When a Walkout Hits: Employees' and Employers' Rights During a Protest
Under the National Labor Relations Act, employees in the United States like those who took action Thursday at Google have the right to protest peacefully without retaliation if a walkout is sparked by directly workplace-related issues.
November 01, 2018 at 06:43 PM
4 minute read
Thousands of Google employees in offices around the world staged a walkout Thursday to protest an alleged culture that fosters sexual harassment at the Mountain View, California-based tech company.
The walkout comes a week after reports from The New York Times that Google protected male executives accused of sexual misconduct and inappropriate relationships with subordinates, including then-Google general counsel and now-parent company Alphabet chief legal officer David Drummond.
Protest organizers demanded equal pay, a clear process for reporting sexual misconduct, an end to forced arbitration, a publicly disclosed sexual harassment transparency report and for the chief diversity officer to answer directly to the CEO.
Under the National Labor Relations Act, employees in the United States have the right to protest peacefully without retaliation if a walkout is sparked by directly workplace-related issues,
“Sometimes employers are surprised at how broad those rights are. We tend to associate walkouts with unions, but union or no union employees have a right under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act to engage in what's called concerted and protected activity,” said Steven Bernstein, a partner at Fisher & Phillips. “And a group walkout, protest over wages or working conditions falls right within the crosshairs of that protection.”
Employers can't retaliate against employees walking out over workplace-related issues. Maria Anastas, an employment lawyer at Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, said that retaliation can take many forms, not just termination.
If an employee is disciplined or passed on a promotion because of participation in a walkout, Anastas said that would likely be considered unlawful. She noted that, outside of the law, many companies may take PR backlash into account when handling a walkout.
“Generally speaking [companies] don't want to have any negative publicity associated with how they responded to the walkout, and … many employers will sort of overlook employee absences or tardies instead of just getting ready to discipline,” Anastas said.
Legally, however, companies could discipline employees for tardiness and absences related to walkouts, if there are policies in place that are regularly followed. But even neutrally applied attendance work rules are complicated if walkout participants take paid time off.
Anastas said that the legal implication of protesters' use of PTO can vary by situation, but in the past she has advised a company not to discipline employees using sick days on a walkout.
Marta Fernandez, a Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell partner and co-chair of the firm's labor and employment department, said in-house counsel can ease some legal confusion by informing employees of their rights in the case of a walkout, and let workers know what isn't allowed.
“It's prudent to immediately try to minimize [the walkout's risk] by publishing to employees what their rights are, but also what their responsibilities are,” Fernandez said. “In other words, you may have a right to be engaging in this conduct, but … here are the areas that are not protected, if you engage in misconduct.”
That misconduct includes verbal or physical threats, property damage, violence and protesting in restricted areas.
Bernstein said that in-house lawyers and other company leaders can work information on what is and isn't allowed under the NLRA into annual training sessions. This way, if a walkout does happen, managers and other staff are aware of legal rights.
“Many companies work it into annual employee relations training, in order to make sure that at least, if nothing else, there's a general awareness among management that this could be protected,” Bernstein said. “Sometimes it helps to instill in them a sensitivity of these issues so that if they come up without advance notice, at least bells and whistles are going off in the heads of managers thinking this may be a place where we need assistance before taking action.”
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 AllHow Marsh & McLennan's Small But Mighty Legal Innovation Team Builds Solutions That Bring Joy
Aggressive FTC May Force Merging Companies to Bolster Legal Defenses
4 minute readBest Legal Departments: How Blackstone's Legal and Compliance Team Got the All-Clear to Grow Business
CEOs Want Data-Based Risk Management; GCs Lack the Tech to Do So.
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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