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, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

Happening Tomorrow: Connecticut’s Minimum Wage Increases

For those employers and employees alike in Connecticut, mark your calendars as tomorrow, the minimum wage rate increases in the state from $13/hour to $14/hour. This wage hike comes after Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont had signed Public Act 19-4 into law in 2019 which progressively raised the state’s hourly minimum wage rate every year for five years.  In fact, next year, the hourly wage rate will top out at $15/hour.  Beginning in January of 2024, the hourly wage rate will be indexed to the employment cost index. For additional information:   https://portal.ct.gov/Office-of-the-Governor/News/Press-Releases/2022/06-2022/Governor-Lamont-Reminds-Residents-That-Minimum-Wage-Is-Scheduled-To-Increase-on-Friday
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