Discussion

The Utah legislature recently expanded religious expression protections for employees in both the private and public sectors.

First, HB 396 expands religious expression protections for employees of private employers. Specifically, an employer cannot compel an employee to engage in religiously objectionable expression that the employee reasonably believes would burden or offend the employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs, unless accommodating the employee would cause an undue burden to the employer. A “religiously objectionable expression” means expression, action, or inaction that burdens or offends a sincerely held religious belief, including dress and grooming requirements, speech, scheduling, prayer, and abstention, including abstentions relating to healthcare.

Employees may request a reasonable accommodation under this provision, and an employer must have a reasonable opportunity to provide the accommodation. Scheduling accommodations are not required for employers with fewer than 15 employees.

Second, HB 460 provides that a governmental entity may not deny an employee’s reasonable request to be relieved from performing a certain task if: (i) performing the task would conflict with the employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs or conscience; (ii) the employee provides a timely written request to be relieved from the task, including an explanation as to why the task would conflict with the employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs or conscience; and (iii) relieving the employee from the task would not impose an undue hardship on the governmental entity. A response to the request is due no later than 5 days before the task is to be performed. Denial of the request must include a written explanation and a notice of employee rights.

Employers must take care when addressing these requests to the extent that they may conflict with other employee rights. Employers should consult with legal counsel before granting or denying accommodations under these new laws.

Action Items

1. Have religious accommodation procedures updated.
2. Update religious accommodation policies, including a description of the process through which an accommodation may be requested and any associated rights or appeals.
3. Have appropriate personnel trained on the new requirements.

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. © 2024 ManagEase

Discussion

In Norwood v. Multicare Health System, the Washington Court of Appeals upheld an arbitration agreement of an independent contractor, with venue and choice of law provisions in a different state, between the contracting employer and also applied the arbitration agreement to the contracting employer’s clients.

There, an anesthesiologist had an independent contractor agreement with an employer that included an arbitration provision. The agreement with the employer provided that the worker would provide services to the employer’s clients as an independent contractor of the employer. The arbitration provision indicated that arbitration would be venued in Georgia and the agreement would be subject to Georgia law. The worker claimed that she was retaliated against for reporting unsafe conditions at the employer’s clients where she was performing services. The employer’s clients were not signatories to the arbitration agreement, but enforcement was sought against the independent contractor who did sign the agreement.

The court found that the claims against the contracting employer and contracting employer’s clients were sufficiently intertwined that they could not be separated, and so all claims would be resolved through arbitration. As for the Georgia choice of venue provision, Washington courts presume that forum selection clauses are valid and enforceable. An exception is when enforcement of the provision would contravene a strong public policy of the State where the action is filed. Because the independent contractor is asserting tort claims against Washington residents regarding her work in Washington, and even though the agreement indicates Georgia as the applicable law, the court assumed that the arbitrator will choose to apply Washington law to the arbitration proceedings and thus no Washington public policy will be violated by enforcement of the agreement.

Action Items

1. Have arbitration and independent contractor agreements reviewed by legal counsel for compliance.

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. © 2024 ManagEase