Royal

Suit Shows That Employers Must Engage in Interactive Dialogue

Apr 28, 2023

Return-to-office Mandates and Related Woes


By Trevor Brice, Esq.

As pressure increases on companies to have an in-person presence post-pandemic, many companies have issued return-to-office mandates. Some of these, if they are not heeded by employees currently working remotely, can result in severe penalties, including loss of compensation, bonuses, even termination.



While these companies can impose these penalties on their wayward employees, it is now the time to remember one of the reasons why employees request to work from home: as a disability- or age-related accommodation.


On March 28, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced suit against an employer who disciplined an employee in relation to one of these policies. This serves as a reminder of what employers’ responsibilities are to employees with age- or disability-related accommodation requests, despite being able to pressure employees to come back to the office.

 

COVID-19 Policies and Protected Class

In general, employers can impose any sort of discipline or policy on their employees. However, there are exceptions to this general rule, specifically that employers cannot discipline or impose policy that is either directly or indirectly based on the employee’s protected class (e.g., race, color, disability, age, sex, or ancestry).


As we come out of the COVID-19 pandemic, most employers are setting up policies mandating that employees come back to the office, some of them with penalties attached if employees do not comply. For example, Apple recently threatened disciplinary action for employees that are not coming into the office at least three days per week. Policies like these are facially neutral and non-discriminatory in their purpose. Every employer has a legitimate business interest in enforcing attendance, and policies like these have become more commonplace.


However, these policies run the risk of disability or even age discrimination. Some employers might ask why this is the case if they are enforcing a neutral policy. The usual issue will be that a policy like this will be imposed on an employee who is older or has disabilities that make them more at risk of contracting COVID-19. As such, when a policy like this is imposed, the employee will ask, due to their disability or age, to continue to work from home as a reasonable accommodation. If and when this happens, employers have a duty to engage in an interactive dialogue with the requesting employee and try to fashion an accommodation that will allow the worker to continue their work without undue hardship to the employer.


As long as this conversation, the interactive dialogue, is had with the requesting employee, it will be difficult for the employee to say that they have been subject to discrimination or that the employer failed to provide a reasonable accommodation. However, the problem arises when the employer does not initiate this conversation.

 

The EEOC Lawsuit

On March 28, the EEOC sued a company for allegedly denying repeated requests by an employee for remote work as a reasonable accommodation due to the increased risk of COVID-19 and further was alleged to violate the law by retaliating against the employee for taking medical leave to avoid exposure.


The facts in the case, EEOC v. Total Systems Services Inc., involve a customer-service representative who repeatedly requested to work remotely as a reasonable accommodation starting at the beginning of the pandemic in 2020 to decrease the risk of her exposure to COVID-19. The employer, in response, without engaging in an interactive dialogue with the disabled employee, repeatedly denied the requests despite granting remote-work requests to other employees.


While there has not been a ruling in this case yet, it is clear why the EEOC sued the company in question. As a reminder, when an employee requests a reasonable accommodation, the employer has a duty to engage in an interactive dialogue with the employee and attempt to come up with a reasonable accommodation that does not impose an undue hardship on the employer. Here, the employer did not attempt to engage in an interactive dialogue, denying the request (in this case, repeatedly) outright.


Further, even if the company had attempted to engage in an interactive dialogue with the disabled employee (which it did not), the employer would still potentially be liable because it would be more than likely that the employer could not show that the accommodation request was an undue hardship.


As the EEOC’s lawsuit notes, most of the employee’s department was allowed to work remotely, despite denying the employee’s request to also work remotely. The company could have possibly shown that the employee’s request was an undue hardship if other employees in the employee’s department were not allowed to work remotely or if a compelling reason was given why the employee and other employees in her department needed to be on site. However, this was not the case here.

 

Conclusion

As it becomes more and more commonplace for employers to require their employees to come into the office post-pandemic, there will increasingly be more litigation from employees who suffer from disabilities or are older, who ask to be given accommodation to work from home in order to avoid COVID-19 exposure.


As shown above, employers, once a reasonable accommodation has been made, must engage in an interactive dialogue with the employee to see if there is a reasonable accommodation that can be granted without undue hardship. It is possible to show that the employee’s request is an undue hardship, but there needs to be an interactive dialogue with the employee first.


If your company is imposing these return-to-work policies and it is questionable whether there is an undue hardship with an employee’s request for a reasonable-accommodation request, it is prudent to seek out representation from employment counsel.


This article was published in the May 1, 2023 edition of BusinessWest. Click here to visit their website!

Non-Compete Agreements Are in Jeopardy

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.

ALERT: US Department of Labor Increases Salary Threshold for White Collar Overtime and Minimum Wage Exemptions

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.
Share by: