Ohio Chamber of Commerce announces victory on paid sick leave

The Ohio Chamber of Commerce has weighed in on the timely demise of the Healthy Families Act:

The Ohio Chamber of Commerce is pleased the mandated sick leave proposal will be pulled from the November ballot.  We appreciate the courage Governor Ted Strickland exhibited as he worked diligently to protect Ohio’s economy from this extremely costly proposal.  We applaud his leadership and the leadership of Senate President Bill Harris and House Speaker Jon Husted on this issue.  They truly understood how detrimental this mandate would be to our state’s economy and the ability to attract and retain the jobs Ohioans so desperately need.  Ohio employers have always provided good-paying jobs with excellent benefits.  With this issue behind them, they can now get back to the work of growing their businesses and creating jobs.

Meanwhile, SEIU District 1199, the measure's sponsor, has indicated that it pulled the issue from the ballot after Gov. Strickland and Sen. Sherrod Brown pledged their help in enacting the law on a federal scale. In other words, stay tuned in 2009 for the resumption of this battle on Capitol Hill.

Victory (for now): Healthy Families Act to be pulled from ballot

Rumors started circulating early this morning that the Governor finally succeeded in getting the Healthy Families Act pulled from the ballot. Now, we have formal confirmation, courtesy of the Columbus Dispatch:

Ohioans for Healthy Families, the group that backed the paid sick-day amendment, said today that it has asked that the proposal be pulled off the Nov. 4 ballot.

Officials with the Service Employees International Union were holding a press conference this morning with Gov. Ted Strickland and U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, to announce the decision.

Strickland and Brown said they would push for a separate law requiring paid sick days.

The compromise almost certainly will be Sen. Brown pushing for similar legislation in the Senate. If Obama wins the election, it is guaranteed that we will see the Healthy Families Act, in some form, on a national level. More on this to come.

On a personal note, thank you Governor Strickland for standing up for Ohio's businesses and taking a position that might not be popular with your base, but is clearly in the best interest of Ohio.

Now, I have to go find something to do to fill all my time that's been taken up by this issue.

Be careful what you ask for

Non-competes are a curious breed. They are often used, but difficult to enforce. What's the harm in trying, you might ask? If an employee signs a non-competition agreement and goes to work for a competitor, why not roll the dice and see if you can extract your pound of flesh from the former employee and your rival?

U.S. Foodservice v Marzich (N.D. Ohio 9/2/08)* illustrates the dangers. As a result of U.S. Foodservices's attempt to enforce a non-compete agreement against former executives, it is now faced with an Opinion and Order from a federal court that its agreement is invalid as a matter of law:

The breadth of solicitation and confidentiality covenants certainly extend beyond the reach necessary for the protection of Foodservice's business interests and presents an undue hardship on the Former Employees in violation of Maryland's law on restrictive covenants.... The Agreement lacks the narrow tailoring necessary to merely prevent the Former Employees from trading on the goodwill they created while serving Foodservice customers. Rather, the restrictive covenants appear designed to prevent any kind of competition by the Former Employees, which is not a legally protected interest under Maryland law.... While Foodservice has a legitimate interest in protecting its customer relationships, it does not have a legitimate interest in limiting ordinary competition. By prohibiting the Former Employees from soliciting business, "directly or indirectly" from any "Persons" in the universe of "Customers" who have ever made "contact" with Foodservice, "whether or not these [contacts] resulted in sales," the Agreement prohibits the Former Employees from engaging in conduct that could only reasonably be construed as ordinary competition.

If the company cannot enforce a non-compete against former executives, who can it enforce it against? A national company with more than 27,000 employees is now faced with the prospect of having an agreement that it can never enforce against anyone. For current employees, it will have to go back to the drawing board. For former employees, in the words of one of my former law professors, it's too bad, so sad, hard cheese.

This case certainly gives companies something to consider the next time an employee goes to work for a competitor.

*Full disclosure: KJK represents the defendants.

Q&A on applying performance and conduct standards to employees with disabilities

It is an oversimplification to simply say that employers should hold disabled employees to the same conduct standards as non-disabled employees. Certain conditions may require modifications of conduct and performance standards as a reasonable accommodation to enable an employee to perform the essential functions of the job adequately. To clarify these issues, the EEOC has published a comprehensive Q&A on Applying Performance and Conduct Standards to Employees with Disabilities.

According to the EEOC:

Although, an employee’s disability typically has no bearing on performance or conduct, sometimes an individual's disability may contribute to performance or conduct problems. When this is the case, a simple reasonable accommodation often may be all that is needed to eliminate the problem. However, EEOC continues to receive questions from both employers and employees about issues such as what steps are appropriate where a disability is causing – or seems to be causing – a performance or conduct problem, when a request for accommodation should be made, and when an employer can properly raise the issue of an employee’s disability as part of a discussion about performance or conduct problems. Even when the disability is not causing the performance or conduct problem, some employers still have questions about what action they can take in light of concerns about potential ADA violations.

The Q&A covers topics such as:

• Seeking medical information when there are performance or conduct problems
• Attendance issues
• Dress codes
• Alcoholism and illegal use of drugs
• Confidentiality issues arising from granting reasonable accommodation to avoid performance or conduct problems

It's a must read for any company dealing with a disabled employee who is not meeting standards or who is having conduct or discipline problems potentially attributable to a disability.

Sometimes the little things go a long way

Often times, we forget that the law is a floor and not a ceiling. For example, just because the FMLA caps unpaid leave at 12 weeks does not mean that every employee who cannot return to work at the end of 12 weeks should be terminated (in fact, the ADA may require otherwise).

De la Rama v. Illinois Dept. of Human Servs. (7th Cir. 9/2/02) illustrates this point. De la Rama called in sick from July 19, 2004 through August 19, 2004. Although she was diagnosed with fibromyalgia in early August, she did not tell her employer until much later. Instead, she continued to call in sick without explaining the nature of her illness. Ultimately, in October she submitted a medical certification and requested for a leave of absence, for which the employer granted FMLA leave. De la Rama was out on unpaid FMLA leave for 17 weeks, and upon her return assigned to a different unit under a new supervisor at her request. Her absences in July and August, however, were treated as unauthorized.

She sued, claiming that the classification of her July and August absences as unauthorized interfered with her rights under the FMLA. The court disagreed:

[I]n light of the fact that de la Rama was permitted to take seventeen weeks of leave—five weeks more than the twelve weeks the Department was required to give her under the FMLA—we find it difficult to see how the Department interfered with her entitlement to leave at all.

The employer's generosity in giving de la Rama the leave she needed once she documented her need was very persuasive to the court in deciding whether its designation of her prior leave as "unauthorized" violated the FMLA. In other words, its willingness to go above and beyond for an employee demonstrated that it did not harbor an intent to violate the Act. Keep this in mind the next time you are faced with the prospect of terminating an employee at the end of the 12th week of leave, or extending the leave for a few extra weeks to allow the employee to return to work.

Employer's failure to provide written notice does not save employee who failed to return to work following FMLA leave

Under the FMLA, an employer must provide an employee taking FMLA leave "with written notice detailing the specific expectations and obligations of the employee and explaining any consequences of a failure to meet these obligations." 29 CFR 825.301(b)(1). In fact, the Department of Labor provides a convenient form for employers use. Among other items, the notice must provide whether the employer will require the employee to "present a fitness-for-duty certificate to be restored to employment." 29 CFR 825.301(b)(1)(v). If an employer fails to provide the required notice, "the employer may not take action against an employee for failure to comply with any provision required to be set forth in the notice." 29 CFR 825.301(f).

Tucker v. Middleburg-Legacy Place (6th Cir. 8/29/08) answers the question of what happens if an employee mistakenly assumes that a fitness-for-duty certificate is required before she can return to work. When Sonia Tucker started her FMLA leave, she claims that her employer did not provide her with the written notice required by 825.301(b)(1). She also claimed that while she was cleared to return to work on January 17, 2007, she failed to do so because she believed her employer required a fitness- for-duty certificate. When she failed to show up for work on January 17, the employer fired her for job abandonment.

The Court held that even if the employer failed in its obligation to provide Tucker with the required written notice, her FMLA claim warranted dismissal because she did not claim that the fitness-for-duty certification was an actual requirement:

Plaintiff has further failed to allege she was terminated for failing to present the fitness-for-duty certificate. In ¶ 12 of her Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges, “defendants unlawfully terminated plaintiff from her employment for alleged job abandonment.” (Emphasis added). She does not allege her employment was terminated for failure to provide a fitness-for duty certificate. Plaintiff clearly alleges she “had been initially cleared to return to work from her medical leave on January 17, 2007.” (Amended Complaint at ¶ 9). She did not return to work on that date. Rather, she went to her physician on that day to be examined and to obtain a fitness-for-duty certificate. (Amended Complaint at ¶ 11). Nowhere does Plaintiff indicate she advised Defendants of the doctor’s appointment, or otherwise communicated with Defendants on the date of her scheduled return. As the Magistrate Judge noted, the provision in 29 C.F.R. § 825.301(f), barring employer action against an employee for failure to present a fitness-for-duty certificate “is only triggered if the employer actually required the employee to present a fitness-for-duty certificate.” (Emphasis added).

Typically, ambiguous employment policies do not help an employer. In this case, however, the ambiguity was fatal to the employee's claim. Because the employer did not tell the employee, in writing, that a fitness-for-duty certificate was required, the court overlooked its failure to tell the employee that the certificate was not required.

Despite this decision, it is not a real good idea for companies to ignore their obligations under 825.301(b)(1) to provide written notice to employees taking FMLA leave. Much more often than not, that failure will invoke 825.301(f)'s protections, and an employer will not be able to fire an employee who fails to meet some other FMLA obligation (such as returning to work).

Happy Labor Day

Like most, I'm happily taking this Labor Day off. If you're looking for something to read, hop over to the Connecticut Employment Law Blog, where Dan Schwartz gives us a brief history of this holiday.