— Employee Privacy Category Archives — Dallas Employment Lawyer Blog Published by Dallas, Texas Employment Lawyers

What Happens on “Four Twenty-One”?

April 24, 2023 | Paige Melendez

April 20th or “Four Twenty” just passed and whether you chose to celebrate by engaging in marijuana use (within the confines of state and federal guidelines) or you used the day to engage in civic discourse regarding the legalization of marijuana, the true question is: what happens on Four Twenty-One. The reason why the day after “Four Twenty” is so important is because of the general understanding that employees have a higher potential to engage in marijuana use the day before. This brings up the question of drug-testing in the workplace. The legality of drug testing employees remains a controversial issue, with some arguing that it is an invasion of privacy, while others maintain that it is necessary to ensure a safe and productive workplace. Generally, drug testing is legal, but like always there are certain guidelines and caveats that employees should be aware of when an employer announces or requires a drug test.

A good offense is a must when it comes to drug testing, that’s why it is an important first step to read up on the employer’s drug testing policy whether in the employee handbook, an online posting, or any new hire paperwork. The second step is understanding that an employer’s drug policy is not limitless because drug testing must still be conducted in a non-discriminatory manner. This means that employers cannot single out certain employees for drug testing based on their race, sex, age, disability, or other protected characteristics. An example of this would be if an employer announced a random drug test, but the “random” people chosen were all part of the same racial group. Thus, while an employer can legally drug-test its employees, there are limits to how the tests are conducted.

Part of learning about your employer’s drug policies is learning about what type of drug test is being administered. Some common tests include urine tests, blood tests, hair tests, and saliva tests, but each type of test has different detection windows, and some may be more accurate than others. If there are questions or concerns about the type or accuracy of a drug test, it is always best practices to email any concerns to human resources to create a record as well as to get answers directly from the source.

Living in a corporate panopticon? Employer surveillance in Texas

February 24, 2023 | Austin Campbell

Summary: This article discusses some of the emerging issues employees have to contend with when it comes to employer surveillance, and briefly addresses the laws governing that.

As we move more and more towards an information technology-centered economy—and especially as the pandemic dramatically increased the number of employees working from home, employers have begun to increasingly rely on surveillance tools to monitor their employees. This article explores the limits of what they can do in Texas.

Employers are monitoring employees using many different methods these days. Beyond the “traditional” security camera, you may also encounter things like keyloggers, GPS tracking, audio surveillance, the requirement to have your webcam on throughout the day if working from home, reading employee emails/chat messages, or even social media stalking.

Abortion Rights are Employment Law

August 4, 2022 | Paige Melendez

The dissolution of abortion rights that should be guaranteed as substantive due process rights have a direct impact not only on healthcare, but on employment. I know that’s odd to say, but it’s a person’s personal health decision that should not be interfered with, even by their employment. However, with the Supreme Court’s decision a flurry of companies began to step in to protect abortion rights in a private sector way. This is untenable as a solution. While helpful in the short-term, it creates a complex picture for employment discrimination.

As a hypothetical, let me set up Grayson. They are currently pregnant and would like to access abortion in a different state. Their employer is Be Free Sporting Goods who has promised that they will give time off and leave to allow Grayson the opportunity to pursue abortion access outside the restrictive laws of states like Texas. Despite this being a personal healthcare choice between them and their doctor, Grayson now has to disclose their decision to access abortion to their human resources department. Be Free is a big corporation – their decision is not communicated to one person, not even two people, but several people must work on the request before it is approved. Grayson’s request is then denied because Marla in the human resources department has a sincerely held religious belief that abortion is wrong. And this juncture is where the private sector’s “solutions” to abortion access fall short.

On one hand, Grayson should have the absolute right to make private healthcare decisions about their own body without interference. Yet, an employer’s approval process just puts more strain on their decision, one that did not exist pre-Dobbs – before the Supreme Court made a judicial decision that appeared more political. The denial of Grayson’s leave requests invokes employment law in a myriad of ways. The right to abortion only affects individuals with the ability to become pregnant, but is it pregnancy discrimination if the intention is to access abortion thus ceasing the pregnancy? Is it sex discrimination because a transman, who has the capacity to become pregnant “shouldn’t be pregnant” and so the human resources department discriminates based on sex because of this man’s decision to become pregnant?

Texas Employees Enjoy Certain Protections Against Employer Required Drug Tests

December 18, 2019 | Law Office of Rob Wiley, P.C.

Many Texas employers require potential applicants and current employees to submit to drug testing. Federal and Texas laws permit private employers to adopt and implement broad drug and alcohol testing policies for their employers, with minimal limitations. However, according to the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC), government employers must show a compelling justification for drug testing.

The consequences of a failed drug test can be life-altering for an applicant or employee. In some cases, employers will provide rehabilitation services, but more commonly, employers will refuse to hire a potential applicant or terminate an employee. Additionally, employers are allowed to release the test results to the TWC, and this can affect a person’s unemployment compensation. Employees who believe their employer impermissibly drug tested them may have some legal protections.

Most employers should provide their employees with a written drug testing policy that outlines what results will be a violation, which employees require drug testing, and what measures will be taken after a violation. Unfortunately, Texas employers can fire employees that refuse to sign an acknowledgment of the drug testing policy. However, employers need to provide the employee with a warning that there is a risk of termination if they fail to sign the policy. Additionally, the policy needs to be enforced in a non-discriminatory manner.

Fair Credit Report Act Provides Texas Employees with Protections Against Unlawful Background Checks

November 18, 2019 | Law Office of Rob Wiley, P.C.

Texas employers that cite background checks in their personnel decisions must comply with specific procedures and statutes. Employers will typically include background checks in their hiring, retention, and promotion policies to evaluate a person’s work, education, financial, and criminal history. Although background checks are an integral part of workforce development, employers must protect employee’s rights in the process. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforce the standards put forth through the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and federal protections.

The EEOC requires employers to treat their applicants and employees equally before they request or review their background information. Employers cannot discriminatorily select which applicants and employees they request information for based on a person’s protected class. Under the FCRA, employers must take additional steps before they request an applicant or employee’s background information. The FCRA requires employers to:

Inform the person the employer might use the results of the background check to make an employment decision;

Federal Protections for Texas Employees Against Mandatory Polygraph Tests

September 23, 2019 | Law Office of Rob Wiley, P.C.

Employers who require employees to take lie detector tests may be in violation of state and federal anti-discrimination laws. The Employee Polygraph Protection Act (EPPA) is a federal law that bars private employers from requiring potential or current employees to take lie detector tests. This law prohibits employers from using a polygraph during pre-employment processes or during the course of employment. Generally speaking, private Texas employers cannot use or inquire about lie detector test results to discriminate against an applicant or employee. However, the law does not apply to federal, state, and local government employees.

There also some exceptions in the private sector. Certain businesses, such as security firms and pharmaceutical companies, may lawfully require their applicants and employees to take lie detector tests. Additionally, some private employees who are suspected of financial crimes against the employer may be subject to a lie detector test.

The EPPA specifies that most people have a right to employment without being burdened with a lie detector test. In instances where a lie detector test is permitted, the employers must follow strict guidelines regarding testing conditions and procedures. For example, Texas requires that anyone who performs lie detector tests must be licensed. Additionally, the examiner must have professional liability coverage and abide by confidentiality rules.

Are My Social Media Posts About the Workplace Protected?

May 1, 2019 | Law Office of Rob Wiley, P.C.

Social media has become the preferred method for many to air their grievances. It’s not surprising Texas employees are increasingly relying on social media when they organize in support of establishing more favorable work conditions. At the same time, many employees have been fired for posting on social media. This has created uncertainty regarding which social media posts are protected and which may be cited as a valid basis for an employee’s termination.

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) is a federally created organization that protects employees’ right to organize. Historically, the NLRB was mostly involved in traditional organized labor movements involving employees’ rights to either join or not join a labor union. However, the NLRB’s protections have expanded over time. Most notably, the NLRB’s protections extend to any activity that is both “protected” and “concerted.”

Texas employees have the right to raise issues involving labor conditions on social media. This includes sharing information and openly discussing matters involving pay, benefits, or any other working conditions. To be protected, a social media post must pertain to protected, concerted activity.

Can Texas Employers Require Employees to Take Fitness-for-Duty Exams?

April 11, 2019 | Law Office of Rob Wiley, P.C.

In some cases, an employer may ask a returning employee to take a fitness-for-duty examination to ensure that the employee is mentally and physically able to perform the tasks of their job. However, these fitness-for-duty exams can be intrusive and may reveal confidential information about an employee’s disability. Generally speaking, an employer’s ability to request a fitness-for-duty examination depends both on the nature of the injury that necessitated the employee’s leave as well as the specific functions of the employee’s job. When the employee’s underlying condition is one that qualifies as a “disability” under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), employers are limited in their ability to require fitness-for-duty examinations.

The ADA defines a disability as “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.” If the reason for the employee’s leave was not considered a disability under the ADA, and the employee’s condition is one that could reasonably affect their ability to perform their job, then employers generally will have broad discretion in requiring a fitness-for-duty examination. However, even when an employer is able to require a fitness-for-duty examination, the employer must follow the procedural requirements outlined in 29 CFR § 825.310. This includes providing adequate notice to the employee as well as a list of the “essential functions” of the employee’s position. Of course, a fitness-for-duty exam can only be required as it relates to the specific health condition that caused the employee’s absence.

When an employee suffers from a disability as classified by the ADA that necessitates they take FMLA leave, an employer can only request a fitness-for-duty examination if the examination is related to the employee’s job and is required by business necessity. Typically, this requires that an employer be able to show that the employee’s condition either prevents them from performing the necessary functions of their job or that the employee poses a direct threat to their own safety of the safety of others. Importantly, an employer’s belief must be based on concrete facts, rather than stereotypes or assumptions about an employee’s condition. For example, an employer could not require a fitness-for-duty examination for a returning employee who suffered from debilitating depression based on the belief that all people who suffer from depression present a potential risk in the workplace.

What Questions Can a Prospective Employer Ask During an Interview?

February 22, 2019 | Law Office of Rob Wiley, P.C.

As we’ve discussed in previous posts, federal discrimination laws prohibit employers from engaging in discriminatory conduct during employment. This also includes the pre-employment interview process. Employers cannot make a hiring decision based on a person’s age, race, religion, sex, national origin, or disability.

Sometimes, employers trying to gather as much information as possible about an applicant will rely on preconceived notions and stereotypes in doing so.

A few of the problematic questions employers routinely ask are:

whether an applicant is married, engaged, single, or divorced;
whether an applicant has any children and, if so, how old they are;
whether an applicant plans on becoming pregnant;
what an applicant’s spouse or boyfriend does for a living;
whether an applicant attends religious services and, if so, what days; and
the origins of an applicant’s last name.

Can an Employer Search an Employee’s Cell Phone?

September 24, 2018 | Law Office of Rob Wiley, P.C.

In today’s society, almost everyone has a cell phone. And while the primary purpose of cell phones used to be to make and receive phone calls, cell phones are now used not just for communication, but also as a form of entertainment and for web browsing. Cell phones are also used to keep schedules and conduct important business. In short, cell phones contain a significant amount of personal information, including passwords, contacts, and private communications. Given the enormous role cell phones have in our lives, it is clear why many are concerned about an employer’s ability to search an employee’s cellphone. It will come as a relief to many that, as a general rule, a Texas employer cannot conduct a search of an employee or their belongings against their will. This includes an employee’s personal cell phone. That being said, if an employee is using a company cell phone, the employer will likely be determined to have a possessory interest in the phone, and as a result the employee will have a greatly diminished expectation of privacy in the contents of the phone.

Of course, an employee is entitled to greater privacy rights when it comes to their personal cell phone. However, that does not prevent an employer from asking an employee if they will consent to a search. If an employee feels pressured by the fact that their supervisor asked to search their phone and the employee agrees, the search will likely be considered a legal one. However, an employer cannot use excessive force or make threats to obtain an employee’s permission to search their cell phone.

A coerced search is uncommon, however, because those employers who foresee the need to search an employee’s cell phone are likely to be proactive in obtaining employees’ consent. Indeed, the Texas Workforce Commission recommends that employers should have a written cell phone policy stating that “the employer reserves the right to physically and digitally search any devices with storage or memory capabilities that they might bring to work.” Absent such a policy, an employer’s search of an employee’s cell phone may constitute an invasion of the employee’s privacy.