Red Sox or Yankees? Hamburgers or hot dogs? In the office or work from home? While some debates have been around for many years, the debate over whether employees should be required to be back in the office or be permitted to work from home continues for both private and public employers.
Continue Reading State of Ohio continues to examine the remote work debate
On June 1, 2023, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a decision some have deemed a blow to the right to strike. An 8-1 decision, Glacier Northwest v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local Union No. 174 crossed ideological lines, as both conservative and liberal members of the Supreme Court either joined the majority opinion or concurred.
Continue Reading Shot through the heart: Did SCOTUS give strikes a bad name?
A recent National Labor Relations Board decision is a reminder that consistency is an important factor in determining whether an employer has committed an unfair labor practice. In the case of two Kroger subsidiaries, the NLRB held that the National Labor Relations Act protects an employee’s right to wear buttons and masks in support of Black Lives Matter.
Continue Reading Consistency matters: When the employer speaks, the employees may answer
In a decision issued Feb. 21, 2023, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) set a new precedent regarding confidentiality provisions. The McLaren Macomb case involved furloughed employees that were offered a severance agreement containing non-disparagement language that prohibited them from making negative statements about the employer. The agreement also contained a confidentiality provision that prohibited the employees from discussing the terms of the agreement itself.
Continue Reading NLRB targets confidentiality provisions in severance agreements
How Constellium should inform employers’ policies and practices
Assume an employee writes the words “whore board” on company overtime sign-up sheets. Serious misconduct, right? In fact, the employer faced with this situation terminated the employee for offensive conduct.
In Constellium Rolled Products Ravenswood, LLC v. NLRB, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia agreed with a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) decision finding the termination was unlawful. The case illustrates that National Labor Relations Act protections sometimes can trump an employer’s right to regulate potentially offensive language at work.
Continue Reading When it comes to employee discipline, consistency is key
*Special thanks to Porter Wright summer law clerk, Grace Brown, for her assistance with this post.
It’s the summer of 2020, and someone from your company posts to her public Facebook page saying, “If Black people truly wanted equality, then they wouldn’t be isolating themselves into a separate group with Black Lives Matter. All lives matter!”
Your social media marketing team discovers the employee’s post after it was shared by someone who accuses that employee, and your company, of being racist.
What do you do?
Continue Reading How employers can respond to social justice and free speech issues on social media
With increasing frequency, employers are raising the question about what can (or can’t) be done with employees who speak about polarizing issues, whether at work or in a way that affects the work environment. This question is arising often because of our current social and political climate. The legal and practical implications are complex.
Continue Reading Employees and free speech
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently issued an opinion that reversed a decision by the National Labor Relations Board about whether a comment by a management representative was a threat to workers or a mere joke. The NLRB decision sheds interesting light on how remarks, such as this specific employer’s tweet, meant in jest can backfire. Fortunately for this employer, on appeal the Third Circuit “got the joke.”
Continue Reading Third Circuit decides employer’s tweet was comedic, not coercive
Recently, Governor Mike DeWine signed House Bill 81 which contains several changes to workers’ compensation laws. Most significantly, the bill contains a provision that will codify the common law voluntary abandonment doctrine. This provision should ensure that injured workers do not receive certain disability benefits if their loss of income is not related to the allowed conditions in a claim. Significantly, this codification specifically supersedes any court opinions applying the well-known doctrine.
Continue Reading What changes are coming to the well-known Ohio workers’ compensation voluntary abandonment doctrine?
Many people exercise daily, and for Shannan McDonald, her exercise was prescribed by her physician for her genetic disorder. McDonald, employed as a receptionist for UAW-GM Center for Human Resources (CHR), regularly exercised in her employer’s on-site gym during her lunch break. Per the collective bargaining agreement that covered her employment, each year CHR permitted employees to elect annually whether to take a 60 minute lunch break or a 30 minute lunch break with two other 15 minute breaks. The election remained in place for the entire year following election. McDonald chose the 30 minute lunch break.
Continue Reading Sixth Circuit holds that employer was not required to extend lunch breaks for exercise as reasonable accommodation