WIRTW #233 (the “Duck Soup” edition)

Yesterday, my friend Dan Schwartz (an A+ employment law blogger) published his (Not So) Definitive Top 10 List of Employment Lawyers To Follow Online (in response to another list published by the HR Examiner). Needless to say, I want to thank Dan for featuring me so prominently on his list. Thanks also to Molly DiBianca (another A+ employment law blogger) and Heather Bussing (writing at HR Examiner), who both had some very kind words to say about yours truly on their blogs in the last 24 hours.

If I was acting as curator of a list such as Dan’s, the only change I’d make is to swap Dan’s name for mine. You cannot go wrong reading the content of anyone he lists, and I’m proud to have all as colleagues and friends. If you are not following each of the employment lawyers recommended by Dan, you are missing out.

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

Discrimination

• EEOC settles complaint over heavy equipment operator with epilepsy — from Walter Olson’s Overlawyered
• Ignoring complaints about air conditioning could subject a business to a discrimination claim — from Employment Law Bits
• EEOC Sends Confusing Signal to Employers — from Hiring & Firing
• It’s tough to prove age bias after getting caught sleeping on the job — from Eric Meyer’s The Employer Handbook Blog
• Huh? EEOC’s now searching for cases of ‘beauty bias’? — from HR Morning

Social Media & Workplace Technology

• BYOD policies jacking up companies’ IT costs — from Boy Genius Report
• Know when to leverage BYOD and when to forget it — from Consumerization Blog
• Cool Things: Deron Williams Signing His New Contract on an iPad — from iPad Insight
• 6 Personal Secrets Your Facebook Profile Isn’t Keeping — from Mashable
• PA Judge Provides Social Media Discovery Rundown — from Phil Miles’s Lawffice Space
• Reading a non-friend’s comment on Facebook wall was not a privacy invasion — from Internet Cases
• Should HR Have Facebook Friends at Work — from hr bartender
• Is Social Media the NEW Smoke Break? — from The Buzz on HR
• Did Glassdoor’s Integration With Facebook Make Your Coworkers’ “Anonymous” Salaries Less Anonymous? — from Kashmir Hill’s The Not-So Private Parts

HR & Employee Relations

• Is Your Boss a Bert or an Ernie? — from Molly DiBianca’s Delaware Employment Law Blog
• Chicken and stitches — from Charlie Plumb’s EmployerLINC
• Why You Should Send Out Rejection Letters — from Above the Law
• HR Lessons from Higgs Boson — from Stephanie Thomas’s The Proactive Employer Blog
• Are flexible schedules a blessing or a curse? — from Evil HR Lady, Suzanne Lucas
• Pros and Cons of Suing the Ex-Employee’s New Employer — from Delaware Non-Compete Law Blog
• Penn State Adopts New Policy on Employee Background Checks — from Nick Fishman’s employeescreenIQ Blog
• How to Conduct Fair and Unbiased Investigation Interviews — from Dawn Lomer’s i-Sight Investigation Software Blog

Wage & Hour

• Supervisor’s Comments After Employee Seeks Leave for Hysterectomy Creates Viable FMLA Claims — from Jeff Nowak’s FMLA Insights
• Be careful what you ask for: retaliatory counterclaims under the FMLA — from John Holmquist’s Michigan Employment Law Connection
• How to Reduce the Salary of Exempt Level Employees — from Mike Haberman at Blogging4Jobs
• Courts Split over FLSA Damages for Emotional Distress — from Smart HR Manager
• Hiring Kids — from Texas Employer Handbook

Labor Relations

• Is It Time We Finally Part Ways With the National Labor Relations Act? — from TLNT
• Independence Day Incrementalism: NLRB (Again) Expands On Precedent By Ruling Employer Off-Duty Access Rule Unlawful — from Labor Relations Update
• NLRB Finds Union Waiver in Two Recent Decisions, Including the Closely-Watched Hospital Flu Shot Case — from Healthcare Employment Counsel

When defending employment cases, chasing attorneys’ fees is a snipe hunt

My summer reading list includes Joel Stein’s Man Made: A Stupid Quest for Masculinity. The book recounts the self-proclaimed effete Stein’s journey to become more masculine in the wake of the birth of his son. In one chapter, Stein spends a weekend with a boy scout troop to learn how to camp. The troop’s hazing includes sending Stein on a snipe hunt. For the uninitiated, a snipe hunt is a practical joke played on inexperienced campers, who are sent to hunt an imaginary bird or animal (the snipe).

Believe it or not, snipe hunts have something to do with defending discrimination cases. Often, I hear this outrage from clients: “I can’t believe we’re being sued for this. I want to counter-sue to collect our attorneys’ fees!” Yes, there are statutes and rules in place that permit a defendant, in certain and extreme circumstances, to collect their attorneys’ fees from the plaintiff. But, there are few cases that will meet this high threshold for recovery. In reality, the likelihood of a judge ordering that a plaintiff-employee pay the defendant-employer’s attorneys’ fees under one of these fee-shifting mechanisms is on par with winning the lottery.

If you want to take any solace from this loser-doesn’t-pay system, consider these words, published yesterday by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, in Gibson v. Solideal USA, Inc. [pdf]:

As an initial general proposition, we are not entirely unsympathetic to Solideal’s position. Statutes designed to empower employees in the vindication of their rights may, at times, be used as bases on which a plaintiff asserts claims that are later determined to be without merit. Undeniably, large employers may be forced to incur significant litigation expenses in defending against such claims. However, if this Court were to follow the course now advocated by Solideal, it would effectively hold that a plaintiff who elects to forgo formal discovery and whose claims are unable to withstand summary judgment is responsible for paying all fees and costs the defendant incurred in connection with the litigation. This is a bridge too far.

Litigation is time consuming and expensive. Some cases (such as the one discussed yesterday by Dan Schwartz, at his Connecticut Employment Law Blog) can go on for a decade. We all have principles. We don’t like to pay money to an undeserving plaintiff when we know that we are right. And, when we prove that we are right, we think the plaintiff should pay us for our grief and aggravation. The system, however, is not set up to reward even the most deserving of employers in this way. The sooner employers realize that chasing reimbursement of their attorneys’ fees is a litigation snipe hunt, the sooner they can focus their efforts on the task at hand, concluding the case as quickly and cost-effectively as possible.

The season of the witch? The ADA and seasonal affective disorder

One thing we Clevelanders are really good at is complaining about the weather. For much of last week we approached 100 degrees, and we complained it was too hot. Yet, if it was a temperate 70, we’d complain that it’s too cool for July. And don’t even get me started about winter—too cold, too much snow, when is it going to get warm. Well, it’s been plenty warm, and the complaints keep on flowing.

Did you know that there exists a genuine psychiatric condition based on people’s weather-related moods? It’s called seasonal affective disorder, a mood disorder in which people who have normal mental health throughout most of the year experience depressive symptoms as the seasons change.

Like most psychiatric conditions, seasonal affective disorder has made its way into the workplace. In Ekstrand v. School District of Somerset (7th Cir. 6/26/12), the court upheld a jury verdict on a teacher’s claim under the ADA that her employer failed to accommodate her seasonal affective disorder by refusing to transfer her to a classroom with natural light.

If an employee asks for an office with a view, do not necessarily write him or her off as a complaining, high-maintenance pain-in-the-you-know-what. If, like Ranae Ekstrand, an employee presents a physician’s note documenting a condition, take it seriously by seriously considering whether it presents that much of an imposition to find the employee some natural light during the work day. Some consideration and a small reasonable accommodation might save you a half-million dollar judgment.

