Labor: Is your handbook ready for 2012?
Companies should look at three policies in particular as they head into the new year.
November 07, 2011 at 07:13 AM
6 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Fall is usually the time of year that employers dust off their handbooks for revision and review in time for the coming year. As we review 2011, there are a few policies that employers should consider adding to their handbooks in 2012.
1. Social Media Policy: Employee use of social media can affect the workplace. Whether it is Facebook, LinkedIn or blogging, employers need to establish guidelines regarding do's and don'ts for employees in the social media arena. At a minimum, social media policies should address the following issues:
- Are employees permitted to access social media while using company resources, such as company-issued laptops, iPhones or desktop computers?
- If so, what are the limits regarding employee access during working time?
- Are there restrictions on an employee's use of social media while the employee is off-duty and using personal resources?
- If so, what are the limits regarding disclosure of company information?
- If so, what are the limits regarding commentary about the company?
- What should an employee do if subjected to harassment by coworkers via social media?
- Should supervisors “friend” subordinates?
During 2011, the NLRB launched a campaign against employers who discipline employees for violating social media policies that ban certain behavior. The NLRB believes that such policies go too far and suppress workers' NLRA rights. Employers are well-advised to narrowly draft social media policies so as not to chill an employee's ability to voice legitimate workplace complaints.
In light of this, employers may consider adding a disclaimer that makes it clear that nothing in the handbook is intended to interfere with employee's NLRA rights.
2. iPhone/Blackberry Policies: The company's old cellphone policy probably needs updating. Now more than ever before, employees are texting, emailing, picture-taking and even making videos on their mobile devices. Such policies may vary depending upon whether the device is personal or company-owned.
For example, if a device is company-owned, the employer may want to give employees notice that there is no expectation of privacy regarding use of that device and, as such, that the company may review text messages and other communications made by an employee at any time.
Safety issues are another major concern. More and more employers are banning the use of mobile devices while employees are driving during the course of employment—or requiring the use of hands-free devices.
3. Reasonable Accommodation: By now all employers should know about the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (ADAAA), which expanded the definition of “disability.” In 2011, the EEOC issued its new regulations regarding the ADAAA and now, when investigating an employee's claim for reasonable accommodation, the EEOC routinely asks to review an employer's policy in this area.
Such policies should, at minimum, include the following:
- A statement regarding the employer's willingness to accommodate employees and applicants
- The procedure for requesting an accommodation
- A statement regarding how employee medical-related information is stored and confidentially maintained
Fall is usually the time of year that employers dust off their handbooks for revision and review in time for the coming year. As we review 2011, there are a few policies that employers should consider adding to their handbooks in 2012.
1. Social Media Policy: Employee use of social media can affect the workplace. Whether it is Facebook,
- Are employees permitted to access social media while using company resources, such as company-issued laptops, iPhones or desktop computers?
- If so, what are the limits regarding employee access during working time?
- Are there restrictions on an employee's use of social media while the employee is off-duty and using personal resources?
- If so, what are the limits regarding disclosure of company information?
- If so, what are the limits regarding commentary about the company?
- What should an employee do if subjected to harassment by coworkers via social media?
- Should supervisors “friend” subordinates?
During 2011, the NLRB launched a campaign against employers who discipline employees for violating social media policies that ban certain behavior. The NLRB believes that such policies go too far and suppress workers' NLRA rights. Employers are well-advised to narrowly draft social media policies so as not to chill an employee's ability to voice legitimate workplace complaints.
In light of this, employers may consider adding a disclaimer that makes it clear that nothing in the handbook is intended to interfere with employee's NLRA rights.
2. iPhone/Blackberry Policies: The company's old cellphone policy probably needs updating. Now more than ever before, employees are texting, emailing, picture-taking and even making videos on their mobile devices. Such policies may vary depending upon whether the device is personal or company-owned.
For example, if a device is company-owned, the employer may want to give employees notice that there is no expectation of privacy regarding use of that device and, as such, that the company may review text messages and other communications made by an employee at any time.
Safety issues are another major concern. More and more employers are banning the use of mobile devices while employees are driving during the course of employment—or requiring the use of hands-free devices.
3. Reasonable Accommodation: By now all employers should know about the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (ADAAA), which expanded the definition of “disability.” In 2011, the EEOC issued its new regulations regarding the ADAAA and now, when investigating an employee's claim for reasonable accommodation, the EEOC routinely asks to review an employer's policy in this area.
Such policies should, at minimum, include the following:
- A statement regarding the employer's willingness to accommodate employees and applicants
- The procedure for requesting an accommodation
- A statement regarding how employee medical-related information is stored and confidentially maintained
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 AllOld Laws, New Tricks: Lawyers Using Patchwork of Creative Legal Theories to Target New Tech
Recent Layoff/Callback Litigation Underscores Perils Employers Face From Every Direction
5 minute readIn-House Gurus Say Inattention to Human Side of Tech Adoption Can Derail Best-Laid Plans
5 minute readNike Promotes Legal Chief to Marketing Chief as New CEO Launches Turnaround
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 4Meet the Lawyers on Kamala Harris' Transition Team
- 5Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
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