Skip to main content

Updated: Well F***, NLRB Amends Standard For Which Employers Can Lawfully Discipline or Terminate Employees For Profane Language in the Workplace


Last November, I had made note of a matter the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) was considering:  Whether profane or offensive language in the workplace is protected under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”).

The case before the NLRB was General Motors, LLC in which the NLRB was asked to determine whether a union official had been unlawfully terminated (in violation of the NLRA) when he threatened to “shove” an item up the backside of a supervisor and spoke in “slave like vernacular.”  At the time the case came before the NLRB, this conduct was protected under the NLRA and an employee could not therefore be disciplined or terminated for using profane or offensive language in the workplace.  However, last year, the NLRB asked for public comment on the matter.  At the end of last month, the NLRB issued its decision in the case.

Before we get to that, let us start with the basics.  The NLRA protects employees that engage in concerted activities for mutual aid and protection.  Those concerted activities include union activities, but also complaints about conditions, pay, and benefits by non union employees.  Now this is important to remembers as the NLRA protects both unionized and non unionized employees.  That means the NLRB’s decision in this case (and others) has a direct impact on both unionized and non unionized employees (and employers as well.)

In its decision, the NLRB amended the standard that was put in place during the President Barack Obama era of the NLRB.  Under that President Obama era standard, concerted activity could be legally protected even when an employee made abusive or offensive comments.  That standard assumed that abusive conduct and the protected activity were inseparable and therefore protected under the NLRA.  However, the NLRB’s decision in General Motors, LLC flips that standard and holds that offensive or abusive conduct in the course of otherwise protected activity will be analyzed under the Wright Line standard.  Wright Line stipulates that it must first be proven that the employee’s protected activity was a motivating factor in the discipline or termination.  If that burden is met, the employer must then show it would have taken the same action in the absence of the protected activity.

The takeaway here is rather straightforward:  An employer’s decision on whether to discipline or terminate an employee for abusive, unprofessional, profane, offensive, etc. language made in connection with protected concerted activity will have a stronger chance of surviving attack so long as the employer can establish the disciplinary decision was not motivated by anti-union bias.


For a copy of the NLRB’s decision:  https://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d4583194afa

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