NLRB Issues Guidance on Severance Agreement Restrictions

APPLIES TO

All Employers with Employees Subject to the NLRA

EFFECTIVE

March 22, 2023

  

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Quick Look

  • Severance agreements are permitted to restrict defamation, but cannot include broad nondisparagement provisions.
  • Severance agreements may keep the financial terms confidential.
  • Employers may continue to protect proprietary, trade secret information.
  • The McLaren Macomb decision is applied retroactively.

Discussion

As previously reported, in McLaren Macomb, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) recently returned to longstanding precedent stating that employers may not offer employees severance agreements that require employees to broadly waive their rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), including provisions that would restrict disparagement of the employer or disclosing the terms of the agreement itself.

On March 22, 2023, NLRB General Counsel (GC) Jennifer Abruzzo issued a Memorandum (GC 23-05), in which she provided guidance on the decision. First, severance agreements are not prohibited. Second, she confirmed that limited confidentially and non-disparagement clauses may still be lawful. Confidentiality clauses that are narrowly-tailored to protect proprietary or trade secret information are still lawful. Also, a confidentiality clause that prohibits an employee from generally disclosing the financial terms of settlement is still appropriate. The Memorandum clarified that non-disparagement provisions must be limited to prohibiting defamation (i.e., intentional falsehoods).

Importantly, GC Abruzzo indicated that the McLaren Macomb decision applies retroactively. She went so far as to recommend that employers notify all previous severance agreement parties that overly broad provisions are void and the employer will not seek to enforce them. However, the Memorandum states that the NLRB will generally seek to void only those provisions it determines to be unlawful, instead of voiding the entire agreement. Employers should consult with legal counsel before addressing existing agreements.

 

Action Items

  1. Review the NLRB announcement and Memorandum here.
  2. Have severance agreements reviewed by legal counsel for compliance.
  3. Subscribers can call our HR On-Call Hotline at (888) 378-2456 for further assistance.

 


Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser. © 2023 ManagEase

NLRB Issues Guidance on Protections for Discussing Racism in the Workplace

APPLIES TO

All Employers with Employees Subject to the NRLA

EFFECTIVE

February 27, 2023

  

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Quick Look

  • The NLRA protects workers who discuss racism in the workplace with their co-workers and may also protect social media activity that is a call to action or involves “inherently concerted” discussions about vital categories of workplace life.

Discussion

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) recently issued an Advice Memorandum addressing protected workplace discussions around racism. In Kaiser Permanente Bernard J. Tyson School of Medicine, a school professor claimed she was essentially terminated for a classroom discussion about racism at the school and in the medical field, and for tweeting about her own story to encourage others to act.

The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) protects employees when engaging in concerted activities for their mutual aid or protection. This situation was in the context of the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic in conjunction with the mass protests against the killing of Black people and people of color by police. The employer instructed professors to discuss with students about legacies of power structures and institutionalized racism that result in gender bias and race bias in medicine. Following that instruction, the professor engaged in discussion with the students and involved another employee who was present. Here, the NLRB said that the classroom conversation was inherently concerted because it discussed issues of race faced by Black faculty and students as well as systemic racism in medicine, and that conversation was for mutual aid or protection.

Additionally, the NLRB said that the employee’s tweets were protected concerted activity on their own because they discussed terms and conditions of employment regarding racial disparities in medicine faced by medical professionals, sought the assistance of others to improve working conditions in medicine, and encouraged others to fight for racial equality and justice in the workplace. The tweets were also a logical outgrowth of the discussion from the classroom.

While the NLRA protections are typically discussed in situations involving pay or working conditions, this Advice Memorandum highlights that working conditions include addressing racism in the workplace. Employers should note that these protections are in addition to federal Title VII protections for opposing or raising concerns about racism in the workplace, as well as similar state and local rules.

 

Action Items

  1. Have appropriate personnel trained on NLRA protections and employee discipline.
  2. Review discipline for racial discussions, including social media posts, with legal counsel.
  3. Subscribers can call our HR On-Call Hotline at (888) 378-2456 for further assistance.

 


Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser. © 2023 ManagEase

Religious Exemptions for Federal Contractors Returned to Long-Standing Rule

APPLIES TO

Federal Contractors Subject to OFCCP Rules

EFFECTIVE

March 31, 2023

  

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Quick Look

  • OFCCP returns to longstanding rules for determining who qualifies for a religious exemption to anti-discrimination obligations.
  • Religious exemption still does not permit discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin, even if the discrimination is religiously motivated.

Discussion

The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) recently rescinded a 2021 Trump Administration rule, implementing Directive 2018-03, that provided a faith-based carve-out exempting federal contractors from compliance with certain anti-discrimination obligations. Previously, there was already an exemption for religious employers, including religious educational institutions, from certain anti-discrimination obligations applicable for employees performing religious activities when addressing their terms and conditions of employment.

Directive 2018-03 had expanded “religion” to include “all aspects of religious observance and practice.” Even for-profit businesses “infused with a religious purpose” could qualify as a religious organization entitled to exemption under the rule. It also expanded protection of religious exercise “to the maximum extent permitted by the U.S. Constitution and law.”

Following opposition to the last rule, and to maintain clarity around the religious exemption, the current Administration rescinded the 2021 rule. This means that the OFCCP’s longstanding practice of using a nine-factor test to determine whether an employer qualifies for the religious exemption has been reinstated. The U.S. Department of Labor highlighted that the rule’s rescission still maintains the religious exemption. Employers should note that the OFCCP’s long-established view “that the exemption does not permit qualifying employers to discriminate on the basis of race, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin, even if such discrimination is religiously motivated,” has also been reinstated.

 

Action Items

  1. Review the Department of Labor’s guidance here.
  2. Have appropriate personnel trained on discipline in the workplace.
  3. Review the religious exemption with legal counsel.
  4. Subscribers can call our HR On-Call Hotline at (888) 378-2456 for further assistance.

 


Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser. © 2023 ManagEase

Third Circuit: Whistleblower Reprisal Claim Not Over with Expiration of Filing Deadline

APPLIES TO

All Employers with Employees in DE, NJ, PA, and the Virgin Islands

EFFECTIVE

April 3, 2023

  

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Quick Look

  • The Department of Interior’s failure to provide a report or final order before the expiration of a statutory deadline does not mean a claim for whistleblower reprisal has ended.

Discussion

In Jacobs Project Management Co. v. United States Department of Interior, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals stated that a federal contractor employer engaged in prohibited retaliation against a former employee for whistleblowing and that the final order in the employee’s favor was valid despite statutory administrative deadlines.

Here, a federal contract management service’s employee reported billing discrepancies by a third-party to the Department of Interior’s (DOI) Office of the Inspector General (OIG). The employee was instructed not to speak with the OIG again without a company attorney present. However, he continued to meet with the OIG who ultimately found no evidence of misconduct. Subsequently, the federal contract management service did not get their government contract renewed and they placed the employee on a 90-day convenience leave without pay but with benefits. At the end of ninety days, the employee was terminated.

The employee filed a whistleblower reprisal claim with the OIG for retaliation, alleging that his placement on convenience leave was retaliation for his complaints about alleged third-party billing inaccuracies. Under the reprisal statute for whistleblowing federal contractors, the OIG had 180 days with an additional 180-day extension to issue a report. The OIG did not complete its report until well after the combined 360-day deadline. It took the DOI another three years to tell the employer that it never received their response to the report. The employer claimed it never received the OIG’s report and declined to issue a response since the report was issued after the statutory deadline. Ultimately, DOI issued a final order against the employer awarding the employee backpay and reinstatement rights. The employer appealed the final order claiming the DOI did not have jurisdiction due to issuing the final order after the statutory deadline.

