by Stephen D. Hans | Jan 20, 2024 | Uncategorized
Governor Vetoes Legislative Ban | FTC May Ban Noncompete Agreements Nationwide In 2023, New York joined a growing list of states seeking to impose an outright ban on noncompete agreements, as the state legislature passed a bill rendering such documents invalid. After pressure from employers statewide, however, Governor Kathy Hochul vetoed the bill. Legislators say they currently lack the support to override the veto. As a consequence, noncompete clauses or agreements are still enforceable in New York, provided they are reasonable with respect to the scope of work involved, the length of time, and the geographical area covered. The Potential for a National Prohibition of Noncompete Agreements Five other states have already made noncompete agreements illegal—California, Minnesota, Colorado, Oklahoma and North Dakota have already banned them. Business analysts see it as part of a larger trend—a rule proposed by the Federal Trade Commission, which would potentially outlaw noncompete agreements across the country, has elicited an unusually high level of response from consumers, leading the FTC to postpone a vote on the potential ban. Officials speculate that the FTC will address the issue as early as April, 2024. Officials stress that a ban on noncompete agreements would likely not apply to non-solicitation and confidentiality agreements. What the Potential Ban Means for Employers In light of the potential invalidation of noncompete agreements, employers should carefully reassess how they protect proprietary information and other valuable business assets. Can the interests that you’re currently protecting through a noncompete agreement be just as effectively protected by a confidentiality or non-solicitation provision. If your noncompete agreements are rendered unenforceable, can you require that employees sign...
by Stephen D. Hans | Jun 6, 2023 | Uncategorized
What underlying issues can lead to quiet quitting? Understanding how legal issues relate to quiet quitting along with addressing the issues can prevent disputes and lawsuits. “Quiet quitting” is a term that refers to employees who perform the bare minimum amount of work. However, they do enough work to escape job termination. Other terms for this work concept are “reverse hustle,” “work/life balance,” and “workforce disassociation.” (See shrm.org ) What types of employment issues raise red flags and could lead to quiet quitting? Employers must be alert to the fact that unfavorable working conditions sometimes lead to quiet quitting. If left unaddressed, disputes may arise or the employee might file a lawsuit. Adverse workplace conditions could include the following: Discrimination Sexual harassment Employee misclassification Unpaid overtime Mismanagement Hostile work environment Unsafe work conditions Whistleblowing Wage theft Pay discrepancies Unreasonable workload increases What can you do as an employer to uncover such issues? As an employer, you should establish a complaint process for employees to voice their disagreements. You must listen to their issues and investigate the matters. Prompt investigation is always best. In addition, observe the workplace and discover first-hand what is going on. You can also interview employees, one at a time, and discover their grievances. Another effective approach is to hold your managers accountable for quiet quitting. Discuss the issues with them and find solutions. It may involve using wage increases as an incentive. You can also suggest approaches to increase productivity and encourage employees to maximize their skills. Employees may love performing certain skills. Placing an employee in a position where they can demonstrate those skills...
by Stephen D. Hans | Dec 17, 2022 | Uncategorized
Federal judge orders Amazon to stop retaliating against workplace activists A federal judge issued a cease-and-desist order to Amazon based on retaliation against workplace activism. When an industry giant like Amazon loses a lawsuit, it is wise for employers to take notice. Lawsuit details The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) filed a lawsuit against Amazon in March 2022. It sought reinstatement of an employee that it claimed Amazon fired for organizing activity. The NLRB claimed that the termination of Gerald Bryson was unlawful retaliation and sought to have him reinstated. Amazon fired Bryson in April 2020. He had participated in a protest about the Covid-19 pandemic working conditions. During a second protest outside of work, he got into an argument with another employee. Amazon claimed he was fired for violating their vulgar language policy. The NLRB argued that Amazon fired him for union activism and that his termination would have a negative impact on employees’ organizing efforts. Details of the lawsuit According to NBC New York the U.S. District judge decided there was reasonable cause that Amazon committed an unfair labor practice by firing the employee. However, the judge denied the NLRB’s request to have him reinstated. The judge found a lack of evidence that the termination had a substantial effect on employees’ organizing efforts. After Bryson had left, the group organized and achieved a labor win at an Amazon warehouse. This fact made the case different from other cases where an organizing slowdown resulted after firing a union activist. As an employer, do you need legal assistance to deal with organizing issues? If you’re a company owner and...
