The courts have begun to address the question of whether an employee’s social network profile and postings, including sections only accessible to “friends,” are “private.” Most recently, the New York State Supreme Court for Suffolk County decided that the non-public portions of a plaintiff’s social networking sites are discoverable in litigation when they may contain information relevant to the plaintiff’s claims for damages for loss of enjoyment of life, Romano v. Steelcase Inc.

Ms. Romano sued her employer for, among other things, injuries she sustained that she alleged rendered her permanently disabled. According to the Court’s opinion, the publicly accessible parts of Ms. Romano’s Facebook and MySpace pages contained information which her employer “believed to be inconsistent with her claims” of permanent disability, “especially her claims for loss of enjoyment of life.” For example, publicly accessible photographs showed that Ms. Romano had an “active lifestyle” and traveled from New York to Florida and Pennsylvania during the time she was allegedly home and bed bound due to her injuries. The defendant employer made a discovery demand for access to all of her “current and historical Facebook and MySpace pages and accounts, including all deleted pages and related information”—both the publicly accessible parts of such pages and those parts which Ms. Romano had marked as “private” and made accessible to only her social networking “friends.”
 

In determining that the defendant employer was entitled to the information, the Court concluded that Ms. Romano had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the material. The Court reasoned that because the whole purpose of social networking sites is to share information with others, by creating her Facebook and MySpace pages and posting information and photographs on them, “she consented to the fact that her personal information would be shared with others, notwithstanding her privacy settings.” The Court also concluded that any minimal privacy interest was outweighed by New York’s “strong public policy in favor of open disclosure” in litigation. Because the federal Stored Communications Act prohibits a social networking site like Facebook or MySpace from disclosing the information sought without the consent of the owner of the account, the Court ordered Ms. Romano to provide the necessary consent.

The Romano decision was issued in the context of a litigation discovery dispute between an employer and employee, but the case’s impact is potentially broader because of the general principle it enunciates: individuals do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in Facebook postings, regardless of the privacy settings they choose. As a result, when a co-worker who is “friends” with an employee presents an employer with photographs that the employee posted on Facebook, and those photos clearly demonstrate the employee was on vacation when he had called in sick, the employer may consider that material in its investigation. The employer may do so even if the employee’s privacy settings would have prevented the employer from accessing the photos directly. Of course, when obtaining investigative material from a co-worker, the employer/investigator must still proceed with caution given Stored Communications Act concerns  

After much anticipation regarding what the reconstituted National Labor Relations Board’s agenda would be, the past month has revealed that one of the Board’s and the Acting General Counsel’s priorities is revamping a number of the Board’s policies on remedies. Those changes are discussed below.

Interest Awards

In late October, the Board issued a decision that changes a long-standing remedial policy on how interest on monetary awards is calculated. In Kentucky River Medical Center, 356 NLRB No. 8, the Board unanimously held that interest on backpay and all other monetary awards will be compounded on a daily basis. This is a break from its previous policy that interest was calculated on a simple basis.

The Board concluded that “compound interest better effectuates the remedial policies of the Act than does the Board’s traditional practice of ordering only simple interest and that, for the same reasons, interest should be compounded on a daily basis, rather than annually or quarterly.” The Board justified its change in policy by pointing to the “norms” in private lending practices, as well as the IRS’ policies regarding compound interest. This case applies retroactively to all pending cases, no matter what stage they are in, unless doing so would be manifestly unjust.
 

Remedial Notices

Another long-standing Board policy required the posting of paper notices of violation in an appropriate physical location within the employer’s plant or office. The Board’s decision in J. Picini Flooring, 356 NLRB No. 9, alters this policy by requiring that employers who customarily communicate with employees using electronic means (i.e. email, internet, intranet), must post remedial notices using those same electronic means. The Board reasoned that in order to achieve the remedial goal of posting a notice, “notices must be adequately communicated to the employees or members affected by the unfair labor practices found.” The Board found that while “traditional means of communication remain in use, email, postings on internal and external websites, and other electronic communication tools are overtaking, if they have not already overtaken, bulletin boards as the primary means of communicating a uniform message to employees and union members.”

