The Tenth Circuit recently reaffirmed that employers may lawfully enforce a policy against surreptitious recordings.
In Spagnolia v. Charter Communications, LLC, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit unanimously affirmed a District of Colorado order granting employer Charter Communications, LLC’s (“Defendant”) summary judgment on claims filed by plaintiff Heather Spagnolia (“Spagnolia”), who asserted that she was fired in retaliation for making reasonable requests for lactation accommodations. The issue before the appellate court was whether Defendant’s proffered reason for terminating Spagnolia (secretly recording meetings with her supervisors in violation of company policy) was pretextual.
Both courts agreed that Spagnolia’s violation of the policy against surreptitious recordings was a lawful basis for termination, and that Spagnolia failed to show that this was pretextual.
Background
In 2017, Spagnolia moved to Colorado to work for Defendant as a Regional Operations Center Specialist. From April to July 2019, Spagnolia took leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act to give birth to her second child. When she returned to work in July 2019, Spagnolia’s supervisor mistakenly permitted her to take paid lactation breaks, even though Defendant’s written policy provided for unpaid lactation breaks. During that time, Spagnolia’s lactation breaks lasted for an average of two hours per day, and sometimes up to three hours—in addition to her lunch break and regular paid breaks.
On November 1, 2022, in Dusel v. Factory Mutual Ins. Co., the First Circuit Court of Appeals held that “close temporal proximity” alone does not establish pretext as this evidence “must be considered alongside the . . . record.” Nor does mere close temporal proximity establish pretext where the employer has a legitimate business reason for taking adverse action against the employee, and more particularly, where the employer subsequently discovers the employee’s misconduct in a separate, unrelated matter. Dusel is a win for employers because it signals that engaging in protected activity will not immunize an employee from the consequences of misconduct that violates company policy if the employer enforces its policy consistently and documents the reasons underlying the employee’s discipline.
On Monday, October 11, 2021, Texas Governor Greg Abbott issued Executive Order GA-40 (the “Order”) prohibiting vaccine mandates by any entity. The Order, which was effective upon issuance, states: “No entity in Texas can compel receipt of a COVID-19 vaccine by any individual, including an employee or a consumer, who objects to such vaccination for any reason of personal conscience, based on a religious belief, or for medical reasons, including prior recovery from COVID-19.” It provides for a maximum fine of up to $1,000 per violation for any failure to comply with the order ...
With the ever-increasing amount of information available on social media, employers should remember to exercise caution when utilizing social media as a part of their Human Resources/ Recruitment related activities. As we have discussed in a prior blog post, “Should Employers and Facebook Be Friends?” we live in a digital-age, and how people choose to define themselves is often readily showcased on social networking sites. Whether – and how – employers choose to interact with the online presence of their workforce will continue to develop as the relevant legal standards ...
Blog Editors
Recent Updates
- Podcast: Wizarding and the World of Trade Secrets – Employment Law This Week
- New York State’s Retail Worker Safety Act – New Obligations for Retail Workers Coming in 2025
- Courts Stay Consistent on Title VII’s Participation Clause, but the EEOC Has a Different Take
- Video: Mental Health Parity Rules, NLRB Restrictions, New York's Workplace Violence Prevention Law - Employment Law This Week
- U.S. Department of Labor Publishes New “AI & Inclusive Hiring Framework”