WIRTW #465 (the “gimme a break” edition)

Next week, I am taking a much needed break, as I will be out of the office. I’ll see everyone back on June 19. Of course, now that I’ve committed not to blog next week, the employment-law poop will certainly hit the fan next week, in which case my blogger OCD will compel me to break my pledge, interrupt my trip, and bring you all the news that’s fit to blog. Either way.

Here’s what I read this week:

DOL pulls Obama-era guidance on joint employment and independent contractors

The past two years have been busy for the Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division. One can directly track a large part of its busy workload to its enlargement of who qualifies as an “employer” under the Fair Labor Standards Act. In 2015, the DOL issued guidance re-defining, and broadening the definition of, who qualifies as an “independent contractor”. And, the following year, the DOL did the same with its definition of “joint employer”.

Alex Acosta, the newly appointed Secretary of Labor, looks to roll back the clock on these interpretations.

Next up on the EEOC’s radar: age discrimination

This year, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act turns 50. Which means the law itself has been protected from age discrimination for a decade (rim shot).

To mark the law’s golden anniversary, the EEOC next week will hold a public meeting, “The ADEA @ 50 - More Relevant Than Ever.” According to the EEOC, “The meeting will explore the state of age discrimination in America today and the challenges it poses for the future.”

R-E-S-P-E-C-T (just a little bit)

I ain’t gonna do you wrong while you’re gone
Ain’t gonna do you wrong ‘cause I don’t wanna
All I’m askin’
Is for a little respect

– Aretha Franklin, “Respect”

Yesterday, my friend and fellow blogger (with whom I tend to agree most of the time), Suzanne Lucas (aka Evil HR Lady), posted an article about which I could not agree more, Why You Should Rarely Fight an Unemployment Claim.

A contrary (and common sense) appellate view on rude employees and the NLRA

It’s been six weeks since I reported on NLRB v. Pier Sixty, in which the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals held that the National Labor Relations Act protected the profanity-laced Facebook rant of a disgruntled employee. I have hoped that Pier Sixty is an aberration. Thankfully, last week the 1st Circuit came along with a well reasoned contrarian view in a case in which the alleged employee misconduct was much less severe.

WIRTW #464 (the “school’s out…” edition)

One of the elements of my kids’ school that I like most is that the curriculum provides many opportunities for public speaking at every grade level. Each of mine had their separate chance to exhibit their comfort in front of crowd during the last week of school.

The importance of an anti-harassment culture

I came across an interesting article at the Harvard Business Review—The Omissions That Make So Many Sexual Harassment Policies Ineffective. The article starts with a simple question. “If 98% of organizations in the United States have a sexual harassment policy, why does sexual harassment continue to be such a persistent and devastating problem in the American workplace?”

When is a settlement not a settlement? FLSA

When you settle a lawsuit with an employee, you are bargaining for finality. You are paying that employee to resolve all disputes between you, whether asserted or unasserted. You want to be done with that individual forever.

Except that is not always the case.

6th Circuit joins the battle over class-action waivers

There has been much judicial and administrative ink spilled over the past few years over whether the National Labor Relations Act permits employers to require employees to give up their rights to litigate or arbitrate class or collective actions. This issue is one of the most important issues facing employers, which have  looked to class-action and collective-action waivers as an important weapon to fight to scourge of wage and hour litigation. 

Last week, in NLRB v. Alternative Entertainment [pdf], the 6th Circuit joined the battle. 

WIRTW #463 (the “so special” edition)

This weekend is a big one for Norah. Today, she graduates from 5th grade and walks across the quad to become a middle schooler. And tomorrow, she turns 11. I think she’s more excited than usual about this birthday, because 10 was not her favorite year. Let’s just say that she and preteen girl-drama have not mixed well, and some have gone out of their way to make her feel less than special. (and, yes, I realize that the drama is only going to get worse).

Which is why I legit teared up this past weekend when she sang, “Brass in Pocket” by The Pretenders.

When equal pay is not “equal” pay

The Equal Pay Act requires that an employer pay its male and female employees equal pay for equal work. The jobs need not be identical, but they must be substantially equal, and substantial equality is measured by job content, not job titles. This Act is a strict liability law, which means that intent does not matter. If a women is paid less than male for substantially similar work, then the law has been violated, regardless of the employer’s intent.

