When you gotta go, you gotta go: The right to workplace bathroom breaks

Do you know that OSHA protects the right of employees to go to the bathroom? OSHA’s sanitation standard states:

Toilet facilities, in toilet rooms separate for each sex, shall be provided in all places of employment.

The OSHA standard tells you everything you would ever want to know about workplace bathroom facilities, including the minimum required per number of employees. Thankfully, it also forbids employees from “consum[ing] food or beverages in a toilet room.” (just in case your employees like to snack while taking care of business).

It’s not enough that employers provide toilets; they also must provide access for employees to use them. According an April 6, 1998, Director’s memorandum to the OSHA Regional Administrators, this OSHA standard mandates that “employers allow employees prompt access to bathroom facilities,” and that “restrictions on access must be reasonable, and may not cause extended delays.” Another issues to keep in mind when dealing with bathroom breaks is that the ADA might require extended or more frequent breaks as a reasonable accommodation.

What do “reasonable on restrictions on access” look like? Zwiebel v. Plastipak Packaging (Ohio Ct. App. 9/6/13) provides an answer. Plastipak terminated Mark Zwiebel, a production-line operator, for leaving his machine three times in one shift, which included once to use the bathroom.

Zwiebel claimed that his termination wrongfully violated the public policy embodied in OSHA’s restroom standard. The court of appeals disagreed:

While there is a clear public policy in favor of allowing employees access to workplace restrooms, it does not support the proposition that employees may leave their tasks or stations at any time without responsibly making sure that production is not jeopardized. In recognition of an employer’s legitimate interest in avoiding disruptions, there is also a clear public policy in favor of allowing reasonable restrictions on employees’ access to the restrooms.

Thus, the employee lost his wrongful discharge claim because his breaks unreasonably interfered with production. Going to the bathroom is one thing—abandoning one’s job is another.

Nevertheless, employers shouldn’t be the potty police. When an employee has to go, an employee has to go. Unless an employee seems to abusing bathroom rights, or, like in Zwiebel, the breaks interfere with performance or production, let employees be.

Lies, untruths, and protected concerted activity

Consider the following two posts, each made by an employee on his respective personal Facebook page, during non-working time.

• Commenting on the Facebook post by another employee posting about her termination for commenting to a patient about the condition of the employer’s vehicles, William Norvell posted the following: “Sorry to hear that but if you want you may think about getting a lawyer and taking them to court.”
• Michael Rice posted the following: “Hey everybody!!!!! Im [f****n] broke down in the same [s***] I was broke in last week because they don’t wantna buy new [s***]!!!! Cha Chinnngggggg chinnng-at Sheetz Convenience Store.”

In Butler Medical Transport (9/4/13) [pdf], an NLRB Administrative Law Judge concluded that Norvell’s post was protected concerted activity, while Rice’s post was not.

Norvell’s Facebook posts … was advising … a fellow employee to obtain an attorney/and or contact the Labor Board. What I find particularly important is that Norvell was responding to a post in which Zalewski stated she had been terminated for commenting to a patient about the condition of Respondent’s vehicles. The condition of Respondent’s vehicles was a matter of mutual concern to Respondent’s employees…. Thus, I find his post to be protected….

Respondent’s Chief Operating Officer … testified without contradiction that he reviewed Respondent’s maintenance records and determined that Rice’s vehicle had not broken down when he made this post…. As a result I conclude on the basis of Respondent’s uncontradicted testimony that the allegations made in his Facebook post were maliciously untrue and made with the knowledge that they were false.

Thus, the employer’s termination of Norvell was illegal, while its termination of Rice was perfectly lawful.

What does this case teach us? That there is a line between protected complaining and unprotected lying. Both employees posted about the condition of their employer’s work vehicles. The ALJ protected Norvell’s post because he was voicing a legitimate concern for a coworker, but failed to protect Rice’s post because he was caught lying about his vehicle breaking down. Thus, despite the belief of some that the NLRB is pushing the bounds of what qualifies as protected concerted activity vis-à-vis social media, one universal truth remains the same—liars do not win cases.

Hat tip to Molly DiBianca at her Delaware Employment Law Blog.

photo credit: Express Monorail via photopin cc

Failing to communicate with disabled employees is an easy way to buy an ADA lawsuit

Two ADA lawsuits filed by the EEOC over the past two weeks illustrate the risk that employers take when they fail to talk to employees about possible accommodations.

