I’ve decided that when I grow up, I want to be Norah. She has a pretty good life.
Guess who’s added “new guitar” to the top of her Christmas list?
Please check out the latest post on Meyers Roman’s new Ohio OSHA Law Blog — Federal court slaps down OSHA’s broad interpretation of its machine-guarding standard. And, while you’re there, take a minute to subscribe to receive updates via RSS or email.
Here’s the rest of what I read this week:
When you receive a phone call from a company looking for information on a former employee that was a less than stellar employee, or worse, fired, do you?
(a) Ignore it.
(b) Confirm only the fact of prior employment and dates.
(c) Give a truthful, negative reference.
Most employers do either “a” or “b”, while very few opt for “c”. Many employers avoid “c” because they fear liability if the ex-employee loses a job because of a negative reference. Yet, in Ohio and elsewhere, there is nothing illegal about providing truthful, negative information.
By now you’ve likely heard the story about the blind college student denied service by a Cleveland-area bakery because she was accompanied by her seeing-eye dog. Rather than vilify this establishment (which, god knows, has been done enough on Facebook, and Yelp, and just about everywhere else on the Internet), we should instead use this mistake as a teachable moment for all employers everywhere.
Earlier this year, the NLRB began accepting electronic signatures in support of an employee’s showing of interesting in support of a labor union. The Board has begun accepting e-signed documents, provided that they meet the following four criteria.
Does the National Labor Relations Act protect the mere act of an employee clicking the “Like” button on Facebook? According to Triple D, LLC v. NLRB (2nd Cir. 10/21/15) [pdf], the answer is yes.
If all of my musings of he past couple of year about the Old 97’s has piqued your interest, you can check them out in person, tomorrow (Saturday) night at the Beachland Ballroom.
If you’re there, look for my family and me up front, by the stage, singing and dancing the night away.
Here’s the rest of what I read this week:
The Browns still can’t beat the Broncos, and, it appears that Ohio’s proposed off-duty conduct law is a whole lot worse for employers than Colorado’s similar (but very different) statute.
I received an email from a long-standing reader, asking if I could reconcile my opinion that Ohio’s proposed off-duty conduct law would prohibit an Ohio employer from terminating an employee for off-duty marijuana use if Issue 3 [pdf] passes, with the decision of the Colorado Supreme Court in Coates v Dish Network [pdf], which held that Colorado’s off-duty conduct law did not prohibit such a termination despite that state’s legalization of pot.
It all comes down to statutory language.
Tomaydo-Tomahhdo is a local sandwich shop, and a purveyor of damn fine paninis and wraps. As for litigation, let’s say its lunches are way better. It sued one of its former chefs, claiming that he stole its book of recipes to open a competing catering business. Ultimately, the restaurant lost its lawsuit, which it had framed as a copyright infringement claim. The court concluded [pdf] that there is nothing original in a compilation of sandwich recipes that copyright law protects.
What could this employer have done differently to protect its intellectual property. It could have gotten in it in writing from the employee.
It has become increasingly difficult to separate our private lives from our professional lives. Technology bleeds into every nook and cranny of our existence, and allows the workplace to stretch beyond the traditional 9-to-5 into a 24/7 relationship. Partly for this reason, 29 states have what are known as off-duty conduct laws — laws that protect employees’ jobs from adverse actions based on their exercise of lawful conduct outside of the workplace. Think smoking, for example. In these 29 states, it is illegal for an employer to fire an employee who smokes away from work. The employer can still prohibit smoking at the workplace, but when the employee is on his or her own private time, the conduct is off limits to the employer.
Ohio is not one of these 29 states. Senate Bill 180, however, is looking to change that.
Last week I discussed the importance of a timely and effective remedial response by an employer to an employee’s harassment complaint. Today, I examine the other side of the coin—what happens when an employer does not take proactive steps to eliminate harassment from the workplace.
I’ve the reading the Onion for years. It’s consistently funny, often offensive, and seldom disappoints. Here’s some quick hits (all, surprisingly, SFW) published by the Onion over the past year.
