Court holds wage and hour laws don’t protect oral complaints

Imagine an employee walks into your HR office and complains that the company has misclassified her as exempt and that she is owed overtime. According to the 7th Circuit in Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Plastics (7th Cir. 06/29/09) [PDF], you can actually fire that employee without fear of retaliation as long as the the employee only makes the complaint orally, and does not put it in writing.

The FLSA’s anti-retaliation provision provides that an employer cannot “discharge or in any other manner discriminate against any employee because such employee has filed any complaint….” The court held that unwritten verbal complaints are not protected activity: “[T]he natural understanding of the phrase ‘file any complaint’ requires the submission of some writing to an employer….”

Employers should not get overly excited about this decision. The 7th Circuit’s holding in Kasten appears to be the minority view. Indeed, the 6th Circuit (which covers Ohio) in EEOC v. Romeo Community Schools, found that an employee’s oral complaints to a supervisor were protected. Employers act at their own peril if they fire employees who make oral wage and hour internal complaints. In other words, the next time an employee walks into your HR office and voices that complaint, don’t fire her. Instead, listen. She might even be right.

---

Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus.

For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

Employees’ web-based email may be off-limits to employers

It is generally understood by employees and employers that employer-provided email systems belong to the the employer, and that employees do not enjoy any rights of ownership or privacy to that which is sent or received through that system. With workplace internet access the norm, many employees also have the ability to check personal web-based email accounts (Gmail, Yahoo, and the like) right from their desks. Many employers mistakenly believe that they have the same rights to monitor and access employees’ non-work, personal email that may happen to transmit through their system.

According to an article posted on Law.com last week, employers may be opening themselves up to potential liability by prying into employees’ own email accounts. The article discusses recent court interpretations of the Stored Communications Act, a federal statute that creates liability for whoever “intentionally accesses without authorization a facility through which an electronic communication service is provided” or “intentionally exceeds an authorization to access that facility.” In layman’s terms, courts are allowing employees to use the SCA to attack employers who probe into personal email information accessed from work.

Something to think about before you ask an IT person to look into an employee’s Gmail to see if he sent that harassing message, or to see if he’s sending confidential information to your chief competitor. You may be breaking one law by trying to comply with another.

Ricci v. DeStefano: Supreme Court rules on discriminatory Hobson’s choice

Perhaps no decision has been more eagerly anticipated this year by employment lawyers than the Supreme Court’s opinion in Ricci v. DeStefano. If you are unfamiliar with the case, it concerns a municipality refusing to certify the results of a civil service exam after it concluded that it was racially biased. Specifically, the black test-takers pass rate was half that of white test-takers. The white applicants who scored highest on the exam sued for race discrimination. Both the trial and appellate court ruled for the city, finding that the white applicants did not have a Title VII claim because the city was trying to comply with its Title VII obligations to its black applicants. This case asks a fundamental question – do our anti-discrimination laws guarantee preferential treatment for the historically underrepresented, or do they balance equal treatment for all?

In Ricci v. DeStefano [PDF], the Supreme Court held the following:

1. The city’s action in disregarding the test results to the detriment of the white firefighters that received the highest scores violated Title VII.

2. Avoiding disparate-impact liability does not excuse what otherwise would be prohibited disparate-treatment discrimination, unless the employer has a strong-basis-in-evidence that the employer will be liable under Title VII by accepting the challenged results.

3. To have a strong basis in evidence that the city would have been liable under Title VII had it certified the test results, the city would have had to prove that the exams at issue were not job related and consistent with business necessity, or that it had refused to adopt an equally valid, less discriminatory alternative.

The following quote from the Ricci decision sums up the Court’s view of the Hobson’s choice presented to employers between a policy or practice that has a disparate impact one versus an intentional decision to the discriminatory detriment of another:

Our holding today clarifies how Title VII applies to resolve competing expectations under the disparate-treatment and disparate-impact provisions. If, after it certifies the test results, the City faces a disparate-impact suit, then in light of our holding today it should be clear that the City would avoid disparate-impact liability based on the strong basis in evidence that, had it not certified the results, it would have been subject to disparate-treatment liability.

I was going to write something deep about the damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don’t decisions that employers face, but I can’t do it any better than Walter Olson (the proprietor of the awesome Overlawyered blog and Point of Law forum) did on Forbes.com:

It's a question HR managers and company lawyers are used to facing every day. Would you rather field the legal claims that result from targeted layoffs, or the ones that result from sacking people regardless of performance? Would you rather face a defamation lawsuit for mentioning the reasons for a problem employee's departure, or a failure-to-warn lawsuit for not mentioning them? Will your policy on religious proselytizing in the workplace get you sued by the believers, or by the atheists? But the courts have no general theory of sued-if-you-do, sued-if-you-don't scenarios, and often they seem unwilling to give the matter much thought at all. Monday, for a change, these issues took center stage…. Monday's crucial ruling is on the question: how serious does the prospect of litigation over an employment practice have to be before an employer is allowed to lean over in the opposite (discriminatory) direction to avoid liability?

The Ricci decision does not cure this problem, it merely flips it on it’s head. The employer in Ricci chose to protect the black employees and got sued by the white employees. After Ricci, an employer will have to choose the white employees and defend a lawsuit by the black employees. It’s little solace that this lawsuit will be defensible (at least according to the Court), because employers will still have to expend the legal fees to have the likely disparate impact lawsuit dismissed.

Stayed tuned – I’ll have further thoughts on what this important decision means for employers in an upcoming post. For other commentary on Ricci, I recommend checking out the following from my blogging brethren:

• Lyle Denniston at SCOTUS Blog: Analysis: Ricci, without the rhetoric.
• Dan Schwartz’s Connecticut Employment Law Blog: Five Things Employers Can Learn from the Ricci v. DeStefano Case.
• Michael Maslanka’s Work Matters: What Ricci means for employers.
• Marcia McCormick, at the Workplace Prof Blog: Ricci Analysis Part 1.
• Michael Fox’s Jottings By An Employer’s Lawyer: Supreme Court Gives Victory to New Have Firefighters.
• Marc Alifanz at World of Work: Ricci v. DeStefano -- Supreme Court Holds City Violated Title VII By Rejecting Racially Disparate Test Results.
• John Rosenberg at Discriminations: Ricci et al. Vindicated; Ricci Reversed!

---

Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus.

For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

No wonder fighting sexual harassment is an uphill battle

How are employers supposed to fight workplace harassment when employees are bombarded by images like this, an actual ad for Burger King’s new “Super Seven Incher”?

You can ask anyone who knows me – I am not a prude, not be any stretch of the imagination. I think it’s hilarious that Burger King has chosen the least subtle innuendo possible to advertise its new sandwich. But, if this what your employees see when they open the newspaper or turn on their TV, is it any wonder that they think it acceptable to forward images not that much more offensive this this one through the company email system?

---

Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus.

For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

WIRTW #85

Last week, Bozeman, Mont., began requiring all job applicants to provide a list of all “current personal or business websites, web pages, or memberships on any Internet-based chat rooms, social clubs or forums, to include but not limited to:  Facebook, Google, Yahoo, YouTube.com, MySpace, etc,” including their user names, other login info, and even their passwords. The Delaware Employment Law Blog and the California Employment Law Report have the details. Just as quickly, World of Work reports, the city reversed course and got rid of this awful practice. for other news in the world of background checks and employee screening, I recommend the Employeescreen IQ Blog on a background check that should have been done, and the Connecticut Employment Law Blog, on the risks of doing one incorrectly.

In the last couple of weeks, I’ve written a lot about social networking (Do you know? Facebook and Twitter and blogs, oh my! What is social networking and why should you care? and Drafting a social networking policy: 7 considerations). Kris Dunn, The HR Capitalist, has his own take on the issue.
Steph Gregor, in the Columbus, Ohio, Other Paper, writes on workplace lactation rights (and quotes me).

Dan Schwartz at the Connecticut Employment Law Blog has a good, basic lesson on “cloud computing.”

Jay Shepherd at Gruntled Employees, on why you shouldn’t nickel-and-dime your employees.
LaborPains notes that even the unions cannot agree that the mandatory arbitration provisions of the EFCA are a good idea.

Mike Elk at Today’s Workplace comments that he stopped drinking Yuengling beer because it is no longer a union shop (politics would never come between me and my favorite beer).

At HR Observations, Michael Haberman observes that labor unions are bad.

The FMLA Blog points out that just because an employee happens to be on FMLA leave does not mean that he or she cannot be fired.
Walter Olson’s Overlawyered reports that per a settlement, UPS will now permit the hard-of-hearing to drive certain trucks.

Mitchell Rubenstein at the Adjunct Law Prof Blog, on whether keystroke monitoring of employees’ computers violates federal law.

Another week brings us news of more new pending federal workplace laws. The Warren & Hays Employment Blog discusses the Family Friendly Workplace Act, which would allow for comp time in lieu of overtime. The Washington Labor & Employment Wire reports on another attempt at the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would add protections for actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity to Title VII.

Hector Chichoni at the Florida Employment & Immigration Blog thoroughly dissects the issues that could arise when layoffs hit employees with H-1B visas.

Ann Bares at Compensation Force tackles the issue of the lingering effect of furloughs.

Darcy Dees at Compensation Cafe opines on leveraging flexible work schedules as rewards for good employees.

WIRTW is taking next Friday off to celebrate our nation’s freedom, and will return on July 10 with a supersized two-week edition.

Workplace smartphone etiquette – smartphones versus smart use

When I started my first legal job during law school, the biggest distraction was  minesweeper on my desktop PC. Today, distractions are bigger, sleeker, and much more available. And, they have unshackled themselves from the desktop. Stop and think about the last meeting you attended when someone wasn’t fiddling with a Blackberry, iPhone, or other PDA.

In Sunday’s New York Times, Alex Williams takes up the etiquette debate of PDAs and corporate meetings:

As Web-enabled smartphones have become standard on the belts and in the totes of executives, people in meetings are increasingly caving in to temptation to check e-mail, Facebook, Twitter, even (shhh!) ESPN.com.

But a spirited debate about etiquette has broken out. Traditionalists say the use of BlackBerrys and iPhones in meetings is as gauche as ordering out for pizza. Techno-evangelists insist that to ignore real-time text messages in a need-it-yesterday world is to invite peril….

The phone use has become routine in the corporate and political worlds — and grating to many. A third of more than 5,300 workers polled in May by Yahoo HotJobs, a career research and job listings Web site, said they frequently checked e-mail in meetings. Nearly 20 percent said they had been castigated for poor manners regarding wireless devices.

Despite resistance, the etiquette debate seems to be tilting in the favor of smartphone use, many executives said. Managing directors do it. Summer associates do it. It spans gender and generation, private and public sectors.

At Gruntled Employees this morning, Jay Shepherd asks, “Does your company need a smartphone policy?” Here’s my two cents. If we are going to provide employees the technology to stay connected 24/7, and expect them to be available 24/7 because of this technology, we should trust them to be responsible with it. Technology has conditioned customers and clients to expect immediate responses to questions and problems. So, if an employee is spending some time during a meeting responding to a client, this responsiveness should be lauded, not legislated via a policy. On the other hand, if an employee is reading about the Cavs’ acquisition of Shaq, maybe the problem is with the meeting itself and not the employee.

---

Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus.

For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

When is a failure to accommodate an employee’s religion actionable?

If an employee approaches your HR department and asks for an accommodation for his or her religion, you might think that your company has an automatic obligation to provide the accommodation. Reed v. United Auto Workers (6th Cir. 6/23/09) [PDF], suggests otherwise.

In Reed, a union member claimed that the UAW discriminated against him because of his religion by failing to reasonably accommodate his religious objection to financially supporting the union.

Under Title VII employers (and labor unions) have a statutory obligation to reasonably accommodate the religious observances of its employees, short of incurring an undue hardship. To establish a failure to accommodate claim, an employee must show: (1) that s/he holds a sincere religious belief that conflicts with an employment requirement; (2) s/he has informed the employer about the conflict; and (3) s/he was discharged or disciplined for failing to comply with the conflicting employment requirement. If an employee makes this showing, the employer (or, in this case, labor union) can avoid liability by showing that it could not reasonably accommodate the employee without undue hardship.

Reed’s claim failed because he could not show that he was discharged or disciplined as a result of his religious belief: “Unless a plaintiff has suffered some independent harm caused by a conflict between his employment obligation and his religion, a defendant has no duty to make any kind of accommodation.”

The next time you are faced with an employee requesting a workplace accommodation for some religious belief, do not necessarily assume that the accommodation is owed. The employee’s religious belief may not be sincere, the accommodation might be unreasonable and pose an undue hardship, or, as was the case in Reed, the failure to provide the accommodation may not result in any discipline or discharge. 

---

Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus.

For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

Do you know? Handling a chronically ill employee

In the June 19 New York Times, Lesley Alderman provided chronically ill employees some practical information on how to protect their jobs while coping with a chronic illness. Employers also have to protect themselves from liability in the same situation. Two laws govern employees with chronic illnesses: the Family and Medical Leave Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. It is crucial for employers to understand how these two laws intersect and interact.

