6th Circuit re-affirms mixed-motive causation under the FMLA

Earlier this summer, the U.S. Supreme Court did away with the notion of a mixed motive termination in an age discrimination case. In Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., the Court held that to succeed on an disparate treatment claim under the ADEA, a plaintiff must prove that age was the only cause of the challenged action. I’m not breaking ground by reporting that employers make decisions that implicate statutes other than the ADEA. And, in those decisions, there are often more than one motive present. So, does the Gross, but-for rule apply in mixed-motive cases under other statutes, such as the FMLA? Last week, in Hunter v. Valley View Local Schools (8/26/09) [PDF], the 6th Circuit gave us the answer.

Before we get into what the court ruled, it helps to understand the issue by briefly looking at exactly what happened to Eunice Hunter, a custodian for the Valley View schools. Following a car accident, Hunter had three rounds of surgery over the span of two years. Following each surgery, she missed months of work, and returned with restrictions. Ultimately, the school district placed her on involuntary unpaid leave. The superintendent gave two reasons for the termination – her excessive use of FMLA leave, and her inability to perform her job because of her permanent restrictions. The district court dismissed Hunter’s FMLA claim because the school district would have placed her on involuntary leave regardless of her FMLA leave because of the permanent medical restrictions.

The 6th Circuit, however, reversed, finding that unlike the ADEA, the FMLA authorizes claims based on an adverse employment action motivated by both the employee’s use of FMLA leave and also other permissible factors. In such cases, if the employee presents evidence that the employer discriminated because of FMLA leave, the burden shifts to the employer to prove that it would have made the same decision absent the impermissible motive.

The standards might change, but for businesses the lesson is the same (and I apologize if you’ve heard this before). Documentation is key. Whether an employer can prove discrimination via a mixed motive or an only motive, it won’t mean a hill of beans to a company if it cannot prove that it had a legitimate reason for what it did.

---

Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus.

For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

WIRTW #93

This week’s review starts with some of fellow blogger’s thoughts on the passing of Ted Kennedy:

• The Word on Employment Law with John Phillips, discusses Sen. Kennedy’s employment law legacy.
• Mike Elk at Today’s Workplace draws a lesson from the death of his brother.
• The EFCA Report, on Sen. Kennedy at the EFCA.
• Christopher McKinney at the HR Lawyer’s Blog.

This week also had an abundance of posts on social media in the workplace. I’m thinking a lot about this topic in light of KJK’s upcoming Breakfast Briefing on this issue:

• Mark Toth’s Manpower Employment Blawg, on how employers use social media.
• Elizabeth Bernstein at the Wall Street Journal shares her thoughts on how Facebook ruins friendships.
• Natalie Beck at the Employscreen IQ Blog on the downside of hiring based on a favorable Facebook profile.

Dan Schwartz at the Connecticut Employment Law Blog is focusing on Tropical Storm Dennis and whether workplaces are ready for really bad weather.

The Delaware Employment Law Blog’s Molly DiBianca suggests that employers put a time limit (5 years, according to Molly) on the use of criminal records.

With tongue planted in cheek, Jennifer Hays at the Warren & Hays Blog lists the top 5 reasons not to do an HR audit.

Ross Runkel’s LawMemo Employment Law Blog shares his thoughts on the EEOC’s recent class action filing against AT&T for age discrimination.

Michael Maslanka’s Work Matters suggests that we consider the effect a complaint will have on our intended target before we file it.

Rush Nigut’s Rush on Business draws a lesson for trial lawyers and their clients from Tiger’s loss at the PGA.

Jay Shepherd’s Grunted Employees thinks there are 7 deadly workplace sins.

Kris Dunn – The HR Capitalist – discusses the interplay between non-compete agreements and employee talent.

Wage & Hour Counsel examines the Department of Labor’s internal techniques and strategies for conducting wage and hour investigations.

According to World of Work, in Washington State it’s ok for an employer to fire employees who complain about their boss.

Nolo’s Employment Law Blog reports that managers may be personally liable for unpaid wages if a company goes bankrupt.

Jill Pugh’s Employment Law Blog discusses the recent uptick in pregnancy discrimination claims.

Michael Haberman’s HR Observations, on sexism.

---

Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus.

For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

Ohio Supreme Court avoids the issue of whether sex discrimination includes lactation

Totes/Isotoner Corp. fired LaNisa Allen for taking unauthorized, extra breaks during her work day. Allen claimed that her termination constituted unlawful sex discrimination because she had taken the breaks for lactation. This morning, in a terse three-page opinion, the Ohio Supreme Court – by a six to one vote – affirmed the legality of Allen’s termination. It did so based on a lack of evidence of pretext in the trial court. It also completed avoided the key issue – whether alleged discrimination due to lactation is included within the scope of Ohio’s employment-discrimination statute as sex discrimination.
Despite the six to one opinion for the employer, three Justices reached the ultimate issue and concluded that Ohio’s proscriptions against employment discrimination on the basis of sex/pregnancy includes lactation.
Justice O’Conner published a lengthy concurrence – with which Chief Justice Moyer concurs – that lactation is covered by Ohio’s proscriptions against employment discrimination on the basis of sex/pregnancy. However, because Allen did not obtain her employer’s permission before taking her lactation breaks, her claim failed:

Although Allen’s unauthorized breaks may have been to pump milk, Allen could not properly engage in such actions without her employer’s knowledge and permission. The [laws] mandate that an employer treat pregnancy with neutrality, but not preferentially.

Justice Pfeifer, dissenting, offers some key questions that he thinks a jury should have been given the opportunity to answer:

• Why Allen’s trips to the restroom outside scheduled break times were different from the restroom trips other employees made outside scheduled break times?
• Did employees have to seek permission from a supervisor to take an unscheduled restroom break.
• What makes Allen’s breaks different if other unscheduled bathroom breaks were allowed?

Despite totes/Isotoner’s victory, employers should not view this case as a license to deny breaks to lactating employees. To the contrary, if another opportunity arises, I have little doubt that a majority of the court will agree with Justice O’Conner, Chief Justice Moyer, and Justice Pfeifer that the definition of sex discrimination covers lactation.
Before you institute a policy prohibiting breast pumping or feeding at work, or terminate a lactating employee for taking breaks, consider how you’ve treated other employees’ breaks during the work day. If you can’t find a consistent pattern of discipline or termination of similar non-lactating employees, you should reconsider the decision.
A copy of the full opinion is available at Allen v. totes/Isotoner Corp. (8/27/09) [PDF].

---

Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus.
For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

Court finds no liability for conclusions reached during harassment investigation

Can an employee sue you for conclusions reached during an internal harassment complaint? According to the 6th Circuit in Courie v. Alcoa Wheel & Forged Products (8/18/09) [PDF], the answer is no.

Someone left an inappropriate note on an Alcoa cafeteria table where African-American employees sat. Alcoa’s HR department interviewed Courie during its investigation. Courie could not recall the name of the person sitting with him at that table on the day the note was left. Because he could not recall his co-worker’s name, he referred to him as “Jew Boy.” After the interview, Alcoa later sent Courie a warning that it considered that term “racially offensive.” In response, Courie filed a grievance with his union.

Courie later learned that Alcoa and his union had considered settling his original dispute by removing the discipline in exchange for a concession that the statement was inappropriate and that Alcoa reacted appropriately. Based on that proposed settlement, Courie sued Alcoa and his union. claiming discrimination, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and defamation.

The court upheld the lower court’s decision dismissing all of Courie’s claims:

• The discrimination claim failed because the settlement agreement was not an “adverse action.” Indeed, according to the court, it was the opposite of adverse – it proposed to remove the traces of the original written warning from his record.

• Because the proposed settlement agreement was not discriminatory, it could not support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

• While the court did not address the defamation claim, I’ve previously noted that employers enjoy a (qualified) privilege for statements made during internal investigations.

So, what does this mean for employers? Reasoned rationales for the conclusions reached and discipline imposed during an internal investigation are paramount. The target of an investigation should not be able to come back at you for discrimination, defamation, or anything else in the kitchen sink if all your ducks are in a row.

---

Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus.

For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

Beware of discrimination risks when rehiring ex-employees

As the recession continues to show signs of ending, companies that had previously laid off employees will need to re-staff. According to CNN.com, a recent Department of Labor study finds that 38% of employers intend to recall cut workers. While a laid-off non-union employee has no right to be recalled or transferred into an open position, rehiring is not without legal risk. A recent 6th Circuit decision – Owens v. Wellmont, Inc. (6th Cir. 8/18/09) [PDF] – illustrates that employers need to pay as much attention to who is not recalled at to who is recalled.

After Wellmont eliminated Owens’s position in a reduction-in-force, she asked management about job openings in other departments. Wellmont hired younger candidates for those positions. The appellate court was bothered by the fact that management did not treat Owens’s discussions with management as formal applications for the open positions:

Owens did more than make a generalized expression of interest in working for Wellmont—Owens specifically informed Adams that Owens was interested in a position that was currently open.

As long as an employee makes a reasonable attempt to demonstrate to the employer an interest in the job, that employee can plead a discriminatory hiring claim if the job goes to someone else.

The lesson for employers is that if you are recalling RIF’ed employees, don’t discount someone merely because he or she did not make a formal application. If someone expressed interest in returning, it may be enough to trigger your responsibility to consider them for recall, or cause potential discrimination liability for failing to do so.

---

Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus.

For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

Do you know? What are an employer’s rights when an employee fails to give timely notice of FMLA leave?

Employees cannot simply take FMLA leave on a whim. They must provide their employers at least some notice, depending on the circumstances. An employee who needs foreseeable FMLA-qualifying leave is required to provide at least verbal notice sufficient to make the employer aware of the need for the leave and its anticipated timing and duration. An employee who needs unforeseeable FMLA-qualifying leave must, as soon as practical, provide sufficient information for the employer to reasonably determine whether the FMLA applies to the leave request.

What happens, though, if an employee fails to give timely notice?

1. Foreseeable leave – 30 days: When the need for FMLA leave is foreseeable at least 30 days in advance, and the employee fails to provide at least 30 days’ advance notice, the employer may delay FMLA coverage until 30 days after the date the employee provides notice. Thus, if an employee should have provided 30 days’ notice, but only provided 29 days’ notice, the employee can delay FMLA coverage for a full 30 days. This section is the most penal.

2. Foreseeable leave – less than 30 days: When the need for FMLA leave is foreseeable less than 30 days in advance, and an employee fails to give notice as soon as practicable under the facts and circumstances, the employer’s right to delay FMLA coverage for leave will vary from case to case. For example, if an employee reasonably should have given the employer two weeks notice but instead only provided one week notice, then the employer may delay FMLA-protected leave for one week.

3. Unforeseeable leave. When the need for FMLA leave is unforeseeable, and an employee fails to give notice as soon as practicable under the facts and circumstances, the employer’s right to delay FMLA coverage for leave will vary from case to case. For example, if it would have been practicable for an employee to have given the employer notice of the need for leave very soon after the need arises consistent with the employer's policy, but instead the employee provided notice two days after the leave began, then the employer may delay FMLA coverage of the leave by two days.

These rules provide employers and important tool. Delaying an employee FMLA coverage means that any absences can be considered unexcused. For an employee who fails to give timely notice of a foreseeable FMLA leave, the employee could accumulate enough absences to warrant termination before the FMLA coverage ever kicks in.

To take advantage of these provisions,the Department of Labor requires that the employee had actual notice of the FMLA notice requirements, through a proper workplace posting and a properly distributed FMLA policy. If you are unsure whether your postings and policies pass muster, check with your employment counsel.

---

Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus.

For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

A lesson on reasonable accommodations

My family and I went to Sesame Place last Friday. As we were preparing to leave the park, my three-year-old daughter noticed a queue for Cookie Monster and Telly Monster, and asked if she could see the characters before we left. When we got to the end of the line, however, the handler told us that the line was closed. If you want to know what absolute dejection looks like, you should have seen the look on my daughter’s face. She began to uncontrollably cry, sobbing that she just wanted to give Cookie a hug. I began to plead with the employee to reopen the line for my daughter, but she told me that doing so would be unfair to the hundreds of other children she had already turned away. My daughter’s genuine tears must have moved the employee, though, because she granted us VIP access to the holding area where all of the characters that march in the parade. Instead of just getting to hug Cookie and Telly, my daughter got to meet and hug every character in the park.

This parable holds a very good lesson for employers when dealing with a disabled employee’s request for a reasonable accommodation. The employee is not entitled to an accommodation of his or her choosing. Instead, the employer may choose among available accommodations as long as the chosen accommodation is effective. If more than one accommodation is effective, the employer has the ultimate discretion to choose between effective accommodations. Cost, ease of provision, and the employee’s preference are factors to be considered, but are not dispositive. Instead, as part of the interactive process, the employer may offer alternative suggestions and discuss their effectiveness in removing the workplace barrier.

My daughter would have been very happy at the back of the line to meet Cookie Monster. That accommodation, however, was not feasible. In your workplace, the alternative will not always work out as well for the employee as it did for my daughter. Engaging in the required dialogue with the employee, however, helps both sides come to an understanding as to the reasonableness of the proffered accommodation.

---

Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus.

For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com

WIRTW #92

Apparently, my incessant linking has labeled me as a potential spammer according to Blogger. Annoyed but undeterred, here’s what I’ve been reading this week (assuming Blogger gets its act together and releases me from its constraints).

Above the Law reports on an attorney who asks job applicants for their political beliefs, along with a recent personal or family photo before he will consider them for employment. Can you say Title VII violation?

Walter Olson’s Overlawyered has a story on what may be the worst legal defense of all time – a hotel sued by a woman raped in its parking lot claimed that she was negligent, careless, failed to mitigate her damages.

Laura Harshbarger at the New York Labor & Employment Law Report has some very good tips on handling workplace investigations. One point that is missed, though, is to be mindful that whatever work product is created during the investigation, even if done by the employer’s attorney, is likely admissible in a subsequent lawsuit.

The Word on Employment Law with John Philips counsels that investigations of workplace misconduct should be thorough before an employee is terminated.

Strategic HR Lawyer reprints a CareerBuilder survey of the top employee complaints.

Michael Fox’s Jottings By An Employer’s Lawyer reminds employers that ignorance of the law, such as the FMLA, is no excuse. For a similar case out of the 6th Circuit, take a look at ‘Tis better to have learned and lost.

Michael Maslanka’s Work Matters discusses some recent findings on employers’ opposition to union organizing.

Michael Haberman at HR Observations shares his thoughts on racism in the modern workplace.

If you’re looking for information on how to handle disabled employees, Lawffice Space suggests that you try to navigate around the federal government’s new site on the topic – disability.gov.

Lee Sevier at Wage & Hour – Developments & Highlights, on the importance of properly distinguishing between employees and independent contractors.

Jill Pugh’s Employment Law Blog thinks employees should use common sense when it comes to social networking.

Sindy Warren at the Warren & Hays Blog reminds companies that military status discrimination is illegal.

Richard Tuschman at the Florida Employment & Immigration Law Blog, on bystander harassment. For my thoughts on this issue, take a look at Further reflections on Reeves v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide.

---

Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus.

For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

On redemption and second chances

It’s been a week since my beloved Philadelphia Eagles shocked the sports world by signing convicted felon Michael Vick to a two-year contract. I’ve waited to comment on this story because I needed the time to process how I feel about my team being the one to provide a second chance to someone who did what Vick did.

Here’s what I’ve come up with: an employee’s opportunity for a second chance is proportional to one’s ability and talent. Something to consider the next time an employee makes an colossal blunder – does the employee have enough value to your organization to warrant a second chance?

For more thoughts on what Michael Vick has to do with employment law, I recommend my fellow bloggers:

• Michael Maslanka’s Work Matters: Lessons employers can learn from the Eagles' decision to hire Michael Vick.
• The Word on Employment Law with John Phillips: Michael Vick and Squeaky Fromme.
• Philip Miles’s Lawffice Space: Michael Vick and Hiring Criminals.
• William Bowser at the Delaware Employment Law Blog: What Can Employers Learn From Michael Vick and the Eagles?
• Jason Morris at the employeescreen IQ Blog: As Michael Vick Returns to NFL, Employment Lawyers Push Criminal Records Checks.
• Terri Albee at Compensation Cafe: How Do Your Non-Work Related Activities Affect Your Compensation?