Here’s the rest of what I read this week:
Think back to when you took your SATs, many years ago—number-2 pencils, plastic school chairs and laminate-topped desks, florescent lights, nervous sweat, and, the bane of many a high-schooler, the analogies that comprise so much of the SAT’s verbal section. Remember “dog : bark :: cat : meow”?
Today, I am going to propose an employment-law, wage-and-hour analogy. It goes like this:
Compensable working time : FLSA :: Disability : Pre-2009 ADA
What does this mean (and how dare I make you think about your SATs for the first time in forever)?
Everyone’s getting in on the act of defining who is an employee versus an independent contractor. This week, it’s the NLRB’s turn. In Sisters’ Camelot (9/25/15) [pdf], the Board determined that terminated pro-union community canvassers were employees covered by the NLRA, not independent contractors.
The employer, a nonprofit organization that collects and distributes food to low-income individuals, funds its operation primarily through donations obtained by canvassers through door-to-door solicitations. The canvassers, classified by the employer as independent contractors, attempted to organize into a labor union. When the employer found out, it terminated the services of one the ringleader, and suggested to others that organizing would be futile. Unfair labor practice charges followed.
The NLRB concluded that the canvassers are employees, not independent contractors. In so ruling, it balanced the following 11 factors:
The NLRB concluded that only two of the factors either favored independent-contractor status or were inconclusive on the issue—length of employment (which is sporadic and permits them to hold other jobs) and whether the parties believed they are creating an independent contractor relationship (with some testifying that they had signed independent-contractor agreements). The other nine, however, favored a finding of employee status:
Critically, when the canvassers work for the Respondent, they do so at times and locations determined by the Respondent. Their compensation is nonnegotiable and strictly limited by the Respondent’s time and location restrictions. Canvassers must generally use the Respondent’s tools and instrumentalities, including materials and transportation. They have no proprietary interest in any part of the canvassing operations, including their maps. They must keep accurate and detailed records as part of the Respondent’s close scrutiny of their activities. If they do not comply with the Respondent’s directives, they may be subject to discipline. Canvassers are also well integrated into the Respondent’s organization and identify themselves as part of it. The Respondent provides training, and canvassers need not have any specialized education or prior experience. While the Respondent conducts other fundraising activities beyond neighborhood canvassing, it could not fulfill its charitable mission without the canvassers, who procure most of its operating funds. Finally, there is no evidence showing that the canvassers render services as part of an independent business.
So, add labor organizing to the list of concerns employers need to have regarding independent-contractor classifications. It’s not enough to worry about whether they are employees for wage/hour purposes, workers’ comp purposes, or tax purposes, but also whether they are employees for union-organizing and other labor-relations (i.e., protected concerted activity) purposes. Even though this issue is now squarely in the NLRB’s line of sight, the suggestion on how to classify workers in close cases has not changed: unless one is clearly an independent contractor, over whom you exercise no control, the safest course of conduct is to classify that worker as an employee and not take any unnecessary legal risks.
Wired tells the story of an Australian tribunal, which ruled that an employee was illegally bullied at work, in part because a co-worker had unfriended her on Facebook.
Transfer this case to America, and assume that the employee is claiming retaliation based on the unfriending. Supposed Employee-A complains to HR that Employee-B is sexually harassing her, and, as soon as Employee-B finds out about the complaint, he unfriends Employee-A on Facebook. Does Employee-A have a claim for retaliation based on the unfriending?
The answer is likely no.
As a matter of law, an adverse action sufficient to support a claim for retaliation merely must be an action that would dissuade a reasonable worker from complaining about discrimination. Yet, the Supreme Court has stated that the adversity to support a claim for retaliation must be “material”, and that petty slights, minor annoyances, or a simple lack of good manners normally will not count:
We speak of material adversity because we believe it is important to separate significant from trivial harms. Title VII, we have said, does not set forth “a general civility code for the American workplace.” … An employee’s decision to report discriminatory behavior cannot immunize that employee from those petty slights or minor annoyances that often take place at work and that all employees experience…. It does so by prohibiting employer actions that are likely “to deter victims of discrimination from complaining to the EEOC,” the courts, and their employers…. And normally petty slights, minor annoyances, and simple lack of good manners will not create such deterrence….
A supervisor’s refusal to invite an employee to lunch is normally trivial, a nonactionable petty slight. But to retaliate by excluding an employee from a weekly training lunch that contributes significantly to the employee’s professional advancement might well deter a reasonable employee from complaining about discrimination.
Thus, an ostracism or shunning from a social network—one that serves no work-related purpose other than fostering congeniality among co-workers—likely should not support a claim for retaliation.
The ADA protects employees with disabilities? But what about its anti-retaliation provision? Does an employee have to be “disabled” under the ADA for the statute to protect that employee from retaliation? According to Hurtt v. International Services, Inc. (6th Cir. 9/14/15), the answer is no.
Hurtt worked at ISI as a senior business analyst, earning a yearly draw plus a percentage commission on sales. The day after he requested FMLA-leave for (job-related) anxiety and depression, ISI terminated his draw and switched him a commission-only comp plan. He sued, claiming, among other things retaliation for requesting various accommodations for his disability, including requests for a leave of absence and for a reduced work schedule.
The 6th Circuit reversed the trial court’s dismissal of Hurtt’s retaliation claim, holding that the mere act of requesting an accommodation is sufficient to raise the specter of retaliation, regardless of whether the employee is actually “disabled”:
We have held that requests for accommodation are protected acts…. Hurtt argues that he engaged in protected activity when he requested a reasonable accommodation and when he took FMLA leave…. But, the pertinent inquiry here is not whether Hurtt proved he had a disability under the ADA, or whether ISI had specific knowledge of Hurtt’s alleged disability, but rather, whether Hurtt showed a good-faith request for reasonable accommodations.
The takeaway here is more common sense than law. If Title VII can protect a white guy from retaliation when he complains that his black co-worker is being mistreated, the ADA certainly should protect an employee requesting a reasonable accommodation, whether or not a court determines after the fact that he is, or is not, legally “disabled”. Employees who request accommodations should always be treated with care; otherwise you risk stepping on a retaliation landmine.
Thanks to iOS 9, you now have a new way to read the Ohio Employer’s Law Blog. If you own an iPhone or iPad, and have upgraded to iOS 9, you have a new app called “News.” Within that News app, search for “Ohio Employer’s Law Blog” and you’ll be able to read all of my daily updates in Apple-land. As for me, I’ll be reading on my new iPhone 6S, which, barring a FedEx mix-up, should be delivered this afternoon.
Here’s the rest of what I read this week:
Discrimination
Social Media & Workplace Technology
HR & Employee Relations
Wage & Hour
Labor Relations
Raise your hand if you think that it needs to be easier for workers to unionize? If I could look through my computer screen, I’d see very few of my readers’ hands raised.
Two hands that would be raised, though, are those of Washington Senator Patty Murray and Virginia Congressman Bobby Scott (both Dems), who, last week, introduced and sponsored the Workplace Action for a Growing Economy (WAGE) Act.
What would the WAGE Act do?
What else do you need to know about the WAGE Act? It’s supported by the AFL-CIO, the Teamsters, the Communication Workers of America, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, The Century Foundation, and other worker-rights groups.
AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka described the legislation:
The WAGE Act puts corporations who abuse working people on notice that there will be real penalties for lawbreaking. Penalties like triple back pay, strong civil penalties and preliminary reinstatement.
Teamsters General President James P. Hoffa added:
For too long employers have manipulated and abused the system under the NLRA. The WAGE Act offers real reform to our current laws and provides worker protections through significant penalties that will discourage employers from acting illegally. It is long past time to bring our labor laws into the 21st century.
The Act’s co-author, Senator Murray, continued:
Too often, as workers are underpaid, overworked and treated unfairly on the job, some companies are doing everything they can to prevent them from having a voice in the workplace. The WAGE Act would strengthen protections for all workers and it would finally crack down on employers who break the law when workers exercise their basic right to collective action.
