Why Businesses Get Sued, and What You Can Do About It: Part III
This series outlines the most common ways businesses and their owners get sued and what can be done to minimize that risk. This final post focuses on COVID-19 related lawsuits.
July 13, 2020 at 10:30 AM
6 minute read
Employers—brace yourselves. COVID-19 disrupted all of our lives, but it also changed the rules of the workplace. New rules, vague guidance, lack of judicial precedent, and employees out of work or making less money. This is the perfect recipe for costly litigation. In Part 3 of this series, we discuss some of the likely ways employers will find themselves being dragged into court in the near future—the COVID-19 related lawsuits.
Wage and Hour: A Field of Legal Landmines
Employers who don't adequately track their remote employees are asking for trouble. Non-exempt workers must be paid for any time worked (and overtime for any time worked in excess of 40 hours per week). Some employees may work more hours than authorized in order to rack up their wages. If you don't track those hours, you won't know about it until it's too late and you have to pay up. Other employees may not actually work at all—but will still tell you that they did so they get paid. The point is this – if you don't know how many hours your employees are working, you don't know how much to pay them. Welcome to a wage and hour nightmare!
Think you're safe because all your employees are exempt from overtime? Think again. In this "new normal" with light staff and employers scrambling, many employees are being asked to undertake new tasks and responsibilities. For example, if an office manager (or someone typically exempt from overtime) is now performing clerical or administrative work, they might lose their exempt status and become entitled to overtime. Similarly, if you reduced wages, you might trigger the non-exempt status.
Most exempt positions require that the employee be paid at least a specific weekly salary. If you've reduced pay, and the reduction pushes that employee below that threshold, then you may have inadvertently changed that exempt employee into an overtime eligible non-exempt employee.
Wage and hour suits are painful to defend. Failure to pay proper wages can result in an enormous legal bill—both in legal fees and damages. Taking some protective measures now to save you enormously down the road.
Safety, Safety, and More Safety!
You already know this—you're being judged on what measures you're taking (or not taking) to keep your employees, customers, and on-site vendors safe. Having adequate protective measures in place now will save you in the long run (think: in sick employees, lost customers, and legal fees to defend lawsuits).
OSHA requires that employers keep the workplace "free from recognized hazards that are likely to cause death or serious physical harm." What that means today is very different from six months ago. Do you have a written health and safety policy? Who is in charge of overseeing workplace safety and health issues? Are you communicating these measures to your employees? Do you have clear, non-discriminatory plans in place to screen employees and customers? Do you know what steps to take in the event an employee gets sick at work?
Employers should implement comprehensive safety and health protocols for the workplace—because it's the right thing to do and because you'll pay for it if you don't. Be proactive and communicate everything you're doing to your employees and customers so they know that you're taking steps to keep them safe. You don't want to appear unsympathetic or, even worse, reckless.
Get Ready To Accommodate
We've already heard this in the news—across the country, employees are scared to return to work. Your first step is to speak with them and find out why. Are they scared about getting sick? Are they caring for a child whose school or summer camp is closed? Are they concerned because they have—or live with someone who has—an underlying medical condition that makes them more vulnerable? Your obligations, and their rights, depends on the response.
Employers with 15 or more employees must comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If you have less than 15 employees, it probably makes sense to act like the ADA still applies. Under the ADA and various state laws, employees can request a "reasonable accommodation" that allows them to do their job.
Employers must engage in an interactive process to determine what that reasonable accommodation is and must provide that accommodation unless it poses an "undue hardship." What's a reasonable accommodation? That depends on the circumstances—but allowing an employee to work remotely is a good start. Forcing an employee who has an underlying medical condition to return to work might be asking for a lawsuit.
Engage with your employees. Ask them about their concerns. Listen to what they say. Try to accommodate them when necessary. And just as important—document everything. You'll want this as evidence in the event you're hit with a lawsuit.
Don't Retaliate!
Employers already know this (hopefully). But there's no doubt that employees have become—and will continue to be—more vocal about conditions in the workplace. Whether it's a lack of adequate safety measures, unfair hiring policies, inconsistent pay reductions, refusal of medical leave, expect to hear the complaints from your employees. When an employee raises concerns about unlawful conduct—or questionable workplace safety and health concerns—various federal and state laws protect that employee from retaliation. Don't punish employees for complaining.
Implement—and communicate to your employees—clear, understandable reporting procedures that enable employees to raise their concerns without fear of retaliation. Make it clear that their concerns will be heard and addressed as needed. Put this policy in your written employee handbook. It's important to avoid even the appearance of retaliation against any employee who raises such concerns. This means no adverse change in pay, schedule, title, or other key terms of employment.
These are just some of the issues that employers will have to deal with in the coming months. While it's difficult to know the "right" way to do things, it's certainly easier to avoid the "wrong" way of doing things. Stay safe, protect yourself, and speak with your attorney if you have any questions.
Damien H. Weinstein is a founding partner at Weinstein + Klein P.C., representing companies and individuals in complex litigation, disputes, and employment matters.
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 AllFusion Voting and Its Impact on the Upcoming Election
Trending Stories
- 1Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 2Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 3Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 4X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
- 5Monsanto Wins Latest Philadelphia Roundup Trial
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