Royal

The Book On Handbooks

September 6, 2024

They Need to Be Current, and Employers Need to Abide by Them

“Less is more.”


Those three words comprise one of the many forms of advice that Elaine Reall has for business owners and managers when it comes to what’s written in employee handbooks.


She says it should apply to most all content, but especially references to laws and regulations regarding the workplace, including the state’s Paid Family and Medical Leave Act.


“Employers go on, page after page, explaining a very intricate statute,” said Reall, chief legal officer for the Springfield-based Royal Law Firm. “They don’t need to do that; they need to say, ‘you’re eligible under Massachusetts law for the Paid Family and Medical Leave Act, and here’s the hyperlink to the government’s site, which will take you through the entire process.’”


Reall has lots of other advice on handbooks, regarding everything from how they should be updated regularly — especially when there are important changes in laws or seismic shifts in the workplace — to how managers shouldn’t borrow a template off the internet, to … well, whether a small business even needs a handbook.


Indeed, she noted, handbooks are increasingly being viewed as contracts.


“A lot of employers don’t realize that the first or second document that a plaintiff’s attorney in the employment area looks for is the guidebook, handbook, or whatever is being put out there by the employer,” she said. “And they’re looking to see if there are implied contractual commitments that they can use, because Massachusetts does recognize that you can create an implied contract not just with the whole handbook, but with portions of the handbook.”


For this reason, if a business is going to have a handbook, and if it is going to have content on certain subjects, its managers need to be sure they get it right, she said.


John Gannon, an employment-law specialist and partner at Springfield-based Skoler Abbott, agreed. He noted that handbook policies come in two categories — those for which employers are legally obligated to have a policy, such as the Bay State’s earned sick time law, and those that are recommended.


“You don’t have to have them, but you should have them,” he said, adding that policies in this category include everything from remote work (more on that later) to dress codes.


Overall, a handbook should help get everyone on the same page — figuratively, but also literally — and also protect the employer, said Gannon, adding that handbooks are not contracts, but they are, or should be, written in such a way to help protect the employer if there are complaints or legal actions taken by employees.


“One of the reasons you have a handbook — not the principal reason, but one of the reasons — is if there is some kind of litigation and someone is challenging the reasons they are separated from employment,” he explained. “They might say they were fired because of their age, for example; the employer says, ‘no, you violated this policy.’ It’s helpful to have a policy in writing, so you can say, ‘this is the policy, and this is how you violated it.’


“If you have it in writing, that’s good. If you don’t have it in writing, that’s bad,” he went on. “And what’s worse is to have the wrong policy in place, something that’s old and outdated.”


But — and this is a big but — if an employer is going to put something in the handbook, then it must abide by it, or the company could open itself up to trouble, said Gannon, who has seen this happen on many occasions.


“The best advice I can give is to put it in writing — and follow it,” he said, adding that this is one of the key reasons why training of managers is so important. With training, they’re better able to know the policies and abide by them.


Reall agreed. “There’s a lot of litigation where handbooks show up and are used against employers,” she explained. “You don’t want to require your employees, in the context of your handbook, to do X or Y without recognizing that the courts will recognize that and say, ‘reciprocity — you’re binding their hands here. What about you, employer? If you’re going to make these requirements, then it’s up to you to uphold them.’”


For this issue and its focus on business management, we take an in-depth look at handbooks and how to make sure they do what they are created to do.

 

The Write Stuff


“Telecommuting is not designed to be a replacement for appropriate childcare. Although an individual employee’s schedule may be modified to accommodate occasional childcare needs, the focus of the arrangement must remain on job performance and meeting business demands. Prospective telecommuters are encouraged to discuss expectations of telecommuting with family members before entering a trial period as the employee should not undertake to provide primary care for a young child during at-home working hours. If a young child will be home during the employee’s at-home working hours, some other individual should be present to provide primary care.”


