Tag: smyrna employment attorney

The Legality of an Employer-Mandated Covid Vaccine

March 28, 2021

Generally, Employers Can Make The Vaccine Mandatory

Since there are COVID-19 vaccines now available, are employers permitted by law to require employees to get vaccinated? The simplified answer is yes, in an employment at will state like Georgia, employers do have the right to mandate that their employees receive the vaccine. Employees who want to continue working at that employer will have to get a vaccine and can be fired, without legal recourse, if they do not.

Employment At-Will

Employment is often at-will, which means it is possible for either the employee to quit and walk away or for the employer to fire them at any time for no reason or for any reason. The employer will set the working conditions, and as long as those conditions meet federal law and guidelines, employees must abide by the employer’s standards, which will include health and safety guidelines and conditions. As we all know, the coronavirus pandemic is a major health and safety issue for every workplace.

A written fixed-term employment agreement, on the other hand, might not accommodate the unilateral inclusion of a mandatory vaccine requirement if this can be construed as a material term.

Civil Rights Legislation

According to guidance from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) which is the federal agency that enforces various civil rights laws regarding discrimination in employment, generally barring specific exceptions, it is legal for employers to require their employees to be vaccinated against covid.

There was initially concern that requiring a vaccine could violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). However, that law prevents employers from conducting certain types of medical examinations, not including requiring vaccines that help to protect against COVID-19. By requiring the vaccine, the employer is not looking for any information about a person’s current health status or impairments, and as such, it does not constitute a medical examination. Therefore, per EEOC guidance at the time of publishing, it is not in violation of the ADA to mandate the vaccine and obtain employee certification of having been vaccinated.

Exemptions For A Mandatory Vaccine.

However, employers still must account for legal nuances. An employee with a disability and who has a medical reason to not get a vaccine will likely qualify for exemption for medical grounds under the ADA. Those who have a sincerely held religious belief that does not allow vaccines could get a religious exemption under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”). Those who fall into either or both of these categories and who cannot be vaccinated will want to seek an exemption based on those grounds.

Upon requesting an exemption, the employer must engage in an interactive conversation with all stakeholders to determine whether a reasonable accommodation exists. Some of these reasonable accommodations might include the use of personal protective equipment, working separately from others, or working from home, for example. As long as there are means to accommodate unvaccinated employees that are not unduly burdensome to the employer, it would be illegal to terminate such an employee.

Generally, Employers Can Decline To Make The Vaccine Mandatory

A common question addresses what would happen if an employer discovers that a worker cannot be vaccinated because of a disability or religion, but this creates a risk in the workplace. In these cases, employers are not allowed to exclude that employee from the job or take any other action unless they do not have any other means of providing reasonable accommodations that could help reduce the risk presented to themselves and that they present to other people.

But what about the employer’s general duty to maintain a safe workplace free from known hazards under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (“OSHA”)? There is no federal mandate that requires all employers to make their workers get vaccinated. They can decide on a case-by-case basis. Employers will have to determine what makes the most sense of them and their employees. The location and type of work that is being done will often factor into whether an employer should require vaccination. Those companies that are public-facing and have regular in-person interactions will be more likely to require vaccination from the employees. It provides added safety, and it is something that many of the customers and clients will expect. Those that do not necessarily have face-to-face encounters might not require vaccination.

Potential Pitfalls Requiring Other Vaccine Considerations

If an employer is requiring that employees receive vaccines, they may want to consider paying the employees for the time it takes to get the vaccine. Often, people have to take time out of their day to wait in line for the vaccine.

Federal law entitles employees to compensable work time for these waits if the employer requires it. If the employers do not provide payment for the time that it takes to get the vaccine, they would violate the law, which can carry heavy penalties. If there is a union involved, there could also be other collective bargaining agreements or further obligations the employer would have to meet.

Some employers might want to reduce the wait time by having a third party administer the vaccine at their workplace. They can schedule the appointments, and it could reduce the amount of time that it takes to get everyone vaccinated. However, they will want to determine if any supposed injuries from getting the vaccine might trigger their worker’s compensation insurance liability coverage. Employers should check with their insurance company prior to making a decision.

* * *

As more places start to open, and as more people go back to in-person work with the vaccines readily available, employers should seek counsel about what they can do within the confines of the law in their unique workplace.

Encounters of the Hostile Kind: What Do You Need to Prove a Racially Based Hostile Work Environment?  

March 20, 2019

Meet Brenda Smelter. She is a black woman that was hired by Southern Home Care Services, Inc. d/b/a/ ResCare Homecare in July 2013 as a Customer Service Supervisor. She was the only black person who worked in her office, she replaced a white employee who was away from the office on maternity leave. Brenda struggled with performing her job but most distressing at work was that she often overheard co-workers making racist comments about black people; sometimes these comments were made directly to her face and in the presence of others, including members of management.

The severity of these racist comments peaked on the last day of her employment when a co-worker called her a “dumb black nigger” during an argument. According to Smelter, she was fired for reporting this epithet, along with her co-workers’ other racist comments, to her direct supervisor. The reason Southern Care provided for the termination was “poor fit” citing performance concerns and chaos. After her termination, she was replaced by a white employee, in addition to the return of her predecessor, also white, from maternity leave.

Brenda sued Southern Home under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, asserting claims for discriminatory termination, hostile work environment, and retaliation. Smelter contends that Southern Home (1) discriminated against her by permitting a hostile work environment to exist at the office, (2) discriminated against her by terminating her because of her race, and (3) retaliated against her for reporting her co-workers’ racist comments.

After the case was dismissed by the District Court, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the district court that Smelter’s discriminatory termination and retaliation claims fail because she provided insufficient evidence of pretext in response to Southern Home’s legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for terminating her. But the 11th Circuit Court disagreed that, as a matter of law, the harassment Smelter suffered was not severe or pervasive and Southern Home lacked notice of that harassment.

Thus, in October 2018, the 11th Circuit Court gave us a recent window into the elements required to establish a racially based hostile work environment claim.

To prove a hostile work environment claim, an employee must show 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.” When the employee’s harassment claim is based on her race, she must prove five elements: (1) she belongs to a protected class, (2) she was subjected to unwelcome harassment, (3) the harassment was based on her race, (4) the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms of her employment and create a discriminatorily abusive working environment, and (5) the employer is responsible for the environment.

Typically at issue, as was the case here, is the “severe and pervasive” threshold. To establish that harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the terms or conditions of her employment, an employee must prove that her work environment was both subjectively and objectively hostile. In other words, the employee must first establish that she “subjectively perceive[d] the environment to be abusive.” Then she also must satisfy the objective component by showing that her work environment was one “that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive.”

Beginning with Smelter’s subjective perception of her work environment. Smelter repeatedly testified that enduring her co-workers’ racist comments was stressful and hurtful. She also explained that it felt like the harassment “never stopp[ed],” as though her co-workers were pushing her to “see how much she [could] take” in the hopes that she would “just quit and leave.” The Court found this testimony sufficient to demonstrate subjective belief in the severity and pervasiveness of the conduct.

The employer objected that Smelter’s failure to report the incidents indicate a lack of subjective believe in the harassment. Precedent recognizes, however, that an employee’s failure to report harassment is not dispositive of whether the employee perceived the environment created by the harassment as hostile or abusive. 

Regarding objectivity, the facts sufficient to meet this threshold were: 

1.    Pervasiveness, also known as Frequency

Smelter endured racist remarks by her co-workers nearly every day that she worked in that office. There were at least 8 racist comments in 2 months that Smelter could recall with specificity.

2.    Severity

Brenda endured the following comments: black men were “lazy” and “the scum of the earth; “black women[] ha[d] babies on welfare,” President Barack Obama’s “big ears” made him “look[] like a monkey,” and she did not know that black people could be buried on Sundays; Smelter’s hair made her look like a “mixed monkey” from the movie Planet of the Apes; an occasion when black people were exiting a bus at a Wal-Mart store was described as looking like they were “chained together.”; and a desire expressed to “send them all back . . . to Africa.”. A co-worker “jumped up . . in a rage” and said “get out of my office . . . you dumb black nigger.” in doing so she “hit the desk” like she was about “to charge at” Smelter. 

