Supreme Guts Agencies Like OSHA, DOL, FTC, EEOC, and NLRB

 You may not have been paying attention to the Supreme Court's recent decision about fishing, but it's yuuuge. They overturned a ruling from 1984 saying that courts must defer to federal agencies' reasonable interpretations of federal statutes. This is commonly referred to as "Chevron deference" or the "Chevron defense," in case you hear those terms. And on first blush, you're probably asking yourself what the heck a case about fishing regulations has to do with employment law.

The answer is: a lot.

This year, federal agencies under the Biden administration have actively taken actions that benefit workers. I've written about some of these. NLRB has said that noncompete and nonsolicitation agreements mostly violate the National Labor Relations Act, that many handbooks contain illegal provisions, and that advocating for non-employees is legally protected against retaliation. EEOC has posted updated guidelines on harassment, pregnant workers, and visual disabilities. The FTC has banned most noncompete agreements (litigation pending). OSHA has posted guidelines about wildfire smoke and other workplace safety issues. The Department of Labor has posted guidelines on which employees are independent contractors. Even the Treasury Department got into the act and issued a report blasting noncompete agreements. 

These are just a few of the many pro-employee actions taken by the Biden Administration's federal agencies.

To make things even more difficult the Supremes also gutted the 5 year statute of limitations that Congress passed for challenging agency regulations, so companies that want to challenge old rules just have to form a new entity and sue away. The courts will soon be overwhelmed with these lawsuits.

For workers, this means that every single pro-employee regulation will be challenged, no matter how old. I guess the good news is that unions can step into the fray and start challenging old anti-employee regulations. There will be no settled federal law on many important employment law issues for years to come, thanks to this ruling.

Vote well, friends.

NLRB Says Noncompete and Nonsolicitation Agreements May Violate National Labor Relations Act

President Biden issued an executive order that all federal agencies look into noncompete agreements, and they have been doing so. The FTC recently banned most of them (don't get too excited though as Republicans challenge this), and now NLRB is stepping in.

In a recent decision, the NLRB determined that an employer's 12 month noncompete and 24 month nonsolicitation agreements violated the National Labor Relations Act. Some key takeaways:

a.    These agreements can have a chilling effect on employees who want to discuss possible unionization or working conditions.

b.    Employees dependent on a paycheck will be afraid to rock the boat.

c.    If employees are unable to find similar work because it's prohibited, they will be even more afraid to speak up.

d.    Employees could be afraid of discussing unionization for fear of being accused of inducing employees to leave.

e.    There are far less oppressive ways to protect confidential information.

f.    The very existence of a rule, whether or not there has been any attempt to enforce, can violate the law.

Here are some key quotes from the opinion that might help you if an employer seeks to enforce one of these agreements against you:

• An employee who is dependent on Respondent for a paycheck would reasonably view the cited provisions in the employment agreement as limiting their ability to engage in union and other protected activities. The prohibition in Provision 1(C) on soliciting employees to leave Respondent’s employ would dissuade a reasonable employee from engaging in protected activity like telling their coworkers about the wages and benefits offered by the Union out of a reasonable fear that Respondent might accuse them of inducing other employees to quit. 
• Not only is this provision ridiculously broad in scope (could an employee indirectly engage with a competitor by sending a family member to buy something from its store?), but it would also cause a reasonable employee to refrain from engaging in protected activities that come with a risk of retaliation. 
• If an employee knows they are barred from being involved in any capacity with any company that operates a similar business to Respondent, they will logically be more fearful of being fired and less willing to rock the boat because they face the prospect of being unable to find any work in their geographic area if they are fired or forced to leave their job. 
• All three of the challenged provisions would deter a reasonable employee from working for other employers in the area as a union salt or recruiting others to do so for fear of being accused of inducing other employees to leave, being forced to tell their supervisors about job offers they receive, or having Respondent find out they are working for one of its competitors.
• The non-competition clause in Provision 2(A) applies for 12 months after employees leave, but in practice it also applies to employees while they are working for Respondent, as most employees find a new job before leaving their old job, and the knowledge that they will be unable to work for a competitor in their geographic area if they are fired or leave would necessarily impact their behavior before and after they leave Respondent’s employ. 
• Because employees are required to sign Respondent’s employment agreement at a time when they are economically dependent on Respondent, I find that the above provisions unlawfully chill employees from participating in protected activities both during and after their employment with Respondent. 
• A reasonable former employee would continue to be chilled from engaging in union and other protected activity by the threat of damages and legal fees for violating the agreement. It is unlawful for an employer to restrain former employees from engaging in protected activity.
• The agreement itself states that the rule against soliciting other employees prevents “pirating,” the requirement that employees report job offers is in place to “protect [Respondent’s] rights under this Agreement” and that the noncompetition provisions are in place because employees may have information about its customers, employees, and business arrangements. There are other, unchallenged, portions of the agreement that address these concerns, including provisions requiring employees to turn over confidential and proprietary information and prohibiting them from trying to divert Respondent’s customers. Therefore, the stated justifications are insufficient to rebut the presumption that the provisions are unlawful, particularly in the absence of any evidence that Respondent’s objectives could not be addressed with a more narrowly tailored rule.
• When a rule chills employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights, the Board has the authority to prevent it from “cowing…employees into inaction” by blocking it even before the “chill is manifest.”
• Nor does the Board have to wait for a work rule to be enforced before it acts, as it “has long and consistently recognized that an employer’s mere maintenance of a work rule may unlawfully interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights.”

Noncompete agreements and, to some extent, nonsolicitation agreements, work to suppress wages, make employees afraid of being fired, force employees to put up with terrible working conditions, and are generally a menace to society. I'm glad to see that the federal agencies are finally waking up to their evils. 

Vote well in the upcoming election if you want to let President Biden keep pushing to limit these awful agreements.

If you have a noncompete or nonsolicitation agreement and want to know if it's enforceable, talk to an employee-side employment lawyer in your state.

Beware Billionaires Who Want To Gut NLRB

Amazon has now joined SpaceX and Trader Joe's in asking that the National Labor Relations Board be deemed unconstitutional. With the Supreme Court in its current configuration, there's a real possibility that they could decide NLRB should no longer exist or be substantially gutted. 

That would be a terrible thing for employees, and for Americans in general. Here's why.

NLRB is the agency that handles unfair labor practices complaints against both employers and unions. That's what they're mostly known for. But they do so much more. Here are some lesser-known rights NLRB enforces:

• The right to discuss your pay with coworkers
• The right to discuss working conditions with coworkers
• The right to complain about working conditions
• The right to discuss forming a union
• The right to refuse to join a union
• The right to assist or refuse to assist a union

Without the NLRB, these rights would have to be dealt with in courts, if at all. That would clog the court system and make it more difficult for workers to enforce their rights.

Unions are good for America. They're good for the economy. When unions were strong, we had a strong middle class that could afford things like houses and college. We're in the horrible economy we're in because Republicans have systematically done everything they could to gut unions and reduce their power in workplaces and in politics.

Amazon and Trader Joe's, you should be ashamed of yourselves. SpaceX, well, what can I say? Seems like there's no shame to be had there anymore.

While unions are on the resurgence, we'll see more efforts like this one to destroy unions and worker power altogether. So vote well.

Does Your Noncompete Agreement Violate the National Labor Relations Act?

 The NLRB General Counsel is taking the position that noncompete agreements in employment and severance agreements violates the National Labor Relations Act.

Non-compete provisions are overbroad, that is, they reasonably tend to chill employees in the exercise of Section 7 rights, when the provisions could reasonably be construed by employees to deny them the ability to quit or change jobs by cutting off their access to other employment opportunities that they are qualified for based on their experience, aptitudes, and preferences as to type and location of work. Generally speaking, this denial of access to employment opportunities chills employees from engaging in Section 7 activity because: employees know that they will have greater difficulty replacing their lost income if they are discharged for exercising their statutory rights to organize and act together to improve working conditions; employees’ bargaining power is undermined in the context of lockouts, strikes, and other labor disputes; and, an employer’s former employees are unlikely to reunite at a local competitor’s workplace, and, thus be unable to leverage their prior relationships—and the communication and solidarity engendered thereby—to encourage each other to exercise their rights to improve working conditions in their new workplace.

