Tag Archives: Workplace bullying

Politics & Election Law in the Workplace: Midterm Elections 2018

Contributed by Noah A. Frank and Brian M. Wacker, October 24, 2018

2018 election - 3d renderingIt’s that time again: Election Season. Employers must be aware of important legal issues when responding or reacting to politics in the workplace, as well as understanding workers’ rights to engage in the political process. This article provides key reminders to public and private employers to manage the workplace without accidentally violating relevant laws.

Imposing a blanket ban on political discussions may run afoul of the NLRA.         

The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which applies to private unionized and non-unionized workplaces, protects non-supervisory employees’ discussions about terms and conditions of employment. As such, employers may not prohibit all political discussion in the workplace because some political speech could intersect with work-related matters (e.g., immigration reform, equal pay, or the minimum wage) and therefore may be protected.

The same is true for an employer’s ban of political insignia in the workplace: an employer may prohibit buttons, signs, or clothing bearing pure political speech in the workplace (e.g., “Vote for Candidate X!”), a ban on similar insignia sufficiently connected to employment issues (e.g., “Vote for Candidate X to raise the minimum wage!”) may violate the NLRA.

Political speech may also implicate anti-discrimination, anti-harassment, & anti-bullying protections.

Hot political issues may overlap with an employee’s protected status. For example, impassioned conversations may be deemed discriminatory or harassing to an individual based on race, religion, national origin, religion, or gender, and, as applicable, could even implicate anti-bullying laws. For example, consider recent issues related to the #MeToo movement, harassment of non-English speakers at restaurants, or even Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings.

Employers must be careful that political discourse in the workplace does not create a hostile or discriminatory work environment for other employees, or otherwise implicate various equal employment opportunity and civil rights laws on federal, state, and local levels.  Remember: the workplace is not the place to “try out” new material – especially for supervisory and management personnel.

Avoiding a 1st Amendment Covfefe.

The First Amendment protects public employees from discipline and termination as a result of their protected free speech and political views or activities.  Many local ordinances similarly protect county, municipal, and other public agency employees’ political speech.  That said, public employees may not lawfully use public resources – including on-the-clock time – for campaign activities.

The First Amendment does not constrain private employers from banning political discussion in the workplace (subject to the above).  But proceed with caution.  Some state and local laws (such as D.C., California, and New York) prohibit discrimination based on political affiliation and political activity outside of the workplace.  Additionally, some states (like Illinois) prohibit employers from gathering or keeping records of employees’ associations, political activities, publications, communications, or non-employment activities. Similarly, many states (like Illinois, Wisconsin, and Missouri) protect an employee’s privacy surrounding their off-duty political speech on the internet, including speech on social media sites like Facebook or Twitter.

Of course, all employers have a legitimate and lawful interest in ensuring that employees are productive and that political discussions or activities do not impede the normal business operations, especially during working hours.  Related employment policies should be neutral without favoring a certain political view.

Private employers may persuade only a “restricted class” of individuals to vote for or against a political candidate.

Federal election laws define this restricted class as “executive or administrative personnel” who receive a salary and have policymaking, managerial, professional, or supervisory responsibilities.  However, a corporation may not advocate for a particular candidate or political party in its communications to employees outside of the restricted class, including hourly employees.

Employees probably have the right to voter leave.

In many states, employees have the right to take time away from work to exercise their vote.  Often times, missed worktime is paid, but employers can mandate the hours the employee takes so as to minimize the disruption to the workforce and paid leave.

For example, Illinois employees are entitled to two hours of leave, “without penalty,” when the polls are open to vote.  The employee must request the leave at least the day before the election (note: requests made on Election Day may be denied).  The employer may dictate the hours of leave.  However, employers must permit a two hour absence during one’s actual work day where an employee’s working hours begin less than two hours after polls open and end less than two hours before the polls close.  For example, if the polls are open from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., then:

  • An employee working a 5:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. “double” would be given two hours of paid leave to vote, at a time chosen by the employer.
  • An employee working 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. either would need to be either (a) released by 5:00 p.m. (and paid for the one hour of missed work) to have a two-hour period to vote, or (b) allowed any other two-hour period off work while the polls are open, with pay, to vote.
  • An employee working from 6:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. may be directed to vote after work, without additional compensation.

Missouri employees may take up to three hours of paid leave– but only if the employee actually votes.  Wisconsin permits up to three hours of unpaid leave.  Like Illinois, Missouri and Wisconsin employees must provide notice before Election Day, and employers may dictate the time of leave.

Unlike its Midwest sisters, Indiana has no specific employment voting leave rights.

Of course, California provides unique challenges for companies operating in different states.  Employees must be granted “enough” leave so that they will actually be able to vote, but only two hours of working time needs to be paid.  California employers must post a “Time Off to Vote” notice at least ten days before any state-wide election (failure to post would likely excuse employees from giving at least two working days’ notice of their need for time off to vote).

Employers may want to encourage early and absentee voting.

To minimize disruptions to the work day, employers may want to try to encourage employees to take advantage of early and absentee voting as permitted by the various states.  For example, in Illinois any eligible voter may now request to vote by mail. (It used to be permitted in only special circumstances when a voter was absent from his/her home jurisdiction).

Election judge leave may also be protected.

Wisconsin requires employers to provide an unpaid leave of absence for the entire Election Day to any employee who is appointed to serve as an election official. Employees making this request must give the employer seven days’ notice, and the employer is entitled to request that the election district’s municipal clerk verify the appointment.

Illinois companies with 25 or more employees may limit 10% of the workforce to serve as election judges.  Employee(s) must provide twenty (20) days’ notice of need for leave.  While this time need not be paid, employers may not otherwise penalize employees nor require use of paid time off.

