Tag Archives: Holland & Hart LLP

January 19, 2016

An Uncomfortable, But Not Hostile, Work Environment

Certain workplace behavior may be unusual, uncomfortable or downright weird, but may not be unlawful. Do you want to take the chance of knowing what crosses that line?

Imagine receiving this complaint from an employee: “My supervisor frequently compliments my appearance, clothing and cologne. He touched my back and buttocks, claiming he was showing me where he was experiencing back pain. He instructed me to participate in two body-fat contests requiring me to wear a speedo where he again complimented my appearance and tried to touch my buttocks. He repeatedly asked me to join him for drinks during a company event.”

Do these allegations suggest a hostile work environment? Would your company be liable for sex discrimination?

Real Case Offers Guidance

These facts arose in an actual lawsuit filed by Bryan McElroy, a former district sales manager for American Family Insurance (AFI). McElroy was fired by his supervisor, Tony Grilz, after failing to meet sales goals and engaging in insubordinate behavior. After his termination, McElroy filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and later filed suit in federal court, alleging, among other things, that he was subjected to a hostile work environment based on the above-recited behavior by Grilz.

Uncomfortable Work Behavior

The federal court acknowledged that “some of Grilz’s conduct could make many people uncomfortable.” But the district judge ruled that the conduct did not rise to the level of being so objectively offensive that it created a hostile or abusive work environment. The district court rejected McElroy’s hostile work environment claim and granted summary judgment to AFI.

On appeal to the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals (whose decisions apply to employers in Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, Kansas, and New Mexico), McElroy argued that if the conduct could make many people uncomfortable, a jury could find it sufficiently offensive to support his hostile work environment claim. The Tenth Circuit disagreed. It failed to see how behavior that was capable of causing “mere discomfort” would necessarily alter the conditions of employment so as to create a hostile work environment.

The court stated that to succeed on a hostile work environment claim, an employee must establish that the workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult, that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim’s employment and create an abusive working environment. The court reiterated that “even incidents that would objectively give rise to bruised or wounded feelings will not on that account satisfy the severe or pervasive standard” necessary for an actionable claim under Title VII. The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of AFI and against McElroy on his hostile work environment claim. McElroy v. Am. Family Ins., No. 14-4134 (10th Cir. Oct. 30, 2015).

Handling Questionable Complaints

What would you do if you received a complaint based on conduct such as what McElroy reported? Act on it? Ignore it? Here are some tips for handling complaints that may, or may not, rise to the level of severe or pervasive conduct.

Tip #1: Treat Each Complaint Seriously

It may be tempting to dismiss complaints of workplace harassment that may seem minor or inoffensive to you. Don’t do it. You never know if the complainant is telling you the full story or if other, more serious allegations are waiting to be told. In addition, failing to look into a report of workplace harassment will negate certain defenses if the complainant decides to file a lawsuit.

Tip #2: Conduct an Investigation

All reports of workplace harassment should be investigated. Hopefully, your investigation will show that no additional inappropriate behavior is occurring and that the reported conduct was an isolated, non-severe incident. You may, however, find that the conduct is more widespread. Perhaps other employees reporting to the same supervisor have experienced similar conduct, or the conduct has been escalating to involve more physical contact. You need to dig deeper to get the full picture of what the employee and his/her co-workers may be experiencing.

Tip #3: Take Action To Stop Inappropriate Behavior

Whether the behavior rises to the level of creating a hostile work environment or not, take action to stop it. Talk to the person acting inappropriately and explain that conduct such as touching and making comments about other employees’ looks leads to an uncomfortable work environment and must cease. Follow up with the complainant to make sure that he or she is not experiencing further inappropriate behavior or retaliation. Nip such conduct in the bud so that mere uncomfortable behavior does not escalate to unlawful harassment.

Tip #4: Train Supervisors and Employees Annually

Conduct annual training on sexual harassment and other inappropriate workplace behavior in order to educate your workforce on your harassment policies and complaint-reporting mechanisms. Use training sessions to reinforce your commitment to keeping your company free of discrimination and retaliation. Make sure managers and supervisors are trained on recognizing and responding to complaints of workplace harassment.

Conclusion

Unlawful workplace harassment is tricky to define with any certainty. Conduct that one judge or appellate court finds as causing “mere discomfort” may be deemed sufficiently severe or pervasive so as to create a hostile work environment by another judge or court. Your best practice is to keep inappropriate behavior out of your workplace, follow the tips above and stay out of court in the first place.

Click here to print/email/pdf this article.

March 6, 2012

Court Upholds NLRB Notice-Posting Requirement, Strikes Down Automatic Sanctions for Failure to Post

By Bradford J. Williams

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a highly anticipated ruling last Friday, broadly upholding the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB's) right to issue a rule requiring most private employers to notify employees of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by posting a notice. The ruling struck down automatic sanctions for failure to post the required notice, but did not altogether eliminate the possibility that failure to post might constitute an unfair labor practice (ULP) under the NLRA. Absent further Board postponement in light of a likely appeal, or a contrary ruling from a second district court still considering the matter, the notice-posting requirement will go into effect on April 30, 2012.

In August 2011, the NLRB issued a final administrative rule requiring all private employers covered by the Act to post 11-by-17 inch posters "in conspicuous places" advising employees of their rights under the NLRA. Employers who customarily communicate with employees regarding personnel matters using an intranet or internet site were further required to post the notice prominently on that site. As originally written, the rule provided that failure to post would be deemed an ULP under Section 8(a)(1) of the Act. It further permitted the Board to automatically toll (or stay) the six-month statute of limitations for all ULP actions-not just those arising out of a failure to post-where employers had failed to post the required notice.