This bill has no chance to become law. But that’s not the point. The labor movement is setting up the 2016 election to be a referendum on the American working class. This bill is a symptom of this problem, not the solution. Nevertheless, it illustrates the class divide that could lead to a greater resurgence of organized labor.
The New York Times reports that CNN has settled an EEOC charge brought by a former correspondent, who claimed that the company’s paid parental leave policy discriminated against biological fathers.
At the time Mr. Levs’s daughter was born, in October 2013, CNN offered 10 weeks of paid leave to biological mothers and the same amount to parents of either gender who adopted children or relied on surrogates. By contrast, the company offered two weeks of paid leave to biological fathers.
Mr. Levs, whose daughter was born five weeks prematurely, already had two young children. He said he felt he needed to spend more time at home sharing in caregiving responsibilities with his wife. He filed his charge when the company refused to grant him more paid time off.
Optically, there is a lot of appeal in a male employee claiming discrimination when a female employee receives more paid leave after the birth of a child. On its face, it certainly looks discriminatory. But, is such a policy really sex discrimination?
There is one key difference between women and men when they welcome a new-born child. Women give birth; men don’t. A women is not medically ready to return to work the day following childbirth; a man is. Indeed, current medical guidelines suggest that women take six weeks off from work following a vaginal delivery, and eight following a C-section. Adoptions also provide different challenges to a couple, including adjusting to new family member without the buffer of a nine-month pregnancy.
While employers should offer equal leave allotments to men and women, before we jump the legal gun we need to consider that there might be an explanation other than discrimination that justifies different treatment between the sexes.
The EEOC recently announced that it has filed suit against a Texas home healthcare company for terminating a pregnant employee. The EEOC describes the key allegations:
EEOC charges in its suit, that Zanna Clore was told to obtain a doctor’s note after the employer learned of her pregnancy. Shortly thereafter, Clore provided Your Health Team with a release from her physician stating Clore could perform all job duties with the only limitation being that she should not lift or pull more than 25 lbs. Despite the medical release to work, the employer terminated her employment just minutes after she furnished the required note.
EEOC regional attorney Robert A. Canino sums up everything that is (allegedly) wrong with this employer’s action:
As a society, we should have already evolved well beyond the old-school thinking that a pregnant worker must be excluded from the workplace. Fortunately, the highest court in the land, in Young v. UPS, recently emphasized the employer’s responsibility to accommodate pregnant employees and thereby avoid discrimination against working women.
When an employee informs you that she is pregnant, your decision is not whether to fire her, but instead whether she can perform the essential duties of her job during her pregnancy. If she has physical limitations because of her pregnancy, you must accommodate her on the same terms and conditions as others who are similar in their ability or inability to work. In other words, if a pregnant employee cannot perform an essential function of lifting more than 25 pounds, and you have previous accommodated other non-pregnant employees in that job with similar lifting restrictions, then you must offer the same accommodation to the pregnant employee. It is not up to you to decide whether your pregnant employee can, or cannot, continue working.
I’ve cautioning about the use of unpaid interns almost as long as this blog as been a blog (here, here, and here, for example). Last week, the 11th Circuit, in Schumann v. Collier Anesthesia [pdf], became the third federal appellate court to cast aside the DOL’s six-factor internship analysis for a stricter “primary beneficiary” test (joining the 6th Circuit and 2nd Circuit).
In Schumann, the court questioned the employer’s use of unpaid student registered nurse anesthetists participating in a clinic program as part of their master’s degree curriculum. The court agreed with the 2nd Circuit that the DOL’s six-factor internship analysis is antiquated, instead balancing, via the following factors, who received the primary benefit of the relationship—the employer (in which case the intern is an employee who must be paid) or the employee (in which case the internship can be unpaid):
Notably, the Schumann court noted that the internship analysis is not necessarily all-or-nothing, and that one can be a bona fide intern for part of the engagement, but an employee for others:
That is, we can envision a scenario where a portion of the student’s efforts constitute a bona fide internship that primarily benefits the student, but the employer also takes unfair advantage of the student’s need to complete the internship by making continuation of the internship implicitly or explicitly contingent on the student’s performance of tasks or his working of hours well beyond the bounds of what could fairly be expected to be a part of the internship. For example, in the context of an internship required for an academic degree and professional licensure and certification in a medical field, consider an employer who requires an intern to paint the employer’s house in order for the student to complete an internship of which the student was otherwise the primary beneficiary. Under those circumstances, the student would not constitute an “employee” for work performed within the legitimate confines of the internship but could qualify as an “employee” for all hours expended in painting the house, a task so far beyond the pale of the contemplated internship that it clearly did not serve to further the goals of the internship.