10(j) Injunction Initiative

On September 30, 2010, the NLRB’s Acting General Counsel, Lafe E. Solomon, announced an initiative to strengthen the Agency's response to “nip in the bud” cases with a more streamlined and efficient 10(j) injunction procedure. Solomon characterized “nip-in-the-bud” cases as those where a pro-union employee is terminated during the course of a union organizing drive, and the discharge thereby “‘nips in the bud’ all of the employees’ efforts to engage in the core Section 7 right to self-organization.” The new procedure adopts the following timeline:

• Upon the filing of a charge, the Regions must identify potential 10(j) organizing campaign discharges.
• The lead affidavit should be taken within 7 calendar days from the filing of the charge and the charging party’s evidence should be obtained within 14 calendar days of the filing of the charge.
• Where the evidence obtained from the charging party “points to” a prima facie case on the merits, the Region must notify the employer that it is considering 10(j) and request a position statement. The position statement must be submitted within 7 calendar days of the written notification.
• The Region must make a determination of the case on the merits within 49 days from filing, and a decision regarding whether 10(j) relief is appropriate should be made at the same time.
• The Region must then submit all meritorious 8(a)(3) discharge cases to the Injunction Litigation Branch (“ILB”) within 7 days of the merit determination.
• Once the ILB receives the case, it is reviewed and the ILB makes a determination within 2 business days as to whether 10(j) relief is warranted.
• The Acting General Counsel then determines whether he agrees with the ILB’s determination, and his authorization must be submitted within 2 business days.
• The case is submitted to the Board for final review and approval. Once the Board approves, the Region must file the 10(j) papers with the appropriate District Court within 2 business days.

 

On October 28, 2010, the Internal Revenue Service announced that the dollar limitations for pension plans and other items, beginning January 1, 2011, would remain generally unchanged from the limits in effect in 2010.  Section 415 of the Internal Revenue Code provides for dollar limitations on benefits and contributions under qualified retirement plans. These limitations usually are adjusted annually to reflect cost-of-living increases. Many other limitations applicable to retirement plans are adjusted at the same time and in the same manner as the Section 415 limit. Some of the limits to be applied in 2011 are listed below.
 

Maximum Annual Compensation taken into account for determining benefits or contributions to a qualified plan -- $245,000

Basic Elective Deferral Limitation for 401(k), 403(b) and 457(b) Plans -- $16,500

Catch-up Contribution Limit for Persons Age 50 and Older in 402k, 403(b) or SARSEP Plans -- $5,500

Limitation on Annual Additions to a Defined Contribution Plan -- $49,000

• Note, in no event may annual additions exceed 100% of a participant's compensation.

Limitation on Annual Benefits from a Defined Benefit Plan -- $195,000

• Note, in no event may a participant's annual benefit exceed 100% of the participant's average compensation for the participant's high three years.

Highly Compensated Employee Compensation Threshold -- $110,000

• Note, Generally an employee is considered "highly compensated" if the employee: a) was a five-percent owner of the employer at any time during the current or preceding year; or (b) received compensation from the employer in the preceding year of more than the applicable dollar limit for that year.

SEP Compensation Threshold -- $550

Social Security Taxable Wage Base for Social Security Tax (6.2%) -- $106,800 

•  For Medicare Tax (1.45%) -- No limit

Health Savings Accounts

• Individual Contribution Limit -- $3,050
• Family Contribution Limit -- $6,150
• Catch-Up Contributions -- $1,000

 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), the enforcement unit of the U.S. Immigration Service, is continuing its vigorous efforts to police the Immigration Reform and Control Act (“IRCA”), with a particular emphasis on employer audits and enforcement actions. IRCA prohibits employers from knowingly hiring or employing unauthorized workers, and requires employers to verify the work authorization of employees through the Form I-9 employment verification process at the time of initial employment.  Under the current Administration, ICE has dramatically ramped up I-9 audits and enforcement actions. In the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, ICE conducted over 2,000 employer audits, compared to only 250 just three years ago. The dollar value of penalties assessed and the number of debarments of federal contractors for IRCA violations has also significantly increased.

ICE’s aggressive approach was highlighted last month by two investigations. First, a national retail clothing company agreed to pay a $1 million fine based on an ICE audit of its electronic I-9 verification system. While the audit did not reveal any evidence of the employment of unauthorized workers, there were systemic deficiencies in the employer’s compliance program that motivated ICE to demand the substantial fine.

In addition to seeking civil penalties and potential debarment from federal contracts, ICE has pursued criminal charges against employers and company officers. IRCA authorizes criminal penalties for employers that engage in a “pattern or practice” of knowingly employing unauthorized workers. In one recent case, ICE identified 16 unauthorized workers through an I-9 audit of company records. The company advised ICE that the employees had been terminated, but a subsequent investigation revealed that at least two of the workers remained on the payroll and had been advised by the business owner to “go out and get good social security numbers.” The business owner and the company vice president now face criminal charges for knowingly continuing to employ unauthorized aliens.

These enforcement actions derive from ICE’s 2009 comprehensive strategy to reduce the demand for illegal employment and protect employment opportunities for lawful workers. Under this strategy, ICE focuses its resources on the auditing and investigation of employers suspected of knowingly employing illegal workers. In conjunction with this initiative, ICE has conducted high-profile, targeted audits of employers with connections to public safety and national security, as well as those employers identified during ICE investigations as potential employers of unauthorized workers.

The aggressive enforcement attitude of ICE should be an urgent reminder to senior human resources personnel to: (i) re-evaluate I-9 procedures; (ii) conduct self-audits of I-9 records; (iii) remain alert to circumstances that may suggest an issue with an employee’s work authorization; and (iv) avoid any conduct that could be interpreted by ICE as encouragement of, acquiescence in, or constructive knowledge of, fraudulent I-9 documentation.
 

As all federal contractors and subcontractors should know, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), is the federal agency charged with enforcing the non-discrimination and affirmative action obligations imposed on federal contractors and subcontractors by Executive Order 11246 (E.O. 11246). Although OFCCP’s ability to pursue a more ambitious agenda under the Obama administration has recently been hampered by budget issues, the Agency has been far from dormant. Its recent activity should serve as a warning to federal contractors that they may face a more aggressive Agency once the budget issues are straightened out. Some of OFCCP’s most recent activity is described below.

Settlements In Hiring Discrimination Cases

As reported in BNA’s Daily Labor Report, this month alone, OFCCP has announced the approval of three consent decrees which settled allegations of discrimination in hiring. In all three matters, the case was generated not by the filing of an individual complaint of discrimination, but by an OFCCP compliance audit which uncovered apparent statistical evidence of discrimination. On October 7, 2010, OFCCP announced that it had entered into a consent decree with one of the nation’s largest Coca-Cola bottlers. The litigation arose out of an OFCCP compliance audit of the employer’s Charlotte facility, during which OFCCP concluded there was evidence of a statistically significant adverse impact on minority applicants for sales support positions. The employer agreed to pay a class of African-American and Hispanic applicants $495,000.

In a consent decree filed with the United States Department of Labor’s Office of Administrative Law Judges on October 20, OFCCP and a Texas employer settled allegations of sex discrimination in hiring which arose out of an OFCCP compliance evaluation at one of the employer’s California facilities. The employer agreed to pay $167,000 to members of a class of female applicants, to hire some of the applicants and to provide future compliance reports to OFCCP. The very next day, OFCCP announced that it had entered into a $570,000 settlement with a subsidiary of Tyson Foods in another hiring discrimination case. That case was also generated by an OFCCP compliance audit which uncovered a statistically significant adverse impact in hiring which disfavored white and African-American applicants and favored Hispanic applicants.

All three settlements serve as timely reminders of the benefits federal contractors can obtain by following the hiring practices prescribed in their affirmative action plans, properly tracking applicant flow data, and analyzing that data regularly to determine whether the hiring practices are generating any potential adverse impact. Failure to do so creates the risk of potential liability even without the filing of a complaint by an applicant, if OFCCP conducts a routine compliance audit.

OFCCP Jurisdiction Over Health Care Providers

In an unrelated development also reported in the Daily Labor Report, OFCCP continues to assert jurisdiction over health care providers that provide services to federal employees pursuant to a government contract or subcontract. On October 18, a Department of Labor Administrative Law Judge found that a Florida hospital which provides medical services to active and retired military personnel, pursuant to a contract with another federal contractor administering a health care plan for those individuals, was a federal subcontractor covered by E.O 11246, and was subject to OFCCP’s jurisdiction. The Administrative Law Judge relied on a case decided last year, which held that University of Pittsburgh Medical Center branches are federal subcontractors because they have a contract with the federal Office of Personnel Management to provide health care services to federal employees. That ruling is currently being challenged in United States District Court.
 

Last month we posted on several bills signed into law by Governor Paterson in late August, one of those is the Construction Industry Fair Play Act, which applies to construction industry contractors in New York and is designed to deal with the problem of worker misclassification in that industry. Among other things, the Act creates a presumption that workers in the industry are employees, not independent contractors, unless three statutory criteria are met. The Act, which went into effect Tuesday, also provides for fines and criminal penalties for willful misclassification of employees. The New York State Department of Labor has issued a fact sheet explaining the statute. The Agency has also issued a poster which construction industry employers must display in a “prominent and accessible place on the job site.”

Two events in the past week should remind New York employers of their legal obligation under section 11(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act not to discipline or terminate employees for reporting a safety hazard, or for filing a complaint with OSHA. On October 14, OSHA announced that it had obtained a consent judgment in a case brought against the John Galt Corporation and two managers, which orders them to pay a terminated employee $55,000 in back wages and to expunge all disciplinary records from the employee's personnel file related to his reporting of health and safety issues at the former Deutsche Bank Building in New York City. Earlier this week, OSHA filed suit against Promesa Systems Inc., a New York City nonprofit organization providing care to individuals with developmental disabilities, for allegedly firing an employee for voicing workplace safety and health concerns and for filing a complaint with OSHA. (The suit also names the organization's wholly owned subsidiary, East Harlem Council for Community Improvement Inc., as well as three managers.) The complaint alleges that a few days after the employee advised the defendants that she would consult OSHA regarding a work assignment, the defendants suspended her, and ultimately fired her under the pretext of poor performance. OSHA is seeking reinstatement, backpay with interest, and compensatory damages.

The Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") recently issued guidance on the new requirements for over-the-counter medicines and drugs ("OTC Drugs") that will apply generally to employer-provided health plans and certain health accounts on January 1, 2011. Those requirements are summarized below.

• To comply with the new requirements on OTC Drugs, employers should:make sure that any employee who administers the applicable health plan or account is familiar with the new requirements;
• inform participants in the applicable health plans and accounts in 2010 about the new requirements, so they can (1) consider the new requirements for OTC Drugs when making health coverage elections for 2011, and (2) properly administer any tax-favored health accounts they have in 2010 with respect to expenditures for OTC Drugs;
• review whether any amendments are needed to their health plan(s), health accounts, and cafeteria plan(s) to comply with the new requirements; and
• make any necessary changes to applicable summary plan descriptions, web pages, and other materials regarding the new requirements.
   

What Restriction is Imposed on the Coverage of OTC Drugs?

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that was enacted on March 23, 2010 provides that a medicine or drug expense may only be paid or reimbursed by an employer-provided health plan, including a health flexible spending arrangement ("Health FSA") and a health reimbursement arrangement ("HRA"), if it is: for a medicine or drug that requires a prescription; for an OTC Drug, and the covered individual has obtained a prescription for that OTC Drug; or for insulin.

This restriction on the coverage of an OTC Drug without a prescription ("OTC Drug Restriction") also applies in the same general manner to a distribution from a health savings account ("HSA") or an Archer Medical Savings Account ("Archer MSA") for an OTC Drug.

For purposes of the OTC Drug Restriction, the new IRS guidance defines a prescription as "a written or electronic order for a medicine or drug that meets the legal requirements of a prescription in the state in which the medical expense is incurred and that is issued by an individual who is legally authorized to issue a prescription in that state."

