Congratulations to our very own Erica N. Reib who has been elected to the Board of the Labor and Employment Section of the State Bar.

Erica is a member of O’Neil Cannon’s Employment Law Practice Group. She assists clients with employment discrimination litigation, non-competition and trade secret litigation, OSHA matters, wage and hour issues, NLRB and unfair labor practice matters, employment policy and agreement drafting and review, unemployment compensation, investigations and proper employment practices to avoid litigation. She volunteers her time at Marquette Volunteer Legal Clinic and Milwaukee Justice Center, is part of the Legal Action of Wisconsin Volunteer Lawyers Project, and is a board member and legal committee chair at the Audio and Braille Literacy Enhancement, Inc.

The State Bar of Wisconsin provides opportunities for lawyers to work on issues that matter to them and the public they serve. The Labor and Employment Section includes new and experienced attorneys who practice labor and employment law. The section keeps members up-to-date on recent developments in the law. The section also allows members to exchange information and opinions on various labor topics and legal issues in the workplace.

If you would like to contact Erica, she can be reached at 414-276-5000 or erica.reib@wilaw.com.

Last week, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision stating that class waivers in arbitration agreements for employees are invalid. The Court in Lewis v. Epic Systems Corp. adopted the controversial position of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and found that a collective and class action waiver in an employer’s contract violated Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by prohibiting employees from engaging in collective activity and forcing them into individual arbitration for their wage and hour claims.

The Seventh Circuit based its decision on the concept that the NLRA prohibits an employer from barring workers from engaging in concerted activity. The Court’s reasoning followed that, because class and collective actions could be considered concerted activity, an agreement that prohibited such activity was a violation of the NLRA. The Court found that individual arbitration was not bargained for by the employees and could not be rejected without penalty to the employees. Because it found that the provision was illegal under the NLRA, the Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) did not mandate enforcement because, under the FAA, an arbitration agreement is not valid where grounds exist for the revocation of the agreement. The Seventh Circuit determined that violation of the NLRA constituted such ground for revocation. Use of arbitration agreements with class and collective prohibitions has long been a point of contention with the NLRB, but until now, it had been an issue that the NLRB was finding little success with in the circuit courts. However, the Seventh Circuit’s decision gives the NLRB additional standing for its position, particularly in Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana, where the decision applies.

This decision creates a circuit split because the Fifth Circuit has ruled in two separate cases (Murphy Oil and D.R. Horton) that mandatory individual arbitration clauses in employment agreements are enforceable. The Fifth Circuit found that the NLRB, in determining that collective and class waivers were illegal under the NLRA, did not give proper deference to the FAA because the NLRA does not contain any specific language that prevents arbitration agreements from being enforced pursuant to their terms. The Fifth Circuit found that the NLRB’s interpretation that such clauses violated the NLRA by prohibiting concerted activity was not entitled to the level of deference that the Seventh Circuit found it was. The Second and Eighth Circuits have issued rulings similar to those of the Fifth Circuit. Now with a split in the federal circuits, the issue is ripe for consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court. However, with Justice Scalia’s recent death, the Court’s precarious 4-4 split, and the political balance of the Court dependent upon the outcome of the Presidential election, the outcome on this issue before the U.S. Supreme is anything but certain, even taking into consideration the Supreme Court’s recent strong support for the enforceability of arbitration provisions.

Therefore, until this decision is overruled by the Supreme Court, employers in Wisconsin, Illinois, and Indiana should not limit their employees to individual arbitration or should, at the least, allow employees to opt out of mandatory individual arbitration without penalty.

Last week, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) finalized new record-keeping and reporting rules that require certain employers to electronically submit information about workplace injuries and illnesses to OSHA. The electronic reporting requirements of the rule apply only to employers with 250 or more employees and to employers with between 20 and 249 employees in certain “high-risk” industries, such as construction and manufacturing. A full list of the affected industries can be found here . The full rule (which can be found here) goes into effect January 1, 2017, while certain provisions, like the anti-retaliation provision, go into effect August 10, 2016.  Non-personal injury and illness information reported under the rule will be posted on a publicly accessible OSHA website. The new rule does not change the requirement that employers with 10 or more workers in most industries prepare injury reports, compile a log of these incidents, and complete an annual summary of work-related illness and injuries, which OSHA can access during an investigation.