The Third Circuit upheld the final order saying that the statute did not actually create a filing deadline on the OIG. Specifically, the deadline’s requirement to meet a timeframe did not mean that the deadline was jurisdictional or that the agency could not continue to act if a lawsuit was not filed. The deadline for agency action is really “a spur to prompt action, not as a bar to tardy completion.” Federal contractors facing whistleblower reprisal claims should note that the expiration of an agency deadline does not necessarily mean that an investigation has concluded. Such contractors should continue to ask for timely reports or final orders.

 

Action Items

  1. Review adverse actions against employees engaging in protected activity, like whistleblowing, with legal counsel.
  2. Consult with legal counsel upon notification of a claim or potential claim.
  3. Subscribers can call our HR On-Call Hotline at (888) 378-2456 for further assistance.

 


Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser. © 2023 ManagEase

Fifth Circuit: Disabled Employees Not Entitled to Mandatory Reassignment as Reasonable Accommodation

APPLIES TO

Employers with 15+ Employees in TX, LA, and MS

EFFECTIVE

March 17, 2023

  

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Quick Look

  • Disabled employees are not automatically entitled to permanent job reassignment as a reasonable accommodation under the ADA.

Discussion

In Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Methodist Hospitals of Dallas, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals stated that a disabled employee was not entitled to mandatory job reassignment as a reasonable accommodation because the employee was not the “most qualified applicant available” for the vacant position. Here, a patient care technician applied for a scheduling coordinator position after suffering a work-related injury. The hospital required any disabled employee requesting a permanent job reassignment to compete for open positions pursuant to its policy of hiring “the most qualified applicant available.” Based on this policy, the hospital selected a more qualified candidate for the scheduling coordinator position instead of the injured employee.

The EEOC, on behalf of the employee, alleged disability discrimination and claimed that the hospital failed to reasonably accommodate the disabled employee by not reassigning her to the vacant position. In its ruling, the court looked to U.S. Supreme Court precedent in U.S. Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, which held that an employer with a seniority system for job assignments was not required to automatically reassign a disabled employee as a reasonable accommodation if another candidate with greater seniority applied for the same position. A “reasonable accommodation” request under the ADA must be reasonable “on its face” (i.e., as it appears). Even if an employee is unable to show that the requested accommodation is reasonable on its face, the employee may show that “special circumstances” exist to establish the requested accommodation as reasonable under the specific facts at issue. The burden then shifts to the employer to “show special circumstances that demonstrate undue hardship.”

The Fifth Circuit likened the hospital’s “most qualified applicant” policy to the seniority policy in Barnett, saying that the disabled employee’s request for permanent reassignment to the scheduling coordinator position was not reasonable on its face. The court reasoned that the hospital’s policy “stabilizes employee expectations” and that requiring a hospital to ignore the qualifications of other applicants in favor of offering disabled employees with competition-free reassignments “would compromise the hospital’s interest in providing excellent and affordable care to its patients and would be unfair to the [hospital’s] other employees.” Ultimately, however, the Court did not apply the burden-shifting prong of the Barnett test and remanded the question of whether special circumstances exist to nevertheless warrant the reassignment.

There continues to exist a split among the Circuit Courts on whether the “most qualified applicant” policies violate the ADA. However, at this time, it is unclear whether or when the Supreme Court will seek to resolve the ongoing dispute of authorities.

 

Action Items

  1. Review similar disability-neutral criteria for job assignments and applications.
  2. Have job descriptions updated to reflect current job duties and requirements.
  3. Have appropriate personnel trained on receiving and evaluating employee requests for accommodation.
  4. Consult with legal counsel when evaluating an accommodation request for permanent job reassignment.
  5. Subscribers can call our HR On-Call Hotline at (888) 378-2456 for further assistance.

 


Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser. © 2023 ManagEase

Eighth Circuit: Transfer to a Different Location or Department is Not an Adverse Employment Action

APPLIES TO

All Employers with Employees in ND, SD NE, MN, IA, MO, and AR

EFFECTIVE

February 28, 2023

  

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Quick Look

  • Transferring an employee to a different work location or to a different department does not constitute an adverse employment action.

Discussion

In Bell v. Baptist Health, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals stated that a transfer of job location or a transfer to a different department did not produce a material employment disadvantage, and therefore was not considered an “adverse employment action” for purposes of a doctor’s claim for gender-based discrimination.

Here, a female doctor alleged that a colleague male doctor screamed at her, made derogatory statements to her, ignored her statements to him, threw a used syringe at her, and threatened to report her. The female doctor reported some of these instances to the hospital administration, and shortly thereafter, filed a complaint with the EEOC alleging discrimination by the male doctor. In response, the hospital created a safety plan, under which the female doctor was to report if she felt unsafe working with the male doctor (or others) and the hospital would have someone step in to cover for her. The female doctor invoked this safety plan following an interaction with a second male doctor when she reported that she thought the male doctor was intoxicated during a procedure. The male doctor was required to take a breathalyzer test to disprove the allegations, and following the passing test the male doctor remarked that he would never work with the female doctor again. That same day, the female doctor was placed on administrative leave.

Several months later, the female doctor was offered the option to return to work and transfer to a different hospital location or to remain at the location where she previously had worked with the male doctors. The female doctor was also offered the option to transfer to a different department, which would again alleviate the need to work with the male doctors. Regardless of her choice, her duties, hours, and pay would have remained the same. However, the female doctor refused all options stating she did not want to work with the male doctors. She indicated that she should not have to change departments or work locations to avoid working with the male doctors and sued the hospital for sex discrimination and retaliation.

Ultimately, the Eighth Circuit found that the female doctor did not suffer an adverse employment action. The court reasoned that the focus of what constitutes an adverse employment action is on the “material adversity,” stating that a materially adverse action is “one that might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.” This may include “termination, cuts in pay or benefits, and changes that affect an employee’s future career opportunities,” but “minor changes are not enough.” The transfers offered here would not produce a material employment disadvantage, nor would they have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a claim of discrimination. Accordingly, the female doctor’s claims for sex discrimination and retaliation failed.

 

Action Items

  1. Consult with legal counsel when initiating an offer to transfer an employee to a different department or different working location following a workplace complaint.
  2. Subscribers can call our HR On-Call Hotline at (888) 378-2456 for further assistance.

 


Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser. © 2023 ManagEase

Eighth Circuit: “Severe and Pervasive” Standard Clarified for Harassment Claims

APPLIES TO

All Employers with Employees in ND, SD NE, MN, IA, MO, and AR

EFFECTIVE

March 13, 2023

  

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Quick Look

  • To demonstrate “severe and pervasive” conduct for purposes of establishing a hostile work environment claim, an employee must show that the employer created a workplace that was permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult.
  • More than a few isolated incidents are required to meet the threshold for “severe and pervasive” conduct.

Discussion

In Walker-Swinton v. Philander Smith College, et al., the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals said that in order to show that certain conduct rises to the level of “severe and pervasive” for purposes of a hostile work environment claim, an employee must show that the workplace was “permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult.” If an employee cannot meet this high threshold, their claim for hostile work environment will not succeed.

Here, a non-tenured female college professor was terminated following an investigation into her conduct with students and alleged inappropriate remarks she made regarding a student’s use of a cellphone in class. She confiscated a student’s cell phone during a quiz, he left in frustration, and she subsequently remarked that it was “insane and retarded” for students to think they could use their phones during a test. After learning that the professor had called him a “retard,” the male student confronted the professor in a heated exchange that was ultimately separated by other students. After class ended, the male student encountered the professor’s nephew and his friends, which resulted in a serious physical altercation. The college opened an investigation, including witness interviews of pertinent individuals. When questioned, the professor omitted certain key facts, including that one of the male student’s attackers lived with the professor, that she had met with the attackers shortly before the altercation took place, and that the professor had attempted to “coach” several other witnesses who provided statements during the investigation. The investigation concluded that the professor had violated the school’s anti-harassment policy in connection with her use of the word “retarded.” Based on this determination, in conjunction with her omissions during the investigation and her attempt to skew the investigation through coaching several witnesses, the college elected to terminate the professor. Following her termination, the professor filed a lawsuit alleging a claim for hostile work environment.