California protects employees from suspension and discharge while serving as an election worker, while Missouri and Indiana have no specific laws on the topic.

The Bottom Line:

Election law is state (and sometimes county and city) specific.  If the election cycle is creating any sort of workplace tension, employers should revisit conduct standards, anti-harassment / workplace bullying policies, and reporting procedures.  Experienced employment counsel may assist with implementing sound policies and practices to help manage workplace issues that may arise during election season.

 

Responding to Violence in the Workplace – A “Catch 22” for Employers

Contributed by Michael Wong, August 10, 2017

Workplace investigation

The recent instances of violence in the workplace remind us of the complex task facing employers. Employers must maintain a safe work environment for employees while operating within the parameters of the many federal and state laws that may protect certain employee conduct. More importantly, because an employer has no objective “litmus test” for predicting which employee may become violent under particular triggering circumstances, there is no foolproof way to effectively eliminate the hazard.

Employers today can find themselves in a seemingly untenable dilemma when they have violence threaten to invade their workplace, as disciplining or terminating the problem employee can result in a legal claim as well.

In Mayo v. PCC Structurals, Inc., 795 F.3d 941, 942 (9th Cir. 2015), the employer, PCC, terminated the plaintiff, Thomas Mayo, after he made threatening comments to three co-workers that he was going to bring a gun to work and start “shooting people.” After the threats were reported, the employer took the proper precautions by immediately suspending the plaintiff, barring him from company property, and notifying the police. The police took him to the hospital for medical treatment on the basis that he was an imminent threat to himself and others.

After taking three months of leave under the FMLA and Oregon’s equivalent state law, a treating psychologist cleared Mayo to return to work, but recommended a new supervisor assignment. Instead, the employer terminated Mayo. Plaintiff then sued PCC alleging he was terminated because of his disability in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and state law.

In Mayo v. PCC, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that an employee who made serious and credible threats of violence against coworkers is not a qualified individual with a disability under the ADA or Oregon’s disability discriminatory law. In granting summary judgment to the employer, the Court held that an essential function of almost every job is the ability to appropriately handle stress and interact with others, and that an individual is not qualified and cannot perform the essential functions of the job if he or she threatens to kill co-workers – regardless of whether such threats stem from a mental condition or disability.

What should employers do?

Against this potential liability minefield, an employer should develop an effective written workplace violence preventative policy. For those who already have policies in place, it would be a good idea to review your policies and practices with your legal counsel to make sure that these issues and any potential concerns are properly addressed.

Ask yourself the following questions to see if your policy needs to be modified in light of the recent lawsuits:

  1. Do your policies advise employees that they will be subject to discipline (up to and including termination) if they “fail to foster collegiality, harmony, positive attitude, and good relations in the workplace?”
  2. Do you have a statement that there is “zero tolerance” regarding threats or acts of violence?
  3. Do your managers/supervisors know what steps should be taken if there is a threat, complaint of bullying or violence?
  4. Have your managers, supervisors and employees been trained on identifying signs and symptoms of behavior which may predict potential violence (erratic behavior; comments regarding violence, homicide or suicide; provocative communications; disobedience of policies and procedures; presence of alcohol, drugs or weapons on the worksite; evidence of violent tendencies or abuse of alcohol or drug use)?
  5. Have your managers and supervisors been trained and regularly reminded about the importance of good documentation and dangers of bad documentation?

No Bullies Allowed!

Contributed by Noah A. Frank

Beginning January 1, 2015, California employers (with 50 or more employees) must provide anti-bullying training to supervisors within 6 months of assuming a supervisory role, and during biannual anti-sexual harassment training.  California broadly defines workplace bullying as: “Conduct of an employer or employee in the workplace, with malice, that a reasonable person would find hostile, offensive, and unrelated to an employer’s legitimate business interests.”  This may include:

  • Repeated infliction of verbal abuse (e. g., derogatory remarks, insults, and epithets),
  • Verbal or physical conduct that a reasonable person would find threatening, intimidating, or humiliating, or
  • Gratuitous sabotage or undermining of a person’s work performance.

There is no question that bullying has negative impacts in the workplace.  It lowers morale and productivity, and may lead to union organizing activity – especially when the bully is a supervisor.  Tennessee is the only other state with an anti-workplace bullying law (which applies only to public employers); and all states (except Montana) have school anti-bullying laws to protect students.  Many other states require or highly encourage some form of employment anti-harassment training (including Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin).

However, California’s law signals a dangerous shift in human resources management.  While there is no private cause of action, an employer that fails to incorporate anti-bullying into their biannual training will certainly see this as part of a discrimination/harassment/retaliation claim – and worse, will likely see claims for deficient training and enforcement.

Practical Advice

Audit your policies to ensure a productive workplace, free of illegal and otherwise unproductive harassment and discrimination.  For example:

  • Open Doors: provide employees with a retaliation-free mechanism to report concerns and have open dialogue with management.  Make sure they know about it.
  • Stop bullying.  If you don’t do it now, a new union may form tomorrow.
  • Establish appropriate conduct policies and enforce them.
  • Train supervisors to recognize and correct unproductive and inappropriate conduct.
  • Take proactive steps, such as moving, disciplining, or terminating bullies.

But use caution: implementing rules only after concerted protected activity (“once it is too late”) could also lead to unfair labor practice charges (see, Care One at Madison Avenue, 361 NLRB No. 159 (12/16/2014), discussed in our February 3, 2015 blog).  Thus, seek the advice of counsel when difficult or compound situations arise.