Often, when people come to me for a legal consult, the word “harassment” comes up; clients say that someone – another tenant, neighbor, landlord or coworker – is “harassing” them, and can’t they “sue for harassment?” Unfortunately, usually the answer is “no.” 

A lot of annoying behavior does not rise to the level required to make out a legal claim for what might be called, in generic terms, harassment. There are specific legal claims that a wrongdoer’s acts may fall under, e.g. sexual harassment, civil assault or battery, or intentional infliction of emotional distress. A boss who shouts and screams at you, a neighbor who pounds on the wall every time you play music, or a landlord who tries to evict you for being one day late in rent, is not going to be liable for any form of harassment. Essentially, it is legal to be annoying.

On top of the legality of being annoying, some actions that are commonly described as “harassment” are protected as “free speech” and/or the “right to petition.” For example, suppose a landlord tries to evict a tenant based on a bogus reason. “That’s just plain harassment!” But the fact is, a landlord’s filing of a civil lawsuit for eviction is protected free speech/right to petition that the tenant must defend against – claiming it is “harassment” is not a legitimate defense and will fall on the deaf ears of justice. Possible additional recourse may be available to a tenant in this situation, such as a claim for ‘abuse of process’ or ‘wrongful eviction,’ but each of these claims are difficult to establish and must rely on facts other than the mere filing of a lawsuit or service of a notice to evict, both of which are protected as free speech/right to petition. Likewise, your annoying neighbor’s calls to the police every time you play your saxophone (“That’s just plain harassment!”) are protected as free speech.

However, there is a civil violation on the books called “harassment.” California Code of Civil Procedure section 527.6 defines harassment as: “unlawful violence, a credible threat of violence, or a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose. The course of conduct must be such as would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and must actually cause substantial emotional distress.” (This is civil harassment, not a criminal charge.)

With this definition in mind, you can see that the behavior of your annoying neighbor, etc. must rise to a very high level of annoyance to meet the standard of civil harassment. However, if it does, you can obtain a Restraining Order against that person. More information about Restraining Orders can be found at:   http://www.sfsuperiorcourt.org/divisions/civil/harassment

In sum, you can’t always resort to the courts when you have a dispute. An attorney can help you determine if you have a legal case or grounds to get a restraining order. Also, remember to not overreact when someone is annoying you, or YOU may cross the line into harassment or assault! Look for ways to peaceably resolve your conflict.

[Note: if you want protection from someone you are dating (or used to date), married to (or were married to); or closely related to (like a parent, child, brother or sister, grandparent, or grandchild), then this falls into the category of Domestic Violence, and must seek a Restraining Order in the court’s Family Law department.]  

You and your attorney have been to hell and back, “hell” being written discovery, depositions, mediation, or just pre-litigation negotiations. But, now, you have settled the case. Great! You know what this means: the case is done, over with – you didn’t win, or lose… you settled. But now you are handed (or, emailed) a “settlement agreement” that you need to sign: a “written settlement agreement” with a lot of legalese. What does the legalese mean? This blog post explains a one key component to any standard settlement agreement: the release of all claims. 

First, an overview: any standard settlement agreement will require you to settle ALL claims – known and unknown that may exist at the time of the settlement. Settling unknown claims is a risk you take. However, in most cases it should be pretty clear that there are no unknown claims. For example, suppose a tenant sues her landlord for ‘wrongful endeavor to evict.’ The case settles at, say, $20,000.00. The tenant and landlord will each need to release ALL claims that may exist against the other regarding the property. So, for example, the tenant would be releasing any habitability claims she may have – unknown or unknown. But the tenant will likely know if there are any problems in the unit at the time, so the risk is not that great. Likewise, the landlord will release any claims that she might have against the tenant that exist at the time. Another example: in the employment law context, suppose a worker sues his employer for unpaid overtime. The case settles for $20,000.00. The release of claims in this case will cover all claims – known and unknown – pertaining to that workers rights to, say, meal and rest periods. If the worker didn’t get them, he should bring that up in the current lawsuit, or he will lose his right to bring a claim in the future, since the settlement contains a release of ALL claims that exist at the time. Still, in some cases, there may be a genuine risk. Suppose you are in a relatively minor car accident (you suffered whiplash and a broken nose) and you sue the other driver for negligence. The case settles for $10,000.00 and you sign a release of all claims – unknown included. Six months later you discover that the car accident also caused severe injury to your knee (which you did not notice at the time, and doctors did not discover). You will never walk again. Can you go back and sue the other driver for that knee injury? No! You released all claims – known and unknown that existed at the time of settlement. Although, even in this car accident scenario, you presumably would have had a thorough exam and found all injuries, so, again, the realistic risk is not that great. 

The language in a standard settlement agreement gets complicated because there is a California law (Civil Code 1542) that states that a general release of claims does not extend to unknown claims! So, the parties need to waive their rights under that law in order to release unknown claims. Now, the legalese. 

In your settlement agreement you will find these two paragraphs, usually somewhere in the middle of the agreement:

The Parties acknowledge that they have been advised of and/or are familiar with the provisions of California Civil Code Section 1542 which provides as follows: “A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release which, if known by him or her must have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor.”      

The Parties hereby expressly waives any and all rights that they may have under California Civil Code Section 1542 against each other relating to or arising out of the Claims or any past dealings or relationship with each other. 

In sum, when you settle a case, you have to settle all issues between the parties that exist at that time. However, any future problems can be raised in a new lawsuit.

The fire at the Richmond Chevron oil refinery on August 6, 2012 and the news reports of injuries to residents in the San Francisco Bay Area, makes this a good time for a blog post about the basics of personal injury law.

Under California law, if another person (including a corporate “person” or company) is responsible for harming you, you may, depending on the circumstances of the case, be able to recover money for a variety of injuries. Injuries might include:

a.     Conscious physical and mental pain and suffering and anguish, past and    future;

b.     Disfigurement, past and future;

c.     Physical impairment, past and future;

d.     Loss of wages/earnings;

e.     Loss of earning capacity;

f.      Loss of consortium, past and future;

g.      Loss of enjoyment of real property and homes, and loss/diminution of property value, past and future;

h.      Fear, anxiety and emotional distress;

i.       Reasonable and necessary medical, counseling, psychiatric, therapeutic and related expenses, past and future;

j.       Property damage.

In large incidents such as a refinery fire, injured persons often join together in a “mass tort” action. Each person’s claims are ultimately distinct and treated separately, but they join together in one lawsuit. This has the advantage of minimizing some costs of discovery and investigation, and generally makes the case stronger.

Claims for money compensation for injuries in oil refinery explosion cases are often based on claims of “negligence” for allowing unsafe conditions to exist, “trespass” for causing smoke and other harmful substances to enter onto the victim’s property; and “strict liability” for operating an ultra-hazardous business. Under strict liability, a company can be found liable for injuries even if it was not negligent. In extreme cases, where an oil company is found to have lied or covered-up facts and/or been consciously aware of safety problems and not acted, other claims such as “gross negligence” or “fraud” might be brought against the company to allow victims to recover “punitive damages.” Punitive damages are monetary awards to victims that are intended to serve as punishment to the company and not just compensation for actual losses the victim suffered.

Just like the word “landlord,” “master tenant” is a term that still connotes the idea that those in that position have absolute power over others. Modernly, of course, a landlord’s power is curtailed by state and sometimes local law governing landlord/tenant relations.  So, too, with the power of a Master Tenant over other tenants in the unit.

However, the rights and responsibilities of a Master Tenant seem to be widely misunderstood. This blog deals with two main points about the rights and duties of a Master Tenant in San Francisco: (1) the applicability of just cause eviction law; and (2) the ability of a Master Tenant to charge more rent to tenants than he or she pays.

JUST CAUSE EVICTIONS: Many people believe that San Francisco’s “just cause” eviction process applies to Master Tenants. This is only partly true. Unless a Master Tenant takes active steps to ensure that an exception applies, a Master Tenant in San Francisco, like a Landlord, can only evict a tenant for one of the “just cause” reasons listed in the ordinance, such as non-payment of rent, or nuisance.

However, there is a very powerful loophole that will allow a Master Tenant to evict for any reason, or no reason at all. If a Master Tenant gives written notice to a new tenant, prior to signing the lease, that San Francisco’s “just cause” eviction law does NOT apply to the tenancy, then, ipso facto, it does not. An attorney can help a Master Tenant draft a proper notice.

Similarly, by the way, a true owner (Landlord) of the premises may evict tenants without just cause if the Landlord lives in the ‘same unit’ with the tenants. What constitutes the ‘same unit’ may be a tricky legal issue.

RENT DISPARITY: Many tenants believe that a Master Tenant must simply divide the total amount of rent for the unit by the number of tenants residing there, including him or herself – i.e., the Master Tenant is not allowed to pay a cheaper rent and charge more rent to the other tenants. On this view, if a Master Tenant had two housemates in a three-bedroom apartment with a total rent of  $1,500.00, the Master Tenant would be required to have each person, including him or herself, pay $500.00/month, and could not, say, pay $400.00/month and require the other two tenants to pay $550.00 each.

In general, it is advisable for a Master Tenant to follow that rule, but it is only a rule of thumb. There may be circumstance when it is appropriate and lawful for a Master Tenant to charge other tenants more rent than he or she pays. “In determining the proper base rent [for a subtenant], additional housing services provided by the master tenant (such as furnishings or utilities) and/or any special obligations of the master tenant and/or evidence of the relative amenities or value of rooms, may be considered.” (See SF Rent Board Fact Sheet 154.) So, a Master Tenant may pay less for his or her room than the sub-tenants in appropriate circumstances. An attorney can help a Master Tenant determine a reasonable, and justified, rent differential.

But, note that it is definitely illegal, with NO exceptions, for a Master Tenant to charge a combined rent that is higher than the total rent due to the owner/Landlord of the unit. Moreover, a Master Tenant must provide each subtenant a written disclosure of the amount of rent the master tenant is obligated to pay the Landlord, before the sub-tenancy begins.

In sum, a Master Tenant in San Francisco is subject to the local rent ordinance unless the Master Tenant takes active steps, such as providing written notice that ‘just cause’ law does not apply and determining a reasonable and justified rent differential. A Master Tenant is subject to liability if he or she fails to handle the rights and duties of the position properly.

The long-awaited ‘meal and rest period’ case, Brinker, has finally been decided by the California Supreme Court after seven years of litigation and over two years pending on the Supreme Court docket.

Dramatic headlines such as this one have been typical in the news: “Managers Don’t Have to Ensure Lunch Breaks.” But, the truth embodied in the 55-page court opinion is much less sweeping. Still, this case is of immense importance to employers and employees alike, because it clarifies certain ambiguities present in California meal/rest period codes.

Here are the essential points that Brinker has made law: 

• The 10-minute rest period does not need to be given prior to the 30-minute meal period.

• The 10-minute rest period does not need to be given for work shifts of less than 3 1/2 hours.

• Meal periods must commence before the start of a worker’s sixth hour of work (i.e. the break does not need to be completed during the fifth hour).

• Employers fulfill their obligation to “provide” meal periods so long as the employer has a clear policy that is actually implemented to allow employees to take a completely work-free meal break. After that, the employer is not required to “police” work areas to “ensure” that each worker is actually not working during his or her break. As the court stated: “the employer is not obligated to police meal breaks and ensure no work thereafter is performed. Bona fide relief from duty and the relinquishing of control satisfies the employer’s obligations, and work by a relieved employee during a meal break does not thereby place the employer in violation of its obligations and create liability for premium pay…”]

The last point was the most contentious of the issues in Brinker. The court found that the plaintiff-worker had not “presented substantial evidence of a systematic company policy to pressure or require employees to work off the clock,” but the court did note that an employer’s liability is contingent on proof that the employer “knew or should have known off-the-clock work was occurring.” Thus, it is still important for employers to have a clear and implemented policy for meal and rest periods, and to record each worker’s breaks.  

The Brinker case was a class action. So, much of the court’s opinion - and its legal impact - deals with the technical aspects of class action “certification” (i.e. whether a case may proceed as a class action or not). Employers see the decision as favorable to them because it may make class action certification harder for workers to obtain. However, I don’t think Brinker will necessarily impact on a case brought by an individual worker on behalf of him or herself alone (i.e. not as a class action), especially when there is evidence that an employer has actively thwarted an employee’s ability to take breaks or knew that work was being performed off-the-clock.

For more information about meal and rest period law, click here to read my article Basics of Meal and Rest Period Law.

Click here to read the full text of the Brinker case.

Even if you have never been involved in a lawsuit, you have probably heard of Small Claims Court. Small Claims Court is a division of state Civil Court that has a number of special rules that permit legal disputes to be handled cheaply, quickly, and with a minimum of courtroom protocols to understand. However, there are good and bad points to bringing a Complaint in Small Claims Court.

First, you must represent yourself – an attorney cannot represent you before the judge. This is good or bad depending on your view on lawyers! However, you may have an attorney assist you in preparing your case: an attorney can select/create/prepare exhibits; organize your presentation; provide legal arguments based on case law and statutes; coach you on the small claims process and what to expect at trial; select and prepare witnesses; and, give you a written outline to rely upon at trial. It does not matter which side you are on – an attorney may not represent you, but an attorney can assist you in preparing your case.

Second, there is a cap on how much money you can recover in Small Claims Court. Generally, an individual (including a sole proprietor) can recover up to $10,000.00, and a business up to $5,000.00. Again, this is good or bad, depending on how much money is at issue. For example, if a landlord has withheld your security deposit of $1,500.00, bringing a Small Claims case may be your best option – and you can recover double damages if the landlord was in “bad faith” (i.e. had no reasonable basis for withholding your deposit). Other examples are: breach of contract, personal injury, property damage.  There are many types of situations where bringing a small claim may be the cheapest and easiest way to achieve justice (or defend a claim). On the other hand, your claim may be worth more than the Small Claims limit allows. But in some situations, it may be best to “waive” (i.e. forgo) a possible higher amount, in order to bring your claim in Small Claims Court. An attorney can help you answer that question.

Third – all good – bringing a Small Claim is significantly cheaper than regular Civil Court: the filing fee is $30.00 for a claim up to $1,500; $50 for up to $5,000; and $75.00 for up to $10,000. Compare that to $370.00 to $410.00 for an initial filing in regular Civil Court. You may also recover attorney’s fees if you win.

Fourth – all good – Small Claims court is fast. Generally, you will “have your day in court” between 20 and 70 days after you file your claim. Compare that to possibly years of litigation in regular Civil Court.

There are many other factors to consider in determining if you should use Small Claims Court, or if you have a good chance of winning at all. An attorney can help you evaluate your case and determine if Small Claims Court is a good option.

Note: Generally, with some exceptions, only the defendant in a Small Claims case may appeal the judge’s decision if they lose the case. If you brought the case and lose, you cannot appeal, unless an exception applies. But, in an “appeal trial,” both parties may have an attorney represent them. The appeal is held in a regular Civil Court as a completely new trial (i.e. the judge does not know what occurred at your prior Small Claims trial). 

In sum, using the Small Claims Court may be advantageous in many cases where the amount of money in dispute is $10,000.00 or less (or $5,000.00 or less for a business entity). Although you need to represent yourself, an attorney may assist you in preparing for your trial.

Having practiced law for a while now, I am no longer surprised when a client is confused about the difference between civil law and criminal law. Indeed, it is understandable that there is some confusion, because although these two systems of law are distinct, there is some overlap, and one legal problem or situation may have aspects of both a crime (treated in criminal law), and a wrong (that can be addressed through a civil lawsuit or small claims action).

Take some examples based on cases that I have personally seen:

• You purchase a piece of furniture through an online store. The item never arrives and when you contact the company by telephone you are given the run around. Assurances are made, but the item never comes. You ask for your money back and the company does not return it. You could sue this company in civil court by filing a Complaint based on civil fraud. Or, you could contact the police, and criminal Charges might be brought by the state against the company based on criminal fraud.

• You are a wealthy senior citizen, and an unscrupulous individual convinces you to loan them a significant amount of money and promises to pay it back with high interest. The borrower never even attempts to pay you back. Again, as in the previous example, you could go to the police and report the crime of fraud, or you could hire an attorney to bring a civil lawsuit for financial elder abuse (under California’s civil elder abuse laws) and civil fraud.

• You live in an apartment with several housemates. One housemate is a real bum. Eventually, the bum moves out, but takes your new flat screen TV with him, along with some cash you left on your dresser in your bedroom. You could call the police and make a report, or you could sue the thief in small claims court.

In each of the above situations, the “victim” could (1) go to the police, (2) get an attorney to file a civil suit (or assist in a small claims action), or (3) do both. The wisdom of one course of action over the other, or proceeding with both at the same time, is highly dependent on the particular facts and details of the case.

