Here’s what happened in this recent case:

A 60-year-old employee was told her job was being eliminated after 25 years of working for the employer. She started crying and got permission from her boss to take the rest of the day off.

At home, about an hour after getting the news, the woman suffered a permanently disabling heart attack. Her doctor said she’d been healthy and that the incident was caused by the stress of hearing she was losing her job.

She was awarded accidental disability benefits. The company appealed, arguing she wasn’t eligible because the injury didn’t occur as a result of her job duties.

But the court sided with the employee’s doctor.

It was undisputed that the heart attack was caused by the woman’s conversation with her boss. And since that conversation occurred “during the scope of her employment,” the heart attack was directly related to her job and the woman was eligible for disability benefits.

Cite: Retirement Board of Salem v. Contributory Retirement Appeal Board.

In 2004, Oklahoma passed a law forbidding employers from disciplining employees who keep firearms locked in cars parked on company property.

A group of businesses sued, claiming the law threatened workplace safety. A court agreed and overturned the law, ruling it violated the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act, which gives employers a “general duty” to keep workplaces safe.

But that decision was overturned on appeal. The appeals court ruled that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has never claimed that allowing firearms on company property would violate the OSH Act. Therefore, there is no conflict between the state and federal law.

So-called “guns at work” laws are one of the latest trends in state employment legislation. Florida and Georgia have already passed similar legislation, and bills are being considered in Tennessee, Arizona and Texas. We’ll keep you posted.

Cite: Ramsey Winch, Inc. v. Henry

Whether they’re covered by the laws of the states in which they travel.

We recently reported on a court’s ruling that California overtime law applies to any employee who’s working there — even employees from other states who travel to California on business.

Now, the court has withdrawn its opinion and asked the California Supreme Court to resolve the issue. Then the lower court will issue another ruling based on the Supreme Court’s analysis.

We’ll keep you posted.

Last month, Philadelphia passed a citywide ordinance requiring companies to accommodate employees who need time off due to sexual assault and domestic violence.

The law applies to all employers. At companies with 50 or more workers, employees can take up to eight weeks of unpaid leave in a 12-month period. Companies with fewer than 50 employees must provide four weeks of unpaid leave.

Victims can take leave to:

• seek medical attention
• attend counseling
• take actions to prevent future abuse (such as changing residence), and
• seek legal assistance.

When victims take leave for a reason that also allows them to take FMLA, both leaves can run concurrently.

A growing number of cities and states have similar laws on the books, including Washington, Florida, Kansas, and Washington, D.C.

A federal bill granting domestic and sexual abuse victims 30 days of leave was introduced in the Senate last year.

A company headquartered in California had several employees based in other locations. Three of those employees sued, claiming they were owed overtime based on California state law.

California OT law differs from the federal rules in that employees earn:

• time and a half for any time they work beyond eight hours in a day or for time spent working a seventh consecutive day, and
• double their regular pay for any time beyond 12 hours in a day or after eight hours on the seventh consecutive day of work.

The three nonexempt employees worked in locations outside the state, but traveled to California anywhere from five to 36 days each year. During that time, they claimed, they should’ve been paid OT in accordance with California’s strict standards.

The court agreed. Work performed in California is subject to that state’s rules and regs, regardless of where the employees live or normally work.

Cite: Sullivan v. Oracle Corp.

Keeping an eye on workplace jerks.

Right now, for an employee to sue over harassment, the conduct has to be related to the person’s gender, race, religion, etc.

But some states are considering “workplace bullying” bills that will essentially outlaw all workplace hostility. Those states are:

• California
• Connecticut
• Hawaii
• Kansas
• Massachusetts
• Missouri
• Montana
• New Jersey
• New York
• Oklahoma
• Oregon
• Vermont
• Washington

What will the laws look like? New York’s, for example, gives protection to any employee who’s been physically or psychologically harmed by being exposed to an abusive work environment.

As far as what an “abusive work environment” means, the law isn’t exactly clear. The illegal behavior is defined only as conduct that a reasonable person would find “hostile, offensive and unrelated to the employer’s legitimate business interests.”

You can see the proposed legislation here.

Of course, no employer wants employees to be abused. But these laws would greatly add to HR’s legal burden. Companies should be prepared to update harassment policies to include anti-bullying provisions — and respond to complaints from employees.

The Maryland Flexible Leave Act (MFLA) went into effect on October 1.

The law doesn’t require companies to offer paid time off for illness — but if a company does, it now has to let employees use that time to care for an immediate family member’s illness.

Unlike FMLA, there’s nothing that says the illness has to be serious.

The law applies to all employers with 15 or more employees working in Maryland. Affected companies should review their policies and make sure they allow PTO to be used to care for family members.

The federal government has no law guaranteeing workers time off to go to the polls. But many states do. In most cases, employees are only given time off when they don’t have enough time before or after their shifts.

Also, several states specify that employees need to request time off in advance.

Here are some examples of the varying regulations:

Arizona — Work hours must be scheduled so employees have at least three consecutive hours before or after their shifts to vote.

Alabama — Employees get two hours off if they start work less than two hours after the polls open or leave less than an hour before they close.

New York – If workers don’t have four hours in the morning or evening to vote, they must be given time off. Time taken up to two hours must be paid.

Minnesota – Employees who can vote are allowed to be absent during the morning of the election. The time off must be paid.

Washington – Workers must have two free hours for voting, not including rest or meal breaks.

Wyoming – Employees can take an hour of paid time in between the opening and closing of the polls.

Those are just a few examples. The laws vary widely, so companies should check the laws in their own states, as well as local regulations.

D.C.’s law goes into effect on November 13 of this year and guarantees time off for physical and mental illness, to care for a sick family member and to deal with issues of domestic violence or sexual abuse.

Companies must provide:

• One hour of leave for every 37 hours worked, up to seven days a year (for companies with 100 or more employees)
• One hour for every 43 hours worked, up to five days a year (25 to 99 employees), or
• One hour for every 87 hours worked, up to three days a year (fewer than 24 employees).

Employees need to work for 12 months before becoming eligible for leave. The law does not apply to independent contractors and workers who make most of their money through tips.

More coming

San Francisco passed a similar bill last year, and a few states (Connecticut and Ohio, for example) are considering making sick leave mandatory.

On the federal side, Congress has kicked around the Healthy Families Act for a few years, but has yet to vote on it. Experts say the issue should come to the forefront soon, especially if the Democrats win the presidential election. We’ll keep you posted.

The facts:

An employee in California sued under state law because he missed several legally required meal breaks. However, the company had a policy stating employees’ right to breaks under the law, and the man’s boss never did anything to prevent him from taking breaks — he worked through them on his own. Why’d he sue? He claimed the company “failed to ensure” that employees took their breaks.

The employer said:

All employees were allowed to take meal breaks. If the employee didn’t take his, it was because he chose not to. And since management had no idea, the company couldn’t be held liable.

Who won the case?

Answer: The employer.

Why: The court agreed with the company, ruling that employers must “authorize and permit” meal breaks and not “impede, discourage or dissuade” employees from taking them. But the law doesn’t say they have to “ensure” employees take them.

If an employee skips a break without a manager demanding it or even knowing about it, there’s no way to hold the company liable.

Cite: Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court