EEOC Formally Includes Sexual-Orientation Discrimination as Part of “Sex Discrimination” Under Title VII; Michigan Treasury Issues Guidance on Same-Sex Spousal Benefits

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has issued a formal decision in a federal sector case finding that discrimination based on sexual orientation is a form of illegal “sex discrimination” under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  The case, Complainant v. Foxx, E.E.O.C., No. 0120133080, issued July 16, 2015, found that “[s]exual orientation discrimination is sex discrimination because it necessarily entails treating an employee less favorably because of the employee's sex.”  Title VII applies to employers with 15 or more employees. 

While the EEOC decision does not carry the force of law, it indicates how the agency will address claims of sexual orientation discrimination, and it can have persuasive effect when courts consider private sector lawsuits involving alleged sexual orientation discrimination.  So far, however, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, the federal court of appeals that hears cases from Michigan federal courts, has consistently ruled that “sexual orientation is not a prohibited basis for discriminatory acts under Title VII.”  It remains an open question as to whether the Sixth Circuit, or any other court, will reverse itself based on the EEOC position.

The Sixth Circuit has held that Title VII does protect transsexual persons from discrimination for failing to act in accordance and/or identify with their perceived sex or gender.  The new EEOC ruling, however, goes a step beyond acting in accordance with a gender stereotype and expressly finds that sexual orientation discrimination is sex discrimination under Title VII. 

It is also important to recognize that based on the new EEOC ruling and in the wake of the United States Supreme Court’s decision legalizing same-sex marriage, this area of the law is in flux.  Courts and administrative agencies are quickly adopting new rules that will force new compliance mandates on employers.  For instance, on July 16, 2015, the Michigan Treasury issued guidance clarifying taxation of benefits for same-sex spouses.  Employers in Michigan should stop applying state income tax withholding to the portion of employee wages that is used to pay premiums for a same-sex spouse.  Further, an employee with a same-sex spouse may wish to file a new W-4 changing the number of deductions, marital status, and possibly adding a spouse’s dependents.  Employers are encouraged to contact counsel with any questions in this quickly-changing area of law.

Lynn McGuire contributed to this post.

Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Decision and DOL Overtime Expansion -– What Employers Need to Know Today

Digest of Recent NLRB Decisions on Employment in the Digital Age

The NLRB has been active in its continued attempts to establish rules for both unionized and non-unionized employers regarding "concerted activity" in the digital age.  This includes guidance and attacks on social medial policies and rulings relating to company emails.  Below is a digest of some of the most recent NLRB cases on this issue.

Purple Communications, Inc., 361 NLRB No. 43 (2014), the NLRB has ruled that “employee use of email for statutorily protected communications on nonworking time must presumptively be permitted” by employers that provide employees with access to email at work.  While the majority in Purple Communications characterized the decision as “carefully limited,” in reality, it appears to be a major game changer.  This decision applies to all employers, not only those that have union-represented employees or that are in the midst of union organizing campaigns.  The NLRB reasoned that:

By focusing too much on employers' property rights and too little on the importance of email as a means of workplace communication, the Board (in its earlier ruling) failed to adequately protect employees' rights...and abdicated its responsibility ‘to adapt the Act to the changing patterns of industrial life.’

NRLB GC Guidance Memorandum, GC 15-04, March 18, 2015, Concerning Employer Rules.

This GC memo relates to numerous Employee Handbook rules.  Highlights of the GC position as it relates to electronic and social media polices are as follows:

Unlawful confidentiality rules: Any blanket bans on employee information outside of work, bans on publishing confidential information without limiting language, or any other ban that is broad enough that it might include employee wages, benefits, or terms and conditions of employment.  The GC does give examples of “lawful confidentiality rules” that are specific enough to not encompass terms and conditions of employment, such as “Misuse or unauthorized disclosure of confidential information not otherwise available to persons or firms outside employer is cause for disciplinary action, including termination.”

Rules regarding conduct toward supervisors: The GC provides examples of language that is inappropriate under Section 7 regarding employee rights to criticize or protest employer labor policies or treatment of employees.  The GC did state that policies requiring employees to be respectful to customers, without mentioning management, would not violation Section 7.  Likewise, rules requiring employees to cooperate with each other and management in the performance of their work would not implicate Section 7 rights.  These policies also could extend to social media behavior.

Rules regulating conduct toward fellow employees:  The NLRB will ban internet or social media policies that it feels prevent employees from debating with each other about unions, management, and the terms and conditions of employment.  For instance, the GC found a policy unlawful that stated “[d]on’t pick fights” online. 

The GC did find that anti-harassment policies were lawful.  For instance, a policy was acceptable that prevented “harassment of employees, patients or facility visitors.”  Likewise, an employer can ban “use of racial slurs, derogatory comments, or insults.”

Policies regarding interaction with third parties: Any policy that could be construed as banning an employee’s right to communicate with news media, government agencies, or other third parties about wages, benefits, or other terms and conditions of employment will be found unlawful by the NLRB.  Policies will be lawful if they clarify that the employee cannot speak on behalf of the company but that the employees can speak to outsiders on behalf of themselves.

Unlawful rules regarding logos and trademarks:  The NLRB claims employees have fair use to use company intellectual property in support of concerted activity.  For instance, the NLRB has found unlawful a policy preventing use of “any Company logos, trademarks, graphics, or advertising materials” in social media.

Wendy’s Social Media Policy: The GC memo contains a discussion of its settlement with Wendy’s International LLC.  The company social medial policy required anyone commenting about Wendy’s on social media to obtain advance approval from his or her supervisor.  This was found to be overly broad and could prevent employee’s from discussing protected activities.

Wendy’s also banned posting photographs taken at company property.  The NLRB found this could violate the NLRA because pictures of, for instance, employee’s picketing would be lawful. 

Another Wendy’s policy prevented the creation of a blog or online group “related to your job” without approval from the company.  Because employees have the right to discuss the terms and conditions of employment online, this policy was unlawful.

The Wendy’s anti-disparagement policy was also found unlawful.  The offending provisions stated: [d]o not harass, threaten, libel, malign, defame, or disparage fellow professionals, employees, clients, competitors, or anyone else.  Do not make personal insults, use obscenities or engage in any conduct that would be unacceptable in a professional environment.”

Pier Sixty, LLC  362 NLRB 59 (2015), a March 31, 2015 (post GC Memorandum) decision where the NLRB found that language of the most offensive degree was not “so egregious as to exceed the Act’s protection.” Id. at *3.  Two days before a union election, a frustrated employee on break posted of his supervisor on Facebook:

Bob is such a NASTY MOTHER F***** don’t know how to talk to people???  F*** his mother and his entire f****** family?? What a LOSER??  Vote YES for the UNION???!!

The NLRB applied, what the dissenting panel member described as the “Atlantic Steel test on steroids” of (i) the place of the discussion, (ii) the discussion’s subject matter, (iii) the nature of the employee’s outburst, and (iv) whether the employer provoked the outburst, the Board also cobbled together “totality of the circumstances” factors from previous Board cases in considering (i) employer’s antiunion hostility, (ii) whether employee was impulsive or deliberate, (iii) whether the employer considered language similar to that used by employee to be offensive, (iv) whether the employer maintained a specific rule prohibiting the language at issue, and (v) whether the discipline imposed upon employee was typical of that imposed for similar violations or disproportionate to his offense.  

The employee was reinstated from his termination as the NLRB found his post was protected concerted activity.

Boch Imports, Inc., 362 NLRB No. 83 (April 30, 2015).  The NLRB found the company’s social media policy overly broad. The handbook rule required employees to: (1) identify themselves whenever they posted comments about the employer, the employer’s business, or a policy issue, and (2) prohibited employees from using the employer’s logo “in any manner.” In finding this policy unlawful, the NLRB reasoned that the self-identification requirement could cover comments about the terms and conditions of employment, and the requirement to self-identify would reasonably interfere with employees' protected activities on social media. The NLRB took issue with the restriction on using the employer’s logo “in any manner.” This, the Board reasoned, could cover protected employee communications, such as an employee engaging in union activity while wearing a uniform bearing the company logo.