In addition, non-compete provisions that could reasonably be construed by employees to deny them the ability to quit or change jobs by cutting access to other employment opportunities chill employees from engaging in five specific types of activity protected under Section 7 of the Act. First, they chill employees from concertedly threatening to resign to demand better working conditions. Specifically, they discourage such threats because employees would view the threats as futile given their lack of access to other employment opportunities and because employees could reasonably fear retaliatory legal action for threatening to breach their agreements, even though such legal action would likely violate the Act. Second, they chill employees from carrying out concerted threats to resign or otherwise concertedly resigning to secure improved working conditions. Although extant Board law does not unequivocally recognize a Section 7 right of employees to concertedly resign from employment, such a right follows logically from settled Board law, Section 7 principles, and the Act’s purposes. It is also consistent with the U.S. Constitution and other federal laws. Accordingly, I will urge the Board to limit decisions inconsistent with that right to their facts or overrule them.  

Is this a magic wand that makes your noncompete go poof? No. But it gives you another weapon in your arsenal to challenge your noncompete agreement, assuming your employer is covered by the NLRA (most are). The key here to challenging noncompetes through the National Labor Relations Act is concerted activity. You'd have to be part of a group of employees that want to threaten to resign or go to a better workplace. By yourself, the challenge probably fails. 

Plus, there is no caselaw supporting this specific issue, so there's no guarantee the federal courts as currently constituted (the Supremes have been very pro-employer) would uphold this interpretation.

If you think your noncompete may violate the National Labor Relations Act, you can file a charge against employer with the NLRB within 6 months of the alleged violation, or talk to an employee-side employment lawyer in your state about your rights.

Fired for Advocating for Non-Employees? You May Have Rights

The National Labor Relations Board has ruled that employees who advocate for non-employees such as applicants and interns are legally protected by the National Labor Relations Act. The NLRB Chair said, "“Standing in solidarity can be a protected act regardless of the employment status of those you stand with — the question is simply whether, in helping others, employees might help themselves and get help in return."

The case involved an employer's refusal to rehire a former employee. An employee who attempted to rally coworkers in support of the former employee was deemed legally protected.

The thing about the National Labor Relations Act is that it protects "concerted activity" and not just you acting on behalf of yourself. So trying to get coworkers to support an intern or a potential hire now falls within the legal protections of the NLRA.

The Board explained what constitutes "concerted activity":

Thus, as the Board has explained, the statutory concept of protected concerted activity has two elements: the employee’s activity must be “concerted,” and it must be “for mutual aid or protection.” E.g., Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Market, Inc., 361 NLRB 151, 152–153 (2014). 

“[W]hether an employee’s activity is ‘concerted’ depends on the manner in which the employee’s actions may be linked to those of his coworkers.” Id. at 153 (citing, inter alia, NLRB v. City Disposal Systems, 465 U.S. 822, 831 (1984)). The Board has held that concerted activity “encompasses those circumstances where individual employees seek to initiate or to induce or to prepare for group action, as well as individual employees bringing truly group complaints to the attention of management.” Meyers Industries, 281 NLRB 882, 887 (1986) (Meyers II), affd. sub nom. Prill v. NLRB, 835 F.2d 1481 (D.C. Cir. 1987), cert. denied 487 U.S. 1205 (1988). Notably, the “object of inducing group action need not be express,” and an employee’s statement may, in certain contexts, “implicitly elicit[] support from his fellow employees.” Whittaker Corp., 289 NLRB 933, 933–934 (1988). As the Board stated in Meyers II, “the question of whether an employee has engaged in concerted activity is a factual one based on the totality of the record evidence.” 281 NLRB at 886. “Mutual aid or protection,” in turn, “focuses on the goal of concerted activity; chiefly, whether the employee or employees involved are seeking to ‘improve terms and conditions of employment or otherwise improve their lot as employees.’” Fresh & Easy, supra, 361 NLRB at 153 (emphasis in original) (quoting Eastex, Inc. v. NLRB, 437 U.S. 556, 565 (1978)). Both the “concertedness” and “mutual aid or protection” elements under Section 7 are analyzed under an objective standard, whereby motive for taking the action is not relevant to whether it was concerted, nor is motive relevant to whether it was for “mutual aid or protection.” Id.

The Board further elaborated: "It is well established that “the activity of a single employee in enlisting the support of his fellow employees for their mutual aid and protection is as much ‘concerted activity’ as is ordinary group activity.” Whittaker Corp., supra, 289 NLRB at 933 (1988) (quoting Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. NLRB, 407 F.2d 1357, 1365 (4th Cir. 1969))."

Bottom line is that you are allowed to speak up about working conditions and to attempt to get coworkers to take action regarding working conditions. You don't have to succeed in rallying coworkers to join you. Advocating on behalf of non-employees such as potential employees and interns is now legally protected. 

If an employer retaliates against you for doing so, or for taking any other protected concerted action, then you can file a charge against employer with the NLRB within 6 months from the date of retaliation.

BREAKING: If Employer Commits Unfair Labor Practice Before Union Election, Union Is Automatically Recognized

In a total game-changer, the NLRB has ruled today that, where an employer commits unfair labor practices before a union election, the union is automatically recognized and the employer must bargain. 

It doesn't appear to apply to every unfair labor practice in every election. But it will force employers to behave better before union elections or risk having the union automatically recognized. Here's a summary:

• It applies where a majority of employees have said they want the union to represent them and the employer either challenges the union majority and demands an election.
• It applies if the employer refuses to bargain without filing a petition for an election and challenges the election due to unfair labor practices.
• It applies if the union has filed a petition for an election.
• If the employer commits an unfair labor practice that requires setting aside the election, the employer will be subject to a remedial bargaining order.
• Employers are no longer allowed to frustrate the election process.
• If the employer interferes with the election process,  NLRB will issue an order requiring the employer to recognize and bargain with the union, from the date that the union demanded recognition from the employer.
• "Simply put, an employer cannot have it both ways. It may not insist on an election, by refusing to recognize and bargain with the designated majority representative, and then violate the Act in a way that prevents employees from exercising free choice in a timely way."

Here's what NLRB said about the new standard:

Under the standard we adopt today, an employer violates Section 8(a)(5) and (1) by refusing to recognize, upon request, a union that has been designated as Section 9(a) representative by the majority of employees in an appropriate unit unless the employer promptly139 files a petition pursuant to Section 9(c)(1)(B) of the Act (an RM petition) to test the union’s majority status or the appropriateness of the unit, assuming that the union has not already filed a petition pursuant to Section 9(c)(1)(A).140 Section 9(c)(1)(B) of the Act grants employers an avenue for testing the union’s majority through a representation election if the Board, upon an investigation and hearing, finds that a question of representation exists. In order to reconcile the provisions of Section 8(a)(5) and Section 9(a), which require an employer to recognize and bargain with the “designated” majority representative of its employees, with the language of Section 9(c)(1)(B) granting employers an election option, we conclude that an employer confronted with a demand for recognition may, instead of agreeing to recognize the union, and without committing an 8(a)(5) violation, promptly file a petition pursuant to Section 9(c)(1)(B) to test the union’s majority support and/or challenge the appropriateness of the unit or may await the processing of a petition previously filed by the union.  