In late 2011, the NLRB's final rule was challenged in lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, and the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. Due in part to this pending litigation, the rule's original November 14, 2011, effective date was initially postponed to January 31, 2012, and then postponed again to April 30, 2012.

Last Friday, Judge Amy Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued her ruling in one of the two lawsuits, National Association of Manufacturers v. NLRB, No.11-1629 (ABJ) (D.D.C. March 2, 2012). The judge rejected the plaintiffs' contention that the NLRB had exceeded its authority in promulgating the notice-posting requirement. Finding that Congress had not "unambiguously intended to preclude the Board from promulgating a rule that requires employers to post a notice informing employees of their rights under the Act," she upheld the notice-posting requirement as a valid exercise of the Board's authority under the deferential standard of review applicable to administrative rulemaking.

Despite upholding the notice-posting requirement, Judge Jackson found that the NLRB had also exceeded its authority in automatically deeming all failures to post to be ULPs under the Act. Because Section 8(a)(1) only prohibited employers from "interfer[ing]" with rights guaranteed by the Act, it only prohibited employers from "getting in the way - from doing something that impedes or hampers an employee's exercise of the rights guaranteed by [Section 7] of the statute." The automatic sanction of an ULP for any employer who failed to post would not distinguish between situations in which an employer's failure was intended to or did exert influence over employees' organizational efforts, and those in which an employer merely declined or failed to post the required notice. As such, the judge found that the automatic sanction of an ULP was inconsistent with the Act's plain meaning.

Critically, Judge Jackson noted that her decision did not "prevent the Board from finding that a failure to post constitutes an unfair labor practice in any individual case brought before it." As such, the Board may still determine that any particular failure to post constitutes an ULP, at least assuming it makes specific findings that the failure actually interfered with an employee's exercise of his or her rights.

For similar reasons, Judge Jackson struck down the rule's provision permitting the Board to automatically stay the statute of limitations in any ULP action where the employer had failed to post the required notice. The judge found that the Act provided an unambiguous six-month statute of limitations, and that the rule effectively supplanted this limitations period for a broad class of employers regardless of particular circumstances. Again, she nonetheless observed that, under a well-established common law doctrine, her decision did not "prevent the Board from considering an employer's failure to post the employee rights notice in evaluating a plaintiff's equitable tolling defense in an individual case before it."

Judge Jackson's March 2nd ruling is, for the most part, disappointing for employers. It upholds the notice-posting requirement that will go into effect on April 30th absent further Board postponement, or a contrary ruling in the second pending lawsuit, Chamber of Commerce v. NLRB, D.S.C., No. 11-cv-2516. It further permits the NLRB to find individual failures to post to be ULPs under the Act, at least given appropriate factual findings. Finally, the judge's statute of limitations ruling may expose employers to stale ULP charges where employees succeed in showing that they were unaware of their rights under the NLRA due to an employer's failure to post.

The plaintiffs in National Association of Manufacturers have already vowed to appeal Judge Jackson's ruling. Pending any eventual reversal by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, or any contrary ruling by the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, employers are now presumptively required to comply with the rule's notice-posting requirement by April 30th. Employers will consequently need to weigh the possible costs of posting an arguably pro-union poster against the likelihood that Judge Jackson's ruling may eventually be reversed, and additionally consider that failure to post the notice could-but will no longer automatically-result in an ULP or other adverse sanction. For more information or advice on compliance, please contact Bradford J. Williams of Holland & Hart's Labor & Employment Practice Group at (303) 295-8121 or bjwilliams@hollandhart.com.

January 22, 2011

Understanding the Idaho Trade Secrets Act and its Relevance to Former Employees

by Nicole C. Snyder

It is often concerning when an employee is discharged or quits her job and goes to work for a competitor. In the absence of a non-competition agreement, the former employer may claim that the employee has stolen trade secrets and used them in her new job.

Idaho has adopted the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, codified under Idaho Code § 48-801, et seq. The Act prohibits the misappropriation of “trade secrets,” defined as:

[I]nformation, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, computer program, device, method, technique, or process, that:

(a) Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and

(b) Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy… .

If an employer claims a former employee has violated the Trade Secrets Act, is the claim likely to succeed?

Maybe. It is important for employers to recognize that there are significant limitations on the protections against former employers under the Trade Secrets Act. In a very recent case, Wesco Autobody Supply, Inc. v Ernest, the Idaho Supreme Court recited this language from a prior decision:

[T]he legislature did not intend the [Idaho Trade Secrets Act] to be read so broadly as to preclude the hiring of an employee from a competitor; the legislature also did not intend that merely hiring a competitor's employee constitutes acquiring a trade secret.” Instead, “[a]n employee will naturally take with her to a new company the skills, training, and knowledge she has acquired from her time with her previous employer. This basic transfer of information cannot be stopped, unless an employee is not allowed to pursue her livelihood by changing employers.

In the Wesco case, the Court found it was possible that one employee violated the Trade Secrets Act when the employee took and used the former employee’s customer lists, lists showing customer buying preferences, history of customer purchases, and custom paint formulas. The Court, however, was unwilling to say that other employees had violated the Trade Secrets Act based merely on the fact that their customer relationships caused the customers to follow the former employees to a new employer.

In sum, if a company’s leadership is worried about the risk of employees working for a competitor and using the knowledge and relationships they built for a competitor’s advantage, then reliance on the Idaho Trade Secrets Act may be inadequate. In such cases, it is important to utilize carefully-crafted noncompetition agreements.