Hey Florida Medical Marijuana Users - Gov. Scott Says You Can Be Fired

I've previously written about Florida's medical marijuana law saying nothing about protecting employees who are prescribed marijuana from discrimination. That was bad enough.

Now, it's worse.

Gov. Rick Scott recently signed into law a bill that very specifically says you can be fired for using medical marijuana.

The new law says that "medical use" does not include use, "In a qualified patient’s place of employment, except 228 when permitted by his or her employer."

It also provides:

(15) APPLICABILITY.—This section does not limit the ability 1678 of an employer to establish, continue, or enforce a drug-free 1679 workplace program or policy. This section does not require an 1680 employer to accommodate the medical use of marijuana in any 1681 workplace or any employee working while under the influence of 1682 marijuana. This section does not create a cause of action 1683 against an employer for wrongful discharge or discrimination. 1684 Marijuana, as defined in this section, is not reimbursable under 1685 chapter 440.

So if you thought your employer might actually have to accommodate your use of medical marijuana, think again. It will be in your bloodstream and urine for days, so you can't use it only at home and hope for the best.

The Florida legislature and our governor have, yet again, screwed employees over.

Stupid HR Stuff: If You Don't Want Employees To See The Handbook, You're Doing It Wrong

I hear this all the time: "I was required to sign a paper saying I received the handbook. As soon as I signed, the HR folks snatched up the handbook and didn't let me keep a copy." Or, "I was required to sign saying I received the handbook, but I never actually saw it."

What the heck was the point of that? The whole point of having a handbook is to let employees know what their responsibilities are, where to report issues, how to put in for vacations and sick time, all the stuff you actually want them to do and not do.

If you don't want your employees to see your employee handbook, you're doing it wrong.

I think you'll have a hard time proving some key employment law defenses if you don't actually let employees have a copy of the handbook.

Plus, once you have an employee sign a document that you know and they know is a lie, you lose all credibility with them. Everything you do from then on is a joke. A sham. They won't believe you anymore.

To employees who are asked to sign a document saying they received something they never got, I suggest signing with a notation like, “I was allowed to look at it once but was prohibited from getting a copy.” Or maybe, "I am required to sign this but I have never actually seen the handbook." Having to make a notation like that is probably a bad start to new employment, but it's better than signing something you know is not true.

Whether or not employees got a copy of their handbook comes up in almost all employment litigation. Employers who make a mockery of their handbooks look pretty stupid in court. Not only is your credibility lost with your employees, but you could lose credibility with a judge or jury too.

Can I Fire An Employee If Their Ex Threatens The Boss?

I was asked this question by a friend asking on behalf of someone else and thought the answer might be useful here. 

Question: 
An employee has become involved with multiple abusive men, who then end up calling the office and harassing or verbally abusing other employees. The latest was a call where he threatened to beat up the boss. They want to know if they can fire her.
They’re in Texas, which doesn’t have a law protecting domestic violence victims from firing, but I wonder what the right way would be to handle this if they did.

And can they legally tell her that while they're sympathetic to the situation she’s in, they can’t put other employees and clients at risk, and that they can’t continue to employ her if people from her personal life continue to call her office and threaten people?

Boo to Texas for being behind the times. Many states have laws protecting domestic violence victims. In those states, the answer would be different. A proposed federal law to protect domestic violence victims from discrimination at work went nowhere. Are we surprised? Here is a brief summary of some state and local laws protecting domestic violence victims from employment discrimination: 

• California law says an employer can't fire an employee for being a domestic violence victim, and it also requires employers to make reasonable accommodations to secure the workplace for the victim's safety. Employers with 25 employees or more must grant victims reasonable leave to deal with court dates and other issues relating to the domestic violence. Colorado provides up to 3 days of leave if the employer has 50 or more employees.
• Connecticut provides for up to 12 days of leave and bans discrimination against domestic violence victims. 
• Delaware’s law makes it illegal to discriminate against domestic violence victims and requires employers to make reasonable accommodations such as schedule changes or changes in job duties.
• Florida law grants domestic violence victims up to 3 days of protected leave. Employers cannot discharge, demote, suspend, retaliate or otherwise discriminate against an employee for exercising their rights to domestic violence leave. To our legislature's credit, this law has been in place since 2007, so we were a whopping 7 years ahead of pro-employee Massachusetts for a change. Miami-Dade County has an ordinance providing for up to 30 days of protected leave. 
• Hawaii also has a protected leave, the amount of which depends on the size of the employer. Employers can't discriminate against victims and also must provide reasonable accommodations. 
• Illinois law requires reasonable accommodations, prohibits discrimination and 8 - 12 weeks of protected leave, depending on the size of the employer 
• Indiana prohibits discrimination for either filing a petition for a protective order or for actions taken by the abuser. It also provides that employer and employee may mutually agree to accommodations. 
• Kansas law says employers can't discriminate against domestic violence victims who need time off. 
• Maine law grants reasonable protected domestic violence leave. 
• Massachusetts law requires employers with 50 or more employees to give up to 15 days off for medical attention, securing new housing, court proceedings and other needs related to the domestic violence. 
• New Mexico provides up to 14 days of protected leave. 
• New York state prohibits discrimination against domestic violence victims. New York City and Westchester County require reasonable accommodations for domestic violence victims. 
• North Carolina prohibits discrimination against victims for taking reasonable domestic violence leave. 
• North Dakota allows state employees up to 40 hours of sick leave for domestic violence victims and their family members. 
• New Jersey's law says an employee/victim is entitled to time off for treatment or counseling, and also says they have to be allowed to attend legal proceedings, civil or criminal, relating to the incident. 
• Oregon requires employers with 6 or more employees to grant reasonable leave and prohibits discrimination. Portland also requires protected domestic violence leave.   
• Philadelphia provides leave depending on the size of the employer. 
• Rhode Island prohibits discrimination.   
• Washington DC has a sliding scale for leave depending on how large the employer is.
• Washington state provides reasonable leave. Seattle has its own leave ordinance and also bars discrimination. 

Now, back to Texas (and this applies to most other states too). Some things to look into before even thinking about firing this employee are:

Subpoena: If she has been subpoenaed to testify in the court proceedings, Texas Labor Code § 52.051 prohibits termination of an employee for complying with a subpoena. Many states protect people from being terminated for testifying under subpoena, especially crime victims.

Sex discrimination: If a male crime victim was not terminated under similar circumstances, then firing the female for being a crime victim could be illegal sex discrimination. Particularly if a male domestic violence victim was not fired, she might have a case. But any male victim of a violent crime could be a valid comparator if they were being threatened, stalked or subjected to anything that could potentially land in the workplace.

Disability discrimination: Therefore, there is an argument that she is being terminated due to a disability or being regarded as disabled.

FMLA: If she is suffering from depression, anxiety, PTSD or another condition resulting from the domestic violence, she could be entitled to FMLA. Offering that might be an alternative to termination.

Other discrimination: If a member of a different race, age, national origin, or other protected category was the victim of a similar crime and was not fired, she could argue discrimination.

I would think another avenue, rather than termination, would be to assist the employee in getting an injunction. Plus, the boss who was threatened could also be entitled to an injunction against him. Wouldn’t it be better to try to help her by keeping him out of the workplace? Wouldn’t that send a better message to other domestic violence victims? It would be a terrible message to send to other domestic violence victims. It could even make them afraid to report the crime to the authorities if they think they will be fired for being a victim.

Former Employer's Attorney Can Be Liable For Despicable Retaliation

In a case that has the management-side bar moaning and groaning, the 9th Circuit held that an attorney who set up an ICE deportation sting against a client's former employee could be held personally liable for retaliation. As if it weren't bad enough that this attorney represented an employer that used the employee's immigration status to bully them into staying with the company, then failed to pay wages due, this attorney then had the former employee, a milker for a dairy, deported. Indeed, he bragged that it is his practice to have employees who sue his clients deported:

Here's what the Court said about the facts:

Instead of complying with federal law, the Angelos wielded it as a weapon to confine Arias in their employ. When Arias informed Luis Angelo in 1997 that he had been offered a position with another dairy, Luis “responded that if [Arias] left to work at the other dairy, [Luis] would report the other dairy to federal immigration authorities as an employer of undocumented workers,” which Arias was. This threat caused Arias to forego his other employment opportunity and to remain with the Angelos.
. . .
On June 1, 2011, ten weeks before the state court trial, the Angelos' attorney, Anthony Raimondo, set in motion an underhanded plan to derail Arias's lawsuit. Raimondo's plan involved enlisting the services of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) to take Arias into custody at a scheduled deposition and then to remove him from the United States. A second part of Raimondo's plan was to block Arias's California Rural Legal Assistance attorney from representing him. This double barrel plan was captured in email messages back and forth between Raimondo, Joe Angelo, and ICE's forensic auditor Kulwinder Brar. Arias quoted these revealing exchanges in his current complaint:
. . .
Plaintiff became aware on June 22, 2011 that Defendant had provided information concerning Plaintiff to the immigration authorities. Fearing that he would be deported and separated from his family, Plaintiff suffered anxiety, mental anguish, and other emotional distress from Defendant's retaliatory action. 

On July 11, 2011, one month before trial, the parties participated in a settlement conference. In lieu of proceeding to trial on the wage and hour claims comprised within the 2006 Lawsuit, Plaintiff entered into a settlement and release of those claims, due in substantial part to the threat of deportation created by Defendant's communications with ICE. 

On information and belief, Defendant RAIMONDO's actions against Plaintiff are reflective of and consistent with his pattern and practice of retaliating against employees who assert their workplace rights. In fact, Defendant RAIMONDO has stated in a declaration filed in a court action that it is his practice to investigate the immigration status of plaintiffs who have brought legal claims against his clients.  

On at least five additional occasions, and consistent with his pattern and practice, Defendant RAIMONDO has contacted ICE with respect to employees who have asserted their workplace rights against employers whom Defendant RAIMONDO has represented, and has offered his assistance to ICE in apprehending those employees.

On May 2, 2013, Defendant RAIMONDO confirmed the above pattern and practice in an email he sent to Thomas Hester of the Office of Inspector General at the Legal Services Corporation, in which he stated, “The time when I have had litigants deported, I have always simply taken action rather than make any threats. The attorneys find out when their clients are already gone.”

Wow. Just wow. Every time I think I've heard the most despicable thing done to an employee possible, I hear something worse.

The Court's findings give me hope in an otherwise dismal landscape for employees:

Congress made it illegal for any person, not just an “employer” as defined under the statute, to retaliate against any employee for reporting conduct “under” or “related to” violations of the federal minimum wage or maximum hour laws, whether or not the employer's conduct does in fact violate those laws. ․ Moreover, “the remedial nature of the statute further warrants an expansive interpretation of its provisions. ․” 

Id. at 857 (second omission in original) (quoting Herman v. RSR Sec. Servs., 172 F.3d 132, 139 (2d Cir. 1999)). 

Conclusion 

The FLSA is “remedial and humanitarian in purpose. We are not here dealing with mere chattels or articles of trade but with the rights of those who toil, of those who sacrifice a full measure of their freedom and talents to the use and profit of others ․ Such a statute must not be interpreted or applied in a narrow, grudging manner.” Tenn. Coal, Iron & R.R. Co. v. Muscoda Local No. 123, 321 U.S. 590, 597 (1944). 

Accordingly, we conclude that Arias may proceed with this retaliation action against Raimondo under FLSA sections 215(a)(3) and 216(b). Raimondo's behavior as alleged in Arias's complaint manifestly falls within the purview, the purpose, and the plain language of FLSA sections 203(a), 203(d), and 215(a)(3).

I suspect that some federal courts will not view a lawyer's liability under the statute in the same way, but I think this is the correct conclusion. It's one thing to advise a client on whether a client can take a particular action. That should be protected by attorney-client privilege. But once the attorney crosses the line and personally takes retaliatory action, then they should be liable.

I think, at least here in Florida, the Florida Bar would look askance at any lawyer who set up a deportation sting at a deposition or mediation, but I have no idea how other Bars would look at it. Two Florida lawyers who set up an opposing counsel for a DUI sting were disbarred last year.

And this brings me to a pet peeve about employment law. Most management-side attorneys act like professionals. It's a job like any other, not to be taken personally. Some, on the other hand, consider law to be a blood sport and try to destroy the litigant (and sometimes the litigant's attorney) with all kinds of nasty out-of-court tactics. An employee suing a client should not be taken as a personal affront (and good luck making money as a defense litigator if nobody sues your clients). A lawyer making vicious attacks against a litigant (other than zealous representation in court) is completely unprofessional, and gives all lawyers a bad name. I hope more courts and Bars crack down on this kind of behavior.