 However, if the employer commits an unfair labor practice that requires setting aside the election, the petition (whether filed by the employer or the union) will be dismissed, and the employer will be subject to a remedial bargaining order. Thus, this accommodation of the Section 9(c) election right with the Section 8(a)(5) duty to recognize and bargain with the designated majority representative will only be honored if, and as long as, the employer does not frustrate the election process by its unlawful conduct. As the Supreme Court observed in Gissel, Section 9(c)(1)(B) was not intended to confer on employers “an absolute right to an election at any time; rather, it was intended, as the legislative history indicates, to allow them, after being asked to bargain, to test out their doubts as to a union’s majority in a secret election which they would then presumably not cause to be set aside by illegal antiunion activity.” 395 U.S. at 599. If the employer commits unfair labor practices that invalidate the election, then the election necessarily fails to reflect the uncoerced choice of a majority of employees. In that situation, the Board will, instead, rely on the prior designation of a representative by the majority of employees by nonelection means, as expressly permitted by Section 9(a), and will issue an order requiring the employer to recognize and bargain with the union, from the date that the union demanded recognition from the employer. 

Our focus, then, is on the unlawful conduct of the employer that prevents a free, fair, and timely representation election. Given the strong statutory policy in favor of the prompt resolution of questions concerning representation, which can trigger labor disputes, we do not believe that conducting a new election—after the employer’s unfair labor practices have been litigated and fully adjudicated – can ever be a truly adequate remedy. Nor is there a strong justification for such a delayed attempt at determining employees’ free choice again where the Board has determined that employees had already properly designated the union as their majority representative, consistent with the language of the Act, before the employer’s unfair labor practices frustrated the election process. Simply put, an employer cannot have it both ways. It may not insist on an election, by refusing to recognize and bargain with the designated majority representative, and then violate the Act in a way that prevents employees from exercising free choice in a timely way.

An employer that refuses to bargain without filing a petition under Section 9(c)(1)(B) may still challenge the basis for its bargaining obligation in a subsequently filed unfair labor practice case. However, its refusal to bargain, and any subsequent unilateral changes it makes without first providing the employees’ designated bargaining representative with notice and an opportunity to bargain, is at its peril.

This will make it much easier for workers who are organizing a union to have their union recognized. And it should stop much of the a**hattery that goes on during union-busting. 

Union yes! 

New NLRB Handbook Rules Means Many Employer Handbook Provisions Are Illegal

NLRB has issued a new standard for evaluating employer work rules and employer handbooks. It applies to non-union and union workplaces that are covered under the National Labor Relations Act, which means most employers are covered. Under the new standard, the person challenging a rule or handbook provision must prove that the challenged rule has a reasonable tendency to chill employees from exercising their rights to engaged in concerted activity to discuss or change working conditions. If so, then the rule is presumptively unlawful. 

However, the employer may rebut the presumption by proving that the rule advances a legitimate and substantial business interest and that the employer is unable to advance that interest with a more narrowly tailored rule.

This is a sea change from the prior standard, and it will make it much easier for employees to challenge rules. The new standard appeared in a case where the following rules were successfully challenged:

• Confidentiality of investigations
• Limiting personal calls and emails to family emergencies
• No personal electronic devices or cell phones to be kept in lockers and used only on breaks
• No behavior that harms the business reputation of the company
• No activity that adversely reflects on the integrity of the company
• No photos
• No recordings

If these sound familiar, it's because similar rules are in many company handbooks. If they're in yours, you may be able to file an NLRB charge against employer if you want to challenge the rule.

The Board explained how to evaluate a "chilling effect":

In determining whether an employer’s rules or policies restrict or chill employee’s rights to engage in protected activity, one must consider if: “(1) employees would reasonably construe the language to prohibit Section 7 activity; (2) the rule was promulgated in response to union activity; (3) or the rule has been applied to restrict the exercise of Section 7 rights.” Lutheran Heritage Village—Livonia, 343 NLRB 646, 646–647 (2004). Where a rule or policy explicitly restricts Section 7 activity or can be reasonably read to restrict such activity, the Board is required to evaluate the employer’s asserted business justification “[t]o strike a proper balance between the employees’ rights and the Respondent’s business justification.” Caesar’s Palace, 336 NLRB 271, 272 (2001). The Board must accommodate the respective rights of the parties “with as little destruction of one as is consistent with the maintenance of the other.” NLRB v. Babcock & Wilcox Co., 351 U.S. 105, 112 (1956).

I know. Blah, blah, blah. What this means is if you would think a rule prohibited you from engaging in discussions or activities with coworkers regarding working conditions, it's probably illegal. If the rule was made because of union activity or because employees were discussing a potential union, it's probably illegal. If the rule has been applied to restrict employees' ability to discuss or take action together regarding working conditions, it's probably illegal. 

Some rules that may well be affected by this ruling, in addition to the ones I mention above, include:

• Not saying negative things about the company
• Restricting social media use and comments about the company
• Limiting or regulating the ability of employees to make safety complaints
• Restricting meetings or discussions with coworkers
• Restricting the circulation of petitions
• Prohibiting or limiting comments to the media or government agencies
• Prohibiting insubordination
• General civility rules

You don't have to be disciplined under these rules in order to challenge them. So if you think a rule is illegal, you can contact the NLRB about it. If you have been fired for violating a rule you think may be illegal, especially if you were fired for discussing working conditions with coworkers, contact an employee-side employment lawyer in your state about your rights.

NLRB Says Employee Outbursts Regarding Working Conditions Are Protected

The Biden NLRB recently overturned a Trump-era case that allowed employers way too much discretion to fire employees who engage in alleged unprofessional behavior when discussing working conditions. The case involved a union activist who was fired. The behavior that resulted in the termination was described by the Administrative Law Judge as follows:

Colone spoke persistently and argumentatively,and made a brusque, impolite statement to an employee who was leaving the meeting that he should “just go ahead and leave” be-cause he wasnot needed; he also, upon Dean refusing to provide him with the paperwork related to the new overtime policy, told Dean that he was not doing his job.

 The NLRB said the harsher standard the GOP Board set was erroneous:

The Board has long held, with uniform judicial approval, that causation is not at issue where an employer defends a disciplinary action based on an employee's alleged misconduct in the course of union activity, and the Board determines that the misconduct was not sufficiently egregious to deprive the employee of the protection of the Act. Everyone agrees that the disciplinary action was motivated by conduct that the Board—in fulfilling its statutory responsibility to determine the scope of the Act's protection—has found to be protected. That the employer labeled the conduct abusive, disloyal, uncivil, or insubordinate does not bring its motive into question. Ozburn-Hessey Logistics, LLC, 366 NLRB No. 177, slip op. at 5 (2018), enfd. in relevant part 803 Fed. Appx. 876, 882-883 (6th Cir. 2020); Roemer Industries, Inc., 362 NLRB 828, 834 fn. 15 (2015) (explaining that where an employer defends disciplinary action based on an employee’s misconduct in the course of protected union activity, and the misconduct was not egregious enough to remove the protections of the Act, “the 8(a)(3) violation is established because the antiunion motive is not in dispute--the protected union conduct was the motive for the discipline”), enfd. 688 Fed. Appx. 340 (6th Cir. 2017). 

 The NLRB cited as an example of conduct that is protected:

A good example is the Eighth Circuit’s picket-line misconduct decision in Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. NLRB, 866 F.3d 885 (8th Cir. 2017), a case the General Motors Board simply ignored. In Cooper Tire & Rubber, the court enforced the Board’s order requiring reinstatement of a striker who had directed racist taunts at a van carrying replacement workers that had just crossed the picket line. It agreed with the Board’s application of the Clear Pine Mouldings standard and rejected the employer’s argument that Wright Line should apply. 866 F.3d at 889–890. It also rejected the argument that the Board’s order conflicted with the employer’s duty under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq. Id. at 891- 892. The court explained that the striker’s picket-line jibes—racially offensive, stereotyped comments about food —did not create a hostile work environment, nor did Title VII create any legal obligation to fire the striker. Id. at 892.41 The Eighth Circuit’s decision is not anomalous.

The Supreme Court has said repeatedly that Title VII is not “a general civility code for the American workplace.” As the Court has explained, “offhand comments and isolated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to discriminatory changes in the terms and conditions of employment.” There is no obvious or inevitable conflict, then, between the Board’s approach as reflected in the setting-specific standards and Federal antidiscrimination law.

I can't tell you how often the "general civility code" language has been thrown at me in sexual and racial harassment cases, so it's good to see the NLRB saying what's good for the goose is good for the gander. You don't want a general civility code? Then you can't claim it when people are protesting or discussing working conditions.

I generally suggest that employees remain professional when discussing working conditions with management and coworkers. But the NLRB has made it much more difficult for employers to fire employees who are advocating for better working conditions. 

See? Elections matter. Vote well in 2024.

.

Can I Secretly Record A Conversation At Work?

I thought I'd discuss a question today that I'm asked all the time in my law practice: Can I record a conversation with my employer?

Unfortunately, there's no easy answer to this question, and a mistake can land you in jail. Illegal tape recording can have both criminal and civil penalties. My advice is almost always: When in doubt, don't.

Still, many employees want to record a boss or HR at work, and there are good reasons to do so. If you have a sexual harasser, it's handy to catch them red-handed. It's hard to deny something a judge or jury can hear in the harasser's own voice. Some employees want to record meetings with HR to make sure they get all the important information or to have evidence of the reason given for termination or discipline. Other employees want to get evidence of discrimination or other illegal practices of the employer. Sadly, while you can go to jail if you illegally record a conversation, even of a bigot, there is no law making workplace discrimination a crime in the U.S.

Here's what you need to know about recording conversations at work:

All-party consent: Eleven states, California, Connecticut, Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington, require all parties to the conversation to consent to being taped. Illinois' all-party consent law was found to be unconstitutional. Hawaii, a one-party consent state, requires all-party consent if the device is installed in a private place. Massachusetts bans "secret" recordings. These laws are sometimes referred to as "two-party consent" laws, but if there are three people in the conversation, all three must consent. The Digital Media Law Project has a handy state-by-state resource here. The Reporter's Committee for Freedom of the Press has another detailed state-by-state guide here.

Expectation of privacy: You can almost always record conversations in public areas, because the courts say there's no "expectation of privacy" in those places. Whether or not you are a party to the conversation, if it's out there in public, you may be allowed to tape it. Here's where it gets tricky. Many courts have held that there's little or no expectation of privacy in the workplace. There are cases saying, for instance, that a party to a conference call has no expectation of privacy. If you're in a group meeting at work, is there an expectation of privacy? Possibly not.

As an example, cases in my home state of Florida on the expectation of privacy at work say things like: "Society does not recognize an absolute right of privacy in a party's office or place of business." "[A]lthough defendant may have had reasonable expectation of privacy in his private office, that expectation was not one which society was willing to accept as reasonable or willing to protect." "Society is willing to recognize a reasonable expectation of privacy in conversations conducted in a private home. However, this recognition does not necessarily extend to conversations conducted in a business office."

The problem I have with relying on cases like these to tape at work is the use of weasel-words like "necessarily" and "absolute" and "reasonable." These cases are very fact-specific and that means a court could still find that your boss or coworker had an expectation of privacy. If you get it wrong, you can end up in jail. 

If a meeting is held with a large group of employees, doors open so others can hear or wander in, then I feel pretty comfortable that there's no expectation of privacy. Otherwise, I suggest talking to an employment lawyer in your state about making such a recording.

Unfair Labor Practices: The National Labor Relations Board has waffled on whether employers can ban all recordings at work. In 2015, they said no, such recordings can't be banned. Then in 2021 they said sure, employers can ban recordings. This current board would probably say recordings can't be banned. But since the case law changes depending on who appointed board members, I wouldn't risk criminal prosecution based on this.

Retaliation: If you record a conversation to document illegal discrimination or illegal harassment (we're talking harassment or discrimination based on race, age, sex, religion, national origin, disability, pregnancy, or other protected category, not bullying), then you may or may not be protected against retaliation by your employer. The courts have split on this issue. Depending on your state, your employer may be allowed to fire you for recording a conversation at work.

One-Party Consent: If your state is a one-party consent, you still have to be a party to the conversation in order for a recording to be legal. If you aren't, you can't just place a recording device somewhere at work to record secretly. That's illegal in every state.

Phone Calls: The all-party consent states all make recording phone calls without consent of all parties illegal. There's no expectation of privacy exception for phone calls. Fifteen states require all-party consent of phone calls. The one-party consent states that ban such recordings are Delaware, Illinois, Oregon, and Vermont. A state-by-state guide is here.

To summarize, you can probably tape a conversation at work that you're part of as long as you live in one of the 39 one-party consent states. You can also possibly tape a conversation that's in a public area (lobby, office or conference room with doors open, stairwell). You can maybe tape a conversation in the office behind closed doors. Only 35 states allow recording of phone calls with one-party consent. If you get it wrong, you're in big trouble, so be careful.

My best recommendation in all-party consent states continues to be, when in doubt, pull out your recorder and turn it on. Say, on the recording, "You don't mind if I tape this do you?" If the other person or people say they don't mind, keep recording. If anyone objects, turn it off. Pull out a pad of paper and a pen and take good notes instead. No potential case against your employer is worth risking jail time.

NLRB Makes Employers Liable For Damages For Direct and Foreseeable Harms

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) recently ruled that employers are liable for compensatory damages in unfair labor practices case. This means employers are now liable for direct and foreseeable harms if they break the law.  Previously, employees could only recover the loss of earnings and benefits. Now, victims of unfair labor practices may recover for other financial costs, such as out-of-pocket medical expenses, credit card debt, or other costs that are a direct or foreseeable result of the unfair labor practices. 

This new rule about compensatory damages for unfair labor practices benefits workers in several ways:

1. Increased compensation: Now workers who have been affected by unfair labor practices can receive full financial compensation to help make up for their losses. Lost wages and benefits are frequently just the beginning of the losses employees incur when employers break the law.

2. Incentive for employers to comply with labor laws: The new rule provides an incentive for employers to comply with the National Labor Relations Act. This can help to deter employers from engaging in such practices, which can benefit workers by creating a more positive and equitable workplace, or at least a place where they are not punished for getting together with coworkers to discuss working conditions.

3. Recognition of the harm caused by unfair labor practices: The new rule recognizes that unfair labor practices can cause severe harm to workers beyond lost wages and benefits, and it provides a mechanism for compensating workers for that harm. This recognition is important because it helps to validate the experiences of workers who have been affected by such practices and it helps to ensure that workers are made whole for their losses.

4. Encourages workers to report unfair labor practices: The new rule can encourage workers to report unfair labor practices, because they know that they may be entitled to compensatory damages if they are affected. This can help to increase awareness of such practices and to ensure that they are addressed, which can benefit workers by creating a safer and more equitable workplace.

5. Promotes fairness in the workplace: The new rule promotes fairness in the workplace by ensuring that workers who are affected by unfair labor practices are compensated for their losses. This can help to create a more just and equitable workplace. Employees are entitled to engage in action with coworkers to discuss working conditions and bring their concerns to managment. Employers will hopefully become more aware that there will be costly consequences of retaliating against employees who do so.

If you think your employer has violated the National Labor Relations Act, contact an employee-side employment attorney in your state to discuss your rights. If you have a union and you think your employer has violated the law, talk to your union leadership about bringing an unfair labor practices claim.


Overall, the National Labor Relations Board's new rule about compensatory damages for unfair labor practices benefits workers by increasing compensation, providing an incentive for employers to comply with labor laws, recognizing the harm caused by unfair labor practices, encouraging workers to report such practices, and promoting fairness in the workplace. By providing workers with greater protections and increased compensation, the new rule helps to create a more positive and equitable workplace for all.

Nondisparagement and Confidentiality Clauses In Severance Agreements Violate NLRA

Just about every single severance agreement I've ever seen in 36 years of law practice have two standard clauses: the former employee cannot disparage the former employer, meaning they can't say anything negative about the company or its employees and frequently to a broader list of entities; and a confidentiality clause prohibiting the former employee from telling anyone about the agreement, frequently prohibiting them from even saying it exists.

Well, the National Labor Relations Board has just ruled that both provisions are illegal under the National Labor Relations Act.