In Macy’s Inc., 01-CA-123640 (May 12, 2015), an administrative law judge found that Macy’s maintained an unlawful employee handbook that contained overbroad confidential information policies. Macy’s policies prohibited employees from divulging “the personal information of the Company’s employees and customers,” “information about employees ... which if known outside the Company could harm the Company or its . . . employees,” “confidential information,” “information such as names, home and office contact information,” “any information that is not generally available to the public that relates to the Company or the Company’s . . . employees,” and “personally-identifiable information (Personal Data) ... [which] includes names, home and office contact information.” The ALJ found that these provisions unlawfully restrict employees from discussing the terms and conditions of their employment.

Macy’s handbook included a “savings clause” stating that nothing in the handbook was intended to limit employees from engaging in their rights protected by the Act, including protected concerted activities. The ALJ, howver, found that this “savings clause” was insufficient and written in a “generic” manner, whereas the prohibitions on employee conduct were very specific.

Rocky Mountain Eye Center, P.C., 19-CA-134567 (May 6, 2015).  An administrative law judge found that the company violated the NLRA by terminating an employee based on an unlawful confidentiality provision. That policy stated that “information about physicians, other employees, and the internal affairs of [the employer] are considered confidential . . . Breach of either patient or facility confidentiality is considered gross misconduct and may lead to immediate dismissal.” An employee accessed a database that included contact information for both the employer’s patients and employees and provided the employee contact information to a union organizer. The ALJ held that the confidentiality policy unlawfully restricted protected activity and was applied to restrict the employee’s right to share information about other employees with the union. The judge went on to further conclude that the employer violated the Act by terminating the employee for engaging in protected concerted activity.

In Landry’s Inc. (Bubba Gump Shrimp Co.), 362 NLRB No. 69 (April 16, 2015), the NLRB found that a social medial policy was permissible. The employee claimed termination based on making protected negative statements in social media about the employer. The employer’s social media policy stated:

While your free time is generally not subject to any restriction by the Company, the Company urges all employees not to post information regarding the Company, their jobs, or other employees which could lead to morale issues in the workplace or detrimentally affect the Company’s business. This can be accomplished by always thinking before you post, being civil to others and their opinions, and not posting personal information about others unless you have received their permission.

The judge noted that the “cautionary language” in the first sentence could act to inhibit employees from exercising their Section 7 rights. But the judge went on to conclude that when read in conjunction with the second sentence, the policy was sufficiently narrowly tailored to the “manner and tone” with which employees discuss the terms and conditions of their jobs, and “not the content.” The judge concluded that the employer did not violate the Act.

Does the ADA Require Employers to Give Drivers to Blind Pharmaceutical Reps?

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals is currently considering an appeal of a case involving whether a legally blind Pfizer sales representative must be provided a driver as an ADA accommodation.  The case involves a long-time Pharm-Rep for Pfizer whose job was to travel to physician offices to make sales visits.  The sales territory was large parts of North Carolina that lacked public transportation.  After the sales representative became legally blind and could no longer drive, she asked Pfizer to hire a full-time driver to take her to physician offices as an ADA accommodation.  Pfizer denied the request.

The subsequent ADA lawsuit was dismissed by the federal court judge overseeing the case.  The plaintiff appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals arguing that while traveling was an essential function of the employee's job, actually driving was not.  Therefore, a driver would have been a reasonable accommodation for that job function.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Federation of Independent Businesses, and Equal Employment Advisory Council filed an Amicus brief (a brief filed by interested parties who are not technically part of the lawsuit).  The Amicus brief argued that providing a driver would not be a reasonable accommodation and would represent and undue hardship to the employer.  Requiring a driver for a sales person would have far reaching consequences according to the brief.

The Amicus brief was filed in the wake of briefs filed by the EEOC and National Employment Lawyers Association (NELA) that argued that the employee should have been given a driver.  The briefs compared the case to providing an interpreter for a deaf employee, which is required as an accommodation.

The case remains pending.  In the meantime, to avoid such word games from Plaintiff attorneys, employers should specify that both traveling and driving are essential functions of the job for outside sales personnel.

EEOC Responds to Criticism During Senate Hearing, Defends Wellness Regulations and Conciliation Efforts

During a recent Senate Committee Oversight Hearing, the EEOC faced criticism for pursuing discrimination investigations where no individual has claimed discrimination and focusing on high-profile lawsuits relating to novel legal issues rather than handling the charges currently pending.  Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn) noted that the EEOC backlog has grown to more than 75,000 pending charges.  EEOC representations and Republican Senators jousted over several additional hot topic issues during the hearing.

Wellness Plans:  For instance, during the hearing the GOP was critical of the EEOC's new proposed regulations regarding wellness plans.  On April 20, 2015, the EEOC issued proposed regulations under the ADA regarding whether certain wellness plans are discriminatory.  These plans may comply with the ACA but still be considered unlawful under the ADA.  Republicans have introduced legislation (H.R. 1189, S. 620) that would shield employers from ADA lawsuits as long as their wellness plans complied with ACA requirements. "We recognize that many employers wish to implement wellness programs in an effort to improve their employees' health and reduce health care costs," Yang noted in her prepared remarks. “We are also mindful that wellness programs must adhere to the ADA's requirement that disability-related inquiries (such as questions on a health risk assessment) or medical examinations (such as blood tests for cholesterol levels) that are part of employee health programs must be 'voluntary.'"

New GINA Regulations Coming Soon:  The EEOC is aiming for the end of July to propose regulations under the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act that would impact wellness plans as well.

Conciliation Efforts: The EEOC, in response to questions, stated that lawsuits from the EEOC are a "last resort" and noted it engages in conciliation efforts prior to filing any lawsuit. The EEOC Chair Jenny Yang noted that the recent Supreme Court case allowing narrow judicial review of the EEOC's conciliation efforts was a "positive step forward."

The battle will no doubt continue as administrative agencies like the EEOC and NLRB take a more active role in attempting to change interpretations of existing statutes.

For more information, contact Brett J. Miller
www.butzel.com

Do On-Call Hours Count Toward the 30-Hour per Week ACA Requirement?

Employers should be careful with this issue and it will depend on how the on-call time is structured.  Remember, the ACA requires you to count “hours of service” toward the ACA 30 hour requirement.  Hours of service goes well beyond simple “hours worked.”  To determine if on-call time should be counted toward the 30-hour requirement, there are several things that must be considered.  Is it paid-at-regular-rate on-call time? Is it on-call time paid at some discounted rate?  Is the employee required to be on-site?  The preamble to the final employer mandate rule states:

The Treasury Department and the IRS continue to consider additional rules for determining hours of service for purposes of section 4980H with respect to certain work arrangements, including on-call hours, or categories of employees whose hours of service are particularly challenging to identify or track or for whom the final regulations’ general rules for determining hours of service may present special difficulties. Until further guidance is issued, employers of employees who have on-call hours are required to use a reasonable method for crediting hours of service that is consistent with section 4980H. It is not reasonable for an employer to fail to credit an employee with an hour of service for any on-call hour for which payment is made or due by the employer, for which the employee is required to remain on-call on the employer’s premises, or for which the employee’s activities while remaining on-call are subject to substantial restrictions that prevent the employee from using the time effectively for the employee’s own purposes.

Certainly it is clear that if employees are paid at their standard rate for on-call hours, these hours should be counted as hours of service. It remains unclear, however, how to treat circumstances where employees receive other minimal compensation for on-call time but are not called to work or substantially restricted.  It seems clear that if the employee is not paid for on-call time and is free of “substantial restrictions that prevent the employee from using the time effectively for the employee’s own purposes” then those hours would not count toward the 30-hour requirement.

Don’t Let the Bed Bugs Bite Your Business: Add a Bed Bug Policy to Your Handbook.

Bedbugs have been an increasing problem for families and businesses.  For instance, in June 2012, the Detroit News ran a front page article entitled “Detroit Bus Drivers Seek Bedbug Relief.”  According to the article, bus drivers were complaining of bed bugs on the buses and seeking employer intervention.  According to the Michigan bed bug registry, these tiny pests have been reported throughout the Detroit area as well as in Ann Arbor, Lansing, Flint, Grand Rapids, Traverse City, Kalamazoo, and other populated areas of Michigan.  Walk into any Home Depot or Lowes and you can now find shelves full of bedbug treatments and sprays.  In short, bedbugs are a major problem.

This author has received numerous questions about bedbugs in the workplace, including a panicked call from a client in the furniture business.  A warehouse employee had reported bed bugs in her apartment and claimed that she had been bitten.  The client wanted to know what steps could be taken to keep her out of the warehouse given that a bedbug-infested furniture warehouse may not be the best business model.  The client had no bed bug policy and no precedent to guide him.

The details of the background of bedbugs and bed bug remediation are beyond the scope of this article.  For those interested, the State of Michigan has a website dedicated to bed bugs that can be accessed online (Google “bed bugs State of Michigan” to find the website).  

For employers, bedbugs can be a very serious problem.  Imagine, for instance, that an employee in hospital, nursing home, or home health setting reports a bed bug infestation in his or her home or body.  This could include direct care givers or laundry workers who may be spreading bed bugs to patients.

The potential for a bed bug infestation from any one of these employees is tremendous and can be damaging to a business.  But, what can an employer do?  One option is to establish an employment policy that sets forth expectations for an employee who may be carrying bed bugs to work.

In crafting a bed bug policy, an employer must answer several questions:

1.    How does the company plan to prevent bed bug infestations?  For instance, will the company conduct on-site inspections of work areas (if allowable under an applicable collective bargaining agreement) or will the employer rely on reports of bed bugs in the work place from other employees or customers?

2.    Will employees have a duty to report bed bugs seen in the workplace?

3.    Will your policy require employees to report bed bug infestations or bites from home?

4.    What is the employer’s plan if an employee does have an infestation?  Will the employee be granted leave to avoid the risk of spreading bed bugs in the work place?  Will the leave be paid or covered by sick time?

5.    Will the employer pay for an employee’s extermination costs at home or require the employee to fix the problem and trust that it is done competently?

How these questions are answered will depend on the employer’s industry and the severity of a potential bed bug threat.  We recommend, at a minimum, requiring employee’s to disclose bed bugs spotted in the workplace and any bed bugs at home.  Failure to so report could lead to discipline up to and including termination.  Employers should also reserve the right to conduct inspections of the work place where possible.

There is, of course, the potential for liability from employee bed bug issues regardless of how well crafted a bed bug policy may be.  For instance, there are OSHA concerns where there is a workplace bed bug outbreak.  While OSHA regulations do not specifically mention bed bugs, the general duty clause states that “every closed workplace shall be so constructed and maintained to prevent the entrance of vermin . .  . .”  Thus, bed bugs could lead to a host of problems under OSHA and its attendant record keeping and reporting requirements.  We recently defended a MIOSHA claim of retaliation for reporting bed bugs in a nursing home.  While it turned out to be a false report, the government investigated the claim nonetheless before dismissing the charge.

Likewise, there could be whistleblower lawsuits for employees who report or threaten to report a bed bug issue.  Workers’ compensation could also be implicated if any employee claims an illness based on a workplace-related bed bug bite. 

There can also be a potential for discrimination claims.  Any bed bug policy should be crafted to avoid having a disparate impact on certain protected classifications.   Bed bugs are often found in low income areas but can strike anywhere.  Employers should not single out any one group for bed bug inspections or other action. 

Finally, employers must be aware of common law negligence claims.  If any employer is aware of workplace bed bugs and takes no action, the employer could face a negligence lawsuit from employees who become infested.  

Given the potential for disruption of business and possible liability, health care employers should have an employee bed bug policy.  Employers should consult legal counsel before implementing such a policy and before taking any adverse employment actions against an employee who has a bed bug infestation.

By Brett J. Miller