Ultimately, the court took no position on whether these student nurses were (or were not) employees, instead sending the case back to the district court to make the necessary factual determinations under the primary beneficiary test. Assuming this case is not settled, this case will be very interesting to watch on remand, as the relationship in Schumann is much closer to the traditional unpaid internship—training in exchange for school credit as part of an educational curriculum. A judgment for the interns in this case would be pretty darn close to the final coffin nail for unpaid internships.
While we watch this case, employers should continue to assume that non-student interns are paid employees, and should consult with counsel on whether student interns should be paid.
The Muppets present, 5 People You’ll Meet At Work.
Which one are you?
Here’s the rest of what I read this week:
Discrimination
Social Media & Workplace Technology
HR & Employee Relations
Wage & Hour
Labor Relations
Last month, a South Carolina federal judge denied BMW’s attempt to dismiss an EEOC lawsuit which alleged that the company’s criminal background checks for job applicants had a discriminatory disparate impact on African American (opinion here).
In the wake of that decision and looming trial date at the end of this month, BWM and the EEOC have agreed to settle their differences. In exchange for the EEOC’s dismissal of its lawsuit, BMW will pay $1.6 million, and offer employment to 56 of the claimants and up to an additional 90 other African-American applicants identified by the EEOC.
Interesting, Judy Greenwald, at Business Insurance, quotes both BMW and the EEOC, each of which holds a very different opinion on what this settlement has to say about an employer’s use of criminal background checks:
“EEOC has been clear that while a company may choose to use criminal history as a screening device in employment, Title VII requires that when a criminal background screen results in the disproportionate exclusion of African-Americans from job opportunities, the employer must evaluate whether the policy is job-related and consistent with a business necessity,” said David Lopez, the EEOC’s general counsel, in the statement.
BMW said in its statement that the settlement “affirms BMW’s right to use criminal background checks in hiring the workforce at the BMW plant in South Carolina. The use of criminal background checks is to ensure the safety and well-being of all who work at the BMW plant site.
“BMW has maintained throughout the proceedings that it did not violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and does not discriminate by race in its hiring as evidenced by its large and highly diverse workforce.”
At the end of the day, the resolution of this case has very little to do with the legality of criminal background checks (and whether they are discriminatory) and everything about two litigants buying off off the risk of a trial on the issue. For now, the safest course of action for employers is to follow the EEOC’s Enforcement Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment Decisions under Title VII (at least until the federal courts tells us otherwise).
By now, you’ve likely heard about the Muslim flight attendant who filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC, claiming that her employer refused to accommodate her religion by requiring her serve alcohol on flights. There is much to say about this issue, but I do not think I can say it any better than Eugene Volokh did in the Washington Post. I highly recommend his thorough and thoughtful essay.
The practical question, however, is what to do when an employee requests such an accommodation. Consider:
How you feel about each of these particular cases will depend, in large part, on your view of Religion, or certain religions. Yet, Title VII does not make any such distinctions. Instead, Title VII requires employers to exempt religious employees from generally applicable work rules as a reasonable accommodation, so long as the accommodation won’t impose on the employer an “undue hardship” (something more than a modest cost or burden). If the job can get done without much of a burden, then Title VII requires the employer to provide the accommodation.
