As Afghans Resettle, A Reminder for Wisconsin Employers on Federal Discrimination Law

As Afghans Resettle, A Reminder for Wisconsin Employers on Federal Discrimination Law

Fort McCoy in Wisconsin recently became the temporary home of thousands of Afghan refugees following the U.S. military withdrawal in Afghanistan. As of this writing, Wisconsin has been designated by the U.S. Department of State to permanently receive approximately 400 Afghan refugees within state boundaries. This means that many Afghan refugees may be applying for employment throughout Wisconsin. This situation presents a good opportunity for employers to review their obligations under federal law with respect to considering non-citizens for hire.

The Immigration and Nationality Act

Under the federal Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), employers generally cannot make hiring, firing, recruitment or referral decisions based on a worker’s citizenship status. Citizenship status discrimination generally occurs when an employer refuses to recruit, refer, hire or fire someone because of the person’s citizenship or immigration status. One example of citizenship status discrimination is when employers limit jobs to U.S. citizens without legal justification.

Employers must use the Form I-9 to verify the worker’s identity and permission to work within three days after the individual begins working for the employer. Federal law generally allows workers to choose which valid, acceptable documentation to present to their employer to prove their identity and permission to work in the U.S. regardless of their citizenship, immigration status or nationality. Employers that discriminate in this process against individuals with permission to work in the U.S. might violate the INA.

 About Afghan Immigrants’ Employment Rights

The U.S. Department of Justice recently issued a fact sheet on Afghan immigrants’ employment rights. That fact sheet can be found here: According to the sheet, some Afghan refugees may have received special permission to work in the United States. Some individuals may have status as Special Immigrant Visa holders and may have permanent residence in the U.S. Other individuals, referred to as “parolees,” can work in the U.S. if the U.S. Department of Homeland Security grants them permission to do so. In such instances, the Department of Homeland Security will issue the refugee an Employment Authorization Document, often referred to as an “EAD” or Form I-766.

Refusing to hire Afghans with special immigration status may itself be a violation of the INA, subjecting the employer to investigation, complaint and fines from the U.S. government and prosecuted through the U.S. Department of Justice.

If an employer is seeking employee applicants, it should avoid violating the INA by not implying that it engages in citizenship status discrimination. Examples of possible violations of the law include statements as follows:

  1. “H-1Bs or OPT Candidates Preferred;”
  2. “Only U.S. Citizens;”
  3. “Only Green Card Holders;” or
  4. “Must Present U.S. Birth Certificate.”

For general or specific information about avoiding discrimination in the hiring process with respect to Afghan refugees or others who are not U.S. citizens, contact your employment law attorney and review your obligations under the INA.


Non-Compete Agreements Are Ripe for Review

Non-Compete Agreements Are Ripe for Review

As many employers and employees know, non-compete agreements are fast becoming a centerpiece of many employer-employee relationships. A non-compete may not only protect a company’s confidential information from disclosure, but also restrict an employee who leaves to work for a competitor. Non-competes may also describe the duration of such restriction and geographic limitations.

Employers favor such restrictions because they protect their business interests in relation to their competitors. Employees dislike such restrictions, because they inhibit their practical choices when they leave one employer for another. Courts tend to look suspiciously at non-compete agreements because they limit the free flow of labor resources across the broader economy. Yet, when non-compete agreements are carefully drafted, they have been upheld by state and federal courts.

It may soon be time for employers to review their non-compete agreement due to a new presidential executive order that asks the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to “curtail the unfair use of non-compete clauses and other clauses or agreements that may unfairly limit worker mobility.”

Each state has its own rules that regulate how far non-compete agreements can go in restricting the movement of former employees. Wisconsin’s rules regarding non-compete agreements are found in § 103.465, Wisconsin Statutes. Wisconsin law requires non-compete agreements to be properly limited in duration, scope and geographic area, among other limitations.

What role will the FTC play in changing the non-compete landscape? Most observers believe the agency will first conduct a state-by-state review of non-compete agreements. Then the FTC is likely to propose limits on the types of professions that may be subject to non-compete agreements.

As the landscape for non-compete agreements undergoes federal examination and likely recommendations for changes, employers and employees are well advised to consult with their attorneys for the latest developments with respect to the enforceability of non-compete agreements in Wisconsin and across the nation.


OSHA Speaks: Updated Workplace Guidance for Employers Concerning COVID-19

OSHA Speaks: Updated Workplace Guidance for Employers Concerning COVID-19

Although the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled on March 31, 2021 that the Governor’s successive masking orders were unlawful, employers in Wisconsin have been uncertain about their duties, under the Occupational Safety Health Act (OSHA), to maintain a safe workplace concerning COVID-19.

On June 10, 2021, OSHA issued an update to its COVID-19 guidance, including a COVID-19 emergency temporary standard that concerns the healthcare industry and updated Guidance on Mitigating and Preventing the Spread of COVID-19 in the Workplace for Non-Healthcare Industries.

The updated guidance applies to industries other than healthcare.  It reiterates the following:

Unless otherwise required by federal, state, local, tribal or territorial laws, rules and regulations, most employers no longer need to take steps to protect their fully vaccinated workers who are not otherwise at-risk from COVID-19 exposure.

The updated guidance focuses only on protecting unvaccinated or other at-risk workers in their respective workplaces.

Employers should be aware that the OSHA guidance refers to workplace safety standards.  The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) still regulates what qualifies as a medical inquiry for purposes of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).  As the nation continues to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic, and barring adverse effects of new strains, employers and employees can generally expect a return to normalcy under the ADA.  This will mean a heightened standard of review by the EEOC with respect to how and when employers ask questions relating to the health of their employees.

For further information or additional discussion points, contact your Anderson O’Brien, LLP attorney.


Employers in Early 2021:  Review, Revise and Communicate FFCRA Leave and Vaccine Policies

Employers in Early 2021: Review, Revise and Communicate FFCRA Leave and Vaccine Policies

Although the succession in presidential administrations from Trump to Biden will almost certainly bring many changes to employment and labor law rules and regulations in 2021, the more immediate concern for Wisconsin employers is to review and, if necessary, revise their COVID-19 leave and vaccine polices. In either circumstance, employers should communicate their policies to employees as soon as possible.

1.)  COVID-19 Leave

The federal Families First Coronavirus Response Act (“FFCRA”) was originally enacted into law in March 2020 for qualifying leave that was taken between April 1, 2020 and December 31, 2020. But its requirements of mandatory leave expired on December 31, 2020. This means that mandatory paid leave at companies that employee less than 500 employees is no longer required.

However, the recent federal stimulus legislation signed by President Trump on December 27, 2020 allows that covered employers who voluntarily offer such leave may use payroll tax credits to cover the cost of leave benefits paid to employees through the end of March 2021. The legislation does not modify the qualifying reasons for which employees may take COVID-related leave, the caps on the amount of pay eligible employees are entitled to receive, or the FFCRA’s documentation requirements. However, an employer will not receive a tax credit for paid leave if an employee exceeds the maximum amount of FFCRA leave, whether that leave was taken in 2020 or 2021.

Upshot for Employers: An employer should consider whether it is in its best interest, and the best interests of their employees and their employees’ families, to continue to offer paid FFCRA leave. In either scenario, the company should draft and communicate its policy — whether it will continue paid FFCRA leave or not — for the benefit of all employees. Presumably an employer may modify the leave benefit to something less than the amount originally required under the FFCRA and still receive the tax credit, although the U.S. Department of Labor has not yet issued an opinion on such hybrid approach.

2.)  COVID-19 Vaccine

On December 16, 2020, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued guidance that gives private employers the go-ahead to implement COVID-19 vaccine policies that would require employees to be vaccinated as a condition to continue employment, or at the least as a condition to returning to the physical workplace.

The distinguishing feature is that the vaccine is not a “medical examination.” If it were, then the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) would be implicated. The ADA limits the ability of an employer to require a medical examination to situations where the exam is “job-related and consistent with business necessity.”

But even though a required vaccine does not itself run afoul of the ADA, pre-screening vaccination questions may implicate the ADA’s limitation on disability-related inquiries, because the inquiries may elicit information about a disability.

Upshot for Employers: Employers should consider whether they will require their employees to receive a COVID-19 vaccination when it is available. Health care facilities will likely invoke such a requirement. But non-health care facilities should consider many factors before invoking a mandatory vaccine requirement, such as the ability to socially distance in the workplace, the availability and effectiveness of remote work options, and the general duty to keep a safe workplace. In either scenario, the astute employer will inform employees of its policy in writing. An employer that offers the vaccine to its employees should consider the benefit of using a third-party vendor. That vendor should be well-prepared with respect to when it may ask questions before administering the vaccine the ensure that there is no medical reason that would present the person from receiving it.

Anderson O’Brien’s attorneys are well-versed to serve Wisconsin clients with respect to risk management and practical business steps involving COVID-19 leave and vaccination practices that comply with state and federal laws. They may be reached at or by calling 715-344-0890.


Employees’ Voting Rights in Wisconsin

Employees’ Voting Rights in Wisconsin

With in-person national, state and local partisan voting set for Tuesday, November 3, 2020, it is timely for employees and employers to review Wisconsin law with respect to voting rights.

An employer must allow an employee to be absent from work to vote in a political election for up to three consecutive hours while the polls are open, if the employee requests such time off before the day of the election. However, the employer may decide the time of the workday for such an absence. The employee is not entitled to be paid for the time away from work but depending on workplace rules (check the employee handbook), the employee may substitute paid time off for time that is otherwise unpaid.

For this election, registered Wisconsin voters may request an absentee ballot. Due to the growing popularity of voting by absentee ballot, it may be that employers experience fewer requests by employees for leave to vote on the day of the election. An employer may request an employee who requests to leave to vote on election day to certify that he or she has not voted by absentee ballot.

An employer is prohibited from penalizing an employee who is absent from work to vote after making previous arrangements with the employer to vote.

May an employee take an unpaid leave of absence from work to work as an election official?

Wisconsin law requires every employer to grant an unpaid leave of absence to each employee who is appointed to serve as an election official, as long as the employee who is serving as an election official provides his or her employer with at least seven days’ notice. The leave is for the entire 24-hour period of each election day in which the employee serves in his or her official capacity as an election official. Upon the request of any employer, a municipal clerk must verify such appointment. In this instance, an employee who wishes to serve as an election official must notify the employer of such appointment no later than October 26, 2020.

Employers may not use threats of discharge, threats of compensation reduction, promise compensation increases to influence exercise of an employee’s voting rights, discriminate against employees who refuse to participate in employer communications about political matters, or display or otherwise circulate communications containing threats to reduce compensation or conduct layoffs depending upon election results.

Wisconsin employers may not discriminate against employees because of their use of lawful products. Use of lawful products may be broadly defined in certain circumstances to include such things as blogging software, Twitter, political signage and other products used to speak. Therefore, an employer needs to consider all Wisconsin laws before it acts with respect to an employee who is exercising his or her voting or speech rights.

Under Wisconsin’s constitution, there is a right to free speech: “Every person may freely speak, write and publish his sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right and no law shall be passed to restrain or abridge the liberty of speech or of the press. . .” However, this right of free speech applies to state/governmental action, not action by a private employer. Jacobs v. Major, 139 Wis. 2d 492 (1987).

For any questions that an employer or an employee may have with respect to workplace rules that affect employees’ right to vote, contact your employment lawyer or human resources professional.


Pin It on Pinterest