In support of her hostile work environment claim, the professor pointed to three instances: the confrontation by the male student following her confiscation of his phone; threatening looks by the male student following the incident; and an occasion where the college’s attorney “snatched” the professor’s phone away from her. The Court determined that these noted instances fell markedly short of demonstrating the requisite standard for “severe and pervasive.”

The Court outlined that the threshold for demonstrating “severe and pervasive” conduct is to show that “the workplace [was] permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult,” noting that this standard required “more than a few isolated incidents.” The Court also emphasized the professor’s own role in provoking the incidents with the student, noting that even if the professor’s cited examples were intolerable, her own conduct undermined her claim that the college created a workplace full of discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult. Ultimately, the court determined that the professor’s examples of a hostile work environment were insufficient “to alter the conditions of [her] employment,” and therefore did not meet the requisite standard.

 

Action Items

  1. Review policies prohibiting harassment and discrimination in the workplace.
  2. Have appropriate personnel trained on receiving and evaluating employee complaints of harassment, discrimination, or a hostile work environment.
  3. Subscribers can call our HR On-Call Hotline at (888) 378-2456 for further assistance.

 


Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser. © 2023 ManagEase

D.C. Circuit: Valid Pre-hire Agreement Requirement is Not Anti-Union Motive for Terminations

APPLIES TO

All Employers with Employees in Washington, D.C.

EFFECTIVE

March 7, 2023

  

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Quick Look

  • A practice of employing workers only when a valid pre-hire agreement is in place is a legitimate business practice and not discriminatory.
  • Termination of employees covered by expired pre-hire agreements is not an anti-union motive under the NLRA if that is the employer’s policy.

Discussion

In International Brotherhood of Boilermakers v. NLRB, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals said employers can terminate employees under a pre-hire agreement when it expires without committing an unfair labor practice. Here, under a decades-old policy, Hawaiian Dredging employed workers only when it had a pre-hire agreement with a union. Pre-hire agreements are collective bargaining agreements that permit a construction company to contract with a union before it hires any union workers. Once a pre-hire agreement expires, either party can walk away and there is no requirement to continue to bargain in good faith. Hawaiian Dredging’s pre-hire agreement with multiple unions expired but they continued to hire Boilermakers welders while attempting to negotiate a new agreement. When it became clear that the relationship between the parties had ended, Hawaiian Dredging terminated 13 Boilermakers welders. The Boilermakers union, unsatisfied with the termination of its welders, took the case before the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and alleged unfair labor practices under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). After two reviews, the NLRB found that Hawaiian Dredging’s practice of employing workers only when it had a pre-hire agreement in place was a legitimate business practice. The Boilermakers union appealed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Circuit Court ultimately agreed with the NLRB and deferred to their finding that Hawaiian Dredging did not commit an unfair labor practice when it terminated the Boilermakers welders. The policy of not hiring welders unless a pre-hire agreement with a union is in place was a neutral, non-discriminatory policy. When an employee protected by the NLRA is terminated, the NLRB can use two tests to decide whether the termination was a violation of the NLRA. The first test is whether an anti-union motive was the cause of the termination. Under the second test, an anti-union motive can be inferred when an employer’s action “is so inherently destructive of employee interests” that there is no need for proof of an underlying improper motive. Employers can show a legitimate and substantial business justification for its action to rebut the charge of an anti-union motive. Under the two tests, the court found conditioning work on a pre-hire agreement was a legitimate and substantial business justification for termination. The termination was a result of the requirement of having a valid pre-hire agreement in place and was not discriminatory. Since pre-hire agreements are unique to the construction industry, employers with collective bargaining agreements should consult with legal counsel prior to terminations to ensure the terms and conditions of the agreement are followed.

