“Geographical discrimination” is NOT a thing

"If you don’t relocate and return to in-person work, we’re going to have to let you go." Many employers are having this very conversation with their remote employees. Some employees who want to continue working remotely are starting to push back.

According to a recent report, employees are considering suing their employers for geographical discrimination. 

Workers who moved to another city, state, or even country from their employer's main office during the pandemic are claiming that they're being discriminated against geographically by being forced to return to in-person work.

If you can’t beat ’em, sue ’em.

“Competition is fine, cheating is not.” That’s what Elon Musk tweeted after Twitter’s lawyer’s cease and desist letter to Mark Zuckerberg went public.

Twitter accuses Meta of engaging “in systematic, willful, and unlawful misappropriation of Twitter’s trade secrets and other intellectual property.”

The problem, however, is that according to Meta, “No one on the Threads engineering team is a former Twitter employee — that’s just not a thing.” 

WIRTW #677: the “de minimus” edition

Employee: "I can't work Sundays. It's against my religion."

Employer (before yesterday's Supreme Court decision in Groff v. DeJoy): "I'm sorry, but it's an undue hardship for us to redo our entire schedule and require another employee to work in your place. Unless you can find a volunteer co-worker to cover your shift, we can't accommodate you. In that case, any absences are unexcused and will be treated as such under our attendance policy."

Employer (after yesterday's Supreme Court decision in Groff v. DeJoy): "Let's talk."

Groff examined the standard for an employer to assert an undue hardship defense to an employee's religious accommodation request under Title VII. Until yesterday's opinion, an employer could reject an employee's request for a religious reasonable accommodation request if it would impose "more than a de minimis cost." Groff, however, rejected the long-applied de minimus standard. The Supreme Court held:

Title VII requires an employer that denies a religious accommodation to show that the burden of granting an accommodation would result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.

This is a paradigm shift for how employers must consider reasonable accommodations for employees' sincerely held religious observance or practices. Ultimately, an employer will have to evaluate, and a court may have to make a common-sense determination, whether the impact of a potential accommodation is too great for an employer to bear — something akin to a "substantial additional cost" or a "substantial expenditure." It's still a case-by-case factual determination, but it's one that now has some teeth behind it for the employee seeking a religious accommodation.

The Court went on to add to this undue hardship is not the same undue hardship test as courts apply under the ADA ("significant difficulty or expense"). Further, because much of existing EEOC guidance on Title VII religious accommodations focus the accommodation itself, and not the undue hardship test, it's likely mostly still good guidance on which employers, employees, and courts can rely. 

Still, we shouldn't downplay the significance of this decision, especially coming off the heels of a pandemic's workplace vaccine mandates that forced many employers to confront the issue of religious accommodations for the very first time. 

Employers, your job in evaluating religious accommodation requests just became that much more rigorous. The good news, however, is that even though the hardship standard is not quite the same as under the ADA, we should all at least be used to the rigors of the interactive process from years of handling myriad disability accommodations. 

Here's what I read this week that you should read, too.

“Loud quitting”

Quiet quitting is so 2022. According to CNBC (citing Gallup’s 2023 State of the Global Workplace Report) loud quitting is all the rage.

What is loud quitting? Employees who "take actions that directly harm the organization, undercutting its goals and opposing its leaders." Such actions include, for example, bad-mouthing their boss on LinkedIn on their way out the door or riling up co-workers before they leave.

The Gallup survey blames management for this crisis. "At some point along the way, the trust between employee and employer was severely broken," Gallup wrote. "Or the employee has been woefully mismatched to a role, causing constant crises." 

I say, "Hogwash!" 

Employer correctly fires employee for posting racist meme, court says

Rita Hall worked as a line supervisor at Kosei St. Mary's Corporation when she decided to post a meme of two juxtaposed photos on her personal Facebook page — one photo of a group of monkeys on and around a car, and a second photo of a group of Black people on and around a car. At least three of Hall's subordinates and coworkers filed complaints with KSM's human resources department about the racist meme, and the company subsequently terminated Hall because of it.

In her wrongful discharge lawsuit, the court of appeals had a lot to say about Hall's free speech rights at work, none of it good for the former employee or her lawsuit.

Can an employer disable online commenting to quell pro-union messaging?

There's a lot going on with the union organizing campaign at Creature Comforts Brewing Company. While the union (known as "BUG") continues to wait for the NLRB to schedule a representation election, BUG continues to accuse the brewery of illegal union busting. 

According to the BUG, the brewery (allegedly) illegally fired Spencer "Spicy" Britton, one of the union's biggest supporters. Moreover, the public and the brewery's employees can no longer express their opposition to the brewery's alleged union busting tactics by posting comments on Creature Comforts' Instagram posts. The brewery has disabled the ability to comment on all new posts since March 29.

I'd like to tell you that because the Instagram comment policy applies equally to everyone (non-employees and employees), there's nothing unlawful about it under the National Labor Relations Act. But with the current composition of the most pro-union NLRB in history and its equally pro-union general counsel, all bets are off. I'd have real concerns permitting a client to take this step under these or similar circumstances.

Yes, you can still fire employees for lying, even when they are seeking FMLA leave

67 employees of CSX Transportation submitted a required internal form requesting medical leave. Those requests had four key problems: 1.) each was submitted shortly after CSXT informed the employees that they would be furloughed; 2.) each was submitted by one of two chiropractors; 3.) each contained the same or substantially similar language referencing general minor musculoskeletal conditions such as sprains or muscle spasms with no individualized assessments and requiring at least eight weeks of leave; and 4.) they were all submitted within a very tight time period.

As a result, CSXT's Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Heligman, became suspicious of fraud. Following an internal investigation, which included an evidentiary hearing at which each employee could appear and testify, represented by their labor union, the company fired all 67 employees for violating its Code of Ethics and its policy against workplace dishonesty.