 The Court held that these comments were directed at Brenda to humiliate her and were egregious even just once because it was preceded by two months of related abuse, thus, they were severe.

3.    “Physically threatening or humiliating”

See point number 2; the comments were severely humiliating. The Court stated that “physical threat” is not always a dispositive requirement.

4.    Altered job performance is optional in light of totality of other circumstances 

Indeed, “[t]he Supreme Court has cautioned that harassment need not be . . . so extreme that it produces tangible effects on job performance in order to be actionable.”

5.    Because the comments were made by co-workers, management needed to be aware or made aware of the harassing conduct and must also have failed to take prompt remedial action

Here, there was a concession that no report was made until the day of termination but there might have been actual notice because Smelter testified that everyone thought the slurs were funny and that others, including management, overheard the slurs. Smelter also testified that members of management overheard these comments and were amused by them, but she never made a formal report until the day of her termination. 

Take away for employees making this claim: this case demonstrates the type of hostility that makes the threshold for a hostile work environment claim.

Take away for employers defending such a claim: the company must take prompt remedial action if any members of management have actual or constructive notice of this type of hostility.

“The Letter of the Law” – SCOTUS Uses Grammar to Grant More Protection from Age Discrimination and Retaliation

January 19, 2019

Mount Lemmon Fire District v. Guido (No. 17-587), the November 2018 Supreme Court of the United States decision, broadens protection from age discrimination to more employees of government employers.

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) already protects people over the age of forty (40) who work for private employers with more than twenty (20) employees, but it was not clear whether employees of a government employer with fewer than twenty (20) employees had the same protection. Violations of the ADEA can result in liability for back pay, front pay, liquidated damages and attorneys fees. There are many government employers, or “political subdivisions”, with fewer than 20 employees, so it was important to determine just what they could be liable for.

In this case, it was the Mount Lemmon Fire District, a political subdivision of Arizona. The fire District was having a bad financial year, so they fired their two oldest (and most expensive) employees, fire captains John Guido and Dennis Rankin. John and Dennis sued the Fire District, saying they were protected by the ADEA. The Fire Department tried to escape liability by saying they were not technically an “employer” under the ADEA because they had fewer than 20 employees, so were not subject to the ADEA.

The district court agreed that the Fire District was not an “employer”, but a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed, siding with John and Dennis. The case then went to the Supreme Court where, in a unanimous (8-0) decision authored by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court held that the ADEA applies to all state political subdivisions, regardless of the number of employees there employed.

Let’s look at how they got there. Basically this is where grammar comes in handy. The ADEA is written as follows:

“The term ’employer’ means a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has twenty or more employees…The term also means (1) any agent of such a person, and (2) a State or political subdivision of a State…” 29 U. S. C. §630(b).

The Court looked at the plain language of the statute and found that the fact that the definition is broken into two sentences, and includes the words “also means” establishes two different categories:

1. persons engaged in an industry affecting commerce with 20 or more employees; and

2. states or political subdivisions.

By applying this logic, the Court was also able to determine that the second category has no numerical limitation.

As an example, if a definition said: “the term ‘airplane’ means a vehicle propelled by a minimum of two jet engines for air travel. The term also means a vehicle that uses propeller power to achieve air travel,” we would understand that the two sentences, and the words “also means” indicate that the two things listed as examples of airplanes are entirely separate, and should be regarded as such. We would further understand that just because category one (jet planes) requires a minimum of two jet engines, category two (propeller planes) states no minimum number of propellers, and could very well have only one and still be considered an airplane under the definition.

By using grammar, the Supreme Court determined that the Fire District, and all other States and political subdivisions, are subject the provisions of the ADEA, regardless of their number of full time employees.

The lessons to be learned here are not only are all government employers barred from discriminating against employees based on their age, but also the way statutes are written (or “the letter of the law”) can have real impact on the outcome of a case.