Regarding nondisparagement: 

This far-reaching proscription—which is not even limited to matters regarding past employment with the Respondent— provides no definition of disparagement that cabins that term to its well-established NLRA definition under NLRB v. Electrical Workers Local 1229 (Jefferson Standard Broadcasting Co.), supra, 346 U.S. at 477. Instead, the comprehensive ban would encompass employee conduct regarding any labor issue, dispute, or term and condition of employment of the Respondent. As we explained above, however, employee critique of employer policy pursuant to the clear right under the Act to publicize labor disputes is subject only to the requirement that employees' communications not be so “disloyal, reckless or maliciously untrue as to lose the Act's protection.” Emarco, Inc., 284 NLRB 832, 833 (1987).  

Further, the ban expansively applies to statements not only toward the Respondent but also to “its parents and affiliated entities and their officers, directors, employees, agents and representatives.” The provision further has no temporal limitation but applies “[a]t all times hereafter.” The end result is a sweepingly broad bar that has a clear chilling tendency on the exercise of Section 7 rights by the subject employee. This chilling tendency extends to efforts to assist fellow employees, which would include future cooperation with the Board’s investigation and litigation of unfair labor practices with regard to any matter arising under the NLRA at any time in the future, for fear of violating the severance agreement’s general proscription against disparagement and incurring its very significant sanctions. The same chilling tendency would extend to efforts by furloughed employees to raise or assist complaints about the Respondent with their former coworkers, the Union, the Board, any other government agency, the media, or almost anyone else. In sum, it places a broad restriction on employee protected Section 7 conduct.  We accordingly find that the proffer of the nondisparagement provision violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.

Our scrutiny of the confidentiality provision of the severance agreement leads to the same conclusion. The provision broadly prohibits the subject employee from disclosing the terms of the agreement “to any third person.” The employee is thus precluded from disclosing even the existence of an unlawful provision contained in the agreement. This proscription would reasonably tend to coerce the employee from filing an unfair labor practice charge or assisting a Board investigation into the Respondent’s use of the severance agreement, including the nondisparagement provision. Such a broad surrender of Section 7 rights contravenes established public policy that all persons with knowledge of unfair labor practices should be free from coercion in cooperating with the Board. The confidentiality provision has an impermissible chilling tendency on the Section 7 rights of all employees because it bars the subject employee from providing information to the Board concerning the Respondent’s unlawful interference with other employees’ statutory rights. See Metro Networks, supra, 336 NLRB at 67.

Regarding confidentiality:

The provision broadly prohibits the subject employee from disclosing the terms of the agreement “to any third person.”  The employee is thus precluded from disclosing even the existence of an unlawful provision contained in the agreement. This proscription would reasonably tend to coerce the employee from filing an unfair labor practice charge or assisting a Board investigation into the Respondent’s use of the severance agreement, including the nondisparagement provision. Such a broad surrender of Section 7 rights contravenes established public policy that all persons with knowledge of unfair labor practices should be free from coercion in cooperating with the Board.  The confidentiality provision has an impermissible chilling tendency on the Section 7 rights of all employees because it bars the subject employee from providing information to the Board concerning the Respondent’s unlawful interference with other employees’ statutory rights. See Metro Networks, supra, 336 NLRB at 67.

The confidentiality provision would also prohibit the subject employee from discussing the terms of the severance agreement with his former coworkers who could find themselves in a similar predicament facing the decision whether to accept a severance agreement. In this manner, the confidentiality provision impairs the rights of the subject employee’s former coworkers to call upon him for support in comparable circumstances. Additionally encompassed by the confidentiality provision is discussion with the Union concerning the terms of the agreement, or such discussion with a union representing employees where the subject employee may gain subsequent employment, or alternatively seek to participate in organizing, or discussion with future co-workers.  A severance agreement is unlawful if it precludes an employee from assisting coworkers with workplace issues concerning their employer, and from communicating with others, including a union, and the Board, about his employment. Id. Conditioning the benefits under a severance agreement on the forfeiture of statutory rights plainly has a reasonable tendency to interfere with, restrain, or coerce the exercise of those rights unless it is narrowly tailored to respect the range of those rights. Our review of the agreement here plainly shows that not to be the case. We accordingly find that the proffer of the confidentiality provision violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. 

So, is this a magic wand? Did such provisions suddenly go poof? No. Management side will fight this decision like cornered rats. Still, keep an eye out for further developments. In the meantime, you might want to file with NLRB if your employer presents you with any such provisions in a proposed severance agreement.

NLRB Proposed Joint Employer Rule Would Help Workers

Last year, the National Labor Relations Board proposed a new rule that would change how it decides who is an employer. Under the proposed rule announced September 6, 2022, two or more employers would be considered joint employers if they “share or codetermine those matters governing employees’ essential terms and conditions of employment,” such as wages, benefits and other compensation, work and scheduling, hiring and discharge, discipline, workplace health and safety, supervision, assignment, and work rules. The comment period ended in December, so we can expect the new rule to arrive any time now.

To put it simply, when two employers are connected in some way, they become joint employers and they both have responsibility for their workers. It's like when two people get married, they both have responsibilities for each other and their life together.

It's important because it means that workers have more protections and can hold both employers accountable for things like unionizing and unfair labor practices.

The new joint employer rule will have many benefits for employees. Here are some of the most significant ways that employees can benefit from this rule:

1. Greater protections against retaliation: When an employee is jointly employed by two employers, they are protected by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) against retaliation from either employer. This means that if an employee engages in protected concerted activity, such as organizing a union, discussing wages, or discussing working conditions, they cannot be fired or otherwise punished by either employer.

2. More bargaining power: When employees are jointly employed by two employers, they can bargain with both employers for better wages, benefits, and working conditions. This gives employees more bargaining power and ability to unionize than they would have if they were only employed by one employer. The possibility of NLRB sanctions will hopefully make smaller employers think twice about engaging in unfair labor practices.

3. More coverage: If one employer does not fall under the NLRB's jurisdiction because it has too little income or does not meet other jurisdictional standards, combining two employers will make it easier to bring the company under the umbrella of the National Labor Relations Act.

4. Better wages and working conditions: Ultimately, the ability to bargain collectively will help increase wages and improve overall working conditions for employees.

Overall, the National Labor Relations Board's joint employer rule benefits employees by providing greater protections, improved working conditions, and more bargaining power. By holding both employers accountable, employees are more likely to have a voice in the workplace and to receive fair treatment.

Needless to say, managment-side is howling about the possibility of this rule going into effect. They are crying gloom and doom and predict business armageddon. I suspect that this NLRB won't accede to their demands and that this rule or something quite similar will be the final rule that is implemented this year.   

What To Expect In #Employment Law In 2022

 If you are a regular reader, you've probably noticed that I haven't done any predictions in the past few years. Because how could anything have possibly been predicted? But employment law is becoming more predictable now, and I think it's time to take a deep breath and do my Cassandra bit. Here are my predictions for 2022:

1.    More pro-employee NLRB: We've already seen this with some very pro-employee, pro-union decisions coming down regarding Amazon, Starbucks, and other unionization attempts. As the year progresses, we'll see NLRB cracking down on employer retaliation and union busting efforts. We'll also be back to seeing more pro-employee decisions on non-union "concerted activity" retaliation.

2.    EEOC will re-energize: They were cut to the bone in budget and staffing under the last administration, so it's taking a bit for them to bounce back. They'll also focus on issues like sexual orientation that got pushed aside under the last administration. I hope they'll fully staff the mediation divisions, because those folks are really terrific at settling cases.

3.    Supremes go anti-employee: Unfortunately, while the agencies will be more pro-employee, the courts are going to take a sharp anti-employee turn. Look for really pro-management decisions on the federal level.

4.    Paralysis on noncompetes: Even though President Biden issued an executive order asking the federal agencies to focus on noncompetes, there's little the agencies can do without legislation. Congress won't do anything. Neither will the Florida legislature. Maybe some pro-employee states will limit or ban noncompetes. Some have done it already. Will more follow?

