Labor & Employment Insights

By: Kathleen M. Connelly

By unanimous decision in the recent case of (July 17, 2012), the New Jersey Supreme Court extended greater protection to employees blowing the whistle on suspected violations of law in the workplace. While the decision may have some positive implications for employers, several aspects of the ruling may well spawn increased litigation.

Siding with employees, the court ruled that in actions under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD), an employee alleging unlawful retaliation for having complained of discriminatory behavior in the workplace need only show that he/she had a good faith belief that the alleged conduct violated the LAD. The employee is not required to point to an actual victim of discrimination, and the fact that the employee was wrong and complained of conduct that was in fact entirely lawful will not bar a retaliation claim. This holding could significantly expand the number of employees eligible to pursue unlawful retaliation claims in response to a termination or other adverse employment action.

New Jersey Courts have consistently enforced covenants not to compete (also known as restrictive covenants) contained within an employment agreement.  Those covenants have traditionally been used by an employer to prevent an employee from leaving his/her employ and immediately soliciting the employer’s customers and/or clients – – many of whom the employee would not have known except as a result of working for that particular employer.  Those covenants have also been used to prevent an employee from leaving his/her employment and using the employer’s confidential information (such as information about the employer’s pricing, margins, profits, etc.) to gain an unfair advantage in competition with the former employer.    Provided that the covenants were reasonable and not simply intended to thwart fair competition, employers could be assured that their customer/client relationships and their confidential information would be protected.

Introduced on April 4, 2013, Assembly Bill No. 3970 could potentially change that competitive landscape in New Jersey.  Assembly Bill No. 3970 is designated as “an act concerning certain employment contracts and unemployment compensation” and consists of only 2 paragraphs.  It specifically states:

1.An unemployed individual found to be eligible to receive benefits pursuant to the “unemployment compensation law,” R.S. 43:21-1 et seq, shall not be bound by any covenant, contract, or agreement, entered into with the individual’s most recent employer, not to compete, not to disclose, or not to solicit.  This section shall not be construed to apply to any covenant, contract, or agreement in effect on or before the date of enactment …

Employment Law Newsletter

As illustrated in a related article in this issue, employers who fail to comply with the FMLA’s various notice requirements may land an employer in court. Although employers are free to craft their own notices so long as they are compliant with regulatory requirements, the DOL has issued standard forms containing all of the required components which the prudent employer should certainly utilize when administering FMLA requests. The DOL has recently issued updated FMLA forms that are available though the DOL website, http://webapps.dol.gov/libraryforms or can be downloaded in a PDF by clicking here. Employers should note that the updated forms do not include the Military Caregiver Leave form due to recent changes in those requirements that will presumably result in an revised form in the near future.

In addition, in conjunction with the new rule addressing Military Caregiver Leave, the DOL has issued a new FMLA poster that employers must prominently display in the workplace. A copy of the poster is likewise available on the DOL website.

Employment Law Newsletter

In , the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court recently upheld Jennifer O’Brien’s termination for conduct unbecoming a teacher by posting the following comments on Facebook: “I’m not a teacher – I’m a warden for future criminals!” and “They had a scared straight program in school – why couldn’t [I] bring [first] graders?” First, the court agreed with the finding below that O’Brien was not commenting on a matter of public concern, namely student behavior in the classroom, in which case the comments may have been protected by the First Amendment. Rather, the court reasoned that O’Brien was making personal statement driven by her dissatisfaction with her job and her students’ conduct. Finally, the court observed that even if the comments were on a matter of public concern, O’Brien’s First Amendment rights to make such comments was outweighed by the school district’s interest in the efficient operations of its schools.

Although this decision has limited application outside of the public sector because First Amendment rights do not extend to private sector employment, it nonetheless serves as a heartening sign that under the right circumstances the courts will uphold the termination of an employee who makes damaging comments about the workplace on social media. While this decision did not involve a challenge of O’Brien’s communications as commentary about workplace conditions protected by Section 7 of the NLRA, it would be interesting to see how far the NLRB would push the boundaries of protected activity under these circumstances.

Employment Law Newsletter

Twenty years after its passage, most employers are aware that the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) provides qualifying employees with up to 12 weeks of job-protected leave for varying circumstances. However, employers may not be aware that the U.S. Department of Labor recently issued new rules and an Interpretive Guidance that will likely expand the number of employees eligible for leave under the FMLA. Employer personnel responsible for handling leave requests must be aware of these developments to ensure proper administration of employee leave rights under the FMLA.

DOL Guidance Clarifies Leave Rights to Care for Adult Children: Among the circumstances where eligible employees may invoke FMLA rights is a leave to care for a son or daughter with a serious medical condition. The FMLA’s definition of “son or daughter” includes an child who is “incapable of self-care because of a mental or physical disability.” One of the unresolved issues under this definition was whether the age of the child when the disability began could be considered when making eligibility determinations for the parent. On January 14, 2013, the DOL issued interpretive guidelines clarifying that the age of the son or daughter at the onset of the disability is not relevant, and thus a qualifying parent is entitled to leave regardless of the age of the child or when the disability arose.

Employment Newsletter

On the 20th anniversary of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued results of a survey of 1800 employers and 2,800 employees designed to measure the law’s impact on these constituent groups. Some of the survey’s more significant findings include:

• Employer knowledge of the FMLA’s requirements has increased to 66%.

Employment Law Newsletter

Effective January 1, 2013, employers using third parties to conduct applicant/employee background checks must issue an updated Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) notice to affected applicant/employee. Under the FCRA, employers must issue the updated notice summarizing rights under the FCRA whenever the employer intends to obtain a consumer report on the employee/applicant, or when the employer intends to take any adverse action based upon the report. Copies of the new form are available at www.consumerfinance.gov/learnmore.

Employment Law Newsletter

In a decision that may ultimately negate any post January 2012 decisions issued by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in January 2013 struck down as unconstitutional three controversial “recess” appointments to the NLRB by President Obama. The court held that the presidential power to make appointments when Congress is in “recess” (and therefore unavailable to vote on the nominations) does not apply to a generic break in Congressional proceedings for several days. The President’s nominations were made in January 2012 when the Senate was not in recess but was meeting in sessions every three days and thus were unconstitutional from their inception.

Although the issue is far from settled – the U.S. Supreme Court has decided to hear the recess appointments issue – the questionable status of the currently constituted Board may be fatal to a slew of decisions issued under the recess appointees. At issue in many of these rulings was whether employer policies and practices infringed upon employees’ rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to engage in “concerted activity,” including discussion of the terms and conditions of employment with coworkers. Although the NLRA was historically implicated in unionized workplaces, its protections apply to non-unionized workplaces as well, and non-unionized employers are increasingly targeted by the NLRB for violations of the Act. These decisions have created a firestorm among employers, who view the NLRB’s recent pronouncements as pro-union attacks upon employers’ abilities to reasonably manage their workplaces. Below is a summary of some of the Board’s more controversial rulings:

Employment Law Newsletter

Lady Gaga’s formal personal assistant (and former personal friend) has filed suit against the pop star for violation of the overtime payment requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which requires overtime payment for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours to employees who are not exempt from the FLSA’s overtime mandate. The assistant claims that she was on duty 24 hours a day to attend to the Lady Gaga’s every personal need, without the benefits of breaks or even time to sleep. Contrary to a common misperception among employers, the fact that the assistant was paid on a salaried basis is immaterial to the question of whether or not she qualifies as an exempt employee under the FLSA – an unlikely prospect given the nature of her job duties. Lady Gaga could be looking at significant liability because under the FLSA, a prevailing employee is entitled to 2 times the amount of unpaid wages due in the preceding 2- or 3-year period, plus interest and attorney fees, which often eclipse the unpaid overtime.