May 18, 2012
3800 VerMaas Place, Suite 200
Lincoln, NE 68502 (map)
Phone: 402.475.7011
Toll Free: 800.714.3439

New Nebraska Employee Reference Protections

Nebraska recently signed into law LB959, a bill that lets employers share more information to prospective employers about current and former employees with less threat of legal liability.  In a nutshell, employers will be given a rebuttable presumption of good faith when they follow the law’s specific requirements.  Employers should learn the new law’s requirements, and very real limitations, before changing policies, procedures and forms.

To obtain the protections of the new law, employers must first obtain a written authorization from the employee to release the information, and that consent must be signed and dated, and in either a stand-alone document, or be a conspicuous part of the employment application (in bold and larger typeface) which states:

“I, (applicant), hereby give consent to any and all prior employers of mine to provide information with regard to my employment with prior employers to (prospective employer).”

Those employers obtaining that that specific consent will be given the protection for a period of six months when providing certain information, including:

(i)             Date and duration of employment;

(ii)           Pay rate and wage history on the date of receipt of written consent;

(iii)          Job description and duties;

(iv)          The most recent written performance evaluation prepared prior to the date of the request and provided to the employee during the course of his or her employment;

(v)           Attendance information;

(vi)          Results of drug or alcohol tests administered within one year prior to the request;

(vii)         Threats of violence, harassing acts, or threatening behavior related to the workplace or directed at another employee;

(viii)        Whether the employee was voluntarily or involuntarily separated from employment and the reasons for the separation; and

(ix)           Whether the employee is eligible for rehire.

Employers should not be lulled into false confidence by this new law for several reasons.  The protections are quite limited since the authorization is valid for only six months.  Also, the presumption of good faith on the part of the employer does not apply if information disclosed turns out to be false and the employer either knew it was false, or acted with malice or reckless disregard for its truth.  Where particularly subjective information is shared, such as the quality of job performance, this means employers may have little actual protection from lawsuits.  Finally, the good faith presumption on the part of the employer can be overcome with a finding that the employer discriminated or retaliated because the employee “exercised or is believed to have exercised any federal or state statutory right or undertaken any action encouraged by the public policy of this state.”  In summary, significant risk remains, and employers should maintain their caution when sharing any information about current or former employees.

Those wishing to obtain the protections of the law should examine and alter current policies and procedures with advice of counsel.  Potentially conflicting legal requirements and company policies should be considered, for example, those pertaining to drug and alcohol tests.  The new Nebraska law makes no direct changes to those, and many company policies provide assurances of confidentiality.  Reference release forms and applications must also be reviewed, and will most likely require alteration to be in compliance.   And as before, an employer’s best practices include keeping tight controls on the release of such information, with only one person in a company designated (and properly trained) to do so.

Another Delay – NLRB Poster on Workplace Rights Again Set Back

The National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) issued a Final Rule requiring most private-sector employers to notify employees of their rights to unionize.   (See first blog on the issue by clicking here).  The notice rule was originally scheduled require posting the rights in the workplace starting November 14, 2011, and then that date was postponed until January 31, 2012.  Now, at the request of a federal court in Washington, D.C., the NLRB has agreed to defer the posting requirement for three months until April 30, 2012.

Employers should mark their calendar, and stay attentive to the continuing legal challenges.

Jeanelle Lust, Trev Peterson and Wally Richardson Selected to Super Lawyers of the Great Plains for 2011

Congratulations go out to our Partners, Jeanelle Lust, Wally Richardson and Trev Peterson. Based upon a statewide nomination process, review of credentials and evaluation of their peers, Jeanelle, Trev and Wally have again been selected in the Great Plains Super Lawyers for 2011. Only five percent of lawyers in Nebraska are named to the list.

Another PTO payout challenge under the Nebraska Wage Payment and Collection Act

Nebraska employers know that unused vacation time must be paid out to an employee within two weeks of termination, or on the net regular payday, whichever is sooner.  In 2008, a judge of the Lancaster County Court applied that payout requirement to paid time off (PTO) as well, but the decision was overturned on appeal to the District Court.  The issue is being tested again, this time in Douglas County by a judge who ruled that PTO is the same as vacation time and must be paid out.