5.    Sexual harassment crackdown: With President Biden's order criminalizing sexual harassment in the military, the issue will get more attention. Where the military goes, usually goes the rest of the nation, so we should see some more crackdown on sexual harassers.

6.    COVID, COVID, COVID: The virus will continue to be an issue. OSHA will continue to try to get employers to maintain safe workplaces. The Supremes and the right wing will continue to fight. Florida will continue to be the Wild West. 

7.    More unions: As NLRB becomes more employee-friendly, we'll see more unionization attempts. Once Amazon is forced to allow a union (and it will happen this year), employees of other workplaces previously thought impossible will begin efforts to unionize. Some will succeed. The Great Resignation has made employees more conscious of working conditions. They'll continue to fight to be treated fairly. Union busters will make a fortune this year as employers try to fight back.

8.    Disability discrimination: Now that employees realize that it's easy to work remotely, and now that employers want employees back in the office, we'll see more disability discrimination cases. Employees who seek remote work as a reasonable accommodation will face resistance, but employers will lose the argument that granting the accommodation is a hardship. After all, they had a year or more of remote work very successfully. 

9.    Zoom: I don't know about you, but I love Zoom. Having to do a 2 - 3 hour round trip for a 5 minute hearing is a huge waste of resources. Judges like it because they have more control. For non-evidentiary hearings, Zoom will remain in many courtrooms. We'll also continue to see more Zoom depositions and mediations, which work very well on that platform. This will make attendance by employees much less onerous. They won't miss as much work, for one. In employment law, it will be a huge benefit. I find that employees are way more likely to settle in a Zoom mediation where they feel comfortable and more relaxed. Employers will also continue to utlize Zoom or similar platforms for meetings rather than having employees commute from remote locations. 

10.    Anti-employee laws: We'll see some extreme anti-employee laws in red states as the right wing pushes to be more and more extreme. Expect some laws attacking LGBT folks, abortion, marijuana, protests, and free speech. Some of these laws will give employers extra protection against lawsuits for terminating employees for their activities outside of work.

Well, that's about all I think I can predict for now. Let's see how I do. It's still crazy out there, but hopefully things will get a bit more normal as 2022 progresses.

Recording Meeting In Office Protected by National Labor Relations Act

For those of us in all-party consent states like Florida, it's always an issue whether employees may record conversations with supervisors surreptitiously. Now employees have another weapon in their arsenal to support the legality of office recordings: the National Labor Relations Act (the Act).

In a recent decision, a National Labor Relations Board Administrative Judge held that a recording of a meeting where unionization was being discussed was both legal and protected by the Act, even though company policy prohibited such recordings:

Section 7 of the Act reads as follows: 

Employees shall have the right, to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor 35 organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all such activities except to the extent that such right may be affected by an agreement requiring membership in a labor organization as a 40 condition of employment as authorized in section 8(a) (3). 

29 U.S.C. § 157. Thus, employees have a statutory right to engaging in union and protected concerted activities, or to refrain from any and all such activities. Cf. Stanton Industries, Inc., 313 NLRB 838, 848 (1994) (noting the Board has “pointed out over and employees have the 45 right to engage in union activities, as well as the right to refrain from engaging in union activities, which rights are guaranteed by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act.) JD(SF)–21–19 14 

Regarding Mansour, I find that his actions were protected by Section 7 of the Act. In the January 9 captive-audience meeting Respondent was presenting its position to employees and attempting to persuade them to vote the Union out. Mansour had never previously been in a 5 union, he is dyslexic, and English is his second language. He decided to record the meeting to listen to it more carefully later and get a better understanding of what being discussed. Mansour was simply documenting the meeting in order to study Respondent’s position, so he could make an educated choice when voting to either retain or decertify the Union. Respondent argues his actions are not protected because he did not discuss his intentions to record the meeting with 10 anyone else. However, I find Respondent’s argument misguided.

The judge also found that the recordings were legal under Washington law because the subject matter, unionization, was not private and the employer could not restrict employees from discussing what happened in the meeting. Further, the judge determined there was no expectation of privacy in the meeting.

So, while this decision only applies where the meeting is about unionization or working conditions on behalf of coworkers as well as yourself, and only if you aren't in management, and only if you work for an employer covered by the Act (which is most non-government employers), it may keep you from being fired (or prosecuted) if you get caught recording a workplace meeting.

My 2018 Predictions

Okay, okay. So I've been promising these for awhile. It has taken me a bit to wrap my head around things that have happened so far since the presidential election. The good news is that the GOP remains the party that couldn't shoot straight (no pun intended). So far, little has been done against employees on the legislative front. It's mostly been done by executive order.

So what can we expect for the rest of 2018? Here are my predictions:

Sexual harassment: Despite all the brouhaha on #MeToo and sexual harassment, no new legislation will pass and we'll see some judicial and jury decisions penalizing sexual harassment victims. There will be backlash, and lots of it.

Agcncy paralysis: With cuts to EEOC, DOJ and NLRB, these agencies will develop backlogs and go into paralysis. Employees can expect little help from the feds this year. The one hopeful thing I see is that EEOC mediations are still going strong. The EEOC mediators, at least down here, are some of the best I've ever seen, government or private. We will still see cases resolved in EEOC mediations unless the mediation program is cut too.

Guns at work: Thanks to high school students down here, we may start to see states revisiting those idiotic guns at work laws that have been all the rage. On the other hand, the orange one is pressing to arm teachers in classrooms. What could possibly go wrong? I think we will actually see some baby steps on common sense gun control for the first time in this country in a long time. It will take awhile, probably years, but there will probably ultimately be a drop in workplace shootings if these laws pass.

Immigration raids: We've already started to see employers being raided to round up illegal immigrants and arrest the bosses for hiring them. We're also seeing traffic stops to round up immigrants. That will continue. Employers  and employees beware.

Antitrust: The Department of Justice has announced it will start cracking down on no-poach agreements between employers. That's a ray of sunshine in what will be an awful year for employees. I would caution employers who threaten to sue competitors for hiring former employees, then quietly settle with a no-poach agreement. The government will come after you as well as my colleagues and me for these illegal arrangements.

LGBT rights: The courts will continue to battle over whether or not Title VII'a sex discrimination prohibition covers sexual orientation. I don't think the Supremes will get to the issue this year, so we'll have a split among circuits on this. So far, the 2nd and 7th Circuits say it's covered. The 11th, which covers my home state of Florida, says no.

Marijuana crackdowns: I've been predicting for awhile that the feds will start cracking down on legal marijuana use. It's still illegal on the federal level, no matter what your state says. That handy-dandy card allowing you to buy will be a nice tool for the feds to use to claim probable cause to search your house. They'll probably go after growers and dispensaries first, but if people don't rise up and resist, they'll come after individuals next. I'm guessing the crackdown this year will be on the businesses, not on individuals.

Overall, this won't be a good year for employee rights. But then, you knew that already. Resistance is not futile.

70% Of Employers Think Your Social Media Posts Are Their Business

A well-respected management-side firm (and sometimes opposing counsel of mine, I should add), Proskauer, released a study they did on social media this week, and I found it quite disturbing from the employee-side point of view. Their key finding:

While nearly 90 percent of companies use social media for business purposes and almost half allow employees to use social media for non-business activities, more than 70 percent of employers report having to take disciplinary action against employees for misuse (a significant uptick from 35 percent in 2012).

While the management-side firm took the results of this study to mean that employers need to crack down more on employee social media use, I had a different reaction, which was:

Holy cow! Seventy percent of employers not only monitor employee social media but are disciplining employees for expressing incorrect views. 

I have to ask, what the hell are we coming to when employers think they have the right to monitor and control employees' opinions expressed on their own time in their own blogs, Facebook pages or other social media. What kinds of things are employers monitoring and cracking down on? Here's what Proskauer says:

• Misuse of confidential information (80 percent)
• Misrepresenting the views of the business (71 percent)
• Inappropriate non-business use (67 percent)
• Disparaging remarks about the business or employees (64 percent)
• Harassment (64 percent)

 Wait, what? Misrepresenting the views of the business? Disparaging remarks about the business or employees? Wow. The nerve of employees having views different from those of their employers or disparaging an abusive boss.