Does the OTC Drug Restriction Apply to Over-the-Counter Medical Equipment, Supplies, and Diagnostic Devices?

The new IRS guidance provides that the OTC Drug Restriction does not apply to medical care items that are not medicines or drugs, and therefore does not cover (among other things): equipment, such as crutches; supplies, such as bandages; and diagnostic devices, such as blood sugar test kits.

If each piece of equipment, supply or diagnostic device satisfies the general tax requirements for medical care expenses (i.e., it generally must be an expense for the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, or for the purpose of affecting any structure or function of the body), it is still eligible for payment or reimbursement on a tax-favored basis as long as the terms of the applicable health plan or account permit such payment or reimbursement.

What is the Effective Date of the OTC Drug Restriction?

The OTC Drug Restriction generally applies to OTC Drug expenses incurred after December 31, 2010. The December 31, 2010 effective date applies even if an employer's cafeteria plan provides for reimbursement of qualifying expenses incurred in a 2½ month grace period after the end of a calendar year.

If an expense for an OTC Drug without a prescription is incurred in 2010, but is paid or reimbursed in 2011 in accordance with the terms of the applicable plan or account and pursuant to the applicable tax requirements, such payment or reimbursement will still be allowed. However, if an expense for an OTC Drug without a prescription is incurred after December 31, 2010, it generally may no longer be paid or reimbursed on a tax-favored basis. However, the new guidance states that the IRS will not challenge the use of Health FSA or HRA debit cards for OTC Drug expenses incurred through January 15, 2011, if the use of the debit cards otherwise satisfies the applicable tax requirements.

What is the Amendment Deadline for a Cafeteria Plan?

The new IRS guidance has a special transition rule for any necessary amendment to a cafeteria plan. Although cafeteria plan amendments generally must be effective only prospectively, the new IRS guidance allows a cafeteria plan to be amended for the OTC Drug Restriction by June 30, 2011, as long as that amendment is made effective retroactively for expenses incurred after December 31, 2010 (or January 15, 2011, for qualifying Health FSA and HRA debit card purchases).

May Health FSA and HRA Debit Cards be Used for OTC Drug Purchases Made After January 15, 2011?

The new IRS guidance generally provides that Health FSAs and HRA debit cards may not be used for OTC Drug purchases made after January 15, 2011, with a limited exception for "90 percent pharmacies" (a pharmacy will be a "90 percent pharmacy" if at least 90 percent of its gross receipts during the prior taxable year consists of items which qualify as expenses for medical care under the applicable tax requirements or as expenses for OTC Drugs) and where certain substantiation requirements are satisfied.

What Substantiation Requirements Will Apply?

Before a prescribed OTC Drug purchased after the applicable effective date may be paid or reimbursed, it must be properly substantiated. Such substantiation includes submission of a copy of a prescription (or other appropriate documentation evidencing the prescription), and information from an independent third party that satisfies the applicable tax requirements (e.g., a customer receipt issued by a pharmacy that identifies the buyer, the date, the amount of the purchase, and the applicable Rx number).

 

Earlier this year, Governor David Paterson signed into law Chapter 103 of the Laws of 2010 which, among other things, drastically alters the way classroom teachers and building principals are evaluated and the procedures for disciplining tenured teachers. These changes will take effect over the course of the next several years. Many key provisions were effective on July 1, 2010. The changes have significant implications for collective bargaining between school districts and the unions representing teachers and principals.

The impetus for these far reaching changes was New York State’s application for Phase II of the Federal Government’s Race to the Top Program (“RTT”). RTT was created as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (“ARRA”), and authorizes the United States Department of Education to award up to $4.3 billion in grant money to encourage and reward States that create conditions for education innovation and reform. New York was one of several states to win Phase II of RTT. As a result, New York will receive approximately $700 million to help implement changes RTT was designed to foster, including how the performance of teachers and principals is measured.
 

