New Social Media Privacy Law in Maine

Maine has a new Employee Social Media Privacy law that prohibits employers from requiring employees and job applicants to provide access to their social media accounts. In passing the law, Maine joins at least twenty other states with similar legislation. The new law goes into effect on October 15, 2015.

The Employee Social Media Privacy law follows previous efforts by the Maine Legislature to protect the privacy of social media accounts, which efforts we have summarized here and here. Under the newly enacted law, a social media account is defined as an account with an electronic medium or service through which a user creates, shares, and views user-generated content, including emails, videos, blogs, text messages, and other similar content. Expressly excluded from the definition, however, are social media accounts that are opened at the request of an employer, provided by an employer, or intended for use primarily on behalf of an employer.

In general, the new law prohibits employers from requiring employees and job applicants to provide access to personal social media accounts, and prohibits employers from taking adverse action against an employee or applicant who refuses to provide access. The law also specifically prohibits so-called “shoulder surfing,” or the practice of requiring an employee or applicant to sign into an account in the presence of the employer. In addition, employers may not require employees or applicants to disclose any personal social media account information, add any individuals to the employee’s or applicant’s list of social media contacts, or alter account settings that would affect the ability of third-parties to view the contents of an account. Employers found in violation of the law are subject to fines assessed by the Department of Labor.

The new law does provide some exceptions and does not, for example, apply to information about an employee or applicant that is publicly available, or restrict the ability of an employer to require the disclosure of certain information that the employer reasonably believes to be relevant to an investigation of employee misconduct or workplace violations. The Employee Social Media Privacy law also clarifies that nothing in the law prevents employers from implementing policies governing the use of employer-owned electronic devices and communication systems.

Going forward, employers should review their social media policies to ensure they are consistent with the Employee Social Media Privacy law. In addition, although the new law creates an exception for social media accounts that are created or used at the request of an employer, employers may need to revisit how such accounts are used and clarify the ownership in such accounts. Failure to do so may lead to complications, not only under the Employee Social Media Privacy law, but other privacy-related laws such as the federal Stored Communications Act.

Recent Decision Explores Issues of Mental Disability and Violence in the Workplace

A federal district court recently grappled with whether an employer’s termination of an employee for engaging in violent behavior was lawful, where the employee’s behavior was related to an underlying mental impairment.  Joining other courts, the district court found that the employer was justified in letting the employee go for unacceptable workplace behavior, even though the conduct may have resulted from her underlying conditions with anxiety and depression.

In Felix v. Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Felix was employed as a customer service agent and driving test proctor.  Her job involved both working behind a counter to process driver’s license applications, and administering road tests.  During her employment, Felix experienced anxiety at work that resulted in panic attacks.  Her employer accommodated these incidents by letting Felix take breaks to do breathing exercises and calm down.

The incident leading to Felix’s termination occurred after she suffered a particularly acute panic attack, when a supervisor found her lying on the floor and crying loudly while trying to speak.  She had visible cuts on her wrist and could be heard saying things like “everybody hates you” and “they want to get rid of you.”  After an ambulance arrived and Felix calmed down, she was moved to a break room.  The next day, Felix was informed that she would need to undergo an independent medical exam to determine whether she was fit to return to duty, as the DOT was concerned both for her own safety and the safety of applicants with whom she drove.  Ultimately, the medical examination concluded that Felix remained at increased risk for potentially violent behavior toward herself and others.  Based on those results, the DOT terminated her employment on the grounds that she was unfit for duty.

Affirming the DOT’s decision, the court determined that it was undisputed that Felix’s termination was due to her behavior, which led the DOT to determine she was unfit for duty.  The court noted that, absent a disability, the DOT would have been justified in terminating any employee who engaged in similar behavior.  Although Felix argued that the DOT was wrong in its assessment of her fitness for duty, the court explained that was beside the point:  the issue was not whether the DOT’s reliance on the medical report was wrong, but whether the DOT’s explanation for her termination was dishonest and pretext for terminating her because of a disability.  In short, the court found that the DOT was not required to tolerate Felix’s conduct, and that her termination was due entirely to unacceptable workplace conduct, not because of a disability.