First, notice the difference in terminology: you file a Complaint in civil court; Charges are brought in the criminal system. A number of clients have initially contacted me and wanted to bring “charges” against someone, but really meant that they wanted to sue. 

Second, the main purpose of the criminal system is to punish a person for a clearly defined crime set out in the state’s penal code. Although there are mechanisms in the criminal system to reimburse the victim of a financial crime like fraud or burglary for the money that was stolen, the likelihood of achieving that goal may not be very high… especially if the criminal is behind bars with no income. In contrast, the purpose of a civil lawsuit in the examples above is simply to get your money back/compensation for loss, plus perhaps any monetary penalties that civil law may provide.

Third, an attorney may not use the threat of a criminal charge to gain an advantage in a civil lawsuit (California Rule of Professional Conduct 5-100). In other words, a civil attorney cannot tell the “thief” that if he (or she) does not pay the amount demanded in a civil case, the attorney will tell the client to go to the police and press criminal charges. Likewise, the victim must either go to the police or not, and should not use the threat of going to police to gain advantage in a civil case; to do so may be criminal extortion under California Penal Code sections 518 and 519.   

Finally, if you happen to be both accused of a crime AND are being sued in civil court (for the same alleged actions), this will present unique challenges to you.

In sum, one event or action can potentially give rise to both a criminal case and a civil case. However, despite some overlap, the two are very distinct and one must think carefully about how to proceed.  

I worked in the food service industry off and on for many years, from my teenage years through my thirties. In my first job, I started as a busboy, became a cook, and eventually was promoted to manager. Back then, in my experience, only the wait staff got tips. I didn’t get tips, because in the positions I held I did not serve customers directly.

However, in more recent years, it has become increasing common for employers to implement various tip-pooling schemes by which not only workers with direct contact with customers reap gratuities, but, instead, the tips are “pooled” and distributed to other workers, such as cooks, bussers and bartenders. The news that came out this week about lawsuits against Café Gratitude based upon allegations of illegal labor practices, including its tip-pooling scheme, highlights the importance of understanding current California law on tip-pooling.

First, Café Gratitude appears to have implemented its tip-pooling scheme after obtaining its employees’ approval by some sort of vote. To certain commentators on web news sites, voting should be enough to stop a lawsuit: “You were given an opportunity to vote on this policy, and knew that your colleagues ultimately voted to implement a policy that acknowledges and rewards all the contributors of excellent service, from the kitchen to the table. When you made the decision to sign this tip policy and to work for Café Gratitude, you gave your word to support the community’s decision.” Fortunately or unfortunately, we do not work in little pods of isolated democracies, but in a state called California, in which labor laws are enacted by elected officials. Voting in the workplace is irrelevant. Indeed, some statutes governing wage and hour laws specifically state that the law cannot be waived by employee consent. Café Gratitude should have known better. It is the employer’s responsibility to comply with labor laws.

Second, tip-pooling is legal in California, but only if the pooled tips are distributed to employees in the direct chain of service to the customer, not to agents of the employer such as management personnel, or the owners themselves. Including non-service employees or owners in the tip pool is an illegal “taking” under California Labor Code section 351. According to the allegations against Café Gratitude, that is what its tip-pooling scheme allowed.

Cal. Labor Code section 351 states: “No employer or agent shall collect, take, or receive any gratuity or a part thereof that is paid, given to, or left for an employee by a patron, or deduct any amount from wages due an employee on account of a gratuity, or require an employee to credit the amount, or any part thereof, of a gratuity against and as a part of the wages due the employee from the employer. Every gratuity is hereby declared to be the sole property of the employee or employees to whom it was paid, given, or left for.” (Emphasis added.)

It is not always clear which workers can be lawfully included in a tip-pooling scheme. It is difficult, in part, because the Labor Code statute (section 351) refers to the patron’s intention. In a recent case against Starbucks, Starbucks was sued for including its “shift supervisors” in the tip pool. Plaintiff barista’s argued that the shift supervisors were agents of the employer because they held supervisory positions. Starbucks won this case on appeal, because the court found that the shift supervisors, though they were supervisors, had limited supervisory roles and also worked “behind the counter” serving drinks, thus the court determined that customers intended the tips to go them as well as the regular baristas. (See Chau v. Starbucks.)

But the Starbucks case involved tips being put in a collective tip box. What of a restaurant where a tip is left at the table to be collected by the particular wait staff that served you? There is a long line of California cases that has concluded that tip-pooling such a gratuity and requiring the wait staff to share that tip with bussers, cooks, dishwashers, and bartenders is permissible.

The upshot here is that a tip-pooling policy needs to be carefully crafted (and implemented) to meet the requirements of section 351 and the relevant, and evolving, case law on the subject.

Looking back on my days as a busboy, I would have been grateful to receive some share of the tips!       

It is easy to say, as Café Gratitude owners Matthew and Terces Engelhart did, that a civil lawsuit is “legalized extortion” when you are being sued. Café Gratitude, a popular California eatery with a half dozen or so locations in the state, is being sued for various wage and hour violations, and claims to be closing its doors permanently due to these “aggressive” lawsuits.

At issue are Café Gratitude’s compliance with laws governing workers’ meal and rest breaks, overtime pay, and its tip-pooling policy. In addition, there are allegations that Café Gratitude impermissibly required or pressured employees to attend, and pay for, Landmark Forum self-transformation seminars.

As an employment law attorney who has represented and advised both employers and employees, I see things differently than Café Gratitude’s owners.

First, it should be a “no-brainer” not to give even the slightest appearance of pressuring employees to adhere to your particular spiritual philosophy, as Café Gratitude owners apparently did. Among other things, this could lead to claims of discrimination based on religion. Furthermore, it is illegal, with very few exceptions, to require employees to pay out of pocket for anything required by the employer. (See California Labor Code section 2802.) Café Gratitude’s scheme of paying half of the Landmark seminar tuition and having the employee pay the other half should have set off alarm bells to Café Gratitude’s legal advisor, if it had one.

Second, the topic of meal and rest periods is one I have addressed previously and at length. Go to the Legal Information page at www.djolawoffice.com to read my article Basics of California Meal and Rest Period Law. As I point out in that article, the California Supreme Court is considering the appeal in Brinker v. Superior Court, which will clarify what, if any, active steps an employer must take to “provide” meal and rest periods. In fact, the Court heard oral arguments in this case just a few weeks ago on November 8, 2011. In the meanwhile, however, employers would do well to take active, documented steps to ensure that all hourly employees receive proper breaks; this will limit their exposure to wage and hour lawsuits. Employers and employees alike should be grateful when the California Supreme Court finally issues its decision in Brinker.

The upshot here is that with a little more attention to the law, and less zeal about creating a “community,” Café Gratitude may have been able to avoid some of the litigation about which it is currently complaining.

Stay tuned for additional posts regarding tip-pooling, another issue that can plague restaurateurs who implement policies without an understanding of - or in Cafe Gratitude’s case perhaps, caring about - the law.  

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), a federal agency that enforces the rights of workers to unionize and engage in related activity, has recently enacted a new rule effective November 14, 2011.This new rule is important to both employers and employees.

For details, see: https://www.nlrb.gov/news-media/fact-sheets/final-rule-notification-employee-rights .

Essentially, the rule requires many private employers (subject to the NLRB’s power) to post a Notice to employee of what rights they have under the National Labor Relations Act. These rights include:

• Forming, or attempting to form, a union in your workplace;
• Joining a union whether the union is recognized by your employer or not;
• Assisting a union in organizing your fellow employees;
• Refusing to do any or all of these things.
• To be fairly represented by a union

Employees who are not represented by a union also have rights under the NLRA. The NLRB protects the rights of employees to engage in “protected concerted activity,”  which is when two or more employees take action for their mutual aid or protection regarding terms and conditions of employment.  A single employee may also engage in protected concerted activity if he or she is acting on the authority of other employees, bringing group complaints to the employer’s attention, trying to induce group action, or seeking to prepare for group action.

A few examples of protected concerted activities are:

• Two or more employees addressing their employer about improving their pay.
• Two or more employees discussing work-related issues beyond pay, such as safety concerns, with each other.
• An employee speaking to an employer on behalf of one or more co-workers about improving workplace conditions.

The upshot is that an employer who attempts or does impede this activity or retaliates against employees for such activities, can be penalized by the NLRB.

Now, under the new rule, an employer can be penalized for not providing the proper notice to employees. Posters are available at the NLRB website.