The new rule further requires employers to inform workers of their right to report work-related injuries and illnesses without fear of retaliation and provides additional information on employees’ rights to access workplace injury data. Moreover, OSHA’s new rule prohibits any workplace policy or practice that could discourage employees from reporting workplace injuries or illnesses. Such policies subject to greater scrutiny under OSHA’s new anti-retaliation rule could include post-accident drug testing policies. Employers will have to review their safety-related policies to determine if their policies or practices run afoul of OSHA’s new anti-retaliation rule or otherwise discourage employees from reporting workplace safety incidents. The anti-retaliation provisions apply to all employers.

OSHA’s stated purpose for the additional reporting and public access are to increase workplace transparency and to encourage employers to increase their efforts to prevent work-related injuries and illnesses. However, employers should be cautioned that such information will make it easier for OSHA to target companies with multiple injuries or illnesses for compliance and enforcement actions, despite any precautions that are being taken, as well as open up companies with high rates of illness or injury to increased union organization.

Employers of all sizes and in all industries should continue to strive to achieve workplace safety. They should also immediately review their workplace safety policies to make sure that appropriate anti-retaliation provisions are included.

On Wednesday, May 4, 2016, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker approved an emergency rule submitted by the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development. Under this emergency rule, certain individuals receiving unemployment benefits will be required to be drug free in order to continue receiving unemployment benefits.

Specifically, the new rule will require individuals who are receiving unemployment benefits to pass a pre-employment drug screen for new employment where such drug screens are a condition of employment if they want to remain eligible to receive unemployment benefits. Those who fail the drug screen must comply with substance abuse treatment and a job skills assessment to remain eligible for unemployment benefits.  Also, individuals who refuse to take a pre-employment drug screen as part of an offer of new employment may be denied unemployment benefits. The new rule will take effect upon official publication later this week.

This week, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals issued an important ruling on what “substantial fault” means in the context of unemployment compensation. In 2013, the Wisconsin legislature amended the unemployment insurance statutes to state that, in addition to discharge for misconduct and voluntary termination of work, employees would be denied unemployment benefits if they were terminated by the employer for “substantial fault by the employee connected with the employee’s work.” The statute defines “substantial fault” as “those acts or omissions of an employee over which the employee exercised reasonable control and which violate reasonable requirements of the employee’s employer but does not include any of the following: 1. One or more minor infractions of rules unless an infraction is repeated after the employer warns the employee about the infraction. 2. One or more inadvertent errors made by the employee. 3. Any failure of the employee to perform work because of insufficient skill, ability, or equipment.” Wis. Stat. 108.04(5g)(a).

In Operton v. Labor and Indus. Review Comm’n et al., 2015AP1055 (Wis. Ct. App. April 14, 2016) an employee who worked as a cashier had made eight cash handling errors over twenty months, including not requesting to see identification for a credit card purchase of $399 on what turned out to be a stolen credit card. The employer issued her multiple written warnings, and she was warned that further errors could result in termination. After she failed to get identification related to the stolen credit card, she was terminated for her cash handling errors.

Both the Department of Workforce Development and the Labor and Industry Review Commission (LIRC) found that the employee was ineligible for unemployment benefits because her discharge was for substantial fault based on the fact that she continued to make cash handling errors after receiving multiple warnings. Despite LIRC’s arguments that the court should defer to its experience and judgment in employment issues, the Court of Appeals took a very narrow view of what constitutes “substantial fault.” The Court of Appeals found that there had been no evidence presented that the cash handling errors were “infractions” that violated any specific rule of the employer. The Court of Appeals then went on to determine that the employee’s cash handling errors fell into the second category of what is not substantial fault because they were “inadvertent,” and it did not matter that warnings had been given because that is not a part of the “inadvertent error” analysis.