That’s a passage from a handbook that Gannon, who recommends handbooks for companies with six or more employees, helped craft for a client. It’s an example of being both current — remote work, while not necessarily new, has certainly become much more prevalent since the pandemic — and thorough, leaving little ambiguity when it comes to the employers’ wishes, policies, and expectations.

Indeed, the section on telecommuting in this particular handbook covers everything from eligibility to equipment; from safety to time worked, specifically with regard to overtime and those not exempt from the requirements set in the Fair Labor Standards Act. “Hours worked over those scheduled require the advance approval of the telecommuter’s supervisor,” it reads. “Failure to comply with this requirement may result in the immediate termination of the telecommuting agreement and other disciplinary action.”


The rise of remote work and the many issues associated with it provides a reminder that handbooks need to be updated regularly, said Gannon, suggesting every two years. And if that yardstick is used, the updates should be relatively minor in nature. If they aren’t, well, the opposite is true.

“If I reviewed someone’s handbook in 2002 and they bring it to me in 2024, there may be one or two new policies to add and a few things we need to tweak,” he said. “But it’s quick if you stay on top of it. I had someone who just sent me their handbook, which hadn’t been looked at since 2017, which means it’s missing quite a few things and may have policies that don’t even apply anymore.”

He said there are many topics, as well as changes in the social and workplace landscape, that should be addressed in handbooks — everything from the Bay State’s Crown Act, which expands the definition of discrimination based on race to prohibit discrimination based on natural and protective hairstyles, to social media and the need to use gender-neutral pronouns with all policies.


Overall, there are many topics an effective handbook should cover, Gannon said, listing anti-harassment policies, the state’s sick-time and family-leave laws, meal breaks, what he calls a ‘code of conduct’ outlining proper behavior, and a workplace-violence policy, preferably one stating that the employer has zero tolerance for such violence “because that’s a scary thing these days.”

Reall agreed, but noted, again, that companies, and especially smaller ones, should think at least twice about whether they need a handbook and, if they determine they do, what goes in it.

“I tend to see more problems created by handbooks with smaller companies than positive outcomes,” she told BusinessWest. “It’s a tool, but it’s a tool that, if you don’t use it right, can burn you.”


She added that many of these smaller companies look for a template — a free handbook that shows up on Google — or copy another company’s handbook.

“Years ago, maybe not so much now, everyone used to steal MassMutual’s,” she recalled. “It was about 300 pages long and incredibly detailed; it read like an insurance contract, and it was absolutely what you didn’t want if you had 25 employees.”

 

Bottom Line

What employers do want is something that suits their sector and their specific business, Reall went on, adding that, if a company if going to have a handbook, it should enlist the help of an expert. And that employer should make it clear that the handbook is just a guide and that the employer reserves the right, unilaterally, to change anything in the handbook at any time.


“It’s got to look like an employer document and not an agreement between the employer and the employee,” she went on, adding that a handbook can, indeed, be a valuable tool — but only if it’s done right.


“You need to make sure that whoever crafts it knows what they’re doing. If you’re a small employer and you have no HR department, and you’re going to look at your handbook about once every 10 years, that’s very dangerous, and you would be best off not putting things in writing that will come back to haunt you.”


In short, when it comes to handbooks, employers should remember that less can certainly be more.


Elaine Reall was interviewed by George O'Brien from BusinessWest. Click here to visit their website. 