The EEOC and racial harassment: calling a spade a s---e

The EEOC has published a website detailing 42 racial harassment cases it has litigated over the past three years. The purpose of the website, I think, is to bring awareness to the agency’s efforts to combat this insidious form of discrimination. Sexual harassment cases often get the headlines, but racial harassment is just as damaging, if not more so, to its victims. By raising awareness of the fact that racial harassment is just as illegal as its more well-known cousin, the EEOC can increase the number of charges filed, helping to bring an end to this awful antebellum remnant.

The EEOC’s micro-site discusses racist workplace practices such as nooses, racially offensive comments such as “coon,” “gorilla,” and “porch monkey,” and jokes, cartoons and images that denigrate African-Americans.

What I find curious, though, is that while the agency rightfully has no problem recounting any of these allegations, it apparently has a huge problem republishing the word “nigger.” While several of the reported cases allege the use of that word, the word itself does not appear anywhere in the EEOC’s microsite. Instead, the agency uses shorthand such as “n----r” or “N-word.” Of course, we all know what these abbreviations mean. When reading, no one says “n-hyphen-hyphen-hyphen-hyphen-r” in their heads; you repeat the word, unabbreviated, in all of its ugliness.

Employment law can be dirty, and no cases are dirtier than harassment cases. Sexual harassment cases can involve words such as “bitch” and “cunt.” Sexual orientation harassment cases can involve words such as “fag.” And, racial harassment cases can involve words like “nigger.” Repeating the words in the context of the litigation neither facilitates nor perpetrates their hatred. In fact, the converse is true. Exposing the words for what they are is the most effective means to eliminate them from our workplaces. No problem was ever solved by sweeping it under the rug, and the EEOC’s politically-correct blinders are not helping rid America’s workplaces of this hateful word.

Of new dogs and new employees: communicating value is key

Last Thursday, my family and I drove to Battle Creek, Michigan, to pick up our new puppy. I cannot give the breeder (Jon Peck, Midnight Run Vizslas) higher marks. He spent two hours with us explaining the ins and outs of what we could expect with our new dog. He provided pointers on the peculiarities of the breed, and what he had observed with our particular pup over the eight weeks since she had been born. He even cleaned her ears and bathed her before we took her home. I don't know what your experiences have been when acquiring a new dog, but, based on mine and my wife's, this was above and beyond. Most importantly, it made us feel valued—that Jon truly and deeply cares not only about his dogs, but also about the homes to which they are going and the positive experiences of new owners. We are making a substantial investment of time in our new dog, and the time spent with us before we took her home shows that out commitment is valued.

This lesson translates well to the workplace. Each employee you hire is an investment. Yet, what is the first day of work like for many employees? A quiet room with a stack of forms to sign, maybe a cursory explanation of the employee handbook, and a tour of the facility? What does this half-assed stab at an orientation say about value? Does your new hire feel like a valued part of a team, or like a fungible and replaceable cog? An employee's first day of work—the orientation to your workplace and culture—should be the first step in communicating to that employee the investment you are making (i.e., that they are valued). It should not be viewed as an administrative burden to be overcome before the employee can start producing.

We would not love our dog any less if our experience was a simple exchange of a check for a pup. Yet, the time spent with us reinforces that we made a great choice for our family. The same should hold true for your relationship with your employees. Teach them their import from day one by making orientation a meaningful, and memorable, experience.

WIRTW #232 (the “welcome to the family” edition)

Everyone say hello to Loula Mae, our new family member (a vizsla, in case you’re curious).

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

Discrimination

• 5 reasonable accommodations an employer never dreamed it would have to make — from Robin Shea’s Employment and Labor Insider
• Class Now Trumps Race as the Great Divide in America — from The Atlantic
• EEOC initiates own investigation into looks-based discrimination — from Warren & Associates Blog
• Court Curbs Long Investigatory Arm of the EEOC - Twice — from Workplace Class Action Litigation
• One federal appellate court outlines parameters for “hostile work environment” claim — from Employment Law Matters
• Domino’s may be liable for sexual harassment of franchisee’s employees — from Judy Greenwald at Business Insurance

Social Media & Workplace Technology

• Workplace Email: The Devil Made Me Do It — from Molly DiBianca’s Delaware Employment Law Blog
• Are You Sharing Too Much Online? — from Social Media Today
• Employment Litigation in the Digital Age — from Technology for HR
• Will using Dropbox put your CEO in jail? — from gigaom

HR & Employee Relations

• Why my child will be your child’s boss — from Suzanne Lucas (the Evil HR Lady), writing at CBS Money Watch
• Why Nipple Tape Doesn’t Cure Workplace Conflict — from Blogging4Jobs
• Workplace Trends: The Talking Urinal Cake — from Workplace Diva
• Employee Handbooks – Are They Really Necessary? — from Employment Essentials

Wages, Hours, & Benefits

• Supreme Court of Pennsylvania grants review of $187-million class action judgment against Wal-Mart — from How Appealing
• Is Time Spent Filling Your Prescription at Walgreens Covered by FMLA? — from Jeff Nowak’s FMLA Insights
• DOL Issues Employee Guide to the Family and Medical Leave Act — from Hiring & Firing
• Why Did Roberts Reach the Commerce Clause on Obamacare? — from Phil Miles’s Lawffice Space

Labor Relations

• Directing Employees To Hand Out Leaflets A Violation, NLRB Rules — from Labor Relations Update
• Is Your At-Will Disclaimer a Ticking Time-Bomb? — from Labor Relations Institute
• How to Save Unions by Making Them Weaker — from Forbes
• NLRB Continues To Crack Down On Employer Social Media Policies and Continues to Leave Doubt On What Provisions Designed To Protect Trade Secrets and Confidential Information Will Withstand Its Scrutiny — from Trading Secrets

Associational retaliation is not the FMLA’s peanut butter cup

In Thompson v. North Am. Stainless, the Supreme Court held that Title VII prohibits associational retaliation; an employer cannot retaliate against an employee by taking an adverse action against that employee’s close family member. The FMLA permits an employee to take up to 12 weeks of annual leave for the serious health condition of a close family member (spouse, child, or parent). Putting these two ideas together, one would assume that the FMLA protects against associational retaliation. The FMLA and Title VII, however, do not combine like chocolate and peanut butter to create an associational retaliation FMLA claim.

In Gilbert v. St. Rita’s Professional Services, LLC (N.D. Ohio 6/20/12), the Northern District of Ohio refused to recognize a claim for associational retaliation under the FMLA. Gilbert involved three plaintiffs, all of whom worked for St. Rita’s: Amy Gilbert, the mother of Shannon Kirby, who, in turn, was the mother-in-law of Mary Haught. After St. Rita’s fired all three, they sued. Kirby claimed that St. Rita’s retaliated her under the FMLA because her termination coincided with the end of Haught’s FMLA leave.

The court disagreed. It concluded that because the FMLA’s anti-retaliation language is more narrow than Title VII’s language, which the Supreme Court construed in Thompson, the FMLA does not provide for associational retaliation claims:

The Court rested its holding specifically on the broad “person … aggrieved” language of Title VII, language that is notably absent from the FMLA. In contrast to Title VII, the FMLA delineates certain specific classes of individuals who may bring an action — those who have been denied a right protected by the Act (“interference” plaintiffs) and those who opposed an employer’s unlawful action under the Act (“retaliation” plaintiffs)…. [I]t stands to reason that Congress’s intentional omission of Title VII's broad language in the FMLA specifically prohibits Plaintiffs’ interpretative extension of Thompson.

Not all statutes are created equal. Just because an employee has a remedy under one statute does not mean that the same remedy exists under another. When interpreting statutes, words matter, a lot. 

This case also gives me the opportunity to share this astonishingly bad 32-year-old Reese’s Peanut Butter Cup commercial. Enjoy the nostalgia, and ask yourself how an advertisement this hokey sold anything, let alone helped birth a candy institution.