---

Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus.

For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

Announcing the next KJK Breakfast Briefing: Google and Facebook and Twitter, Oh My! Emerging Workplace Technology Issues

Do you know what your employees are doing on-line? Join KJK’s team of employment lawyers to learn:

1. What are Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn, and do you need a policy to guide your employees on how to use them inside and outside of work?
2. What is “textual” (sexual) harassment, and how does your investigation of it implicate the Stored Communications Act?
3. What wage and hour issues can arise though the use of workplace technology?
4. What are the legal risks of “googling” job applicants during the hiring process?

Date:	Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Time:	8:00-8:30 Continental Breakfast
	8:30-9:30 Presentation
	9:30-10:00 Q&As
Place:	The Club at Key Center, 127 Public Square, Cleveland (on-site parking is free)

If you are interested in attending this free seminar, or for more information, please contact Andrea Hill, (216) 736-7234 or ach@kjk.com, by September 8, 2009.

Government updates swine flu guidance for businesses

Just a quick note to let everyone know that the federal government has updated its flu guidelines for businesses.  Ann Beauchesne at The Chamber Post has the details.

Refusal to take drug test bar workers’ comp retaliation claim

Many companies require employees to submit to drug tests after suffering a workplace injury. The rationale is simple – intoxication is one of the few complete defenses an employer has to a workers’ comp claim for a workplace injury.

What happens, though, if the injured employee refuses to take the drug test? That scenario presented itself to SanMar Corporation in late-2006. Thomas Ferguson left work complaining of a non-work-related backache. He told the ER nurse, however, that his pain was caused by an aerial harness he had to wear at work. Upon hearing the injury was work-related, the nurse asked Ferguson to submit to a drug test, which he did.

Ferguson returned to work the following week with light duty restrictions. SanMar’s HR department that he needed to submit for drug testing. Ferguson complained that he had already taken a test the prior week. SanMar, however, required a re-test because the earlier test did not comply with its policy for the employee to be transported to the testing facility. Ferguson went on his own, without SanMar even knowing he had suffered a workplace injury.

Because of Ferguson’s protests about the re-test, and his “nervous and fidgety” reaction, SanMar’s Assistant Manager required that the re-test be monitored. Upon learning that the drug test would be observed, Ferguson refused to be tested. SanMar subsequently terminated him for refusing to submit to a drug test in contravention of company policy.

Ferguson sued, claiming that SanMar terminated him in retaliation for his workers’ comp claim. In Ferguson v. SanMar (8/17/09), the Butler County (Ohio) Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of Ferguson’s claim:

Kirk, as assistant facility manager, made that determination after noticing Ferguson’s “nervous and fidgety” reaction to being asked to resubmit to a drug test. Kirk’s decision was not punitive action against Ferguson because Ferguson filed a workers’ compensation claim. Instead, it was a management decision predicated on a suspicion that Ferguson was using drugs or alcohol in the workplace.

For Ferguson’s argument to succeed, the evidence would have to show that SanMar knew that requiring him to be transported to the hospital and observed while he submitted to the test would induce Ferguson’s refusal to be tested. There is no way that SanMar, or anyone for that matter, could have known that Ferguson would refuse to be tested…. It was Ferguson’s own refusal to submit to the test that motivated his discharge. That refusal, under the written policy, was likewise sufficient to result in Ferguson’s discharge.

Drug testing policies are complicated and very easy to get wrong. Indeed, while Ohio does not have a specific statute that governs such policies, other states do (Oklahoma comes to mind). If you are considering implementing a drug testing program for your workforce, experienced counsel should vet it before you put it into circulation. If you already have a policy in place, it should be reviewed periodically for compliance.

---

Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus.

For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

Do you know? Harassment by a non-employee

Last week, an Orlando, Florida, jury convicted a Pennsylvania tourist of groping Minnie Mouse. Apparently, the man thought it was okay to grab Minnie’s breasts and bottom through her costume while visiting the character at the Magic Kingdom.

Do you know what an employer’s obligations are when an employee complains of harassment by a non-employee such as customer, vendor, or contractor? The obligations are exactly the same as if the alleged perpetrator was an employee. In fact, Ohio has a specific regulation that addresses this exact scenario: Admin. Code 4112-5-05(J)(5):

An employer may also be responsible for the acts of nonemployees (e.g., customers) with respect to sexual harassment of employees in the work place, where the employer (or its agents or supervisory employees) knows or should have known of the conduct and fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. In reviewing these cases the commission will consider the extent of the employer’s control and any other legal responsibility which the employer may have with respect to the conduct of such nonemployees.

At the end of the day, a harassment complaint by an employee against a non-employee should not be treated any differently than an intra-employee complaint:

1. Separate the complaining employee from the alleged harasser.

2. Promptly and fully investigate the allegations.

3. Evaluate the evidence and make a reasoned conclusion as to what happened.

4. Take prompt and effective remedial steps, if necessary.

5. Use the complaint as an opportunity to retrain employees about your sexual harassment policy.

[Hat tip: Employeescreen IQ Blog]

---

Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus.

For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

Papering a personnel file as evidence of retaliation?

When Carolyn Upshaw started filing EEOC charges against her employer, Ford Motor Company, it began to document her on-going performance problems. After she filed her 3rd charge and a lawsuit in a 15-month period, Ford terminated her employment. The termination occurred nine months after the last EEOC charge and four months after the lawsuit was filed. In Upshaw v. Ford Motor Co. (8/14/09) [PDF], the 6th Circuit concluded that her underlying discrimination lawsuit was baseless, but that her retaliation lawsuit, premised on the timing of Ford’s documentation of her performance problems, warranted a jury trial:

We have held that the combination of close temporal proximity between an employer’s heightened scrutiny and that plaintiff’s filing of an EEOC charge is sufficient “to establish the causal nexus needed to establish a prima facie case” of retaliation…. Here, Upshaw has proffered evidence that Ford subjected her to heightened scrutiny soon after she filed her 2003 EEOC charge. It is undisputed that Hughes-Sharp and Brooks began developing a timeline of Upshaw’s employment in fall 2003, and that they requested that other Ford employees submit information about Upshaw’s complaints to Human Resources…. Given the close temporal proximity between Upshaw’s August 2003 EEOC charge and Ford’s request for information from other employees documenting Upshaw’s complaint activity, and Brooks’s request for discipline, a reasonable juror could find that Upshaw has established a prima facie case of retaliation.

I’ve written in the past about the importance of timely and accurate documentation of performance problems. The Upshaw case underscores this point. It is not enough to document performance problems. The documentation must be consistent. A lot of employers think nothing of papering a personnel file after an employee becomes a pain in their side. Under Upshaw, such papering, that only begin once an employee files a discrimination charge or engages in other protected activity, could be used as prima facie evidence of retaliation. In other words, document early and document often, and don’t document selectively.

---

Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus.

For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

WIRTW #91

This week’s tip-of-the-week is courtesy of Rush Nigut’s Rush on Business – get it in writing. A handshake or an oral promise is only as good as the relationship that supports it. The problem, however, is that by the time that handshake ends up in court, the relationship that underlies is has deteriorated to the point that, well, you’ve ended up in court. And it’s amazing how bad memories become once a relationship has deteriorated into litigation.

Mark Toth’s Manpower Employment Blawg draws some lessons on how not end up in court based on some recently reported EEOC settlements and verdicts.

Anthony Zaller at the California Employment Law Report offers the top 10 mistakes in drafting job descriptions. I’ll add number 11 (which should really be number 1) – not having written job descriptions at all.

Dennis Westlind at World of Work shares his opinion on Title VII and body piercings.

Jeffrey Hirsch at the Workplace Prof Blog discusses yet another employee fired for something posted on her Facebook page – in this case, expletive complaints about her boss.

Staying on the topic of social networking, Patrick Smith’s Iowa Employment Law Blog thinks that employers should act cautiously when performing internet searches on job applicants.

William Bowser at the Delaware Employment Law Blog tells when an employer should consider offering severance.

Dan Schwartz at the Connecticut Employment Law Blog helps employers brace for this fall’s return of the swine flu.

Finally, I end this week’s review with some wage and hour topics.

Jennifer Hays at the Warren & Hays Blog has an important bit of information for officers and managers – they can be held independently liable for unpaid wages under the FLSA.