• The EEOC brought suit against Kmart, claiming that the retailer refused to consider alternate per-employment drug testing other than urinalysis for an applicant with kidney issues.
• The EEOC also brought suit against an Arkansas car dealer that declined a salesperson the use of a golf cart following spinal surgery. 

In both instances, the EEOC’s press releases make it clear that part of each employer’s violation was the employer’s failure to “engage in any discussions … about the suggested accommodations.”

The ADA does not guarantee an employee his or her preferred accommodation. It only guarantees a reasonable accommodation. The statute does guarantee, however, that employers engage disabled employees in an interactive process to determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation (if any).

If an employer dismisses an individual’s accommodation request outright, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for that employer to show that it engaged in the required interactive process. In that case, even if the employee’s request is absurd, burdensome, or otherwise unreasonable, it is likely that the employer nevertheless violated the ADA.

Communication between an employer and a disabled employee is the key to avoiding problems under the ADA. Do not commit the cardinal ADA sin of having a failure to communicate.

WIRTW #287 (the “save me, San Francisco, part 2” edition)

Cable car rides, hiking and biking to and over the Golden Gate Bridge, sailing the harbor, reuniting with my college roommate, the “Full House” house, hugging a giant redwood tree in Muir Woods, scenic drives with the top down, and lots of great food and wine. All in all, I’d say my four days in San Francisco and Napa was a huge success.

Huge props to Napa’s Kuleto Estate (the most beautiful winery you’ll ever see — the view is the bottom left below) and Frog’s Leap for their tasty wines. Too bad I had to return to reality this week.

Here’s the rest of what I read this week:

Discrimination

• No Ifs, Ands, or Buts: “But For” Standard Requires New Trial, Court Rules — from Dan Schwartz’s Connecticut Employment Law Blog
• Boston Globe tackles attractiveness discrimination — from Walter Olson’s Overlawyered
• Big Red and Fried Chicken: Dallas Law Firm Sued for Discrimination — from Texas Employer Handbook
• Employers beware: You are liable for discrimination on the part of your staffing agencies — from Employment Law Bits
• 70% of Sexually Harassed Workers Say They Didn't Report it to Their Employers — from Wisconsin Employment & Labor Law Blog
• EEOC Charge Handling Process — from Employment & the Law

Social Media & Workplace Technology

• Too Creepy to Win: Employer Access to Employee Email — from Molly DiBianca’s Delaware Employment Law Blog
• NJ passes a business-friendly workplace social media privacy law — from Eric Meyer’s The Employer Handbook Blog
• Social Media is Paralyzing HR — from HR Examiner with John Sumser
• Who is Watching You When You BYOD? — from netWORKed Lawyers

HR & Employee Relations

• How Much Employee Turnover Really Costs You — from Evil HR Lady, Suzanne Lucas
• Handbook essentials: Auditing your policies the right way — from HR Gazette
• Does Your Employment Application Need To Be Updated? — from Employment Essentials
• How long do I have to keep HR records? — from Mike Haberman’s Omega HR Solutions
• What if Ryan Braun Was an “At Will” Employee? — from Wisconsin Employer Lawyer Blog

Wage & Hour

• What Pink Floyd Can Teach Employers about FMLA: Enforce Call-In Procedures and Insist Upon Facts Supporting Need for Leave — from Jeff Nowak’s FMLA Insights
• IRS Issues DOMA Guidance — from Employer’s Law Blog
• Shouldn’t the White House Be Paying Its Interns, Too? — from TLNT
• New York Times Op-Ed on Future of FLSA: A Provocative Read — from Employment Lawyer Blog

Labor Relations

• NLRB app review: Not perfect, but not half bad — from Robin Shea’s Employment and Labor Insider
• Are Employers Listening? Twitter Hash Tags in Support of Raising #MinimumWage — from Blogging4Jobs
• Is “Management Rights” an Oxymoron? — from We Know Next
• Labor and Obamacare — from Workplace Prof Blog
• A Labor Day Present from the NLRB — from i-Sight Investigation Software Blog

Big verdict underscores danger of recording devices in the workplace

A couple of years ago, I asked the following question: Are your employees recording you? In that post, I discussed an ABC News story, which noted that employees are using their smartphones to digitally record workplace events to gather evidence for future discrimination lawsuits.