The roots of the dispute are in the Nebraska Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Wage Payment and Collection Act (Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-1228, et seq.).  In Roseland v. Strategic Staff Management, 272 Neb. 434 (Oct. 2006) the Court held that vacation time was an earned benefit that could not be forfeited, regardless of company policy.  Seeking to prevent the spread of that analysis to other types of paid leave, the Legislature passed a bill in 2007 amending the Nebraska Wage Payment and Collection Act to say that:

 ”[p]aid leave, other than earned but unused vacation leave, provided as a fringe benefit by the employer shall not be included in the wages due and payable at the time of separation, unless the employer and the employee or the employer and the collective-bargaining representative have specifically agreed otherwise.”

In Gallentine v. B&R Stores, Inc. (Case No. CI 07-4892, June 18, 2008) (click for link) the District Court of Lancaster County overruled the county court and held that, because of the amendment, an employer could determine by its policy whether accrued but unused PTO would be paid out on separation, and the policy said it would not be.  In doing so, the court relied on statements in the legislative record of the 2007 amendments by Senator Abbie Cornett stating that PTO time was not intended to be considered vacation pay.

Earlier this month, a judge of the Douglas County Court again addressed the issue and held that an employer’s refusal to pay out PTO on separation deprives employees of an earned benefit, which the judge believed was contrary to the intent of the 2007 amendments and the Act.  Norton v. Payflex Systems USA, Inc., Cas No. CI 10-22919 (Sept. 7, 2011)(click for link) .

An appeal to district court will certainly follow in the Norton case, but employers with PTO policies are encouraged to re-examine those policies and stay tuned for further developments.

New Employer Posting Requirements

The National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) has issued a Final Rule requiring most private-sector employers to notify employees of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”).   The rule was posted in the Federal Register on August 30, 2011.  Under the rule all NLRA covered employers must post written and in some cases electronic notice to employees informing them of their rights under the NLRA.  The notice requirement applies to both union and nonunion employers.  The NLRA covers most private sector employers except some agricultural employers and employers who are subject to the Railway Labor Act.  Among other statements, including examples of unlawful employer and union conduct and information on how to contact the NLRB, the notice must provide that employees have a right to do the following:

Organize a union to negotiate with their employer concerning wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment:

  1. Form, join or assist a union;
  2. Bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing for a contract with their employer setting wages, benefits, hours and other working conditions;
  3. Discuss the terms and conditions of employment or unionization with coworkers or a union;
  4. Take action to improve working conditions by, raising complaints with their employer or government agency, seeking help from a union, or otherwise;
  5. Go on strike or picket, depending on the purpose or means of the strike or picket; and
  6. Choose not to do any of the activities described above, including joining or remaining in a union.

These notices must, at minimum, be contained in an eleven by seventeen inch poster.  The poster must be conspicuously placed “where notices are customarily posted.”  If an employer regularly uses the internet to communicate other personnel rules, the NLRB link must be posted on the website.  If a particular employer’s workforce contains more than twenty percent non-English speakers an additional poster must be written in that language and posted.  These posters are available electronically and in hard copy from the NLRB.  Any failure to comply with these requirements will be considered to be an unfair labor practice.  The NLRB has specific authority to investigate cases where “knowing noncompliance” may exist.

This notice requirement raises important concerns for employers nationwide, and there have been court challenges resulting in delays in enforcement of the posting requirement.  Employers should consult with counsel regarding their responsibilities under this new rule.

Update:  With another delay from the NLRB, the posting enforcement date has been moved to April 30, 2012.

Client Testimonial:

Jeanelle Lust offered expert guidance and provided clear direction as to how to handle my legal issue. The legal matter was handled professionally and to my satisfaction. She has definitely brought the term "legal counselor" back into the law arena.

Kris