Overview

The Supreme Court has unanimously concluded that the Uber drivers who brought claims against Uber in 2015 are workers within employment legislation, giving them the range of rights attached to that status, such as the national minimum wage, the right to paid leave and whistleblowing protection.

Facts and Employment Tribunal decision in 2016

As many of you will be aware, Uber is a ride-hailing service which operates through an app downloaded to a user’s smartphone. The app enables a user to request a ride and be picked up from a pre-selected location. 25 Uber drivers brought a case against the company, which reached the Employment Tribunal (ET) in 2016. The drivers sought to be categorised as workers as opposed to self-employed contractors. Uber’s position was that it simply provided a technology platform which facilitated the provision of private hire vehicles to customers. Uber argued that it served as an agent, with the driver and passenger entering into a direct contract for each journey.

The ET concluded that the drivers were workers. In reaching this decision, the ET considered the following factors:

• Uber mandated drivers to accept bookings and drivers who repeatedly cancelled would face sanctions
• Uber imposed conditions
  

Lydia Octon-Burke considers the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on annual leave entitlement and carry-over moving into 2021 and practical tips for employers.

At the beginning of another year impacted by COVID-19, many employers have found themselves with employees having large amounts of outstanding annual leave carried over from 2020. Stuck in lockdown once again, employees are increasingly less willing to want to take annual leave, given that COVID-19 is likely to be with us for many months to come. Even if the vaccine programme is successful, it is likely that limits on travel abroad and social interaction will continue for some time.

All workers/employees are entitled to 5.6 weeks’ annual leave in each leave year, which equates to 28 days for someone who works 5 days a week. This is made up of:

1. Four weeks’ statutory leave
2. 6 weeks’ additional leave

Additional leave is more flexible and able to be carried over through direct agreement between employer and employee. As a general rule, however, four weeks’  statutory leave was more restricted and could only be taken in the leave year to which it related (i.e. the “use it or lose it” rule). This was amended last year

COVID-19 has led to significant employee absences from the workplace.  While the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) may well apply to certain such absences, employers must avoid the temptation to count all COVID-related leave against employees’ FMLA entitlement without considering the specific circumstances.  Over-designating absences as FMLA leave when the FMLA does not actually apply can create just as many legal issues as failing to designate covered absences under the FMLA.

For example, an FMLA interference claim may result if an employee is denied additional FMLA leave after the employee’s FMLA entitlement is exhausted due to absences that did not truly count as FMLA leave.  Conversely, by offering FMLA protections when the FMLA does not apply, employers may be establishing a right to reinstatement or other benefits when no such right should exist.  At a minimum, improperly designating absences as FMLA leave can create confusion and administrative nightmares.

Accordingly, COVID-related absences must be evaluated carefully and designated as FMLA leave only in appropriate circumstances.  As a general overview – but with the caveat that this post is not intended to provide legal advice concerning specific situations – below are examples of COVID-related situations in which the FMLA typically

On February 2, 2021, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision that affects all California employers that employ interstate transportation workers.  In Ward v. United Airlines, the court held that federal law did not prevent California’s wage statement law from applying to pilots and flight attendants who are based in California, spend most of their time working outside of California, and do not work a majority of the time in any one state.  Specifically, the court rejected arguments based on three sources of federal law: the dormant Commerce Clause, the Airline Deregulation Act, and the Railway Labor Act.

The dormant Commerce Clause limits the states’ authority to enact or enforce laws that burden interstate commerce, even in the absence of legislation by Congress. State laws that discriminate against or directly regulate interstate commerce are virtually per se invalid, while non-discriminatory laws that have only incidental effects on interstate commerce will generally be upheld unless the burden on interstate commerce is clearly excessive in relation to the putative local benefits.  The Ninth Circuit held that California’s wage statement law does not discriminate against interstate commerce, because the law applies to employers evenhandedly whether they are based inside or outside

This post considers whether ‘long-covid’ is likely to be classed as a disability under the Equality Act 2010, and provides practical guidance for employers.

At the time of writing, it is estimated that approximately 100 million people have now contracted Coronavirus. Whilst the majority of those infected go on to make a full recovery, some suffer continuing symptoms once the initial infection has gone. These symptoms are commonly referred to as “long-covid”. According to the NHS, some of the most commonly encountered symptoms of long-covid include; (i) extreme tiredness; (ii) shortness of breath; and (iii) problems with memory and concentration. A recent study estimated that there are currently 60,000 people in the United Kingdom alone suffering from long-covid.

Ultimately, some of those suffering from long-term health conditions may be classed as disabled under the Equality Act 2010 (“EQA”). This article considers the circumstances in which long-covid would classified as a disability under the EQA.

Definition of a disability under the EQA

The EQA prohibits discrimination in respect of numerous protected characteristics, including disability. Section 6 and Schedule 1 of the EQA define a “disability”. It is important to note that the legal definition of disability does not always reflect what

Partner and Practice Group Leader, Energy, Environment and Infrastructure, Bryan Keyt; Partner Brandon Neuschafer; and Associate David Brankin wrote an article on OSHA’s new guidance to help employers better identify risks of being exposed to and/or contracting COVID-19 and to ascertain appropriate control measures employers can implement to address those risks.

Click here to read the full article.

As COVID-19 vaccines become more widely available and efforts are underway to increase dissemination, employers are considering whether to require employees to be vaccinated in order to be present on Company property.  This Q&A addresses key issues regarding a mandatory workplace vaccine program or policy. In Part 3 of the three-part article, we address more of the most commonly asked questions.

As a prefatory note to the questions and answers below, we strongly recommend employers consult with legal counsel when contemplating a workplace vaccine program.  While mandatory vaccination programs may generally be permitted, the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has long taken the position in its pandemic guidance that employee vaccination should be encouraged rather than required.  As such, before implementing a mandatory program, employers should consider whether an alternative approach may be preferable for their workforce.  Examples of such alternatives include:  encouragement programs, voluntary incentive programs (which have their own set of risks), teleworking arrangements, mandatory diagnostic testing programs, and implementation of additional social distancing and protective measures.

(Click here to see Part 1, questions 1-6 and Part 2, questions 7-12)

(13) Should employers have a written policy or program? What about training?

Yes and yes. 

As COVID-19 vaccines become more widely available and efforts are underway to increase dissemination, employers are considering whether to require employees to be vaccinated in order to be present on Company property.  This Q&A addresses key issues regarding a mandatory workplace vaccine program or policy. In Part 2 of the three-part article, we address more of the most commonly asked questions.

As a prefatory note to the questions and answers below, we strongly recommend employers consult with legal counsel when contemplating a workplace vaccine program.  While mandatory vaccination programs may generally be permitted, the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has long taken the position in its pandemic guidance that employee vaccination should be encouraged rather than required.  As such, before implementing a mandatory program, employers should consider whether an alternative approach may be preferable for their workforce.  Examples of such alternatives include:  encouragement programs, voluntary incentive programs (which have their own set of risks), teleworking arrangements, mandatory diagnostic testing programs, and implementation of additional social distancing and protective measures.

(Click here to see Part 1, questions 1-6.)

(7) What must an employer do if an employee refuses vaccination for a reason that requires a reasonable accommodation analysis (e.g.