Pennsylvania Labor and Employment Blog : Pennsylvania Labor and Employment Lawyer & Attorney : McNees Wallace & Nurick Law Firm : Human Resources, Workplace and Business Law : Harrisburg, Lancaster, Allentown, Lehigh

Does your company’s leave policy call for an employee’s termination following the expiration of his or her leave entitlement?  Does your company charge “attendance points” against employees regardless of the reason for the absence?  Does your company require employees to be released to work without restrictions before they are permitted to return from a medical leave?  If so, beware: “inflexible” leave of absence and attendance policies are being targeted by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and plaintiffs under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). 

Recently, McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC's Labor and Employment Group developed and distributed an Employer Alert warning employers about the risks in these areas and providing valuable guidance.  To read the Employer Alert click here. 

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On September 28, 2011, a National Labor Relations Board (Board) Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that an employee who was discharged for posts he made on his Facebook page was not discharged in violation of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). In Knauz Motors, Inc., Case No. 13-CA-46452 (pdf), the ALJ found that the employee's Facebook posts contained both protected and non-protected activity, but that the employee was terminated for only the non-protected activity. As a result, the ALJ refused to find that the employee's discharge was unlawful.

The decision involved two different threads on the employee's Facebook page. The first included "mocking and sarcastic" pictures and comments about a sales event at the car dealership where the employee worked. The employee was dissatisfied with the food selection for the event, which included hotdogs among other things. The employee expressed his displeasure about the food selection at a meeting prior to the event, and another employee voiced a similar complaint. The ALJ found that since more than one employee complained about the food, the complaints constituted "concerted" activity.

The employee later testified that he believed that the food selection would impact his compensation, a term and condition of employment, because the dealership was a luxury car dealership and serving hotdogs might offend customers. However, the employee never mentioned any connection to compensation in his complaint during the meeting or on Facebook. Nonetheless, the ALJ found that the food selection at the event, even though "not likely," could have had an effect on compensation. As such, the ALJ concluded that the employee's complaints and the Facebook pictures and comments about the sales event constituted protected activity under the NLRA.

However, the second Facebook thread, which contained pictures and comments regarding an accident at a related dealership, was not protected activity.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

This post was contributed by Jodi M. Frankel, Esq. a new Associate in McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC's Labor and Employment Group.

Earlier this year the Superior Court of Pennsylvania held that a worker who was fired after he informed his employer that he was proceeding with legal action against a co-worker may maintain an action against the employer under Pennsylvania's Crime Victims' Employment Protection Act.

In Rodgers v. Lorenz (pdf), Rodgers—an employee of Carload Express—alleged that he was subject to repeated acts of verbal and physical harassment by a co-worker. After Rodgers reported to management that the co-worker threatened him on numerous occasions and, on one occasion, choked him, Rodgers was moved to a different job site. A few months later, Rodgers and the co-worker were assigned to the same site, but on different shifts. Thereafter, Rodgers alleged that the co-worker began to harass him during shift changes. Rodgers informed management of his intent to report the co-worker's conduct to the police. Despite the Company's request that he not call the police, Rodgers filed a complaint with the local authorities against his co-worker for harassment and assault. Carload Express fired Rodgers later that same day.

Rodgers filed a complaint alleging that Carload Express wrongfully terminated him for instituting criminal proceedings against his co-worker.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

This post was contributed by Jodi Frankel, a new Associate in McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC's Labor and Employment Group.  Jodi graduated from the University of Virginia School of Law in May 2011 and sat for the Pennsylvania bar exam in July 2011. 

So your employee recently posted photos of herself lounging poolside with margarita in hand while out on FMLA leave. Can you do something more than just compliment her nice tan?

Earlier this year, in the case of Pellegrino v. Communications Workers of America (PDF), a Pennsylvania federal court answered yes. The court upheld the termination of an employee for violating a work rule that restricted employee travel outside the immediate vicinity while on FMLA leave.

Under a policy in its employee handbook, CWA provided sick pay to eligible employees on approved medical leave. Such wage replacement, however, was subject to certain restrictions. Specifically, employees were required to remain in the immediate vicinity of their homes while on sick leave unless they were seeking treatment or attending to ordinary and necessary personal or family needs. Employees also were permitted to leave the immediate vicinity if they received express permission from CWA.

Denise Pellegrino, a CWA employee, was out on approved FMLA leave following surgery. She also received sick leave pay under the CWA policy. While out on leave, Pellegrino took an unapproved week-long vacation to Cancun, Mexico. CWA learned of Pellegrino's travels and fired her; at the time of her termination, Pellegrino had yet to return from FMLA leave. Pellegrino sued claiming that CWA had unlawfully interfered with her right to take FMLA leave. CWA claimed that her termination was unrelated to her status under the FMLA, but rather because she violated its leave policies. CWA said it would have terminated Pellegrino regardless of whether or not she was on FMLA leave.

While the court agreed that Pellegrino was entitled to unpaid leave under the FMLA, it found no evidence that CWA's sick leave policy or its decision to terminate her employment while she was still out on leave improperly interfered with her rights under the FMLA. In fact, the court noted that to the extent the CWA policy provided a wage supplement, it might have actually encouraged employees to take advantage of their rights under the FMLA.

In its ruling, the court noted that "the FMLA does not shield an employee from termination if the employee was allegedly involved in misconduct related to the use of FMLA leave." Similarly, companies have the right to create and enforce leave polices, including policies designed to rein in FMLA abuse, so long as such policies do not abridge an employee's rights under the FMLA. Where a sick leave policy has been adopted, the employer has the discretion to enforce it through means such as termination. The court further noted that, even in the absence of an explicit policy limiting employee travel while out on FMLA leave, an employer might reasonably terminate an employee for taking a vacation while receiving sick leave pay.

Sick leave policies similar to CWA's were previously upheld by courts in Pennsylvania. Such policies have included requirements that employees absent on sick leave stay at home during working hours, that employees obtain medical authorization and employer permission to leave the home, and that employees be subject to calls or visits by their employer.

The Pellegrino case underscores the court's growing concern with FMLA abuse and provides precedent for restrictive sick leave policies. However, an employer who suspects that an employee is abusing FMLA should conduct a thorough investigation and allow the employee to explain his/her conduct before taking immediate employment action.

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

On January 19, 2011, a three judge panel of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania recognized another exception to the at-will employment doctrine. In Haun v. Community Health Systems (pdf), the court affirmed the trial court's order, which recognized a new exception to the at will rule, and refused to dismiss the wrongful termination claim of a former hospital employee. 

The at will employment rule basically provides that, absent an employment contract that provides otherwise, either the employee or the employer may terminate the employment relationship at any time and for any reason. However, over the years, the courts have created numerous exceptions to the rule that have greatly limited the ability of employers to terminate employees.

Haun, the former Chief Financial Officer of the hospital, filed suit against the hospital and other defendants after he was fired for bringing a medical malpractice claim against the hospital. Haun and his wife brought the malpractice claim on behalf of their newborn son who was seriously injured while in the hospital's neonatal intensive care unit.

The Superior Court adopted wholesale the trial court's decision regarding the wrongful termination claim without analysis. The trial court stated that there had been no prior determination that there is an exception to the at will employment rule that would bar termination of an employee who is suing an employer to protect the rights of his or her child. Nonetheless, the trial court went on to state that public policy supports allowing victims to receive compensation for medical malpractice, and supports parents asserting legal claims on behalf of their children. Therefore, the court found that Haun's claims met the public policy exception to the at will rule, and the claims were not dismissed.

There was some good news for employers. While the Superior Court recognized a new public policy exception to the at will employment rule, the court rejected Haun's tortious interference with contractual relations claim, which was brought against the hospital's corporate parents. The court held that an at will employee cannot sue a third party for tortious interference with a currently existing at will employment relationship.

The recognition of another exception to the at will rule adds to the growing list of such exceptions. As recently as January 17, 2011, we reported that a federal court, the District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, had recognized another new exception to the at will rule. Employers faced with the need to discharge an employee must be aware of the growing list of exceptions to the at will rule to ensure that the discharge will withstand challenge. 
 

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

Pennsylvania has long been considered an "employment at will" state – meaning that employers and employees may terminate their employment relationship at any time with or without cause or prior notice. However, the number of exceptions to the "at will doctrine" seems to grow every year. The year 2010 was no exception. In Hamovitz v. Santa Barbara Applied Research Inc., 2010 WL 4117270 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 19, 2010), the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania recognized a new exception to the at will doctrine involving an employer's refusal to hire an applicant based on prior service in the National Guard.

In Hamovitz, the plaintiff claimed that the employer refused to rehire him based on his service in the National Guard. In addition to filing statutory claims under the Uniform Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act ("USERRA") and the Pennsylvania Military Affairs Act ("PMAA"), the plaintiff brought a common law wrongful discharge/failure to hire claim seeking the court to apply a "public policy" exception to the employment at will doctrine. In Pennsylvania, exceptions to the at will doctrine are rare. Under the "public policy" exception, a plaintiff may have a viable wrongful discharge claim if he can show that his termination violated a clear mandate of public policy.

In order to show that an employer's actions offended a clear mandate of public policy, the plaintiff must show that he or she was terminated for: (1) engaging in conduct required by law or (2) refusing to engage in conduct prohibited by law. In such cases, the public policy cited by the plaintiff must have legislative or constitutional endorsement, and it must be clear and specific.

In Hamovitz, the court created a new exception to the at will doctrine: "where an employer's actions impinge upon protected rights of employees." The court found that the employer in Hamovitz may have impinged upon the employee's rights under the PMAA, and therefore, the plaintiff was allowed to proceed with his wrongful discharge claim.

By allowing this claim to go forward, the court also enabled the plaintiff to avoid the statutory limitations on damages found in USERRA and the PMAA. Although not available under the PMAA or USERRA, the court found that the plaintiff in Hamovitz would be entitled to recover punitive damages if he were to prevail on his common law wrongful discharge claim.

Unless the Hamovitz decision is reversed on appeal, this new exception to the at will doctrine may trigger a wave of litigation as plaintiffs seek broad interpretations of "actions that impinge upon protected rights of employees." Courts have long held that employees sacrifice certain rights in the workplace; for example, an employer may restrict free speech by prohibiting offensive language or behavior at work. Now, however, plaintiffs may argue that a termination, or even a refusal to hire, "impinges upon protected rights" in any number of situations that previously fell under the employment at will doctrine.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania recently concluded that an employee who was found sleeping on the job four (4) times was entitled to unemployment compensation benefits under the Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Law ("Law"). Phila. Parking Auth. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 1 A.3d 956 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2010) (pdf). Under the Law, an employee is not eligible for unemployment benefits if his or her unemployment is due to willful misconduct. Willful misconduct includes, among other things, a deliberate violation of the employer's work rules. In cases involving a work rule violation, the employer has the burden of establishing that: (1) a work rule existed, (2) the former employee was aware of the rule, and (3) the former employee deliberately or intentionally violated the rule. If the employer can establish these three things, then the burden shifts to the employee to show that there was good cause for the rule violation.

In Phila. Parking Auth., the former employee, who worked the 3:30 p.m. to midnight shift in the employer's "money room," fell asleep during her shift on four (4) occasions in January 2009. Prior to these incidents, the former employee complained that there were long periods of time during her work day when she had no work to do. The former employee was diagnosed with sleep apnea and claimed that she needed additional work to keep her from falling asleep. Other than providing additional assignments on two (2) occasions, the employer did not provide her with any additional duties. After she was found sleeping four (4) times, the former employee was terminated under the employer's rule prohibiting sleeping on duty.

The court held that the employer adequately proved it had a work rule prohibiting sleeping on duty, and that the former employee was aware of the rule. However, the court further held that the employer failed to adequately address the former employee's requests for additional work assignments and, for this reason, she did not deliberately violate the rule – and did not commit willful misconduct. For this reason, the court awarded benefits to the terminated employee.

