In the recent case DOL v. Bevins & Son, Inc., et., al., a Vermont court addressed allegations of unlawful retaliation against employees who received back wages after a settlement with the Department of Labor (DOL). The outcome provides valuable insights for all employers on how to avoid retaliation claims and ensuring compliance with labor laws. 

Bevins & Son, a Vermont-based construction and excavation business, faced allegations of retaliating against employees who participated in a DOL investigation. The DOL investigation was initiated after an employee, Riley Bockus (Bockus), complained about unpaid overtime. Following the investigation, Bevins & Son agreed to pay back wages and damages to several employees, including Bockus. 

Key Allegations: 

1. Retaliatory Termination: Employee Bockus was terminated after threatening to report unpaid overtime to the labor board or the DOL. After his termination, Bockus promptly filed a complaint with the DOL’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD).  
2. Public Disparagement: After an investigation and subsequent settlement, the DOL issued a press release stating that Bevins & Son terminated a worker for asking to be paid in compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The release generally described the terms of the settlement and did not name any workers. The release was picked up by a local news station which aired a TV news segment and published an online story concerning the DOL’s investigation. Neither story mentioned any employee names.  

Shortly thereafter, Bevins & Son’s company secretary/treasurer, posted on Facebook, referencing the newscast and urging people to “please google the disgruntled employee whom [sic] was fired and contributed to the story Riley Bockus (his word and character will be seen).” This post led to multiple public comments including one that revealed Bockus’ prior criminal history.i 

1. Misleading Statements: Bevins & Son’s company president, also publicly claimed on Facebook that employees had returned the settlement money to him, implying that the settlement was unnecessary. 

In denying the company’s motion to dismiss, the court emphasized that defendant Bevins & Son’s actions could be seen as retaliatory under the FLSA, which protects employees from discrimination for participating in protected activities, such as filing complaints or participating in investigations. 

What Does it Mean? 

The Bevins & Son case emphasizes the importance of understanding and respecting employees’ rights under labor laws, particularly the FLSA. The case also highlights the serious consequences of voicing employment-related opinions on social media. 

Here are four key takeaways: 

1. Avoid Retaliation: Employers should refrain from any form of retaliation against employees who exercise their rights under labor laws. This includes not only adverse employment actions like termination but also public disparagement via social media or any action that could harm the employee’s reputation or future employment prospects. 
2. Respect Confidentiality: Employers should respect the confidentiality of employee complaints and settlements. As evidenced by the Bevins & Son case, publicly discussing these matters can be seen as retaliatory and lead to serious legal issues.
3. Provide Training: Employers should provide regular training to company leadership, managers and supervisors on labor laws and the risks of discussing work-related issues on social media. This can help prevent unintentional violations and foster a culture of compliance. 
4. Establish Clear Policies: Employers should have clear policies and procedures in place for handling employee complaints, investigations, and settlements. This includes an anti-retaliation policy that is closely followed and encourages employees to report issues without fear of retaliation. 

By keeping these practices in mind, employers can help mitigate legal risks, foster a fair and compliant workplace, and maintain a positive employer-employee relationship.  

As the 2024 election approaches and political polarization in the U.S. intensifies, the impact of varying political beliefs on the workplace is becoming more pronounced. While protections for workplace discrimination based on protected classifications are well known to most employers, the boundary on political speech is not.  

California law prohibits employers from acting against their employees based on their political beliefs and activities.i This includes forbidding or preventing employees from engaging in politics or controlling or directing the political activities or affiliations of employees.  

National Labor Relations Act considerations also play a role in protecting workers who engage in ‘concerted activity.’ Typically, this means that employees are protected when they work together to take actions related to the terms and conditions of their employment (e.g., improving wages, workplace safety, benefits and other similar issues). This could include an employee talking with coworkers about their support for a particular candidate because the candidate wants to increase the minimum wage.  

But what happens when ‘concerted activity’ or a political affiliation brings disruption to the workplace? Here are a few key points to consider before taking steps to address the issue: 

• Use existing policies to create/maintain a positive workplace culture. The waters of political speech in the workplace can be very murky. A best practice when it comes to politically based speech is to treat it as you would any other type of disruptive speech (e.g., harassing, discriminatory or abusive speech). Any workplace discussion that turns violent, harassing or disrespectful toward coworkers should be addressed in accordance with the company’s existing policies/procedures. Using rules that employees are familiar with – and understand are already part of the workplace – shows that the employer is not motivated by the topic of the speech, but the potentially violent, harassing or abusive impact of the speech at issue. 

• Set clear expectations when it comes to workplace culture. Ensure policies that support a positive workplace culture include language that promotes a culture of respect where diverse opinions are valued and discussions are conducted with civility and respect.  

• Maintain a neutral position. As with all forms of discipline, the policies/procedures being enforced must be – and must be perceived to be – applied equally and uniformly across the organization in all applicable situations. Additionally, managers and supervisors should be trained to be cautious in sharing their political opinions with subordinates. This is true of all types of potentially harmful speech (e.g., telling off-color jokes or making statements that denigrate workers of a particular race/religion).  

As Election Day approaches employers should also begin planning to accommodate state and local voting leave requirements to ensure they are ready for any Election Day impacts.