 

Action Items

  1. Review employment terminations covered by collective bargaining agreements with legal counsel.
  2. Subscribers can call our HR On-Call Hotline at (888) 378-2456 for further assistance.

 


Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser. © 2023 ManagEase

California: PAGA Claims Possible for Paid Sick Leave Violations

APPLIES TO

All Employers with CA Employees

EFFECTIVE

February 24, 2023

  

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Quick Look

  • Employees may bring PAGA claims for paid sick leave violations.

Discussion

In Wood v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, the California Court of Appeal stated that employees can bring Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claims for violations of the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act (HWHF), the state paid sick leave law. Here, an employee claimed the employer failed to properly pay employees for sick leave time and denied their ability to use sick leave.

The HWHF Act provides for enforcement through the California Labor Commissioner or Attorney General. PAGA allows individuals to act in the place of the Attorney General to enforce state Labor Code claims on behalf of themselves and all other “aggrieved employees.” Because the HWHF Act says that the law does “not diminish, alter, or negate any other legal rights, remedies, or procedures available to an aggrieved person,” the court interpreted this to mean that employees may bring PAGA actions to enforce the Act.

PAGA provides for civil penalties that can add up quickly and includes attorneys’ fees for the prevailing plaintiff. As a result, employers must take care to ensure that paid sick leave policies are properly drafted and followed.

 

Action Items

  1. Review paid sick leave policy for compliance.
  2. Have appropriate personnel trained on paid sick leave requirements.
  3. Have payroll processes audited to ensure proper leave tracking and compensation.
  4. Subscribers can call our HR On-Call Hotline at (888) 378-2456 for further assistance.

 


Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser. © 2023 ManagEase

California: No Sexual Harassment Liability Where Personal Relationship is External to Employment

APPLIES TO

All Employers with CA Employees

EFFECTIVE

February 24, 2023

  

QUESTIONS?

Contact HR On-Call

(888) 378-2456

Quick Look

  • Employers are not strictly liable for sexual harassment committed by a supervisor resulting from a private relationship unconnected with the employment and not occurring at the workplace or during normal working hours.

Discussion

In Atalla v. Rite Aid Corporation, the California Court of Appeal stated that where an employee and supervisor have a personal relationship that predates employment and improper behavior occurs outside of the employment context, there is no supervisor liability under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).

Here, an employee had an offsite and afterhours text exchange with a district manager which resulted in him sending unsolicited lewd photographs to her while apparently inebriated. She made a claim for sexual harassment, among others, against the employer. The day after receiving notice of the incident, the employer initiated an immediate investigation in which the manager admitted to sending the lewd photos. He was promptly placed on suspension and terminated shortly thereafter.

Under FEHA, an employer is strictly liable for harassment by a supervisor, but only “if the supervisor is acting in the capacity of supervisor when the harassment occurs.” “The employer is not strictly liable for a supervisor’s acts of harassment resulting from a completely private relationship unconnected with the employment and not occurring at the workplace or during normal working hours.” The employee here claimed she was only friends with the manager to try to get ahead in the company. However, the employee and manager knew each other, and were friends, from a time before the employee started working for the company. They texted on personal matters and had lunch together. They had also socialized together with their respective spouses outside of work. Because the conduct at issue “occurred outside the workplace and outside of work hours” and was “spawned from a personal exchange that arose from a friendship between [them],” the employer was not liable for the conduct.

 

Action Items

  1. Review harassment policies for compliance.
  2. Ensure all personnel receive required sexual harassment training.
  3. Address all sexual harassment claims immediately.
  4. Subscribers can call our HR On-Call Hotline at (888) 378-2456 for further assistance.

 


Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser. © 2023 ManagEase