Tag Archives: employers

Walmart Takes a Seat in California

U.S. Department of Labor March 21, 2019 Leave a comment

walmart.jpg

Walmart reportedly agreed to pay $65 million to settle a case brought on behalf of nearly 100,000 current and former California cashiers who claimed the company violated their rights under a state law dating back to 1911 when it failed to provide them with seating.  The workers claimed Walmart, which denied any wrongdoing, breached its duty to make seating available “when the nature of the work reasonably permits.”

Walmart claimed that the nature of the cashier job did not reasonably permit seating, because placing stools or chairs at the store’s cash registers would pose a safety risk and hinder productivity. However, Walmart had a policy of offering stools to cashiers with medical conditions or disabilities, and store managers had the discretion to provide stools to cashiers on a case-by-case basis.

In a court filing, Walmart and counsel for the cashiers said the settlement, if approved, would be the largest ever under California’s unique Private Attorney General Act, which allows workers to sue their employers on behalf of the state and keep a portion of any award.

Curiously, other major retailers in California faced similar lawsuits, but Walmart did not act proactively to address this issue.  Even putting aside the anticipated benefit of improved employee relations resulting from voluntary compliance, with the benefit of hindsight, one has to wonder if the cost of compliance, even if it were to result in reduced productivity, would have been less than the cost to settle.

Savvy employer takeaways: Employers need to look carefully at their duty to offer reasonable accommodations to employees and to engage in an interactive process to make sure that the employer can justify any denied accommodation.

Questions? Let me know.

Not-So Silent Partner May Have Individual Liability Under the FLSA

Fair Labor Standards Act September 17, 2018 Leave a comment

restaurant employees.jpgIn Malee v. Anthony & Frank Ditomaso, Inc., the Court served a surprise to a shareholder of a corporation that owned a restaurant, who sought to be dismissed from a FLSA case brought by employees of the restaurant.  The shareholder alleged he did not participate in the business on a day-to-day basis and, therefore, was not an “employer” within the meaning of the FLSA.  The Court refused to dismiss the claims, finding that the shareholder’s attendance at staff meetings, and advice on operating the business created a triable issue of fact as to whether the shareholder was, in fact, an employer within the meaning of the FLSA.

Savvy employer takeaways: The FLSA and overlapping state wage and hour laws often impose individual liability on officers, owners, and others involved in decisions to deprive employees of wages owed.

Questions? Let me know.

Mass. Court Turns Over A New Leaf: Rules Employer May Be Liable for Failing to Accommodate Employee’s Medical Marijuana Use

Medical Marijuana Act July 19, 2017 Leave a comment

Even though 29 states now allow medical marijuana, employee use of medical marijuana is unprotected in many workplaces because marijuana use of any kind remains illegal under federal law.   Favoring employee’s right to be free from discrimination for using medical treatments that are legal under state law over the federal ban, a recent decision from Massachusetts’s highest court means employers may need to reevaluate and revise their policies to keep up with this rapidly evolving area of employment law.

On July 17, 2017, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled a trial court erred when it dismissed an employee’s claim that she was subjected to disability discrimination when her employer terminated after she tested positive for marijuana in pre-hire drug screening.  The case, Barbuto v. Advantage Sales and Marketing LLC, is noteworthy because, in many states, employers have been able to terminate workers for failing drug tests due to medical marijuana use.

Where are we?

By way of background, employers have broad discretion to terminate employees for medical marijuana use in many states on the basis that use of marijuana, even if lawful under state law, remains a federal crime.  This is well illustrated by the case of Coats v. Dish Networks, LLC, decided by the Colorado Supreme Court in 2015.  In that case, an employee was terminated for testing positive for marijuana.  It was undisputed that the employee had a valid prescription to use medical marijuana, which was legal in Colorado, and that he did not use marijuana at work or in a way that impaired his work performance.  When he tested positive for marijuana, he was terminated and brought an action against his former employer for violation of Colorado’s Lawful Off-Duty Activities statute, which generally prohibits employers from discharging an employee based on his/her engagement in “lawful activities” off the premises of the employer during nonworking hours. The Colorado Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of the employee’s claims and found the employer had a right to terminate him for off-duty activities that violated federal law, even if they were lawful under Colorado law.  Similarly, the NFL prohibits players from using medical marijuana even in states where it is legal under state law.

Closer to home, under New Jersey law currently, employers have no strict obligation to accommodate medical marijuana users and employers may terminate an employee who fails a drug test, even if the employee can lawfully use medical marijuana under state law and was not impaired at work.  Pennsylvania’s recently adopted medical marijuana law broadly prohibits discrimination against an employee or job candidate because he or she has a medical marijuana prescription (i.e., is a cardholder), but it is silent on whether an employer can rely upon a positive drug test as a reason for an adverse employment action in itself.  Both Pennsylvania and New Jersey permit an employer to terminate an employee who is impaired in the workplace.

What Happened in Massachusetts?

That brings us back to Barbuto.  In Barbuto, before she was hired, the employee disclosed that she used medical marijuana to treat an underlying condition, but did not use it during working hours.  When the results of her drug screening were positive for marijuana, she was terminated after completing her first day.  Barbuto alleged the termination was discriminatory and the employer violated her rights by failing to make a reasonable accommodation.  In many states, Barbuto’s claim would have been dismissed, but in Massachusetts the Court took a novel approach.  The Court found the employer had a duty to make a reasonable accommodation for medical marijuana usage outside of working hours, despite the employer’s drug policy, explaining, “the fact that the employee’s possession of medical marijuana is in violation of federal law does not make it per se unreasonable as an accommodation.”  This outcome is surprising because it limits an employer’s discretion to discipline employees who use medical marijuana, in violation of federal law, by relying on the state’s anti-discrimination laws.  Most states have similar anti-discrimination protections.

Where we are going?

Although the Barbuto decision only applies in one of the 29 states where medical marijuana is currently legal, it is worth noting because of the potential for its reasoning to be applied in other states where medical marijuana is lawful.  If it is followed in other states, it creates a new risk when an employer has a zero-tolerance drug testing policy that leads to discipline for employees who lawfully use medical marijuana and are not impaired at the workplace.  In states where this issue has not been resolved, employers should expect to face claims similar to those raised in Barbuto.  For example, in Barrett v. Robert Half Corporation, a New Jersey employee tried to make a similar argument, but his case was dismissed on the basis that he never requested an accommodation, meaning the court never reached the issue of whether allowing off-duty use of medical marijuana is a reasonable accommodation.

Even if state courts do not follow Barbuto, legislatures are also revisiting the issue.  For instance, in New Jersey two bills offering express workplace protections for medical marijuana users are working their way through the legislature.

What should employers do?

In light of this ever-changing landscape, employers should carefully evaluate whether they need to screen for marijuana when conducting tests that are not related to suspicion of drug use in the workplace.  Today, in states where there is no clear precedent, disciplining an employee for a positive test when the employee has disclosed a need for medical marijuana usage and there is no evidence of workplace use is an increasingly risky decision and may soon give rise to a legislatively-sanctioned claim.  Of course, employers need not tolerate employees who are impaired in the workplace.  Additionally, some employers, especially those with safety-related positions and certain government contractors, may be required to screen for any marijuana use and enforce a zero-tolerance policy.  For everyone else, it is a good idea to think carefully before imposing discipline for medical marijuana use outside of the workplace.

Questions? Let me know.

Where There’s Smoke It’s Still OK To Fire: Three Things Employers Need To Know About Pennsylvania’s New Medical Marijuana Law

Medical Marijuana Act May 2, 2016 Leave a comment

medical marijuana blog post

Employers in Pennsylvania will soon begin feeling the effects of Pennsylvania’s new Medical Marijuana Act (MMA), which rolls out on May 17th and provides new rights for employees who become certified medical marijuana patients.  As Pennsylvania joins more than 20 states that already allow medicinal marijuana, including neighbors New York, New Jersey and Delaware, employers should be reviewing their policies and procedures to make sure they are hip to the new law.

First, employers will be relieved to know the MMA, which does not extend to smokable forms of the drug, contains no requirement that employers accommodate the use of medical marijuana during working hours or in the workplace.  Specifically, the MMA provides, “the Act shall in no way limit an employer’s ability to discipline an employee for being under the influence of medical marijuana in the workplace or for working while under the influence of medical marijuana when the employee’s conduct falls below the standard of care normally accepted for that position.”  The MMA also recognizes the concerns employers may face if their workers are performing safety-related tasks and expressly prohibits certified users from performing certain sensitive jobs while “under the influence” of medicinal marijuana (defined as 10 nanograms of active tetrahydrocannabis per milliliter of blood in serum for the purposes of certain safety-related activities), including: (1) operating or being in physical control of chemicals which require a permit issued by the federal government, state government, federal agency or state agency; (2) operating or being in control of high-voltage electricity or any other public utility; (3) performing any employment duties at heights or in confined spaces, including, but not limited to, mining; (4) performing tasks that the employer deems life-threatening to either the employee or any employees of the employer; and (5) performing any duty that could result in a public health or safety risk.

The more complicated issue the MMA presents but does not directly address is how the 10 nanograms of active tetrahydrocannabis per milliliter of blood standard for certain safety-related tasks applies to other working conditions, especially when employees test for lower concentrations but still appear impaired.  This should not present a novel problem for employers who have long been disciplining employees who are impaired from taking prescription medicines at work.  As in those instances, employers will have to resort to more traditional methods of identifying whether an employee reasonably appears to be under the influence of marijuana while working and make disciplinary decisions accordingly.

Second, employers should know the MMA prohibits employers from discriminating against employees or candidates on the basis that they are certified to use medical marijuana.  This means Pennsylvania employers may be liable if they take adverse employment actions against employees who are certified to use medical marijuana, essentially requiring employers to treat medical marijuana in a manner consistent with the way employers treat more traditional medical interventions.  Where, however, the use of medical marijuana conflicts with federal law, the MMA does not require employers to “commit an act that would put the employer or any person acting on its behalf in violation of Federal law.” MMA §2103(b)(3). For example, an employer would not be required to accommodate medicinal marijuana use if such accommodation violates federal Department of Transportation regulations.

Third, the MMA does not require employers to alter their current drug screening policies.  A positive test for the presence of marijuana can still justify discipline if the employee does not have a valid prescription and/or if the employee’s use conflicts with an applicable federal law.  With that said, employers should reassess whether they want to continue to screen job candidates for marijuana in light of the MMA, as, among other things, (1) the law bars blanket rejections of certified medical marijuana users and (2) an employee’s positive medical marijuana test will often lead an employer to discover a disability about which it was otherwise unaware, creating a potential avenue of liability.  Of course, drug testing for marijuana relating to accidents and impairment on duty will continue to be important.

Finally, employers should understand that it will take months and years to fully determine how the MMA will impact the workplace, including whether the “under the influence” standard will be more narrowly applied and the extent to which certifications from other states will give rise to employee rights in Pennsylvania.  The Pennsylvania Department of Health (“DOH”) is required to promulgate full regulations within 18 months, and, in the more immediate term, the DOH will publish temporary regulations no later than November 17, 2016.  So employers should expect the hits to keep coming as further guidance, rules and interpretations help clear the smoke surrounding the MMA.

To learn more about the information presented in this alert, we invite you to contact Adam Gersh, or any member of Flaster Greenberg’s Labor and Employment Practice Group.

%d bloggers like this: