Skip to main content

What I’ve Been Reading This Week


Yet another week with coronavirus related updates, in regard to employment law related matters.  The below updates/guidance from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission are worth reading through, if for no other reason than to stay up to date.

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



Last week, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) released a FAQ as to wearing face coverings at work.  There is quite a bit of good information here and I would suggest readers give it a review.  The FAQ touch on everything from whether employers are required to provide face coverings and whether employees are required to wear them in the workplace, all the way to suggestions on how employees can keep face coverings clean if they intend to reuse them.



How about we call the past few weeks a busy time for governmental agencies?  The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) recently updated its FAQ as to the coronavirus and related discrimination issues that may arise.  There are several noteworthy sections put out by the EEOC, including guidance on whether employers have to accommodate an employee that has a family member at risk of getting the coronavirus (spoiler alert:  there is NO duty to accommodate in this situation), a reminder that employers cannot tell pregnant employees to stay home after the workplace opens back up, and employers are required to accommodate employees that need to be medically scanned in a different way as a result of an employee’s condition (so long as the accommodation is reasonable.)



About a month ago, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued a ruling in Carr v. PennDOT, in which the Supreme Court considered whether a public employee (that worked for the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation) was lawfully terminated following her FaceBook posts about a school bus driver in the area.  After having been terminated for her FaceBook comments, she filed suit against the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (“PennDOT”) and claimed she had a free speech protection to make her comments about the school bus driver.  The lower court agreed and found her termination unlawful.  However, the Supreme Court reversed on the grounds that while Carr was complaining about a matter of public concern, it was more directed toward just one school bus driver.  Had the FaceBook comments been related to all school bus drivers in the area, the Court might have found Carr had a free speech protection and could not be terminated by her employer.  However, as this case points out, private employees (such as Carr who made the FaceBook comments outside of her official work capacity with PennDOT) receive some right to speak on matters of public concern but that right is balanced against the right to effectively carry out their public duties.

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,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more