Royal

News

FIRM NEWS


17 Apr, 2024
Royal attorneys successfully obtained a dismissal on behalf of individually named Defendants at a large not-for-profit corporation in a federal court case. Plaintiff alleged wrongful termination, harassment in the workplace, and retaliation. The court agreed with our arguments that Plaintiff’s Title VII claims against individual Defendants failed to state a claim, and that the Plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. Therefore, the case was fully dismissed in favor of our clients.
06 Mar, 2024
Royal attorneys successfully obtained a dismissal at the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) in a case against our client, a large not-for-profit organization. Royal attorneys argued that the Complainant's complaint failed to establish a prima facie case of whistleblower retaliation and that it should be dismissed in its entirety. The MCAD agreed with our argument, and dismissed the case against our client.
09 Nov, 2023
Royal attorneys successfully obtained a dismissal at the United States District of Massachusetts for their client. The Plaintiff alleged Misrepresentation, Breach of Contract, Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, Detrimental Reliance, and Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices in Violation of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A, §11 in relation to an alleged unpaid share of stock from the sale his former company. Royal attorneys argued that the Plaintiff did not establish the prerequisite principal-agency relationship to impute liability on our client. The Court agreed with our argument and dismissed the case against our client.
21 Sep, 2023
Royal attorneys successfully obtained a dismissal at a Massachusetts Trial Court for their client. The Plaintiff alleged there was a failure to pay wages. Royal attorneys argued that the Plaintiff voluntarily resigned and did not earn PTO and sick time that were allegedly owed. The Court agreed with our argument and dismissed the case against our client.
VIEW ALL

WOMEN IN LABOR BLOG


26 Apr, 2024
On April 23, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) issued a final rule banning non-competition agreements for all employees except for very narrow exceptions. The FTC’s Final Rule banning all non-competition agreements is effective 120 days after its publication in the Federal Register, which is expected in the next few days.  As of the effective date, all non-competition agreements are banned, except for franchisor/franchisee relationships and for sales of a business between buyer and seller. The FTC’s Rule is retroactive, prohibiting certain non-competition agreements before the effective date of the Rule as well. Existing non-competition agreements can remain in effect as to senior executives, which are defined in the Rule as employees in “policy-making positions” making at least $151,164 annually. The FTC’s Final Rule is already being challenged through the court system and a challenge from the Chamber of Commerce will most likely follow suit. Therefore, if an employer has existing non-competition agreements, the employer may not need to rescind them just yet. Stay tuned for updates as these challenges take their due course.
26 Apr, 2024
By: Trevor Brice, Esq. On April 23, 2024, the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) announced a Final Rule updating regulations governing Executive, Administrative and Professional exemptions (“EAP exemptions”) from the minimum wage and overtime rules. This Final Rule significantly increases the salary threshold for workers to qualify for EAP exemptions. In general, to qualify for EAP exemptions, an employee must 1) be paid on a salary basis, 2) at a threshold level, and 3) primarily perform EAP duties as defined by the DOL. The Final Rule does not impose any changes on the salary basis or job duties relevant in determining EAP exemptions. After issuance of a proposed rule that received approximately 33,000 comments, the DOL in the Final Rule is increasing the salary thresholds in waves. As of July 1, 2024, the salary threshold for EAP exemptions applies to employees making $844 per week ($43,888 annually) on a salary basis. As of January 1, 2025, the threshold increases to $1,128 per week ($58,656 annually). This means that employees making under these amounts on a salary basis as of these dates are no longer exempt from overtime, as long as the other criteria for determining EAP exemptions by the DOL are met. Additionally, the rule increases the salary threshold for the “highly compensated” employee exemption. This exemption applies when an employee meets the greater salary threshold, their primary duty includes performing office or non-manual work and the employee customarily and regularly performs at least one of the duties or responsibilities defined in the EAP exemptions. The DOL also issued the increased salary threshold for the highly compensated exemption in waves. As of July 1, 2024, the salary threshold for the highly compensated employee exemption applies to employees making $132,964 annually, including at least $844 per week paid on a salary or fee basis. As of January 1, 2025, the salary threshold for the highly compensated employee exemption raises to $151, 164 annually, including at least $1,128 per week on a salary or fee basis. The DOL estimates that under the Final Rule, there will be four million workers newly entitled to overtime protection as of 2025. As with the FTC’s Final Rule passed on the same day, the DOL’s Final Rule will most likely be subject to challenge through the court system. However, for employers concerned with this new rule, it would be prudent to identify those positions below or close to the new salary thresholds, consider whether to change salaries given the new thresholds and conduct training as to who will now be exempt under the DOL’s final rule. If there is any gray area as to the DOL’s final rule, reach out to the local employment and labor counsel to determine if there is potential liability. Trevor Brice is an attorney who specializes in labor and employment-law matters at the Royal Law Firm LLP, a woman-owned, women-managed corporate law firm that is certified as a women’s business enterprise with the Massachusetts Supplier Diversity Office, the National Assoc. of Minority and Women Owned Law Firms, and the Women’s Business Enterprise National Council.
28 Mar, 2024
By: Trevor Brice, Esq. For many Americans, the possible leave that can be taken under state and federal leave has been expanded and extended so that many employees are covered by state and federal leave laws. However, this coverage has not extended to all full-time U.S. employees. A new bill in Congress seeks to change this. On March 20, 2024, several House Democrats announced the introduction of the Protected Time Off (“PTO) Act to guarantee 10 paid days off from work each year for full-time workers. The proposal ensures that all full-time employees will earn no less than two weeks of annual paid leave per year, in addition to any employer-provided or legal required paid sick or family leave, to be used for any reason at the employees’ standard pay rate. Employers must not interfere with or discriminate against workers who seek to take annual paid time off. Possible Implications for Employers under the PTO Act The PTO Act offers two weeks of paid time off to any full-time employee for any reason. This means that employers will have to offer this time off as long as employees provide two weeks’ notice, which is required under the law. Employers with surge seasons will be particularly affected by this act, because, as long as notice is provided, employers cannot deny the time off, unless the surge season qualifies as an emergency under the Act. An employer may place limited, reasonable restrictions regarding the scheduling of paid annual leave and may reject a scheduling request for such leave for a bona fide business reason, so long as the employer provides other reasonable alternative times for the employee to schedule such leave. However, the definition of reasonable alternative times would have to be tested in court, as it is not defined in the pending legislation. Employees would begin to accrue paid leave as soon as their employment begins and employers must provide each employee with no less no less than 1 hour of paid annual leave for every 25 hours worked, for up to 80 total hours. Employees can start using PTO Act leave on the 60 th day of their employment. Employers will need to compensate employees at the same rate that they would have been paid had the employees not used leave. Further, employees are allowed to carry over up to 40 hours of leave year to year and can cash out any unused paid annual leave at the separation of employment. If employers violate the PTO Act, employers may be responsible for lost wages, interest, liquidated (double) damages, and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. While an individual bringing a claim under the PTO Act may not scare employers, as it could be on the hook for up to four weeks of pay plus attorney’s fees and costs at maximum, a class action on behalf of multiple employees could certainly be something that employers fear. Takeaways The PTO Act, while introduced in the House, is not likely to advance and become law with bipartisan support. However, it is of note that legislators feel comfortable advancing legislation that would give paid leave to all full-time employees. In this sense, it is more likely that a lesser version of the PTO Act could be passed in the coming months and years, which could burden employers with more regulation related to paid leave. As always, if an employer has questions or concerns about the utilization of paid leave and the application of new potential laws like the PTO Act, it is prudent to seek legal counsel. Trevor Brice is an attorney who specializes in labor and employment-law matters at the Royal Law Firm LLP, a woman-owned, women-managed corporate law firm that is certified as a women’s business enterprise with the Massachusetts Supplier Diversity Office, the National Assoc. of Minority and Women Owned Law Firms, and the Women’s Business Enterprise National Council.
14 Feb, 2024
Effective January 1, 2024, all businesses conducting and engaging in business within the United States, have one more requirement to add to their list. The Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”), was passed by Congress in 2021, and recently took effect January 1, 2024. What is it? The Act requires businesses to report their “beneficial owners” to the government through a Beneficial Ownership Information (BOI) report. A “beneficial owner” is someone who owns 25% or more of the business or exercises substantial control over it. The reports are made to the United States Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), which has been tasked with maintaining a national registry of beneficial owners of the reporting companies. Why was this passed? The Act is Congress’ attempt to prevent money laundering, terrorism financing, tax fraud, and other illicit activities including human and drug trafficking and securities fraud (aka prevent shell corporations and hiding money). While shell corporations are not illegal, they can be used to engage in activities that shield entities from legal liability, which is disfavored by the government and courts. Certain circumstances actually benefit from the use of a shell corporation, i.e. where companies seek to take advantage of doing business “offshore.” However, the “bad actors” who abuse this business structure have used such strategies for personal gain and, according to the government, hide from legal liability. Who does it effect? The new reporting requirement affects all businesses, corporations, and LLCs, no matter how big or small. It also affects non-US entities that are registered to conduct business with any state or territory within the United States. How do you comply? To remain in compliance with the reporting requirement, business must file the report by year end of 2024. If you create a business this year, 2024, but before January 1, 2025, you will have 90 calendar days after receiving notice of the company’s creation or registration to file the initial BOI report. Notice is actual notice received or public notice by the secretary of state, whichever is earlier. Failure to comply could lead to financial penalties or jail time. Such penalties include felony convictions, $500 daily (for every day of non-compliance) penalty up to $10,000, up to two years in prison. If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.
30 Jan, 2024
New Year, New Laws in New York
04 Jan, 2024
On December 22, 2023, New York Governor Kathy Hochul vetoed New York Senate Bill S3100A, which broadly prohibited employee non-compete agreements. The bill had previously been passed by both New York legislative houses in June 2023. The bill had been criticized by Governor Hochul for three main reasons: 1) the bill did not contain a salary cap, but instead broadly prohibited non-compete agreements at every level of employment, no matter the compensation level or bargaining power of the employee, 2) there was no carve-out for non-competes entered into in connection with the sale of a business, and 3) there was no exception for non-compete agreements or provisions providing for the forfeiture of compensation if an employee left to join a competitor or non-compete agreements providing for garden leave pay (pay during the non-competition period) in place of competition. In November 2023, Governor Hochul had expressed concerns regarding the scope of the bill, stating that she supported limiting the use of non-compete agreements for low to middle income workers earning under $250,000. However, when the bill was sent to Governor Hochul for approval, the bill was not amended to address the above concerns or to put a salary cap on prohibited non-competes. Within the 10-day consideration period after the bill was sent to Governor Hochul, Governor Hochul and the New York legislature could not come to agreement with respect to a salary cap, which Governor Hochul had previously stated was vital to protect lower to middle income employees, while permitting businesses to retain highly compensated individuals. The legislature is expected to reintroduce non-compete legislation in 2024. If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288. 
VIEW ALL

MEDIA COVERAGE


14 Nov, 2023
Getting Their Message Across
17 Oct, 2023
Attorney Trevor Brice was interviewed for this article by Joseph Bednar, BusinessWest. Shannon Rudder remembers her “bad boss.” And she never wanted to be one. “What that bad boss did, what stuck out for me, was that everybody had to cater to how he led,” she said, adding that he believed that was how to maintain a bias-free workplace. Unfortunately, that philosophy can be incompatible with an equitable workplace. “If I’m a single mom, maybe I can meet the deadlines, but I can’t do it in the same exact way as someone who doesn’t have kids, or has kids that are grown, right?” said Rudder, president and CEO of Martin Luther King Jr. Family Services in Springfield. “So in the most rudimentary sense, when you take the -isms and race and all that stuff out of it, that’s equity.” And it’s a concept many businesses neglect when they talk about diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, Rudder explained. They’re focused on a diverse workplace, but neglect to create the sort of culture where everyone is seen for their unique makeup and treated not equally, but equitably. She cited a cartoon often used to express the point (see below). It pictures three boys trying to watch a ballgame from behind a fence. The first panel has each standing on a single box; though they’re being treated equally, the shortest boy still can’t see the game. The second panel, by moving those boxes around, demonstrates equity — now everyone can clearly see over the fence. The barriers are different for each member of an organization, Rudder said, and so are the proverbial ‘boxes’ they might need to stand on to do their jobs effectively. (To take it a step further, the cartoon sometimes includes a third panel, labeled ‘liberation,’ with the fence removed completely.) “The CEO of a nonprofit is not the same as a president or CEO of a Fortune 500 company, but conceptually, we can’t sit in our positions of power and think we know what everyone’s barriers are,” she added. “I’ve got to like actually talk to people to figure out what the barriers are. So it’s about the relationships.” It’s also about honest discussions about privilege and internalized biases and weaving equity into every corner of the organization — and that’s not something that can be achieved with a one-off professional-development seminar on DEI. “You’ve got to get to the heart of why there are biases, why folks aren’t being productive working together,” Rudder said. “We’re all socialized very differently. So we need to create environments where folks feel comfortable and they trust each other. You don’t want somebody to feel tokenized; you want to be able to create that authenticity, that trust, so then you can begin to understand what the real barriers are.” Colleen Holmes understands this concept. As president and CEO of Viability Inc. in Springfield, which provides vocational training, job placement, and other supports for individuals with disabilities, she’s worked with employer partners to help them understand how a workplace can benefit from workers from all backgrounds and all abilities. “All the services we offer are around folks having the opportunity and support to be able to build their skills and attain things that are important and meaningful to them in their lives,” she told BusinessWest. “Everything we do is very specifically geared toward helping individuals find their pathway to thriving beyond whatever their limits are. And for individuals with disabilities, those limits are considerable.” But they can be overcome — if an employer is committed to equity. “We take a whole lot of pride and pleasure in working with folks as the individuals they are. That means that we look at the whole person and not one single aspect of their identity, and that’s what DEI is about,” Holmes explained. “The aspects of our identity are layered and complex, and that’s what makes us interesting people.” The said the word ‘accommodation’ carries some baggage because people think it’s a one-way street — that the employer has to accommodate the employee, but isn’t going to benefit from that employee beyond checking a DEI box. “In fact, when employers learn how to think differently in their approaches to getting business objectives met, they have more humanity in their company,” she said, adding that employers who understand this — who are willing to cultivate not only a diverse workforce, but an equitable, inclusive one — have a leg up. Questions Around Diversity The ‘diversity’ piece of DEI has been the source of much discussion lately, as employers have grappled with whether efforts to build a racially (and in other ways) diverse workplace will run afoul of federal law, especially after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down affirmative action in college admissions this past June. “They didn’t directly speak to private employers; it only applies to colleges and universities,” said Trevor Brice, an attorney with the Royal Law Firm in Springfield, adding, however, that there could be ripple effects. “I think the implications of the Harvard and North Carolina ruling go more to reverse-discrimination suits, people in majority groups suing over being given unfavorable treatment in relation to minority groups because of affirmative-action or DEI programs.” To be clear, he added, hiring and firing employees based on their status in protective classes has never been allowed. “What’s almost inevitable is there are going to be challenges to employers based on these cases now.” Mary Jo Kennedy, partner and chair of the Employment Law practice at Bulkley Richardson in Springfield, agreed that the SCOTUS ruling has no immediate impact on the legal standards that govern private employers’ DEI or affirmative-action programs, noting, like Brice, the existing prohibition against making employment decisions solely based on a person’s protected characteristics, like race or gender. “But there is the potential that we may see more reverse-discrimination cases,” she added, before listing several steps employers can take to promote diversity within the bounds of the law: • Avoid considering race as a basis for employment decisions or practices in a way that could be seen as granting race-based preferences; • Review any DEI policies or programs for compliance with federal and state laws; • Understand that it’s OK to prioritize diversity and inclusion but not OK to use race- or gender-based quotas; • Broaden the use of the term ‘diversity,’ understanding that it’s more than just race and gender; and • Review the company website and other public-facing documents and internal DEI materials for compliance with federal and state laws prohibiting discrimination. Employers can also protect themselves against reverse-discrimination cases by carefully documenting the reasons behind every hiring and promotion decision. In other words, it makes sense to cast a wide net to promote a diverse applicant base, but make sure there’s a business case for each decision, and “document, document, document,” Brice said. “Why are you making this decision? Is it solely due to race or other protected characteristics? Then it’s probably not going to stand up to a legal challenge. But high GPA, work history, things like that are fine. So, is this person better-qualified? Just give justification for the decision in case you’re challenged down the road.” Employment-law firms already see plenty of wrongful-termination cases, he added, and there’s a feeling that the June SCOTUS decision will embolden more of them, even though that ruling applies only to higher education. “More needs to be seen. There hasn’t been a legal challenge yet, so there’s no guidance yet.” Making Meaningful Progress Monson Savings Bank President Dan Moriarty has been actively been involved in DEI strategy over the past year or so, not only at his own institution, but through his co-leadership of an executive council established by the Massachusetts Bankers Assoc. to promote DEI efforts across member institutions. “Every individual and every organization is on a different path along the way to being more diverse, equitable, and inclusive in their organization,” he said. “We have a DEI committee here at the bank, and we’re trying to adopt best practices from the Mass Bankers Association for advancing our DEI program.” That process toward a level playing field begins with understanding the dynamics of DEI and the barriers and biases that hinder it, he noted, adding that he and two other MSB leaders recently attended a seminar at the Healing Racism Institute of Pioneer Valley. “That was phenomenal. Just the awareness and deep understanding was very impactful for me personally and professionally. We all have to do more.” Adopting some best practices recommended by Mass Bankers, Monson Savings has created a DEI commitment statement, developed and implemented a DEI program that continues to evolve, provided DEI training to board members and employees, identified and monitored key performance metrics, and conducted periodic self-assessments of the program. In addition, he said, the bank has reviewed numerous documents, including its strategic plan, along with communications, processes, and facilities, to ensure that potential barriers are identified and removed and that DEI expectations are reflected, while also conducting outreach and expanding the bank’s relationships with key community members and organizations. “We have a long way to go with it, but we’re trying to build something. We want to make meaningful progress — not just check a box, but make a difference,” Moriarty said. “People want to do the right thing, but they have to educate themselves and really make a concerted effort to be able to make the change. It’s not just acknowledging we need more diversity, equity, and inclusion, but we also have to take actual steps to get us to a better place.” Viability has seen its employer partners — more than 800 of them nationwide — find that better place. “Some employers are looking to live a philosophy of the organization around diversity, equity, and inclusion because it’s the right thing to do,” Holmes said. “And there is data out there that shows that, if companies have accessible and welcoming environments for individuals with disabilities, consumers are more likely to shop there. And this is something businesses and employers have taken notice of. “DEI is really a no-brainer,” she added. “But it does require a cultural change within an organization.” The Rest of the Story “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” That’s one of Martin Luther King Jr.’s most popular quotes; just about everyone has heard it. But far fewer, Rudder said, know the rest of the quote, the words King said directly after: “We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.” “That’s the nutshell of how I approach the work,” she added. “Our corporate counterparts — and I get why they do it — focus on diversity because that’s a tangible way to demonstrate, ‘we’ve got X percentage of women, we’ve got X percentage that identify as able-bodied or people of color,’ all those identities. I get why diversity comes first. But for me, it’s really centered on equity.” Rudder said she practices ‘culture humility,’ which is a commitment to constant self-evaluation by which people not only learn to understand other cultures, but also critically examine their own — and understand the privileges they enjoy. “If we’re going to aim to be centered in equity, we have to first understand where our privilege is,” she said. “And that goes back to Dr. King’s quote; we are all mutually interconnected. It’s a journey — it’s not just, ‘let’s do this program, and let’s check the boxes.’ We’ve got to weave this into the very fabric of who we are as an organization, as a corporation.”
05 Sep, 2023
NLRB subjects work rules to ‘employee-friendly’ test Attorney Amy B. Royal was interviewed for this pivotal decision of the NLRB, by Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly's Pat Murphy . A reversal of course by the National Labor Relations Board has management-side lawyers and their clients scrambling to reassess work rules for whether they may now be deemed unlawfully to chill employee rights to engage in concerted activity. A divided NLRB issued its highly anticipated decision in Stericycle Inc. on Aug. 2 . The decision announced a new standard on the question of whether an employer’s work rule that does not expressly restrict employees’ protected concerted activity under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act is nevertheless unlawful under NLRA Section 8(a)(1). “[O]ur standard requires the General Counsel to prove that a challenged rule has a reasonable tendency to chill employees from exercising their Section 7 rights,” the Stericycle majority opinion states. “We clarify that the Board will interpret the rule from the perspective of an employee who is subject to the rule and economically dependent on the employer, and who also contemplates engaging in protected concerted activity.” Springfield labor lawyer Amy B. Royal says employers have their work cut out for them. “Employers are going to have to look at any policies, handbooks and work rules that they have and ensure that they are narrowly tailored,” Royal says. “The ultimate burden on the employer is to demonstrate not just that they have a legitimate and substantial need for a particular work rule or policy, but that there’s no other way to accomplish this other than the way it is written. This is a huge departure [from recent NLRB decisions].” Providence employment litigator Shelagh Michaud sees Stericycle as part of a larger trend of decisions and new laws leaning in favor of employee rights. “In addition to rights to unionize and collectively bargain, there are also new rules, laws and guidance on noncompetes that lean toward allowing employees to have more portability and freedom once they leave an employer,” she says. “All of these changes are going to affect not just the way we structure [workplace] policies, but also employment agreements, separation agreements, and how we handle our expectations for key employees.” One labor attorney not surprised by the outcome in Stericycle is Raymond M. Ripple of Boston. “This is just one of several employee-friendly decisions handed down in the last six to eight months from the NLRB,” Ripple says. “It’s an unwinding of some of the things that were put into place under the prior administration and makeup of the NLRB.” Ripple laments the fact that Stericycle creates uncertainty for employers. “Before, [the question was] what a reasonable employee would think when reading this policy — would they interpret it to chill their Section 7 rights,” Ripple says. “Now, it’s going to be looked at from the perspective of an employee who is economically dependent on that employer and who wants to engage in some protected action. ‘Does that civility policy that’s in my employer’s handbook limit me in any way from exercising those rights?’” Reversing course An administrative law judge in Stericycle had found that the respondent employer violated Section 8(a)(1) by maintaining certain work rules addressing personal conduct, conflicts of interest, and the confidentiality of harassment complaints. Section 7 of the NLRA guarantees employees “the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection,” as well as the right “to refrain from any or all such activities.” “Section 7 applies even when there is no union present,” says Daniel R. Fishman, an employment litigator in Boston. “So [the NLRB’s decision in Stericycle] is something both union and non-union employers need to be aware of.” Section 8(a)(1) makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer “to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7.” In reaching a decision in Stericycle, the ALJ followed the analysis in the NLRB’s 2017 ruling in Boeing Co. , as interpreted by the board’s 2019 decision in LA Specialty Produce Co. In Boeing, LA Specialty and subsequent cases, the board applied a standard recognizing that certain categories of work rules — such as rules of civility — are “lawful” when: (1) reasonably interpreted, they do not prohibit or interfere with the exercise of NLRA rights; or (2) the potential adverse impact on protected rights is outweighed by justifications for the rule. But the board in Stericycle replaced the categorical approach of Boeing with a new standard focusing on how employees would interpret a particular work rule. In setting a new standard, the majority made clear that an employer’s intent in maintaining a rule is “immaterial.” “Rather, if an employee could reasonably interpret the rule to have a coercive meaning, the [NLRB’s] General Counsel will carry her burden, even if a contrary, noncoercive interpretation of the rule is also reasonable,” the majority wrote. “If the General Counsel carries her burden, the rule is presumptively unlawful, but the employer may rebut that presumption by proving that the rule advances a legitimate and substantial business interest, and that the employer is unable to advance that interest with a more narrowly tailored rule.” “[Stericycle] essentially imposes a ‘strict scrutiny’ standard on employers once that employee-friendly standard is met,” Michaud says. Moving target? In Stericycle, the board remanded the matter for the ALJ to apply the new standard in rendering a decision. The majority in Stericycle included NLRB Chairman Lauren M. McFerran and members Gwynne A. Wilcox and David M. Prouty. President Biden named McFerran chairman in 2021, the same year he nominated Prouty. Wilcox is also a Biden nominee. Member Marvin E. Kaplan — a 2017 appointee of President Trump — dissented in Stericycle. Kaplan argued that the board’s new standard places employers in an untenable position. “The majority says that employers are free to maintain work rules that protect their legitimate interests, so long as they narrowly tailor their rules so that no word or phrase could possibly be interpreted, by a reasonable employee as my colleagues define that being — i.e., an unreasonably hypervigilant employee — to restrict Section 7 activity,” Kaplan wrote. “However, as the Board observed in Boeing, and as Chairman [William B.] Gould explained nearly 25 years ago in Lafayette Park Hotel, it is virtually impossible to craft work rules that are general enough to serve their intended lawful purpose without being susceptible to an interpretation that infringes on Section 7 rights.” To Providence labor attorney Matthew H. Parker, the shifting tides at the NLRB have gotten more than a bit tiresome for employers. “Frustratingly, the NLRB’s standard for assessing the legality of workplace rules has been a moving target for decades,” Parker says. “Generally speaking, updating handbooks every few years as the political majority of the NLRB shifts back and forth is unnecessary and inefficient.” Fishman couldn’t agree more. “Employers like predictability,” he says. “If they know the rules to the game, they are more likely to follow them.” According to Fishman, the board’s elimination of the categorical approach adopted in Boeing removes predictability for the employer. Keeping things simple Fishman says that employers should take Stericycle as an opportunity to review their employee handbooks and workplace policies that may touch on NLRA Section 7 rights. In that regard, he notes that the NLRB’s general counsel has taken the position that employers can provide themselves with some measure of protection by adopting a prophylactic policy explicitly stating that the employer’s workplace policies and rules should not be interpreted as restricting NLRA Section 7 rights. “If you’re focusing on how reasonable interpretations of a policy don’t chill Section 7 rights, a policy directly addressing that issue would be a big help in defending an unfair labor practice [allegation],” Fishman says. “For certain explicit policies, for example, policies that tell employees not to discuss wages with other employees, a prophylactic policy is not going to cut it. But it would certainly be helpful for [defending] more nebulous, facially neutral policies like social media policies or respect-in-the-workplace policies.” According to Parker, one way to keep things simple is for the employer to view its workplace policies through the lens of a union agent who might try to challenge them. “If there is no business need for a broad rule, narrow it. If you need to clarify that a rule does not restrict protected concerted activity, say so,” Parker advises. “If you assume that (a) sweeping and ambiguous rules will always draw scrutiny, and (b) every rule needs to be based upon a legitimate business interest, employers can avoid most challenges and still maintain appropriate standards.” In gauging the kinds of workplace rules that will come under increased scrutiny under the Stericycle decision, Fishman points to social media policies. “Any policies regarding bad language or respect in the workplace could find themselves being scrutinized for whether they meet this new standard,” he says. More work for lawyers? Fishman says it’s too soon to gauge whether the NLRB’s decision in Stericycle will spawn more legal challenges to workplace policies. “But the change from Boeing to Stericycle certainly shifts the playing field [against] employers,” he says. “It’s going to be much harder for employers to prevail under Stericycle than they could under Boeing.” Michaud’s practice in Providence includes a significant amount of advice to clients on the drafting of employment policies. Stericycle is likely to lead to increasing scrutiny of confidentiality and conflict-of-interest policies, she says. “I could see the anti-moonlighting and noncompete provisions being ratcheted back,” Michaud says. “I could also see [Stericycle affecting] how we do social media and technology policies, as well as employers that engage in monitoring or recording [employees]. There’s also a difference between what a policy states and what the practice is, so there will be a lot of training and retraining of not just those high-level employees and HR managers that help draft the policies, but also of those supervisors who implement the policies.” Royal likewise sees Stericycle as having a broad reach. “There could be implications for non-disparagement provisions, confidentiality provisions, codes of conduct — even dress codes,” the Springfield attorney says. “This is certainly a point in time when employers need to look at all of their policies and consult with their labor counsel to make sure those policies aren’t subject to challenge.” According to Fishman, the big concern for employers is the termination of an employee under what is ultimately determined to be an overly broad workplace rule. “If that person prevails — which they have a better chance to given Stericycle — that employee could get back pay and a reinstatement order, both of which are pretty costly in terms of dollars and headaches,” Fishman notes.
VIEW ALL

