A temporary employment agency that supplied workers to companies in the telecommunications and natural gas industries had the following clause in its temporary employment contracts:

Employee… understands that the terms of this employment, including compensation, are confidential… Disclosure of these terms to other parties may constitute grounds for dismissal.

After an employee was placed with a company named El Paso his paychecks and expense reimbursements were not timely made. He complained not to his employer, but to the person he was contracted to, El Paso, and then El Paso notified the temp agency. That agency then terminated the employee.

The employee filed an unfair labor practice charge and the First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the NLRB finding that the confidentiality agreement was too broad. An employee is entitled to certain rights such as engaging in activities concerning their pay and benefits and the confidentiality policy would chill those employee rights if it is not enforceable against the employee under these circumstances.

If you have a situation where you think your rights are being violated, please contact us as we represent employees in private and public employment. Call us at 1-800-240-1988 or fill out our Contact Form online.

A woman tells her employer that she is pregnant and that her doctor has told her that she should not work, or that her work duties should be restricted, due to her pregnancy or due to associated medical conditions. Her employer tells her that it will not grant her leave, or that it will not accommodate her restrictions, due to company policy.

Is this legal? Not under New Hampshire law.

New Hampshire law extends greater protections to pregnant employees than federal law. Under federal law, employers must only give the same protections and benefits to their employees as they do to other employees afflicted with temporary disabilities. New Hampshire law goes further. New Hampshire employers must give pregnant employees leave, and must keep their jobs open for them, for so long as they experience medical conditions associated with their pregnancies that render them unable to work or that restrict their ability to perform certain job duties. The employer can only avoid liability for breach of this duty if it can prove “business necessity” to replace the pregnant employee.

An employer who violates a pregnant woman’s rights under New Hampshire law can face liability for lost wages, emotional distress, humiliation and inconvenience, pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and attorney’s fees.

If your employer has fired you due to your inability to perform some or all of your job duties due to a pregnancy-related medical condition, you should consult a New Hampshire attorney experienced in employment discrimination law. We only represent employees in employment cases so please contact us to help you. Call us at 1-800-240-1988 or fill out our online Contact Form.

For whatever reason, many injured workers harbor the mistaken belief that, once they begin receiving workers’ compensation disability benefits, they will receive them forever. This is not the case. There are several ways disability benefits may terminate. First, there is a 5-year cap on temporary partial disability benefits–the type of benefits that injured employees may receive if they have a light duty work capacity or if they are working a job that pays less than what they earned at the job in which they were injured. No such cap exists on temporary total disability benefits–the type of benefits injured employees receive if their injury renders them completely unable to work any job for which they are suited. Temporary total benefits may be suspended if a carrier schedules an employee for a medical examination and the employee fails to attend it. Such benefits may also be terminated through an RSA 281-A:48 petition filed by the carrier with the Department of Labor. When a carrier files such a petition, the Department of Labor holds a hearing attended by the employee and a carrier representative, usually an attorney. The carrier bears the burden to prove at the hearing that the employee has work capacity and that benefits should be discontinued. Benefits stop immediately if the Department finds that the carrier has met this burden.

Due to the risk of benefits being terminated, it makes sense under appropriate circumstances for employees to explore lump sum settling their claims. Disability benefits stop when the Department approves a lump sum settlement, but the employee can walk away with a sum of money to help to compensate for their injury and allow them to move on with life.

We can assist in negotiating a lump sum settlement and assessing your workers’ compensation rights. Benjamin King at Douglas, Leonard & Garvey, P.C. is experienced in representing employees in workers’ compensation matters. Call us at 1-800-240-1988 or fill out our online Contact form.

Has your employer or a prospective employer asked for your Facebook password? Insurance companies and defense lawyers mine social media sites such as Facebook to find information and now employers are using these sites in making hiring and firing decisions.

Two recent events may change an employer’s ability to ask for your password to access your Facebook account. First, because Congress is alarmed over stories of employees being fired for Facebook postings, it is considering a new law to limit an employer’s ability to request your password. (READ MORE). Now, in response to recent news stories, Facebook is changing its policy to protect passwords for snooping employers. The new policy makes it a violation of Facebook’s terms of service to share or ask for passwords. (READ MORE)

These efforts are an attempt to prevent employers from accessing and then misusing such information because an employer can learn information about an employee or prospective employee (age, pregnancy or other information) that they can use (improperly) in making employment decisions. However, please keep in mind any personal information you post may be difficult to keep private.

Please contact Douglas, Leonard & Garvey P.C. for any employment law issue you may have. You can reach us at 1-800-240-1988 or complete our online Contact Form.

Under state law, (RSA 275:48) an employer’s ability to lawfully withhold a portion of an employee’s wages is limited to specific circumstances. For example, an employer cannot even withhold for an accidental overpayment of wages unless the employee voluntarily agrees and the agreement is in writing. The statute sets forth the terms and limitations of such an agreement.

In a recent case before the N.H. Department of Labor, an employee had $4,763 deducted from his final two paychecks for prepaid bonuses that the company claimed he was not eligible to receive. Because there was no written agreement regarding the withholding of those wages, the DOL determined that the deductions from the employee’s pay was illegal.

If your employer is not properly paying you or if your wages are being tampered with, please call us to see if you have a case because we represent employees, not employers. Call 1-800-240-1988 or fill out our Contact Form online.

Employment discrimination complaints against private sector employers reached an all-time high in the most recent fiscal year, federal regulators said this week.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency that handles these claims before they go to Court, said it received a record 99,947 charges of employment discrimination and obtained $455.6 million in relief through its administrative program and litigation in fiscal year 2011. The commission said it resolved more charges than it took in with 112,499 resolutions (7,500 more resolutions than FY 2010—an increase of 7 percent)—leaving 78,136 pending charges, a 10 percent decrease in its inventory, the first year the agency has seen a reduction since 2002. A similar increase in these types of claims has also been seen by the New Hampshire Commission for Human Rights, the New Hampshire Agency that handles most discrimination claims in New Hampshire before they go to Court, although actual numbers are not yet available.

The EEOC records show that:

- In both the private and federal sectors, 5.4 million individuals benefited from changes in employment policies or practices in their workplace during the past fiscal year.

- The EEOC obtained a record $455.6 million in relief for private sector, state, and local employees and applicants, a more than $51 million increase from the past fiscal year and continuing the upward trend of the past three fiscal years.

- The mediation program reached record levels, both in the number of resolutions – 9,831 – which is 5 percent more than in FY 2010 (9,362), and benefits — $170,053,021– $28 million more than FY 2010.

- The EEOC filed 300 lawsuits and its litigation efforts resulted in $91 million of relief, representing the third year in a row that the relief obtained was greater than in the preceding year. Twenty-three of the lawsuits filed involved systemic allegations involving large numbers of people and an additional 67 had multiple victims (less than 20).

The total number of charges received was up slightly from last fiscal year’s record total. Once again, charges alleging retaliation under all the statutes the EEOC enforces were the most numerous at 37,334 charges received, or 37.4 percent of all charges, closely followed by charges involving claims of race discrimination at 35,395 charges or 35.4 percent. While the numbers of charges with race and sex discrimination allegations declined from the previous year, charges with the two other most frequently-cited allegations increased:

- Disability discrimination–25,742

- Age discrimination—23,465

The agency’s enforcement of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) produced the highest increase in monetary relief among all of the statutes: the administrative relief obtained for disability discrimination charges increased by almost 35.9 percent to $103.4 million compared to $76.1 million in the previous fiscal year. Back impairments were the most frequently cited impairment under the ADA, followed by other orthopedic impairments, depression, anxiety disorder and diabetes.

If you think you have been discriminated against, please call our office at 1-800-240-1988 or fill out on online Contact Form.

The New Hampshire Department of Labor recently decided a wage claim against an employer who had handed out to its employees a paragraph that was to be inserted into the employee handbook. The paragraph said that if an employee became employed by a competitor they would forfeit all vacation, sick and personal time accrued. The employee in question denied ever receiving the addendum to the handbook but both sides agreed he had never signed anything acknowledging receipt of that change. When the employee was denied over $3,000 in vacation and sick time he appealed to the Department of Labor and it ruled in his favor.

Under New Hampshire law, the employer must obtain a signed notification from an employee reflecting a change of its practices or policies affecting paid vacations, holidays, sick leave, bonuses, severance pay, personal days, payment of employee expenses, pensions or other fringe benefit for it to be effective. That does not mean the employee can negate the employer’s changes but the employee must acknowledge receipt of the change.

In the recent case, Glik v. Cunnifee, 665 F.3d 78 (2011), the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston recently held that the First Amendment protects the right of citizens to make video and audio recordings of police officers arresting people on the street. The federal court decision was particularly relevant in New Hampshire, where police officers in Manchester, Nashua, Weare, Portsmouth and Keene, have recently charged citizens with violating the New Hampshire wiretap statute for recording police officers performing their pubic duties.

Mr. Glik observed and recorded Boston police officers arresting a citizen on Boston Common. Believing that the police were using excessive force, Glik advised the police that he was capturing their actions on video. The police arrested Mr. Glik and charged him with violating the Massachusetts wiretap statute. His criminal charges were ultimately dismissed and Mr. Glik then sued the officers involved and the City of Boston for violating his civil rights. The police and the city asked the court to dismiss the civil rights claim, but the court denied their request.

The court held that the protections of the First Amendment are not limited to the mere act of speaking or publishing words that the government may not like. “It is firmly established that the First Amendment’s aegis extends further than the text’s proscription on laws abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,” and encompasses a range of conduct related to the gathering and dissemination of information. As the Supreme Court has observed, the First Amendment goes beyond protection for the press and the self-expression of individuals to prohibit the government from limiting the stock of information from which members of the public may draw.”

The Court continued, writing that “the filing of government officials engaged in their duties in a public place, including police officers performing their responsibilities, fits comfortably within these principles. Gathering information about public officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting the free discussion of governmental affairs. The court concluded by stating that, “the freedom of individually verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state.”

Police officers do not have easy jobs. However, the mere fact that performing their day to day activities may require them to endure certain unpleasantries does not change the fact that they perform their public duties in the name of the public, using equipment provided by the public, and to serve a public purpose. Monitoring and even criticizing the use of public authority and funding goes to the very heart of citizen activism that the First Amendment was specifically written to protect. The First Circuit Court of Appeals decided this case correctly and protected the public’s right to know.

If you carry motor vehicle insurance (and you should if you drive!), an element of your coverage is called medical payments coverage, or medpay. Many people do not know what this coverage is for.

Furthermore, many people don’t have much of it. Most people have only $5,000.00 in medpay. Many people only have $1,000.00 of the coverage.

Medpay is coverage available to pay the medical bills you may incur as a result of medical treatment you require for injuries suffered in an automobile accident. It is available to be used by you even if the accident you were in, and the injuries that you suffer as a result of it, were the fault of the other driver.

Injury victims should use their medical payments coverage to pay their medical bills for injuries caused by another driver’s negligence because use of this coverage can help the injured person keep more of the money that he or she may ultimately recover from a personal injury claim arising from the accident. If you suffer injuries in an automobile accident that another person causes, and you submit your medical bills to your health insurance carrier, your health insurance carrier will have a lien over any recovery you obtain from a personal injury claim against the person at fault. This means that your health insurance carrier will be able to recover–from any settlement or judgment you obtain from the person at fault–the monies that it paid for your medical bills, or at least a portion of those monies. Your motor vehicle insurance carrier, by contrast, has no lien relative to the medical bills it pays under your medical payments coverage. So, if you use your medical payments coverage rather than your health insurance to pay medical bills related to treatment for your accident injuries, you will be able to keep for yourself a larger portion of any settlement or judgment that you obtain from your personal injury claim.

For these reasons, you should also carry as much medical payments coverage as you can afford. Five thousand dollars doesn’t go far if another’s negligence causes you to need treatment in an emergency room. In order to make sure that you receive all the compensation that you deserve when you suffer injuries because of another person’s negligence, you should consult an experienced personal injury attorney such as one of the attorneys at Douglas, Leonard & Garvey, P.C. in order to protect your interests. Call us at 1-800-240-1988 or fill out our online Contact Form.

President Obama recently announced that the United States would pull its troops out of Iraq by the end of the year. This announcement likely means that many soldiers will be returning to civilian status and seeking jobs–in many cases the jobs they held before they were deployed.

Returning soldiers and their employers need to be aware that returning soldiers hold special rights to reinstatement under a Federal law called the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA). Under USERRA, the employer of a returning soldier must reemploy the soldier if the soldier meets certain conditions. First, the soldier must have provided the employer advance notice of his service. Second, the soldier’s absence from employment must not have exceeded five (5) years. Third, the soldier must report the intent to obtain reemployment within 90 days of the completion of the soldier’s period of service.

Employers that violate USERRA face steep penalties. The employer must pay all lost wages the returning soldier incurs as a result of the employer’s breach of its duty to reemploy the soldier, plus an additional amount equivalent to the soldier’s monetary losses as “liquidated damages” for a willful violation of the law or a reckless disregard of it. The employer must also pay the soldier’s reasonable attorney’s fees.

If you have returned from service and have been denied reemployment by your employer at the time of your deployment, you should contact an experienced employment discrimination attorney such as the attorneys at Douglas, Leonard & Garvey, P.C. to make sure your rights are protected. Call our office at 1-800-240-1988 or complete our online contact form.