Tag Archives: Florida

Arbitration Update: Eleventh Circuit Finds in Favor of Florida Employers

Florida employers are beginning to benefit from recent U.S. Supreme Court and National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) rulings.  On June 26, 2018, the federal Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued two decisions in favor of Florida employers in which it rejected NLRB rulings that the employers had violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The cases are Everglades College, Inc. v. NLRB and Cowabunga, Inc. v. NLRB.

Applying the Supreme Court’s Epic Systems decision (for further information on Epic, click here), the Eleventh Circuit held in both cases that the inclusion of class and collective action waivers in these employers’ mandatory arbitration agreements did not violate the NLRA. Additionally, relying on the Board’s Boeing decision (for more information, on Boeing click here), the Eleventh Circuit vacated the NLRB’s holdings that the arbitration agreements were unlawful because employees could “reasonably believe that they were prohibited from filing unfair labor practice charges with the NLRB.”

In Boeing, the NLRB retroactively changed the rationale it used to evaluate the lawfulness of facially neutral employee policies, thus eliminating the broadly applied “reasonably believe” standard that prohibited any rule that could be interpreted as covering protected activity. Without that standard, the Board could not defend its prior decisions in the appeals. Therefore, the Eleventh Circuit remanded the remaining issues in the cases to the NLRB so that it can apply its new Boeing rationale, which does not interpret ambiguities against the drafter and does not ban all activity that could conceivably be included in generalized provisions.

Even with the NLRB General Counsel’s recent memo addressing the application of the Boeing standard (for more on the memo, click here), it is unclear how the Boeing rationale will apply to arbitration agreements. Regardless, employers should remain hopeful as the new standard provides for a more balanced review.

Gail E. Farb
gfarb@williamsparker.com
941-552-2557

[Editor’s Note: Williams Parker attorney Gail E. Farb represented the employer in the Everglades College, Inc. case cited above.]

The NLRB Continues to Retreat on Its Assault of Handbook Policies

In a recently released memo, the NLRB General Counsel confirmed the Board’s December 2017 signal of a shift in how the Board will scrutinize employer personnel policies. In December 2017, the NLRB changed course when it replaced the Lutheran Heritage standard, which had been aggressively used by the Board to invalidate personnel policies, with the Boeing standard (as discussed in our post from December 2017, “The NLRB’s Holiday Gift to Employers”). The Lutheran Heritage standard evaluated whether employees could “reasonably construe” a policy as barring them from exercising their rights under the NLRA. If the answer was “yes,” the policy was improper. The Lutheran Heritage standard was often applied in a manner that gave the appearance that the NLRB thought employees were lacking in intellect or common sense. Thus, the switch to the Boeing standard was generally celebrated by employers.

Even so, many employers felt that although the Boeing standard was a step in the right direction, it was somewhat complicated. In response to these criticisms, on June 6, 2018, NLRB General Counsel Peter Robb issued GC 18-04 “Guidance on Handbook Rules Post-Boeing.” This guidance provides examples of the policies (which he refers to as rules) that would fit into each of the three categories, and also makes it clear that the NLRB will no longer interpret ambiguities in rules against the drafter, “generalized promises should not be interpreted as banning all activity that could be considered included.”

The memo explains that the Boeing standard balances the personnel policy in question’s impact on NLRA-protected rights with the employer’s legitimate business justifications. The Boeing analysis uses three categories to determine the legality of rules:

Category 1: Rules that are Generally Lawful to Maintain

Category 2: Rules Warranting Individualized Scrutiny

Category 3: Rules that are Unlawful to Maintain

The memo goes on to state that Category 1 includes rules that may have been found unlawful under the Lutheran Heritage standard. It also explains that the types of rules in this category are generally lawful because the rules do not prohibit or interfere with the exercise of NLRA-protected rights or because there are business justifications associated with the rule. Rules in this category include:

(a) civility rules;

(b) no photography, no-recording rules;

(c) rules against insubordination, non-cooperation, or on-the-job conduct that adversely affects operations;

(d) disruptive behavior rules;

(e) rules protecting confidential, proprietary, and customer information or documents;

(f) rules against defamation or misrepresentation;

(g) rules against using employer logos or intellectual property;

(h) rules requiring authorization to speak for company; and

(i) rules banning disloyalty, nepotism, or self-enrichment.

