Quiet Quitting: New Anti-Employee Term For Wanting To Have A Life

 There's a new term getting flung around by management types: quiet quitting. It's when employees actually want to do their job as described for the hours they were told the job would take (and for which they are being paid). Apparently, terrible bosses who have failed to hire enough staff and failed to accurately describe jobs want to vilify employees for wanting to have a life.

You heard about Elon Musk demanding that his employees commit to being "hardcore" (meaning willing to work 24/7) or leave.

And I've seen folks on social media bragging that they and their staff work until midnight. Like that's a good thing.

I remember working briefly for a large law firm. Associates would brag about sleeping there, blowing off family birthdays and funerals, and never taking vacations. And I would think to myself, what's the point? What's the point of making big bucks if you don't actually use the bucks to enjoy your life?

Gen Z gets it. They don't want to have jobs that are their whole life. They understand that having a job is for the purpose of providing the necessities you require to live and, if you're lucky, even the luxuries you want in order to enjoy your life. 

Take away the evenings and weekends, the holidays, the time with family, the vacations, and you have nothing. Because that employer that wants you to be loyal 24/7 has no loyalty to you. You likely can be fired at will, for any reason or no reason at all, unless you live in Montana or have a contract saying otherwise. It used to be that companies were loyal to their employees, but those days passed in the 70s. Now employees are treated like disposable cannon fodder.

Don't give up your actual life for corporate life. What's the point of making money if you can't enjoy it?

The U.S. needs to stop this crazy nonsense. Look at France. It has laws that protect employees from being treated like this. It's illegal to eat lunch at your desk, because it's good for your health to take a real lunch break and get out of the office. They also have a right-to-disconnect law, giving employees the right to stop answering emails and texts after hours. Overtime must be paid for work over 35 hours, and there is a weekly maximum number of hours set at 44 per week, and employees must have at least 11 consecutive hours of daily rest, and minimum rest of 35 consecutive hours at least once per week.

Employers need to hire enough employees to do the jobs needed during regular working hours instead of treating employees like indentured servants. If your employer wants you to work 24/7 and you aren't a supervisor, it's time to think about forming a union. If you are a supervisor and can't unionize, it's time to look for a workplace that understands its employees are entitled to have a life.

If you think we should be more like France and less like Elon, talk to your legislators about passing some pro-employee laws.

Some Cool New Laws Pending In Congress That Will Help Employees If Passed

 It isn't all bad news out there. Some bills pending in Congress look hopeful for employees. Of course, they probably won't get through the deadlocked Senate, but hey, let's be optimistic. If you think these bills should become law, call your Senators and members of Congress.

Here are some of the pro-worker bills pending and the descriptions their sponsors have given them:

S.505 - Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal Act - This bill prohibits a predispute arbitration agreement from being valid or enforceable if it requires arbitration of an employment, consumer, antitrust, or civil rights dispute.

S.3641 - Part-Time Worker Bill of Rights Act - This bill modifies various employment, leave, and pension rules with respect to part-time workers. Specifically, the bill removes the requirement that employees work a minimum number of hours during the preceding 12-month period before becoming eligible for family and medical leave.

The bill also sets the maximum length of service on which employers may condition the eligibility of part-time employees for a qualified pension plan (e.g., 401(k) retirement plan). Except as required by an applicable collective bargaining agreement, such service requirement may be no longer than two consecutive 12-month periods of at least 500 hours of service for part-time employees who have reached the age of 21 by the end of such period.

The bill further prohibits employers of more than 15 employees from setting disparate terms of employment or working conditions for part-time employees, including with respect to compensation, notice of work hours, and promotion opportunities. Additionally, the bill requires such employers to offer available, qualified part-time employees additional work hours before hiring new employees for such hours. Among other enforcement methods, employers must maintain three years of records for offers of additional hours and employee responses to such offers. The bill also provides a private right of action for employees to enforce the nondiscrimination requirements of this bill.

S.3642 - Schedules That Work Act - This bill provides employees with the right to request changes to their work schedules related to the number of hours they are required to work or be on call, the location of the work, the amount of notification about work schedule assignments, and fluctuations in work hours.

Employers must negotiate in good faith with employees who make such requests and comply with certain work schedule notice and split shift pay requirements for retail, food service, cleaning, hospitality, or warehouse employees.

H.R.6762 - Special Inspector General for Law Enforcement Act - there is no description by the sponsor yet, but this would provide whistleblower protections for law enforcement employees who report wrongdoing by colleagues, ending the blue wall of silence.

H.R.7489 - Time Off to Vote Act - This bill requires an employer, upon the request of an employee, to provide the employee with a minimum of two consecutive hours of paid leave in order to vote in a federal election.

The employer may determine the two-hour period, excluding any lunch break or other break.

Taking such leave shall not result in the employee losing accrued employment benefits.

The bill makes it unlawful for an employer to interfere with the right to take such leave or for an employer to discriminate against an employee for taking such leave. Further, the bill makes it unlawful for any employer to retaliate against an employee for (1) opposing any practice made unlawful by this bill; (2) filing a charge, or instituting or causing to be instituted any proceeding, under or related to this bill; or (3) testifying or preparing to testify in an inquiry or proceeding relating to such leave.

The bill specifies penalties for employers who violate these provisions.

H.R.2243 - Fair Pay Act of 2021 - This bill requires employers to provide equal pay to employees for comparable or equivalent work.

Specifically, employers may not discriminate against employees on the basis of sex, race, or national origin with respect to payment of wages or other conditions of employment for jobs that, although dissimilar, the requirements of which are equivalent, when viewed as a composite of skills, effort, responsibility, and working conditions. However, employers may pay different wages in accordance with seniority systems, merit systems, systems that measure earnings by quantity or quality of production, or factors that the employer demonstrates are reasonably job-related, or further legitimate business interests. The bill allows compensatory or punitive damages for violations of this prohibition.

The bill prohibits an employer from (1) discriminating against any individual who opposes any act or practice made illegal by this bill or for assisting in an investigation, or (2) discharging or discriminating against any employee who inquires about or discusses another employee's wages.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission must assist employers, labor organizations, and the general public in implementing these provisions.

S.2390 - Support Through Loss Act - This bill provides employees with 24 hours of paid leave time each year for an absence resulting from a pregnancy loss or other specified circumstance related to pregnancy, fertility, or an unsuccessful assisted reproductive procedure or adoption match.

Employers must notify each employee about the availability of this paid leave and may not discriminate or discharge an employee for exercising or attempting to exercise the right to such paid leave.

The bill provides for enforcement of this requirement by the Department of Labor and through civil action brought by an employee or individual.

Further, the bill requires specified federal agencies to conduct research and publish information about pregnancy loss and related evidence-based treatment options.

H.R.1065 - Pregnant Workers Fairness Act - This bill prohibits employment practices that discriminate against making reasonable accommodations for qualified employees affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. A qualified employee is an employee or applicant who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the position, with specified exceptions.