Fortunately, employees who are being subjected to this Big Employer behavior have the NLRB in their court.  NLRB protects most non-supervisory non-government employees from many overbroad social media policys. Some of their recent crackdowns include:

Tossing a disclaimer requirement: Kroger had the brilliant idea of requiring employees to post a disclaimer whenever their posts related to work. "The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the postings, strategies or opinions of The Kroger Co. family of stores."  The NLRB judge tossed the disclaimer requirement with this comment:

An ever increasing amount of social, political, and personal communication, increasingly by people of all ages, takes place online.… A rule that required Kroger employees, who are identified as such, to mouth a disclaimer whenever they conversed with others about “work-related information,” while standing on a street corner, picket line, in church, in a union meeting, or in their home, would neve r— ever — withstand scrutiny. As with traditional, in-person communication, this required online disclaimer has no significant legitimate justification and is, indeed, burdensome to the point that it would have a tendency to chill legitimate section 7 speech.

 Tossing an anti-negativity policy: Hills and Dales General Hospital decided all employees must be happy, or at least not express unhappiness. A NLRB judge tossed policies with this language: “We will not make negative comments about our fellow team members and we will take every opportunity to speak well of each other,”  “We will represent Hills & Dales in the community in a positive and professional manner in every opportunity,” and“We will not engage in or listen to negativity or gossip. We will recognize that listening without acting to stop it is the same as participating.” They stopped short of, "You will be assimilated."

Making an employer rescind policy against discussing executives, customers, suppliers: Valero had to toss its social media policy to satisfy the NLRB. The offending policy about discussing executives, et al. was this:

Policy 1:  Protecting the confidential information of our employees, customers, partners and suppliers is also important.  Do not mention them, including Valero executives, in social media without their permission, and make sure you don't disclose items such as sensitive personal information of others or details related to Valero's business with its customers.

Making an employer rescind policy against abusive, embarrassing posts: Valero also had to toss this policy:

Policy 2:  Do not post anything that is false, misleading, obscene, defamatory, profane, discriminatory, libelous, threatening, harassing, abusive, hateful or embarassing to another person or entity.  Make sure to respect others' privacy.

If you think your employer's social media policy is over the top, or if you're being disciplined for social media use, contact the NLRB or talk to an employment lawyer in your state about your rights.

For more on employer invasion of social media privacy, check out my articles Can Your Employer Demand Your Social Media Passwords and Ten New (And Legal) Ways Your Employer Is Spying On You.

Donna's Employment Law Predictions for 2014

Last week I revealed how I did on my predictions for 2013 (pretty darned good, if I do say so myself). Today, I look into my crystal ball for 2014. Here's what I see on the horizon:

1. Minimum Wage: Raising the minimum wage will be a hot political issue in 2014. We saw some movements in 2013 to make significant increases, and that will continue. Unless something drastic happens in the midterm elections, it's doubtful we'll see anything significant on the national level, but look for more states to increase the minimum wage to the $ 9 - 10 range. Some may go even higher, like Seattle's move toward $15. Raising the minimum wage is great for the economy. Unlike trickle-down economics, it gets money circulating quickly. Henry Ford had the right idea: pay your employees enough so they can buy your products.
2. Legalize It: Legalized marijuana will spread to more states, creating some confusion for employers. Can they fire employees who test positive, like Colorado? Or will their state prohibit firings for legal marijuana use like Connecticut, Arizona, Rhode Island, Maine, Colorado and New York? Colorado has a law, as do other states, prohibiting firing/discrimination for legal off-duty activities, so watch for some litigation over this issue there. Look for marijuana growers and sellers to push for laws like tobacco users have in several states protecting them from discrimination at work. In the meantime, medical marijuana users will seek protection under the ADA and other disability discrimination laws.
3. Health Care: ObamaCare kicked in and it will change the way we look at health insurance. Sure, it isn't ideal. But when a million or so people who've never had health insurance or who haven't had it in years suddenly can get medical treatment, they'll start to expect to be treated like human beings instead of human waste. From here, we'll be very close to an upheaval in the way we deal with health insurance. This year, we'll see some confusion as the regulations kick in, some stupid employers dumping insurance and cutting people to part-time to avoid paying insurance, but the employer mandates have been delayed until 2015, so most of the stupid employer activity will be at the end of the year and into next year. I say that employers who do this are stupid because they'll ultimately lose good employees. With more people covered, there will be more health care jobs available.
4. Internships Cut: With employers under attack for unpaid internship programs that don't actually educate the interns and replace regular employees, some programs will simply disappear. That's not all bad, since the interns-as-slaves programs need to die. We'll see better internship programs cropping up, ones that are truly educational, or paid internships. But most of the new programs will start up after this year. This will be a year of lost programs. We'll also see some attempts to put interns under the protection of discrimination and sexual harassment laws. Some may succeed on the state or local levels, but there's no way that happens on a national level with Congress as it is currently configured.
5. Failed Again: Attempts to pass anti-bullying laws and the Civil Rights Tax Fairness Act will fail just like they do every year.
6. NLRB and EEOC Cut Off By Courts: NLRB and EEOC will continue to try to expand the protections employees have. Courts will continue to stop them. Still, they'll inch forward with some new progress for employees. Baby steps.
7. Lip Service: While the midterm elections kick in, we'll hear lots of big proposals to help employees. Little or nothing will pass due to gridlock. Failures will include the FAMILY Act, Arbitration Fairness Act, and ENDA. However, the fact that each of these bills will be blocked will become fodder to take down some of the more anti-employee members of Congress. Maybe 2015 will see some progress.
8. Background Checks: EEOC's efforts to demonstrate that criminal background checks have a disparate impact on blacks have been pretty well crushed so far. However, there will continue to be efforts to ban credit checks. More states will ban or limit use of credit information in hiring. The federal efforts to do so will fail. More states will pass ban-the-box laws barring many inquiries about arrest and conviction records in job applications. There is zero chance such a law will pass on the federal level this election year.
9. Pregnancy Discrimination: The issue of whether pregnancy is covered under the Florida Civil Rights Act will be resolved one way or the other by the end of the year. I think the Florida Supreme Court will say it is already covered. If not, then the legislature will pass a fix. The difference will be for all those women caught in between. If the Court doesn't rule for employees, lots of new moms who thought they were covered and sued under state law will be out of luck. Rule wisely, Supremes.
10. LGBT Protections: States and local governments will continue to pass discrimination laws banning LGBT discrimination. The feds will fail again, but EEOC will continue to push for application of existing law to LGBT employees.
11. Religious Discrimination: Religious employees will push the limits on their ability to proselytize and pray at work. There will be a disconnect between the right to practice religion vs. the right not to be harassed for not sharing a religion and also LGBT rights. Look for right-wing religious groups to push the argument that religious discrimination laws allow them to speak out against gay rights in the workplace. In an election year, we'll see extreme positions pushed on both sides.

Well, that's it for my predictions. I think this year will be one where employees start to wake up to how few rights they have and start to push for more. Major change will come only with a change in Congress.

Call Me Prescient: How My 2013 Employment Law Predictions Fared

If you are a regular reader, you'll recall that I made predictions at the beginning of 2013 about what I thought we could expect. How did I do? Call me Cassandra.

Here's what I said would happen, and what really did:

1. Even More Active NLRB: Look for stepped up activity against employers on social media restrictions, attempts to suppress worker concerted activities and lopsided agreements. NLRB will do what other government agencies have punted on: help employees.

Sure enough, NLRB didn't disappoint. They were up to full strength by the middle of  the year. They continued to press for employee rights in non-union workplaces. They struck down some overbroad social media policies and policies on confidentiality of investigations. They rolled out an app to inform employees in union and non-union workplaces about their rights. It wasn't all pro-employee. NLRB upheld several Facebook firings. See also here and here for some of 2013's social media cases.

2. EEOC Will Start Stepping Up Not to be outdone by NLRB, EEOC will become more active as well. This year saw the beginnings of activity to address gay rights and retaliatory confidentiality agreements. Look for more activity that actually helps employees, and for an agency that no longer accepts employer position statements as gospel.

EEOC tried to step up with the issuance of a guidance and then a clarification to its guidance on criminal background checks, but was repeatedly shot down in the courts. Let's hope they don't give up on this important issue, which definitely has a disparate impact on minorities. EEOC also stepped up its enforcement of Title VII regarding LGBT employees under the theory of "sexual stereotyping." They also cracked down on overbroad agreements that limit employees' ability to file with EEOC. I still see a tendency to accept employer position statements as gospel, at least here in Florida, but there's definite progress. Baby steps.

3. Marijuana Litigation With flat-out legalization in two states and legal medical marijuana in many more, we’ll start to see litigation on the employment-protection provisions built into many of these new state statutes. The fact that it’s still illegal under federal law will make things complicated. Will the feds finally give up and recognize state’s rights? Probably not this year, but definitely within the next 5 years.

Sure enough, the litigation has begun. See also here and here. Still nothing on the federal front to recognize states' rights, but it's only a matter of time.

4. Gay Rights Expansion Speaking of states’ rights, with gay marriage spreading across the country, the feds can’t be far behind. We probably won’t see Congress adding sexual orientation to Title VII or gay spouses to FMLA this year, but I think it’s going to happen this Presidential term.

Wow! What a year for gay rights. The Defense of Marriage Act was stricken down, which led to the Feds deciding that FMLA and EBSA do protect gay couples in states that legalized gay marriage. While there was no legislation passed to amend Title VII or FMLA, ENDA did pass the Senate (although it is stalled indefinitely in the House).

5. Strikes All of a sudden, workers are waking up. They’ve realized they don’t have to put up with crappy working conditions in silence. We’ll see more non-unionized workforces going on strike. We’ll also see some Wal-Mart and fast food corporations retaliating for the strikes that have happened last year and which will continue in 2013. Fortunately, I think NLRB will take action to slap employers for illegal retaliation.

2013 saw more fast food strikes and Wal-Mart strikes.  As predicted, Wal-Mart retaliated and NLRB slapped them.

6. Federal Courts Become (Slightly) Less Anti-Employee While federal courts have long been a sad place for employees, especially here in the 11th Circuit, some recent cases indicate that the times may be changing. Look for some rulings in favor of employees for a change. All it will take is a couple of Supreme Court appointments over the next four years and it will be a different world for employees. This year, the Supremes will, for the most part, continue to bend toward corporate interests instead of the working people.

There were some baby steps toward becoming more pro-employee in the federal courts. The usually very pro-employer 11th Circuit sided with the NLRB in a recess appointment case.  Several federal courts found that sex discrimination includes sex stereotyping, providing protection for LGBT employees. Some other pro-employee decisions here and here. Still, the Supremes came in overwhelmingly pro-employer this year. Overall, the federal courts remain a relatively unfriendly place for employees in many circuits.

7. Arbitration Under Fire Although arbitration clauses have been the darling of employers, who are sneaking them into applications, handbooks and that giant stack of papers employees sign on their first day, look for some attacks this year coming from government agencies. Watch for NLRB, EEOC, FTC and maybe even DOJ to subject arbitration agreements to extra scrutiny. It’s doubtful Congress will take action this year, but if they do something to help consumers, employees will probably be able to benefit.

Some courts have tossed one-sided pro-employer arbitration agreements. However, the Supremes upheld class action waivers in arbitration agreements. The NLRB lost when it attempted to invalidate an arbitration agreement. Meanwhile, FTC is challenging a consumer arbitration clause. No legislation passed to help consumers or employees this year.

8. Bullies Will Slide Although states periodically consider anti-bullying laws, they always fail to pass. It’s likely 2013 will be no different. Watch for more consciousness-raising but no legal action this year.

Still no anti-bullying laws passed in 2013. Sigh.

9. Privacy Protections More state legislatures will pass laws against demanding employee social media passwords and other egregious employer snooping. Congress might even do something to stop some of the worse invasions of privacy, but I won’t hold my breath. They’re too busy with gridlock to actually do anything that might protect their constituents.

Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Vermont and Washington passed laws against demanding social media passwords, with at least 36 states trying to follow suit.

10. Background Check Restrictions More states will place limitations on background checks and what background information employers can use against applicants. Watch for laws limiting use of criminal records, unemployment, and credit history against applicants. EEOC will continue looking for disparate impact of background check information against women and minorities. It’s only a matter of time, say 2013 or 2014, before we see a case arguing that use of criminal records has a disparate impact on men, but it won’t come from EEOC.

10 states and almost 60 local governments have passed "ban the box" legislation prohibiting or limiting the use of criminal background checks. Some major employers also announced they'd end the practice. There was one unsuccessful case arguing that criminal background checks had a disparate impact on men. It didn't come from EEOC. As I discussed in 2 above, EEOC lost a number of criminal background cases this year based on racial impact. It is no surprise that it didn't try to expand the theory to include sex discrimination.

Overall, 2013 was a mixed bag for employees. Better than some years, and we definitely saw some activity to protect employees. The biggest surprise was the passage of some minimum wage increases, with 13 states raising the minimum wage.

Stay tuned for my predictions for 2014.

Walmart Should Have Listened To Me About Firing Striking Workers

About exactly a year ago, I wrongly predicted that Walmart wouldn't fire their striking workers. The article was called Why Walmart Won't Fire Striking Workers - And What That Means For You. The reason I predicted that they wouldn't fire their workers for striking is that the National Labor Relations Act says even non-union American workers have the right to strike and take other actions to protest and try to improve working conditions, and they can't be fired in retaliation.

Despite my warning that the strikers couldn't be legally fired, at least 23 workers were fired and another 43 were disciplined. Well, the NLRB didn't take that sitting down. They just slapped Walmart hard, announcing they will pursue legal claims against Walmart for the employees, which means these employees may get reinstated and awarded back pay. 

Here's what NLRB said about Walmart's actions: “During two national television news broadcasts and in statements to employees at Walmart stores in California and Texas, Walmart unlawfully threatened employees with reprisal if they engaged in strikes and protests on November 22, 2012.” NLRB also found that, “Walmart stores in California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas and Washington unlawfully threatened, disciplined, and/or terminated employees for having engaged in legally protected strikes and protests.”

What this means is we can expect more Black Friday protests, and probably more battles to improve working conditions at Walmart.

Just a reminder - before you run out the door with placards to protest your workplace, the National Labor Relations Act only covers non-supervisory employees, and while it covers most non-government workplaces, it doesn't cover them all. Plus, you have to be part of "concerted activity" with coworkers to be protected. If you're protesting your own working conditions, you aren't protected against retaliation. However, if you are objecting to something that affects at least one co-worker, or with at least one co-worker, then you may be legally protected.

If you are thinking about organizing at work, smaller micro-unions are now allowed. This means that you don't have to organize the whole company anymore, but can organize a specific group of workers. For instance, a court recently allowed a union to organize a group of nursing assistants at a hospital. The employer thought other non-professional employees should be included, but the smaller unit was approved.

If you decide you want to organize a union at work, or want to know more about your rights to discuss and improve working conditions, I suggest contacting a union like AFL-CIO to get some help and legal advice. There are some legal hoops you'll have to jump through if you actually form a union.

Shutdown Doesn't Stop Employment Law Filing Deadlines

Thanks to the government shutdown, EEOC's website is down. NLRB's website is also down. You might assume the fact the government is shut down means your deadline for filing claims against your employer is extended. You'd be wrong (maybe). If you have a deadline coming up soon for filing a charge of discrimination with EEOC or a charge against employer with NLRB, you may still have to (somehow) get your filing done in time.

My latest piece in AOL Jobs tells you what to do if you have a pressing deadline to file with EEOC or NLRB.