The memo provides that charges alleging that rules in Category 1 are facially unlawful are to be dismissed, recognizing however, that special circumstances could render a normally lawful rule in Category 1 unlawful. Facially lawful rules cannot be used to prohibit protected activity or to discipline employees for engaging in protected activity.

Category 2 rules are to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Such rules are not facially lawful or unlawful. If rules in this category restrict NLRA-protected rights, then the question is whether the employer’s business interest in having the rule outweighs the restriction on NLRA-protected rights. Some “possible examples” of Category 2 rules are:

(a) broad conflict-of-interest rules that do not specifically target fraud and self-enrichment and do not restrict membership in, or voting for, a union;

(b) confidentiality rules that encompass employer business or employee information;

(c) rules regarding disparagement or criticism of the employer;

(d) rules regulating the use of the employer’s name;

(e) rules generally restricting speaking to the media or third parties;

(f) rules banning off-duty conduct that might harm the employer; and

(g) rules against making false or inaccurate statements.

Category 3 rules are unlawful to maintain because they prohibit or limit NLRA-protected conduct and the adverse impact on NLRA-protected rights outweigh any justifications for them. Category 3 rules include:

(a) confidentiality rules specifically regarding wages, benefits, or working conditions; and

(b) rules against joining outside organizations or voting on matters concerning.

In light of Boeing and GC18-04, employers should be more confident in their ability to maintain appropriate policies for their workplaces, including those that dictate professional behavior. The new approach is clearer and provides for a balancing of employer justifications with employee rights, resulting in common-sense personnel policies being upheld as lawful. Employers are now better positioned to defend attacks on their well drafted, common-sense personnel policies.

Summer associate Ryan Larson assisted in preparing this blog post.

Jennifer Fowler-Hermes
jfowler-hermes@williamsparker.com
941-552-2558

Employers Hear Music as the Supremes Cut into Employee Class Actions

The United States Supreme Court recently decided two cases addressing class-action proceedings. These cases show that “Things Are Changing” and employers will no longer have “Nothing But Heartache.” Both decisions are employer-friendly, in that these opinions effectively limit participation in class-action lawsuits.

In Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, the Supreme Court upheld the enforceability of class-action waivers in employee arbitration agreements. Arbitration is an alternative means of resolving a dispute without proceeding to a court trial. A class-action waiver in the employment context is a contract provision in an arbitration agreement that prevents employees from resolving employment disputes in a group. The Court found that employers can put these waivers in their arbitration agreements, and the waivers do not invalidate the agreements. Opponents to these waivers are now screaming, “Stop, In the Name of Love.”

Now, some “Reflections.” In light of this decision, employers should keep two things in mind.

  • The Epic Systems decision does not represent a blanket endorsement of arbitration agreements; rather, this decision requires courts not to overturn arbitration agreements solely because they contain class-action waivers. This case does not prevent courts from refusing to enforce arbitration agreements for other reasons.
  • Epic Systems does not mean all employers should declare, “I’ll Try Something New,” and adopt arbitration agreements. Employers considering using arbitration agreements should evaluate whether arbitrating their disputes is the right choice. Employers should keep in mind that by agreeing to arbitration, they are generally giving up their right to appeal an adverse decision.

In the second case, China Agritech v. Resh et al., which was not an arbitration case, the Court held that employees/former employees who were not certified as members of a class-action lawsuit before the legal deadline to join the lawsuit could not file a new class-action suit after the passage of the statute of limitations on the initial class action. Thus, some employees/former employees who do not timely protect their rights will no longer be able to belt, “You Keep Me Hangin’ On.”

“No Matter What Sign You Are,” as an employer these decisions are “Automatically Sunshine” and maybe even a bit of “Buttered Popcorn.”

Summer associate Kelley Thompson assisted in preparing this blog post.

Jennifer Fowler-Hermes
jfowler-hermes@williamsparker.com
941-552-2558

Seminar: What’s a Business to Do in the Age of #MeToo?

