A JPMorgan Chase exec is no longer working at the bank after a video of her dumping trash onto the sidewalk and walking off with a Knicks-themed garbage can went viral during the team’s recent NBA championship parade.
Angie Báez, who served as executive director of community and industry engagement for card and connected commerce at JPMorgan Chase, was identified by the New York Post as the woman seen emptying the limited-edition bin and taking it with her on the subway. The can was supplied by the NYC Department of Sanitation to mark the Knicks’ championship.
The Post says that JPMorgan Chase confirmed her departure to sources, saying, “This employee is no longer with the company.” The bank did not confirm whether she was terminated or the videos prompted her exit, according to NBC News. The NYC Department of Sanitation subsequently issued Báez fines for littering and impeding department operations, also reported by NBC News.
The New York Times reported that Báez returned the trash can and was fined, according to Vincent Gragnani, a spokesman for the New York City Department of Sanitation.
What is ‘leisure time activity’?
JPMorgan had a clear path to resolution because the employee performed unlawful acts, but what happens when an employee goes viral for something that doesn’t seem to break the law?
A New York regulation, known as the New York Legal Activities Law, provides off-duty conduct protection. Under the statute, recreational activities are “any lawful, leisure-time activity, for which the employee receives no compensation and which is generally engaged in for recreational purposes, including but not limited to sports, games, hobbies, exercise, reading and the viewing of television, movies and similar material.” A small number of states have laws resembling New York’s off-duty conduct protections, but New York’s statute is among the broadest.
That could create a problem for employers who react quickly to viral moments when the underlying conduct was technically not unlawful. “Employers should be careful before acting based on such lawful off-duty activity,” writes New York employment attorney Scott Horton of Horton PLLC, who has advised employers. “The exceptions are quite nuanced. It would be wise to consult with an experienced employment attorney before making employee decisions based on off-duty conduct.”
Exceptions and pitfalls
According to ADP’s HR advisory resource on off-duty conduct, the EEOC advises that taking adverse action against an employee solely because of an arrest record may violate nondiscrimination laws, and that even when an arrest occurs, employers should investigate whether the underlying conduct is job-related before taking action.
New York’s law has some narrow exceptions. When off-duty conduct creates a material conflict of interest with an employer’s proprietary or business interest, it is not protected, a nuance JPMorgan could have reasonably invoked (for example), given the reputational exposure of the viral video. “An employer who enters into a professional services contract with an individual for the provision of services of a ‘unique nature’ may, as part of that professional services contract, limit the off-duty activities in which the individual may engage,” according to a brief from New York employment lawyer David Rich.
While not applied in the Báez case, there is a wrinkle in how employers could handle certain social media posts by workers, even when they aren’t physically in the workplace. Companies can be held liable for claims of a hostile work environment if an employee shares harassing content online that negatively impacts the workplace. “Companies should conduct thorough investigations into any employee claims of a hostile work environment, including complaints about co-workers’ social media posts,” according to a brief from law firm Holland & Knight. “In addition, companies should train employees in managerial positions on how to handle such claims.”
Credit: Source link
