Retaliation

The Latest From Chicago: Anti-Retaliation, Fair Workweek, and Food Delivery Disclosures

LPLeave a comment

While warm weather has finally hit Chicago, Mayor Lightfoot, the City Council and Chicago Department of Business Affairs and Consumer Protection (BACP) have not taken a spring break. The below summarizes the latest ordinances, and regulations from the Windy City:

Anti-Retaliation Ordinance

The Chicago City Council passed the COVID-19 Anti-Retaliation Ordinance last week, which prohibits employers from retaliating against employees for obeying a public health order requiring an employee to stay home due to coronavirus.

The Ordinance prohibits employers from demoting or terminating a Covered Employee for obeying an order issued by the Mayor, the Governor of Illinois, the Chicago Department of Public Health, or, in the case of (2), (3), and (4) below, a treating healthcare provider, requiring the Covered Employee to:

  • Stay at home to minimize the transmission of COVID-19;
  • Remain at home while experiencing COVID-19 symptoms or sick with COVID-19;
  • Obey a quarantine order issued to the Covered Employee;
  • Obey an isolation order issued to the Covered Employee; and
  • Obey an order issued by the Commissioner of Health regarding the duties
  • of hospitals and other congregate facilities

Employees subject to demotion or termination may recover reinstatement, damages equal to three times the full amount of wages that would have been owed had the retaliatory action not taken place, actual damages, and attorneys’ fees. Violations may also lead to fines of up to $1,000 per offense per day.

The ordinance is effective immediately.

Fair Workweek Ordinance

Chicago’s Fair Workweek Ordinance is set to take effect on July 1, 2020. Ahead of the effective date, the BACP has issued rules for implementing the ordinance, and a supplemental rule for implementation during the pandemic.

The Ordinance requires covered employers to post work schedules at least 10 days in advance, and provide additional pay if work schedules are changed without advanced notice. However, the Ordinance creates an exception where the work schedule change is “because of” a pandemic. BACP’s supplemental rule clarifies that the COVID-19 outbreak qualifies as a “pandemic” for the purposes of this exception, and will remain a “pandemic” until the Mayor’s Executive Order declaring a state of emergency is repealed.    

However, a work schedule change will be considered “because” of the pandemic only when the pandemic causes the employer to materially change its operating hours, operating plan, or the goods or services provided by the employer, resulting in the work schedule change. Further, the exception applies only to the work schedule during which the change occurs, and the work schedule immediately following.

Additionally, while the substantive requirements of the Ordinance will still go into effect on July 1, 2020 and may still be enforced by the City, individual employees will not be allowed to file lawsuits for violations of the ordinance occurring before January 1, 2021.

New Rules for Third Party Food Delivery Companies

Mayor Lightfoot and the BACP announced new rules earlier this month for third-party food delivery companies to increase transparency and fair competition. Effective Friday, May 22nd, all third-party delivery companies must disclose the following to customers, in a “clear and conspicuous manner”:

  • the menu price of the food;
  • any sales or other tax applied to the transaction;
  • any delivery charge or service fee, imposed on or collected from the customer by the third-party food delivery service or by the covered establishment, in addition to the menu price of the food;
  • any tip that will be paid to the person delivering the food, and not to the third-party food delivery service, to be added into the transaction when it occurs, and
  • any commission associated with the transaction.

The disclosure requirements apply to all websites, mobile applications or other internet services that offer or arrange the sale of food or beverages by a restaurant, bar or other food-serving establishments. The measure is intended to promote transparency and fair competition, as many restaurants are increasing relying on third-party delivery services to stay afloat during the pandemic.

While the rules were promulgated in response to the pandemic, these new rules will be in place permanently.

Guidance for Restaurants Applying COVID Surcharges

The City of Chicago issued a guidance for restaurants charging COVID-related surcharges to customers, reminding restaurants that the City’s restaurant tax is .50%, and any surcharge customers are required to pay is considered taxable and should be included in the basis upon which the restaurant tax is calculated. Additionally, a COVID surcharge is not a tax and should not be designated as such on any price list or invoice.

EEOC Issues Final Retaliation Guidance

LPLeave a comment

EEOC LOGOThe Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has released its final Enforcement Guidance on Retaliation and Related Issues. While the guidance doesn’t create any new law, it serves as a good reminder of the position the EEOC takes on such claims.  Here are a few highlights from the Guidance:

  • Retaliation can exist even when no official employment action against the employee is taken.  For example, it could be retaliation because of the employee’s EEO activity for an employer to:
    • reprimand an employee or give a performance evaluation that is lower than it should be;
    • transfer the employee to a less desirable position;
    • engage in verbal or physical abuse;
    • threaten to make, or actually make reports to authorities;
    • increase scrutiny;
    • spread false rumors, treat a family member negatively; or
    • take action that makes the person’s work more difficult.
  • The EEOC makes clear that an employer cannot retaliate against an employee for raising Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) rights, and cannot interfere with ADA rights by doing anything that makes it more difficult for an applicant or employee to assert these rights.
  • The Guidance contains an entire section entitled “Examples of Facts That May Defeat a Claim of Retaliation.” This section includes examples such as poor performance, inadequate qualifications, negative job references, misconduct, reductions in force or downsizing, as well as others.
  • The Guidance includes a list of suggestions that the EEOC believes may reduce the risk of retaliation violations:
    • Implementing a written anti-retaliation policy;
    • Training all supervisors on the anti-retaliation policy;
    • Providing advice and individualized support for those who could be in a position to retaliate and those who could be in the firing line for retaliatory action;
    • Proactively following up after protected activity or opposition has taken place; and
    • Reviewing your internal employment actions to ensure full compliance with the EEOC laws on retaliation.

We encourage all employers to review the Guidance carefully to make sure that their  current policies and practices are compliant. Employers should pay particular attention to the EEOC’s suggestions on practices that may reduce the chances of retaliation, as implementing and enforcing these may help to protect employers from potential retaliation claims.

 

 

 

 

 

2nd Circuit Speaks On SEC Whistleblower Retaliation

LPLeave a comment

pillarsOn September 10th, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals (New York, Connecticut and Vermont) handed down its decision in Berman v. Neo@Ogilvy, holding that an internal report of what an employee deems to be a securities law violation can protect him from retaliation under the Dodd-Frank Act.

The Act defines “whistleblower” as “any individual who provides … information relating to a violation of the securities laws to the Commission, in a manner established by rule or regulation, by the Commission.” (Emphasis added.)  And retaliation against “whistleblowers” is prohibited by the Act. However, the Act also prohibits retaliation against those making disclosures that are protected by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which provides protection for internal reports.  The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has taken the position (in its regulations and interpretive rules) that although “whistleblower” is defined in the Act as an individual who provides information to the Commission, this other provision of the anti-retaliation section protects individuals who make an internal report to their employer.

In 2013, the 5th Circuit (Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi) rejected the SEC’s position, and ruled that the plain language of the Act requires a covered “whistleblower” – an individual who provides information relating to a violation of the securities laws to the Commission. Thus, under the 5th Circuit’s holding an employee can’t base a retaliation claim on an internal report.

In this case, the 2nd Circuit disagreed with the 5th Circuit, giving deference to the SEC’s interpretation of the Act. According to the 2nd Circuit, employees do not need to report the alleged violations of securities laws to the SEC to be protected from retaliation under the Act.

Given the circuit split, it is quite possible that the issue will find itself before the Supreme Court. Until then, and regardless of what state(s) you operate in, we recommend that you carefully consider any employment action that follows an internal or external complaint of any kind to determine whether the complaint may be considered “protected activity” and whether taking the employment action opens you to a retaliation claim.