This strict liability, however, does not mean that pay disparities always equal liability. The EPA has several built-in defenses, including when the pay differential was “based on any other factor other than sex.” So, what happens if two comparable employees, one male and one female, come to you with different salary histories. Does the Equal Pay Act require that you gross up a lower earning female to match the salary of a higher paid male, or do the mere disparate prior salaries justify the pay disparity under the Equal Pay Act?

Federal court breaks new ground with transgender disability discrimination claim

The ADA expressly excludes from its coverage “transvestism, transsexualism, … [and] gender identity disorders not resulting from physical impairments….”

Thus, it should be an easy call for a court to dismiss a lawsuit in which an employee, born a male but who identifies and presents as a female, alleges disability discrimination because of her gender identity disorder.

Right?

I still despise the misnamed and overused phrase “wage theft”

Writing at Inc.com, Suzanne Lucas (aka Evil HR Lady) reports on a study published by the Economics Policy Institute, which says that employers short their employees $15 billion in wages per year. According to Suzanne, “Wage theft isn’t always the case of a corrupt boss attempting to take advantage of employees.” She is 100 percent correct. In fact, most instances of an employer not paying an employee all he or she is owed under the law results from our overly complex and anachronistic wage and hour laws, not a malicious skinflint of a boss intentionally stealing from workers.

The National Labor Relations Act protects the rights of non-employees under other statutes‽

In MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC (5/16/17) [pdf], a two-member majority of the National Labor Relations Board held that an employer violated section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act when it banned from its property an ex-employee who had filed against it a wage/hour collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Let me pause for a second to let this sink in.

WIRTW #462 (the “those were the days” edition)

I write a lot about music (particularly for a legal blog), which means that if you are any sort of regular reader, you read a lot about music. What can I say? You write what you know. I we do a lot of music in my house. Between my two kids we have three bands, three weekly lessons, three rehearsals, and gigs, gigs, and more gigs (including three this weekend).

Much of my writing about music is about my favorite band, Old 97’s. And, I don’t apologize for it. Yes, I love their music, and their songs, and how damn good they are live. But I also love who they are, as noted by this clip from their Cleveland show last week.


Who else gets a shout-out from the stage in the middle of a concert? Norah, that’s who. I can only assume she’s learning and will pay it all back when she’s famous some day.

(Bonus, check out Nicole Atkins, who we knew very little about before last week, and she converted us all to huge fans with one 40-minute opening set).

Here’s what I read this week:

The 10th nominee for the “worst employer of 2017” is … guess who?

Let’s play a game. Close you eyes and imagine. Imagine you’re the CEO of a company. And let’s also imagine your VP of HR is investigating a former executive of the company (who happens to be close friend and confidant of yours) for illegal or unethical conduct. And imagine that you privately ask said VP of HR, on the down-low, if maybe he can give your good-guy buddy a pass and end his investigation.

Is your non-compete agreement killing a fly with a sledgehammer?

At least half of my legal practice is serving as outside labor-and-employment counsel for small to midsize businesses. And, increasingly, much of that practice is consumed with drafting post-employment covenants, sending cease-and-desist letters to employees who are in violation of said covenants, or filing lawsuits to enforce said covenants; or, conversely, advising a business whether it can hire an employee with a non-compete agreement, responding to cease-and-desist letters, or defending a lawsuit seeking to enforce said covenants.

A better take on what creates a hostile work environment

Last week, I nominated Target Corporation and MarketSource for the worst employer of 2017, because they ignored the approximately 10 incidents of vile ethnic harassment a Palestinian employee suffered during the brief two month tenure of his employment. Almost as bad was the logic of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, which concluded that, as matter of law, the employee failed to state a claim for ethnic harassment because the “morally repulsive” comments “were not physically threatening.”

Some courts, however, do get this issue correct. Case in point? The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, in Ahmed v. Astoria Bank (5/9/17) [pdf].

WannaCry? Then ignore cybersecurity

Friday, the largest cyber-attack in history hit 150 different countries. The ransomware, known as WannaCry, infects via a link in a malicious email, encrypts the local files, and spreads to other computers. It then demands a ransom of $300 in bitcoin for the unlock key. 

What can, should, and must you do, immediately, to protect your business? For starters, ensure that all computers are patched to the latest Windows update (Mac computers are unaffected). 

WIRTW #461 (the “Nörha’s School of Music” edition)

I love my kids’ school. Each year, the 5th grade math class ends with what is known as the “Million Dollar Project.” Each student is given a hypothetical million dollars to open the business of their choice. The students must research what is needed to open the chosen business and the associated costs, and then draft a budget to spend the million. Naturally, Norah chose a rock music school.

In addition to the research and the budget, each student must present their business to the class. Norah chose to present hers via a commercial, which I am proud to say she filmed, directed, and edited all on her own (with only minimal help from Dad on the ins and outs of how to actually use iMovie).

Enjoy.

Here’s what I read this week:

Critical employer law reforms move forward in Ohio House

Yesterday, Ohio House Bill 2, favorably reported out of the House Economic Development, Commerce, and Labor Committee. This is the important first legislative step to getting this bill passed and enacting necessary changes to Ohio’s employment discrimination law. HB 2 now moves onto consideration by the full House.

You can read all of the details at the Ohio Chamber’s All for Ohio Blog, including the key provisions of the legislation, and, most importantly, why the bill’s opponents shifted their stance to “neutral.” With opposition moving out of the way, I am cautiously optimistic that HB 2 will become law this legislative session. Stay tuned.

The 9th nominee for the “worst employer of 2017” is … the harassment ignorer

I was going to blog this morning about President Trump’s firing of FBI Director James Comey, and how, if you’re a CEO, and your company is investigating you for some misconduct (or even worse, potential illegal activity) related to your job, it’s bigly not good to fire the person leading the investigation, no matter the excuse you trump up.

Instead, however, today’s nominees are Target Corporation and MarketSource, (which operates mobile-phone kiosks in Target stores). Why do they make my list? Take a look at Abdel-Ghani v. Target Corp. (8th Cir. 5/5/17) [pdf].

Celebrating a decade of the Ohio Employer’s Law Blog

This is why it matters who runs the NLRB

In NLRB v. J. Weingarten, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court held that employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement may request the presence of a union representative during an investigatory interview that the employee reasonably believes may result in disciplinary action. In the 42 years hence, the Board has vacillated on the issue of whether Weingarten rights also extend to non-union employees. For example, in 2000, in Epilepsy Foundation of Northeast Ohio [pdf], the Clinton-era Board found that employees in non-union settings have Weingarten rights to a coworker representative during investigatory interviews. More recently, however, the Bush-era Board, in IBM Corp., concluded the exact opposite, that, in light of certain policy considerations, the Board would no longer find that employees in non-union workplaces have the right to a coworker representative.

Which brings us to 2017.

WIRTW #460 (the “my favorite week of the year” edition)

This week is my favorite week of the year, because five nights from now I’ll be standing front and center at the Beachland Ballroom watching the Old 97’s. Yes, I know I’m a fanboy. And you know what? I don’t care. I’ve come to grips with it. I can’t wait to hear live for the first time most of their latest release, Graveyard Whistling, including this destined to be classic, “Jesus Loves You”.


Come see what all the fuss is about. Tickets are only $20, and, for now are still available, but will sell out before the lights dim Wednesday night. And, if you’re not in Cleveland, please support these guys by checking them out when they come through your town, this spring, summer, or beyond.

---

Update: Earlier this week, the House passed the Working Families Flexibility Act. Much of the press surrounding this bill frames it as a law that will take away overtime pay from employees. Click here to read why this spin is flat out wrong (hint: an employer cannot force comp time on any employee, and an employee must agree, in writing, to accept comp time in lieu of overtime pay).

---

Here’s what I read this week:

6th Circuit says you can’t spell “cat’s paw” without F-M-L-A

It’s been six year since the Supreme Court decided, in Staub v. Proctor Hosp., which validated the “cat’s paw” as a valid theory of liability in discrimination cases. The “cat’s paw” seeks to hold an employer liable for the discriminatory animus of an employee who played no role in the decision, but nevertheless exerted some degree of influence over the ultimate decision maker.

An open issue in Staub‘s wake is whether other employment laws also apply the cat’s paw. For example, what about the FMLA? In Marshall v. The Rawlings Co. (4/20/17), the 6th Circuit concluded that the cat’s paw does apply in FMLA retaliation cases.

10 key elements of any data security policy to safeguard your company

Yesterday, I told you that small businesses (less than 250 employees) suffered 31 percent of last year’s cyberattacks. What can you do to best protect your business (of any size) to repel an attack? Let me introduce you to the Data Security Policy, an essential component of any employee handbook now, and likely forever.

What should an effective Data Security Policy contain? Consider 1) consulting with a knowledgeable cybersecurity attorney; and 2) including these 10 components (c/o me, Travelers, and the U.S. Small Business Association):

If you think your small business isn’t at risk for cybercrime, think again

If you’ve ever spoken or though the words, “We’re too small to worry about a cyberattack,” you’d better think again.

According to a recent study, 31 percent of all cyberattacks in 2016 were directed at companies with less than 250 employees.

Do I now have your attention? 

Wait, an employer can’t fire an employee on FMLA leave caught on Facebook on vacation?

Actual firing Facebook photo

Suppose you have an employee who takes FMLA leave for rotator-cuff surgery. Let’s say during said FMLA leave, you discover that the employee is vacationing on a Caribbean island. And, further suppose that you discover this employee’s island vacay via his own public Facebook posts, which included photos of him on the beach, posing by a boat wreck, and in the ocean. Or, more accurately the employee’s co-workers saw the photos and ratted him out to management.

So, what do you do?

WIRTW #459 (the “weeps” edition)

How did I not know this was a thing? Last summer, The Beatles released a remix of my favorite song of theirs, “While My Guitar Gently Weeps”. It commemorates the 10th anniversary of Cirque du Soleil’s Beatles’ show, LOVE (an absolute must-do if you find yourself in Vegas). The new arrangement is the final work of legendary Beatles’ produced George Martin before his passing.

(For what’s it’s worth, I prefer what many consider the definitive version of this song—from George Harrison’s 2004 induction into the Rock Hall—performed with zero Beatles, one spawn of Beatles, two Traveling Wilburys, and one beautiful and blistering Prince guitar solo—The New York Times has a wonderful account of that performance here).

Here’s what I read this week:

The top 6 employee handbook mistakes

Yesterday, I had a pleasure of presenting a webinar for The Builder’s Exchange: The Top 6 Employee Handbook Mistakes. For your viewing pleasure and educational enlightenment, I’ve embedded it below.

  The Top 6 Employee Handbook Mistakes

Congrats to Philip Miscimarra on his appointment as NLRB Chair

I’m on record as calling Philip Miscimarra “mad as hell,” referring to his scathing dissents in recent NLRB protected concerted activity cases. I also have it on good authority that while he and I agree that the NLRB has gone off the proverbial reservation in these cases, he is not, in fact, mad as hell.

Be that as it may, he has every reason today to be as happy as he can be.

2nd Circuit holds that it’s perfectly okay for an employee to curse out his boss on Facebook (NSFW)

It’s been two years since the NLRB determined that section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act protected an employee’s profanity laced Facebook rant simply because he ended it with a pro union message. I held out hope that the court of appeals would see the folly in the decision and send a clear message to employees and employers that such misconduct remains a terminable offense. NLRB v. Pier Sixty (2nd Cir. 4/21/17) [pdf] dashed that hope.

National origin discrimination laws don’t matter in Trump’s America

Last week, President Trump signed his “Buy American, Hire American“ Executive Order. The EO encourages American businesses to buy American-made products and hire American workers.

Come again? Does that say hire American workers? Doesn’t Title VII prohibit national origin discrimination?

Yes, Title VII still prohibits national origin discrimination. And, no, this Executive Order does nothing to change Title VII’s impact. But the manner in which the White House is promoting this EO is … curiously disturbing.

WIRTW #458 (the “update” edition)

Two stories I’ve recently covered—Fox News’s Bill O’Reilly sex harassment problem and Ernest Angley’s wage-and-hour problem—had pretty significant updates this week.

• Fox News (finally) fired Bill O’Reilly.
• Earnest Angley closed his buffet, which had for years illegally used the services of unpaid volunteers and child labor. Looks like he finally found something he could not save.

Who says there’s no justice in this world?

Here’s what else I read this week:

Working Families Flexibility Act seeks to legalize comp time in lieu of overtime

If you are a private employer, it is 100 percent illegal for you to provide employees comp time in lieu of overtime for hours worked by non-exempt employees over 40 in a work week. If a non-exempt employee works overtime, you must pay them overtime, and you violate the FLSA if you provide comp time in its place.

The Working Families Flexibility Act, introduced earlier this year in Congress, seeks to change this rule.

6th Circuit tees up decision on LGBT discrimination coverage under Title VII

The 6th Circuit is currently considering whether Title VII’s definition of “sex discrimination”.

EEOC v. R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes alleges that the funeral home fired its funeral director because she is transgender and transitioning from male to female. The Eastern District of Michigan concluded that Title VII does not expressly cover LGTB discrimination, and limited the sex discrimination claim to a sexual stereotyping claim.

The bar for what qualifies as unlawful harassment in the 4th Circuit is pretty damn high

How high is the bar for what qualifies as unlawful sexual harassment in the 4th Circuit? Pretty damn high, if you ask me. Consider that in Wilson v. Gaston County [pdf], the Court concluded that the following misconduct did not entitle the plaintiff to a jury trial on her sexual harassment claim:

2nd Circuit provides plan for employers to win misclassification cases

In Saleem v. Corporate Transportation Group (2nd Cir. 4/12/17) [pdf], the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals considered whether a company properly classified a group of black-car taxi drivers as independent contractors, or whether it should have classified them as employees. In ruling for the company, the court gifted employers a game plan to use when classifying workers to minimize risk in making the key determination of whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor.

WIRTW #457 (the “sad clown” edition)

You say you want to see a sad clown sing a mashup of The Who’s “Pinball Wizard” to the tune of Johnny Cash’s “Folsom Prison Blues”? I’ve got you covered. Ladies and gentlemen, Puddles Pity Party.


Here’s what I read this week:

6th Circuit avoids key legal issue, but still absolves union of harassment liability

Samuel Gompers, founder of the AFL, wrote that “[w]herever trade unions are most firmly organized, there are the rights of the people most respected.” But Gompers wasn’t quite right if Tanganeka Phillips’s claims are true; she alleges that one of the largest unions in North America discriminated against her on the basis of race.

When a judicial opinion starts out with a quote such as this, it’s usually not a good sign for the defendant, unless you happen to be the United Auto Workers, the defendant in Phillips v. UAW Int’l (6th Cir. 4/12/17) [pdf], which walked away from some pretty bad allegations of racial harassment.

Communicating with employees is key when a PR crisis strikes

Lots has been said about how United Airlines mishandled violently dragging a passenger from an overbooked flight. And none of it is good. Yet, make no mistake, how United CEO Oscar Munoz communicated with his company’s employees immediately following the incident did not do anything to make it any better.

United CEO email to employees obtained by ABC's @Shahriar44R: "there are lessons we can learn from this experience" pic.twitter.com/N1TbohuRc3

— Michael Del Moro (@MikeDelMoro) April 10, 2017

Bill O’Reilly and Fox News teach us how not to ignore workplace harassment

Bill O’Reilly’s (alleged) lewd comments and inappropriate come-ons may have finally caught up to him and his employer, Fox News. I don’t, however, want to focus my attention on the salacious allegations, which are just that, allegation. Instead, I’d like to focus on Fox News’s response to the allegations, as to why it has so dragged its feet to do anything in response.

I’ll let John Oliver explain only as he can.

Promotion after protected activity dooms employees retaliation claim

What does unlawful retaliation not look like? Burton v. Board of Regents of Univ. of Wisc. Sys. (7th Cir. 3/17/17) offers a good example.

WIRTW #456 (the “new music Friday” edition)

I’m always on the lookout for new bands. This week brings us a good one—Diet Cig, whose debut album drops today. Enjoy.


Here’s what I read this week:

A lesson on workplace posters from, of all places, Homeland

If you’re on Homeland, and operating a covert, CIA backed, sock-puppet misinformation operation, where do you hang your workplace posters? In your interrogation room, of course.

State and federal laws require that all employers have posters conspicuously placed in the workplace. 

7th Circuit historically holds that Title VII expressly bans LGBT discrimination

If you spend any time reading or watching the news today, you will inevitably encounter much about the 7th Circuit’s historic (and correct, in my opinion) decision in Hivley v. Ivy Tech Community College [pdf]. You can read the background of this case here.

The court expressly held that “a person who alleges that she experienced employment discrimination on the basis of her sexual orientation has put forth a case of sex discrimination for Title VII purposes.” Hivley now stands in direct contradiction to the opinion of the 11th Circuit in Evans v. Georgia Regional Hosp., which sets up this issue for a showdown in the Supreme Court.

The adverse action standard for retaliation is low (but not this low)

The legal standard for an “adverse action” to support a claim for workplace retaliation is pretty low. How low? According to the Supreme Court, an adverse action sufficient to support a claim for retaliation is any action that would dissuade a reasonable worker from complaining about discrimination.

But, is does it reach this low? In Bien-Aime v. Equity Residential (S.D.N.Y. 2/22/17), a federal court concluded that two managers’ general rudeness towards the plaintiff, which started only after the plaintiff filed a civil rights complaint, stood as a sufficient adverse action to support his retaliation claim.

Job descriptions count (but not as much as you think) in ADA cases

Donald Bush worked as a chef manager for Compass Group. According his written job description, his duties included routinely lifting more than 10 pounds. Bush informed his employer that he suffered from rapidly progressing cervical/thoracic spondylosis (a degenerative back condition), and requested a transfer to a less physically demanding job. Ultimately, Compass Group fired him because his illness prevented him from heavy lifting of over 50 pounds.

So, who wins Bush’s disability discrimination claim? Bush (based on the 10 pound limit in his job description), or Compass Group (based on its estimation of the practical realities of his job’s lifting requirements)?

WIRTW #455 (the “God’s not in the restaurant biz” edition)

Two years ago I reported on a lawsuit the DOL filed against Akron, Ohio, televangelist Ernest Angley, alleging he employed unpaid volunteers in his church’s for-profit buffet restaurant. The judgment is in, and it’s not good news for Mr. Angley. U.S. District Judge Benita Pearson, in a scathing opinion [pdf], has ordered him and his church to pay employees more than $388,000 in damages (half for unpaid wages and half for liquidated damages).

Reverend Angley would suggest that Church members had an obligation to provide their labor to the Buffet, in service to God, and that a failure to offer their labor to the Buffet … would be the same as failing God. … Reverend Angley would thus coerce Church members into agreeing to volunteer at the Buffet. …  Reverend Angley thus used “scare tactics/bullying” and made “people feel bad” for not working at the Buffet. … Reverend Angley preached that he was God’s prophet, and saying “no” to Angley would be tantamount to saying “no” directly to God. … Reverend Angley also preached that repeatedly saying “no” to God or failing God ultimately leads to a person “blaspheming against the Holy Ghost,” which meant that the individual’s connection to God has been lost and was irredeemable. … 

The Buffet is a commercial, for-profit institution in competition with a number of other commercial eateries in its immediate vicinity. … Defendants stress the alleged religious purpose served by the Buffet and its ability to provide low-cost meals. … But they undoubtedly achieve those low prices, at least in part, by circumventing wage laws and maintaining a workforce that is largely unpaid. … Indeed, Reverend Angley admitted that the Buffet reverted to using volunteers as a cost-saving measure. … 

Seems like the correct result to me.

Here’s what else I read this week:

Social media may distract employees, but should we care?

I posted this from work yesterday

Earlier this week, I asked when employees will learn that online comments can, and will, be used against them. There is another half to the workplace-social-media equation—employers, who have the task of regulating their employees’ use of social media, which happens more and more in the workplace.

Yesterday, Cleveland reporter Olivia Perkins discussed a recent survey, which found that nearly 90 percent of employees access personal social media accounts at work, to varying degrees of distraction.

New surveys reveal that most employees favor paid leave and flexible schedules

America remains the only industrialized nation that doesn’t mandate some level of paid maternity and/or family leave for employees. Meanwhile, while the FMLA provides 12 weeks of unpaid leave, many will tell you that benefit is woefully inadequate for employees. Indeed, more than 40 percent of employees are not covered by the FMLA and are not eligible to take FMLA leave.

http://dilbert.com/strip/2013-05-10

Thus, the results of a recent survey conducted by the Pew Research Center should surprise few.

When will employees learn that online comments can, and will, be used against them?

Business in the front, party in the rear

I’ve recently given two different speeches discussing the balance between an employee’s privacy and an employer’s right to know. One of the themes of this talk is that social media has irreparably blurred the line between one’s personal persona and one’s professional persona, and employees best be careful with that they say online, because employers are watching and holding them accountable.

Case in point? Buker v. Howard County (4th Cir. 3/20/17) [pdf].

Bring me the head of employment at will

At his always excellent Connecticut Employment Law Blog, Dan Schwartz recently asked the following question: “What Does ‘At Will’ Employment Really Mean?”

Dan argues that while employment at will is still a valid legal doctrine, if a judge or jury cannot view your termination as “fair”, then they will look for another (illegal) justification for your decision. That examination may not go your way.

WIRTW #454 (the “Oxford comma, the results” edition)

Damn, does the Oxford comma have some traction. I can’t recall the last time a case as mundane as O’Connor v. Oakhurt Dairy lit up the internet. But it did. And I got curious—just how do people feel about the l’il ol’ Oxford comma. So I asked. And you responded, by the hundreds. You spoke loud and clear. You don’t just like the Oxford comma, you love it.

There you have it. By a margin of more than nine to one, the Oxford comma wins. As for the other eight percent, please step into the 21st century and start dropping in that comma before the “and” in your serial lists.

Here’s what I read this week:

The 8th nominee for the “worst employer of 2017” is … the cancerous boss

“Jon, you write a management-side blog. Why are you running a contest to find the worst employer of 2017?”

Because of employers like this one (via Courthouse News):

SCOTUS takes largely meaningless swipe at Obama’s NLRB legacy

Lafe Solomon

There is little doubt that under President Obama, the NLRB reinvented itself into an agency about which all employers must pay attention. One can trace much of this reinvention back to Lafe Solomon (a man with whom I once shared an NRP microphone), the NLRB’s acting general counsel from June 2010 through October 2013.

Yesterday, however, in NLRB v. SW General, Inc. [pdf], the Supreme Court held that Mr. Solomon’s tenure from January 5, 2011, through October 29, 2013, was unlawful, as it violated the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 (FVRA).

EEOC offers sage advice on following checklists for harassment compliance

Last June, the EEOC issued a comprehensive, bi-partisan report on harassment in the workplace. The report’s stated purpose was to “reboot workplace harassment prevention efforts” by focusing on efforts employers can take “in designing effective anti-harassment policies; developing training curricula; implementing complaint, reporting, and investigation procedures; creating an organizational culture in which harassment is not tolerated; ensuring employees are held accountable; and assessing and responding to workplace “risk factors” for harassment.”

One such tool the EEOC provided was a series of four checklist for employers to use to create an effective harassment prevention program.

• Leadership and accountability.
• Anti-harassment policies.
• Harassment reporting systems and investigations.
• Compliance training.

Swapping DNA for lower insurance costs is one wellness step too far

It is no secret that health care costs for employers and their employees are out of control. Many employers have attempted to hold down these rising costs by offering wellness-program incentives. The EEOC has signed off on these programs as legal as long as employee participation remains voluntary, which the agency defines as financial incentives for employee participation at or below 30 percent of the cost of coverage. Thus, employees have a choice—participate in the wellness program, or pay a surcharge of up to 30 percent.

One area that has remained off limits for employers under these wellness programs, however, has been genetic testing and other personal and family medical histories. A new bill moving through the House of Representatives, however, aims to change that.

WIRTW #453 (the “Oxford comma” edition)

Who knew that the l’il ol’ Oxford comma was so controversial? I would have never dreamed that yesterday’s post on the importance of its omission in a wage/statute would generate so much feedback, or that people feel so passionately about its use or non-use. In fact, it was my most shared and talked about post since my takedown of Trump’s first immigration ban.

To gauge exactly how you feel about the Oxford comma, I’ve designed a quick, one-question survey. Take a moment, and click “yes” or “no” on whether one should use the Oxford comma when writing.

Create your own user feedback survey
I’ll publish the results in the coming weeks.

Here’s what I read this week:

For want of an Oxford comma

Vampire Weekend once asked, “Who gives a f__k about an Oxford comma?” The answer, apparently, is the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, a whole lot.

In O’Connor v. Oakhurt Dairy [pdf], that court reversed the dismissal of an overtime lawsuit based on the absence of a Oxford comma in a list of activities that qualify for a certain exemption under Maine’s wage-and-hour law.

The 11th Circuit’s odd LGBT-discrimination decision

Late last week, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, in Evans v. Georgia Regional Hosp. [pdf], held that Title VII does not protect sexual-orientation discrimination per se, and that to sufficiently plead such a cause of action under Title VII, one must allege facts sufficient to establish that the employer discriminated based on non-conformity with sex-based stereotypes. 

As such, this decision directly conflicts with the formal position of the EEOC (a priority that EEOC Commissioner Chai Feldblum announced will not change under President Trump), and expected decision by the 2nd and 7th Circuits.