Medical-marijuana laws have been passed in several states. Although Delaware passed a law permitting medicinal use of marijuana, implementation was blunted by potential prosecution by the federal government. And, last month, Colorado and Washington voters made recreational use of marijuana legal in those states. Both medical- and recreational-marijuana-use laws raise lots of questions for employers.

One such question is how these laws will impact an employer’s ability to drug test employees and applicants. The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) requires drug testing for safety-sensitive positions. Applicants must be tested before beginning work. Current employees must be tested in certain circumstances, including following an accident. Marijuana is one of the drugs that must be included in the DOT-required screenings.

In 2009, in response to the passage of medical-marijuana laws in several states, the DOT clarified that marijuana remained unlawful under federal law. The DOT reiterated that medical use of marijuana was still “use” and was still considered a violation of the DOT’s regulations.

In Frye v. Baptist Memorial Hospital, the Sixth Circuit upheld the legality of automatically deducting meal breaks. The decision was not the first to hold that an automatic-deduction policy does not constitute a per se violation of the FLSA. Nor will it be the last.

But it is an important one to employers who utilize these policies.

In Frye, the court affirmed the decertification of the collective action. As a result, the opt-in plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed. The named plaintiff’s claims also were dismissed because he had not filed a notice of consent within the three-year statute of limitations.

Being selected as a Top 100 Blawg by the ABA Journal again this year is such an honor. What makes this honor even more remarkable is the popularity of our field. According to the State of the AmLaw 200 Blogosphere report, Labor and Employment is the single most popular category for legal blogs among the country’s largest law firms. Put that fact together with the fact that we are not a big law firm and I’m even more flattered than I dare express.

For those of you who have already cast your vote for us in the Labor & Employment category, thank you, thank you, thank you. If you haven’t yet voted, there’s still time–voting closes at the end of this week.

As I’ve said a number of times, blogging is a real labor of love. It doesn’t pay–just the opposite, it takes time that I would otherwise spend doing billable work. So why do it? Honestly, there are more reasons than I could fit in a single post.

Can an employee be fired for violating a social-media policy that doesn’t exist? This is a question that many employers have faced. And, if the NLRB continues to scare employers away from social-media policies, it’s a question that will continue to arise.

The answer, simply put, is “yes.” Employers need not have express written policies on each and every possible workplace infraction. For example, if an employee decided he would speak only Vulcan at work, he surely could be terminated without legal consequence. Similarly, most employers do not have a policy prohibiting employees from walking around the office on their hands. Yet, terminating an employee for clown-like conduct would not trigger a lawsuit.

The same concept applies when it comes to social media. If an employee posts the employer’s confidential information on the employee’s Facebook page, the employee can be terminated, right? Whether there is a policy that specifically prohibits employees from leaking confidential information via social media is irrelevant. So long as the adverse action is not being taken for unlawful reasons, a written policy is not necessarily required.

Employers’ Ban-the-Box initiatives are taking hold in many states and municipalities. The City of Wilmington has joined the ranks of employers no longer requiring information on an applicant’s criminal history at the time of job application. Mayor Baker signed an executive order on Monday that removes a question about criminal convictions from city job applications.

criminal background.jpgAccording to Mayor Baker, the city will now conduct criminal background checks only on applicants who have received a conditional job offer. Public safety jobs in the police and fire departments are the only positions excluded from the order.

Mayor Baker’s initiative is a good idea for many reasons. According to the article, nearly one in four job applicants has some kind of criminal past. That is a significant portion of the population who could be automatically denied employment, and deprived of the opportunity to be a productive member of society, by employers taking an inflexible position on criminal background. Moreover, the practice of not hiring applicants with a criminal record disproportionately affects certain segments of the population: predominantly Hispanics and blacks. Because of this adverse impact, the EEOC has taken a particular interest in this practice.

When an employee seeks to return to work following a failed suicide attempt, there can be concerns about safety–both for the employee and for co-workers. At the same time, savvy employers know that the ADA may provide the employee with legal protections. A recent case in the Western District of Pennsylvania, Wolski v. City of Erie, provides an opportunity to review this potential conflict.

The plaintiff-employee, Wolski, who was the City’s first female firefighter, began to suffer from panic attacks and severe depression following the death of her mother in 2005. She took sick leave for several months, during which she was prescribed multiple medications by a psychiatrist.