Volokh makes six observation about this reasonable-accommodation rule, which are worth repeating:
The rule requires judgments of degree. Some accommodations are relatively cheap (again, always realizing that any accommodation involves some burden on employers), while other are more expensive. The courts have to end up drawing some fuzzy line between them. Maybe that’s a bad idea, but that’s what Congress set up with the “reasonable accommodation” requirement. So if you want to argue that one religious objector shouldn’t get the relatively easy accommodation she wants, you can’t do that by analogy to another claim where the accommodation would be very expensive.
The rule turns on the specific facts present in a particular workplace. An accommodation can be very expensive when the objecting employee is the only one at the job site who can do a task, but relatively cheap when there are lots of other employees. It can be very expensive when all the other employees also raise the same objection, but relatively cheap when the other employees are just fine with doing the task. Again, maybe that’s a bad rule, but it’s the rule Congress created. And if you want to argue that one religious objector shouldn’t get an accommodation that’s easy at the objector’s job site, you can’t do that by pointing out that the accommodation would be expensive at other job sites.
The rule accepts the risk of insincere objections. Of course, when sincere religious objectors can get an exemption, others can ask for the same exemption even just for convenience rather than from religious belief. That’s not much of a problem for many exemption requests, since most people have no personal, self-interested reasons not to transport alcohol on their trucks, or raising an American flag on a flagpole. But for some accommodations, there is a risk of insincere claims, for instance when someone just wants Saturdays off so he can do fun weekend things. The law assumes that employers will be able to judge employees’ sincerity relatively accurately, and to the extent some insincere objections are granted, this won’t be too much of a problem. Again, the law might be wrong on this, but it’s the law.
The rule accepts the risk of slippery slopes, and counts on courts to stop the slippage. Once some people get a religious exemption, others are likely to claim other religious exemptions; indeed, some people who before managed to find a way to live with their religious objections without raising an accommodation request might now conclude that they need to be more militant about their beliefs. Here too, the law accepts this risk, and counts on courts to cut off the more expensive accommodations.
The rule rejects the “you don’t like the job requirements, so quit the job” argument. Again, that argument is a perfectly sensible policy argument against having a Title VII duty of religious accommodation. It’s just an argument that religious accommodation law has, rightly or wrongly, rejected.
The rule focused on what specific accommodations are practical. If someone demands as an accommodation that a company completely stop shipping alcohol, that would be an undue hardship for an employer. But if it’s possible to accommodate the person by just not giving him the relatively rare alcohol-shipping orders, then that might well not be an undue hardship.
In other words, Title VII’s religious accommodation provision is the law of the land, and it does not permit value judgments based on the religion of the person making the request, no matter how different a religion may seem from ours. If the request is based on a sincerely held religious belief, is reasonable, and does not impose an undue hardship, an employer must provide it. Value judgments will result in litigation, in which the employer will likely be on the wrong side of the law. Treat each religion equally, consider each accommodation request on its merits, and err on the side of inclusion.
Does your workplace have that employee who complains about everything? Is there that one person, who, no matter what you do, it’s never good enough? Lucky for you, the White House now has a forum for this pain-in-your-butt.
The White House has announced it’s “Summit on Worker Voice”. According to the White House:
On October 7, 2015, the White House and the Department of Labor will bring together workers, labor leaders, advocates, forward-leaning employers, Members of Congress, state and local officials and others to highlight the relationship between worker voice and a thriving middle class.
The White House Summit on Worker Voice will provide a historic opportunity to bring together a diverse group of leaders—including workers, employers, unions, organizers and other advocates and experts—to explore ways to ensure that middle class Americans are sharing in the benefits of the broad-based economic growth that they are helping to create. We want both seasoned and emerging leaders from across the country, who are taking action in their communities to lift up workers’ voices—to be active participants in this conversation.
The White House is looking for your employees to nominate workplace “voice leaders”, those who:
In other words, the White House is looking for employees to join together to discuss wages, hours, and other terms and condition of employment, a right that the National Labor Relations Act guarantees to your employees.