Specifically, the bill declares that it is an unlawful employment practice tofail to make reasonable accommodations to known limitations of such employees unless the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on an entity's business operation;
require a qualified employee affected by such condition to accept an accommodation other than any reasonable accommodation arrived at through an interactive process;
deny employment opportunities based on the need of the entity to make such reasonable accommodations to a qualified employee;
require such employees to take paid or unpaid leave if another reasonable accommodation can be provided; or
take adverse action in terms, conditions, or privileges of employment against a qualified employee requesting or using such reasonable accommodations.

The bill sets forth enforcement procedures and remedies that cover different types of employees in relation to such unlawful employment practices.

H.R.3610 - Flexibility for Working Families Act - This bill allows an employee to request from an employer a temporary or permanent change in the terms or conditions of the employee's employment if the request relates to (1) the number of hours the employee is required to work, (2) the times when the employee is required to work or be on call for work, (3) where the employee is required to work, or (4) the amount of notification the employee receives of work schedule assignments. The bill sets forth certain employer duties with respect to such requests.

The bill prohibits an employer from interfering with any rights provided to an employee under this bill. An employee may file a complaint with the Department of Labor for any violations of such rights. Labor shall investigate and attempt to resolve such complaints and may issue orders making determinations and assessing civil penalties or awarding relief for alleged violations. The bill provides for judicial review of such orders, including in federal courts of appeal.

Labor and certain federal agencies and offices shall provide information and technical assistance to employers, labor organizations, and the general public regarding compliance with this bill.

The Wage and Hour Division of Labor must issue guidance on compliance with providing a flexible work environment through changes in employee terms and conditions of employment as provided in this bill.

The requirements of this bill are applicable to certain classes of employees, including employees of the Government Accountability Office and the Library of Congress.The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission must provide examples of reasonable accommodations that shall be provided to affected employees unless the employer can demonstrate that doing so would impose an undue hardship.

The bill prohibits state immunity under the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution from an action for a violation of this bill.

H.R.842 - Protecting the Right to Organize Act - This bill expands various labor protections related to employees' rights to organize and collectively bargain in the workplace.

Among other things, it (1) revises the definitions of employee, supervisor, and employer to broaden the scope of individuals covered by the fair labor standards; (2) permits labor organizations to encourage participation of union members in strikes initiated by employees represented by a different labor organization (i.e., secondary strikes); and (3) prohibits employers from bringing claims against unions that conduct such secondary strikes.

The bill also allows collective bargaining agreements to require all employees represented by the bargaining unit to contribute fees to the labor organization for the cost of such representation, notwithstanding a state law to the contrary; and expands unfair labor practices to include prohibitions against replacement of, or discrimination against, workers who participate in strikes.

The bill makes it an unfair labor practice to require or coerce employees to attend employer meetings designed to discourage union membership and prohibits employers from entering into agreements with employees under which employees waive the right to pursue or a join collective or class-action litigation.

The bill further prohibits employers from taking adverse actions against an employee, including employees with management responsibilities, in response to that employee participating in protected activities related to the enforcement of the prohibitions against unfair labor practices (i.e., whistleblower protections). Such protected activities includeproviding information about a potential violation to an enforcement agency,
participating in an enforcement proceeding,
initiating a proceeding concerning an alleged violation or assisting in such a proceeding, or
refusing to participate in an activity the employee reasonably believes is a violation of labor laws.

Finally, the bill addresses the procedures for union representation elections, provides employees with the ability to vote in such elections remotely by telephone or the internet, modifies the protections against unfair labor practices that result in serious economic harm, and establishes penalties and permits injunctive relief against entities that fail to comply with National Labor Relations Board orders.

This is only a sampling of pro-employee laws that could be passed and that are pending right now. It isn't that we don't know how to protect employees. It's that we don't. Talk to your elected officials about these pro-employee laws, and vote well in November and beyond.

Cities Step Up Worker Protections - Has Yours?

The United States is way behind most other western nations in protecting its workers. While Congress has dropped into paralysis, U.S. cities have stepped in where Congress and the states have failed to protect working Americans. Florida is one of the most anti-employee states in the nation. The cities here could do much to help working people if they had the political will.

Here are some examples of how cities are stepping up to help workers:

Intern sexual harassment: New York City, along with Washington, D.C., Delaware, and Oregon, have laws against sexually harassing unpaid interns. There is not a single federal law banning intern sexual harassment. Title VII doesn’t cover it because they aren’t “employees.” Same with most state laws including Florida. So, yay for sexual harassers. High school and college students are fair game.

Paid sick leave: San Francisco, Oakland, Emeryville, Los Angeles, Berkeley and San Diego; Washington, D.C.; New York City; Seattle, Tacoma and Spokane; Philadelphia; Montgomery County (Md.); Chicago and Cook County; St. Paul, Minneapolis and Duluth); Newark, Jersey City, Irvington, Passaic, East Orange, Paterson, Trenton, Montclair, Bloomfield, New Brunswick, Elizabeth, Plainfield and Morristown; and Austin all have some form of paid sick leave. Eleven states including California provide some form of paid sick leave. Not Florida, of course.

Paid safe days: The cities that provide paid "safe" days, giving time for survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking to seek services include: San Francisco, Emeryville, San Diego, Los Angeles, Berkeley and Santa Monica; Washington, D.C.; Seattle, Tacoma and Spokane; Philadelphia; Montgomery County (Md.); Chicago and Cook County; Minneapolis, St. Paul and Duluth; New Brunswick; and Austin.

Salary history: 13 states and 11 cities have banned employers from asking about salary history. The reason behind the legislation is that basing pay on prior salary can lock in pay discrimination. The sponsor of the Philadelphia ordinance explained: “Simply put, when a woman is paid less at the beginning of her career she will continue to earn less throughout her career. By eliminating the question of salary history we will be one step closer to decreasing the wage gap.”

Ban the box:  33 states and over 150 cities and counties have adopted “ban the box” laws. These laws generally prevent employers from asking about applicant arrests or convictions at the beginning of the application process, and only allow inquiries after the applicant passes their initial screening. Why? Because about 70 million Americans have some criminal record, and the majority of them are minorities. An entire class of citizens has been made almost completely unemployable due to criminal records that have nothing to do with their ability to do jobs.

Predictable schedules: San Francisco, Emeryville, San Jose, Chicago, New York, Seattle and Washington, D.C. have ordinances requiring that employers give specified advance notice of work schedules, advance notice of shift cancellations, and/or predictability pay for last minute cancellations. Oregon is the first state to enact such a law.

Paid family leave: 35 cities/counties and 11 states have paid parental leave laws.

Right to vacation: New York City would require most employers to offer 10 days of paid vacation to employees under this proposed ordinance

Firing for just cause: This proposed law would prevent employers in New York from firing on a whim.

Minimum wage: Florida’s legislature has prohibited local ordinances raising minimum wage, and that was just upheld. Sad. Many other cities around the nation have raised minimum wage for their workers.

Some cities that have led the way on employee rights are San Francisco, New York, A list of San Francisco’s very pro-employee ordinances is here. New York’s employee rights page is here.

So talk to your local elected officials about stepping up to help working people. If the state and federal governments won’t help workers, it will be up to the cities to protect them.

Dear Newly-Elected Officials: Here Are Some Things You Can Do For Workers In Your State

Congratulations to all you newly elected officials! Guess what? Most of your voters are also workers. And it's the workers who have felt left out by politicians lately, so it's time to do something to help workers in your state. Here are a few suggestions of pro-employee legislation you might want to take up in your state to help working people:

• State-run retirement plans for private sector: Some states have successfully established state-run retirement plans for private sector workers and required certain employers to auto-enroll their employees in these plans and/or allow their employees to opt in. The funds are then paid like any other 401k from payroll. Where Mitch McConnell is talking about rolling back Social Security, this may be the only way to help your state's future retirees.
•  Right to see your personnel file: While some states require employers to allow employees to review their personnel files, many states like my home state of Florida do not. It’s a basic right. You should be able to see any disciplines and reviews, and any contracts you signed.
•  Right to get a reason for termination: Some states require employers to give a reason for termination in writing. This would prevent employers from changing stories later to defame or damage a former employee.
•  Breaks: While most employees think the law mandates certain breaks, especially for hourly employees, some states have little protection for break time. Florida, for instance, only mandates breaks for minors. That includes bathroom breaks.
•  Real right to work: Many employees think right to work means noncompete agreements are unenforceable. That is untrue. Many states have limited noncompete agreements, Massachusetts being the most recent. Banning noncompetes against hourly employees, making them void if the employee is fired with no cause, making employers pay half or all salary while on a noncompete, barring employers from surprise sign-or-be-fired noncompetes after the employees starts working, are all measures other states have taken to protect employees.
• Sexual harassment of interns: Neither state nor federal law protects unpaid interns against sexual harassment because they aren’t employees. This is unconscionable, especially in a state like Florida where many high school students need internships to get the community service that is required to graduate.
• Verification of employment: Many states, again like my home state of Florida, do not require employers to verify employment for benefits, unemployment, references or otherwise. This keeps people from applying for government benefits and from getting jobs. Employers should be mandated by law to verify employment in writing within 48 hours from request

So celebrate your win. Then please do something to help working people in your state.

States With Pro-Employee Laws: No Asking About Applicant Salary History

In a movement that started in Massachusetts, states and cities are starting to ban employers from asking applicants about their salary history. The reason behind the legislation is that basing pay on prior salary can lock in pay discrimination. The sponsor of the Philadelphia ordinance explained: “Simply put, when a woman is paid less at the beginning of her career she will continue to earn less throughout her career. By eliminating the question of salary history we will be one step closer to decreasing the wage gap.”

The Massachusetts law makes it illegal to:

[S]eek the salary history of any prospective employee from any current or former employer; provided, however, that a prospective employee may provide written authorization to a prospective employer to confirm prior wages, including benefits or other compensation or salary history only after any offer of employment with compensation has been made to the prospective employee.

New York is the most recent city to ban salary history inquiries. Puerto Rico also has a salary history ban. Similar proposed laws are pending in D.C., California, New Jersey, New York State and in Congress (that one won't pass, but it's a nice try).

This is a good move to try to end the pay gap that still exists between men and women. It could well help stop the cycle of pay disparity for women and minorities.

And really, what business is it of anybody what you make now? Employers should know what they plan to pay for a job and actually pay it. While nothing stops you from saying no to such inquiries now, unless you're a highly sought after recruit saying no may end the interview.

For multistate employers, this may have an impact on the way they conduct interviews and prepare applications now. For others, now is the time to start rethinking this outdated and unduly nosy practice.

More States Pass Domestic Violence Victim Workplace Protection

Domestic violence victims have enough problems without also having to deal with coworkers stigmatizing them and possibly getting fired. The trend is for states to protect sexual violence from workplace discrimination.

Most recently, five states enacted paid sick leave laws that include requiring paid leave for domestic violence victims. Those states are Vermont, California, Connecticut, and Massachusetts and Oregon. These are overall paid sick leave laws that protect both domestic violence victims and employees who need time off to care for victims of domestic violence. The paid leave accrues depending on each state’s law.

I frequently raunch on Florida for being so anti-employee, but I have to give my home state props for being one of nineteen states that have laws protecting employees who become domestic violence victims. Here is a brief summary of the state and local laws protecting domestic violence victims from employment discrimination:

• 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.
• 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.
• North Dakota allows state employees up to 40 hours of sick leave for domestic violence victims and their family members.
• 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 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.  
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• Washington DC has a sliding scale for leave depending on how large the employer is.
• 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
• Kansas law says employers can't discriminate against domestic violence victims who need time off.
• Maine law grants reasonable protected domestic violence leave.
• 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.
• Oregon requires employers with 6 or more employees to grant reasonable leave and prohibits discrimination. Portland also requires protected domestic violence leave.
• Rhode Island prohibits discrimination.
• Washington provides reasonable leave. Seattle has its own leave ordinance and also bars discrimination.
• Philadelphia provides leave depending on the size of the employer.

A proposed federal law to protect domestic violence victims from discrimination at work went nowhere. Wouldn't it be good to have some uniform protections? Who the heck is against protecting domestic violence victims? Do we really think that getting beaten up should be grounds for termination? 

A pretty good summary of state laws up through September 2015 is here. It should also be noted that many states have laws protecting crime victims from being punished for missing time from work to testify in criminal proceedings.

Many states have laws protecting crime victims, allowing them time off from work to testify and/or recover. If the domestic violence causes a serious medical condition, then the employee may also be entitled to Family and Medical Leave if they qualify.

If you think domestic violence victims have enough problems without also having to worry about being fired, talk to your state legislators and members of Congress and ask them to pass more legal protections for this vulnerable group of employees.

Florida Democrats Take Another Swing At Pro-Employee Legislation (That Won't Pass)

Another legislative session coming up, some more pro-employee legislation that will not pass. But here’s what some Florida Democrats (okay, I didn’t check them all, but c’mon, what are the odds that any of the co-sponsors of any pro-employee laws are Republicans?) are trying to pass in 2016 to help Florida employees:

$15 minimum wage: SB 6 and HB 109 would raise Florida’s minimum wage to $15/hour

ERA: SCR 74 and HCR 8001 would ratify the Equal Rights Amendment. Better late than never.

Sexual Orientation: SB 120 and HB 45would add sexual orientation and gender identity to prohibited categories of discrimination in the workplace.

Social Media Privacy: SB 186 would prohibit employers from demanding your social media passwords.

Unemployment and Domestic Violence: SB 188 protects employees who leave or lose jobs due to domestic violence from being disqualified for unemployment benefits.

Paid Sick Leave: SB 294 and HB 205 would require state and local governments with at least 9 employees to provide paid sick leave to employees. Why only government employers? I'm really not sure that's what the sponsors meant to do, but that's what it says employers are.

Paid Family Leave: SB 384 and HB 603 would require employers to provide paid leave similar to FMLA for birth or adoption of a child and care in the first year, but it applies to employees who work at least 20 hours a week, applies to employers with at least 15 employees, and would permit up to 6 weeks of protected leave. Creates a rebuttable presumption that any demotion or discharge taken within 90 days against an employee who takes leave is a violation.

Ban the Box: SB 448 and HB 353 would prohibit employers from asking about criminal history in initial employment applications.

If you support any of these bills, start calling and writing your legislators now. Especially the Republicans. If any of these proposed laws get overwhelming support, they may just have a chance. My prediction: DOA.

What Did The Florida Legislature Do For Employees? Diddly squat, with one silly exception

I previously wrote about a plethora of bills our legislators filed that might help employees in our anti-employee state. 

Pregnancy:  This is the one silly exception to the utter lack of pro-employee bills by the legislature. It adds "pregnancy" to the list of prohibited types of discrimination under the Florida Civil Rights Act. Only problem is that the Florida Supreme Court already decided pregnancy was protected. Why was the bill necessary? No idea. Here's where it stands as of this writing:

SB 982: Florida Civil Rights Act

GENERAL BILL by Thompson ; (CO-INTRODUCERS) Smith ; Gibson
Florida Civil Rights Act; Prohibiting discrimination on the basis of pregnancy in public lodging and food service establishments and in places of public accommodation; prohibiting employment discrimination on the basis of pregnancy; prohibiting discrimination on the basis of pregnancy by labor organizations, joint labor-management committees, and employment agencies, and in occupational licensing, certification, and membership organizations, etc.
Effective Date: 7/1/2015
Last Action: 5/7/2015 - Signed by Officers and presented to Governor
Location: Presented to Governor

Kudos to all the legislators who at least tried to do something to help Florida's hardworking employees (their names are here if you want to thank them for their efforts). Here's what the legislature's website says happened to the rest of the pro-employee bills (hint: unless it says it was presented to the Governor or the Governor signed it, it's dead):

Overtime: 

HB 455 - Labor Regulations

General Bill by Campbell
Labor Regulations: Designates act as "Florida Overtime Act of 2015"; revises number of hours of labor that comprise legal day's work; revises rates of overtime compensation for labor performed in excess of certain of hours of work; provides that commuting to & from certain locations is not part of day's work; prohibits employer from requiring employee to continue working after employee's shift under certain circumstances; prohibits employer from paying employee for less than amount of contracted hours worked by employee; provides penalties; provides that act does not affect employer's liability under Workers' Compensation Law.
Effective Date: July 1, 2015
Last Event: Withdrawn prior to introduction on Tuesday, February 10, 2015 3:03 PM

 SB 890 - Labor Regulations

General Bill by Bullard
Labor Regulations: Revising the number of hours of labor that comprise a legal day’s work; prohibiting an employer from requiring an employee to continue working after the employee’s shift under certain circumstances; prohibiting an employer from paying an employee for less than the amount of contracted hours worked by the employee; providing penalties; providing that the act does not affect an employer’s liability under the Workers’ Compensation Law, etc.
Effective Date: 07/01/2015

Last Event: 02/27/15 S Withdrawn prior to introduction -SJ 93 on Friday, February 27, 2015 2:48 PM

Sick Time:

SB 1490 - Labor Regulations

General Bill by Thompson
Labor Regulations: Requiring certain employers to provide employees with earned sick and safe leave under certain conditions; providing employer and employee requirements; authorizing an employee to file a civil action under certain conditions; providing penalties, etc.
Effective Date: 07/01/2015

Last Event: 03/03/15 S Introduced -SJ 138 on Tuesday, March 03, 2015 9:31 PM

Fraud:

HB 589 - State Minimum Wage

          General Bill by Jacobs (CO-SPONSORS) Pafford

State Minimum Wage: Prohibits employer or any other party from knowingly procuring labor from any person with intent to defraud or deceive such person; provides penalty.
Effective Date: July 1, 2015
Last Event: 1st Reading on Tuesday, March 03, 2015 10:37 PM

Bullying:

SB 892: Safe Work Environments

GENERAL BILL by Bullard
Safe Work Environments; Citing this act as the “Safe Work Environment Act”; providing that subjecting an employee to an abusive work environment is an unlawful employment practice; prohibiting retaliation against an employee who has opposed any unlawful employment practice or who has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation or proceeding concerning such a claim; limiting an employer’s liability for emotional distress and precluding punitive damages in certain circumstances, etc.
Effective Date: 7/1/2015
Last Action: 3/3/2015 Senate - Introduced -SJ 93
Location: In committee/council (CM)

HB 297 - Safe Work Environments

General Bill by Campbell
Safe Work Environments: Creates "Safe Work Environment Act"; provides that subjecting employee to abusive work environment is unlawful employment practice; prohibits retaliating against employee who has opposed any unlawful employment practice, or who has made charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in investigation or proceeding concerning such claim; provides for vicarious liability for employers in certain circumstances; provides defense; provides for liability for individual employees in certain circumstances; provides defense; provides affirmative defenses; specifies relief available; limits employer's liability for emotional distress & precludes punitive damages in certain circumstances; specifies that provisions may only be enforced by private right of action; provides time limitation on actions; provides that remedies provided shall be in addition to & not in place of other remedies provided in law; provides for screening certain persons public & private school entering instructional areas.
Effective Date: July 1, 2015
Last Event: 1st Reading on Tuesday, March 03, 2015 10:37 PM

Domestic violence and unemployment:

SB 1096: Unemployment Compensation

GENERAL BILL by Braynon
Unemployment Compensation; Clarifying application of a provision relating to disqualification for benefits; providing that certain victims of domestic violence may not be disqualified for benefits for voluntarily leaving work, etc.
Effective Date: 7/1/2015
Last Action: 3/3/2015 Senate - Introduced -SJ 108
Location: In committee/council (CM)

Intern sexual harassment:

HB 433: Employment Discrimination

GENERAL BILL by Geller
Employment Discrimination; Includes unpaid interns within definition of term "employee" for purposes of Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992.
Effective Date: 7/1/2015
Last Action: 3/3/2015 House - Introduced -HJ 37
Location: In committee/council (CJS)

Fair pay:

SB 98: Employment Discrimination

GENERAL BILL by Joyner ; (CO-INTRODUCERS) Sachs ; Soto
Employment Discrimination; Creating the Helen Gordon Davis Fair Pay Protection Act; recognizing the importance of the Department of Economic Opportunity and the Florida Commission on Human Relations in ensuring fair pay; creating the Governor’s Recognition Award for Pay Equity in the Workplace; requiring that the award be given annually to employers in this state which have engaged in activities that eliminate the barriers to equal pay for equal work for women, etc.
Effective Date: 7/1/2015
Last Action: 3/3/2015 Senate - Introduced -SJ 39
Location: In committee/council (CM)

Increase state minimum wage:

HB 47 - State Minimum Wage

General Bill by Stafford (CO-SPONSORS) Cortes, J.; Watson, B.; Watson, C.
State Minimum Wage: Increases state minimum wage; provides that an employer may not pay employee at rate less than state minimum wage; deletes requirement that only individuals entitled to receive federal minimum wage are eligible to receive state minimum wage.
Effective Date: January 1, 2016
Last Event: 1st Reading on Tuesday, March 03, 2015 10:37 PM

Social media privacy:

SB 126 - Social Media Privacy

General Bill by Clemens (CO-SPONSORS) Latvala
Social Media Privacy: Prohibiting an employer from requesting or requiring access to a social media account of an employee or prospective employee under certain circumstances; prohibiting an employer from taking retaliatory personnel action for an employee’s refusal to allow access to his or her social media account; authorizing civil action for a violation; specifying that an employer is not prohibited from seeking access to social media accounts used primarily for the employer’s business purposes, etc.
Effective Date: 10/01/2015
Last Event: 03/03/15 S Introduced -SJ 41 on Tuesday, March 03, 2015 7:55 AM

Ban the box:

SB 214: Discrimination in Employment Screening

GENERAL BILL by Clemens ; (CO-INTRODUCERS) Bullard ; Smith
Discrimination in Employment Screening; Prohibiting an employer from inquiring into or considering an applicant’s criminal history on an initial employment application unless required to do so by law, etc.
Effective Date: 7/1/2015
Last Action: 3/3/2015 Senate - Introduced -SJ 46
Location: In committee/council (CM)

Sexual orientation discrimination: This was the one bill I predicted might pass due to bipartisan support and support by major Florida corporations. It's DOA anyhow.

