Some employers might wish to know whether a job applicant or current employee previously filed worker’s compensation claims. At first glance, such information might seem relevant and even useful to employers. For example, an employer in an accident-prone industry might want to know if the job applicant has a history of repeatedly filing worker’s compensation claims shortly after beginning his or her employment. However, it is important that employers understand the liability that could result from using an applicant/employee’s previous worker’s compensation claims as a basis for making employment decisions.

Using an applicant/employee’s worker’s compensation claim to make adverse employment decisions could result in criminal liability for the employer. Under Florida law, it is a first degree misdemeanor to knowingly fire an employee or refuse to hire an applicant because the applicant/employee filed a worker’s compensation claim.

Employers could also face civil liability if they fire, threaten to fire, intimidate, or coerce an employee because the employee filed a worker’s compensation claim. Additionally, employers could face civil liability if they fire an employee after learning that the employee filed a worker’s compensation claim against a previous employer.

However, Florida law does not seem to impose civil liability on an employer who refuses to hire a job applicant after learning that the applicant filed worker’s compensation claims against previous employers. Bruner v. GC-GW, Inc., 880 So. 2d 1244, 1252 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (Kahn, J., dissenting) (“Florida apparently does not recognize a civil cause of action against a subsequent employer who refuses to hire a job applicant for having filed a workers’ compensation claim against a previous employer”). Employers should note, however, that while employers might not be subject to civil liability for refusing to hire an applicant based on previous worker’s compensation claims, Florida law does impose criminal liability for such refusals to hire.

An employer who takes any adverse employment action based on an applicant/employee’s previous worker’s compensation claims might also be liable under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Under the federal ADA, an employer cannot make inquiries regarding an applicant/employee’s disability or the nature or severity of such disability. The employer, however, is allowed to make pre-employment inquiries about the applicant’s ability to perform job-related functions. The ADA further allows employers under certain circumstances to make medical examinations after making a conditional offer of employment to the applicant.

While some employers might consider information regarding past worker’s compensation claims relevant to their employment decisions, it is important to note that inquiries into past worker’s compensation claims could result in both civil and criminal liability. Before implementing a background check policy that includes inquiries into job applicants’ past worker’s compensation claims, employers should consult an attorney in their respective state to ensure compliance with the applicable laws.

Peter T. Mavrick has successfully represented many employers in labor and employment matters. This article is not a substitute for legal advice tailored to a particular situation. Peter T. Mavrick can be reached at: Website: www.mavricklaw.com; Telephone: 954-564-2246; Address: 1620 West Oakland Park Boulevard, Suite 300, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33311; Email: peter@mavricklaw.com.

A “protected activity” can be either formal or informal. For example, if the employee formally files a complaint against the employer in court alleging unpaid wages, the employer cannot thereafter fire the employee for filing that complaint. However, “informal” complaints could also lead to an FLSA retaliation claim. For example, the employee may orally complain to the employer about unpaid overtime wages. If the employer thereafter fires or takes other adverse action against the employee, the employer could be held liable for unlawfully retaliating against the employee. The bottom line is: if the employee makes some form of complaint (either written or oral) that puts the employer on notice that the employee is asserting his or her rights under the FLSA, then the employee’s complaint will likely be considered “protected activity.” The employee does not need to mention the FLSA by name. However, the employee’s complaint also cannot be a general grievance; it must be sufficient in both content and context to put the employer on notice that the employee was asserting his or her rights under the FLSA. A federal court in Florida recently found that the employees’ complaints that they were “improperly paid” were too vague to constitute “protected activity.” Barquin v. Monty’s Sunset, L.L.C., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144076, at *8-9 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 2, 2013).

An “adverse action” is any action taken by the employer that causes some injury or harm to the employee. The most straight-forward example of “adverse action” is an employer terminating or firing the employee. However, demotions or pay cuts could also constitute “adverse action.” Other employment actions, such as job transfers or reassignments, will generally not be considered “adverse actions” on their own, but could rise to the level of “adverse action” under certain circumstances. In general, if the employer’s actions would dissuade a “reasonable worker” from making or supporting a charge against the employer, then the employer’s actions would likely be considered “adverse.”

Finally, the employee must establish “a causal connection” between the protected activity and the adverse action. Unless the employer explicitly states, “I am firing you because you filed an FLSA complaint,” it is unlikely that the employee can show direct evidence of the existence of a “causal connection.” However, the employee could show a “causal connection” through circumstantial evidence. For example, if the employer took adverse action against the employee within days after the employee engaged in protected activity, the close temporal proximity could serve as circumstantial evidence of a “causal connection” between the protected activity and the adverse action.

Employers should keep in mind that the FLSA retaliation provision also covers employees who are exempt from the FLSA’s minimum wage and overtime wage provisions. In other words, even when the employer is not required to pay the employee minimum or overtime wages, the employer might still be held liable for retaliating against the employee if the employer took adverse action against the employee based on the employee’s mistaken but reasonable complaint that the employer was violating the FLSA’s minimum or overtime wage provisions.

Peter T. Mavrick has successfully represented many employers in labor and employment matters. This article is not a substitute for legal advice tailored to a particular situation. Peter T. Mavrick can be reached at: Website: www.mavricklaw.com; Telephone: 954-564-2246; Address: 1620 West Oakland Park Boulevard, Suite 300, Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33311; Email: peter@mavricklaw.com.