For Employers, Recent Decision Highlights Complexity of Medical Marijuana Laws

Last month, the Colorado Supreme Court affirmed the right of an employer to terminate an employee who tests positive for marijuana in violation of the employer’s drug policy.  Although the impact of the decision is largely limited to Colorado, as the case involved only the interpretation of Colorado law, it nonetheless highlights the complex legal landscape that employers face as they navigate both state and federal laws governing marijuana usage.

The employee in this case used medical marijuana off-duty to ameliorate a health condition, a practice permitted under Colorado’s constitution.  At the time of testing, the employee was not under the influence of marijuana, nor was there any evidence that he had used marijuana at work or had been under the influence at work during other times.  The employer, however, had a zero-tolerance drug policy, and when the employee tested positive, it terminated his employment.  The employee sued, claiming that his termination violated Colorado’s off-duty conduct statute, which provides that employers may not terminate employees for engaging in any “lawful activity off the premises of the employer during non-working hours.”

The key issue for the Colorado Supreme Court was whether the employee’s medical marijuana use was a “lawful activity.”  Notwithstanding Colorado’s constitutional amendment allowing for the use of medical marijuana, the Court concluded that for an activity to be “lawful” under the off-duty conduct statute, it must be lawful under both state and federal law.  Because marijuana use remains unlawful under federal law, the Court held that the employee had not engaged in a “lawful activity” that prohibited his termination.

Because only Colorado law was at issue in the Court’s decision, the case is not likely to have immediate impacts in other jurisdictions with medical marijuana laws.  Unlike Colorado, for example, Maine’s medical marijuana statute provides certain employment-related protections that, for obvious reasons, were not at issue in the case.  Nonetheless, the case highlights the continuing divide between federal and state law and the need for employers to proceed with caution in this area.

Final Right to Work Blog (127th Maine Legislature)

Efforts to pass “Right to Work” legislation in Maine have been defeated for the second time in four years. Three bills that were able to survive on minority reports after being heard and worked by the Legislature’s Joint Standing Committee on Labor, Commerce, Research, and Economic Development were defeated in mid-June by both the Democratic House and Republican controlled Senate.

LD 489, a very conventional Right to Work piece of legislation, was sponsored by Rep. Lawrence Lockman (R-Amherst) who has aggressively championed the policy for years. After more than an hour of heated floor debate in the House of Representatives the majority “Ought Not to Pass” motion was accepted by a vote of 90-52. Eleven Republicans representing swing districts and communities with high union density sided with Democrats.

LD 404 (a bill to prevent public employers from acting as collections agents) and LD 1319 (legislation to restrict public sector union officers from being compensated for days spent on union activities) were also killed by slightly narrower votes when they picked up one and four additional Republican votes, respectively.

Maine’s State Senate is controlled by Republicans who wield a 20-15 majority and so it was somewhat surprising when LD 489 was also killed in that body with a 21-14 vote. LDs 404 and 1319 suffered similar fates.

Previously, the conventional wisdom to observers had been that the Republican Senate would advance an “Ought to Pass” minority report, the Democratic House of Representatives would adhere to killing the bills, and they would eventually die in non-concurrence between the bodies. It appears that strategically organized attempts to beat back the legislation, led by the Maine AFL-CIO, were extremely successful in identifying and securing votes from Republican state senators in high-union density districts.

Maine Law Court Weighs In Again on Whistleblower Claims

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court, acting as the Law Court, recently issued a decision reiterating the scope of protected activity under the Maine Whistleblowers’ Protection Act.  The decision is a win for employers and clarifies that an employee’s subjective belief that there has been a violation of law is not enough to bring a report about the alleged violation within the protections of the WPA – the employee’s belief must also be objectively reasonable.

The issue in Galouch v. Department of Professional and Financial Regulation was whether reports made by a Maine Bureau of Insurance employee – Patricia Galouch – qualified as protected activity where the reports related to concerns Ms. Galouch had about a court reporter.  The court reporter was under contract with the Bureau to provide certain services, and Ms. Galouch believed the reporter had breached the terms of her service agreement.  Ms. Galouch believed these breaches violated certain rules governing the Bureau’s procurement of services, and she reported her concerns to her supervisor.  The supervisor directed Ms. Galouch to refer contract issues to the Bureau’s contract administrator and instructed her to not address the contract issues herself, as they fell outside her job responsibilities.  Ms. Galouch, however, continued to communicate with the court reporter directly. Soon thereafter, the court reporter terminated her contract with the Bureau and explained she could no longer tolerate Ms. Galouch’s behavior.  The Bureau placed Ms. Galouch on administrative leave while it investigated allegations that she had exceeded the authority of her position.  As a result of the investigation, which was subsequently expanded to include other performance issues, the Bureau terminated Ms. Galouch’s employment.

The key issue for the Law Court was whether Ms. Galouch’s report concerning the court reporter’s contract qualified as protected activity under the WPA.  More specifically, the issue was whether Ms. Galouch had “reasonable cause” to believe that the court reporter’s conduct was unlawful.  The Law Court found that even if Ms. Galouch subjectively believed the reporter’s conduct was unlawful, there was no evidence demonstrating that a reasonable person would have believed so.  While acknowledging that the WPA “does not require an employee be able to cite to a particular statute or rule that may have been violated,” the Law Court held that Ms. Galouch’s “subjective belief alone is insufficient to meet the WPA’s ‘reasonable cause’ requirement.”

Right to Work - Chapter 4

Yesterday, May 6, 2015, the Joint Standing Committee on Labor, Commerce, Research, & Economic Development held work sessions on a number of bills pertaining to “Right to Work” policy. The Maine AFL-CIO held a morning rally in the cafeteria of the Burton M. Cross Building to coincide with  the work sessions. Roughly 100 members, activists, and officers gathered to hear speeches from trade union leaders and pro-union legislative leaders, namely Sen. John Patrick (D-Oxford). Before the 10:00 am legislative session began, AFL-CIO organizers coached attendees on how to speak with their representatives and senators about the union position on the proposed legislation. This did not only include members of the LCRED committee, but also the overall membership of both legislative bodies in anticipation of divided committee reports that would send the bills to the House and Senate.

The committee sent out three divided reports. Party line votes were taken on LDs 404, 489, and 1010 with un-enrolled committee member Rep. James Campbell (U-Newfield) siding with Democrats in opposition. Democrats have a majority on the committee, but divided reports mean the Republican controlled Senate will be able to move the Ought to Pass Minority Report of each bill in that chamber. However, House Democrats will likely kill the bills in the legislature’s lower body where no one in their caucus is expected to break ranks.

If supporters were able to get the minority reports through the legislature, however unlikely, Governor Paul LePage has made clear his desire to sign such policy into law.

The committee did vote outright to kill one of the major bills in question: LD 1353, sponsored by Sen. Andre Cushing (R-Hampden). The bill received a unanimous “Ought Not to Pass” report.

Additionally, Rep. Karleton Ward’s (R-Dedham) bill, LD 1319, which deals with employees receiving compensation on days they’re involved in union activity, was postponed and will be worked today, May 7, 2015, at a 2:00 pm session of the committee.

Right to Work - Chapter 3

The Maine Legislature’s Joint Standing Committee on Labor, Commerce, Research & Economic Development heard testimony Monday on six proposed bills that would seek to alter the relationship unions have with employees and effectively make Maine a “Right to Work”, or “pseudo-Right to Work” state. The work session for these bills will be today, May 6 at 2:00 pm.

Rep. Larry Lockman (R-Amherst) is sponsoring  LDs 404 and 489 and Rep. Joel Stetkis (R-Canaan) is sponsoring  LD 1351 – all bills dealing with public employers. These three pieces of legislation imply, in various ways, that the employees of public institutions not be required to join a union as a condition of employment.

LD 1319 is sponsored by Rep. Karleton Ward (R-Dedham). His bill would prevent public employees from collecting compensation on days when they participated in activities involving their business agents.

 

Sen. Andre Cushing (R-Hampden) is also proposing a pair of bills that were heard at Monday’s public hearing. The first, LD 1010, would exclude negotiations around the use of private contractors from collective bargaining proceedings with public entities. However, the marquis bill in question may be Sen. Cushing’s LD 1353 which is the only one of these six proposals to directly address private employer unionization and stands as a fairly straightforward “Right to Work”  bill. The legislation would, of course, exclude membership in a union as a condition of employment with private entities.

The hearing was heavily attended, lasting through the morning and into the afternoon. However, it did not draw excessively large crowds. Estimates placed the opposition, mainly composed of union members and officers, as outnumbering proponents of the six bills roughly “3 or 4 to 1”. The Maine AFL-CIO is expected to make a bigger demonstration of opposition on the morning of Wednesday, May 6 which will occur before these bills’ afternoon work sessions.