumption, storage, or use of cannabis in the workplace or while on call provided that the policy is applied in a nondiscriminatory manner.(b) Nothing in this Act shall require an employer to permit an employee to be under the influence of or use cannabis in the employer’s workplace or while performing the employee’s job duties or while on call.(c) Nothing in this Act shall limit or prevent an employer from disciplining an employee or terminating employment of an employee for violating an employer’s employment policies or workplace drug policy.(d) An employer may consider an employee to be impaired or under the influence of cannabis if the employer has a good faith belief that an employee manifests specific, articulable symptoms while working that decrease or lessen the employee’s performance of the duties or tasks of the employee’s job position, including symptoms of the employee’s speech, physical dexterity, agility, coordination, demeanor, irrational or unusual behavior, or negligence or carelessness in operating equipment or machinery; disregard for the safety of the employee or others, or involvement in any accident that results in serious damage to equipment or property; disruption of a production or manufacturing process; or carelessness that results in any injury to the employee or others. If an employer elects to discipline an employee on the basis that the employee is under the influence or impaired by cannabis, the employer must afford the employee a reasonable opportunity to contest the basis of the determination.(e) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to create or imply a cause of action for any person against an employer for:

  1. actions taken pursuant to an employer’s reasonable workplace drug policy, including but not limited to subjecting an employee or applicant to reasonable drug and alcohol testing, reasonable and nondiscriminatory random drug testing, and discipline, termination of employment, or withdrawal of a job offer due to a failure of a drug test; , including but not limited to subjecting an employee or applicant to reasonable drug and alcohol testing under the employer’s workplace drug policy, including an employee’s refusal to be tested or to cooperate in testing procedures or disciplining or termination of employment;actions based on the employer’s good faith belief that an employee used or possessed cannabis in the employer’s workplace or while performing the employee’s job duties or while on call in violation of the employer’s employment policies;actions, including discipline or termination of employment, based on the employer’s good faith belief that an employee was impaired as a result of the use of cannabis, or under the influence of cannabis, while at the employer’s workplace or while performing the employee’s job duties or while on call in violation of the employer’s workplace drug policy; orinjury, loss, or liability to a third party if the employer neither knew nor had reason to know that the employee was impaired.

(f) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to enhance or diminish protections afforded by any other law, including but not limited to the Compassionate Use of Medical Cannabis Pilot Program Act or the Opioid Alternative Pilot Program.(g) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to interfere with any federal, state, or local restrictions on employment including, but not limited to, the United States Department of Transportation regulation 49 CFR 40.151(e) or impact an employer’s ability to comply with federal or state law or cause it to lose a federal or state contract or funding.(h) As used in this Section, “workplace” means the employer’s premises, including any building, real property, and parking area under the control of the employer or area used by an employee while in the performance of the employee’s job duties, and vehicles, whether leased, rented, or owned. “Workplace” may be further defined by the employer’s written employment policy, provided that the policy is consistent with this Section.(i) For purposes of this Section, an employee is deemed “on call” when such employee is scheduled with at least 24 hours’ notice by his or her employer to be on standby or otherwise responsible for performing tasks related to his or her employment either at the employer’s premises or other previously designated location by his or her employer or supervisor to perform a work-related task.

Additionally, much needed clarification for public employers was also included concerning how off duty use of cannabis by certain emergency personnel should be administered. The following was added to Section 10-35. Limitations and penalties:

(410 ILCS 705/10-35)(8) the use of cannabis by a law enforcement officer, corrections officer, probation officer, or firefighter while on duty; nothing in this Act prevents a public employer of law enforcement officers, corrections officers, probation officers, paramedics, or firefighters from prohibiting or taking disciplinary action for the consumption, possession, sales, purchase, or delivery of cannabis or cannabis-infused substances while on or off duty, unless provided for in the employer’s policies. However, an employer may not take adverse employment action against an employee based solely on the lawful possession or consumption of cannabis or cannabis-infused substances by members of the employee’s household. To the extent that this Section conflicts with any applicable collective bargaining agreement, the provisions of the collective bargaining agreement shall prevail. Further, nothing in this Act shall be construed to limit in any way the right to collectively bargain over the subject matters contained in this Act;

These changes help to better assure employers that they have the ability to implement fair, reasonable drug testing policies designed to protect their employees and the public. Recreational consumers will certainly have the legal right to use cannabis, but the employer should have the legal right to say “you better not have THC in your system to become or remain employed here.” Of course, any drug testing policy must be carefully vetted, designed, and implemented. After all, lawyers will be lawyers. 

While many questions still remain and medicinal usage requires a different analysis (for now) it appears employers can take better comfort and be more confident in creating policy designed to maintain a safe and healthy workplace through reasonable drug testing policies. However, employers must continue to carefully examine their own unique industry, risks and risk tolerances, together with their geographic footprint and applicant pool. The drug testing policy and drug-free workplace program for the “widget manufacturer” in Peoria is likely to be vastly different than that of the “accounting firm” in Schaumburg.

Recent Decision Highlights Risk of Post-Employment Retaliation Claims

Contributed by Suzanne Newcomb, July 30, 2019

3d illustration of scales of justice and gavel on orange background

A federal court in Pennsylvania recently ruled that a former employee presented sufficient evidence to warrant a jury trial on a claim she was retaliated against after she resigned. The decision serves as a good reminder that anti-retaliation protections extend beyond the end of the employment relationship to protect former employees.