This decision is certainly unusual, and a warning that employers must take appropriate action when an employee complains that she does not have enough work to keep her awake!

• Email This
• Print
• Share Link

Employment Practices Liability Insurance (EPLI) can provide valuable protection; particularly,  given the predicted rise in employment related legal claims and enhanced government enforcement initiatives. Furthermore, EPLI remains a relative bargain in the continued “soft” insurance market and employers should consider adding or increasing insurance coverage to protect against employment claims. EPLI insurance is somewhat quirky and the following are some considerations when evaluating policies:

1.         Coverage: EPLI policies usually cover claims of wrongful discharge, workplace harassment and discrimination. Many offer a more comprehensive list of covered acts, including negligent hiring/supervision/evaluations, invasion of privacy, defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Coverage typically applies to claims made by full time employees so as to exclude those by part-timers, temporary, seasonal and independent contractors. In comparing policies, look for one that has the most expansive coverage. 

2.         Exclusions: EPLI policies exclude many claims based on the statute that creates the legal right or the activity that gives rise to the claim. Exclusions apply to the Fair Labor Standards Acts; the National Labor Relations Act; the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN); the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA); the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA); the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA); the costs associated with providing "reasonable accommodation" under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); as well as claims arising out of downsizing, layoffs, workforce restructurings, plant closures or strikes. Punitive damages are always excluded. Carefully evaluate the excluded claims in light of your business practices. In the case of multi-state operations, be aware that some state laws create substantial employment rights that must also be evaluated under the policy language.

3.         Policy Limits and Deductibles: Policy limits and deductibles usually apply on a per claim and aggregate basis. For example, coverage may be limited to $250,000 for each separate claim with an overall aggregate cap of $1 million for all claims. Employers must formulate their insurance goals in setting the appropriate deductibles and limits. Some employers view EPLI insurance as catastrophic coverage and are willing to accept a high deductible that allows them to handle smaller claims themselves. However, other employers are looking for more blanket coverage.

4.         Defense Costs, Selection of Counsel and Settlement: Defense costs are usually included within the EPLI policy’s limits, which has good and bad points. Many times, the legal expense is the largest cost to an employer in dealing with merit less claims. However, including defense costs means that every dollar an employer spends defending a claim reduces the amount available for settlement or to pay a judgment. Since the existence of insurance coverage must be disclosed as part of discovery in most law suits, a plaintiff’s attorney will factor insurance coverage into his or her case evaluation. The defense cost feature may influence plaintiffs’ counsel to try to settle early, rather than force an employer to incur litigation costs that will only erode the insurance dollars available for potential settlement. Employment claims often have significant employee relations ramifications making settlement a particularly important issue. Insurers view employment claims the same as any other insurance matter by evaluating only the potential for liability and the amount of damages. The employer and insurer may be at odds over settling a case. EPLI policies address this stalemate by either giving the insurer the right to settle without the employer’s approval or, more frequently, giving an employer control over settlement, but adding a “hammer clause”. These clauses are designed to limit the insurer’s potential exposure if the policyholder passes up an opportunity to settle a claim recommended by the insurer. Hammer clauses provide that if there is an offer to settle a claim that the policyholder refuses accept, then the insurer will not be liable for a subsequent settlement or judgment in excess of a rejected settlement amount.  

5.         Policy Types and Insurance Company Notification: EPLI policies are typically written on a “claims made” basis meaning that the claim must be incurred during the coverage period and reported to the insurer during an extended reporting period. Employers who have already experience significant layoffs prior to the effective date of coverage will not have claims arising from those actions covered by new insurance; however, if an employer increases coverage, it may be able negotiate a retroactivity for the larger policy limits. Since employment actions may take years to turn into a claims, an employer may be left with no coverage if the policy is dropped or tail coverage isn’t purchased. Untimely notice to an insurance carrier can void coverage for and employment claim.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link