Yesterday, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas issued a court order temporarily preventing the Department of Labor (DOL) from enforcing its new “Persuader Rule.” In his order, U.S. District Judge Sam Cummings ruled that “the new rule is defective to its core because it entirely eliminates the LMRDA’s advice exemption.” Accordingly, Judge Cummings issued a court order not only preventing the DOL from enforcing the new Persuader Rule in Texas, but anywhere in the nation.
In the wake of what has been condemned as the worst terror attack on U.S. soil since 9/11, we should all be reminded of our duty to respond appropriately to suspicious behavior. Media outlets are now reporting that Omar Mateen worked as a security guard in Florida for British firm G4S since 2007. According to news reports, in the years prior to the attack in Orlando, at least one former co-worker had made complaints to management at G4S that Mateen used racial, ethnic and sexist slurs and talked about killing people. Although G4S is not responding to questions about Mateen’s conduct raised by the former co-worker, employers should take a moment to make sure they have procedures in place for reporting and responding to complaints about employee behavior, whether through a non-harassment/discrimination policy or procedure or a non-violence policy or procedure.
Earlier this year the U.S. Department of Labor filed a lawsuit against U.S. Steel Corporation, Inc. in federal court alleging that the company violated the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act). So what did the company do to merit a federal lawsuit by a government agency? It required its employees to report work-related injuries immediately and disciplined two employees who did not. Specifically, the complaint alleges that the policy required “all employees to report immediately all injuries to a supervisor.” Most employers (if not all) would be shocked to learn that requiring compliance with such a commonplace policy may be considered unlawful.
