Tag Archives: Arnstein & Lehr LLP

Megan Toth

In the last two months, the U.S. Supreme Court has decided three different cases, all of which have significant implications for employers as discussed below.

1. Young v. UPS: Broad Pregnancy Accommodations at the Federal Level

Although many states’ laws already require broad accommodation policies for pregnancy related disabilities, the recent Supreme Court decision in Young v. UPS, indicates federal law favors and may require the same. In Young v. UPS, UPS denied a pregnant employee’s request for light duty assignment because she was “equivalent to an employee injured off the job,” and thus, did not qualify for light duty assignment under UPS’ accommodation policy. The employee, therefore, filed claims against UPS for violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and for sex discrimination under Title VII. The District Court of Maryland found that UPS’ policy was not discriminatory and granted UPS’ Motion for Summary Judgment – because no similarly situated comparator was treated more favorably, and the employee could not show UPS’ non-discriminatory reason was pretext. The Fourth Circuit affirmed, and the employee appealed to the Supreme Court.

E. Jason Tremblay

As previously reported, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has taken a very aggressive approach against employers by requiring them to rescind employee handbook provisions that it deems to be unlawful pursuant to the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). In the most recent example of such an approach, an NLRB Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found in favor of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union against Macy’s Inc. and held that several Macy’s employee handbook provisions unlawfully restricted its employees’ right to communicate and complain about workplace conditions. A copy of the Macy’s Inc. decision is here.

E. Jason Tremblay

On March 18, 2015, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) General Counsel, Richard Griffin, issued the “Report of the General Counsel Concerning Employer Rules,” a comprehensive report providing guidance to employers on what the NLRB deems to be lawful and unlawful company handbook provisions and policies. We strongly encourage all employers, union and non-union, to pay close attention to this new guidance from the NLRB.

E. Jason Tremblay

It has traditionally been understood and recognized that employees do not have an expectation of privacy when using their employer’s computer system and that employers can monitor and control their employees’ emails. However, in light of a recent decision by the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) in Purple Communications, Inc., 361 NLRB 126 (2014), employers may need to rethink this commonly held belief.

In Purple Communications, the NLRB overruled long-established precedent that employees have no statutory right to use their employer’s email system for Section 7 purposes and held instead that employee use of email for statutorily protected communications on nonworking time must be presumptively permitted by employers that give employees access to their email systems.