The Obama Administration, through the NLRB, has made it a whole lot easier for labor unions to form. The NLRB has implements it’s expedited, ambush election rules, and has held franchisors, staffing agencies, and contractors responsible as joint-employers for the bargaining responsibilities of their independent subsidiary entities. Now, the White House has gone a step further by opening a forum for employees to understand their rights to complain and grieve. This administration is bending over backwards to bring up the working and middle classes. And, if you are not implementing progressive wages and policies for your workers, the White House is sending a strong message that it’s more than okay for them to complain, or, worse, form a union to collectively bargain for those rights.
I’ve said before that there is a war brewing between the working classes and corporate America. One battle line is the minimum wage. Another is the labor movement, and the White House has clearly chosen it’s side.
If you find yourself on the west side of Cleveland on the afternoon of September 12 or 13, stop by The Brothers Lounge to check out my kids’ latest rock ‘n’ roll adventure.
Norah will be performing in School of Rock’s “Left of the Dial” show, featuring the pre-Nirvana alt sounds of The Replacements, R.E.M., Dinosaur Jr., Echo and the Bunnymen, and others. To whet your musical appetite, here’s a 15-second clip of Norah crushing the lead vocals on Concrete Blonde’s “Bloodletting”.
Also, stick around for my son Donovan’s musical debut, tickling the keys in the Rock 101 band with songs by The Who, Foo Fighters, and Linkin Park. If you stop, say hi, and mention the blog, I might even buy you a beer.
Here’s the rest of what I read this week:
Discrimination
Social Media & Workplace Technology
HR & Employee Relations
Wage & Hour
Labor Relations
Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer is in the news. In one breath, she announced that she is expecting twins, but will not be availing herself of her company’s generous maternity leave policy. Yahoo offers all new parents eights weeks of paid time off, and new moms an additional eight weeks. Mayer says that she will take “limited” time off and work throughout her short leave of absence. After the birth of her son in 2012, Mayer returned to work in less than two weeks.
The New York Times quotes Joan Williams, director of the Center for WorkLife Law at the University of California, Hastings, who believes that a company’s actions are more important that its written policies: “The underlying work culture sends the message that if you’re really committed, you’re here all the time.” I could not agree more.
Policies are great tools for employee engagement, recruitment, and retention … if a company follows them. When a CEO spurns her company’s generous parental leave policy, she sends this message to all of her employees: “Our policies do not reflect our culture; my actions reflect our culture. When you have a child, do as I do, not as I say.” So much for generous and consequence-free time-off.
Companies need to be very careful not to send these mixed messages. It might be a leave-of-absence policy (as in Yahoo’s case), or it might be a manager that tells employees they must use vacation time for kids’ doctors appointment or school events, but comes and goes as he pleases without regard. These mixes messages are morale killers.
More importantly, these mixed messages teach employees that your written policies cannot be trusted. This message of distrust is one that you cannot afford to send, especially with policies that have real legal significance, like your anti-harassment policy. If your employee disregard your policies as corporate lip-service, why have them at all?
Join my partners and me on September 17 as we present Meyers Roman’s next Breakfast Briefing, Is the Government Out to Get You? Essential Human Relations Policies for Compliance.
Recent aggressive initiatives by the EEOC, the DOL, the NLRB, and OSHA and their impact on your business are creating concern and uncertainty in the workplace. Credit/criminal background checks, LGBT discrimination, OSHA investigations, employee misclassification, and social media handbook policies will all be discussed at MRFL’s next Breakfast Briefing focusing on this most timely topic.
Seth Briskin, Chair of our Labor & Employment Practice Group, Jon Hyman, our award-winning employment law blogger, and Steve Dlott, Chair of our Workers’ Compensation Practice Group, will provide an overview of the hot topics on the government’s watch list, critical information of which every Human Relations department and member of management needs to be aware.
WHEN: September 17, 2015 TIME: 7:30 – 8:00 am Registration & Breakfast / 8:00-9:30 Seminar WHERE: Doubletree by Hilton (3663 Park East Drive, Beachwood, 44122) COST: Free ***2 Hours of HRCI credit will be given***
Seating is limited. To reserve you space, RSVP to Sara Cox—scox@meyersroman.com or 216-831-0042.