The annual NCAA Basketball Tournament, a/k/a March Madness, starts today. More on that below but there is another kind of “March” for employers to be concerned about. With the beginning of the Trump presidency, political protests, demonstrations and marches are all the rage. With increasing frequency, corporations are getting in on the act and taking political stands or encouraging employees to do so. From an employment law perspective, this is a minefield. A recent Inc. article reported on a company’s press release announcing that it was giving female employees paid time off on March 8th to celebrate International Women’s Day. Presumably, this decision was intended to support the widely reported “A Day Without A Woman” protest, which included women staying home from work. In response to questions about the press release, the company’s PR person stated that men had to work but women did not. Further questions clarified that the company was giving all employees an extra vacation day to use as they please but the language of the original release certainly indicated a violation of anti-discrimination laws as did the PR person’s initial response to questions.
The moral of this story is that if you as a company are going to wade into political waters, particularly those involving protected classifications, it would be wise to consult with legal counsel to make sure there is no discrimination or perception of discrimination in the company’s actions or statements. The good news is that we can all take a break from politics and enjoy college basketball – have you filled out your bracket in the office pool?
Of course, we should consider the question of whether workplace gambling is legal. The answer is probably not. Among the federal laws arguably violated by NCAA Tournament betting pools are the Interstate Wire Act of 1961, the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, and the Uniform Internet Gambling Enforcement Act. Ohio law also bans gambling with some exceptions, e.g. casinos, certain charitable events, but none that would cover a workplace NCAA pool. While it is extremely unlikely that law enforcement would go after a company for having a NCAA pool, there are still concerns in the employment law arena.
First, since the pools violate state and federal laws, an employee who complains is protected by Ohio’s Whistleblower statute. In addition, some employees could have religious objections to gambling that could create accommodation issues or lead to harassment claims. While gambling addiction is exempted from the ADA, other related conditions such as depression are not. Moreover, many companies have policies regarding workplace postings, internet and email use and gambling that are obviously violated by a NCAA pool but ignore these rules because of tradition or other reasons that wouldn’t carry much weight in court. Finally, there is the whole issue of productivity.
Obviously, the simplest approach to the issue is to ban gambling in the workplace but bear in mind that this would include not only the NCAA Pool but fantasy sports, lottery pools, raffles, etc. If this is not an appealing option, companies should consider where to draw the lines and ensure that their policies are consistent and being applied consistently.
Topics/Tags
Select- Labor & Employment Law
- Employment Law
- EEOC
- Department of Labor
- Discrimination
- Affirmative Action
- FMLA
- Labor Law
- Immigration
- Wage & Hour
- NLRB
- Arbitration
- National Labor Relations Board
- Diversity
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Coronavirus
- FLSA
- Social Media
- Reasonable Accommodation
- Sexual Harassment
- Employer Policies
- Title VII
- Sixth Circuit
- Employment Litigation
- Religion Discrimination
- Transgender Issues
- Employer Rules
- National Enforcement Plan
- Workplace Violence
- Non-Compete Agreements
- Overtime Pay
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- Holiday Policies
- Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation
- OSHA
- Artificial Intelligence
- Privacy
- Department of Justice
- NLRA
- Independent Contractor
- Joint Employer
- Telework
- Compliance
- Supreme Court
- Paid Leave Laws
- Workplace Accommodations
- Federal Trade Commission
- Tax Credit
- Employee Tips
- One Big Beautiful Bill
- Litigation
- IRS
- Worker Classification
- Harassment
- Disability Discrimination
- Performance Improvement Plans
- Medical Marijuana
- Retirement
- Department of Homeland Security
- Foreign Nationals
- Immigration and Customs Enforcement
- Immigration and Nationality Act
- National Labor Relations Act
- Accommodation
- Inclusion
- LGBTQ+
- Sexual Orientation Discrimination
- Employer Handbook
- ADAAA
- ERISA
- Race Discrimination
- Unions
- ACA
- Affordable Car Act
- Technology
- Federal Arbitration Act
- Medical Cannabis Dispensaries
- Disability
- Whistleblower
- United States Supreme Court
- 401(k)
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- Fair Labor Standards Act
- Employment Settlement Agreements
- Benefits
- Class Action Litigation
- Disability Law
- Gender Identity Discrimination
- Posting Requirements
- E-Discovery
- Evidence
- Paycheck Protection Program
- Family and Medical Leave Act
- Environmental Law
- Privacy Laws
- Securities Law
- Health Savings Account
- Preventive Care Benefits
- SECURE Act
- US Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration
- Healthcare Reform
- Representative Election Regulations
- Older Workers' Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA)
- Electronically Stored Information
- Equal Opportunity Clause
- Telecommuting
- Compensable Time
- E-Discovery Case Law
- Electronic Data Discovery
- ESI
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration
- Security Screening
- American Medical Association
- Attendance Policy
- Return to Work
- Seniority Rights
- Unemployment Insurance Integrity Act
- Classification
- Confidentiality
- Disability Leave
- Equal Pay
- Fair Minimum Wage
- Federal Minimum Wage
- Genetic Information Discrimination
- Media Policy
- Misclassification
- National Origin Discrimination
- Retaliation
- Social Media Content
- State Minimum Wage
- Wage Increase
- Employment Incentives
- HIRE Act
- Social Security Tax
- Taxation
- Antitrust
Recent Posts
- EEOC Proposes Overhaul of Federal Workplace Discrimination Complaint Process
- OFCCP Publishes Final Rules Reducing Federal Contractor Affirmative Action Obligations
- US Court of Appeals puts $100,000 H-1B Fee on Hold Again
- Asking Is Protected: Sixth Circuit Expands FMLA Retaliation Protections
- New DHS Rule Will Restrict Student Periods of Admission from Duration of Status to Fixed End Date
- TPS Haiti Termination: How Employers Can Ensure I-9 Records Remain Compliant
- A New Enforcement Era: What Employers Should Know About the EEOC’s 2025–2029 National Enforcement Plan
- Beyond Paid Time Off: The Legal Side of Holiday Policies
- EEO-1 Reporting on the Chopping Block: What Employers Need to Know
- DOL Proposes New Joint Employer Rule: What Employers Need to Know