OSHA’s penalties are on the rise

Today’s post originally appeared on Meyers Roman’s Ohio OSHA Law Blog, but it’s worth reprinting for my readers.

---

Have you subscribed to our new OSHA blog? If not, what are you waiting for?

Subscribe by email here, or by RSS here.

---

Earlier this week, President Obama signed into law the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015. On its surface, it funds the federal government through 2017 and prevents any federal shutdowns during that time. Employers that read the fine-print, however, might be in for an OSHA-related shock.

NLRB provides employers a roadmap to a legally compliant off-duty access policy

Can an employer lawfully limit non-employees’ access to its facility? On its face, such a question might seem silly. After all, an employer should be able to control its property, right? What about access by union organizers? Does this wrinkle change the answer?

In Marina Del Rey Hosp. (10/22/15) [pdf], the National Labor Relations Board considered the following access policy:

Off-duty employees may access the Hospital only as expressly authorized by this policy. An off-duty employee is any employee who has completed or not yet commenced his/her shift.

An off-duty employee is not allowed to enter or re-enter the interior of the Hospital or any Hospital work area, except to visit a patient, receive medical treatment, or conduct hospital-related business. “Hospital related-business” is defined as the pursuit of an employee’s normal duties or duties as specifically directed by management.

An off-duty employee may have access to non-working, exterior areas of the Hospital, including exterior building entry and exit areas and parking lots.

Any employee who violates this Policy will be subject to disciplinary action up to and including termination.

Did it pass NLRB-muster?

An injury without an injury? #SCOTUS, standing, and the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins. This case should answer a very important question for employers: Does a plaintiff have standing to bring a lawsuit for a technical violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act if the individual suffered no resulting concrete harm? The implications of this case are huge.

EEOC proposed new rules for GINA to encompass employer wellness plans

Last week, the EEOC announced that it plans to amend its regulations to the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act to permit employees to provide health information about their spouses in exchange for certain financial and other incentives as part of employer wellness programs.

Earlier this year, the EEOC published proposed ADA regulations, which would permit financial incentives for employee participation in employer wellness programs so long as they remain at or below 30% of the total cost of employee-only coverage. As long as financial incentive remains at or below the 30% threshold, the wellness program is considered a lawful, voluntary medical exam under the ADA.

WIRTW #388 (the “queen of all the world” edition)

I’ve decided that when I grow up, I want to be Norah. She has a pretty good life.

Guess who’s added “new guitar” to the top of her Christmas list?

---

Please check out the latest post on Meyers Roman’s new Ohio OSHA Law Blog — Federal court slaps down OSHA’s broad interpretation of its machine-guarding standard. And, while you’re there, take a minute to subscribe to receive updates via RSS or email.

---

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

It’s not illegal to give a negative job reference, but…

When you receive a phone call from a company looking for information on a former employee that was a less than stellar employee, or worse, fired, do you?

(a) Ignore it.
(b) Confirm only the fact of prior employment and dates.
(c) Give a truthful, negative reference.

Most employers do either “a” or “b”, while very few opt for “c”. Many employers avoid “c” because they fear liability if the ex-employee loses a job because of a negative reference. Yet, in Ohio and elsewhere, there is nothing illegal about providing truthful, negative information.

Illustrating the importance of training your employees on the ADA

By now you’ve likely heard the story about the blind college student denied service by a Cleveland-area bakery because she was accompanied by her seeing-eye dog. Rather than vilify this establishment (which, god knows, has been done enough on Facebook, and Yelp, and just about everywhere else on the Internet), we should instead use this mistake as a teachable moment for all employers everywhere.