MeToo-shutterstock_1015266769-600x314

Our colleagues Frank C. Morris Jr., Jonathan K. Hoerner, and Katherine Smith—attorneys at Epstein Becker Green—authored an article in Healio titled “4 Ways to Address the #MeToo Era in Health Care.”

Following is an excerpt:

The #MeToo movement has its roots in Hollywood and the entertainment industry, but its branches extend into myriad other industries including journalism, the financial sector, government, athletics, tech, academia, and even the federal judiciary. The health care sector is no exception, despite its guiding principle to “first do no harm.”

Studies assert that sexual harassment is pervasive in the health care space. An academic medical faculty study published in 2016 found approximately 30% of female physicians surveyed reported having personally experienced sexual harassment by a superior or colleague, compared with 4% of men. Statistics from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) indicate that at least 3,085 employees at general medical and surgical hospitals filed sexual harassment claims between 1995 and 2016 (or about 147 per year).

Some of these sex harassment claims turned out to be very costly for employers. In September 2013, a dental assistant at the University of Connecticut Health Center sued her employer claiming gender discrimination and a hostile work environment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. A jury found in her favor on March 30, 2017, awarding her $200,000, although the court later reduced the award to $125,000. Though damages in Title VII claims are capped, plaintiffs may also bring claims under state or local laws, which provide for greater damages.

Read the full article here.

Our colleagues Daniel J. Green at Epstein Becker Green has a post on the Trade Secrets & Employee Mobility blog that will be of interest to our readers in the health care industry: “Colorado Places New Limitation on Physician Restrictive Covenants.”

Following is an excerpt:

Earlier this month, Colorado amended its law governing physician non-compete agreements (C.R.S. § 8-2-113(3)).  Since its enactment in 1982, that statute generally has prohibited agreements restricting the rights of physicians to practice medicine, but has allowed contractual provisions requiring a physician to pay damages arising from his or her competition if the damages are reasonably related to the injury suffered by the employer or other contracting party.  Under the amended statute, “a physician may disclose his or her continuing practice of medicine and new professional contact information to any patient with a rare disorder…to whom the physician was providing treatment.”   The goal of the amendment is to avoid interruptions to the continued care of individuals with rare disorders.  The statute looks to the National Organization for Rare Disorders, Inc. to maintain a database of diseases considered “rare disorders.” …

Read the full post here.

Effective April 1, 2018, California became the first state to require all acute-care hospitals and skilled-nursing facilities to develop and implement comprehensive workplace violence prevention plans. This mandate is intended to protect hospital employees from workplace violence caused by patients and/or family members.

Taking several years to develop, this statute was conceived by California’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health (“Cal OSHA”), in conjunction with professional nursing organizations such as California Nurses Association to address the high risk of workplace injuries faced by health care workers daily. Overall, health care workers suffer the greatest number of workplace injuries, with over 650,000 individuals injured each year. Violence in the health care industry, however, is historically underreported; one survey estimated that just 19% of all violent events are reported.

Under the new law, affected employers in the health care industry must prepare a workplace violence prevention plan that includes:

  1. Annual personnel education and training regarding workplace violence;
  2. A system for responding to and investigating violent or potentially violent incidents; and
  3. Procedures for annual assessment and evaluation of factors that could help to prevent workplace violence.

Employers must provide annual education and training to all employees at their facility who administer direct patient care, including physicians and temporary employees. This training must include, but not be limited to, information regarding:

  • Identifying potentially harmful and violent situations and appropriate responses thereto;
  • Reporting violent incidents to law enforcement officials; and
  • Resources available to employees coping with the aftermath of a violent incident, such as critical incident stress debriefing and/or employee assistance programs.

Employers’ annual assessment identifying the factors that could possibly minimize the number of incidents of workplace violence should include a review of staffing and staffing patterns; the sufficiency of security systems at the facility; job design, equipment, and facilities; and areas of high security risk including entry and exit points for employees during late-night and early-morning shifts and employee parking lot safety.

Additionally, employers must develop these workplace prevention plans with input from their employees and any applicable collective bargaining agents. Employers are also expressly prohibited from taking punitive or retaliatory action against employees for reporting violent incidents.

Employers, however, should be aware of the dichotomy between interests regulated by Cal OSHA and by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). While Cal OSHA creates rules to ensure health care workers have a safe work environment free from harm, CMS creates rules to control aggressive patients in order to protect patients’ rights.  These competing interests often create conflicting obligations for health care facilities.  With Cal OSHA designating health care as a high risk industry for workplace violence and CMS focusing heavily on patient safety and patient rights, health care facilities must carefully navigate these competing obligations to appropriately protect both their employees and their patients.

Employers with affected health care operations in California should consult counsel for assistance with the development of a legally-compliant violence prevention plan and annual training materials in light of this new regulation.

Our colleagues David J. Clark and Erica R. McKinney at Epstein Becker Green has a post on the Trade Secrets & Employee Mobility blog that will be of interest to our readers in the health care industry: “Mile High Non-Compete Law: Colorado Court of Appeals Determines Enforceability of Liquidated Damages Clause in Physician Non-Compete Agreement.”

Following is an excerpt:

The Colorado Court of Appeals, in Crocker v. Greater Colorado Anesthesia, P.C., recently examined several unique enforceability considerations with respect to a physician non-compete agreement.  Of particular interest was the Court’s treatment of a liquidated damages provision in the agreement.  Pursuant to a Colorado statute (8-2-113(3), C.R.S. 2017), the Court held that the provision was unenforceable because the liquidated damages were not reasonably related to the injury actually suffered.

Michael Crocker, a former physician-shareholder at Greater Colorado Anesthesia (Old GCA), signed an employment agreement with Old GCA that contained a non-compete provision that prohibited Crocker from practicing anesthesiology within 15 miles of a hospital serviced by Old GCA, for two years following termination of the agreement. …

Read the full post here.

In the midst of one of the worst flu seasons to date, many hospitals and other health care organizations enforced mandatory flu vaccine policies for their employees to boost vaccination rates. However, recent litigation and governmental actions should serve as a reminder that health care entities should carefully consider safeguards whenever implementing mandatory vaccine policies and to not categorically deny all requests for religious exemptions based on anti-vaccination beliefs.

In January, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced the formation of a new Conscience and Religious Freedom Division in the HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and released a proposed rule to provide protections for health care workers who refuse to participate in services that run counter to their religious beliefs or moral conviction. Recent legal challenges to mandatory vaccination policies in the health care context have also gained media attention.

Earlier this month, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) accused a county-owned skilled nursing facility (SNF) in Wisconsin of violating a certified nursing assistant’s religious rights when it required her to be vaccinated or be terminated if she refused.  Although the certified nursing assistant believed that the Bible prohibited her from receiving the vaccine, the SNF refused to grant her an exemption from its vaccination policy because she was unable to produce a written statement from the clergy leader supporting her request, as the SNF’s exemption policy required. The DOJ complaint asserts that the SNF’s vaccination policy denies religious accommodations to employees who do not belong to churches with clergy leaders and that the SNF unlawfully denied the employee a reasonable accommodation for her religious beliefs when it refused her request for an exemption.

However, not all requests for accommodation must be honored.  In Fallon v. Mercy Catholic Medical Center, an employee sued his hospital employer for wrongful termination alleging religious discrimination and a failure to accommodate in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when the hospital terminated him for refusing to get his annual flu shot. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the hospital and held that the employee’s “sincerely held beliefs” were not religious but based on health concerns, and therefore, the hospital did not violate Title VII.

In another recent development, a Massachusetts state Superior Court dismissed a lawsuit filed by the Massachusetts Nurses Association against Brigham and Women’s Hospital for lack of standing when the union challenged the hospital’s flu vaccination policy. The dismissal occurred a few months after the court denied the union’s request for an injunction.  Thus, a plaintiff’s standing to challenge mandatory vaccination policies will be scrutinized.

Key Takeaways

Despite the actions of DOJ and HHS, health care employers are well within their rights to implement a mandatory flu vaccination policy, especially considering the potential implications to patient safety. Employers need to be prepared to handle requests for reasonable accommodations made by employees who have sincerely held religious beliefs against flu vaccination.  When presented with such a request for accommodation, employers should engage in the interactive process with the employee as outlined in this recent blog post.

To lessen the risk of infringing on worker’s rights, many health care entities are employing non-mandatory tools and policies to boost employee vaccine participation through positive enforcement rather than with the threat of being fired. For example, health care entities can ensure that employees are educated and reminded about the benefits of being vaccinated, provide free and convenient access to vaccines, and issue small incentives and rewards to employees who are vaccinated.

Whenever implementing a mandatory vaccination policy, employers should be prepared for a challenge. Essentia Health required its employees to receive the flu vaccination and sustained a public legal challenge from three hospital unions.  Essentia prevailed, discharging 50 workers who refused to be vaccinated.

Lastly, health care entities should review applicable state-worker vaccination laws to ensure they are in compliance with such laws when deciding upon vaccination policies.

In a significant decision on Wednesday, March 6, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held in EEOC v. R.G. &. G.R. Harris Funeral Homes that discrimination against a worker on the basis of gender identity or transitioning status constitutes sex discrimination that violates Title VII.

In R.G. & G.R., the funeral home’s owner fired funeral director Aime Stephens after she informed him she intended to begin a gender transition and present herself as a woman at work. In finding gender identity to be covered by Title VII, the Sixth Circuit also upheld the EEOC’s claim that the funeral home’s dress code, which has different dress and grooming instructions for men and women, discriminates on the basis of sex.

In reaching its decision, the court concluded that “it is analytically impossible to fire an employee based on that employee’s status as a transgender person without being motivated, at least in part, by the employee’s sex.” As the court explained, “Discrimination on the basis of transgender and transitioning status is necessarily discrimination on the basis of sex.”  Finding that Stephens would not have been fired if she had been a woman who sought to comply with the women’s dress code, the court determined that Stephens’s sex impermissibly affected the termination decision.

Harris Funeral Homes attempted to defend its termination decision under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”), but the majority rejected this argument: “RFRA provides the funeral home with no relief because continuing to employ Stephens would not, as a matter of law, substantially burden [owner Thomas] Rost’s religious exercise, and even if it did, the EEOC has shown that enforcing Title VII here is the least restrictive means of furthering its compelling interest in combating and eradicating sex discrimination.”

In addition to providing Title VII coverage to transgender and gender nonconforming individuals, the Sixth Circuit’s decision marks another victory for the EEOC, whose position was similarly adopted less than two weeks ago by the Second Circuit in Zarda v. Altitude Express. In that case, the Second Circuit held that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is discrimination based on sex and prohibited by Title VII.  As federal courts begin to reexamine earlier rulings that deny coverage to LGBT employees, employers are advised to conform their policies to EEOC guidance prohibiting discrimination based on gender identity or expression.

Featured on Employment Law This Week: Second Circuit: Title VII Covers Sexual Orientation Discrimination.

“Legal doctrine evolves.” Those words from the Second Circuit spoke volumes as the court ruled that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits sexual orientation discrimination, overturning their own long-standing precedent. The court ruled in favor of a skydiving instructor who claimed he was fired for telling a client he was gay.

The majority opinion began by looking at whether sex is a motivating factor in the alleged unlawful practice. And, in this case, looking at sexual orientation discrimination, the court concluded that sex is a factor and inextricably linked to sexual orientation, and therefore sexual orientation acts as a proxy for sex. The Second Circuit now joins the Seventh Circuit in finding that Title VII does protect against sexual orientation discrimination, and deepens a circuit split with the Eleventh Circuit, which went the other way last year.

Watch the segment below and read our recent post.

Our colleague Stuart M. Gerson at Epstein Becker Green has a post on the Technology Employment Law blog that will be of interest to our readers in the health care industry: “The GDPR Soon Will Go Into Effect, and U.S. Companies Have to Prepare.”

Following is an excerpt:

The European Union’s (“EU’s”) General Data Protection Regulations (“GDPR”) go into effect on May 25, 2018, and they clearly apply to U.S. companies doing business in Europe or offering goods and services online that EU residents can purchase. Given that many U.S. companies, particularly in the health care space, increasingly are establishing operations and commercial relationships outside the United States generally, and in Europe particularly, many may be asking questions akin to the following recent inquiries that I have fielded concerning the reach of the GDPR:

What does the GDPR do? The GDPR unifies European data and privacy protection laws as to companies that collect or process the personally identifiable information (“PII” or, as the GDPR calls it, “personal data”) of European residents (not just citizens). …

Read the full post here.

In a move that could have broad national effects on gay rights in the workplace, the Second Circuit ruled that discrimination based on sexual orientation violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, deciding in favor of the estate of a deceased skydiving instructor who was allegedly fired for telling a client he was gay.

On Monday, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit became the second federal appeals court to rule that Title VII encompasses sexual orientation discrimination in Zarda v. Altitude Express, joining the Seventh Circuit in its decision last year. This issue has divided courts for years, and even caused a split between the EEOC and the Department of Justice, with the former arguing in favor of including sexual orientation under Title VII’s protections and the latter arguing against it. The Second Circuit’s decision furthers a circuit split, which occurred when the Eleventh Circuit held that sexual orientation discrimination is not actionable under Title VII.

Chief Judge Robert A. Katzmann delivered the majority opinion and concluded, “Title VII’s prohibition on sex discrimination applies to any practice in which sex is a motivating factor. Sexual orientation discrimination is a subset of sex discrimination because sexual orientation is defined by one’s sex in relation to the sex of those to whom one is attracted, making it impossible for an employer to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation without taking sex into account.”

In so holding, the majority adopted each of the theories advanced by the EEOC. Applying the “comparative test” to determine whether an employment practice constitutes sex discrimination, the court considered the example in the Seventh Circuit’s decision Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College. The court compared a lesbian woman to a heterosexual man and rejected the framing urged by the government, which would compare a woman attracted to people of the same sex with a man attracted to people of the same sex.  Finding that sexual orientation acts as a proxy for sex, the majority concluded that a lesbian treated differently than a heterosexual man due to her sexual orientation would not have been subject to an adverse action “but for” her sex.

The majority opinion also concluded that sexual orientation discrimination constitutes actionable gender stereotyping, held to be unlawful under Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, and associational discrimination, borrowing principles from Loving v. Virginia.

In dissent, Judge Lynch argued that Congress did not intend to cover sexual orientation discrimination when drafting Title VII. The majority court acknowledged this fact, but also recognized that the legal framework for evaluating Title VII claims has changed dramatically over time. “Because Congress could not anticipate the full spectrum of employment discrimination that would be directed at the protected categories,” Katzmann explained, “it falls to courts to give effect to the broad language that Congress used.”

Employers operating within the Second Circuit – comprising New York, Connecticut, and Vermont – already should have in place policies prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination because those state laws expressly prohibit such conduct. But this decision provides a roadmap for the potential adoption by other circuits around the country, and suggests that the Supreme Court may settle the current circuit split.  Thus, employers are encouraged to adopt nationwide policies prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination to the extent they have not done so.

Additionally, the sweeping adoption by the majority opinion of the positions pressed by the EEOC should signal to employers to take seriously the actions by and guidance from the EEOC in this and other matters. For example, the EEOC will finalize new enforcement guidance on harassment shortly, and employers should expect the EEOC to aggressively enforce that guidance, including with respect to harassment based on sexual orientation.

See also Nathaniel Glasser’s video interview on this topic, from next Monday’s Employment Law This Week: “Second Circuit Says Title VII Covers Sexual Orientation Discrimination.”

Our colleague Daniel R. Levy, at Epstein Becker Green, has a post on the Trade Secrets & Employee Mobility blog that will be of interest to our readers: “It’s a Brave New World: Protecting Trade Secrets When Traveling Abroad with Electronic Devices.”

Following is an excerpt:

Consider the following scenario: your organization holds an annual meeting with all Research & Development employees for the purpose of having an open discussion between thought leaders and R&D regarding product-development capabilities. This year’s meeting is scheduled outside the United States and next year’s will be within the U.S. with all non-U.S. R&D employees traveling into the U.S. to attend. For each meeting, your employees may be subject to a search of their electronic devices, including any laptop that may contain your company’s trade secrets. Pursuant to a new directive issued in January 2018 by the U.S. Custom and Border Protection (“CBP”), the electronic devices of all individuals, including U.S. citizens and U.S. residents, may be subject to search upon entry into (or leaving) the U.S. by the CBP. …

Read the full post here.