In light of all of the attention that is being focused on issues relating to harassment and the #MeToo movement, it is now more important than ever for businesses to develop a better understanding of what constitutes harassment in the workplace.

Join us Wednesday, April 11, at the Lakewood Ranch Business Alliance’s upcoming seminar featuring Williams Parker board certified labor and employment attorney Jennifer Fowler-Hermes. Jennifer will discuss types of harassment and provide guidance on how employers can prevent, recognize, and respond to harassment.

WHEN:
Wednesday, April 11, 2018
7:30-8:00 a.m. Networking & Breakfast
8:00-9:00 a.m. Presentation

WHERE:
Keiser University
6151 Lake Osprey Drive
Sarasota, FL 34240

COST:
$10 Members, $20 Non-members

Register Online

MORE ON #METOO:
Catch Williams Parker labor and employment attorney Gail Farb discussing the #MeToo movement on a recent ABC7 news TV segment and roundtable discussion.

Intro Segment (Gail first appears at 2:31):

Roundtable Discussion (Gail first appears at 2:55).

The Tax Act May Limit Resolutions of Sexual Harassment Complaints

One aspect of the new Tax Act (the Act) that has not been widely reported impacts employers that amicably resolve claims of sexual harassment. The provision denies tax deductions for any settlements, payouts, or attorneys’ fees related to sexual harassment or sexual abuse if such payments are subject to a non-disclosure or confidentiality agreement. Specifically, Section 162(q) to the Internal Revenue Code provides:

PAYMENTS RELATED TO SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND SEXUAL ABUSE.—No deduction shall be allowed under this chapter for—

(1) any settlement or payment related to sexual harassment or sexual abuse if such settlement or payment is subject to a nondisclosure agreement, or
(2) attorney’s fees related to such a settlement or payment.

The intent of this provision is to deter confidentiality provisions in settlements of harassment claims. It is unclear if this provision will actually have the desired impact. Companies may value the confidentiality provisions more than the tax deductions permitted in their absence, and thus continue to enter into confidential settlement agreements. Alternatively, this provision of the Act may end up hurting those bringing harassment claims. Alleged victims may want confidentiality provisions in order to avoid any publicity about their claims. However, by removing tax incentives for employers, an employer may reject a higher settlement amount or settlement of claims altogether.

Section 162(q) of the Act is bound to create confusion as to its applicability as it fails to define key terms. Namely, the Act fails to define “sexual harassment” or “sexual abuse,” both of which are pivotal to the application of the new provision. The Act also fails to contemplate how the provision is to be applied in settlement arrangements involving a variety of claims. Are the sex-based claims separable from a universal confidentiality covenant? Causing further confusion, the Act fails to explain what attorney’s fees are considered to be “related to such a settlement or payment.” Are these only the fees related to settlement negotiations, drafting the agreement, and execution or payment? Or does it extend to the claim’s inception and include the underlying investigation of the claims?

In light of the numerous questions raised by Section 162(q), employers should review their standard settlement agreements and practices and consider revising the breadth of any releases, nondisclosure provisions, or any representations or remedies.

Ryan P. Portugal
rportugal@williamsparker.com
941-329-6626

What is Harassment?

In light of all of the attention that is now being focused on issues relating to harassment and the #metoo movement, employers that do not take time to review policies and train employees may be at a disadvantage if claims ever arise. It is now more important than ever for employers to develop a better understanding of what constitutes harassment in the workplace, as well as how to prevent, recognize, and respond to harassment. Sexual (and other) harassment training is not just about reviewing company policies and telling employees how to report complaints. Training should be tailored for the specific workforce, in person, and promote respect and civility. It should be geared to help employees at all levels in an organization recognize harassment and when others are uncomfortable. In addition, employees that are responsible for receiving, investigating, and responding to complaints should be trained on how to properly fulfill these duties.

Harassment can occur both inside and outside of the workplace. Certain forms of harassment, such as a woman walking down the street getting cat-called by a stranger, do not implicate the workplace at all. However, if that same woman works for a construction company and is walking past other employees of the organization when she is cat-called by them, the same conduct may be workplace harassment and actionable. For more details on what is actionable harassment, see our October 14, 2016 blog post. Not all harassment is immediately obvious, and answering the question “what is harassment?” can sometimes be a difficult task. Are you able to recognize it?

Friends star David Schwimmer and writer and director Sigal Avin released several short videos that reflect different types of harassment in society, including three that involve workplace harassment. These videos start innocent enough, but develop into awkward and uncomfortable situations. At the end of this post is a link to one of these videos. Test yourself, watch the video, and consider the following questions:

Are you able to recognize when the harassment begins?

Can you identify the non-verbal and verbal cues that the employee is giving to indicate that she is not comfortable with the interaction?

Do you think that others in your organization would be able to recognize these cues?

Jennifer Fowler-Hermes
jfowler-hermes@williamsparker.com
941-552-2558

A NLRB Christmas Story

If the NLRB is Santa, then Santa just left employers a Millennium Falcon under the Christmas tree. One day after issuing two well-received pro-employer decisions, the NLRB overruled one of its most detested decisions from the last eight years, E.I. du Pont de Nemours, 364 NLRB No. 113 (2016), that broke from long-standing board precedent and dramatically altered what constitutes a “change” in the terms and conditions of employment and thus, when an employer is required to bargain with a union. In the DuPont decision, the Board held that bargaining would always be required, even if the parties had not yet agreed to a contract, in every case where the employer’s actions involved some type of “discretion.”

However, on December 15, 2017, in Raytheon Network Centric Systems, 365 NLRB No. 161, the Board continued its Fast and Furious dismantling of many of the more controversial decisions issued during the Obama administration, by rejecting DuPont and returning to what had been long-standing board precedent. The majority of the Board opined:

We conclude that the Board majority’s decision in DuPont is fundamentally flawed, and for the reasons expressed more fully below, we overrule it today. DuPont is inconsistent with Section 8(a)(5), it distorts the long-understood, commonsense understanding of what constitutes a “change,” and it contradicts well established Board and court precedent. In addition, we believe DuPont cannot be reconciled with the Board’s responsibility to foster stable bargaining relationships. We further conclude that it is appropriate to apply our decision retroactively, including in the instant case.

*  *  *

In sum, and for the reasons stated above, we overrule DuPont as well as Beverly I and Register-Guard, and we reinstate Shell Oil, Westinghouse, Winn-Dixie Stores, Beverly II, Capitol Ford, and the Courier-Journal cases. Henceforth, regardless of the circumstances under which a past practice developed—i.e., whether or not the past practice developed under a collective-bargaining agreement containing a management-rights clause authorizing unilateral employer action—an employer’s past practice constitutes a term and condition of employment that permits the employer to take actions unilaterally that do not materially vary in kind or degree from what has been customary in the past. We emphasize, however, that our holding has no effect on the duty of employers, under Section 8(d) and 8(a)(5) of the Act, to bargain upon request over any and all mandatory subjects of bargaining, unless an exception to that duty applies.”

The retroactive application of this decision is of particular importance and may impact many disputes currently pending with the NLRB. This decision will also have great impact on management-union negotiations, and will provide employers greater ability to act without being required to ask for permission from a union. This is particularly true in the context of employers that do not have a collective bargaining agreement in place.

[I wonder if unions are feeling as if they are Randolph and Mortimer Duke in Trading Places, Hans Gruber in Die Hard (one of my favorite holiday flicks), or Ted Maltin in Jingle All the Way.]

In addition to overruling the DuPont decision on December 15, the Board also overruled Specialty Healthcare & Rehabilitation Center of Mobile, 357 NLRB 934 (2011) enfd. sub nom. Kindred Nursing Centers East, LLC v. NLRB, 727 F.3d 552 (6th Cir. 2013). The Specialty Healthcare decision made it easier for unions to organize so-called “micro-units.”  With PCC Structurals, 365 NLRB No. 160, the Board reinstated its pre-Specialty Healthcare, community-of-interest approach for determining  “whether a proposed bargaining unit constitutes an appropriate unit for collective bargaining when the employer contends that the smallest appropriate unit must include additional employees.”

We are well into Hanukkah and only a few days before Christmas, let’s hope that the NLRB continues to shower employers with gifts this holiday season and that this Miracle on 34th Street continues.