SB 156: Prohibited Discrimination

GENERAL BILL by Abruzzo ; (CO-INTRODUCERS) Bullard ; Ring ; Margolis ; Soto
Prohibited Discrimination; Creating the “Florida Competitive Workforce Act”; revising provisions to include sexual orientation and gender identity or expression and the perception of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, handicap, or marital status as impermissible grounds for discrimination; adding sexual orientation and gender identity or expression as impermissible grounds for discrimination, etc.
Effective Date: 7/1/2015
Last Action: 3/3/2015 Senate - Introduced -SJ 42


Location: In committee/council (JU)

More Pro-Employee Bills To Watch In The Florida Legislature

To their credit, some Florida legislators are doing their darndest to try to fix Florida's anti-employee legal climate. I wrote about some pro-employee bills filed, and now there are some more to keep an eye on this legislative session:

Banning employer fraud: A bill proposed would make it illegal for an employer to procure an employee's services fraudulently, and also beefs up anti-retaliation provisions for employees who complain about unpaid wages.

Pregnancy discrimination: Two identical bills would add pregnancy to the protected classes under the Florida Civil Rights Act. I'm not sure why this is being done in light of the Florida Supreme Court's ruling last year that pregnancy is already protected.

Overtime: Another bill changing Florida's overtime pay law from 10 hours per day to 8 was withdrawn, but this new bill replaces it.

Bullying: A second bill that would ban workplace bullying has been filed.

Unemployment: A bill that would modify unemployment qualifications is a mixed bag. It would protect victims of domestic violence but also would disqualify disabled employees who turn down a reasonable accommodation offered. Disabled employees will now face a trial over their discrimination claims in the unemployment proceeding if this bill passes. Overall, I think it's more anti-employee than pro-employee.

I'll be keeping an eye on these bills during the session. Wanna bet that zero pro-employee bills will pass? I won't hold my breath that this legislature or governor would do anything to help the majority of its working citizens.

Employment Law Bills Pending In The Florida Legislature

Since I've been writing about states that have pro-employee laws, and complaining about the lack of protections for employees in Florida law, I thought you'd like to hear about some legislation that has been filed in the Florida legislature for the upcoming session. Will any of it pass? Doubtful. Still, now might be a good time to contact your representatives and state senators to support some of these laws:

Intern Sexual Harassment: Rep. Joseph Geller has proposed a law expanding the Florida Civil Rights Act to include unpaid interns. Why? Because we currently have no laws in Florida prohibiting sexual harassment of interns. Who will come out in favor of sexual harassment of our teenagers? Stay tuned.

Florida Overtime Act: This proposed law revises the number of hours of labor that is a full legal day's work from 10 to 8; revises rates of overtime compensation; provides that commuting to and from certain locations is not part of a day's work; prohibits an employer from requiring employee to continue working after punching out; prohibits employers from paying an employee for less than the amount of contracted hours worked by the employee; and provides penalties for violations.

Fair Pay: The Helen Gordon Davis Fair Pay Protection Act would condemn gender-based pay disparity and have the Department of Economic Opportunity and the Florida Commission on Human Relations do research and disseminate information about unequal pay. No remedies for victims, but it could help prove that disparities exist and spread the word about what legal protections women have.

Minimum Wage: A law increasing the state's minimum wage to $10.10 probably doesn't have a snowball's chance.

Social Media Privacy: Right now, Florida employers can get away with demanding employee social media passwords. A law prohibiting this kind of invasion of privacy would make it illegal for employers to demand user names and passwords for personal social media accounts of employees and prospective employees.

Bullying: The Safe Environment Work Act would make employers liable for allowing an abusive work environment to exist. Will Florida join Tennessee in banning workplace bullies? Not likely.

Ban The Box: With this law, Florida would join the many states that ban employers from making prospective employees disclose their criminal history on an employment application. So far 13 states have passed ban-the-box laws.

LGBT Discrimination: One law that might pass, mainly because lots of Florida employers have come out in favor of it and it has bipartisan support, is the law proposing to add sexual orientation and gender identity to the categories of prohibited discrimination under the Florida Civil Rights Act.

Although it isn't specifically related to employment law, there's yet another attempt to pass the Equal Rights Amendment in Florida. The ERA was the first campaign I worked on when I moved here in 1981, and I thought it was a no-brainer. Here we are, 33 years later, with no ERA. Will it pass? No.

States With Pro-Employee Laws: No Firing For Legal Off-Duty Activity

Here in Florida, like many states, you can be fired for pretty much anything as long as it isn't discrimination, whistleblowing, making a worker's comp claim or some other protected activity. That means you can be fired because your boss doesn't like your hobby, your friends, the fact that you prefer whiskey over beer - just about anything they don't like about your non-work activities.

Most states allow this kind of nonsensical firing, and business owners have to pay higher unemployment taxes as a result of other employers' whims. Taxpayers pay the cost too, in higher taxes due to the need for public assistance, healthcare and a whole host of other services. It makes no sense at all.

But some states have seen the light. They have laws that prohibit employers from firing employees for legal off-duty conduct. Do you live in one of these states? Here they are:

But first, a pitch. This blog has been honored by being named one of the American Bar Association's top 100 blogs for the 4th year. They're asking for your vote for the top blog in each category. Please take one minute to vote for this blog in the Labor and Employment category. It takes one minute to register and vote. Now back to the post.

California: CA Labor Code § 96 and 98.6 say no employee  no employee can be discharged or otherwise discriminated against for lawful conduct occurring during nonworking hours away from the employer's premises. An employee who is discharged, threatened with discharge, demoted, suspended, or discriminated against in any manner in the terms and conditions of his or her employment is entitled to reinstatement and reimbursement for lost wages and benefits.

Colorado: Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-34-402.5 says it's illegal to fire an employee because that employee
engaged in any lawful activity off the employer's premises during nonworking hours unless the restriction relates to a bona fide occupational requirement or is reasonably and rationally
related to the employment activities and responsibilities of a particular employee or
a particular group of employees; or is necessary to avoid, or avoid the appearance of, a conflict of interest with any of the employee's responsibilities to the employer.

New York: N.Y. Labor Code § 201-d says employers can't make hiring or firing decisions, or otherwise discriminate against an employee or prospective employee because of legal use of consumable products or legal recreational activities outside of work hours, off of the employer's premises, and without use of the employer's equipment or other property.

North Dakota: N.D. Cent. Code § 14-02/4-03 (2003) says it's illegal  for an employer to fail or refuse to hire a person, to discharge an employee, or to treat a person or employee adversely or unequally with respect to application, hiring, training, apprenticeship, tenure, promotion, upgrading, compensation, layoff, or a term, privilege, or condition of employment, because of participation in lawful activity off the employer's premises during nonworking hours which is not in direct conflict with the essential business-related interests of the employer.

Some other states protect employees against firing due to the use of lawful consumable products and others protect only tobacco use. Why not more protection? Do we really need Big Employer monitoring our off-duty activities? If you don't like the thought of being fired because your employer thinks you shouldn't eat meat, shouldn't smoke, shouldn't do yoga, or shouldn't be a furry, then it's time to push for legal change in your state.

States With Pro-Employee Laws: No Use-It-Or-Lose-It Vacation

You've probably seen the commercial. A kid says, in response to the study that over 400 million vacation days go unused, "That's the stupidest thing I ever heard." Yep. Stupid. Odds are, if you don't take those vacation days, you lose them.

Employers that have policies saying vacation is paid out at the end of employment must comply with those policies. In most states, employers can refuse to pay out unused vacation at the end of employment by implementing a use-it-or-lose-it vacation policy. Many employees are rudely surprised when they find out the employer that wouldn't let them use their vacation days also doesn't have to pay them out. Most employers can also require employees to use their vacation by a certain date, usually the end of the year, or lose it. That means you'd better use those vacation days in the next few weeks if you're like most employees.

However, some states protect their citizens by barring use-it-or-lose-it vacation policies. Here are some states that look out for their voters:

Before I tell you which states, I want to make a plug for you to vote for this blog in the ABA Blawg 100. I'm honored to announce that Screw You Guys, I'm Going Home is listed as the only employee-side blog in the Labor and Employment category, and now the voting is going on for the top blog in each category. It takes only a minute to register and vote. I'd sure appreciate your help. Now, back to the post.

California: Under Cal. Labor Code §227.3, all accrued vacation must be paid when employment ends. California also prohibits policies that make employees take vacation by a certain date or lose it. In one California case, an illegal policy cost the employer millions.

Illinois: Under 820 ILCS 115/5; 56 Ill. Adm. Code 300.520, employers have to pay out accrued vacation pay at the end of employment unless a collective bargaining agreement with a union provides otherwise. While they can have a policy saying employees have to use vacation time by a certain date or lose it, employers must permit employees a reasonable opportunity to take those vacation days before they're gone. 56 Ill. Adm. Code 300.520(e).

Indiana: While employers can have a use-it-or-lose-it policy in Indiana, employers have to pay out accrued vacation if their vacation policy is silent on the issue. See Indiana Heart Associates, P.C. v. Bahamonde, 714 N.E.2d 309 (Ind. App. 1999); Die &Mold, Inc. v. Western, 448 N.E.2d 44 (Ind. App. 1983).

Louisiana: Vacation pay is earned wages, so policies requiring the forfeiture of earned vacation pay are not enforceable. Beard v. Summit Institute, 707 So.2d 1233 (La. 1998). However, they may implement use-it-or-lose-it policies saying employees must use by a certain date or lose the vacation.

Maryland: Like Indiana and Louisiana, while employers can implement policies, if the policy is silent on the issue vacation must be paid out at the end of employment.

Massachusetts:  Employers have to pay out accrued vacation pay at the end of employment. While they can have a policy saying employees have to use vacation time by a certain date or lose it, employers must permit employees a reasonable opportunity to take those vacation days before they're gone. MA Atty. Gen. Advisory 99/1.

Michigan: Similar to Indiana, Louisiana and Maryland, while employers can implement policies, if the policy is silent on the issue vacation must be paid out at the end of employment.

Montana: In Montana, an employer can't take away earned vacation pay or fail to pay it out for any reason. MT Dept. of Labor and Industry FAQ; See Langager v. Crazy Creek Products, Inc., 287 Mont. 445; 954 P.2d 1169 (Mt. Sup. Ct. 1998).

Nebraska: Nebraska law prohibits employers from failing to pay out earned vacation or from policies saying employees must use vacation by a certain date or lose it. See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1229(4); Roseland v. Strategic Staff Management, Inc., 272 Neb. 434, 722 N.W.2d 499 (Neb. Sup. Ct. 2006); Neb. Dept. of Labor FAQ.

New York: If the policy is silent on the issue vacation must be paid out at the end of employment.

North Carolina: If the policy is silent on the issue, vacation must be paid out at the end of employment. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 95-25.12.

North Dakota: Employers can't require an employee to forfeit accrued or earned vacation leave upon separation from employment, regardless of the reason. ND Admin. Code § 46-02-07-02(12). However, they can implement policies saying vacation must be used by a certain date or be lost.

Ohio: While use-it-or-lose-it policies are allowed, vacation must be paid out at the end of employment if the policy is silent on the matter. See Fridrich v. Seuffert Construction Co., 2006 Ohio 1076 (OH App. 2006).

Oregon: Oregon is another state that allows such policies but requires employers to pay out vacation if the policy is silent on the issue.

Rhode Island:  Employers must pay employees who have completed at least one year of service for any vacation pay accrued in accordance with company policy or contract on the next regular payday for the employee when they leave. RI Stat. § 28-14-4(b).

West Virginia: If the policy is silent on the matter, vacation has to be paid out at the end of employment. See Meadows v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 207 W. Va. 203, 530 S.E.2d 676 (WV Sup. Ct. 1999). Otherwise, employers are allowed to implement such policies.

Wyoming: In Wyoming, an employer cannot require an employee to forfeit accrued or earned vacation on leaving. WY Dept. of Employment FAQs.

Some vacation policies are an earned benefit under ERISA, so employers that have no use-it-or-lose-it policy and fail to pay out earned vacation may risk a lawsuit under ERISA.

If you want to know about your state's vacation laws, a great state-by-state summary is here. For more on employee benefits, read my article Top Nine Things You Need To Know About Your Employee Benefits.

States With Pro-Employee Laws: No Solicitation Of Employees Through Misrepresentation

I've written before about the possibility of suing an employer for fraud if they misrepresented the job. If you are lured into a job, specifically if you give up another job or move to accept the job, and the employer had no intention of keeping the promises they made, you may have a claim against them for fraud. However, any such claims have to be made under common law in most states. You may or may not succeed, depending on your state law and the facts of your case.

However, one state, California, thought it was so important to protect its citizens from this kind of employer misbehavior that they passed a law making it illegal for employers to solicit employees through misrepresentation.

The California Labor Code provides:

970. No person, or agent or officer thereof, directly or indirectly, shall influence, persuade, or engage any person to change from one place to another in this State or from any place outside to any place within the State, or from any place within the State to any place outside, for the purpose of working in any branch of labor, through or by means of knowingly false representations, whether spoken, written, or advertised in printed form, concerning either: (a) The kind, character, or existence of such work; (b) The length of time such work will last, or the compensation therefor; (c) The sanitary or housing conditions relating to or surrounding the work; (d) The existence or nonexistence of any strike, lockout, or other labor dispute affecting it and pending between the proposed employer and the persons then or last engaged in the performance of the labor for which the employee is sought. 

 971. Any person, or agent or officer thereof, who violates Section 970 is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not less than fifty dollars ($50) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000) or imprisonment for not more than six months or both. 

 972. In addition to such criminal penalty, any person, or agent or officer thereof who violates any provision of Section 970 is liable to the party aggrieved, in a civil action, for double damages resulting from such misrepresentations. Such civil action may be brought by an aggrieved person or his assigns or successors in interest, without first establishing any criminal liability.

I haven't found any other state that offers its working taxpayers this kind of legal protection. Why not? Maybe some legislators in other states can explain to me why they think it's okay to make someone leave their job by saying the position is a long-term one, but they're  really only looking to cover for someone out on maternity leave. Or they just want to lure a competitor's top salesperson over to get all their contacts, then dump them. Or they say the job is for a manager's position, but it turns out the job is for a much lower paid clerk's position. I've seen each of these situations play out in real life, so don't tell me it doesn't happen.

Maybe there ought to be a law in your state. Anyone listening in Florida?

States With Pro-Employee Laws: Consideration For Noncompete Can't Be Continued Employment

Florida, like some other states, allow unscrupulous employers to present noncompete agreements to existing employees and say, "Sign or be fired." What does the employee get for agreeing not to work for a competitor for a year or two? Continued employment. That's it.

The effects of this can be pretty devastating. Say you left your job for a better opportunity. You start the new job and then, whammo! You have to agree not to work in your industry for 2 years, all your contacts belong to the new employer, and they can fire you a week after you sign. Fair? Heck no. Legal? Yes, in most states.

However, there are some states that just say no to allowing continued employment to be the sole consideration for a noncompete agreement. Last week I talked about some states that even require advance notice, prior to employment, of the noncompete. This week I'll talk about those states that don't allow employers to demand a signature without some real consideration.

Hawaii, Kentucky, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming say that continued employment alone is not sufficient consideration for a noncompete or nonsolicitation agreement. In those states, employers must offer something extra, like specialized training, a promotion, a raise, a change to non-at-will status or other consideration for the noncompete or nonsolicitation agreement.

In Illinois, employees must be employed at least two years for continued employment to be valid consideration for a noncompete agreement.

There's a pending case in Wisconsin that will decide the issue. In Alaska the issue is still undecided.

As you can see, state law varies wildly (and it changes constantly). Talk to a lawyer who handles employee-side employment law in your state to find out whether or not your noncompete agreement is enforceable.

If your state is one of those that allows employers to walk in one day and demand a signature upon pain of firing, maybe it's time to talk to your state legislators about why they aren't protecting employees in your state.

States With Pro-Employee Laws: Advance Notice Of Noncompete Agreement

In most states, like my home state of Florida, employers can present employees with a noncompete agreement and demand it be signed on the spot. In states like Florida where continued employment is allowed as valid consideration for a noncompete agreement, there can be an obnoxious situation where an employee quits a job, and then, only after starting work, is handed an agreement and told to sign or be fired. The agreement might say they can't work in their industry for a year or two after they leave. At that point, the employee has little choice. They sign and are then fired a few months later and the burden is on the  taxpayers to pay out unemployment benefits and other government assistance because the employee can't get a job or even apply for one in their industry.

Fair? No. Legal? Yes, in most states.

There are some states that protect employees by requiring advance notice of a noncompete agreement. You'd think voters would rise up and demand such protection, but after this week's election results I guess I shouldn't be too surprised.

Here are some state laws that give protection to their citizens by requiring reasonable advance notice of a noncompete agreement:

Oregon: Oregon's statute § 653.295 says:

(1)A noncompetition agreement entered into between an employer and employee is voidable and may not be enforced by a court of this state unless:
(a)(A) The employer informs the employee in a written employment offer received by the employee at least two weeks before the first day of the employees employment that a noncompetition agreement is required as a condition of employment; or
(B)The noncompetition agreement is entered into upon a subsequent bona fide advancement of the employee by the employer.

 New Hampshire: New Hampshire's statute RSA 275:70 used to say: 

Prior to or concurrent with making an offer of change in job classification or an offer of employment, every employer shall provide a copy of any non-compete or non-piracy agreement that is part of the employment agreement to the employee or potential employee. Any contract that is not in compliance with this section shall be void and unenforceable.

          However, this year New Hampshire's legislature modified the law to say:

Any employer who requires an employee who has not previously been employed by the employer to execute a noncompete agreement as a condition of employment shall provide a copy of such agreement to the potential employee prior to the employee's acceptance of an offer of employment. A noncompete agreement that has not been disclosed to an employee as required by this section shall not be enforceable against the employee, but all other provisions of any employment, confidentiality, nondisclosure, trade secret, intellectual property assignment, or any other type of employment agreement or provision shall remain in full force and effect.

Connecticut's legislature passed a law that would require advance written notice that a noncompete would be required, but it was vetoed. Massachusetts tried to pass a law limiting noncompetes that would include an advance notice provision, but that effort failed. With a new governor of that state coming in soon, it's doubtful any limits will be passed anytime soon.

What's so unreasonable about giving advance notice that an employee is going to have to sign a noncompete agreement if they accept a job? Why don't other states pass laws preventing the "gotcha" that many employees face if they want to keep their jobs? Well, nothing will happen unless you stand up and fight for your rights. Unless voters demand change, most states will continue to allow this kind of employee abuse.

States With Pro-Employee Laws: Noncompete Agreement Hardship On Employee As Defense

Or, States That Don't Suck For Employees Part VIII

Living in Florida, one of the worst states in America for employees on noncompete agreements, I'm used to having to deal with a statute that says the courts cannot consider any economic hardship on the employee when enforcing noncompete agreements. Imagine my surprise when researching New York law to find that other states aren't so heartless.

If you live in Alabama, Arizona, DC, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming, then your state courts will balance the hardship imposed on you when considering enforcing whether to enforce the noncompete.

Alaska has a similar defense, which is whether the employee's sole means of support is barred.

Of course, if you're lucky enough to live in California, noncompete agreements are rarely enforced there.

In a country where sandwich makers can be forced to sign noncompetes, it's time that the states that don't consider economic hardship on the employee wake up and protect their citizens.

States With Pro-Employee Laws: Work Breaks For Employees

 Or, States That Don't Suck For Employees, Part VII

Some people don't believe me when I tell them that no federal law requires any breaks for employees, but it's true. No lunch breaks, rest breaks or even bathroom breaks are mandated by law (and don't tell me about OSHA and bathroom breaks*). A majority of states also don't have any laws requiring breaks for anyone but minors.