6th Circuits provides much needed guidance on pleading standards

Today’s post is going to be a tad dry, for which I apologize. Its dryness, however, does not belittle the importance of the case I am going to discuss.

To file a lawsuit, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure merely require a plaintiff to state in his or her complaint “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” In Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal the Supreme Court defined what satisfies this requirement. A plaintiff must plead enough facts to raise a right to relief above mere speculation and from which a court can draw a reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. In other words, one must be able to read the complaint and understand the specific misconduct that the plaintiff is alleging to be unlawful.

In discrimination cases, do these pleading standards require a plaintiff to specifically plead the elements of the discrimination claim under McDonnell Douglas, or is it sufficient for a plaintiff merely to allege facts that enable the court to infer discrimination?

In Keys v. Humana, Inc. (7/2/12) [pdf], the 6th Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal of a discrimination complaint because it had failed to allege facts that plausibly established a prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas. The 6th Circuit reversed, re-affirming that Twombly and Iqbal do not mandate the rote recitation of McDonnell Douglas’s prima facie elements:

The Amended Complaint contains allegations that are neither speculative nor conclusory; it alleges facts that easily state a plausible claim. The Amended Complaint alleges Humana had a pattern or practice of discrimination against African American managers and professional staff in hiring, compensation, promotion, discipline, and termination. It details several specific events in each of those employment-action categories where Keys alleges she was treated differently than her Caucasian management counterparts; it identifies the key supervisors and other relevant persons by race and either name or company title; and it alleges that Keys and other African Americans received specific adverse employment actions notwithstanding satisfactory employment performances.

If courts are not going to require plaintiffs to use McDonnell Douglas at the pleading stage, and instead focus on whether the complaint pleads a plausible claim of discrimination, is it time that we consider ending the charade that the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework is a useful tool? Why make litigants jump through imaginary hoops at the summary judgment stage, when we can all analyze the ultimate issue (was the adverse action discriminatory) just fine on our own?

Contingency plans

My family and I spent last night with friends at Crocker Park’s Liberty Fest. If you’re not from the Cleveland area, Crocker Park is what marketers call a “Life Style Center.” I call it a really nice outdoor shopping mall. Liberty Fest is Crocker Park’s take on a July 4th celebration, with music, dancing, and stilt walkers. It all culminates with a performance by the Cleveland Pops Orchestra and fireworks. With a 4-year-old and a 6-year-old, we were there for the fireworks.

A line of thunderstorms, though, wreaked havoc on the event’s timing. The fireworks, which were scheduled for 10 pm, did not go off until close to 11. As you could imagine, my kids were not the only ones getting antsy waiting … and waiting … and waiting, as we listened to the Cleveland Pops run through its litany of patriotic songs, led by the emceeing of a local morning radio host who made me remember why I love my Sirius/XM subscription.

As we waited, I got to thinking—why didn’t the event have a contingency plan. Evening thunderstorms are common in Cleveland in the summer. It could not be that difficult to have a back-up itinerary in the event that rain delayed the proceedings. The Pops could have played 5 songs instead of 15. The radio guy could have cut out his not-so-witty banter. And, fireworks could have gone off closer to 10 instead of closer to 11.

The same holds true for your business. I’m sure you have star employees, without whom your business would suffer. Yet, do you know if they are content with their job. Or, do they feel underpaid, under-appreciated, or overworked. Tomorrow, one could walk out the door. Do you have a plan to keep your operations running at peak performance? Or would the departure of even one employee grind your company to a temporary halt.

Employees aren’t indentured to you, and there is nothing you to do to guarantee each works for you until retirement. Yet, let me suggest three simple steps to help you plan for the contingency of a key employee leaving.

1. Feedback: You cannot fix a problem that you don’t know exists. Talk to your employees. Gauge their level of contentment. Make adjustments where necessary to ensure, as best as possible, their continuity.
2. Cross-training: In the event an employee leaves, having others cross-trained to perform their tasks will help you ease the transition until you find the right permanent replacement. It will also help you in the event of unexpected medical and other leaves of absences.
3. Non-competition agreements: Even the most strongly drafted non-competition agreement cannot guarantee your keys employees won’t leave you. But, in the event that they do, these agreements will prevent the compounding of the harm by keeping these employees away from your chief competition.

WIRTW #231 (the “Obama <3 Roberts” edition)

Yesterday was the most anticipated day at the U.S. Supreme Court in quite some time. The Court handed down its opinion in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, which decided the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. And, Obamacare is alive and kicking. Here’s SCOTUSblog’s very tweetable summary of the historic opinion:

The key quote from the majority opinion, written by Chief Justice Roberts:

Our precedent demonstrates that Congress had the power to impose the exaction in §5000A under the taxing power, and that §5000A need not be read to do more than impose a tax. That is sufficient to sustain it.

In other words, the “mandate” to buy health insurance isn’t really a mandate at all, because individuals can simply refuse to buy health insurance and pay the resulting tax.

Here’s the entire 59-page opinion “in plain English,” again via SCOTUSblog (which gets huge props for its amazing live coverage):

If have a few spare moments and want to seek your teeth into the opinion, you can download all 187 pages here.

Or, you can read some summaries and commentaries from around the web:

• Health-Care Ruling: A Scorecard — from WSJ.com: Law Blog
• Don’t call it a mandate—it’s a tax — from SCOTUSblog
• What The Health Care Decision Means for Your Small Business — from WSJ.com: Small Business
• Supreme Court Upholds Individual Health Insurance Mandate — from SHRM
• Obamacare Decision: The Perils of Instant Analysis and Related Thoughts — from Michael Fox’s Jottings By An Employer’s Lawyer
• Social media angle on SCOTUS healtcare decision — from Internet Cases
• Ouch! CNN, Fox News Flub Coverage of Supreme Court’s Health Care Ruling — from TVLine

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

Discrimination

• Say what? — from Walter Olson’s Overlawyered
• Is Breastfeeding Bias the EEOC’s Next Battleground? — from Employer Defense Law Blog
• Sticks and Stones Can Break Bones, but the Wrong Words Can Hurt Your Business — from Troutman Sanders HR Law Matters
• Banana-based racial harassment claim goes to trial — from Warren & Associates Blog
• Strippers Have Rights Too — from Donna Ballman’s Screw You Guys, I’m Going Home
• Fired for Reporting Workplace Injury — from The Proactive Employer Blog

Social Media & Workplace Technology

• Social Media in the Workplace: Much Ado about Nothing? — from i-Sight Investigation Software Blog
• Facebook Use At Work Falls, Twitter Is On The Rise — from The Huffington Post
• NBC Stations Keep Tabs On Employee Tweets — from TVNewsCheck
• What Not to Share: Enterprise Social Networking Etiquette — from The Up Mover
• ‘We Know What You’re Doing’ website outs drug users, boss-haters and more on Facebook — from BGR
• Is Your Co-worker Reading E-books On Company Time? — from Workplace Diva
• Employers Can Use Apps to Track Employees — But Is It a Good Idea? — from HR Hero’s Technology for HR Blog
• Pew survey finds that 17 percent of US cellphone users go online mostly on their phones — from Engadget Mobile
• Pinterest Legal Concerns: What is Lawful to Pin? — from Social Media Today

HR & Employee Relations

• Should you tell a job candidate about her body odor? — from Evil HR Lady, Suzanne Lucas
• Policies and User Adoption — from HR Examiner with John Sumser
• Workplace Investigation Pitfall: Failure to Use the Matter as an Opportunity to Improve the Organization and its Employee Relations Practices — from Strategic HR Lawyer
• Employer customer lists: "Whatever you say, dude." — from Eric Meyer’s The Employer Handbook Blog
• Legal Issues and Benefits to Employers for Employing Military Personnel — from Jason Shinn’s Michigan Employment Law Advisor
• Poll: Social Life, Not Social Media, Is Work's Biggest Distraction — from Workforce
• Employers to workers: Shape up, quit smoking — from Eve Tahmincioglu at Life Inc. on Today.com