by Stephen D. Hans | Oct 20, 2021 | Uncategorized
Employees contesting the vaccine mandate based on religion and disability A religious and disability discrimination lawsuit against United Airlines has currently fallen under the jurisdiction of a Texas federal court. Six employees brought a class action lawsuit against United Airlines, which they filed on September 22. They alleged that the airlines unlawfully denied medical and religious exemptions to their vaccine mandate. Details of the religious and disability lawsuit Reuters reported that plaintiffs accused the airlines of conducting intrusive inquiries. The inquiry into religious beliefs included obtaining letters from pastors. The plaintiffs asked the court to temporarily bar vaccine enforcement for employees requesting exemptions. Earlier in the summer, airlines had given an August 31 deadline and would not accept requests for medical and religious exemptions after that date. United Airlines responded that the lawsuit had no merit. It stated that more than 97% of the U.S. based airlines workers were vaccinated and that employee response had been positive. United Airlines’ mandate required that all employees receive at least the first vaccine dose by September 27 or face termination. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit accused the airlines of discrimination based on disability and religion. A week earlier, other employees had brought a different lawsuit against United Airlines before a U.S. judge in Florida. The judge dismissed the lawsuit because it had not been filed properly. In addition, Reuters reported that United Airlines workers are now seeking a nationwide class action lawsuit. More than 2,000 United employees would be party to the lawsuit. The importance of seeking legal counsel Employers have faced difficult decisions during the pandemic. Creating a safe workplace where...
by Stephen D. Hans | Mar 8, 2021 | Sexual Harassment, Uncategorized
Employer Defense Against Sexual Harassment Claims Sexual harassment accusations against Governor Cuomo began with one allegation. Subsequently, a second aide added her own allegation to the first, and now a third woman has come forward with her own story alleging sexual harassment against the governor. Legal Proceedings to Address the Case Governor Cuomo formally referred the case to the Attorney General’s Office, which would enable an investigation with subpoena power. He stated that he wanted a thorough and independent review that was above reproach and political interference. For this reason, he requested a qualified private lawyer to do an independent review of the sexual harassment allegations. New York’s Recently Passed Sexual Harassment Law As a result of the New York sexual harassment law passed in 2019, the federal standard of “severe or pervasive” no longer applies when bringing a sexual harassment claim. Previously, the plaintiff had to prove that the sexual harassment was severe. Or, the plaintiff had to prove that the harassment took place over an extended period of time, making it pervasive. An article published by the American Bar Association explains the nuances of the recent law. Under the recent law, sexual harassment examples would include unwelcome sexual advances, sexually motivated physical contact, requests for sexual favors or other physical or verbal conduct or communication that was sexually motivated. It the conduct interferes with work performance or creates an offensive work environment, then it also would be sexual harassment. A single instance might be sufficient to rise to the level of sexual harassment. Affirmative Defense Against Sexual Harassment Allegations To avoid liability for sexual harassment, a defense...
by Stephen D. Hans | Sep 21, 2017 | Religious Discrimination, Uncategorized
Religious discrimination in the workplace violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Employers must, for the most part, accommodate employees concerning their religious practices in regards to the following: Flexible scheduling Voluntary shift swaps or substitutions Job reassignments Modifications to workplace policies or practices If a worker has to take day off for religious observance, the employer should make accommodations. Certain dress codes or grooming policies may need to be relaxed for wearing a Jewish yarmulke or Muslim headscarf, or for beards and long hair (Rastafarian dreadlocks or Sikh). Undue Hardship The exception to accommodating religious beliefs or practices is when accommodation would cause undue hardship for the employer. Examples include: High cost to the employer Workplace safety being compromised Reduced workplace efficiency Infringing on the rights of other employees Requiring other employees to do more than their share of hazardous or burdensome work Recent Case the EEOC Brought Based on Religious Discrimination The EEOC filed a lawsuit in August against Century Park Associates, LLC. The company operates senior and assisted living communities in 20 different states, but the facility named in the lawsuit was located in Tennessee. The EEOC alleged that by demanding two employees work on the Sabbath, the company violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Two employees, who were members of the Seventh Day Adventist Church, observe the Sabbath from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday. The company was implementing a new work schedule and insisted that the employees work on Saturdays. When the employees refused, based on religious practices, the company asked them to resign. They resigned and then asked for reinstatement by...