January 30, 2025
Recent executive orders, Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring the Biological Truth to the Federal Government and Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity signed by President Donald Trump, on January 20th and 21st, have caused a multitude of questions regarding anti-discriminatory policies in the workplace and how employers are expected to properly comply. Many of the questions raised are in relation to the fact that these executive orders (EOs) directly contradict federal anti-discrimination laws. How can employers comply with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act while also complying with executive orders prohibiting federal contractors from considering race, color, sex, sexual preference, religion, and national origin in ways that violate the nation’s civil rights laws? The verbiage of these recent executive orders has caused nationwide confusion. This confusion could land both private sector and federal employers in hot water if they utilize affirmative action or Diversity Equity Inclusion (DEI) Programs. As a result, countless employers across the nation are finding themselves with more questions than answers on how to properly comply. Royal Attorneys are here to help employers by providing guidance on what we know so far, what is still unanswered/ unclear how to proceed and action/policies to implement or revise for proper compliance in the meantime while we await clarification. What We Know: It is important to note that Executive Orders do not override legislation and anti-discrimination laws are still fully in effect. This means that the EOs did not affect the status of laws enacted by Congress which prohibits discrimination including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act, the Rehabilitation Act, Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act, the Pregnancy Fairness Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act. With these EOs, application and interpretations of these laws by many federal agencies may change. It is critical with these changes and shifts in agency interpretation that employers review handbooks and policies. An example that displays this change in interpretation and application can be found within the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC has taken down from its website compliance sections regarding Guidance on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Discrimination for A pending review. The EEOC’s previous guidance is no longer consistent with the EO Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government, which exclusively acknowledges and narrows definitions to two-sex binary definitions. In general, agencies have been directed to no longer use the word ‘gender’ in policy and instead use the word ‘sex’ in its place. President Trump’s EO Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity rescinded President Lyndon Johnson’s EO 11246, which he issued in September 1965. The former EO required federal contractors to take affirmative action regarding minorities and women. President Trump’s EO directs the Office of Federal Contract Compliance (OFFCP) to not allow or encourage federal agencies or contractors to engage in workforce balancing based on race, color, sex, sexual preference, religion or national origin effective immediately. Additionally, federal contractors are prohibited from considering these categories in any way that may violate civil rights laws. Additionally, Order 03-2025 was issued which applies to federal contractors under jurisdiction of the OFCCP who must now cease and desist all investigations and enforcement in violation of the EO 11246, and to notify all parties by January 31, 2025 of this change. What Employers Can Do: This brings to the forefront the question, “How do employers comply with anti-discrimination laws without DEI initiatives?”. Not all organizations want to comply with this EO. Many are doubling down on their DEI commitments. There is no current guidance to navigate and implement these changes. As we wait for guidance, there are a few things employers can do now. Handbook and policy reviews are vital Review DEI policies and practices in the workplace Assess whether to move forward with affirmative action plans and initiatives Assess applicant tracking systems and how information regarding women and minorities is utilized to determine discriminatory impact Assess how to best document employment decisions to show decision based on merit, rather than protected status Evaluate conflicts between applicable federal and state laws, including states laws which expressly protect gender identity and sexual orientation or require affirmative action The EEO standard has gone back to “equal opportunity” based on merit with President Trump’s Executive Orders. As a result, don’t be surprised if you see an increase in litigation regarding reverse discrimination and tension between states and federal government regarding EEO matters. Our Labor and Employment Attorneys are here for employers in drafting and revising employment policies and handbooks. If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.
January 28, 2025
On January 17, 2025, the 1 st US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the termination of an employee for refusal to be vaccinated for the COVID-19, was not a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant’s failure to grant a religious exemption in relation to the COVID-19 vaccine was a violation of Title VII and would not have imposed any undue hardship on the employer. The Court found that there was undisputed evidence that the Defendant relied on objective medical evidence, including public health guidance from the federal government and Commonwealth of Massachusetts when it set its vaccine policy. There was no medical evidence to contradict the Defendant’s conclusion that vaccinated individuals are less likely to infect others. Thus, the court rejected the no-undue-hardship argument of the plaintiff. While the 1st Circuit denied Plaintiff’s religious accommodation claims in this case, the 1st Circuit specifically noted that this was a narrow ruling only in relation to the fact that the Defendant had relied on objective medical evidence in making its decision. Other religious accommodation claims in relation to the COVID-19 vaccine, therefore, might not be subject to dismissal given other factors. As such, it is prudent to contact counsel should a claim or allegation of religious accommodation in relation to the COVID-19 vaccine arise. If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.
Share by: