Do you know? ABA/DOL’s Bridge to Justice (or, Bridge Over Troubled Referrals)

A couple of weeks ago, the American Bar Association and the Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division announced an unprecedented collaboration called “Bridge to Justice.” It is an ABA-approved attorney referral system to connect those who file wage and hour complaints with the DOL to attorneys who will handle cases the DOL is not interested in pursuing. Here’s the quick and dirty, courtesy of the DOL’s website:

Beginning on December 13, 2010, when FLSA or FMLA complainants are informed that the Wage and Hour Division is declining to pursue their complaints, they will also be given a toll-free number to contact the newly created ABA-Approved Attorney Referral System….

In addition, when the Wage and Hour Division has conducted an investigation, the complainant will now be provided information about the Wage and Hour Division’s determination regarding violations at issue and back wages owed. This information will be given to the complainants in the same letter informing them that the Wage and Hour Division will not be pursuing further action, and will be very useful for attorneys who may take the case. The Wage and Hour Division has also developed a special process for complainants and representing attorneys to quickly obtain certain relevant case information and documents when available.

Did I read that right? Will the DOL be providing the complaining party and the referred attorney “relevant case information and documents?” The DOL explains, in a short FAQ about its new attorney referral system:

Q: How does the ABA-Approved Attorney Referral Document Request process work?

A: A complainant who has received the toll-free number to the ABA-Approved Attorney Referral System after a Wage and Hour Division investigation will also receive a form to request the most relevant documents from her case file. These documents include the complainant’s own statement, the Wage and Hour Division’s back wage computations for the complainant, and copies of any documents the complainant provided to the Wage and Hour Investigator. The Wage and Hour Division will provide these documents expeditiously. The form also allows the worker or authorized attorney representative to request the case narrative from the file; however, it explains that requesting the narrative will delay the Wage and Hour Division’s response because it must be redacted. The letter sent to the complainant with notification of the Wage and Hour Division’s decision to not pursue the case will also include information about the violations found and back wages owed to the complainant.

In other words, the DOL will provide employees and the referred attorneys a roadmap to filing a lawsuit: the complainant’s statement, the nature of any violations found to have occurred, back wage computations, and the DOL’s own internal narrative.

It used to be that if the DOL declined to pursue a charge, there existed a better than average chance the claim would die. Now, lawyers will be lining up to receive a referral, along with a connect-the-dots claim. If this referral program doesn’t scare employers into conducting a proactive and comprehensive wage and hour audit to prevent these referral from taking place, nothing will.

---

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.

Prepare for the long hard winter and update your severe weather policy

Today is Cleveland's second big snowstorm in less than a week. I, along with myriad other workers around the greater Cleveland area, are going to have a devil of a time getting into work today. How does your business handle inclement weather? Last winter, I outlined some ideas for businesses to consider during weather events. Have a look and see how my tips compare to your own policies. And, please, drive safely.

---

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 #156 (the Guantánamo edition)

The story of the week is courtesy of the legal humor blog (and fellow ABA Blawg 100 honoree—don’t forget to vote) Lowering the Bar, which reports on the Utah Supreme Court’s reinstatement of an employee’s tort claims against his employer. The allegations are that the employer used waterboarding and other forms of physical punishment as motivational techniques:

Basically, Hudgens alleges that Prosper encouraged the use of, let’s say, “enhanced employee motivational techniques,” specifically, waterboarding. Hudgens alleged that at the time of the incident, his supervisor was already known for what the court called “questionable management practices”:

“Specifically, when an employee did not meet performance goals, [the supervisor] would draw a mustache on the employee using permanent marker or he would remove the employee’s chair. Additionally, he would patrol the employees’ work area with a wooden paddle, which he would use to strike desks and tabletops.”

Where do I sign up to work for that supervisor?

Here’s the rest of what I read this week:

Discrimination

• The new (and very activist) Obama EEOC – from Walter Olson’s Overlawyered

• Family Responsibilities Discrimination (FRD): The Next Big Field in Employment Law? – from Daniel Schwartz’s Connecticut Employment Law Blog

• Religion at Work – from Suzanne Lucas, the Evil HR Lady

• Hospital Sued Over English-Only Rule – from Joe’s HR and Benefits Blog

• Dollar Value of Employment Cases – from Tom Crane’s San Antonio Employment Law Blog

• Steak and sex: Fleming’s settles male-on-male harassment claim – from Sindy Warren at the Warren & Hays Employment Law Blog

• Male sexual harassment is on the rise. Does your policy include both sexes? – from Employment Law Bits

• GINA and Family Medical History: A Summary of Practical Concerns for Employers – from New York Labor and Employment Law Report

• Credit Check Lawsuit Signals Potential New Wave of Class Actions – from Workplace Privacy Counsel

Social Networking & Technology

• Discovery Granted: Give Opposing Counsel Your Facebook Password – from Philip Miles’s Lawffice Space

• The Trouble With LinkedIn Recommendations: Confidentiality – from Molly DiBianca’s Delaware Employment Law Blog

• Why WikiLeaks Matters More (And Less) than You Think – from HBR.org

• Tailoring A Social Media Policy: The NFL Example – from Rob Radcliff’s Smooth Transitions

• Employee Handbooks Not Relevant to Whether Computer Use Was Unauthorized Under CFAA (Accenture v. Sidhu) – from Legal Developments In Non-Competition Agreements

• Best Buy’s Boss on the Lessons of Social Media – from BusinessWeek

• The Top Ten Things You May Not Know About Social Media – from CAI News

• Discharge is Upheld for Facebook Postings by Employees in France – from TLNT

• Copy Machine May Be Storing Your Confidential Records – from HR Daily Advisor

• Ohio sets social-networking rules for judges – from James Nash at the Columbus Dispatch

• An Early New Year’s Resolution – Create A Social Media Policy – from Michigan Employment Law Connection

Employee Relations

• Can you fairly lay-off teachers? – from Rob Schwartz’s Fairness Matters

• EmployeeScreenIQ’s Top Background Screening Trends for 2011 – from employeescreenIQ Blog

• Holiday Party Horror – from Michael Haberman’s HR Observations

• Tips for terminating employees – from Michael Maslanka’s Work Matters

• Shh! Companies Spying On Sick Workers – from Workplace Diva

• Sick Leave and the FMLA: Should You Call Off Your Call-in Policy? – from Case In Point

• Boss had lots of documentation, but was he just papering the file? – from Stephen Meyer’s HR Cafe

• The Top 100 Movie Quotes for HR Pros: #90 is Dirty Harry: “Personnel? That's for A@@*LE$!!!” – from Kris Dunn, The HR Capitalist

Trade Secrets and Competition

• Noncompete cases not slowed by economy, legislation – from Jay Shepherd’s Gruntled Employees

• Trade Secret Statistics – from Fair Competition Law

• Roy’s Analysis of Quirky Question # 164; Who Owns Employees’ Ideas? – from Quirky Questions

• Top Ten Non-Compete and Trade Secret Concerns for Inhouse Lawyers and the Companies They Represent – from Trade Secrets & Non-Compete Blog

• Walmart Obtains Delaware Injunction Barring Former Exec From Working For CVS – from Delaware Non-Compete Law Blog

Labor Relations

• Video: Walt Disney World Union Workers Release ‘MouseTrapped 2010’ for Public Viewing – from StitchKingdom

• NLRB Upholds Dana Corp. Voluntary Recognition Agreement – from Workplace Prof Blog

• NLRB Dismisses “The Other” Dana Corp. Complaint; Finds Pre-Recognition Agreement Lawful – from Labor Relations Today

---

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.

6th Circuit places burden on a disabled employee to propose a reasonable accommodation

Despite the breadth of the 2009 amendments to Americans with Disabilities Act, not all disabled employees receive the benefit of the Act’s protection. Instead, the Act only protects those employees who are “qualified,” that is, able to perform all of the essential functions of the job with or without reasonable accommodation. If necessary to determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation, the ADA’s regulations require an employer to “initiate an informal, interactive process with the qualified individual with a disability in need of the accommodation. This process should identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.”

Whose burden is it, however, to propose a reasonable accommodation to account for an employee’s disability? According to Jakubowski v. The Christ Hosp., Inc. (12/8/10) [pdf], the burden falls squarely on the employee.

Dr. Martin Jakubowski suffers from Asperger’s syndrome, a severe and sustained impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning, with a marked impairment in the ability to regulate social interaction and communication. Following his diagnosis, the hospital terminated his employment. Before the termination, the hospital met with Dr. Jakubowski to discuss various accommodations for his poor communications skills, all of which he rejected. Because he did not propose another accommodation, the hospital met its burden to engage in the interactive process, and he could not proceed on his discrimination claim:

Jakubowski contends that Christ Hospital did not act in good faith because it did not offer him a remediation program similar to the one offered to the previous, unnamed resident who exhibited similar deficiencies. Importantly, Jakubowski did not request a remediation program at the accommodation meeting with Christ Hospital….

Christ Hospital … met with Jakubowski to discuss his proposed accommodations, and told him that the hospital lacked sufficient resources to comply. [It] also offered to help him find a pathology residency because it would involve less patient contact…. Because Christ Hospital met with Jakubowski, considered his proposed accommodations, informed him why they were unreasonable, offered assistance in finding a new pathology residency, and never hindered the process along the way, we agree that there is no dispute that Christ Hospital participated in the interactive accommodation process in good faith.

The ADA does not require an employer to offer a disabled employee the most reasonable accommodation, or the employee’s preferred accommodation. Instead, it only requires the employer to offer a reasonable accommodation, one which enables the employee to perform all of the essential functions of the job. If an employer meets this burden, the employee cannot complain that the employer rejected a proposed accommodation that did not address all essential functions, or failed to implement an accommodation that the employee did not propose.

---

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.

Does Justice Alito read my blog? Dissecting the oral argument in Thompson v. North Am. Stainless

Thompson v. North Am. Stainless is near and dear to my heart. This post marks the 8th I’ve written covering this important 6th Circuit retaliation case. Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument on the issue of whether Title VII prohibits an employer from retaliating by inflicting reprisals on a third party (such as a spouse, family member, or fiancé) closely associated with the employee who engaged in such protected activity but who engaged in no protected activity of his or her own. The oral argument transcript is available for download [pdf] from the Supreme Court’s website.

When the 6th Circuit originally recognized a cause of action for associational retaliation (before the en banc reversal that led to the Supreme Court appeal), I worried, “How close is close enough?”

In Thompson, the relationship was a fiancée. It is safe to assume liability will also extend to action taken against spouses. What about boyfriends and girlfriends? How long do you have to date to be protected from retaliation? The same protection also will probably extend to parents and children. What about siblings? Grandparents? Cousins? 3rd cousins twice removed? In-laws? Friends? Carpoolers? The people you share your lunch table with? The person you sat next to in 3rd grade? How close is close enough for an employer to intend for its actions to punish the exercise of protected activity? Do employers now have to ask for family trees and class pictures as part of the orientation process?

While I’m not so vain as to think that Justice Alito reads my blog (just in case, hello, Your Honor), the theme of the slippery slope resonated heavily in his questioning of Mr. Thompson’s attorney:

That’s what's troubling to me about – about the theory. Where it’s a fiancée, it’s – that’s a relatively strong case, but I can imagine a whole spectrum of cases in which there is a lesser relationship between those two persons, and if – if –­ if – unless there’s a clear line there someplace, this theory is rather troubling. …

Can you help – can you help provide where the clear line is? Does it go – does it include simply a good friend? Does it include somebody who just has lunch in the cafeteria every day with the person who engaged in the protected conduct? Somebody who once dated the person who engaged in the protected conduct? Are these all questions that have to go to a jury?

Justice Alito continued to hammer this theme when questioning the attorney arguing for the Justice Department:

Put yourself in the – in the shoes of an employer, and you – you think – you want to take an adverse employment action against employee A. You think you have good grounds for doing that, but you want – before you do it, you want to know whether you’re potentially opening yourself up to a retaliation claim.

Now, what is the employer supposed to do then? They say, … now we need to see whether this person who we’re thinking of taking the adverse employment action against has a … “close relationship” with any of those people. So what do you do? Do you call everybody in from the company and you say, now, is – you know, was – are these people dating? Did they once date? Are they good friends? What are you supposed to do?

Despite this Court’s perception as pro-business, it has proven itself to be a favorable venue for retaliation claims. This Court's pro-employee, anti-retaliation bent should hold form in this case. Notwithstanding Justice Alito’s (and my) concerns, reading the tea leaves I predict Thompson will be a victory for the employee. I cannot see this Court permitting an employer to fire an employee whose fiancée claims discrimination. There should be at least five Justices who will craft a standard workable enough to avoid Justice Alito’s slippery slope.

I don’t expect any bright lines to be drawn. Since Burlington Northern, it is clear that actionable retaliation includes any adverse action that is “harmful to the point that they could well dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.” I expect the Court to conclude that this test encompasses associational retaliation; we will be litigating the degree of closeness and its impact on the “reasonable employee” in future retaliation cases.

---

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? Wrongful terminations for attorney consultations

Because Ohio employees working without a contract are at-will, an employer does not need a reason—good, bad, or otherwise—for termination. Yet, do you know that an at-will employee who consults with an attorney may find himself or herself protected from termination? Ohio, like most states, prohibits employers from terminating employees in circumstances that jeopardize a clear and well-defined public policy. Ohio courts conclude that an employee’s consultation with an attorney is worthy of such protection.

Chapman v. Adia Servs., Inc., is the most oft cited case in support of this rule:

[W]e hold that it is repugnant to the public policy of this state for employers to terminate employees for exercising their right to consult a lawyer. The courthouse door must be open to the people of Ohio, and it is not ajar when citizens may be fired for entering.

Other cases have extended this protection to employees who threaten to consult with an attorney and to employees who inquire about an employer’s policy regarding employees who sue the employer.

Employers should treat employees who consult with an attorney or threaten to consult with an attorney the same as they would any employee who engages in any other legally protected activity—with care, diligence, and fairness.

---

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.

BREAKING NEWS: Supreme Court agrees to hear appeal in Dukes v. Wal-Mart

This morning, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal of the class certification of the largest employment discrimination lawsuit ever filed in this country, Dukes v. Wal-Mart. Greg Stohr at Bloomberg News provides details. You can also read my previous thoughts on this historic appeal.

This appeal will not only impact the more than 1.5 million potential class members who seek billions of dollars in damages, but it also has the potential to shape the future of employment class action litigation for years to come. Keep watching this blog for future updates on the landmark Dukes case as it continues to wind its way through the Supreme Court.

---

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 democrats look to go down swinging

In boxing its called a puncher’s chance. As long as you’re on your feet, you always have a chance to knock out the other guy. You might get knocked around for 11 rounds, but as long as you can throw a solid punch in the 12th, you can always win the fight.

This is what the democrats in the Ohio House are trying to do. In last month’s election, the republican tide swept away their control of Ohio’s House. Next month, their half of Ohio’s legislature, along with the Governor’s mansion, will join Ohio’s Senate as republican-controlled. On their way out, the current House majority is going down swinging.

Tomorrow, the Ohio House will hear testimony, and possibly vote, on three long-standing pieces of legislation:

• HB 470 – which would create a new protected class for people who smoke tobacco. For my prior thoughts on this bill, see Bill seeks to snuff out discrimination against smokers.

• HB 488 – which would create a new protected class for women who are lactating, in addition to requiring that employers provide lactating employees reasonable, unpaid time each day to permit the expression of breast milk. I’ve also previously written about this legislation. Because of the recent federal mandate for workplace lactation breaks, this legislation is irrelevant.

• HB 523 – which would create a uniform definition of “employee” in Ohio’s minimum wage, wage payment, and workers’ compensation laws. This statute would broadly define an “employee” as “an individual who performs services for compensation for an employer.” Critically, it presumes anyone who falls under this broad definition is an “employee” and would require the employer to prove otherwise. It also creates a stringent enforcement scheme, which includes a private cause of action, civil penalties, and criminal penalties for misclassifications. Of these three pieces of legislation up for consideration, this is the most significant and has the widest implications for Ohio businesses.

Unlike the weary, late-round boxer, the Ohio democrats have no chance of winning any of these battles. They could win the round by passing one or more these bills, but each would certainly die in the republican-controlled Senate.

---

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 #155 (the two-drink-maximum edition)

I was not the only one this week commenting on the legal risks of office holiday parties:

• The Office Holiday Party - Alcohol-Induced Stupidity Can Lead to Serious Sexual Harassment Claims – from Daniel Schwartz’s Connecticut Employment Law Blog

• How To Avoid Holiday Party Pitfalls (and Liability) – from World of Work

• Your Career: Surviving the office holiday party – from msnbc.com

• Time to Get Your “Drink On” at the Office Holiday Party! – from Fistful of Talent

• Behave at Office Holiday Parties – from Lawyerist

If you’re planning on voting for me at the ABA’s Blawg 100, please do so before you indulge too much at your office party and forget to vote at all.

Here’s the rest of what I read this week:

Discrimination

• The FMLA, the ADA and retaliation – from Michael Maslanka’s Work Matters

• 3d Circuit: Untimely Failure-to-Promote Claim Is Not Saved by Ledbetter Fair Pay Act – from Molly DiBianca’s Delaware Employment Law Blog

• Supreme Court May Clarify Use Of “Me Too” Evidence Of Employment Discrimination – from Hunton Employment & Labor Law Perspectives™

• A Room with a View – The Costly Consequences of Ignoring a Small Request for Accommodation – from Wyatt Employment Law Report

• Employers and the newly expanded ADA – from Overlawyered

• Record Gender Discrimination Class Action Settlement And Fee Award Given Final Approval – from Workplace Class Action Litigation

• I’m Harassed By Your Affairs With Others: A New Legal Threat Emerges (Gender Plus)... – from Kris Dunn, The HR Capitalist

• Lawsuit Alleges Hiring Discrimination Due to Credit Background Checks – from employeescreenIQ Blog

• 10 Tips For Avoiding GINA Violations – from Workplace Privacy Counsel

• Disparate Impact Suit - Credit Checks – from Michael Fox’s Jottings By An Employer’s Lawyer

• Documentation is Key to Surviving OFCCP Audit – from New York Labor and Employment Law Report

• BIG LIES: “The check's in the mail,” and “I can fire you for a good, bad, or no reason” – from Employment and Labor Insider

• Job Descriptions and the ADA: Are Those ‘Essential Functions’ Really Essential? – from Case In Point

• Combining Romance and Work, Can Lead to Demotion or Even Termination From Employment – from Minnesota Labor & Employment Law Blog

Wage & Hour

• Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes: Will SCOTUS grant certiorari? – from LawMemo Employment Law Blog

• Workplace Flexibility and the Military – from Workplace Prof Blog

• Verizon FMLA settlement may exceed $6 million – from The FMLA Blog

• Steeped-Up Independent Contractor Enforcement Initiatives Coming Down The Pike Full Steam – from Wage & Hour - Development & Highlights

• ESPN Zone Closure Prompts Lawsuit by Laid Off Workers – from Maryland Employment Law Developments

• You Be The Judge: Did the boss or the worker close FMLA door? – from HR Cafe

• Leon Rodriguez to Be Nominated for the Top Job at the Wage and Hour Division – from Wage & Hour Counsel

DOL/ABA Partnership

• The DOL’s Holiday Gift for the Plaintiff’s Bar – from FMLA Insights

• DOL/ABA Lawyer-Referral Program Threatens More FLSA Litigation – from Wage and Hour Laws Blog

• USDOL + ABA = Trouble? – from HR Observations

• DOL-Private Bar Collaboration for Workers with Employment Complaints – from EFCA & Labor Law Reform Blog

• The DOL’s Lawyer Referral Arrangement with ABA Not Likely to Help Employers or Employees – from Iowa Employment Law Blog

• White House Task Force Announces DOL-ABA Partnership to Facilitate Wage and Hour Challenges – from Washington D.C. Employment Law Update

Social Networking & Technology

• When the iPad Is the Only Computer Your Employees Need—or Want – from BusinessWeek

• When It Comes To Smartphones, Employers Better Watch Out – from Workplace Diva

• Blackberries, iPhones and Androids: Do SmartPhones Belong in Meetings? – from Suzanne Lucas, “The Evil HR Lady,” writing at bNet

• “Cyber Monday”: Myth Or Must-Day For Online Shopping? – from NPR

• Managing the Workplace in the Age of Social Media – from CPEhr

• How Grinchy Should Employers Be About Online Shopping? – from Manpower Employment Blawg

---

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 few thoughts on background checks

The New York Times’s You’re the Boss blog ran a piece yesterday discussing background checks of prospective employees. It focuses on a case study of one company that recently decided to run a background check on every new employee after accepting a conditional job offer. I thought I’d share a few thoughts I took away from the article.

1. It is not practical or cost-effective to run a background check on every applicant you are considering hiring. Because of information that could be revealed and the risk of a taint of discrimination, it is also not advisable to use a background check as part of the selection process. The best practice is to use background checks like medical exams and drug screens—as a final vetting after a conditional job offer is made. In a perfect world, no employee should be allowed to start working until after the background screen clears, although the needs of a particular business to have an employee start immediately may win out.

2. The need to screen employees will vary from company to company based on the nature of the business. Not every company will have to screen every employee. If you are not going to screen every employee, though, you should at least screen all employees in the same job. Consistency will eliminate any perception that you are selectively screening candidates based on a protected class.

3. Businesses should be very careful with the use of publically available information on the Internet (e.g., Google and Facebook) to conduct informal background searches. For one thing, the information is difficult to verify and may not be truthful. Also, an Internet search could reveal protected information—such as an employee’s membership in a cancer survivors’ group—that you, as an employer, do not and should not want to know. Internet searches of job candidates, however, do have value, but should only be used as one part of a background screening protocol, and with measures in place to limit the discovery of protected information.

---

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.

Have we reached the end of civility?

A recent column in the New York Times had an interesting take about the decreased level of civility in our society and its effect on the workplace. The author’s thesis is that technology has caused a decline in civility over the last 10 years, which has impacted the workplace:

[A]s we’re all aware, the 21st century has brought with it new variations on rudeness. Answering texts during a luncheon. Tapping on BlackBerrys instead of listening to a speaker—or a child’s recital. Shooting off hostile e-mail anonymously. But is this decline in manners real? And when considering this, should we separate the outward symbols of politeness from general civility? It’s a complicated but important issue that has a surprising economic impact. Christine Pearson, a professor of management at Thunderbird School of Global Management in Arizona, said her research over the last decade had shown that many workers left jobs because of continuing incivility but rarely reported that as the reason.

Professor Pearson researched 9,000 managers and workers for her book, The Cost of Bad Behavior: How Incivility Is Damaging Your Business and What to Do About It. She concluded that incivility is rampant on the job. She cited examples such as rudeness, ignoring requests for help, ignoring a colleague passing in the hall, gossiping behind colleagues’ backs, and borrowing supplies without asking.

I’ve written about courtesy and civility before, and will leave you with two additional thoughts:

1. Whether this is a real workplace problem or not, it cannot hurt to try to be a little nicer to each other. Behavior models start at the top. If an organization is run by intimidation and scare tactics, then it should come as no surprise when managers and supervisors think they need to motivate their teams by yelling, harassing, sniping, and snubbing. It should also come as no surprise when employees respond with the incivility of litigation.

2. Social media has downgraded the level of discourse in our society. If recent statistics cited by Mashable are to be believed, 1 out of every 4 U.S. Internet pageviews occurs on Facebook. It is not a stretch to concluded that this increased connectedness and familiarity with each other has led to more informality and less civility. The ability communicate in 140 character bursts does not require truncated discourse. (You can find me on twitter @jonhyman).

---

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? EEOC reports record charge filings for 2010

The EEOC recently published its fiscal year 2010 FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report. Given the state of the economy, its findings are not all that surprising. The EEOC reported a record number of discrimination charge filings, 99,922, its highest total in the agency’s 45-year history. What is surprising, however, is what the EEOC is doing with all these charges—it’s closing files.

Despite the record number of filings, the EEOC resolved 104,999 charges, leaving it with an inventory of 86,338 at the end of its fiscal year. While that number seems high, it’s less than a 1% increase from the end of FY 2009. By way of contrast, the EEOC’s pending inventory increased nearly 16% from FY 2008 to FY 2009. In other words, the EEOC is resolving cases—whether by mediation and settlement, litigation, or dismissals and right to sue letters.

Here’s what the EEOC has to say about the cause of this record number of filings:

This surge in charge receipts is due in part to the expanded statutory authorities that EEOC has been given with the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA) of 2008; the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) of 2008; and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 (the Ledbetter Act). We also attribute the rise in charge receipts to EEOC becoming more accessible, making charge filing easier and providing better, more responsive customer service. Our internal Intake Information Group expanded the agency’s availability by phone and e-mail. Additionally, in the last four years, the EEOC has concentrated on revamping its charge intake services, expanding walk-in hours, and issuing a plain language brochure to assist potential charging parties in understanding their rights and the EEOC charge process. Individuals can now contact the agency by phone, by mail, by e-mail, by going to the EEOC website, or by visiting EEOC field offices.

These record filings have resulted in record recoveries. In FY 2010, the EEOC secured more than $319.3 million for more than 18,898 people through administrative enforcement activities—mediation, settlements, conciliations, and withdrawals with benefits. This figure represents the highest level of monetary relief ever obtained by the Commission, and a $25.2 million increase from FY 2009. Of this record recovery, $85 million came from the resolution of 285 lawsuits brought by the EEOC.

What does all this mean for employers? The EEOC is no longer an agency where charges go to die. Employers can expect more thorough investigations, quicker resolutions, and more aggressive enforcement. If you are charged with discrimination with the EEOC, you should take it seriously; the EEOC is.

---

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 ABA Blawg 100 – and a shameless request for your vote

Today, the ABA Journal announced that it has selected the Ohio Employer’s Law Blog as one of the top 100 legal blogs for 2010. I am truly humbled. The ABA’s blog directory has more than 3,000 registered blogs. To have been selected as one of the 100 “best and brightest law bloggers” by the American Bar Association leaves me speechless.

Here’s my Oscar moment. It really is an honor just to have been nominated. You can, however, navigate over to the ABA’s website and vote for me as the top Labor & Employment blog of 2010. You need to be registered at abajournal.com to vote. Congratulations to the other 99 honorees, and especially the other four selected in the “In Labor” category, all of whom are deserving.

---

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.

7 tips for a safe workplace holiday party

I spent my collegiate summers earning money working in a warehouse in Philadelphia. It was an employment lawyer’s dream. One employee thought the best way to motivate his black co-workers was to hide buckets of fried chicken around the warehouse. Another, upset that he did not get a big enough raise, hanged our boss in effigy in front of a mural of a swastika that read, “Die Cheap Jew.” And, there was an infamous holiday party during which an intoxicated employee attempted to sexually assault the boss’s wife on the dance floor.

According to an Kay Spector, writing in the Cleveland Plain Dealer over the weekend, 21% of companies are planning not to have a holiday party this year, the lowest number in 30 years. I am not one of the employment lawyers who think that holiday parties pose too large of a risk to be held. In fact, I believe that year-end parties are an excellent source of workplace morale, provided that employers and employees use some common sense in planning and attending. Here’s 7 tips for employers and employees to consider as we enter the workplace holiday party season:

• Normal work rules and standards apply to holiday parties. As a subtle reminder, consider holding an anti-harassment refresher in anticipation of the party.
• Review your insurance policies for alcohol-related exclusions. 
• When scheduling your party, consider that employees are less likely to indulge on a work night than a Friday or Saturday. 
• Remind employees to drink responsibly and plan ahead for safe transportation. Help employees by limiting consumption via drink tickets, offering plenty of non-alcoholic options, and providing designated drivers, cab vouchers, or hotel rooms for those unfit to drive home.
• Have trained and experienced bartenders, and emphasize that they should not over-pour drinks, or serve guests who appear intoxicated or underage.
• Designate one or more managers or supervisors to refrain from drinking and monitor the party for over-consumption.
• Close the bar an hour or more before the party ends.

Cheers!

WIRTW #154 (the thankful edition)

In her preschool class last week, my daughter had to share what she was thankful for. Her classmates gave the standard responses—parents, grandparents, siblings, maybe a pet or two. Her answer—Peter Pan. Good to know where my wife and I stand in her corner of the universe.

Here’s what I’m thankful for (at least as my blog is concerned):

• I’m thankful for the nearly 600 subscribers who think enough of what I have to say on a daily basis to have my thoughts delivered to their feedreaders or inboxes.

• I’m thankful for the more than 8,000 different visitors each month who find me via a Google search, a link, Twitter, or some other way, who stop by to read my thoughts and musings.

• I’m thankful for all of my blogging and tweeting colleagues—many of whom I now consider friends—with whom I have shared ideas and links, and engaged in interesting debates.

• I’m thankful for all of the reporters who have used me a source (and spelled my name correctly).

• I’m thankful for my partners, who, when they were the partners, provided me the freedom to start what at the time was a novel project.

• Finally, I’m thankful for my wife, who often puts up with my late-night typing because I have a thought I want to finish for the next morning.

Have a great Thanksgiving and long holiday weekend. I’ll see everyone back on Monday, when we start the stretch run to my annual list of the year’s top 10 labor and employment law stories.

Here’s the rest of what I read this week:

Discrimination

• “Legal” Drugs and the ADA, Part III – from Workplace Prof Blog

• EEOC Granted Wide Latitude in Age Subpoena Enforcement – from Workplace Class Action Litigation

• How to Survive the ADAAA: Seven Best Practices for Employers – from Employment and Labor Insider

• Followup and Resources from Where We Live’s Discussion on Gender Wage Gap – from Daniel Schwartz’s Connecticut Employment Law Blog

• “Good parenting” in an age of work-family imbalance – from Work and Family Blog

• Paycheck Fairness Act: Good Riddance – from the Evil HR Lady (writing at BNET)

• Answer to Question of the Week: Body Art – from Mark Toth’s Manpower Employment Blawg

• If you provide public accommodations, beware discriminating against people with disabilities – from Employment Law Bits

• In Defense of the EEOC? No, Just a Reminder About Pancakes – from Michael Fox’s Jottings By An Employer’s Lawyer

Wage & Hour

• What Are YOU Doing About Wage and Hour Compliance? – from Stephanie Thomas at Compensation Cafe

• Baltimore Workers File Class-Action Suit Over ESPN Zone Closure – from Workplace Fairness

• Labor Department Partners With ABA in Lawyer Referral Program – from ABA Journal Daily News

• Care In Drafting Pay Documents Is Essential – from Wage and Hour Laws Blog

Social Networking & Technology

• Nearly Half of CIOs Plan to Restrict Cyber Holiday Shopping from Joe’s HR and Benefits Blog

• CIOs See Smartphones as Data Breach Time Bombs from Ride The Lightning

• Mining Facebook Pages of Police-Officers-To-Be – from Molly DiBianca at the Delaware Employment Law Blog

• Facebook Accounts for 25% of All U.S. Pageviews – from Mashable

• Computer Fraud & Abuse Act: Court Rejects Argument That Employer’s Corporate Policies Can Make Employee Access “Unauthorized” Under the CFAA – from Trade Secrets & Non-Compete Blog

Non-Competition Agreements

• Honoring a competitor’s non-compete? – from Rob Radcliff’s Smooth Transitions

• “Head-Start” Rule Applies to Damages, As Well As Injunctions – from Kenneth Vanko’s Legal Developments In Non-Competition Agreements

Miscellaneous

• NLRB Seeks Briefs in Case Alleging Discriminatory Denial of Union Access to Employer Property – from Seth Borden’s Labor Relations Today

• Are You Working Over the Thanksgiving Holiday? – from Harvard Business Review

• The Importance of Small Businesses – from Michael Haberman’s HR Observations

• How to make an open-door policy a reality – from Work Matters

---

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? The voluntariness of release agreements

The facts that led to the severance agreement in Gascho v. Scheurer Hosp. (6th Cir. 11/19/10) [pdf] are what make employment law an interesting way to make a living. The legal issues surrounding the enforceability of a severance agreement, however, are what make this post worth reading.

Mary Ann Gascho, the plaintiff, was a 35-year employee of Scheurer Hospital. For the last 18 years of her employment, she was also married to the hospital’s President and CEO, Dwight Gascho. Dwight, it turns out, was having an affair with one of the hospital’s Vice Presidents. Around the time Mary Ann began to suspect her husband’s infidelities, he began physically abusing her. After Dwight admitted the affair and demanded a divorce, Mary Ann confronted the VP, calling her, among other things, “the whore next door.” That confrontation led to Dwight firing his wife. Cooler heads prevailed, however, when the hospital’s HR Director, Greg Foy, converted the termination into a three-day suspension. That suspension dovetailed into an FMLA leave.

Following the leave, the hospital offered Mary Ann a separation package. Foy presented her the agreement, explained and summarizing its key provisions, recommended that she hire a labor-law attorney to review the document, and told her that she would have 21 days to sign the agreement and seven days to change her mind if she did sign it. There was no physical harm or threats of physical harm between the day she was fired and the day she signed the agreement. Her husband, though, did use various methods of persuasion to try to convince her to sign, including lashing out and yelling at her. After consulting with her children, Mary Ann ultimately signed the agreement.

When she sued the hospital a year later for discrimination, the district court dismissed her claims as barred by the separation agreement. The 6th Circuit agreed, examining the following five factors to determine whether the release was “knowing and voluntary”:

1. Plaintiff’s experience, background, and education.
2. The amount of time the plaintiff had to consider whether to sign the waiver, including whether the employee had an opportunity to consult with a lawyer.
3. Clarity.
4. Consideration.
5. The totality of the circumstances.

1. Mary Ann’s experience, background and education. The court concluded that a nurse—with more than three decades of experience and who rose to a management position—could comprehend the meaning and effect of a settlement agreement.

2. Time to consider the waiver and opportunity to consult an attorney. The hospital gave Mary Ann 21 days to review the agreement and seven days to change her mind after signing it. While Title VII does not have a statutory requirement for waivers, the 21 days mirrors the OWBPA’s requirements for waivers of federal age discrimination claims. “This congressional policy in a related civil rights statute bolsters the conclusion that a 21-day consideration period and a seven-day reconsideration period suffices to establish a legitimate waiver.” That timeline gave Mary Ann ample opportunity to consider the agreement and consult with an attorney.

3. The clarity of the waiver. The waiver “releases and forever discharges [Scheurer] Hospital … from any and all claims of any nature … based on any fact, circumstance or event occurring or existing at or before [Mary Ann’s] execution of this Agreement. [It] includes all claims whatsoever … including … claims under …Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.” According to the Court, “One does not need a law degree to grasp the import of these terms.”

4. Consideration for the waiver. In exchange for the waiver, the hospital offered Mary Ann a year’s salary plus other benefits, which was more than sufficient consideration.

5. Other relevant circumstances. Mary Ann claimed that she was under duress to sign the agreement. The court disagreed:

All bargaining, whether to buy a house, to take a job or to settle a dispute, comes with implicit economic and psychological pressures—that if the one party does not take the offer, it may go to someone else…. The better the offer, indeed, the greater the implied fiscal threat, creating the possibility that a claim of duress grows stronger the more generous the offer. 

That Gascho worried about having to file a lawsuit (and winning it) if she opted not to accept the settlement offer is precisely the kind of pressure anyone (not independently wealthy) would face in this context…. “No legal system can accept an assertion that ‘this contract was signed under duress because my only alternative was a lawsuit.’ That would eliminate settlement—and to a substantial degree the institution of contract itself.” …

Over one month had passed since the last act of physical violence…. Gascho had plenty of time to consider the agreement, plenty of time to rescind the agreement after signature and plenty of time to consult a labor attorney, as one hospital executive (Greg Foy) recommended she do. She spoke with several people before she signed the agreement, including friends and trusted family members (e.g., her children), and none of them advised her not to sign it. It is difficult to square these circumstances with the notion that Gascho’s husband coerced her to sign the agreement.

Like Mary Ann Gascho, anyone is free to challenge the knowing and voluntary nature of a release. As this case shows, however, it is very hard for employees to win these challenges.Courts treat settlement agreements as sacrosanct. If you resolve a case with an employee and obtain a signed agreement with a release that meets these criteria, you can ordinarily rest comfortably that you are free from future lawsuits brought by that employee.

EEOC poised to explore plight of older workers in current economy

Last Wednesday, the EEOC heard testimony that age discrimination is causing older workers to have a difficult time maintaining and finding new employment. The EEOC believes that the current economic climate is exacerbating this problem. At a minimum, it is increasing the number of employees who claim to be victims of age discrimination. Last year, the EEOC received 22,778 charges of age discrimination, which represented 24.4% of all charges filed, up from 16,548 charges and 21.8% in 2006.

The EEOC heard the following testimony:

• William E. Spriggs, Ph.D., Assistant Secretary for Policy, U.S. Department of Labor: “[D]uring a deep and long recession, the lengths of time that people remain unemployed increases. Older workers have been overwhelmed in this current recession and their numbers are high among the worst indicators. They are the slowest to be reintegrated from unemployment to employment, which indicates that their job search is longer and more challenging. This comes at the cost of human capital depreciation for older workers.”

• Mary Anne Sedey, plaintiff-side employment lawyer: She claimed that older workers rarely litigate discriminatory hiring claims, and urged the EEOC to investigate age discrimination in hiring. She cited three reasons: applicants lack information about why they were turned down, they are reluctant to file a claim based on a hunch, and they cannot find lawyers willing to take their claims.

• Michael Foreman, Director, Civil Rights Appellate Clinic, Pennsylvania State University Dickinson School of Law: He discussed the impact of Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., which held that the ADEA requires a plaintiff to show that his or her age was the “but-for” cause of the employment decision. He argued that Gross applies an unreasonably high burden for plaintiffs in age cases, “preventing potentially legitimate claims of discrimination from ever reaching a jury.”

• Deborah Russell, Director of Workforce Issues in AARP’s Education and Outreach Department: She discussed some proactive steps employers in the healthcare industry have taken to meet the needs of the over-50 demographic.

• Cornelia Gamlem, Society for Human Resource Management: She discussed some suggested best practices for recruiting, retaining, and managing mature workers, including workplace flexibility, retention programs, targeted recruitment, and reductions in force management.

EEOC Commissioner Stuart J. Ishimaru said, “The treatment of older workers is a matter of grave concern for the Commission. We must be vigilant that employers do not use the current economy as an excuse for discrimination against older workers.” Going forward, it is clear that the EEOC will target age discrimination as an enforcement priority. Any company that is either reducing ranks via layoffs, or hiring to re-staff as the economy rebounds, should pay extra attention to age discrimination issues in light of this administrative enforcement.

---

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 #153 (the redux edition)

Except for two huge stories (the failure of the Paycheck Fairness Act and on-going coverage of the NLRB’s complaint challenging a Connecticut company’s social media policy), it’s been a pretty quiet week.

For more on the Senatorial sinking of Paycheck Fairness, see Maryland Employment Law Developments, The Proactive Employer, Washington Labor & Employment Wire, Connecticut Employment Law Blog, Washington D.C. Employment Law Update, HR HQ, Colorado Employer's Law Blog, and the DOL’s Work in Progress blog (for a pro-employee viewpoint).

For more on the future legality of workplace social media policies, see The ChamberPost, Philip Miles’s Lawffice Space, HR Observations, New York Labor and Employment Law Report, The Labor and Employment Law Blog, Nolo’s Employment Law Blog, Delaware Employment Law Blog, Joe’s HR and Benefits Blog, Minnesota Labor & Employment Law Blog, TLNT, and Today's Workplace (for a pro-employee viewpoint).

Also this week, the EEOC issued a Q&A for small businesses on its GINA regulations, in addition to some background information on the regulations.

Here’s the rest of what I read this week:

Social Networking

• Facebook Unfriending as Workplace Retaliation? – from Molly DiBianca at the Delaware Employment Law Blog

• Paula Berg: Turning Lemons into Lemonade: 11 Components of a Social Media Crisis Plan – from Huffington Post

• What You Can and Can’t Say - Room for Debate – from the New York Times

• IndustryWeek : Has Email Become a Dinosaur? Workforce Prefers Twittering – from industryweek.com

• Facebook account protected from disclosure in discovery, for now – from Internet Cases

Discrimination

• Is It Sexual Harassment to Require Employees to Submit to Pat-Down Searches that Involve Inappropriate Touching? – from Workplace Prof Blog

• Stray Remarks May Bolster Discrimination Claims In California – from Hunton Employment & Labor Law Perspectives™

• The Gender Wage Gap: If Employment Discrimination Isn’t the Reason, What Is? – from Daniel Schwartz’s Connecticut Employment Law Blog

• Stupid Manager Tricks: Sexual Harassment Edition – from Stephen Meyer’s HR Cafe

• Do you need insurance against employee lawsuits? – from dailyherald.com

• Ergonomics and Reasonable Accommodations – Part 1 – from Kiernan’s Corner: Preventive Law for Employers

Trade Secrets and Non-Compete Agreements

• How Non-Competes for Execs and Lebron James Are Linked – from Kris Dunn, The HR Capitalist

• Who Should Investigate Leaks of Proprietary Information? – from Trade Secret / Noncompete Blog

• Litigation Budgets in Non-Compete Cases – from Trade Secrets & Non-Compete Blog

Labor Relations

• Board to Revisit Dana Corp., Voluntary Recognition Bar – from Seth Borden’s Labor Relations Today

• New NLRB General Counsel Nips at Employers’ Heels Without EFCA – from EFCA & Labor Law Reform Blog

Employee Relations and HR

• Is it time for retailers to adopt a crowd management plan before Black Friday? from Business, Employment and Real Estate Law in Ohio

• Things Not to Say at Work – from Tom Crane’s San Antonio Employment Law Blog

• Expecting the unexpected – from Michigan Employment Law Connection

Wage & Hour

• FMLA FAQ - How do I calculate FMLA leave around the holidays? – from FMLA Insights

• Happy Thanksgiving! Turkey Processing Plant Workers Sue For Overtime – from Wage & Hour - Development & Highlights

---

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.

The failure of the Paycheck Fairness Act ends the golden age of employment law

The Democrats swept into office in January 2009 with promises of paradigm-shifting labor and employment law reforms: card check union recognition, Title VII coverage for sexual orientation and gender identity, expanded FMLA coverage, the end of arbitration agreements, and paid sick leave are but a few of the campaign issues on which the Democrats won the the White House and substantial majorities in both halves of Congress.

Yesterday, the Senate failed to vote to close debate on the Paycheck Fairness Act. That vote, coupled with the incoming Republican majority in the House, means that we likely have seen the end of any significant employment law reforms by the Obama administration’s first (only?) term. The scorecard is stunning. The lone significant employment law legislation to become law under Obama’s watch is the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which, in and of itself, is not all that significant. It affects the timeliness of discrimination claims, and potentially exposes businesses to more lawsuits. Yet, if you ranked the various pieces of legislation discussed and debated over the last two years, Ledbetter would rank pretty low in terms of societal impact.

In comparison, President Bush passed three key pieces of employment legislation during his last year in office: the FMLA military leave amendments, the ADA amendments, and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. The significance of these three laws will be felt for years to come.

In early 2009, I joined the chorus of employment lawyers who believed that President Obama would change the landscape of labor and employment law. No one ever likes to be wrong. For the sake of American businesses, many of which are still trying to climb out of the worse recession in 80 years, I have never been so happy to have been off the mark.

---

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.

Three steps to avoid a discriminatory hiring claim

Bartlett v. Gates (6th Cir. 11/16/10) [pdf] involved a plaintiff who claimed that he was passed over for a promotion because of his age and sex. The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court’s dismissal of the discrimination claims for the following three reasons:

1. The plaintiff was objectively as qualified as, if not more qualified than, the successful candidate. He had 24 years of experience as compared to eight. In addition, he possessed superior educational credentials, including a bachelor’s degree, whereas the successful candidate had not graduated from college. There was also some evidence of superior communication skills and job-specific work experience.

2. The hiring manager had not conducted any job interviews and lacked basic knowledge about the successful candidate. Despite the employer’s explanation that it had hired the best-qualified candidate for the position, the hiring manager was unable to describe her credentials. The hiring manager testified that she was able to making a hiring decision without holding any interviews because of her personal knowledge and familiarity with the job applicants’ experience, backgrounds, and competency. Yet, she did not know whether the successful candidate even had a prior experience related to the core functions of the job.

3. There was some direct evidence of discriminatory animus. The plaintiff’s supervisor and hiring manager made comments to and about the plaintiff such as informing him that his 34 years on the job were “enough,” joking about whether he had taken up “antiquing or traveling or something like that,” and suggesting that the plaintiff should retire.

What lessons can employers take away from this case to avoid a discriminatory hiring claim? Here’s three:

1. If you are not going to hire the most qualified person, at least know what you are getting yourself into. Perform a comparison of candidates, including their qualifications, relevant experience, and key demographics. Have objectively supportable reasons why you chose the 29-year-old over the 53-year-old.

2. Meet the candidates. When you whittle the field down to the final few, meet and interview them. Do not rely solely on paper. If you know the candidates, do not rely solely on past experience. Talk to them, avoid illegal questions, and form reasoned, objectively supportable pros and cons for each.

3. Finally, if you feel the need to make racial, sexist, or ageist comments in the months before and after a hiring decision, wait until you get home, make sure all your doors and windows are closed, and yell them into a pillow.

---

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? Post-employment retaliation

The typical retaliation scenario involves an employer firing an employee who complained about discrimination or engaged in some other protected activity. What happens, however, if the employer retaliates after the end of the employment relationship? Do the anti-retaliation laws reach these allegations of post-employment misconduct? The short answer is yes.

The logical place to start in deciphering this “yes” is with the statues themselves. Ohio’s anti-retaliation provision, O.R.C. 4112.02(I), makes it illegal

for any person to discriminate in any manner against any other person because that person has opposed any unlawful discriminatory practice defined in this section or because that person has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in any investigation, proceeding, or hearing under sections 4112.01 to 4112.07 of the Revised Code.

All of the federal anti-discrimination laws (Title VII, the ADEA, the ADA, and GINA) contain similar prohibitions. In Robinson v. Shell Oil Co. (1997), the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that the term “employees” in Title VII’s retaliation provision “includes former employees,” allowing an employee to “bring suit against his former employer for postemployment actions allegedly taken in retaliation.” Because of the similarity in language across the federal and state statutes, it’s safe to assume this result applies across the board.

What does this mean for employers? It means that retaliation does not stop on the last day of employment. It means that employers must treat ex-employees who have engaged in protected activity with the same kid gloves as current employees. And, it means that ex-employees can sue you for post-employment adverse actions such as:

• A negative job reference
• The filing of a lawsuit or counterclaim (with a large caveat)
• The denial of pension credits or other benefits to which the employee was entitled
• The filing of a law enforcement complaint
• Threats and ostracism

Just one more concept to build into your EEO training for your managers and supervisors.

What dryer drums have to do with unpaid wages (or, a scathing judicial indictment of class action lawsuits as extortion)

Thorogood v. Sears, Roebuck & Company (7th Cir. 11/2/10) [pdf] involves the attempted litigation of multiple class action lawsuits in different states over the issue of whether the advertising of a stainless steel dryer drum was deceptive. In brief, after a district court dismissed a class action lawsuit brought by Thorogood against Sears in Tennessee, the same lawyers filed a similar claim in California on behalf of a different plaintiff, Murray. The case caught my attention because of judge’s scathing indictment of class action lawsuits (I apologize for the long quote, but it is worth reading):

The class action is a worthwhile device for economizing on the expense of litigation and enabling small claims, illustrated by Thorogood’s claim, capped at $3,000, to be litigated at all (though when the claim is deceptive advertising, a proceeding before the Federal Trade Commission is a more economical alternative to a class action suit). But the device also lends itself to abuse. [C]lass members are interested in relief for the class but the lawyers are primarily interested in their fees, and the class members’ stakes in the litigation are ordinarily (and in the present case or cases) too small to motivate them to supervise the lawyers in an effort to align the lawyers’ incentives with their own…. Defendants, wanting to minimize the sum of the damages they pay the class and the fees they pay the class counsel, are willing to trade small damages for high attorneys’ fees…. These convergent incentives forge a community of interest between class counsel, who control the plaintiff’s side of the case, and the defendants, but may leave the class members out in the cold….

An additional asymmetry, also adverse to defendants, involves the cost of pretrial discovery in class actions. One purpose of discovery—improper and rarely acknowledged but pervasive—is: “it makes one’s opponent spend money.” … In most class action suits, including this one, there is far more evidence that plaintiffs may be able to discover in defendants’ records (including emails, the vast and ever-expanding volume of which has made the cost of discovery soar) than vice versa. For usually the defendants’ conduct is the focus of the litigation and it is in their records, generally much more extensive than the plaintiffs’ (especially when as in a consumer class action the plaintiffs are individuals rather than corporations or other institutions), that the plaintiffs will want to rummage in quest for smoking guns.

The merit of Murray’s case, like Thorogood’s, of which it is a close copy, is slight. But the pressure on Sears to settle on terms advantageous to its opponent will mount up if class counsel’s ambitious program of discovery is allowed to continue. A letter from Mark Boling, Murray’s co-counsel, to Sears’s counsel, printed at the end of this opinion, illustrates the point. The letter reminds Sears that discovery is proceeding and “will involve Plaintiff’s counsel delving into the full extent of Defendants’ alleged wrongdoing” in order to justify not only equitable relief but also punitive damages—which are potentially very large given the size of the class and the possible preclusive use of any judgments favorable to the plaintiffs in suits brought in other states. The letter continues: “as we progress through the various stages of this litigation, the cost of settlement will necessarily increase…. At this point, we may want to consider whether an appropriate olive branch for resolution can be mutually created on a class wide basis commensurate with the status of the case. If interested, please pick up the telephone and call me. In the meantime, Plaintiff will continue to diligently and timely prosecute this case to an appropriate result.” In other words, unless Sears settles now (implicitly for modest relief for the class and an agreement with class counsel to recommend to the judge generous fees for Krislov and Boling), it will incur the considerable cost of responding to class counsel’s distended project of “delving” and assume the risk of a very large adverse judgment. And as Boling’s letter also points out, “if plaintiff is successful on a motion for class certification, the court as the gate keeper will demand a more significant recovery for resolution.”

This scenario is not all that much more different than the standard wage and hour class action.

• Like the Sears example, employers in wage and hour class actions bear a disproportionately large share of time and expense in discovery. Employers have most, if not all, of the wage and hour records, many of which are archived and expensive to recover. Discovery of email exponentially adds to the discovery expense. These high costs bear heavily on an employer’s decision whether to settle or litigate a case.

• Like Sears, employers feel an inordinate pressure to settle these claims. The exposure in wage and hour lawsuits can be large (sometimes, even “bet the company” like exposure). The risk of high attorneys’ fees award only serves to exacerbate that pressure to settle. It is not a secret that claimants use that exposure to their advantage to leverage early resolutions.

• And, like the Federal Trade Commission in a consumer case, there exists a federal agency that can economically litigate a meritorious claim, the Department of Labor.

Now that we all know what dryer drums have in common with wages and hours, we can get back to defending class action lawsuits.

[Hat tip: PointofLaw.com]