2d ALJ Decision on Social-Media Policies Under the NLRA

Posted by Molly DiBiancaOn April 9, 2012In: Social Media in the Workplace

Email This Post | Print this Post

The lawfulness of employer's social-media policies under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) continues to be a hot topic. Although the position of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) continues to be hostile towards these policies. And, without court decisions on the question, employers are not left with much other legal guidance. Until now, there has been just one decision by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), which found that an employee's Facebook posts were protected by the NLRA.

A decision issued by an ALJ at the end of March, though, brings the total count to two. In G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Inc., the ALJ looked at two provisions of the company's social-media policy. First was a prohibition on employees commenting on "work-related legal matters" without the permission of the company's legal department. Second was a prohibition on employees posting any pictures or videos of employees in uniform or employees on a job site. The ALJ found that the first provision violated the NLRB but upheld the second. Here's how it went.

The ALJ found that the "no-comment" provision was overly broad and could be reasonably read by employees to prohibit protected concerted activity. In short, the ALJ concluded that the policy could effectively prevent employees from "sending messages to each other about their issues at work . . . via social-networking sites."

The ALJ found that the "no-photos" provision was lawful, though, holding that the employer "clearly has legitimate reasons for not having pictures of uniformed employees or employees who are at work posted on Facebook and similar sites."

You could say that the decision is a zero-sum game, since the ALJ came out for the employer on one of the challenged provisions and against the employer on the other. But the more positive approach would be to recognize that there is a valuable victory in the ALJ's decision. The value, specifically, is the that ALJ recognized a "clearly" legitimate reason to prohibit employees from posting workplace photos online. This is quite different from the position of the NLRB's General Counsel, who, in his most recent memorandum on social-media policies, took issue with such provisions, concluding that they violated the NLRA.

[H/T Jon Hyman at Ohio Employer's Law Blog]

Employers Who Demand Facebook Passwords. Oy Vey.

Posted by Molly DiBiancaOn April 2, 2012In: Social Media in the Workplace

Email This Post | Print this Post

Employers who require job-seekers to turn over their Facebook passwords remain a mystery to me. Really, what are they thinking? As if the potential negative publicity alone is not enough of a deterrent, you'd think that employers would be aware that there are potential legal implications, as well.

As the WSJ Law Blog reports, Sens. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., and Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., took up the issue on a federal level. The Senators wrote to the EEOC and U.S. Department of Justice, asking both agencies to investigate the practice of requiring applicants to provide their social-networking-site log-in information during the hiring process.

The letter to the U.S. DOJ sought a legal opinion as to whether the practice violates the Stored Communications Act (SCA) or the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). The letter cites Pietrylo vs. Hillstone Restaurant Group, as support of the proposition that mandating Facebook log-ins violates the SCA.

Potential Legal Violation

I agree with their assertion that Peitrylo would support a claim under the SCA. In that case, the employer was found to have violated the SCA when it accessed employees' private MySpace chat room. Managers had obtained the password and log-in information of another employee. That employee, a hostess at the defendant-restaurant, testified at trial that she turned over her password to the managers only because she believed that she'd be fired if she failed to accede to the request.

If the same logic were applied to applicants who are "asked" for their passwords, the result would be the same--the employer would be in violation of the SCA, just like the employer in Pietrylo. This interpretation of the SCA is not universally accepted, though. The SCA is a challenging statute and its application is difficult to predict.

That said, though, most employers do not want to be the test case. To avoid potential risk under the SCA (and for a variety of other reasons, legal and non-legal), employers should not "request" an applicant's password for Facebook or other social-networking site.

Facebook

Facebook also is speaking out against the practice. On March 23, the uber-popular site wrote a blog post about the issue, stating: "If you are a Facebook user, you should never have to share your password, let anyone access your account, or do anything that might jeopardize the security of your account or violate the privacy of your friends.  We have worked really hard at Facebook to give you the tools to control who sees your information."

Legislative Efforts

In Washington, there was one recent attempt to put an end to this highly unpopular practice. According to the Orlando Sentinel, Rep. Ed Perlmutter, D-Colo., introduced the proposal as part of a bill to reform the Federal Communications Commission. House Republicans blocked the proposed amendment on Tuesday, reported the Huffington Post.

Blumenthal is also drafting on a bill that would prohibit employers and prospective employers from requesting access to Facebook accounts. California State Senator Leland Yee, introduced similar legislation on Friday.

Union Files Complaint Over Social-Media Policy

Posted by Molly DiBiancaOn March 30, 2012In: Social Media in the Workplace, Union and Labor Issues

Email This Post | Print this Post

UFCW Local 1500 filed a petition with the NLRB office in Brooklyn, NY, alleging that NY grocery chain Stop & Shop's social-media policy violates the National Labor Relations Act, reports Thomson Reuters. The unions takes issue with the policy, which it alleges is overbroad, impermissbily vague, and violates employees' Section 7 rights.

The policy was promulgated over the summer and, according to the news report, prohibits employees from disclosing confidential information, including salaries, on social-networking sites such as Twitter. It is also prohibits employees from "discrediting" the store's practices or products.

A union representing employees at a New York grocery chain has asked federal labor regulators to investigate whether the store's new social media policy is overbroad and violates workers' rights under the National Labor Relations Act. Finally, the union takes issue with the store's failure to negotiate the terms of the policy prior to its implementation.

The employer's spokesperson says tat the policy is meant to serve as reasonable guidelines for employees' online conduct and that the policy expressly provides that it will not be used to violate the NLRA.

Although the intent sounds "reasonable," the NLRB is likely to take issue with the policy's prohibition on sharing pay information, which has long been considered impermissible under the NLRA. We'll see whether the store acts quickly enough and to the satisfaction of the union.

See also:
The Love-Hate Relationship of Unions and Social Media

YCS&T Annual Employment Law Seminar

Posted by Molly DiBiancaOn March 26, 2012In: Seminars

Email This Post | Print this Post

Yes, it's time again for Young Conaway's Annual Employment Law Seminar!

This year, the seminar will be held on May 9 at the Chase Center on the Riverfront. You can download the seminar brochure (PDF) and register online on the seminar's event page on our firm's website.

We are very pleased to announce that our keynote speaker for this year's event will be William Kenan Torrans, Chief Investigator, Veterans' Employment and Training Service, U.S. Department of Labor. Mr. Torrans will be conduting a plenary session on what I believe is one of the most critical issues that will face employers in 2012--the application of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Act (USERRA). USERRA's provisions are far reaching but many employers are unaware of the law's implications. As the number of military service members returning home continues to increase, so, too, do the number of complaints received by the Department of Labor. I am looking forward to what is sure to be an insightful presentation on an important subject.

Other topics and speakers include:

  • The Changing Face of Social Media, Molly DiBianca

  • NLRB In Union and Non-Union Workplaces, Barry Willoughby and Molly DiBianca

  • Special Topics for the Public Sector, Bill Bowser, Scott Holt, and Mike Stafford

  • Background Checks, Adria Martinelli and Lauren Moak

  • Independent Contractors, Scott Holt

  • Education Law Update, Bill Bowser and Mike Stafford
  • As previous attendees know, we believe that a healthy dose of fun is the best way to learn any subject (and especialy employment law). In previous years, some of us were brave enough to present our topics in the Pecha Kucha style. The sheer humiliation factor of that experience was enough to nearly bring down the house.

    This year, we're ready to turn the tables a bit and put you in the limelight! Don't miss Employment Law Jeopardy, hosted by Bill Bowser, where brave volunteers can show just how closely they've being paying attention at these seminars over the years. It's an hour that is sure to be hilarious and educational for everyone.

    We hope to see you on May 9!

    Believe It, Baby. Subjective Belief of Discrimination Ain't Enough

    Posted by Lauren Moak RussellOn March 14, 2012In: Discrimination

    Email This Post | Print this Post

    An employee who sues his employer for discrimination almost always believes that his protected characterstic was the real reason behind a negative outcome, such as termination, discipline, etc.. A new decision from the U.S. District Court in Delaware reminds us that an employee's subjective belief regarding discriminatory motive is not sufficient to establish liability against an employer. This decision likely won't stop employees from filing lawsuits but it should provide some reassurance to employers who make carefully considered and well-documented employment decisions.

    Facing Facts
    The case of Luta v. Delaware Department of Health and Social Services was brought by a black, Kenyan employee of DHSS, who had been denied several promotions. Ms. Luta had been employed with the agency for 5 years when she applied for three internal promotions. She was considered qualified for each position and was placed on a list of eligible candidates.

    Two of the positions remained unfilled because the manager was not satisifed with any of the eligible candidates. Instead, two women continued to perform the duties of those positions in a temporary capacity. The third position was awarded to a white male with signficant experience.

    Mr. Kennedy had 20 years' experience in the Air Force's Medical Service Corps, but had limited experience with HIV/AIDS.

    In issuing its decision, the Court focused primarily on the third position, HIV/AIDS Coordinator. In support of her claim for unlawful failure to promote, Ms. Luta relied argued that she had more experience treating and researching HIV/AIDS diseases than the individual who had been awarded the position. Ms. Luta claimed that she had been told by an HR manager that HIV/AIDS experience was "essential" to the position. By contrast, DHSS argued that management experience was the key skill desired in candidates and, in that regard, the individual selected had far more experience than Ms. Luta.

    The Court concluded that Ms. Luta had failed to meet her burden in presenting evidence of discrimination. The Court noted that the human resources manager with whom Luta spoke was not authorized or qualified to elaborate upon the skills required to perform medical positions. The statements of medical professionals responsible for making the hiring decision were given more weight, and supported the contention that management experience was more important that knowledge of HIV/AIDS. The Court also noted that, contrary to Ms. Luta's assertions, the successful candidate did have experience with HIV/AIDS diseases, albeit more limited than her experience. In addition, the comparator was the more desirable candidate because of his extensive management experience.

    Setting aside their relative qualifications, however, the Court emphasized that Ms. Luta needed to present some evidence of discrimination. "A reasonable factfinder could not conclude, based solely on the fact that a white man with more managerial experience was hired over a black Kenyan woman with arguably more HIV/AIDS experience . . ., that racial and national origin discrimination had occurred." Based on this conclusion, the Court dismissed Ms. Luta's claims.

    This decision represents a beacon of hope for Delaware employers in that it goes to show that a lawsuit will not succeed without some evidence of discrimination other than "I believe" coming from the plaintiff-employee.

    iBooks: Coming to a Courtroom Near You?

    Posted by Molly DiBiancaOn March 12, 2012In: Tech Tips

    Email This Post | Print this Post

    Lawyers are notoriously slow to adopt new technology. This is an unfortunate characteristic of my profession. But there are some innovators in the field. And those innovators may be changing the game for the rest of us.

    For this Monday morning, I'd like to direct you to one such innovator and how he is putting the latest technology to use. Specifically, the technology being put to use is the iBook. And, now, with Apple's new iBook Author app, publishing an iBook is about as simple as creating a document using Microsoft Word.

    And what do all litigators create with Microsoft Word? Briefs. We write lots of briefs. And what happens when you combine iBooks and legal briefs? Total geek heaven. To see a very geeky-cool example of an iBook brief, check out the post, e-Briefs o the iPad: An Exciting New Tool to Give Attorneys an Edge on Cogent Legal Blog. And then be sure to download the sample brief and view it on your iPad.

    I'd love to think that this idea will be the next great trend in litigation but, sadly, I don't think its time has come. Mainly because we don't yet have the ability to file this format in the courts' electronic filing system. But I think the iBook format has tremendous potential as a very accessible way to create compelling content for just about any purpose. How can you put this format to work for your organization?

    (H/T to Ted Brooks at Court Technology and Trial Presentation Blog)

    Federal Court Upholds NLRB Posting Requirement

    Posted by Molly DiBiancaOn March 7, 2012In: Union and Labor Issues

    Email This Post | Print this Post

    In January 2011, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) promulgated a rule requiring private employers to post a notice informing employees of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The rule required that the notice be posted in a "conspicuous place" and provided for penalties for employers who failed to comply. If the NLRB determined that an employer had failed to comply, it could toll the statute of limitations for an employee who files an unfair labor practice (ULP) charge for any alleged conduct by the employer--not only for conduct relating to the failure to post the notice. A failure to post, alone, also would constitute an ULP.

    The rule prompted a small fury among the business community, which challenged the NLRB's authority to promulgate such a rule. A lawsuit was filed by several organizations, including the National Association of Manufacturers and the National Right to Work Legal Defense and Education Foundation. The suit sought to enjoin the enforcement of the rule, the effective date of which has been delayed several times and currently is set for April 30, 2012.

    The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a ruling in the case on March 2, 2012, striking down part of the notice-posting rule. The court found that the NLRB does have the legal authority to require employers to post a notice--including the notice at issue. The court's decision was not entirely in favor of the NLRB, however, and it rejected the proposed penalties associated with noncompliance. Specifically, the court held that the NLRB does not have authority to extend the statute of limitations to file an ULP charge or to determine that noncompliance constitutes unlawful interference with employees' NLRA rights.

    Thus, the NLRB will not be able to find that an employer engaged in an ULP merely by failing to post the notice as required by the rule. Without this enforcement mechanism, the impact of the posting requirement is reduced significantly. At the same time, though, failure to post the notice could be evidence in support of another ULP charge.

    A separate suit is still pending in a federal court in South Carolina and it is unclear how the outcome of that case will impact the decision from the District of Columbia. At this time, though, it appears that the NLRB posting requirement will take effect on April 30, 2012. At that time, all employers subject to the NLRA will be required to add yet another poster to their current collections--this one relating to the right of employees to unionize. A copy of the NLRB's suggested posting is available at www.nlrb.gov/poster.

    Should Cyber-Screening by Employers Be Legislated?

    Posted by Molly DiBiancaOn March 6, 2012In: Background Checks, Hiring, Social Media in the Workplace

    Email This Post | Print this Post

    Employers have been cyber-screening job candidates for years now. Although reports vary on how many of the nation's employers are Googling applicants, officially or unofficially. But the practice is a reality.

    What also is a reality is the many variations of cyber-screening that exist. On the most moderate end of the spectrum are employers who have instituted a legally defensible practice, as I've written about previously. On the most extreme and unsavory end are employers who require applicants to turn over passwords and log-in informaiton for their social-networking accounts. Bozeman, Montana was the first employer to make the news for this practice; Maryland's Department of Corrections was the most recent.

    Many employment lawyers, including me, strongly object to this practice on numerous grounds, not the least of which is the fact that it violates the terms of service of the social-networking sites. And now, it seems, that there may be some politicians who feel the same way.

    Law.com reports that a California legislator has introduced a bill that would protect employers who don't cyber-screen job applicants. And bills are pending in Maryland and Illinois that would prohibit employers from asking applicants for log-in information for social-networking sites. The Maryland law is likely a result of the negative publicity the State received after news broke that the Department of Corrections was requiring applicants to turn over their password and log-in information.

    So, will these laws be the wave of the future? Perhaps. Are they necessary? Not really. Or at least they shouldn't be. The terms of service for social-networking sites, such as Facebook, prohibit this type of activity in the first instance. But, as long as stories like the one from the Maryland Department of Corrections keep making the headlines, laws like the ones currently pending may continue to appear in state legislatures.

    Want to know the right way to cyber-screen applicants? Check out these articles:
    Screening Job Applicants with Facebook: Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.

    N.Y. Teacher's Firing Overturned, Despite Facebook Wish that Students Drown

    Posted by Molly DiBiancaOn March 6, 2012In: Public Sector, Social Media in the Workplace

    Email This Post | Print this Post

    Christine Rubino had been a teacher in Brooklyn for 15 years without any disciplinary history when she was terminated in response to comments she posted about students on her Facebook page. Specifically, Rubino posted that her 5th-grade students "deserved to drown." And, when asked whether she would "let little Kwame float away," Rubino responded with: "Yes. I would not throw a life jacket in for a million," reports the Huffington Post.

    Even more shockingly, the comments came just one day after a 12-year-old girl drowned during a class trip to Long Island beach.

    A disciplinary hearing officer found the teacher guilty of "misconduct, neglect of duty, and conduct unbecoming her profession" and, as a result, Rubino was terminated. She subsequently appealed to the N.Y. Supreme Court, which overturned the decision.

    Writing for the court, Justice Barbara Jaffee described Rubino's posts as "repulsive." Yet, she went on to conclude that, under the circumstances, the termination was too disproportionate to the offense, thereby requiring that the termination decision be overturned.

    The district does not have a social-media policy but, according to the N.Y. Post, fired three teachers last year for inappropriate online posts.

    This decision is a difficult one to reconcile with some of the recent cases in which similar comments were held to warrant the termination of a teacher. But Evan Brown writes on his Internet Cases blog about an even more perplexing part of the court's decision. He describes the court's take on the issue of proportionality between the nature of the wrong and the consequences imposed as "contextual integrity." Here's the language from the court's decision that Evan cites to:

    [

    E]ven though petitioner should have known that her postings could become public more easily than if she had uttered them during a telephone call or over dinner, given the illusion that Facebook postings reach only Facebook friends and the fleeting nature of social media, her expectation that only her friends, all of whom are adults, would see the postings is not only apparent, but reasonable.


    Note the potential impact of the last part of this sentence. The potential impact is enormous. Essentially, the court says that ignorance of consequences for Facebook posts is legally sufficient to establish a reasonable expectation of privacy. This single sentence effectively recognizes the right to publish to a limited audience; a concept that has been consistently rejected by courts. At least until now.

    Rubino v. City of N.Y., 2012 NY Slip Op 30246(U) (N.Y. Sup. Feb. 1, 2012) (PDF)

    Resources for Employers: Applicants and Employees Returning from Military Service

    Posted by Molly DiBiancaOn March 5, 2012In: Disabilities (ADA), Uniformed Services (USERRA)

    Email This Post | Print this Post

    Employer's lawyers have seen an increasing number of questions regarding the obligations relating to employees and applicants returning from military service. There are two important laws that may apply to such individuals--the ADA and USERRA. Although the ADA has been on employer's radar for years, most are less familiar with USERRA. Now is the time, though, to become familiar. The law imposes many obligations on employers and many of those obligations are different than other employment-discrimination laws.

    The EEOC has published a new Guide for Employers titled, Veterans and the ADA. The Guide is intended to provide answers to some of the questions employers can be expected to face as veterans return home from military service and seek employment in the private sector. Some of the points covered by the Guide include:


    • What qualifies a disabled veteran for the protections of the ADA;

    • Information about hiring preferences for disabled veterans;

    • When and how an employer may ask whether a veteran with a disability needs an accommodation;

    • Some of the basic differences between the ADA and USERRA.


    The Guide includes references to several helpful online resources--all of which are free. One of the references is to the U.S. DOL's VETS program. Once on the VETS site, be sure to bookmark the Pocket Guide to USERRA, a detailed and fairly comprehensive FAQ about USERRA's requirements.

    Friday Funnies: Motivational Poster of the Future?

    Posted by Molly DiBiancaOn March 2, 2012In: Employee Engagement, Just for Fun

    Email This Post | Print this Post

    Sheldon Sandler took the picture below during a recent trip to Granada. Yes, it's a real picture of a real sign on the outside of a real factory.

    Granada.png

    Admittedly, the picture evokes mixed emotions for me. Part of me cheers, happy for the employer who attempts to set a positive tone for workers about to start their workday.

    On the other hand, though, the sign seems to send, well, a bit of a mixed message, doesn't it? Nothing like beating someone with a baseball bat imprinted with a motivational message as a technique to motivate workers, right?

    Either way, the sheer extremity of the sign makes me laugh. And that's enough of a reason to post it as this Friday's Funny. Enjoy and have a great weekend!

    Online Resource: Restatement of Employment Law

    Posted by Molly DiBiancaOn March 1, 2012In: Resources

    Email This Post | Print this Post

    Human-resource professionals often ask me about good online resources for their employment-law questions. You can add another to the list. Now available as a free download are the current drafts of the Restatement of Employment Law.

    The Restatements, for those who may not know, are an incredible legal resource covering just about every possible aspect of a particular area of law. Restatements are published by the American Law Institute and are drafted by a group of amazing legal minds from across the country. For the employment-law Restatements, this means in-depth coverage of everything from contract formation to privacy to state common-law torts.

    So, if you're interested in taking your knowledge of the employment laws to a deeper level or if you fancy yourself as having such knowledge already, check out the latest draft of the Restatement.

    [H/T Workplace Profs Blog]

    Facebook Users to Friends: "You're Fired"

    Posted by Molly DiBiancaOn February 29, 2012In: Social Media in the Workplace

    Email This Post | Print this Post

    Employers are well aware of the implications of their employees' social-media and other online activities. Infamously, employees have been less willing to be aware of those serious implications. Perhaps the tide is changing. According to the results of a new report from Pew Internet, social-media users are becoming more aware of the potential consequences of what they post online.

    How, you may ask, are users showing their privacy savvy? In these difficult economic times, they're doing what most of us have done. They've made cuts. That's right, social-media users are cutting back on friends.

    Social-media users are unfriending Facebook friends, removing unwanted comments, and restricting access to their profiles. For example, 44 percent of respondents said that they deleted comments from their profiles last year. This is up from 36 percent in 2009.
    So, is it possible? Are people finally beginning to catch on to the myriad of negative consequences that can stem from online postings? I won't hold my breath but may consider breathing a sigh of relief that some people, at least, are becoming aware of the ramifications of social-media conduct.

    Employer Is Liable for Off-Duty Harassment-by-Blog

    Posted by Molly DiBiancaOn February 28, 2012In: Harassment, Social Media in the Workplace

    Email This Post | Print this Post

    Employee is harassed at work. Employee reports harassment to his employer. Employer investigates immediately. Employer stops harassing behavior. Anything short of this will result in liability. Compliance will preclude liability pursuant to what is known as the Ellerth-Faragher defense.

    But what if the harassment occurs outside of work? Certainly, at-work harassment is the most common scenario. But it's not the only scenario that can trigger liability. Today, in the context of social media, this scenario has become easier to imagine. A case decided by a state court in California earlier this month provides a vivid example of precisely this set of facts.

    In Espinoza v. County of Orange, the plaintiff was an employee with a physical disability. In 2006, co-workers started two blogs, where they posted critical and spiteful comments about the plaintiff. Some of the posts attacked managers other than the plaintiff and about the workplace generally.

    The employer did not sponsor or endorse the blog or participate in it in any official way. The plaintiff complained repeatedly to management of the blog posts, as well allegedly harassing conduct that occurred in the workplace.

    Management apparently made some meager efforts to get the employees to stop posting about the plaintiff. For example, there were a couple of emails sent to the co-workers, instructing them to stop the postings. Those efforts were not successful, though, and the plaintiff filed suit for disability-based harassment. Following a trial, the jury awarded the plaintiff nearly a million dollars in damages.

    The employer appealed and argued, in part, that it could not be held liable for conduct that occurred outside the workplace. The court rejected this argument. The reality is that the duty of an employer to protect its employees from unlawful harassment. This duty is unaffected by where the location occurs. If, for example, a sales employee is harassed by a customer in the customer's worksite, the employer's duty is unchanged--the law requires that the employer stop the harassment and protect the employee. Similarly, if the harassment occurs in cyberspace, the duty remains the same--the employer must protect the employee and stop the harassment.

    Espinoza v. County of Orange, 2012 WL 420149 (Cal. App. Ct. February 9, 2012)

    (H/T to Eric Goldman at his Technology and Marketing Law Blog. Prof. Goldman also looks at this case from an IP perspective and offers insight into the court's analysis of the employer's immunity argument pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 230).

    Redefining "Eligible Employee" under the FMLA

    Posted by Molly DiBiancaOn February 27, 2012In: Family Medical Leave

    Email This Post | Print this Post

    An employee does not become eligible to take FMLA leave until he or she has worked at least 1,250 hours and 12 months. But, according to the 11th Circuit, being eligible to take leave is not the same as being eligible to request leave. Employers should be mindful of the court's recent opinion when a recently hired employee submits a request for FMLA.

    In Pereda v. Brookdale Senior Living Communities, Inc., the plaintiff-employee submitted a request to take FMLA. At the time the request was made, she had not yet passed her one-year anniversary, making her ineligible to take leave. However, the requested leave would have begun after the 12-month mark, when she would have been eligible for FMLA. The employer terminated her before the end of her first year.

    The 11th Circuit was asked to decide whether the employee could pursue a claim under the FMLA. In order to make that decision, the court had to determine whether the employee could be considered an "eligible employee" for purposes of the FMLA. As you may imagine, the employer argued that the employee was not an "eligible employee" at the time she was terminated and, therefore, was not protected by the statute.

    The court disagreed, finding that eligibility is determined at the time the employee would have taken leave. Here, she would have been eligible for leave because, by that time, she would have been employed for the full 12 months. According to Hunton Labor & Employment Perspectives Blog, the 11th Circuit is the first federal court of appeals to have faced this question.

    Although the ruling may come as a surprise to many employers, I think that common sense and good intent would deliver the same outcome. An employer would be well advised to be aware of the message it would be sending by terminating an employee who gives timely notice of her need for FMLA leave. In other words, the employer would be encouraging employees who had a legitimate need for leave to keep mum about the need until completing the first year of employment. It seems that employers would want to have as much notice as possible so it could make the necessary arrangements in planning for the employee's absence.

    Pereda v. Brookdale Senior Living Communities, Inc., No. 10-14723 (11th Cir. Jan. 10, 2012).