My Employment Law Predictions For 2019

Honestly, I thought about skipping predictions this year, because what's happening with the president is unpredictable. However, I'll take my best shot. Here are my predictions for employment law in 2019:

• Florida might be more pro-employee: Although our new governor was a Trump pick, I don't think that's the end of the story. He's already fighting to lift some legislatively-imposed restrictions on medical marijuana. His new Chief of Staff was also Charlie Crist's Chief. You might remember that Charlie, although a Republican at the time, was actually pretty good for employees in Florida. I'm thinking we might get some pleasantly pro-employee action out of Tallahassee this year. The legislature is still gruesomely anti-employee though. So we'll see if the new governor can make a difference for working people.
• More anti-employee executive orders: One thing that Trump has been consistent with is his attacks on working people. He'll continue his anti-employee agenda.
• More anti-employee federal agencies: All the federal agencies that are supposed to be helping working people, like OSHA, DOJ, EEOC, and NLRB have become more anti-employee under Trump. That will continue.
• Anti-employee Supreme Court: The Supremes will be pretty consistently anti-employee. They already upheld the transgender military ban. It will only get worse.
• Pro-employee legislation in the House: The House will pass multiple pro-employee laws. The Senate won't. Even if something miraculously got through, it wouldn't be signed. Sad.
• Legal marijuana will spread: Despite repeated promises from the Trumpian DOJ to crack down, more states will legalize marijuana. Some will even protect employees from being fired for legal use, or from being fired for approved medical use.
• Federal employee slavery will end: Eventually, the shutdown will end and the enforced work-without-pay of federal employees will end. Will this cause federal employee unions to demand more protections? Will people leave the federal government in droves knowing this could happen again and again? Very possibly.

Overall, we'll have a bad year for employees, with some possible hope in Florida for a change. Vote better folks.

No, Constructive Discharge Doesn't Equal A Lawsuit

Every once in awhile someone tells me they were constructively discharged, so they want to sue. They're surprised when I say, "For what?" That's because there’s no such cause of action or claim. Just because you were constructively discharged, that doesn't automatically equal a lawsuit any more than being fired equals a lawsuit.

Constructive discharge is where an employee quits work for good cause. If you are constructively discharged, the courts treat it as if you were fired. This means some claims that you were illegally fired (worker's compensation retaliation, retaliation for complaining about discrimination, whistleblower retaliation, adverse action discrimination claims, to name a few) are still allowed even though you quit if you’re constructively discharged. If you would have a case against your employer had they fired you under the same circumstances, then you will also probably have a case against them if a court finds you were constructively discharged.

Most courts are reluctant to find an employee was constructively discharged. The standard is usually that no reasonable employee would have tolerated the conditions of employment. For instance, I’ve seen sexual harassment cases as extreme as rape that weren’t found to have been so intolerable that the circumstances constituted constructive discharge by the employer.

For unemployment purposes, if the company cuts your pay, changes your job duties in a major way, changes your shift, transfers you to a new location, that may be enough to be deemed cause attributable to the employer. But you’d better be sure before you quit if you want to make sure you’ll qualify for unemployment. Sometimes the unemployment office will have a website or have someone you can call to get information. Otherwise, you’ll probably want to be sure of your rights before you quit.

In general I recommend against quitting until you have another job lined up. It’s easier to get a job when you have a job. But if your working conditions are intolerable, for heaven’s sake look for another job.

If your working conditions are intolerable due to discrimination, sexual harassment, failure to pay wages, or something protected by law, complain to HR in writing before you quit and give the company a chance to correct the situation.

My exception to the don't-quit-unless-you-have-another-job rule would be if the work situation is dangerous (rape, assault, unsafe conditions). If that's the case, then get the heck out of there. No lawsuit or potential suit is worth your safety.

Can You Get Fired For Defending Yourself Against An Attack? Probably

The viral video of the woman being physically attacked by a customer at McDonalds over an anti-straw law drew much applause from folks who admired the way the cashier defended herself. However, she's now suspended and faces being fired for not allowing herself to be beaten up.

Should you be able to defend yourself if attacked at work? Common sense says yes, but at-will laws say no. Most employers have zero tolerance for workplace violence, so they fire all employees involved in a physical altercation. Most companies don't want to bother determining who started a fight. If a coworker attacks, I usually recommend workers drop into a fetal and yell for help so they can't be accused of fighting. The same would doubly apply to a customer attacking. Hitting a customer, even if you are attacked first, is a big taboo.

What circumstances would help this employee? There are some things that might save her:

Publicity: For one, a public outcry. A viral video and threats of a boycott if she's fired could go a long way toward saving her. However, there will probably still be a mark on her record and she'll be out if she has any other infraction.

Discrimination: If she can point to an employee of a different race, age, sex, national origin, or other protected status who defended themselves and wasn't fired, she might have a discrimination case.

Common sense: If McDonalds uses common sense instead of applying a zero-tolerance policy, then the company might decide to give her an award rather than punishing her. But corporate common sense in HR decisions is rare. They'd rather impose a draconian standard and err on the side of firing.

What do I think will happen? Well, she's hired a lawyer, so the threat of a lawsuit for negligent security might cool HR's jets. I think she'll be put back to work with a slap on the wrist and a cloud over her head. If I were her, I'd start looking elsewhere for a job.

You probably won't have a viral video to protect you, so my advice about dropping into a fetal and yelling for help still applies in most situations for victims of workplace violence.