Tag Archives: EEOC

Three Clues Your Employer Doesn’t Want You To Return To Work After An Injury

Today’s post comes from guest author Jon Rehm, from Rehm, Bennett & Moore.

Apologists for Thought leaders in the workers compensation insurance industry like to tout how they want injured employees to “return to work.”  But insurance industry rhetoric about the importance of return to work is belied by at least three common scenarios involving employees with serious work injuries.

  1. Employer requires an employee to resign in order to receive a lump sum settlement for their workers compensation claim: Early on in my career a defense lawyer told me that his client “Didn’t want their employees driving to the plant in an Escalade (this was the mid-2000s) after they settled their workers compensation case.” Putting aside the absurdity of someone who earns wages that would make their kids eligible for free or reduced lunch buying a luxury SUV after they had been off of work for an extended length of time, this practice indicates that some employers really don’t want injured workers to return to work after an injury.

    A recent discussion over the WILG listserv indicated that resignation as a condition of a workers compensation case settlement was a common practice across the United States. An agreement to resign normally comes as a separate severance agreement. Those settlement agreements may not be binding if an employer doesn’t include the right language in the release which is why an injured worker would want to consult with an employment lawyer or have a lawyer familiar with employment law and workers compensation represent them in their work injury.

    Certain states, like Massachusetts, outlaw the practice of conditioning a settlement on resignation. Even in states where the practice is considered lawful lawyers may consider challenging such practices on the basis of anti-retaliation laws, unfair claims practice laws or causes of action that prevent interference with contractual relationships.

  2. Employer requires employee to return to work with “no restrictions”. 100 percent healed policies are considered to violate the Americans with Disabilities Act by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and by some intermediate level federal appellate courts. Regardless of whether the Supreme Court or Congress ultimately decide such policies are illegal, oftentimes a person with an injury that requires surgery and time off from work is going to have some permanent restrictions.

    Many times requests that an employee return to work without restrictions are sent after an employee exhausts their 12 weeks of FMLA. Oftentimes employers will extend a short amount of unpaid leave in addition to FMLA. When injured employees receive these letters many of them feel like their company is trying to push them out. This feeling can sometimes be correct. That’s why it is helpful to have an attorney who knows how workers compensation and employment laws intersect.

  3. Employer suggests that employee apply for private disability for a work injury: Private short-term (STD) and long-term disability (LTD) policies can be helpful to employees. Some policies even allow employees to collect both LTD and STD with workers compensation benefits.

    But some employers will push employee onto disability because it is cheaper than paying workers compensation benefits. Even more insidiously if an employee stays off work long enough that they are eligible for long term disability, some long-term disability policies require that employees apply for social security disability or SSDI in order to continue receiving LTD. Many of these policies hold if an employee receives SSDI they need to payback the LTD insurance company for the time that SSDI and LTD benefits overlapped.

    I ran into a policy like this representing a client in a disability discrimination case. Courts have questioned the legality of these policies as well. If you are stuck in a situation where you are applying for long term disability because of a work injury and being forced to apply for SSDI, you should consult with a lawyer who is familiar with workers compensation and SSDI.

Gorsuch, Chevron and Workplace Law

Judge Gorsuch

Today’s post comes from guest author Jon Rehm, from Rehm, Bennett & Moore.

Employers and their attorneys are widely hailing President Trump’s nomination of 10th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court. Part of the reason that management-side lawyers are praising Gorsuch is his position on Chevron deference. Gorsuch’s views on Chevron could affect how workplace laws are interpreted and how they apply to workers.

Chevron deference is a legal rule that a court will give the benefit of the doubt about the interpretation of the law to how the executive agency charged with enforcing that law understands the law. Gorsuch has criticized Chevron on separation of powers basis, stating that Chevron deference gives too much power to the executive branch at the expense of the legislative and judiciary branches. Recently, government agencies have been interpreting employment laws in a way that is more favorable toward employees. Recent rules issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regarding the Americans with Disabilities Act are a prime example.

Many workers who get hurt on the job are told that they must come back to work with no restrictions. Chevron deference could be a powerful legal tool for workers faced with such policies. The new EEOC regulations on the ADA outlaw 100-percent-healed policies or policies that require plaintiffs to return to work without restrictions. In the EEOC guidance on the issue, the EEOC cites Kaufman v. Peterson Health Care VII, LLC 769 F. 3d 958 (7th Cir. 2014) as an example of policies that they believe to be unlawful under ADAAA. This case represents a subtle but real shift from current 8th Circuit law as stated in Fjellestad v. Pizza Hut of America, 188 F. 3d 949, 951-952 (8th Cir. 1999) where the 8th Circuit joined other federal circuits that held that failure to engage in an interactive process in accommodating a disability was not per se discrimination, and that there was no duty to engage in the interactive process. The EEOC’s interpretations of the new regulations still require that a plaintiff be able to perform the essential functions of the job with or without reasonable accommodation.

But as indicated by Kaufman, courts may be less likely to dismiss cases before trial, or in legal terminology, to grant summary judgment, on the issue of whether a plaintiff could perform the essential functions of the job with or without accommodation if the defendant does not engage in an interactive process or summarily decides that an employee should not be allowed to return without restrictions.

The fact that there is a split between regional appellate courts, a so-called circuit split, over “100 percent healed” policies increases the chances that the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether 100-percent-healed policies violate the ADA. Another issue where there is a circuit split that the U.S. Supreme Court will decide is the legality of mandatory arbitration clauses in employment agreements.

Many workers unwittingly give up their rights to have employment-law disputes heard in court when they agree to mandatory arbitration clauses as a term of employment. In D.R. Horton Inc., 357 N.L.B. No 184 (2012) the National Labor Relations Board ruled that mandatory arbitration clauses prohibited Fair Labor Standards Act collective action cases because they interfered with protected concerted activity under 29 U.S.C. §157 and 29 U.S.C. § 158. In Lewis v. Epic Systems, 823 F. 3d 1147, 1154 (7th Cir. 2016), the 7th Circuit struck down a mandatory arbitration clause partly based on giving Chevron deference to the NLRB’s decision in D.R. Horton. The 9th Circuit agreed with the 7th Circuit in Morris v. Ernst and Young, LLP, No 13-16599 (Aug. 22, 2016). Unfortunately for plaintiffs, the 8th Circuit disagreed with the D.R. Horton decision in Owen v. Bristol Care, 702 F. 3d 1050 (8th Cir. 2013).

If confirmed, Gorsuch would be unlikely to give much weight to the opinions of the EEOC or NLRB in interpreting employment laws. Chevron deference is an unpopular concept with pro-business conservatives. Recently, the GOP-controlled House of Representatives passed legislation that, if enacted, would abolish Chevron deference.

Conversely, Chevron deference is a popular concept with progressive employee and civil-rights advocates, as it allowed the Obama administration to expand employee protections in the face of a hostile Congress. But with the advent of the Trump administration and his immigration policies, progressives have a newfound appreciation for separation of powers.

Also, employee advocates probably will not like many of the new rules and regulations issued by Trump appointees such as Labor Secretary nominee Larry Puzder. A prospective abolition of Chevron could be helpful to challenging rules made by a Trump administration. An example from the last Republican administration is instructive. In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court in Long Island Care at Home Ltd. v. Coke, 551 U.S. 158 (2007) gave Chevron deference to Bush administration rules to exclude home health aides from coverage under the FLSA. It was nine years later that the rule was overturned, giving Chevron deference to Obama administration rules regarding home health aides and the FLSA.