The most widely publicized aspect of the new legislation is Section 3012 c of the Education Law (“3012-c”), which contains the new comprehensive Annual Professional Performance Review (“APPR”) system for teachers and principals. For the 2011-2012 school year, the new APPR system applies only to evaluations of teachers in the common branch subjects or English Language Arts, and Math in grades four through eight, as well as building principals. The new APPR system will apply to all teachers and principals effective in the 2012-2013 school year. The APPR system requires teacher and principal evaluations to result in a single composite score made up of the following components.

• Forty percent of the composite score must be based on student achievement measures; with 20 percent based on student improvement on state exams (or other comparable local exams), and the other 20 percent based on local measures of student achievement which must be established through the collective bargaining process.
• The remaining 60 percent of the APPR score must be based on evidence of overall teacher effectiveness, as determined through locally developed measures (established through the collective bargaining process), and in accordance with standards determined by the Commissioner of Education. As of the date of this post, those standards have not been promulgated.

The composite score must be a significant factor in employment decisions, including, but not limited to, promotion, retention, tenure, termination, and supplemental compensation. The APPR composite score will result in teachers and principals receiving a rating of either: (1) Highly Effective; (2) Effective; (3) Developing; or (4) Ineffective. In connection with this rating system, Districts are required to create Teacher Improvement Plans (“TIP”) and Principal Improvement Plans (“PIP”) for those teachers and principals who receive ratings of either Developing or Ineffective. Two consecutive annual ratings of “Ineffective,” will be deemed to establish a “pattern of ineffective teaching or performance” which may be a basis for just cause removal of a teacher or principal.

From a labor relations perspective, one of the more controversial aspects of 3012-c is the requirement of a locally developed (negotiated) appeals process under which the teacher or principal has the right to challenge the substance of the evaluation, adherence to standards and procedures for reviews, and implementation of a TIP/PIP. In fact, evaluations conducted pursuant to 3012-c cannot even be introduced during a disciplinary proceeding under Section 3020-a of the Education Law prior the expiration of the appeals process.

The legislation also establishes an expedited Section 3020-a disciplinary process for teachers and principals charged with demonstrating a “pattern of ineffective teaching or performance.” The expedited process requires completion of the hearing before a single hearing officer within sixty (60) days of the pre-hearing conference. When a tenured teacher is charged with a “pattern of ineffective teaching or performance” the District must establish that it has negotiated and agreed to a TIP/PIP applicable to that individual.

All collective bargaining agreements covering teachers and building principals entered into after July 1, 2010 must be consistent with 3012-c. Those provisions of collective bargaining agreements that were entered into prior to July 1, 2010 and conflict with 3012-c remain in effect until a successor agreement is entered into, at which time the parties must negotiate over the issues implicated by 3012-c.
 

The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit’s recent decision in United States v. Szymuszkiewicz is yet another reminder that the law governing monitoring of electronic communications in the workplace is a rapidly evolving, and requires employers to regularly revisit their technology use policies. Szymuszkiewicz was an IRS agent in Wisconsin who was convicted under the federal Wiretap Act for intentionally intercepting an electronic communication. A jury found that he secretly activated the auto-forward “rule” on his supervisor’s Microsoft Outlook e-mail account. As a result, a copy of every e-mail the supervisor received was also sent to the agent. The Wiretap Act makes it unlawful for any person to intercept an oral, wire or electronic communication without authority or the consent of at least one party to the communication.

In challenging the conviction, the agent argued that a communication is only “intercepted” under the Act if it is caught “in flight” (before it reaches its destination). Because he merely forwarded e-mails that had already arrived at his supervisor’s computer, he argued, no “interception” occurred. The only crime he could have been charged with, he contended, was a violation of the Stored Communications Act. Noting the risk in “defend[ing] against one crime by admitting another,” the Seventh Circuit rejected the agent’s argument.

First, the Court found that the Wiretap Act does not require contemporaneous or “in flight” interception at all. Any acquisition of information using a device, including conduct which would violate the Stored Communications Act, can violate the Wiretap Act. The Court noted that the “in flight” analogy really does not work for e-mail messages, which are broken up into packets (segments of message) when sent, transmitted over different routes, at different times, and reassembled at the server. So there is no way to intercept the entire message “in flight.” In rejecting the requirement of contemporaneous interception, the Court declined to follow several other Circuit Courts which have held that the interception had to be “contemporaneous” with the communication.