Yesterday, news broke of a $280,000 verdict against a New York non-profit in a racial harassment case, in which the African-American plaintiff claimed that her boss, also African-American, called her a n****r. Her evidence? A four-minute audio recording the employee surreptitiously made on her iPhone. (If you’re curious, you can listen to some of audio on CNN.com).

With the proliferation of iPhones and Androids, most employees have a high-tech, high-clarity recording device in their pockets. How do you protect your business against the possibility of employees using these devices to gather damaging evidence against you?

1. If you do not have a policy against employees recording conversations in the workplace, you might want to consider drafting one. You never know when an employee is going to try to smuggle a recording device into a termination or other meeting. The proliferation of smart phones has only made it easier for employees to make recordings, both audio and video. Why not address this issue head-on with a policy? Unless, of course, the NLRB gets its way and renders these policies per se illegal.

2. If the legality of workplace recording bans is up in the air, then you need to train your managers and supervisors to understand and assume that everything they say is being recorded, if not electronically, then via a mental note that an employee can later jot down. You would be surprised how many plaintiffs keep copious, contemporaneous journals of the goings-on in the workplace. Managers and supervisors need to be vigilant in making sure that they do not say anything that could come back and bite your company in later litigation.

Or, just use the cone of silence for all workplace conversations.

More companies offer pet insurance as an employee benefit

We love our pets. This year, it is estimated that we will spend more than $55 billion on them. More than $14 billion of that total will be for veterinary care alone. Vet bills are expensive, and often unplanned and unbudgeted. Given our emotional attachment to our pets, we pay them, regardless of the cost. To mitigate the unexpected nature of these costs, after losing our last dog we opted for vet insurance for our current one.

Corporate America is following suit by beginning to offer pet insurance as an employee benefit.

According to Yahoo, one out of every three of the Fortune 500, plus 3,400 other smaller companies, now offer pet insurance as a benefit to their employees. Ohio employers offering this benefit include Procter & Gamble, Cliffs Natural Resources, and Quest Diagnostics.

Employee recruitment and retention is difficult. Companies struggle to locate, attract, and retain the best employees. Thinking outside the box with employee benefits is one way to attract, and keep, good employees.

FMLA now covers same-sex spouses (sort of)

Ever since the Supreme Court invalidated the Defense of Marriage Act in U.S. v. Windsor, there has been a lot of hand-wringing over what the decision actually means and its impact on our employment laws.

Windsor held that DOMA’s interpretation of “marriage” and “spouse” to apply only to heterosexual unions is unconstitutional. Because this decision is limited to one provision of one federal statute, many have wondered how it will be applied to private insurance plans, and to other federal statutes, such as the FMLA.

Last month, we started to get an answer.

The Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division amended its Fact Sheet 28F, entitled Qualifying Reasons for Leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act. As best as I can tell, the DOL amended the Fact Sheet to make one material change — to add “same-sex” marriage to the definition of spouse. Thus, according to the DOL’s definition of “spouse,” an otherwise eligible employee of a covered employer is now entitled to take FMLA leave to care for a same-sex spouse with a serious health condition.

It is important to note that this Fact Sheet is not the law. It is not part of the text of the FMLA, or even part of the DOL’s regulatory interpretation. It is merely the agency’s informational interpretation of the statute in light of Windsor.

Because courts do not have to accept this Fact Sheet as gospel on the meaning of “spouse” under the FMLA, neither should employers. It is an important first step, however, in the evolution of this issue and the development of same-sex leave rights under the FMLA.

While this issue develops in the DOL and the courts, employers need to remember that the FMLA is a floor, not a ceiling. Employers are free to provide leave of absence rights greater than the baseline the FMLA requires. Thus, employers that want to extend leave of absence rights, and other rights (such as benefits or employment-discrimination protections), to same-sex couples, need not wait for a legislative blessing. They were free to do so before the Windsor decision, and remain free to do so now. This Fact Sheet, however, signals that we are thankfully moving down a path to where someday, thankfully, this issue will no longer be open to debate or discussion.