After she failed to return to work as scheduled, she was granted additional time off. During this period of leave, she attempted suicide by disabling the carbon-monoxide and smoke alarms and setting a fire in her home. She survived the attempt and was hospitalized until early 2006. The fire was the subject of a criminal investigation.

It’s so nice to get a compliment. And when the compliment comes from the ABA Journal for the fourth year in a row, it’s really, really, really nice. Yes, that’s right, the Delaware Employment Law Blog was selected as one of the Top 100 Legal Blogs in the country in the 6th Annual edition of the Top 100. This is the fourth consecutive year in which we’ve been awarded this incredible honor and, I can assure you, it is no less a surprise or a thrill this year than it was four years ago.

aba_badge_sqre_honoree_2012.pngTo those who nominated us for the award, thank you. To all of our readers, thank you. And to all of the many, many, many employment law bloggers whose posts continue to set a very high bar, thank you.

I share the honor this year with five other employment-law bloggers, each of which does a tremendous job reporting on the various aspects our shared practice area. Most of you likely already read the blogs of my co-winners but, if you don’t, you should. Here’s the list:

    In my previous post about EEOC v. Original Honeybaked Ham Co. of Ga.,, I described a somewhat ambiguous, if not unusual, procedure for the production and review of individuals’ social-media accounts ordered by a Magistrate Judge. In short, the Judge’s well-reasoned decision attempted to balance the individual claimants’ privacy interests with the defendant-employer’s right to broad discovery of potentially relevant information. Faced with these two competing interests, the court crafted a fairly complex, multi-tiered, and dynamic process to collect, review, and produce the information from the former employees’ social-media accounts.

    The EEOC has filed an Objection to that decision. (An “objection” is, to put it simply, an appeal of a magistrate judge’s decision to the trial judge). The objection gives us a bit more insight but a lot more questions.

    The EEOC acknowledges in its objection that, since the issuance of the discovery ruling, the Magistrate Judge had revised the procedure–perhaps more than once. This indicates, and the EEOC makes clear, that the court has been and is continuing to be flexible in working with the parties towards a workable procedure. Nevertheless, we do not know what the alterations were.

    Lawyers’ use and misuse of social media is, as many readers know, a topic that I love. Although it’s been a while since I posted about a lawyer’s social-media “fail,” it certainly isn’t because of a lack of potential stories. Here’s a recent story that made the headlines of the Huffington Post.

    Sarah Peterson Herr was employed as a research attorney for a Kansas Court of Appeals judge when she tweeted about that State’s former Attorney General, Phill Kline. At the time of the tweets, Kline was appearing before the Kansas Supreme Court as part of an ethics investigation.

    The tweets weren’t exactly journalistic in nature. Nor were they very complimentary of the former AG. In one, Herr asked, “Why is Phil Klein (sic) smiling? There is nothing to smile about, douchebag.” How charming. In another tweet, Herr predicted that the former AG would be disbarred for seven years for his conduct during investigations of abortion providers.

    Litigating against the the EEOC is difficult for several reasons. For one, unlike a lawsuit brought by an individual plaintiff, a suit brought by the EEOC has the resources of the entire federal government behind it. Perhaps because of the agency’s bureaucratic structure, negotiating with EEOC counsel can be difficult during litigation, at times resulting in a total breakdown of communication. A recent decision by a federal court in Illinois illustrates what happens when the lawyers in an employment-discrimination lawsuit take the driver’s seat to the exclusion of the individuals at the heart of the case.

    EEOC v. DHL Express (USA), Inc., was brought by the EEOC on behalf of 94 claimants, alleging that DHL discriminated against its African-American driver/dockworkers based on their race by giving them less desirable, more difficult, and more dangerous route and dock assignments than their Caucasian counterparts and by assigning African-American drivers to routes in predominately African-American areas.

    DHL brought a motion to compel the EEOC to produce all of the claimants for deposition after the EEOC provided interrogatory responses that included an unsworn “vignette” for each claimant with the claimants’ general allegations of discrimination. DHL argued that individual depositions were required because the vignettes were vague, filled with generalities, and, in several instances, inaccurate. DHL also argued that, because there is no standard as to what constitutes a “more dangerous assignment” and no objective criteria for what constitutes “less desirable,” each claimant’s individual testimony was necessary to establish its defense.

    Contact Information