Finally, the Court concluded that even if the statute imposed a contemporaneous interception requirement, it was met in the case before it because Microsoft Outlook’s default provides for automatic forwarding to occur at the server, not at the recipient’s computer. Because each e-mail to the supervisor was received in packets at, reassembled and sent from the IRS’s regional server in Kansas City almost simultaneously to both the supervisor and agent, the agent’s ‘copying at the server was the unlawful interception, catching the message “in flight”… .

Although Szymuszkiewicz involved the clandestine actions of an employee, its holding has applicability to employer monitoring of employee e-mails. Employers that routinely make copies of employee e-mails as part of their regular business activities (for example, by copying e-mails for archival purposes or auto-forwarding the e-mails of a departed employee so others may respond) can no longer assume that because they are acting on an already-received message they are not “intercepting” it. As noted above, as long as one party to the communication consents to the “interception,” the statute is not violated. For that reason, potential violations of the Wiretap Act can most easily be avoided by taking steps to obtain implied or actual consent. Technology use policies should, at a minimum, put employees on explicit notice that electronic communications created, sent or received using company equipment or via its network are company property and subject to monitoring, access, duplication, review and disclosure by the employer at any time. Employers should also obtain implied consent from employees to take such actions through a statement in the policy and/or log in screen that use of the technology constitutes consent to monitor. A signed acknowledgment from the employee is even better.
 

Over the past two years, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) has sought to expand significantly the reach of the General Duty Clause by issuing citations to employers for workplace violence and ergonomics issues. This expansion will soon reach another area: distracted driving. The agency plans to issue General Duty Clause citations to companies whose employees text while driving. This promise comes directly from the Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA David Michaels: "When OSHA receives a credible complaint that an employer requires texting while driving or who organizes work so that texting is a practical necessity, we will investigate and where necessary issue citations and penalties to end this practice." If you have employees who respond to hundreds of e-mails a day, with rapid response times required, and who frequently or occasionally travel during work time as part of their duties, you may receive a visit or an inquiry from OSHA. The impact on employers could be significant. According to a recent Pew Research Poll, 27% percent of all adults admit to texting while driving. Most troubling is the assertion that the agency will cite employers that "create incentives that encourage or condone" texting while driving. Employers that do not "condone" the practice may still receive citations if the agency concludes that an employer that expects fast responses to calls or e-mails thereby "encourages" employees who are driving to respond to texts or e-mails, instead of using a hands-free device or pulling off the road.

Employers can most effectively protect themselves from this enforcement effort by implementing and enforcing strong policies against the practice of texting while driving. Employees should be required to sign a policy explicitly stating they agree not to text while driving during work time, either as part of an employee handbook or when they receive any company-issued cell phone or texting device. Further, any employees found to be texting while driving during work time should be disciplined, up to and including termination.

 

Most employers that engage in a reduction in force are aware of their obligations under the federal WARN Act, the New York WARN Act, the federal Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) and New York’s mini-COBRA statute, and we have posted several times on these topics. Employers should not, however, ignore some of the less popularized obligations to terminated employees created by state law.

For example, Section 195 of the New York Labor Law requires an employer to give an employee written notice of the “exact date” of his or her termination, as well as written notice of the “exact date” of the cancellation of the employee’s benefits. Notice must be provided within five “working” days of the date of the termination.
 

The Section 195 notice should also include information about employee conversion rights under the employer’s group life insurance plan. In New York, every group life insurance contract must include a conversion right for employees in the event that group coverage is terminated. As a result, when group life insurance coverage will end because an employee is terminated, the employer should provide written notice to that employee that he or she may have the option of converting the group coverage to individual coverage. An employer should advise the employee to contact the insurance provider for more information regarding any conversion rights under the policy.

New York employers must also provide written notice of an employee’s right to file a claim for unemployment insurance benefits. The notice must include the employer’s name, address, and registration number. In addition, employers must advise an employee to present the notice to the New York State Unemployment Insurance Division when he or she files a claim for benefits.