Community

24 Apr, 2024
The Royal Law Firm was a Partner Sponsor of this year's Difference Makers Event, which was held on Wednesday, April 10, 2024. Congratulations to all of the Difference Makers, and thank you for having such a positive impact on our community. 
19 Apr, 2024
Attorney Amy Royal has once again been selected as a Super Lawyer ! As published by Super Lawyers Amy B. Royal is a top-rated attorney, with her firm headquartered in Springfield, Massachusetts. Providing legal representation in the New England states and New York, for a variety of different issues, Amy Royal was selected to Super Lawyers for 2014 - 2016, 2019 - 2024. Attorneys like Amy B. Royal are recognized by their peers for their outstanding work and commitment to the spirit of the legal profession. Their knowledge of the law, professional work ethic, and advocacy on behalf of their clients allow them to stand out among other attorneys in the field. 
29 Mar, 2024
The Royal Law Firm is the Best Law Firm in the Pioneer Valley according to the Valley Advocate's readers. The results of the 2024 Best of the Pioneer Valley Readers' Poll were published on Thursday, March 28 th . Thank you to everyone who voted for us, and to those of you who trust us to help you in times of need. Click here to check out all of the category winners and finalists.

ARTICLES AND NEWSLETTERS


06 Mar, 2024
Walking a Fine Line  By Trevor Brice, Esq.
01 Sep, 2023
Questions of Accommodation By Trevor Brice, Esq.
VIEW ALL

FEED

SECTIONS

SUBSCRIBE

Sign Up
Share by: