Employees Who Work on Vacation May Not Be Doing Employer Any Favors
For today's U.S. workers, very often, a long-awaited vacation tends to become a “workation.” Although they have every intention of relaxing and enjoying their time away, many workers can't resist the temptation to check their email, write that report, or answer work-related phone calls while on vacation.
October 12, 2017 at 10:30 AM
4 minute read
For today's U.S. workers, very often, a long-awaited vacation tends to become a “workation.” Although they have every intention of relaxing and enjoying their time away, many workers can't resist the temptation to check their email, write that report, or answer work-related phone calls while on vacation.
A recent Rand Corp. study reported that almost 60 percent of respondents said they did at least some work while on vacation. Other researchers report that some employees view work as just another social outlet, and working as social engagement. For them, working while on vacation is a form of keeping in touch with friends.
This all may seem like gold for employers. An employee who is being paid not to work is willingly, maybe even happily, giving some of that time back to the company.
But, while it may glitter, this golden surface hides an ugly downside.
Suppose, for example, a vacationing employee decides to answer a few work emails from her smartphone—while driving. Is the employer vicariously liable to the other driver who is hurt in the resulting car crash? In Florida, an employer may be held responsible for damage from an employee's negligent act, if it is committed within the scope of employment or during the course of employment and to further the employer's interests.
Answering work-related emails may well be a function within the scope of the employee's job, and the fact that she did it while ostensibly on vacation may carry little weight. If there is a pattern of vacationing employees “just checking the email” while on vacation, it could be that such behavior is occurring “during the course of employment;” it certainly furthers the employer's interests.
Many people say they work while on vacation because they worry about the work piling up while they're gone. So a vacationing employee decides to get a jump on that big report that's due a week after he gets back to work. He spends a few days pounding away at a computer to get a few thousand words in the bank. But the ergonomics of the desk in the hotel room aren't so great and what the go-getter gets is a flare-up of his carpal tunnel or his bulging disk issue.
There is Florida case law holding that injury occurring during work done while an employee is on vacation from his first employer, even work done for a second employer, may be compensable under the first employer's worker's compensation insurance if the work benefitted the first employer. It may even be an easier case when there is no second employer involved in that hotel room injury.
Federal law may also be implicated in an employee's “workation.” Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, salaried employees who fit certain exemptions do not have to be paid overtime. They can be required to work more than 40 hours in a week and still be paid the same weekly salary. However, they are entitled to that salary even if they work only one hour in a week.
Suppose the employer is in a cash crunch and sends the exempt employee home for a week without pay to save the salary. Despite being told not to do so, the employee signs into the computer system and answers her email or does other work. If the amount of work is more than de minimis, she is owed her full salary for the week. There goes the cash savings.
Unlikely? No: This very scenario happened in the past few years to a large South Florida company whose furloughed employees couldn't resist looking at their email. The company paid them for the week and then furloughed them for the following week—but, this time, locked them out of the system. The company lost two weeks of work for one week's savings of pay.
So, before an employer accepts the “gift” of vacation time back from employees, he should think hard about whether that gift is coming wrapped in some ugly potential liability.
David C. Miller is a partner at Bryant Miller Olive in Miami. He is board certified in labor and employment law by the Florida Bar. Contact him at [email protected].
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLess Is More: The Risks of Excessive Data Collection from Mobile Devices
6 minute readHow My Postpartum Depression Led to Launching My Firm’s Parental Leave Coaching Program
9 minute readProtecting Attorney-Client Privilege in the Modern Age of Communications
6 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250