The important takeaway for Wisconsin employers is the fact that inadvertent errors, even if repeated after a warning, do not constitute substantial fault under the unemployment statutes. Therefore, in issuing warnings for performance-related deficiencies, employers need to cite specific policies and rules that the employee has violated. This will give employers a better chance of showing that the employee has committed an infraction, rather than an inadvertent error, and should be denied unemployment benefits if such an infraction is repeated. At this point in time, it is not certain as to whether this matter will be taken to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. We will keep you updated on any further developments.

Although federal administrative agencies such as the National Labor Relations Board, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and the Department of Labor have recently pushed to expand the definition of “joint employer” under their respective laws, employers in Wisconsin can take some solace in recent legislation. Under Wisconsin Senate Bill 422, which became effective March 2, 2016, there is now a presumption that a franchisor is not an employer of a franchisee’s employees for the purposes of Wisconsin unemployment insurance, Wisconsin workers’ compensation, Wisconsin wage and hours laws, and Wisconsin fair employment laws. A franchisor can only be subject to liability for its franchisee’s employees under those laws if 1) it agrees in writing to assume liability or 2) it exercises a type or degree of control over the franchisee or the franchisee’s employees that is not customarily exercised for the purpose of protecting the franchisor’s trademarks and brand.

The law is meant to prevent franchisors who use a traditional franchisor-franchisee model from being held legally responsible for matters over which they did not exert control. Wisconsin franchisors should make sure that they are not taking any control over day-to-day operations of their franchisees, as that could expose them to liability under Wisconsin laws. Additionally, this does not impact how such franchisors would be treated under federal law, as mentioned above.

On March 1, 2016, the Wisconsin Supreme Court issued a decision in United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 1473 et al. v. Hormel Foods Corporation. The majority determined that the time employees spent putting on and taking off clothes and equipment for their jobs was “work” under the Wisconsin statutes and that employees should, therefore, be compensated for that time.

The Court took into consideration the fact that the employer’s work rules required that such clothing and equipment be worn so that the company met food and work safety regulations. Because the Court’s majority determined that the employees’ “principal activity” was producing food products and that the clothing and equipment was necessary for that production, the Court’s majority held that the putting on and taking off of these items was “integral and indispensable” to the work and should, therefore, be compensated. The dissent disagreed, based, in part, on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Integrity Staffing v. Busk, stating that putting on and taking off the clothing was not a part of safely cleaning and canning food and, therefore, did not need to be compensated.

The Court also rejected the employer’s arguments that such time was “de minimis” because the case involved more than $500 in unpaid wages per year for each employee. Additionally, the majority noted that, although the “de minimis” defense is frequently used under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, no Wisconsin court has ever applied to it Wisconsin wage and hour laws.

Employers must carefully consider what pre- and post-shift activities must be compensated. Although this decision helps clarify requirements related to donning and doffing for Wisconsin employers, our advice to employers remains the same—time spent performing activities related to an employee’s duties, which includes donning and doffing protective gear that is necessary for performing an employee’s job duties, should generally be compensated.

On February 7, 2016, 2015 Assembly Bill 142 became law, amending the Wisconsin Statutes related to how knives are, among other things, regulated by concealed carry permits. The law no longer requires an individual to have a concealed carry permit in order to lawfully carry a concealed knife, including a switchblade or automatic knife. There is, however, an exception where the individual is not allowed to possess a firearm under state law (i.e., a felon), then that individual is also not allowed to carry a concealed knife that is a “dangerous weapon.” Local ordinances are not permitted to impose stricter laws than the state law, other than in buildings or parts of a building that are owned, operated, or controlled by a political subdivision of the state.

Although the State of Wisconsin will no longer require that knives, including switchblades, be subject to conceal carry permits, employers still have a duty to make sure that their workplaces are safe for their employees, customers, and visitors. If appropriate, employers should review their handbooks and policies to see if they have a Weapon-Free Policy that prohibits employees from carrying weapons, including knives, inside company buildings and other areas where the employer conducts business.

Recently, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) published Draft Proposed Enforcement Guidance on Retaliation and Related Issues in order to get public input. The EEOC handles employment discrimination laws, including retaliation claims by employees who engage in “protected activity,” such as employees who complain about discrimination, file a charge of discrimination, or participate in an employment discrimination proceeding. Despite the fact that retaliation is the most frequently alleged type of charge filed with the EEOC, it last published guidance on the matter in 1998. It has used this Draft Proposed Guidance as a way to clarify its stance on certain points of law and an attempt to expand the definition of retaliation.

Among the proposed changes is the EEOC’s rejection of the “manager rule,” whereby an employee who has a job responsibility that involves policing discrimination in the workplace (e.g., human resource manager) is not engaged in “protected activity” if that person is simply performing his or her job. The EEOC proposes to focus on the “oppositional nature of the employee’s complaints or criticisms” instead of the employee’s job duties. Therefore, while someone such as a human resources manager would not always be protected under the retaliation provisions, that person would also not have to step outside of their role and assume a position adverse to the employer to receive protection.

The EEOC considers internal complaints to be included in the “participation” aspect of retaliation, regardless of whether a formal charge is filed. Additionally, the EEOC proposes that an individual engaged in “participation” in an employment discrimination proceeding does not have to be “reasonable” in either the belief that discrimination occurred or in how the employee presents himself. In fact, the participation could be wrong, defamatory, or malicious. Oppositional activity must still be objectively reasonable to be protected.

In a nod to the National Labor Relations Board, which has held that discussing compensation among employees constitutes protected, concerted activity, the EEOC’s Draft Proposed Guidance state that conversations about pay “may constitute protected opposition under the equal employment opportunity laws, making employer retaliation actionable based upon the facts of a given case.” The EEOC gives the example of an employee who discusses the fact that she is being discriminated against due to her gender, as evidence by her lower pay than similarly situated male employees.

The Draft Proposed Guidance also expand on the definition of “materially adverse employment action” to include: disparaging the employee to others or in the media; making false reports to government authorities; threatening reassignment; scrutinizing the employee’s work or attendance more closely than that of other employees, without justification; giving an inaccurately lowered performance appraisal or job reference, even If not unfavorable; removing supervisory responsibilities; engaging in abusive verbal or physical behavior that is reasonably likely to deter protected activity, even if it is not sufficiently “severe or pervasive” to create a hostile work environment; requiring reverification of work status, threatening deportation, or initiating other action with immigration authorities; and taking any other action that might deter reasonable individuals from engaging in protected activity. Although the EEOC acknowledges that some courts would find these actions insufficient to constitute a materially adverse employment action, it believes that this interpretation is supported by Supreme Court reasoning.

The public has until February 24, 2016 to submit input, and after that, final guidance will be published. Although, even when finalized, the guidance is simply a reference tool for investigators and not law, employers should be aware of the EEOC’s new proposed guidance, particularly the above points. Not only will the EEOC be using these in order to issue initial determinations, but these are items the EEOC is likely to aggressively pursue in litigation as well.

As we discussed in a recent article, class action lawyers have been sending demand letters and filing lawsuits claiming that websites belonging to businesses and organizations are “places of public accommodation” and are in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) because they are not accessible to people with visual and hearing impairments.

On January 29, 2016, several consolidated cases in the Western District of Pennsylvania moved forward after a scheduling conference. While claims against some of the defendants have resolved through settlement, claims against the National Basketball Association and Toys “R” Us, among others, are moving forward rapidly, with the parties scheduled to complete depositions in March 2016, and with trial scheduled for May 2, 2016.

Meanwhile, nine Senators from across the country, all Democrats, have sent a joint letter to the Office of Management and Budget urging it to complete its review of the proposed regulations regarding accessibility standards for websites and to impose strict ADA compliance regulations for companies. While the Senators commended the Department of Justice’s prosecution of various institutions for having websites that are allegedly not compliant with the ADA, they stated their concern that companies were “exploiting the lack of regulatory clarity” by maintaining non-accessible websites, which the Senators believe to be in violation of the ADA.

These developments show that the issue of whether your company’s website complies with the ADA is not going to go away soon. Plaintiffs’ lawyers representing visual and hearing impaired groups will likely continue to broaden the scope of who they sue for alleged ADA violations. If you receive a letter demanding action or requesting a settlement, it is important to know your rights before agreeing to anything.

If you have any questions, please contact Attorney Erica N. Reib of O’Neil Cannon at 414-276-5000 for more information.