Skip to main content

What I’ve Been Reading This Week


I found a few good articles to focus on this week, including a tip from a loyal reader of the blog about EEOC guidance as to the applicability of the ADA while we deal with the coronavirus pandemic.  As I note below, this guidance is routinely updated by the EEOC, but it is worth reviewing to see what is/is not acceptable conduct in the workplace (without running afoul of the ADA), while dealing with the coronavirus.

As always, below are a couple articles that caught my eye this week.


With Work From Home the Norm For Many, Privacy Concerns Among Workers Rise

Many workers have likely transitioned to some semblance of a work from home setup over the past few weeks or months.  For some, that work from home arrangement includes having zoom meetings, calls, virtual meeting rooms, instant messaging, etc. with their co-workers, employers, and customers/clients.  However, while the work from home setup has become the norm for many workers, some are expressing hesitation over the potential privacy ramifications that have arisen over this increased use of technology while away from the traditional workplace.  The Washington Post published an article recently that noted there are several different companies that offer software that enable employers to monitor how much work their employees do by taking screen shots of the computers of their employees, tracking the time logged in on work computers, tracking the amount of activity over a given timeframe, etc.  Of course, this is not even taking into account concerns over webcams and microphones being monitored as well to track employee productivity.  While there is likely no middle ground here, in regard to allowing employers to effectively monitor the work output of their employees versus the need for privacy, this article has some interesting things to consider as work from home continues for many across the country.


Before UFC 249, Fighters Required to Sign Agreement Not to Disparage Company’s Coronavirus Prevention Measures

Bloomberg published an article over the past weekend, following Saturday evening’s UFC 249 event that took place in Florida, which noted that the UFC apparently required those that fought in the event to sign a non-disparagement agreement, agreeing not to criticize the company’s safety protocols.  In addition to signing the non-disparagement document, fighters were required to sign a waiver and acknowledge that the company was not making any guarantees about local hospital facilities’ capacities, ability to treat for the coronavirus, or whether going to the hospital would expose them to the coronavirus.  While some have questioned whether these waivers and non-disparagement documents would be enforceable, I would not be surprised to see similar documents become commonplace in sports as sporting events start to take place again.


The EEOC, ADA, & the Coronavirus

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) often provides guidance on a host of issues/statutes, so that employers and workers alike can have a general idea of how certain laws apply in a given situation.  The EEOC has maintained (and updated) a section of its website to provide guidance on how the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) applies in the age of the coronavirus. It is a good idea to check back with the EEOC frequently as this guidance is often updated.  In the meantime, this guidance provides readers with a general idea of how the ADA applies in the workplace while the coronavirus pandemic continues to play out.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more