Wage & Hour Counsel talks about when employers are and are not liable for employees’ time spent changing into and out of company-issued gear.

Fair Labor Standards Act Law discusses retaliation under the wage and hour laws.

Finally, Jay Shepherd’s Gruntled Employees reports on a ruling by a Massachusetts court that a strip club had misclassified its dancers as independent contractors. Jay’s advice if you mess up an employee’s pay:

There’s no defense if you got it wrong. Our advice to employers: make sure you get the pay right. Or be prepared to settle if you don’t.

And bring plenty of singles.

---

Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus.

For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

Can you still be funny at work in a politically correct work?

Today’s HR Daily Advisor, published by BLR, asks the following question: Can You Still Tell a Joke in the Office? Instead of answering that question, I turn today’s post over to David Brent:

---

Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus.

For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

Lawsuits over off-the-clock smart phone use ask, “What is work?”

More than two years ago I cautioned that employers who require non-exempt employees to carry Blackberries or other devices that receive work-related emails could be liable for the time those employees spend reading and responding to those emails outside of work. (Can't get away from the office).

It appears that the plaintiffs’ bar has caught with this potential theory of liability. Michael Sanserino, in Monday’s Wall Street Journal, reports that two different lawsuits have been filed claiming that hourly employees should be compensated for time spent responding to emails while off the clock.

Even if reading and responding to work related email is work-related (and it likely is), I’m not convinced that employers should have to pay for any time spent performing these tasks. Most messages can be read in a matter of seconds or, at most, a few short minutes. The Fair Labor Standards Act calls such time de minimus, and does not require compensation for it. “Insubstantial or insignificant periods of time beyond the scheduled working hours, which cannot as a practical administrative matter be precisely recorded for payroll purposes, may be disregarded.” 29 C.F.R. § 785.47. Think of the administrative nightmare of an HR or payroll department having to track, record, and pay for each and every fraction of a minute an employee spends reading an email.

If a business wants to err on the side of caution, it could always draft a policy requiring employees to turn off their smart phones when they leave work for the day, or simply leave them at the office. With that policy, though, why issue the devices in the first place?

For more thoughts on this topic, I recommend the thoughts of my fellow bloggers:

• Ashby Jones at the Wall Street Journal Law Blog.
• Devora Lindeman at the Overtime Advisor.
• Patrick Smith at the Iowa Employment Law Blog.
• Jeffrey Hirsch at the Workplace Prof Blog.

---

Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus.

For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

Do you know? FMLA fitness-for-duty certifications

In a previous post, I detailed the new FMLA regulation’s eligibility notice and designation notice requirements. The FMLA also has specific requirements for how an employer must go about obtaining a fitness-for-duty certification from an employee on an FMLA leave for his or her own serious health condition.

1. Mandatory written notice. Before an employer can require an employee to provide a fitness-for-duty certification, it must expressly be provided for in a written FMLA policy or in the designation statement given to the employee at the outset of the leave. Additionally, if the employer wants the certification to address the essential functions of the employee’s job, a list of such functions must be provided to the employee with the designation notice.

2. Uniformity. The employer must have a uniformly-applied policy or practice that requires all similarly-situated employees (i.e., same occupation, job function, or serious health condition) who take leave for such conditions to obtain and present the certification.

3. Limited to the specific health condition. An employer may only seek a fitness-for-duty certification with regard to the particular health condition that caused the employee’s need for FMLA leave.

4. Cost. The employee must pay for the cost of the certification, and the employee is not entitled to be paid for the time or travel costs spent acquiring the certification.

5. Clarification. While an employer can seek clarification of a fitness-for-duty certification with an employee’s health care provider under the same rules applicable to other communications with an employee’s health care provider, the employer cannot delay the employee’s return to work pending the clarification. Unlike the initial leave certification, an employer cannot seek a second or third opinion of a fitness-for-duty.

6. Denial of job restoration. An employer can deny restoration, however, if a properly requested fitness-for-duty certification is not returned by the employee.

7. Intermittent or reduced work schedule leave. An employer is not entitled to a certification for each absence taken on an intermittent or reduced leave schedule. An employer is entitled, though, to a certification for such absences up to once every 30 days if reasonable safety concerns exist regarding the employee’s ability to perform his or her duties, based on the serious health condition for which the employee took such leave. An employer may not terminate the employment of an employee while awaiting such a certification for an intermittent or reduced schedule leave absence.

8. Interplay with the ADA. After an employee returns from FMLA leave, the ADA requires any medical examination at an employer’s expense by the employer’s health care provider be job-related and consistent with business necessity. If an employee’s serious health condition may also qualify as a disability under the ADA, the FMLA does not prevent the employer from following the procedures for requesting medical information under the ADA.

---

Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus.

For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

Bullying versus harassment

It is generally agreed that the anti-discrimination laws do not create a general code of workplace civility. Employees are generally expected to endure the usual tribulations of the workplace, such as the sporadic use of abusive language, offhand comments or jokes, occasional or simple teasing, normally petty slights, minor annoyances, and the simple lack of good manners. Harassing conduct is only actionable if it is objectively and subjectively severe or pervasive so as to alter the terms and conditions of one’s employment.

In light of this standard, consider the following set of facts, which arose in Hidy Motors, Inc. v. Sheaffer (Ohio Ct. App. 7/31/90), an age harassment claim brought by a 67-year-old car salesman:

• When the general manager would walk behind Sheaffer he would repeatedly say, “Come on old man, pick up your feet.”
• After Sheaffer told the general manager that a couple wanted to go home and think about buying a car, the general manager told him, “Come on old man, get your f****** head out of your f****** ass and go out there and slam them.”
• Referring to Sheaffer, the general manager directed another sales person to help the “old man” close a deal.
• In discussing a disagreement over a sales bonus, the general manager told Sheaffer, “Old man, I don’t give a f*** what you think. That’s the way it is going to be.”
• After a child spilled some water on the floor, the general manager told Sheaffer, “I’ve heard that’s what happens when you get your age - you can’t control yourself.”

Based on this conduct, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s summary dismissal of the age harassment claim and sent Sheaffer’s claim back for trial.

There is no doubt that this particular general manager has an interesting management style, and is probably what one would call a bully. But, should a few instances of a 67-year-old employee being called “old man” support a harassment claim? There is a clear line between general bullying/boorish management and actionable harassment. I question whether this case falls on the right side of that line.

---

Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus.

For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

WIRTW #90

BLR’s HR Daily Advisor offers 10 tips to avoid employment lawsuit, in two parts – part one and part two.

Meanwhile, Jennifer Hays at the Warren & Hays Blog sums up lawsuit avoidance in one simple step – fire with a heart.

And, if you are sued, Michael Maslanka’s Work Matters suggests

Darcy Dees at Compensation Cafe reminds everyone that being wrong in a wage and hour lawsuit can have costly consequences for an employer if willfulness can be proven.

Michael Fox’s Jottings By An Employer’s Lawyer draws a connection between a good performance review, a termination, and a million dollar jury verdict in a discrimination lawsuit.

The Evil HR Lady offers some advice to a pregnant employee who is not eligible for FMLA leave.

Molly DiBianca at the Delaware Employment Law Blog digests a bunch of resources for employers seeking to promote a work-life balance.

Today’s Workplace asks if there is a link between the recession and increased workplace harassment.

The Overtime Advisor shares its thoughts on wage and hour issues and smartphone usage.

Want to know what’s wrong with American class action litigation – the Point of Law Forum reports on a $25,037,500 class settlement in which the plaintiff’s lawyers will receive $25,000,000, and the class members will receive $37,500 in discounts towards the purchase of future automobiles.

Patrick Smith at the Iowa Employment Blog provides a good summary of recent headlines in religious discrimination.

Marcia McCormick at the Workplace Prof Blog discusses the introduction of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act in the Senate. The bill would ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

On Point reports that a Philadelphia hair salon is being sued by a male hair stylist who claims he was told it was “socially unacceptable” for him to “look like a girl.”

Carl Bosland at The FMLA Blog reports on legislation that could expand military leave benefits.

According to Workplace Privacy Counsel and the Philadelphia Bar Association, it is unethical for an attorney to use a third party to gain access to witnesses Facebook or other social networking page.

---

Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus.

For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.