WIRTW #391 (the “headliner” edition)

In my never-ending quest to turn my legal blog into a promotional blog for my daughter’s nascent music career, I bring you the debut performance of this year’s School of Rock Jr. Headliners — Sunday, December 6, from 4 to 8 pm, at Coda (a new, and supposed very cool, music venue owned by Cleveland chef and restaurateur Dante Boccuzzi).

For the uninitiated, the Jr. Headliners is SoR’s audition-only band for kids 8th grade and under (there is another Headliner band for high schoolers, which will also be on the bill). Norah earned her spot on her vocal chops.

Here’s a tease from the band’s “preview” performance at SoR’s annual Halloween bash — Jet’s Are You Gonna Be My Girl.

My standing offer is still good. If you’re at the gig, say hi, and mention the blog, your next drink of choice is on me.

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

New workplace app raises old issues

At the beginning of 2015, I reported on the launch of a new app — Memo — which allowed employees to post anonymous comments or complaints about their workplaces. Microsoft has now joined the fray of workplace griping apps with one of its own, called Forum.

According to the app’s description, it “lets ideas thrive, facilitates open dialogue within organizations, and enables employees to freely express themselves.” More importantly, unlike Memo, Forum appears to be non-anonymous. From iMore: “Forum has apparently been designed primarily for businesses to give their employees a chance to speak their minds and connect with their fellow workers and executives.”
 

The cost to defend a discrimination lawsuit (and can you do anything about it)

Two and a half years ago I asked, How much does it cost to defend an employment lawsuit? My answer:

The reality is that defending a discrimination or other employment lawsuit is expensive. Defending a case through discovery and a ruling on a motion for summary judgment can cost an employer between $75,000 and $125,000.

Oh, how I love to be right.

John Oliver shares his thoughts on “Ban the Box” #ShouldWeBanTheBox

On September 30, the Ohio House passed the Fair Hiring Act, which would prohibit the State of Ohio from including on any employment application for a state job any question concerning the criminal background of the applicant. The measure is now being considered by Ohio’s Senate, which is separately considering a different bill that would apply the same prohibition to all Ohio employers, public and private.

I’ve previously shared my thoughts on this brand of legislation, known as “Ban the Box.” Short version—I’m not a fan.

We stand with France; we stand against discrimination

Photo by Jon Hyman, 8/6/15

What happened Friday evening in France is unfathomable. Except, really, it isn’t. We experienced it 15 years ago in New York City. And, in the aftermath of 9/11, discrimination against Muslims and Arabs increased by 250 percent.

From the EEOC:

WIRTW #390 (the “cards against HR” edition) @cardsHR

Have you ever played Cards Against Humanity? It’s a very adult version of Apples to Apples. I made the mistake of playing with my mom, and let’s just say that I learned some things that a child should never know about his mother, no matter their respective ages. Hilarious things, but, all things being equal, the laughs weren’t worth the memory scars.

HireVue, obvious fans of the game, came up with a fabulous promotional idea. They call it Cards Against HR, and my deck came in mail earlier this week. When I tweeted HireVue my love of its idea, they challenged me to post a picture of the best (or worst) hand I could come up with.

@jonhyman Show us the best (or worst) cards that you get! - Nicole

— HireVue (@hirevue) November 9, 2015

Well, HireVue, I am never one to shrink from a challenge.

 

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

What can go wrong when co-workers date? A lot.

True confession time. I watch The Voice. It’s not like it’s at the top of my DVR, but, my remote always seem to stop on NBC between 8 and 10 on Monday and Tuesday nights. (My pick to win this season: Amy Vachal). So, when I heard that Team Shelton and Team Gwen had formed one team outside of work, I thought, “What a great opportunity to write a blog post on office romances.” (This is how the mind of blogger works).

What can do wrong with office romances? As it turns out, a lot. So, in the spirit of The Voice, here’s 10 reasons co-workers shouldn’t turn their chairs for each other.

An injury without an injury — part 2? #SCOTUS and collective wage/hour violations

Can a plaintiff support a collective lawsuit if some of the individuals in the purported class have not suffered any harm? The Supreme Court took up this question during yesterday’s oral argument in Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo, a case that will go a long way to deciding the continued viability of class or collective actions to decide wage and hour lawsuits.

The underlying legal issue is a familiar one: donning and doffing (that is, compensation for time spent putting on, and taking off, protective gear). This case also carries forward themes from 2011’s Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes decision (which opined on the non-viability of a nationwide class action in which the class members lacked common harm), and last week’s Spokeo v. Robins oral argument (which will decide if a plaintiff has standing to bring a lawsuit for a technical violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act if the individual suffered no resulting concrete harm).

So, what is Bouaphakeo all about?

What can you do about today’s “Fight for 15” protests?

Today, workers will protest in 270 different cities, clamoring for a higher $15 minimum wage. It’s part of a broader movement called Fight for 15. The organization has provided employees explicit instructions on how to execute a one-day strike, like those that will happen today.

Guest post: Social Business and HR, Part 1 — Online Reputation Management in the Context of HR

By Mike Wise

Today, we are going to try something new — a guest post. Readers, meet Mike Wise. Mike will be joining us for a three-part series over the next three months to share his thoughts on the social business and human resources. Today is Part 1: Online Reputation Management in the Context of HR.

WIRTW #389 (the “you love me, you really love me” edition) #LoveYourLawyerDay

Today is National Love Your Lawyer Day (really). From the American Lawyers Public Image Association:

Around the world, Love Your Lawyer Day… is the one day of the year designated to celebrate lawyers…. Our goal is to highlight the good that lawyers do, often thanklessly….

Is it too much to ask for people to refrain from lawyer bashing and telling tasteless lawyer jokes for a single day? Surely you can do it. And, if for some reason, you're unable to tame your tongue for that 24-hour span (like if you're a late-night talk show host), then donate $20 to charity for every joke you tell. Deal?

This special day is not just about acknowledging and celebrating legal professionals. One of the initiatives for *Global* Lawyer Your Lawyer Day is to ask lawyers to either perform one hour of pro bono work or donate the equivalent of one billable hour to their favorite charity.

Do you love your lawyer—either me (hint, hint) or someone else? Show your love, in the comments below, or hit me on Twitter @jonhyman with #LoveYourLawyerDay. As for me, I’ll pick up my end of the bargain by donating my one hour of pro bono work.

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

OSHA’s penalties are on the rise

Today’s post originally appeared on Meyers Roman’s Ohio OSHA Law Blog, but it’s worth reprinting for my readers.

---

Have you subscribed to our new OSHA blog? If not, what are you waiting for?

Subscribe by email here, or by RSS here.

---

Earlier this week, President Obama signed into law the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015. On its surface, it funds the federal government through 2017 and prevents any federal shutdowns during that time. Employers that read the fine-print, however, might be in for an OSHA-related shock.

NLRB provides employers a roadmap to a legally compliant off-duty access policy

Can an employer lawfully limit non-employees’ access to its facility? On its face, such a question might seem silly. After all, an employer should be able to control its property, right? What about access by union organizers? Does this wrinkle change the answer?

In Marina Del Rey Hosp. (10/22/15) [pdf], the National Labor Relations Board considered the following access policy:

Off-duty employees may access the Hospital only as expressly authorized by this policy. An off-duty employee is any employee who has completed or not yet commenced his/her shift.

An off-duty employee is not allowed to enter or re-enter the interior of the Hospital or any Hospital work area, except to visit a patient, receive medical treatment, or conduct hospital-related business. “Hospital related-business” is defined as the pursuit of an employee’s normal duties or duties as specifically directed by management.

An off-duty employee may have access to non-working, exterior areas of the Hospital, including exterior building entry and exit areas and parking lots.

Any employee who violates this Policy will be subject to disciplinary action up to and including termination.

Did it pass NLRB-muster?

An injury without an injury? #SCOTUS, standing, and the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins. This case should answer a very important question for employers: Does a plaintiff have standing to bring a lawsuit for a technical violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act if the individual suffered no resulting concrete harm? The implications of this case are huge.

EEOC proposed new rules for GINA to encompass employer wellness plans

Last week, the EEOC announced that it plans to amend its regulations to the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act to permit employees to provide health information about their spouses in exchange for certain financial and other incentives as part of employer wellness programs.

Earlier this year, the EEOC published proposed ADA regulations, which would permit financial incentives for employee participation in employer wellness programs so long as they remain at or below 30% of the total cost of employee-only coverage. As long as financial incentive remains at or below the 30% threshold, the wellness program is considered a lawful, voluntary medical exam under the ADA.

WIRTW #388 (the “queen of all the world” edition)

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:

It’s not illegal to give a negative job reference, but…

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.

Illustrating the importance of training your employees on the ADA

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.

NLRB updates its policy memo on e-signatures for union petitions

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.

Employers might not “like” this protected concerted activity decision

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.

WIRTW #387 (the “most messed up” edition)

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:

More on marijuana and off-duty conduct laws

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.

Don’t call the whole thing off when negotiating IP rights with employees

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.

Ohio’s attempt at an off-duty conduct law creates many more problems than it solves

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.

The other side of the coin on the appropriate response to harassment

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.

WIRTW #386 (the “onion” edition)

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.

• Impressive New Hire Figures Out Bare Minimum Of Work Job Requires On First Day
• Boss Able To Seamlessly Blend Constructive Criticism With Personal Attacks
• Company Flat-Out Asks Female Candidate How Much Mileage They Can Get Out Of Her Before She Has Baby
• Jeff Bezos Assures Amazon Employees That HR Working 100 Hours A Week To Address Their Complaints
• HR Director Reminds Employees That Any Crying Done At Office Must Be Work-Related
• HR Sends Out Reminder Email About Not Scrawling ‘Revenge’ In Blood In Conference Room

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

Compensable working time : FLSA :: Disability : Pre-2009 ADA

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)?

John Oliver on OSHA (and a not-so-subtle shout-out to my firm’s new OSHA blog)

On this week’s Last Week Tonight, John Oliver gives OSHA a pass on its slack investigations of North Dakota oil field accidents. He blames OSHA’s inactivity on its lack of resources coupled with the oil companies’ use of subcontracted employees.

Just because harassment is offensive doesn’t make it illegal

Clifford Harris is a practicing member of the Voodoo religion. His co-workers at Electro-Motive Diesel often expressed their opinion about his religion, calling him “crazy” and describing it as “evil”. (For what it’s worth, they might not have been that off base—Harris once got called into a meeting with his supervisor after he was accused of blowing Voodoo dust on a co-worker.)

Be careful what you email (yes, this is a lesson I need to keep repeating)

Two USERRA posts within four days? What is this world coming to?

In Arroyo v. Volvo Group North America (7th Cir. 10/6/15), the appellate court was faced with the issue of whether the district court correctly dismissed an Army Reservist’s USERRA lawsuit. Volvo claimed that it fired LuzMaria Arroyo for violations of its attendance policy. The court, however, thought that the following emails exchanged between her supervisors suggested otherwise:

• “I find myself with a dilemma if I were to discipline a person for taking too much time off for military reserve duty…. I certainly give her credit for serving our country but of course I am also responsible for our business needs.”
• “First, we do not have to grant time off for [Arroyo’s] travel time. Her legal obligation is 2 weeks per year, which we do give off, and 1 weekend per month. The drills she attended were most likely extra training, which we do not have to grant the time. We do not have to give extra time for her travel to and from her weekend duty. She does have the option to transfer to a closer unit, we cannot make her transfer.”
• “Unfortunately, there isn’t a lot we can do…. Per the law we have to wait for her. Sorry it isn’t what you wanted to hear.” (after her deployment to Baghdad.)
• “[Arroyo] is really becoming a pain with all this.”

WIRTW #385 (the “there’s no such thing as a free lunch…” edition)

Retailer Urban Outfitters is trying to new strategy to staff its fulfillment centers for the holiday season. It’s asking its salaried employees to work weekends. And, since they are already paid a salary, the work comes with the added bonus of no extra pay, but with a free lunch, and transportation (if needed).

A lesson on USERRA and military-status discrimination

The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act guarantees servicemembers the right to be free from discrimination in hiring, re-hiring or reinstatement, retention, promotion, or any benefit of employment on the basis of that membership, application for membership, performance of service, application for service, or obligation in the armed forces.

Intermittent leave for exempt employees: the survey results

Last week, I asked a simple question: should employer require salaried, exempt employees to take intermittent FMLA leave as unpaid leave, and deduct hours spent on leave from their pay.

Here are the results:

Beware blanket exclusion policies under the ADA

Nicholas Siewertsen, deaf since birth, sued The Worthington Steel Company, claiming that it discriminated against him when it banned him from performing any job requiring him to operate forklifts or cranes.

From the time of his hiring in 2001 until the ban in 2011, Siewertsen operated forklifts, overhead cranes, and other motorized equipment without incident. He communicated with his co-workers using a variety of techniques and tools, including written messages on notepads, computer programs and text messages, hand gestures, and limited speech. In 2011, however, the plan human resources manager learned, apparently for the first time, that the company had a corporate-wide policy against deaf employees driving forklifts. Without considering Siewertsen’s decade of on-the-job performance, the company disqualified him from his current position, and transferred him, without a demotion in pay, to one of four menial jobs in the plant that did not require the use of forklifts or cranes. Siewertsen sued, claiming that the company violated the ADA by applying the no-forklifts-for-deaf-employees policy, and transferring him to another position. (Even though the transfer did not result in a reduction in pay, Siewertsen claimed the new position lacked any opportunities for promotion or advancement within the company).

A stinker of an ADA lawsuit: employee claims illegal firing over excessive gas

A New Jersey pork roll manufacturer is accused of unlawfully firing an employee because of his excessive flatulence in the office. The Huffington Post has the details:

Announcing the launch of the Ohio OSHA Law blog

It’s with tremendous pride that I announce the launch of the Ohio OSHA Law blog. It is the second labor and employment blog published by Meyers, Roman, Friedberg & Lewis.

I like to think of myself as a blogging evangelist, and I am beyond pleased that my colleagues have picked up my blogging challenge.

For an agency as potentially devastating as OSHA can be for employers, OSHA often flies under the radar. Yet, all it takes is the complaint of one disgruntled employee, or one unpreventable injury, to bring an OSHA investigator your door. And, once they arrive, you can sure they won’t leave without telling you have to open your checkbook. The results of an investigation can be financially devastating. Click over to OSHA website for a snapshot of how high a citation can reach.

You need to educate yourself about OSHA, and bring your business into compliance before OSHA shows up at your door. So, do your business (and me) a favor and head over to OhioOSHAlaw.com for all of your workplace safety updates.

WIRTW #384 (the “survey” edition)

Have you taken my survey on FMLA intermittent leave and salaried exempt employees? If not, click here, and answer two short questions. Let’s see if this is a problem in need of a solution, or a non-issue.

Should you deduct from an exempt employee’s salary for intermittent FMLA? [survey]

Suppose you have a salaried, exempt employee. You pay that employee a fixed weekly salary, regardless of the number of hours he or she works. Some weeks the employee works 40 hours, some weeks the employee works 30 hours, and some weeks the employee works 60 hours. In the calculus of a weekly paycheck, the number of hours worked is irrelevant. A salary covers all hours worked in a week, whether it’s one hour or 100 hours.

Let’s further suppose this salaried, exempt employee submits a request, and is approved for, intermittent leave under the FMLA. It could be for the employee’s own serious health condition, or that of a family member. As a result, this salaried exempt employee starts taking an hour or two off per week for doctor’s appointments related to the serious health condition. Is that FMLA time-off paid or unpaid, for the salaried, exempt employee?

Independent contractors: everyone has an opinion

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:

1. Extent of control by employer
2. Whether the individual is engaged in a distinct occupation or business
3. Whether the work is usually done under the direction of the employer or by a specialist without supervision
4. Skill required in the occupation
5. Whether the employer or individual supplies the instrumentalities, tools, and place of work
6. Length of time for which individual is employed
7. Method of payment
8. Whether the work is part of the regular business of the employer
9. Whether the parties believe they are creating an independent-contractor relationship
10. Whether the principal is or is not in the business
11. Whether the evidence shows the individual is rendering services as an independent business

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.

Is digital “shunning” illegal retaliation?

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.

Does an employee have to be “disabled” to claim retaliation under the ADA?

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.

WIRTW #383 (the “iOS” edition)

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

• Alcoholism, Associational Discrimination, Retaliation, and Magic Words — via Understanding the Americans with Disabilities Act
• “Drawing the Line Between Civil and Religious Rights” — via How Appealing
• The Death of the Class-Action Lawsuit? — via The Nation
• Can a company regulate employee weight and appearance? — via Eric Meyer’s The Employer Handbook Blog
• What employers need to know about transgender discrimination — via EmployerLINC
• Is Your Federal Contracting Business Covered by OFCCP Affirmative Action Rules? — via Tim McConville’s Labor and Employment Law Cocktail
• What’s your boss allowed to ask when you call in sick? — via Ask a Manager

Social Media & Workplace Technology

• Facebook is expanding its workplace social network to hundreds of companies — via The Verge
• Justice Alito Says SCOTUS Is Clueless On New Tech, Which Makes Privacy Cases Even Harder — via Above the Law
• All Boards Need a Technology Expert — via Harvard Business Review
• New Key Terms for DoD’s New Cyber Security Regulations — via Privacy and Data Security Insight
• Did Volkswagen Violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act? — via Shear on Social Media Law
• All work and no smartphone play will dull your employees — via Ragan.com

HR & Employee Relations

• When terminating an employee, is a clean break better than a long limbo? — via Robin Shea’s Employment & Labor Insider
• Trusting Human Resources: A Fantasy or a Necessity? — via Dan Schwartz’s Connecticut Employment Law Blog
• The Pope’s visit is a magnificent case for teleworking — via Wonkblog
• Sweden Experiments with Six Hour Working Day — via Inhouse Blog
• Juggling Work and Family During School Holidays — via Fathers, Work, and Family
• Say goodbye to the “Mad Men” office: How workplace flexibility & paid leave can transform the way we work — via Salon
• Your Employee’s Former Employer Just Sued You????? — via The Emplawyerologist
• “At Will” Employment vs. Right to Self-Defense — via Phil Miles’s Lawffice Space

Wage & Hour

• Protecting the Sharing Economy: Creating an FLSA Dependent Contractor Status — via Doug Hass’s The Day Shift (p.s.: check out Doug’s new blog)
• Questions Answered About the Proposed FLSA Overtime Rule Change — via ERC Insights Blog
• Attempted self-help via internet leads to employer liability under the FLSA — via Employment Law Matters
• DOL to Pay $1.5 Million to Employer for Bad Faith Investigation — via Wage & Hour Insights

Labor Relations

• An Impractical and Dangerous Ruling — via New York Times
• Three Reasons Labor Unions Will Prevail — via Huffington Post
• “Union leaders are livid” — via Walter Olson’s Overlawyered
• NLRB Now Requires Companies to Give Most Employee Witness Statements to Unions — via Matt Austin Labor Law
• NLRB Now Publishing Election Tallies Online — via Labor Relations Today
• OUR Walmart fights … OUR Walmart? — via LaborPains

The time for your safety audit is now.

According to data released last week by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the number of workers killed on the job as a result of slips, trips, and falls rose in 2014 by nearly ten percent.

Here are some the key findings:

• The number of fatal work injuries in private goods-producing industries in 2014 was 9 percent higher than the revised 2013 count but slightly lower in private service-providing industries. Fatal injuries were higher in mining (up 17 percent), agriculture (up 14 percent), manufacturing (up 9 percent), and construction (up 6 percent). Fatal work injuries for government workers were lower (down 12 percent). 
• Falls, slips, and trips increased 10 percent to 793 in 2014 from 724 in 2013. This was driven largely by an increase in falls to a lower level to 647 in 2014 from 595 in 2013. 
• Fatal work injuries involving workers 55 years of age and over rose 9 percent to 1,621 in 2014 up from 1,490 in 2013. The preliminary 2014 count for workers 55 and over is the highest total ever reported. 
• After a sharp decline in 2013, fatal work injuries among self-employed workers increased 10 percent in 2014 from 950 in 2013 to 1,047 in 2014. 
• Women incurred 13 percent more fatal work injuries in 2014 than in 2013. Even with this increase, women accounted for only 8 percent of all fatal occupational injuries in 2014. 
• Fatal work injuries among Hispanic or Latino workers were lower in 2014, while fatal injuries among non-Hispanic white, black or African-American, and Asian workers were all higher. 
• In 2014, 797 decedents were identified as contracted workers, 6 percent higher than the 749 fatally-injured contracted workers reported in 2013. Workers who were contracted at the time of their fatal injury accounted for 17 percent of all fatal work injury cases in 2014. 

So, we know that workplace fatalities are on the rise? What does this mean for your business? It means that now is the time for you to get your workplace-safety house in order. You are (god forbid) one fatality, serious injury, employee complaint, or planned investigation away from an visit from your friendly neighborhood OSHA investigator. 

Do you want to know what your safety programs look like before OSHA shows up at your door? Do you want the comfort of knowing that your OSHA logs and safety training material are in order, and that your safety low-hanging fruit (guarding, lock-out/tag-out, fall protection, PPE, etc.) is handled? 

If so, consider the current time (when OSHA is not in your facility) as borrowed time. Use this borrow time wisely to audit all of your safety practices. It could mean a difference of tens, or even hundreds, of thousands of dollars in fines. Time and money well spent, if you ask me.

The difference between what is "legal" and what is "right"

In McGowan v. Medpace, an Ohio appellate court dismissed an ex-employee’s wrongful discharge lawsuit. The employee—a former executive director—claimed that she was fired in retaliation for reporting concerns about her predecessor’s prescription-writing practices, which she alleged constituted insurance fraud and compromised patient safety. The court, however, concluded that regardless whether the retaliation occurred, it did not permit her to pursue a lawsuit for wrongful discharge. According to the court, under Ohio law, to support a wrongful discharge claim one cannot rely on a public policy unless it imposed an affirmative duty on an employee to report a violation, prohibited an employer from retaliating against an employee who had reported a violation, or protected the public’s health and safety. The court concluded that none of Dr. McGowan’s alleged public policies met those criteria, and, therefore, she lost.

That’s the legal analysis. Some would say that the employer won on a technicality. I prefer to call it high-quality lawyering. Whatever your take, what is clear is that whether the retaliation occurred was irrelevant to the decision. 

Employers, do not read this case as a licence to retaliate. Instead, let it stand for a deeper, more meaningful lesson. Just because the law permits something does not make it right. Strive to be better than the law’s floor, if not because it is the right thing to do, then because this case could have just as easily gone another way with a different court or different panel of this court. Justice is fickle. Do right by your employees and, more often than not, everything else falls into place. Just because the law makes it legal doesn’t mean the law makes it right, right?

What are biggest legal questions facing employers?

Last week, Employment Law 360 ran a four-part series discussing the four biggest issues facing employment lawyers across four different categories: Discrimination, Wage and Hour, Labor, and Class Actions (sub. req.).

It’s hard to disagree with any of the articles’ assessments or conclusions. It got me thinking, though, if those are the biggest issues facing employment lawyers, what are the biggest issues facing employers?

I think these issues fall into two over-arching categories:

1. What is work?
2. Who is an employee?

“What is work” does not just fall under the wage-and-hour umbrella. Yes, it is important under the FLSA to understand the compensable nature of working time, and how technology, like off-the-clock emails and smartphone use, impacts this question. Equally, if not more important, however, is the issue of the location of work, and the flexible work schedules, telecommuting, and work-life-balance implications of this question. If technology has freed us from the shackles of a four-walled office and nine-to-five time clock, does it also mean that technology has stretched the workplace to anywhere and the workday to anytime? And, with this “freedom”, should not employers be more lenient with time off, paid or unpaid.

“Who is an employee” is equally important. I’m not just talking about the FLSA implications of employee vs. independent contractor, or employee vs. intern. I’m also talking about the potential for joint-employer liability under the NLRA, Title VII, OSHA, and other statues. And, don't forget the ongoing debate over whether Title VII protects LGBT workers.

So, readers, what say you? What are the most important workplace legal issues facing you and your businesses? Leave a comment below, or tweet me @jonhyman with the hashtag #BiggestEmployerIssue

Union organizing as a protected class? Worst … idea … EVER

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?

• Triple the back pay to employees fired or retaliated against for engaging in protected concerted activity.
• Provide employees with a private right of action to bring suit to recover monetary damages and attorneys’ fees in federal district court, in addition to injunctive relief.  
• Clarify that joint employers are jointly responsible for violations affecting workers supplied by another employer.
• Establish civil penalties up to $50,000 for employers that commit unfair labor practices, with double penalties for repeat violations.
• Impose individual liability for employer violators on officers and directors. 
• Allow the NLRB to issue a bargaining order upon finding that an employer prevented a free and fair election, provided that a majority of employees signed authorization cards within the previous 12 months.

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.

WIRTW #382 (the “bloodletting” edition)

This past weekend, my kids had their triannual School of Rock performances. Norah performed in the “Left of the Dial” show, singing and strumming the 80s pre-Nirvana alt groove. Not to be outdone, Donovan made his stage debut playing keyboards in the Rock 101 band (with Big Sis backing him on the drums).

A few observations.

1. I’m not sure where they came from, but Norah’s got a set of pipes and is quickly learning how to use them.
2. Donovan might not have music in his future, but, as you’ll see, the kid’s got stage presence.
3. Having never taken a drum lesson, Norah did herself proud behind the kit for two songs.

With that preface, let’s go to the tape.

Norah bringing down the house, singing Concrete Blonde’s “Bloodletting”

Donovan causing tears of joy with his dance moves and backing vocals

If you’re inclined, you can watch the entire 12-song Left of the Dial set here.

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

Discrimination

• The Kim Davis Story: When Religion Clashes with Job Requirements — via ERC HR Insights Blog
• Court Rulings Reiterate that Employers Should Review and Revise Best Practices for Drug-Free Workplace Programs — via Laconic Law Blog
• Reassignment As A Reasonable Accommodation Under The ADA — via Employment Essentials
• And a happy #$%!&;!*! new year to you, too! — via Robin Shea’s Employment & Labor Insider
• “Drawing the Line Between Civil and Religious Rights” — via How Appealing

Social Media & Workplace Technology

• Facebook is expanding its workplace social network to hundreds of companies — via The Verge
• Hackers Are Coming After Your Private Data — via Technologist

HR & Employee Relations

• How to Reinvent the Employee Handbook — via Evil HR Lady, Suzanne Lucas
• New Push in Congress to Pass a Nationwide Ban the Box Law — via TLNT
• The Caregiving Challenge — via U.S. Department of Labor Blog
• Work-Life Policies Payoff Isn’t Overnight — via Families and Work Institute Blog
• How to Raise Awareness About Mental Health in Your Workplace — via Blogging4Jobs
• Questions That Employers Should Avoid During The Hiring Process — via Minnesota Employer
• Your Employee’s Former Employer Just Sued You????? — via The Emplawyerologist

Wage & Hour

• The pesky FLSA implications of the Papal visit — via Eric Meyer’s Employer Handbook Blog
• USDOL Delays Its “Companionship”, “Live-In Domestic” Enforcement — via Wage and Hour Laws Blog
• DOL: Pay Discussions Protected Under Rules — via Joe’s HR and Benefits Blog
• Eighth Circuit Splits The Baby In Permitting FMLA Claims To Proceed — via The Employment Brief

Labor Relations

• National Labor Relations Board Asserts Jurisdiction over Religious Educational Institutions — via Matt Austin Labor Law
• DOL Pimping Unions — via Labor Relations Institute

Leave policies should apply equally across genders … but must they?

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.

Reminder: You cannot decide when a pregnant employee can and cannot work

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.

Is anyone still using unpaid interns?

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):

1. The extent to which the intern and the employer clearly understand that there is no expectation of compensation. Any promise of compensation, express or implied, suggests that the intern is an employee—and vice versa.
2. The extent to which the internship provides training that would be similar to that which would be given in an educational environment, including the clinical and other hands-on training provided by educational institutions.
3. The extent to which the internship is tied to the intern’s formal education program by integrated coursework or the receipt of academic credit.
4. The extent to which the internship accommodates the intern’s academic commitments by corresponding to the academic calendar.
5. The extent to which the internship’s duration is limited to the period in which the internship provides the intern with beneficial learning.
6. The extent to which the intern’s work complements, rather than displaces, the work of paid employees while providing significant educational benefits to the intern.
7. The extent to which the intern and the employer understand that the internship is conducted without entitlement to a paid job at the conclusion of the internship.

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.

Time off for religious holidays

Today is Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year, which means that many Jewish employees are taking the day off. Is an employer obligated, however, to grant a request for time off when requested for a religious observance?

Title VII requires an employer to reasonably accommodate an employee whose sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance conflicts with a work requirement, unless doing so would pose an undue hardship. An accommodation would pose an undue hardship if it would cause more than de minimis cost on the operation of the employer’s business. Factors relevant to undue hardship may include the type of workplace, the nature of the employee’s duties, the identifiable cost of the accommodation in relation to the size and operating costs of the employer, and the number of employees who will in fact need a particular accommodation.

Scheduling changes, voluntary substitutions, and shift swaps are all common accommodations for employees who need time off from work for a religious practice. It is typically considered an undue hardship to impose these changes on employees involuntarily. However, the reasonable accommodation requirement can often be satisfied without undue hardship where a volunteer with substantially similar qualifications is available to cover, either for a single absence or for an extended period of time.

In other words, permitting Jewish employees a day off for Rosh Hashanah, and next week for Yom Kippur, may impose an undue hardship, depending on the nature of the work performed, the employee’s duties, and how many employees will need the time off. Employees can agree to move shifts around to cover for those who need the days off, but employers cannot force such scheduling changes.

In plain English, there might be ways around granting a day or two off for a Jewish employee to observe the holidays, but do you want to risk the inevitable lawsuit? For example, it will be difficult to assert that a day off creates an undue hardship if you have a history of permitting days off for medical or other reasons.

Legalities aside, however, this issue asks a larger question. What kind of employer do you want to be? Do you want to be a company that promotes tolerance or fosters exclusion? The former will help create the type of environment that not only mitigates against religious discrimination, but spills over into the type of behavior that helps prevent unlawful harassment and other liability issues.

WIRTW #381 (the “sensational inspirational celebrational” edition)

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

• Judge Titus Channels Inner Kenny Rogers in $1 Million EEOC Rebuke — via Employee Screen IQ
• Firing an employee for complaining on Facebook about discrimination = retaliation — via Eric Meyer's The Employer Handbook Blog
• Workplace religious accommodation, cont’d — via Walter Olson's Overlawyered
• Yes, employers may have to accommodate even “crazy” religious beliefs. — via Robin Shea's Employment & Labor Insider
• Be careful what you ask on pre-employment tests to avoid a multimillion dollar EEOC action — via Employer Law Report

Social Media & Workplace Technology

• Employee Shows Genitals to Co-Workers: Litigation Follows — via All in a Day’s Work
• Tool or distraction? Examining pros, cons of tech at work — via Technology for HR
• 7 ways to make internal comments work for you — via Ragan.com
• Future Friday: The world of work and the Internet of Things — via Next Blog

HR & Employee Relations

• Tom Brady Fallout—When Employees Win — via Employment Discrimination Report
• The Challenges Of Identifying Potential Workplace Violence — via NPR
• Eight Years Later: Three Big Changes in Employment Law — via Dan Schwartz's Connecticut Employment Law Blog
• 5 Ways To Make Yourself a Target Via Your Hiring Decisions — via The HR Capitalist, Kris Dunn
• Handbook Apocalypse! — via HR Professionals Magazine

Wage & Hour

• Is Amazon the Scapegoat in the Debate on Employee Leave Entitlements? What's the Lesson Here for Employers? — via Jeff Nowak's FMLA Insights
• Northeast Ohio Businesses Are Adjusting to the Changing Workplace, ERC Survey Finds — via ERC Insights Blog
• Is the Nine to Five Dying? — via Workplace Insights

Labor Relations

• NLRB Provides Newly-Certified Unions with Roadmap for Bringing Unfair Labor Practice Charges — via Matt Austin Labor Law
• DOL Pimping Unions — via Labor Relations Institute 
• Why women may be the new face of labor unions — via CBS News
• Get Ready for Even Quicker ‘Quickie’ Elections—NLRB Abandons Requirement for Signed Authorization Cards — via LE Blog

BMW settles EEOC background-check lawsuit for a cool $1.6 mil

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).