Jennifer Fowler-Hermes
jfowler-hermes@williamsparker.com
(941) 552-2558

Florida’s Minimum Wage Is Set to Increase: What Are You Doing New Year’s Eve?

It is only October and across the state, in department stores not named Nordstrom, holiday decorations are appearing. It may seem that, like these stores, reporting to you that on January 1, 2018, Florida’s minimum wage will increase, may be premature. But, like the holidays, the new minimum wage will be here before you know it. If you are not prepared, then you may be updating your payroll on New Year’s Eve.

Great, now I have Harry Connick Jr’s melancholy version of the 1947 classic by Frank Loesser stuck in my head (and it’s only October):

Maybe it’s much too early in the game
Ooh, but I thought I’d ask you just the same
What are you doing New Year’s
New Year’s Eve?

On January 1, 2018, Florida’s minimum wage will increase from $8.10 to $8.25 an hour. Employers should be prepared to make adjustments to their minimum wage earners. Failing to pay non-exempt employees Florida’s statutory minimum wage can result in claims against employers pursuant to Section 24, Article X of the State Constitution and Section 448.110, Florida Statutes. The maximum tip credit ($3.02) that can be taken by Florida employers with tipped employees will remain the same, but the direct wage paid to tipped employees will increase from $5.08 to $5.23 an hour.

In addition to raising the minimum wage, Florida employers are required to post a minimum wage notice in a conspicuous and accessible location. Before the beginning of 2018 you will be able to download the 2018 Florida Minimum Wage Notice from the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity’s website. This notice requirement is in addition to the requirement that employers post regarding the federal minimum wage (which has not been increased). There will also be commercially available Florida-specific “all-in-one posters” that satisfy both the federal and state notice requirements. The 2018 “all-in-one” posters should also be available in the near future.

Jennifer Fowler-Hermes
jfowler-hermes@williamsparker.com
(941) 552-2558

Reinforcing Florida Employers’ Ability to Protect Valuable Business Relationships

Florida employers and their attorneys received good news in September when the Florida Supreme Court finally issued its opinion in White v. Mederi Caretenders Visiting Services of Southeast Florida, LLC, 42 Fla. L. Weekly S803a (Fla. 2017). At issue in White, was whether referral sources could constitute protectable legitimate interests under Florida Statute s. 542.335. The Florida Supreme Court answered this question in the affirmative, holding that referral sources can be protectable interests sufficient to support a restrictive covenant in a non-compete/non-solicitation agreement.

For more information on how employers can protect their valuable information and business relationships see our previous post.

Jennifer Fowler-Hermes
jfowler-hermes@williamsparker.com
(941) 552-2558

Should I Pay Exempt Employees Who Miss Work Due to Bad Weather Conditions?

As Florida prepares for a potential direct hit by Hurricane Irma, employers have many concerns. At some point, when decisions have been made about if a business will stay open and if goods or people need to be moved out of harm’s way, the following question will most likely be asked: “Should I pay exempt employees who miss work due to bad weather conditions?”

When it comes to deductions from exempt employees’ salaries it is easy to get into trouble.  The general rule is that an exempt employee is entitled to receive his or her entire salary for any workweek he or she performed work. This means, if the worksite closes for a partial week due to bad weather conditions (such as a hurricane), and the exempt employee has worked during that workweek, the employee is entitled to his or her full salary. However, if the employer has a leave benefit, such as PTO, and the employee has leave remaining, the employer can require the employee to use paid time off for this time away from work. If the employee does not have any remaining leave benefit, he or she must be paid.

If the work site remains open during inclement weather and an employee is absent (even if due to transportation issues), the employee can be required to use paid time off.  If the employee does not have any paid time off remaining, the employer may deduct a full-day’s absence from the employee’s salary. For a more detailed explanation see this opinion letter from the U.S. Department of Labor.

As for non-exempt employees, the FLSA only requires that employees be paid for the hours they actually work. However, those non-exempt employees on fixed salaries for fluctuating workweeks, must be paid their full weekly salary in any week for which work was performed.

Jennifer Fowler-Hermes
jfowler-hermes@williamsparker.com
941-552-2558