Cherie Leese complained of sexual harassment while employed by a state agency. She later filed a charge alleging she was issued discipline in retaliation for her report. The parties eventually settled. As part of that settlement, Leese resigned and agreed not to apply for or accept employment within a subset of state agencies. Leese expressly retained the right to seek employment in other areas of state government. When her numerous attempts to secure another position failed, Leese filed a new charge, this time claiming her former employer retaliated against her after she resigned by hindering her attempts to get a new job.

The state, like many large employers, coded former employees based on the circumstances of their separation. Leese was assigned an unusual code, “voluntary resignation contact former agency.” Inquiries regarding Leese were directed to the agency’s general counsel, who responded by stating, “I can make no comment regarding Ms. Leese’s separation.” Leese presented evidence to suggest the code and response were atypical and that they “raised a red flag” which took her out of the running for various positions. 

A well-drafted release protects against claims stemming from conduct occurring before the agreement is signed, but individuals generally cannot waive their rights with respect to future events. As some courts have put it, “an employer cannot purchase a license to discriminate.”

So what steps can an employer take to protect against post-employment retaliation claims?

First, establish a protocol for responding to requests for information regarding former employees, train all supervisors on the protocol, and insist they follow it, regardless of the circumstances underlying an employee’s departure. To better control what information is released, consider directing all requests to a designated individual or department (usually HR). To prove retaliation – whether post-employment or otherwise – a plaintiff must link her protected activity to an adverse action. Leese’s claim was bolstered by evidence that the agency deviated from its usual practice when responding to requests for information about her. The ability to prove that the plaintiff was treated in exactly the same manner as everyone else often allows an employer to avoid trial by defeating a retaliation claim on summary judgment. 

Second, when negotiating severance or a settlement, expressly discuss whether the individual is eligible for rehire and what information the employer will provide in response to reference requests and other inquiries about the individual (** be mindful of restrictions in your local jurisdiction and/or industry – in Vermont, for example, including a no-rehire provision may invalidate a sexual harassment settlement). Incorporating the parties’ agreement on these items into the formal agreement provides certainty for both parties and avoids surprises down the road.

United States Supreme Court Confirms and Limits Court’s Deference to Agency Guidance

Contributed by Allison P. Sues, July 11, 2019

Judge’s Supreme Court gavel with law books

On June 26, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed the continued viability of Auer deference, an interpretive doctrine that requires courts to defer to an agency’s reasonable reading of a genuinely ambiguous regulation. In confirming the use of Auer deference, the Supreme Court also narrowed its scope, setting out clear limits to courts’ use of this doctrine. This decision came in the case Kisor v. Wilkie, which involved an ambiguous regulation of a Department of Veteran Affairs rule.  

In affirming Auer deference as a viable interpretive tool for courts to employ when deciding on two readings of a genuinely ambiguous rule, the Court reasoned that Congress generally wants agencies to play the primary role in resolving these questions. As the body that promulgated the rule at issue, the agency is in the best position to know the regulation’s original meaning and possess the expertise needed to interpret rules on specific subject matters. Determining the meaning of an ambiguous rule often requires policy-based judgment calls – a job more appropriate for politically accountable agencies than appointed judges. Finally, deferring to an agency’s interpretation of a rule promotes consistent application of those rules as an agency’s guidance has greater cover than a single district court. 

In confirming the use of Auer deference, the Court was also insistent on its limits. There are several instances in which Auer deference is not warranted. First, the regulation in question must be genuinely ambiguous even after a court has exhausted all of its traditional tools of construction. Second, the agency’s interpretation must be reasonable. Third, the agency’s interpretation must be an “official” or “authoritative” position taken by the agency rather than an ad hoc statement by an agency employee that does not necessarily reflect the agency’s official views. Fourth, the agency’s interpretation must rely on its specific expertise. Finally, the agency’s interpretation must reflect fair, considered, and consistent judgment. 

The Court’s decision in Kisor is a significant one for employers because the DOL and EEOC have issued detailed regulations bearing on various employment statutes, and Courts often look to these regulations in deciphering employment law claims. When the regulation itself does not answer the question, parties may ask the Court to defer to the agency’s guidance on its regulations, be it in the form of a regulatory appendix, compliance manual, or other policy guidance documents or statements. The Supreme Court’s decision in Kisor allows this – but with clear limits. 

Take the Seventh Circuit’s recent decision in Richardson v. Chicago Transit Authority (decided just prior to Kisor but consistent with Kisor’s holdings), which held that obesity is not a disability under the ADA if there is no evidence of an underlying physiological condition. In arguing that his obesity should constitute a disability, the plaintiff pointed to EEOC interpretive guidance that, he contended, indicated that a person has an ADA impairment if his weight is outside of a normal range. The Seventh Circuit held that even if the EEOC guidance did state this, the Court would not defer to the agency’s guidance because it was inconsistent with the text of the regulation. The regulation defined impairment as a “physiological disorder or condition.”  Determining that this regulation was not truly ambiguous, Auer deference was not justified.

So what should employers take away for the Kisor case? Agency guidance, appendixes, and other policy statements should not be ignored. While there are strict limits to the application of Auer deference, courts will continue to defer to an agency’s interpretations of its own rules in certain situations.