KMK Law Management Rights Blog

New Rules for Federal Contractors:

On December 3, 2014, the Department of Labor announced a Final Rule changing OFCCP’s regulations so that they prohibit discrimination based on, and require treatment of applicants and employees without regard to, sexual orientation or gender identity.  These final rules were issued as a result of President Obama signing an executive order in July, 2014, extending workplace protections to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Americans in the federal contracting workforce. 

In a reversal of precedent, a divided National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) held yesterday that employees have a right to use their employers’ email systems for non-business purposes, including statutorily protected communications regarding the terms and conditions of their employment and regarding union organizing efforts. See Purple Communications, Inc., 361 NLRB No. 126 (December 11, 2014).  The NLRB’s ruling stemmed from a case brought by the Communications Workers of America union after it unsuccessfully attempted to organize employees of Purple Communications, Inc., a company that provides interpreting services for the deaf and hearing-impaired.  The union argued that prohibiting the company’s workers from using the company’s email system for non-business purposes and on behalf of organizations not associated with the company interfered with the CWA’s organizing efforts. 

While the rest of us have been cheering on our favorite teams or sulking due to our busted March Madness brackets, Northwestern University has been fighting a different battle before the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”).  On March 26, 2014, a regional director for the NLRB ruled that football players at Northwestern qualify as “employees” and have the right to unionize, paving the way for athletes at private educational institutions throughout the country to unionize. 

Determining how to reasonably accommodate an employee with a disability can be difficult for employers.  The Sixth Circuit’s decision in Kempter v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co., et al. affirms common-sense law – namely, that in reasonably accommodating a disabled employee, employers are not required to convert temporary light-duty work into a full-time position, reassign a disabled employee to a position he/she is not qualified for, or which would displace another employee’s rights, or create a new position. 

In a ruling that bolsters employers’ established FMLA leave notice requirements, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of the employer and upheld a former employee’s discharge for failure to follow the call-in requirements of his employer’s attendance policy in White v. Dana Light Axle Manufacturing, LLC.  The decision is assuring to employers who have established and adhere to FMLA leave policies that require employees follow specific procedures to notify their employers of their intent to take protected FMLA leave.

For employers, compliance with wage-hour laws, including the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) is more important than ever.  A top lawyer at the Department of Labor (“DOL”) stated earlier this month during a conference that the DOL has a new emphasis on investigations of potential FLSA violations. 

On May 7, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit struck down a National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) rule requiring both union and non-union employers to display posters informing employees of their right to form a union and engage in other concerted activity.

Demonstrating the NLRB’s increased focus on limiting employer confidentiality rules, a three member panel of the NLRB recently ruled in DirecTV U.S. DirecTV Holdings LLC, 359 NLRB No. 4 (January 25, 2013) that four work rules maintained by DirecTV were unlawful restrictions on employees’ Section 7 rights and that the employer did not repudiate the rules. 

The D.C. Circuit holds that President Obama’s January 2012 recess appointments to the NLRB were unconstitutional, arguably undermining the precedential value of controversial decisions  of 2012. (Noel Canning v. NLRB, January 25, 2013.)   

This week, the National Labor Relations Board told Thomson Reuters that it will file a civil complaint accusing the company of illegally reprimanding a reporter over a public Twitter posting criticizing management.  The reporter posted the following to a Reuters Twitter address: “One way to make this the best place to work is to deal honestly with Guild members.”  She was subsequently advised by Reuters’ management that she should not have published a post that could damage the company’s reputation.  Although she has indicated that she felt intimidated, it is not clear whether she was actually disciplined for the post.  The NLRB has taken the position that Reuters violated the reporter’s federally protected right to engage in concerted, protected activity with co-workers to improve working conditions.  Although this is the first incident involving Twitter, it is not the NLRB’s first foray into the realm of social media.  In October 2010, the NLRB filed a complaint against an ambulance company in Connecticut on behalf of an employee who had been terminated because she had posted negative comments about her supervisor on her personal Facebook page in violation of the company’s blogging and internet posting policy.  That case was settled in February 2011.