Wage & Hour

• A work-life balance audit for employers — from Robin Shea’s Employment and Labor Insider
• Supreme Court To Decide Whether Employers Can “Moot” Collective Action — from Wage & Hour Tips
• SCOTUS Grants Cert in ERISA Case — from Phil Miles’s Lawffice Space

Labor Relations

• OMG! DUST NLRB Using Tech 2 Reach PPL re: PCA? UNTCO — from Dan Schwartz’s Connecticut Employment Law Blog
• 6th Circuit Holds Substantial Evidence Supports NLRB’s Conclusion That Charge Nurses Were Not Supervisors — from Wisconsin Employment & Labor Law Blog

Abandoning job because of harassment does not support retaliation claim, says the 6th Circuit

Last week, I discussed the 6th Circuit’s most recent pronouncement on same-sex harassment. I noted that while some would argue the Court’s dismissal of the harassment claim is evidence of the need for law against workplace bullying, in reality the Court’s dismissal of the retaliation claim was the more troubling aspect of the opinion. What did I mean?

Recall that in Wasek v. Arrow Energy Services [pdf], when Harold Wasek complained that his male co-worker, Paul Ottobre, was harassing him, his superiors first told him not to “make waves [by] whining,” and later told him he should just “kick [Ottobre’s] ass,” and that they should “duke it out” to “get it out of [their] systems.” In response to this supervisor’s advice, Wasek went AWOL from his Pennsylvania job site. When Wasek later pursued the issues with HR, the regional supervisor told him that it’s “the way the oil field is” and that if Wasek couldn’t handle it he “should find another line of work.” Ultimately, Arrow banned Wasek from working in Pennsylvania and reassigned him to a job site in Michigan. He ultimately quit to work for a different employer.

The Court concluded that Wasek going AWOL, and not his complaints about harassment, caused his job-site transfer:

Wasek’s claim fails, however, because he has not demonstrated a causal connection between his protected activity—the complaints—and Arrow Energy’s adverse employment action—the Pennsylvania ban….

Leaving the work site could be protected activity if leaving itself were a “complaint” about sexual harassment. But this would require a fact-intensive inquiry into whether or not leaving the work site was reasonable under the circumstances.

Lately, we've seen more than one example of employers who avoided liability despite encapsulating some pretty poor HR practices. This case provides another textbook case of how not to respond to an employee complaint. Yes, you can hope to avoid liability based on a legal argument that the employee was not engaging in protected activity because the underlying misconduct was not illegal. That hope, however, misses the point. Anyone who has responsibility for responding to harassment complaints should be troubled by a decision that justifies an excuse such as “that’s the way the oil field is,” and suggests that the complaining employee tough it out or find another job. Employers need to take all complaints seriously, not just those that the employer thinks will cause it legal problems down the road.

Did the 6th Circuit just approve a claim for benign discrimination?

In Litton v. Talawanda Sch. Dist. (6th Cir. 6/26/12) [pdf], a demoted and transferred custodian sued his employer for age and race discrimination. At trial, the jury returned the following special verdict:

The jury concluded that Litton did not prove that he had suffered an adverse action, yet proved that he was treated differently because of his race. Under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, the lack of an adverse action should dispose of the case. If one cannot show a prima facie case (which includes the suffering of an adverse action), the ultimate issue of discrimination should never be reached.

The 6th Circuit, however, disagreed. It disregarded the jury’s finding on the existence of an adverse action as irrelevant to its subsequent finding on the ultimate issue of whether discrimination occurred:

The jury’s assessment of Litton’s prima facie case did not control its finding on the ultimate question of discrimination…. he district court was not only permitted to disregard the jury’s answer to the adverse employment action question, it was required to do so, and instead to evaluate the strength of the evidence as a whole.

As I read the opinion in Litton, I mapped out in my head a grand critique. Then I read Judge Batchelder’s dissent, and decided I couldn’t say it any better:

The core problem with the majority’s holding is that it treats the question of whether Litton suffered adverse discrimination as distinct from “the ultimate question of discrimination vel non.” The two are one…. Title VII does not ban mere discrimination, but only adverse discrimination…. It is, to me, beyond obvious that Title VII applies only where there has been discrimination against an individual. That requirement is not merely some vestigial prima facie element that fades into the background as the case progresses—it is at the heart of the claim itself….

In sum, “the ultimate burden of persuading the trier of fact that the defendant intentionally discriminated against the plaintiff remains at all times with the plaintiff.” … The majority should not relieve Litton of his burden, and it certainly should not grant him victory in the face of a jury verdict finding that he never proved that he suffered adverse discrimination at all. The whole purpose of Title VII … is preventing harmful discrimination, not the lamentable-but-benign discrimination that the jury found Litton experienced.

Did the 6th Circuit unwittingly create a cause of action for benign discrimination? Or, is this case an anomaly that future courts will distinguish and disregard? Common sense mandates the latter. Right?

Will the Supreme Court (re)define employer liability for harassment by supervisors? Vance v. Ball St. Univ.

An employer’s liability for unlawful harassment depends, in part, on whether the alleged perpetrator of the harassment is a supervisor or a co-worker. Employers are strictly liable for unlawful harassment committed by a supervisor, but only liable for harassment committed by a non-supervisory co-worker if the company was negligent in discovering or remedying the harassment.

In Vance v. Ball St. Univ. (7th Cir. 6/3/11), the court concluded that for the purpose of imposing strict liability for harassment, “supervisor” means “direct supervisor.” That is, if the alleged harasser is a supervisor in title, but lacks the power to directly affect the terms and conditions of the plaintiff’s employment, strict liability cannot attach, and the court must analyze the employer’s liability under a negligence standard.

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal of this case. The Court will decided the following two-part issue:

Whether the “supervisor” liability rule … (i) applies to harassment by those whom the employer vests with authority to direct and oversee their victim’s daily work, or (ii) is limited to those harassers who have the power to “hire, fire, demote, promote, transfer, or discipline” their victim.

This case has the potential to be significant for employers. As the plaintiff argued in support of the Supreme Court hearing the case:

These issues are no small matter. During the twelve-month period ending September 30, 2010, 14,543 employment discrimination cases were filed in United States courts—the third-largest category of civil cases…. And in 2010 alone, the EEOC received more than 30,000 harassment charges…. Employers agree that this issue is “an important and recurring issue of federal law.” In the modern workforce, where many acts of discrimination are committed by intermediate-level individuals in a large hierarchical organization such as Ball State University, resolution of this issue will undoubtedly add clarity to a great many employment discrimination disputes.

This case presents an excellent opportunity to settle this important issue.

Indeed, the federal appellate courts are split on this issue. The 1st, 3rd, 6th (which includes Ohio), and 8th agree with the 7th Circuit’s opinion in Vance v. Ball St. Univ., while the 2nd, 4th, and 9th Circuits, in addition to the EEOC, conclude that a supervisor is a supervisor regardless of the degree of oversight or control over the alleged victim of the harassment.

Hopefully, this case will settle this dispute and provide much needed clarity on the scope of an employer’s liability for unlawful harassment. This supposedly business-friendly Court has proven itself to be an ally of employees in recent cases. Will this trend continue? Much more on this case in the coming months, including an attempt to handicap the outcome after oral argument.

[Hat tip: Phil Miles’s Lawffice Space]

Sporadic and isolated comments: “Regarded as” claims under the New ADA vs. the Old ADA

The ADA protects three classes of “disabled” employees:

1. Those with a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual;
2. Those with a record of such an impairment; and
3. Those regarded as having such an impairment.

To qualify as “regarded as having” an ADA-protected impairment, one must show that the employer perceived a physical or mental
impairment, and that the impairment was one with a duration of more than six months.

In Gecewicz v. Henry Ford Macomb Hosp. (6th Cir. 6/22/12) [pdf], the employer terminated Janice Gecewicz for accruing too many absence under its attendance policy. In her disability discrimiation lawsuit, Gecewicz, who had undergone eight surgeries during the last 10 years of her employment, claimed that the hospital regarded her as disabled. In support of her claim, she pointed to three statements made by her supervisor, Carol Rogers:

• “You’ve had a lot of surgeries for one person.” (made six years before her termination)
• “[Gastric bypass] is a very risky surgery.” (made five years before her termination)
• “If [you] didn’t have so many surgeries [you] wouldn’t have so much time off and [that you] need to take better care of [yourself].” (made one year before her termination)

The Court concluded that these remote and isolated statements could not support her “regarded as disabled” claim. The Court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the ADA claim, stating:

First, none of Rogers’s statements shows that she believed Gecewicz had a physical or mental impairment of a duration longer than six months. Second, … the concern reflected in each of Rogers’s statements—including the third statement … —centers on Gecewicz’s excessive absenteeism, not a perceived disability. Being absent from work is not a disability.

What is the takeaway for businesses? Train your managers and supervisors never to discuss employees’ medical issues. “Regarded as” claims under the ADA are dangerous. Gecewicz was decided under the pre-amendments ADA. Under the ADAAA’s “regarded as” prong, a plaintiff only has to prove the existence of an impairment, and no longer has to prove that the employer regarded the impairment as substantially limiting a major life activity.

Under the ADAAA (under which employers now operate), employers will have hard time demonstrating that statements about an employee’s surgeries are not related to an impairment. It is imperative that businesses drill into managers and supervisors that discussions about employees’ medical issues have no place in the workplace. Businesses cannot rely on the rationale of Gecewicz to bail them out under the ADAAA.

WIRTW #230 (the “2012 tour” edition)

I’m taking my act on the road. I have a slew of speaking engagements lined up between now and the end of the year. Let me know if you’re planning on attending any of these so that we can connect.

• Employees Online: Social Media at Work — Business Management Daily Webinar, July 11, 2012
• Think Before You Click: Strategies for Managing Social Media in the Workplace — Ashtabula Chamber of Commerce, July 26, 2012
• Employee Leave Rights and Employer Obligations — Ohio Chamber of Commerce HR Academy, September 12, 2012
• Employment Law in the Information Age: Best Practices for Employers — 7th Annual National Employment Practices Liability ExecuSummit, October 1, 2012
• Think before You Click! Practical & Legal Guidance to Effectively Manage Social Media in the Workplace — GSMI HR Compliance Conference, October 16, 2012
• Think Before You Click: Strategies for Managing Social Media in the Workplace — COSE Small Business Conference, October 25, 2012

You can now keep track of all of my past and upcoming gigs at the brand new “Speaking Engagements” tab on the toolbar at the top.

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

Discrimination

• REQUIRED READING: One of the Most Public Harassment Lawsuits You'll Ever See… — from The HR Capitalist, Kris Dunn
• Internal Probe Participation Triggers Title VII Protection, Court Holds — from Joe’s HR and Benefits Blog
• A Few Thoughts on “Ageism” in the Workplace — from New Jersey Employment Law Blog
• The EEOC Contends Lactation Is Covered by Title VII — from Hunton Employment & Labor Law Perspectives™
• HELP WANTED: Born-again Christians need only apply — from Eric Meyer’s The Employer Handbook Blog
• Fathers Take Employers to Court for Discrimination — from i-Sight Investigation Software Blog

Social Media & Workplace Technology

• Employers Can Use Apps to Track Employees—But Is It a Good Idea? — from Technology for HR
• Can I Protect My Trade Secrets Via Social Media Policy? — from Trade Secrets & Non-Compete Blog
• Juror Misconduct & Bias - Social Media Investigation — from From the Sidebar
• 20 Awesome Facts About Twitter – 2012 Edition — from Social Media for Law Firms

HR & Employee Relations

• Are You Ready For Take Your Dog To Work Day? — from Workplace Diva
• Chaucer, the Prioress, her Lip, and your Employee Handbook — from A Maryland Employment Lawyer Speaks
• Did you libel your employee in a panic and then find out you were wrong? Never be afraid to say you’re sorry — from Robin Shea’s Employment and Labor Insider
• Summertime is Here: Don’t Be A Victim of Background Check Shrinkage — from Nick Fishman’s employeescreenIQ Blog
• Performance Evaluations: Let’s Talk About It — from Molly DiBianca’s Delaware Employment Law Blog
• Pull Up Your SOX: The New Whistleblowing Claim Grows Up — from Dan Schwartz’s Connecticut Employment Law Blog
• The top 10 harassment excuses … and how to see through them — from Business Management Daily

Wage & Hour

• The DOL at Your Door – What Do You Do Now? — from Mike Haberman’s Omega HR Solutions
• “The new workplace revolution: wage and hour suits” — from Walter Olson’s Overlawyered
• Function Over Form: The Supreme Court’s Realistic View of the FLSA — from Michael Fox’s Jottings By An Employer’s Lawyer
• Do Hours Worked On A Second Job Count Toward Overtime? — from Wage & Hour Insights
• Wage Theft On The Rise — from Overtime Lawyer Blog
• Tenth Circuit dismisses claim by employee who was fired while on FMLA leave — from EmployerLINC
• Family and Medical Leave Act Webinar and Employee Guide — from Laconic Law Blog

Labor Relations

• Does Your Compensation Policy Violate NLRA? — from Stephanie Thomas at Compensation Cafe
• U.S. Unions: Uncivil On Civil Rights — from Forbes
• State Of The Unions: Labor And The Middle Class — from NPR’s All Things Considered

6th Circuit moves the line between same-sex harassment and bullying

Oil rigs must be awful places to work. Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services—the U.S. Supreme Court case the first recognized that Title VII protected employees from same-sex harassment (and which included allegations such as name-calling suggesting homosexuality, physical assaults, and attempted rape)—involved an oil platform. Yesterday, the 6th Circuit decided Wasek v. Arrow Energy Services [pdf], another same-sex harassment case involving oil rig employees. Wasek, however, did not turn out as well for the complaining employee as did Oncale.

To save money after accepting a job with Arrow Energy, Harold Wasek decided to share a hotel room with one of his new co-workers, Paul Ottobre. As it turns out, that decision proved to be a poor one. Ottobre tormented Wasek by grabbing his buttocks, poking him in the rear with a hammer handle and long sucker rod, making comments such as “you’ve got a pretty mouth,” “boy you have pretty lips,” and “you know you like it sweetheart,” telling sexually explicit jokes, stories, fantasies, and calling Wasek names. Wasek believed that Ottobre acted like this because he was bisexual.

When Wasek complained, his superiors first told him not to “make waves [by] whining,” and later told him he should just “kick [Ottobre’s] ass,” and that they should “duke it out” to “get it out of [their] systems.” When Wasek pursued the issues with HR, the regional supervisor told him that it’s “the way the oil field is” and that if Wasek could not handle it he “should find another line of work.”

The 6th Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Wasek’s harassment claim:

Title VII is not “a general civility code for the American workplace.” … [T]he conduct of jerks, bullies, and persecutors is simply not actionable under Title VII unless they are acting because of the victim’s gender….

No evidence exists that Ottobre was motivated by a general hostility towards men. And the oil rig was not a mixed-sex workplace, so there is no possibility of comparative evidence. Thus, in order to infer discrimination, Wasek must demonstrate that Ottobre was homosexual. In his deposition, Wasek speculated that Ottobre was “a little strange, possibly bisexual.”

We need not delve into what inferences — if any — might be drawn from a harasser’s bisexuality. A single speculative statement in a deposition cannot be the first link in the “chain of inference” that Oncale recognizes may follow from the harasser’s nonheterosexuality…. Therefore, Wasek’s Title VII hostile work environment claim cannot survive.

Advocates will argue that this case is proof of why we need legislation against generalized workplace bullying. To the contrary, the troubling aspect of this case is not the dismissal of the harassment claim, but the dismissal of Wasek’s retaliation claim (an issue that will get its own post next week).

Regardless of where you stand on the issue of whether there should exist a law against workplace bullying, employers should use this case as a teaching tool on how not to respond to a harassment complaint. It is shameful that the supervisors’ told Wasek to stop whining, suggested fisticuffs to settle the issue, and ultimately chalked it up to the nature of the workplace. There are a million better ways this employer could have handled these complaints, and not have to rely on a legal argument that this misconduct is not actionable Title VII harassment.

Pop quiz: Can you condition a job offer on a withdrawal of an EEOC charge?

Consider the following chain of events:

1. 8/14: Pregnant Employee, armed with a doctor’s note, asks for modified duty, and employer terminates her.
2. 8/15: Employee files an EEOC charge.
3. 8/18: Employer reconsiders, changes its mind, and decides to offer a light-duty position, consistent with its policy to offer available light-duty positions to employees with medical conditions.
4. 8/20 – 8/28: Employer receives notice of EEOC charge.
5. 8/28: Employer communicates offer of light duty position to Employee, but on the condition that she drop her EEOC charge.
6. 8/29 and thereafter: Employee refuses job offer, and is never offered another position with the company.

Did this employer retaliate by conditioning the light-duty job offer on the employee dropping her EEOC charge? According to Chapter 7 Trustee v. Gate Gourmet, Inc. (11th Cir. June 11, 2012), the answer is an unconditional “yes.”

A jury reasonably could find from the sequence of events that Gate Gourmet decided to unconditionally offer Williams the light-duty silverware wrapper position and would have done so but for the fact that she filed an EEOC charge. Once it learned that she had, Gate Gourmet changed what would have been an unconditional offer into a conditional offer in which she could have the position (with back pay) only if she dropped the charge. When Williams would not drop it, Gate Gourmet rescinded the offer. This permissible interpretation of the evidence creates a reasonable inference that the statutorily protected filing of and refusal to settle the EEOC charge caused Gate Gourmet to deny Williams a light-duty position, which is a materially adverse action.

I’ve written before how employers must treat pregnant employees the same (no better and no worse) as other employees based on their ability or inability to work. Because this employer had a policy to offer available light-duty positions to employees with medical conditions, it was required to offer the light-duty silverware wrapper position to Williams. That it decided to rescind its offer only after receiving notice of Williams’s EEOC charge is unconditionally and unlawfully retaliatory.

Reaching the 93%: NLRB launches webpage describing protected concerted activity

When asked the type of law I practice, I always respond with “management-side labor and employment law.” In reality, while I have many successful engagements under my belt in the world of traditional labor law, I am much more of an employment attorney than a labor attorney. And, if you ask 100 management-side labor and employment lawyers whether they identify more with labor law or employment law, at least 95 will tell you employment law. It’s not our fault. It’s just that as union membership has dwindled, so have the opportunities to practice traditional labor law.

Currently, only 7 percent of private sector employees belong to a labor union. Doing the math, that leaves 93 percent of the private sector workforce as non-unionized. Yet, the National Labor Relations Board’s ability to impact the workplace is not limited by unions’ 7 percent reach.

Yesterday, the NLRB launched a webpage dedicated to protected concerted activity, which highlights 12 recent cases litigated by the NLRB involving protected concerted activity. According to the NLRB:

The law we enforce gives employees the right to act together to try to improve their pay and working conditions or fix job-related problems, even if they aren’t in a union. If employees are fired, suspended, or otherwise penalized for taking part in protected group activity, the National Labor Relations Board will fight to restore what was unlawfully taken away (emphasis added).

Trust me, it’s not a coincidence that the phrase “even if they aren’t in a union” prominently appears on this webpage above the fold. It’s a calculated public relations strategy.

According to the NLRB, “Non-union concerted activity accounts for more than 5% of the agency’s recent caseload.” If the agency is being honest, I bet it would want to add a zero after that 5. The NLRB wants to be the go-to agency for employees fired for talking about work. It is in the process of reinventing itself so that it remains relevant, even as labor unions become increasingly irrelevant. Businesses must prepare themselves for increased knowledge by their employees on these issues, along with the increased enforcement efforts by the NLRB.

BREAKING: SCOTUS rules pharmaceutical reps are exempt outside salespeople

Today brings a bonus second post, because the Supreme Court just released its long-awaited ruling in Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. [pdf] The Supreme Court, by a 5-4 margin, held that pharmaceutical sales representatives are exempt, outside salespeople to whom employers need not pay overtime.

For all of the background on this case you could want, click through the following from my archives:

• Supreme Court to hear case on scope of outside sales exemption (and hopefully scope of DOL’s power)
• 2nd Circuit issues groundbreaking ruling on sales reps and overtime payments
• Do you know? The FLSA’s exemptions for salespeople

In summary, the Court concluded the following:

     1. To be considered a salesperson, one need to actually consummate a transaction. It is sufficient that the promotional work performed by the employee can lead to a sale.

This rationale rebukes the argument of the Department of Labor, which the Court called “quite unpersuasive” and lacking the hallmarks of thorough consideration.”

     2. Non-binding commitments from physicians to prescribe certain drugs qualify as sales under the FLSA’s outside sales exemption.

This rationale applies a common-sense approach to a statute that is often confusing and too rigidly applied.

To me, the following is the million dollar quote from the Court:

Our holding also comports with the apparent purpose of the FLSA’s exemption for outside salesmen. The exemp­tion is premised on the belief that exempt employees “typically earned salaries well above the minimum wage” and enjoyed other benefits that “set them apart from the nonexempt workers entitled to overtime pay.” … It was also thought that exempt employees per­formed a kind of work that “was difficult to standardize to any time frame and could not be easily spread to other workers after 40 hours in a week, making compliance with the overtime provisions difficult and generally precluding the potential job expansion intended by the FLSA’s time­ and-a-half overtime premium.” … Petitioners—each of whom earned an average of more than $70,000 per year and spent between 10 and 20 hours outside normal busi­ness hours each week performing work related to his as­ signed portfolio of drugs in his assigned sales territory—are hardly the kind of employees that the FLSA was intended to protect. And it would be challenging, to say the least, for pharmaceutical companies to compensate detailers for overtime going forward without significantly changing the nature of that position.

I have long argued that the FLSA is an anachronistic maze of rules and regulations that does not well fit within the realities of the 21st century workplace. It seems that at least 5 members of the Supreme Court are inclined to agree with me. This excerpt provides hope for businesses that in the face of an overly-active Department of Labor and an overly confusing statute, courts can provide relief by adopting common sense interpretations.

For more on this important SCOTUS ruling, you can read the early reactions of some of my blogging friends (I’m certain more of the employment law blogging illuminati will weigh in today and tomorrow):

• Dan Schwartz’s Connecticut Employment Law Blog
• Phil Miles’s Lawffice Space

Plagiarism (a story with a happy ending)

I made a startling discovery on Friday. In last week’s WIRTW, I gave a shout out to the Meritas Social Media Guide for Lawyers v. 2.0. (In the name of full disclosure, my law firm, Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, is the Cleveland member firm of Meritas, an international alliance of full-service law firms, and its Social Media Guide features my blog.) One of the guide’s authors, Ethan Wall, took to Twitter to thank Daily Legal Law for mentioning the Social Media Guide. The only problem is that Daily Legal Law had plagiarized my column from Friday, reprinting it word for word.

I am all for other websites and blogs being so enamored with my content that they want to run it on their sites. Please, have the kindness to email me first to ask permission (I rarely say no), and then provide proper attribution. Don’t copy and paste my copyrighted content, and exacerbate your evilness by listing someone else as the author.

This story has a happy ending. Five minutes of easy research led me to DailyLegalLaw.com’s web host, HostGator, to whom I sent a takedown letter under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Yesterday, I received the following email from HostGator:

HostGator took down the entire website. If you visit DailyLegalLaw.com, this message is all you will find:

If you have employees posting content for your business online, remind them that plagiarism is illegal, that copyrights have meaning, that violating others intellectual property rights has consequences for the company (such as infringement lawsuits, civil fines, and criminal penalties), and that plagiarism is a terminable offense. Build these ideas into your social media, online communication, or similar policy, and re-enforce the concept in the training of your employees on responsible and legal online communications. Also, if you are regularly publishing content, it is wise to monitor the Web to check for stolen content, so that you can act swiftly to protect your IP.

To the proprietors of DailyLegalLaw.com: If you are going to steal copyrighted material, at least have enough common sense not to steal it from the one group certain enough to know how to protect their IP rights—attorneys. DailyLegalLaw.com, you are free to copy this post (and only this post) and paste it, in its entirety, on any of your other websites.

WIRTW #229 (the “turn the world on with her smile” edition)

I’ve never seen a full episode of The Mary Tyler Moore Show. Thus, I did not understand why Workforce ranked it as a number 1 seed in its 90th Anniversary Pop Culture Bracket. I’m a child of the 80s, and Cheers (under-seeded as an 8, by the way) has always made more sense as a workplace comedy. That is, until last night. I walked into my in-laws house and this was on their TV:

Now it all makes sense. And I’m going to start catching up on this lost gem on Hulu.

Here’s the rest of what I read this week (and last week):

Discrimination

• “Discrimination lawsuits double as definition of ‘disability’ expands” — from Walter Olson’s Overlawyered
• TSA Screener May Wear Religious Bracelet While on Duty — from Joe’s HR and Benefits Blog
• Be Careful What You Wish For: Walmart Faces Thousands of Lawsuits as Result of Class Action Victory — from Chris McKinney’s Texas Employment Law Blog
• After partial victory, plaintiff seeks cert in 5th Circuit same-sex harassment case — from Mike Maslanka’s Work Matters
• Customer Created Hostile Work Environments as told through a Homer (Simpson) Like Epic of Naked Golf, Butt Skills & Club House Beatings — from Jason Shinn’s Michigan Employment Law Advisor
• Association Is Not A Protected Category or Is It? — from Mike Haberman’s Omega HR Solutions
• EEOC brews up case — from BostonHerald.com

Social Media & Workplace Technology

• The Social Media Guide for Lawyers v. 2.0 — from Ethan Wall’s Social Media Law & Order
• Employers, Are Your Employees Minding Their Own Business? — from Molly DiBianca’s Delaware Employment Law Blog
• US Social Media by the Numbers – May 2012 — from Jessica Miller-Merrell’s Blogging4Jobs 
• Uses of Social Media for Corporate Counsel - Investigating & Defending Claims — from From the Sidebar
• 7 Essentials of a Social Media Policy That’s Actually Useful — from Radian6
• Is Your Workplace BYOD? Know the Risks! — from Stephanie Thomas’s The Proactive Employer Blog
• BYOD wave sparks big security concerns — from TheAppleBlog

HR & Employee Relations

• Do Noncompetes Kill Creativity? — from Phil Miles’s Lawffice Space
• Valid Arguments on Both Sides Re: Use of Credit Reports for Employment Screening — from Nick Fishman’s employeescreenIQ Blog
• No flush, but two of a kind win in a workplace toilet dispute — from Eric Meyer’s The Employer Handbook Blog
• Office love contract policy: What does this mean to you? — from Employment Law Bits
• Should couples work for the same company? — from Suzanne Lucas (Evil HR Lady) at CBS Money Watch
• You’re Damned if You Fire an Employee At Will for No Reason — from damnedif
• Some Hiring Managers Rate the Attractiveness of Your Spouse… — from The HR Capitalist, Kris Dunn
• Mastering the Finer Points of American Slang — from Alina Dizik at The Wall Street Journal

Wage & Hour

• How Is 2012 Like 1947? — from Wage and Hour Laws Blog
• Myles v. Prosperity Mortgage: Dukes Inapplicable to FLSA Certification — from Impact Litigation Journal
• Can Your Boss Fire You For Taking Vacation? — from by Donna Ballman’s Screw You Guys, I’m Going Home

Labor Relations

• Guest Post: NLRB Acting General Counsel Addresses At-Will Disclaimers and More at CBA Annual Meeting — from Dan Schwartz’s Connecticut Employment Law Blog
• The NLRB Acting General Counsel’s third memo on social media: Not so fast — from John Holmquist’s Michigan Employment Law Connection
• Workers Win Facebook Fight Against Huge Supermarket Chain — from Workplace Fairness
• Who Can It Be Now: Employers Told to Know Who Their Supervisors Are — from Employment Essentials
• NLRB Returns for Round Two in Fight for “Ambush” Elections — from LaborPains.org
• Are Unions Necessary? Great Post from The Atlantic — from Labor Relations Institute
• Duke Study Suggests That “Unions Are Better For Your Health” — from TLNT

25 million reasons to tell a good story

Trying an employment case to a jury is an art. You are limited by a jury’s attention span (which, by the way, is getting worse as a result of 1,000 channel cable systems and 140 character tweets) to convey your message as quickly and as simply as possible. Complex legal arguments are out; creative storytelling built around a unified theme is in.

The allegations of racial harassment in Turley v. ISG Lackawanna Inc. are horrible. They involve graffiti about King Kong and the KKK, a toy monkey with a noose around its neck tied to the plaintiff’s car, and death threats. For the full flavor, I recommend reading the court’s opinion denying (in part) the employer’s motion for summary judgment.

Yesterday, the jury returned a $25 million verdict in favor of Mr. Turley on his claims of racial harassment and intentional infliction of emotional distress. According to the Buffalo News, one of the employer’s themes at trial was that “much of what happened at the steel plant is the kind of ‘trash-talking’ that’s common in manufacturing facilities.”

I once handled a case with similarly egregious allegations of racial harassment (KKK graffiti, liberal n-bombs, threats to drag the plaintiff tied to a truck, and a fistfight with his allegedly racist supervisor). The case settled on the eve of trial for several decimal points less than $25 million.

At trial, I was not planning on debasing the plaintiff’s allegations by challenging their veracity (there were too many witnesses that would verify most of them), or by portraying the events as something they were not—such as horseplay or trash-talking. Instead, I built my case around the fact that the plaintiff had resigned in the face of these allegations and voluntarily chose to return to the same workplace a few months later. He only sued (I would argue) out of embarrassment after losing a fight. In other words, I was planning to try the case by challenging the plaintiff’s perception of the workplace and the harm it caused him, not the racial motivation of his co-workers.

I know nothing about Turley v. ISG Lackawanna other than what I’ve read in the above-linked opinion and news story. But, it strikes me that likening KKK graffiti and a toy monkey with a noose around its neck as common “trash talking” is a recipe for a disaster, even if $25 million strikes me as excessive.

Vague complaint dooms employee’s retaliation lawsuit

Susanne Pintagro worked for Sagamore Hills Township as an administrative assistant. When a newly hired intern made her feel “uncomfortable and concerned for [her] safety” she took her concerns to the township’s trustees. The trustees determined that because Ms. Pintagro and the intern had to work the same schedule, and gave her the choice of resignation or termination. After Ms. Pintagro resigned, she sued, claiming, among other things, that the township retaliated against her for reporting the intern’s workplace harassment.

In Pintagro v. Sagamore Hills Twp. (Ohio Ct. App. 5/23/12), the court of appeals affirmed the dismissal of her retaliation claim. It concluded that Ms. Pintagro had not engaged in protected activity sufficient to raise the protections of Ohio’s anti-retaliation statute:

It was Ms. Pintagro’s burden … to establish that she engaged in a protected activity, that is, to demonstrate that she “opposed an unlawful discriminatory practice” such as harassment because of her “race, color, religion, sex, military status, national origin, disability, age, or ancestry.” …

Ms. Pintagro also has not presented any authority for her argument that a court should infer discriminatory intent when an employer fails to investigate a claim of workplace harassment…. Even assuming that [the] actions constituted harassment, it is as likely that his conduct was motivated by a personality conflict or other non-discriminatory reasons as it is that it was motivated by prejudice.

In other words, because Ms. Pintagro could not prove that she complained about unlawful harassment, her retaliation claim failed.

Repeat after me:

We will not do what Sagamore Hills Township did in this case.

When an employee comes to you with a complaint about a co-worker, do not ignore it, do not fail to investigate it, and do not fire the employee (or force her to resign). Yes, you might successfully defend a subsequent retaliation lawsuit based on the vagueness of the complaint. But, you might also step in a huge pile. This court refused to interpret a woman’s complaint than a man made her “uncomfortable and concerned for [her] safety” as a complaint about sexual harassment. Another court, however, could just as easily conclude that a jury should have the final say in interpreting that complaint.

Constructive discharges cannot exist in a vacuum of illegality

A constructive discharge occurs when an employer’s actions make an employee’s working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable person under the circumstances would feel compelled to resign. Usually, a constructive discharge arises in the context of a discrimination lawsuit, satisfying the “adverse action” necessary to support the claim.

What happens, though, when there is no connection between the resignation and the law alleged to have been violated. Can an employee claim that a constructive discharge occurred in this vacuum? Kemper v. Springfield Twp. (Ohio Ct. App. 6/6/12), says no.

Patrick Kemper worked as a patrolman for the Springfield Township police department. The department had a formal policy requiring employees to submit a written request, and receive written permission, before engaging in outside work. Kemper planned to start a side security business. He discussed the idea with his supervisor, Chief David Heimpold, who told him that there would have to be precautions to prevent any conflict with police business. A few months later, Kemper submitted a letter to the department misstating that Heimpold had given permission to operate the business. When the township administrator, Michael Hinnenkamp, confronted Kemper with his lie, and with the prospect of an internal investigation, likely termination, and the loss of his pension and benefits, he resigned.

Kemper sued, claiming a constructive discharge related to an FMLA leave he was taking at the time. The jury awarded Kemper $491,000. The court of appeals agreed that the township had constructively discharged Kemper:

Hinnenkamp let it be known that any disciplinary proceeding would in all likelihood end in termination and that Kemper would lose his pension and other benefits…. Kemper had reasonably believed termination to be a foregone conclusion….

The court concluded, however, that the constructive discharge was lawful: 

But our inquiry does not end with the conclusion that Kemper produced sufficient evidence with respect to the alleged constructive discharge. A plaintiff must also establish a connection between the exercise of FMLA rights and the adverse employment action…. All of the evidence demonstrated that Kemper’s acknowledged dishonesty was the basis for the challenged discharge. There was no threat of discipline prior to the letter submitted to Heimpold and no indication in the record that Kemper's absences—or the conditions that led to those absences—bore any relationship to the adverse employment action.

Employees resign all the time, sometimes for reasons related to poor treatment by their employers. As this case makes clear, unless that poor treatment is connected to protections provided by the law, the resignation cannot form the basis for a lawsuit.

Know when to fish, and when to cut bait

I spent last week on Hilton Head Island, South Carolina. If you’ve never been there, do yourself a favor a take a trip. It's about as perfect of a vacation spot you can find in the continental 48 (see sunset below).

On the last day of our vacation, my family took a dolphin cruise through the Calibogue Sound. It was a hands-on trip for the kids. They got to cast a fishing net, pull up a crab pot, and fish for shark. The ship’s captain told us that they usually catch a lot of shark. For example, the day earlier they had reeled in 19, including two baby hammerheads. So, it was with much excitement that my daughter cast her line into the sound. After about 5 minutes (an eternity for a 6-year-old) she started asking when she would catch her shark. My wife explained that fishing is more about patience and relaxation than actually catching fish. As you would imagine, that did not go over so well with my newly minted 1st grader, although she did stick with it and enjoyed the experience. We, however, were not the only ones having issues. The captain moved the boat to what he hoped would be more fertile water. It wasn’t. She moved again, hoping the third time would be the charm. It wasn’t, and she had to call it a day. Indeed, on our cruise, only one lone shark was reeled in (by the boy next to us, much to my daughter’s chagrin).

As I am wont to do when I am not blogging, I began to think about what this tale could teach you, my readers. Much like fishing, in dealing with marginally performing workers, employers must know when to fish and when to call it a day. And, much like our ship’s captain, you usually don’t quit at the 1st sign of failure.

Employees are investments—of time, training, salary, and benefits. Unless an employee commits an egregious violation of the rules that cannot be tolerated, most deserve multiple chances to prove themselves worthy. Performance problems are not terminable offenses; they are teaching opportunities. Use them to hone your employees, and only terminate when an employee proves himself or herself un-teachable. You will be surprised how many employees you can rehabilitate (and investments you can save) merely by resisting the urge to cut bait too early on your marginal performers.

I’ll miss experiencing the sunsets at Harbour Town, but I’m happy to be home, and, believe it or not, happy to be back at work.

(If you’re interested in reading more about our vacation—and who wouldn’t be—you can jump over to my wife’s blog).

Best of: Despite what some think, employers do not set out to discriminate

Despite what some think, employers do not set out to discriminate:

http://www.ohioemployerlawblog.com/2012/03/despite-what-some-think-employers-do.html

Best of: 10 thoughts for your mobile device policy

10 thoughts for your mobile device policy:

http://www.ohioemployerlawblog.com/2012/02/10-thoughts-for-your-mobile-device.html

Best of: Disability discrimination law in Ohio is a mess

Disability discrimination law in Ohio is a mess:

http://www.ohioemployerlawblog.com/2012/01/disability-discrimination-law-in-ohio.html

See also Courts are finally starting to apply ADAAA—and it ain’t pretty:

http://www.ohioemployerlawblog.com/2012/03/courts-are-finally-starting-to-apply.html

Best of: “Friending” co-workers depends on your level of organizational risk tolerance

“Friending” co-workers depends on your level of organizational risk tolerance:

http://www.ohioemployerlawblog.com/2012/01/friending-co-workers-depends-on-your.html

See also Latest stats about supervisors being “Facebook friends” with employees reveals interesting generational data:

http://www.ohioemployerlawblog.com/2012/02/latest-stats-about-supervisors-being.html

Best of: Trying to make sense of the NLRB’s lastest social media missive? Good luck

Trying to make sense of the NLRB’s lastest social media missive? Good luck:

http://www.ohioemployerlawblog.com/2012/01/trying-to-make-sense-of-nlrbs-lastest.html