Still, if you're lucky you might live in a state that has some laws requiring work breaks. Here's how it breaks down:

• Meal breaks:  Only 20 states require any meal breaks. California, Colorado, New Hampshire, North Dakota and Washington require 1/2 hour within five hours of work. Connecticut and Delaware require ½ hour after first 2 hours and before last 2 hours for employees who work 7½ consecutive hours or more.Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont and West Virginia all have laws about meal breaks. In the other 30 states, employers are allowed to starve you.
• Rest breaks: Only nine states require any rest breaks. California, Colorado, Kentucky, Nevada, Oregon and Washington require 10 minute breaks for every 4 hours of work. Minnesota and Vermont require reasonable bathroom breaks. Illinois also has rest break requirements but only for hotel attendants. All of these states also require meal breaks. 

If you aren't in one of these 20 states, you're at the mercy of your boss to be allowed to eat, go to the restroom, or just take a stretch. Yet I still encounter folks regularly in Florida (one of the no-breaks-for-you states) that get fired after insisting on their legal right to take their lunch or rest break.

True, most bosses won't actually make you have a potty accident, but there are sadistic jerks out there who will. You do have some rights though, despite this.

Disability: If you need regular meal or bathroom breaks due to a disability, then put in a reasonable accommodation request under the Americans With Disabilities Act and have HR mandate your breaks. If the boss still won't honor your approved accommodation, report him/her to HR. If the company won't accommodate you, you probably have a disability discrimination case.

Nursing: You're entitled to a break and a private place to express breast milk if you're nursing.

Sex discrimination: I ran into a woman who was told she couldn't take her purse to the restroom when she had her period. Men had no restrictions on what they could take to the restroom. Fortunately, she reported it and HR had the sense to stop this silliness immediately.

Obviously, if the employer is only allowing employees of a particular race, national origin, age or other protected category to take breaks, that's also illegal. I shouldn't say it's obvious though, because any boss who doesn't allow reasonable bathroom or meal breaks is a sadistic idiot.



*I know I said don't tell me about OSHA, but they really are supposed to make employers allow reasonable bathroom breaks. See OSHA Standard # 1919.141(c)(1)(i): 

OSHA's sanitation standard for general industry, 29 CFR 1910.141(c)(l)(i), requires employers to provide their employees with toilet facilities:

Except as otherwise indicated in this paragraph (c)(l)(i), toliet [sic] facilities, in toilet rooms separate for each sex shall be provided in all places of employment in accordance with Table J-1 of this section .... [emphasis added]

This memorandum explains OSHA's interpretation that this standard requires employers to make toilet facilities available so that employees can use them when they need to do so. The employer may not impose unreasonable restrictions on employee use of the facilities." "The language and structure of the general industry sanitation standard reflect the Agency's intent that employees be able to use toilet facilities promptly."  “In light of the standard's purpose of protecting employees from the hazards created when toilets are not available, it is clear that the standard requires employers to allow employees prompt access to sanitary facilities. Restrictions on access must be reasonable, and may not cause extended delays.

So yes, OSHA does state that they require employers to allow prompt bathroom breaks. I wish you good luck in actually getting OSHA to enforce this standard though. At least in Florida, they'll probably refer you to the Department of Labor, which has nothing whatsoever requiring bathroom breaks under their jurisdiction.

States With Pro-Employee Laws: Ban The Box

Or, States That Don't Suck For Employees, Part VI

You may have heard the term “ban the box” but not know what it means. These laws generally prevent employers from asking about applicant arrests or convictions at the beginning of the application process, and only allow inquiries after the applicant passes their initial screening. Why? Because about 70 million Americans have some criminal record, and the majority of them are minorities. An entire class of citizens has been made almost completely unemployable due to criminal records that have nothing to do with their ability to do jobs.

Thirteen states, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Mexico, New Jersey, and Rhode Island, along with 67 cities and counties, have passed ban-the-box laws. Tampa and Jacksonville are just some of those cities. Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Rhode Island have the only statewide laws applying to private employers. The rest apply to government employers.

Hawaii’s law was the first, and it prohibits employers from asking about criminal records until a conditional offer of employment is made (similar to what ADA requires for inquiries about disabilities). Since 1998, when this law went into effect, the incidence of repeat criminal offenses in Hawaii has dropped by 57%. Illinois law is similar to Hawaii’s.

New York’s law says employers can’t discriminate in the hiring process against applicants who have convications unless there’s a direct relationship between one or more of the previous criminal offenses and the employment sought, or if the employment would involve an unreasonable risk to others.

New Jerseys’s brand new law prohibits posting of ads saying those with criminal histories won’t be hired and from asking about arrests and convictions until the applicant is the top candidate selected. Then the employer must also consider factors like rehabilitation, good conduct, length of time that has passed, and how the crime relates to the employee’s suitability for the job.

Massachusetts’ law bans questions on written applications but not in interviews. If employers are going to refuse to hire based on a criminal record, they must first provide the applicant with a copy of the record.

Minnesota’s law is similar to Hawaii’s, but state law there also says government employers can’t discriminate unless the conviction is directly related to the job sought. It requires all employers to consider job-related factors in using criminal records.

Rhode Island’s law prohibits asking on written applications but employers can ask during interviews.

The ban-the-box movement is all about giving folks a fair chance. If they’ve done the time, let them get on with their lives. Americans usually like to give people a fair second chance, so let’s do that for the 70 million Americans who have criminal records. If we’re like Hawaii, letting people with records get paying jobs will drastically reduce repeat criminal offenses.

States With Pro-Employee Laws: No At-Will Employment Equals Fewer Employee Suits

(Or, States That Don't Suck For Employees, Part II)

I was doing some research for this series on pro-employee state laws and ran across a piece by that bastion of liberalism, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce rating states either Good, Fair or Poor for employers. It's been a fantastic source of information for my upcoming pieces in this series, since all I have to do is look for the "Poor" rated states to find a rant about their pro-employee laws.

What I found most interesting, though, was what they wrote about Montana. Montana is notable as the only state in the nation that requires just cause for employers to terminate employees. It's the only non-at-will state, which is something I frequently mention when I write or speak about employment law. Almost as an afterthought, the U.S. Chamber says this about Montana:

The state is also among the nation’s leaders in the fewest number of labor and employment lawsuits filed per 10,000 employees.

Really? So not only did Montana not fall off the map under the weight of employee suits by employees claiming they weren't fired for just cause, but they have fewer employee suits than places like Florida that it rates "Good" for employers due to the utter lack of pro-employee laws. Here's what they say about supposedly pro-employer Florida:

Perhaps the most surprising element of Florida’s generally favorable labor and employment-law climate is its litigation problem. The state has an extraordinary number of labor and employment related lawsuits, with 5.69 such lawsuits filed per 10,000 employees. Only Alabama has a higher ratio.

Alabama, by the way, is also rated "Good" for employers.

Hmm. So states that allow employers to be jerks to employees at-will have more employee suits, and states that make employers treat employees decently have few employee suits. Coincidence? I think not. I think if you treat a person decently they're much less likely to sue you. Doctors have found that out, so when will employers learn?

Treating employees like stuff at the bottom of your shoe equals more lawsuits. Treating employees will and firing only for just cause equals fewer lawsuits.

Are any legislators listening?