The FMLA allows for 12 weeks of unpaid leave for, among other circumstances, an employee’s own serious health condition. A serious health condition is defined as illness, injury, impairment, or physical or mental condition that requires inpatient care or continuing treatment by a health care provider. Only those who have been employed for at least a year, and who have worked a minimum of 1,250 hours in the preceding year, are covered by the FMLA.

Unlike the FMLA, the ADA covers employees on day-one of employment. The ADA also differs from the FMLA in the scope of injuries and illnesses it covers. The FMLA merely requires a serious health condition that prevents the employee from working on a temporary basis (typically at least three days). The ADA, however, requires that the employee must have a current, chronic medical condition that substantially limits one or more major life activities on an ongoing basis. The ADA does not have a leave requirement, although it does require employers to reasonably accommodate employees’ disabilities. Under the ADA, once an employer learns that an employee might need a reasonable accommodation to perform the essential functions of the job, the employer must engage the employee in an interactive process to determine what that reasonable accommodation might be. An extended leave of absence, beyond the FMLA’s 12 weeks, might be reasonable accommodation, depending on the illness or injury, the nature of the job, and the employer’s needs.

The biggest mistake an employer can make is to terminate an employee automatically upon the expiration the FMLA-leave entitlement, without giving any consideration to whether that employee is covered by the ADA and whether a temporarily extended leave or other temporary job restructuring will enable that employee to remain employed.

---

Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus.

For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

Have you thought about these four issues before you fired that employee?

BLR’s HR Daily Advisor recently published a helpful checklist of the 10 Questions You Must Ask Before Firing (part 1 and part 2). I have synthesized the list into four key considerations:

1. Have you followed your own documents? There are several documents that inform the employment relationship – handbooks and other policy manuals, and contracts, both with individual employees and union agreements. Any well-written handbook should have a disclaimer that it is not a contract, that it is not binding on the company, and that the employee should not rely on it as such. Companies should nevertheless be careful to ensure that if it deviates from a policy, it has a good reason to do so an a history of similar deviations in similar circumstances. Union agreements have their own unique set of issues. Does the contract allow for termination? If so, are there rules or processes that must be followed? Are you acting out of an anti-union animus?

2. Have you been consistent? Consistency is paramount in any employment decision, and will go a long way to dispelling inferences of discrimination. Consistency looks at how you treated similarly-situated employees in similar circumstances. Two special circumstances merit mention. Retaliation is the single biggest employment practices risk facing employers today. If an employee has recently engaged in protected activity, triple-check to make sure the rest of your house is in order before terminating. In Ohio, pregnant employees gain special rights on their first day of employment, and have to be given their job back the expiration of maternity leave.

3. Do you have a well-documented business reason for the termination? When an employer relies on undocumented accounts of misconduct to support a termination, it is fair for a court or jury to infer that those accounts were created post-termination and question their legitimacy. So, have all performance and other problems with the employee been documented? Has the employee signed off on the record, or has it been documented that the employee refused to sign?

4. Have you been fair? This is the most important reason. Lawyers spend months, and sometimes years, preparing their case for trial. A trial lasts days, sometimes weeks. During that trial, the jury will hear from countless witnesses and see myriad documents. Every piece has been carefully laid out by the attorneys to make the most persuasive presentation possible. Jury instructions will be carefully drafted to ensure that the jury is given the correct law to apply to the case in reaching its decision, And, that jury will listen to bits and pieces and retain even less. At the end of day, no matter what the jurors are told, I believe that in most cases, the decision will come down to one fundamental question – was the employee treated fairly? If that juror, or his or her wife, child, or parent, was treated as the plaintiff was treated, would that juror believe he or she had gotten a fair shake, or was mistreated? At the end of the day, how you answer this question will most likely signal how you decision will be judged.

---

Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus.

For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

WIRTW #84

Last week I posted a clip from one of my favorite movies, Office Space. This week, Dan Schwartz at the Connecticut Employment Law Blog teaches that had Milton engaged in protected activity before Lumbergh moved his desk downstairs to storage B, he could have filed a retaliation claim instead of taking out his anger by burning down Initech. (If you don’t know what I’m talking about, run, don’t walk, and rent Office Space now).

Jay Shepherd, of Gruntled Employees, thinks its pretty lousy to let employees know about layoffs via voicemail.

Two opposing views on arbitration under the Employee Free Choice Act: the Chamber Post, on why it’s wrong to arbitrate first contracts, and Today’s Workplace, on why it’s wrong to favor arbitration of workplace claims but not arbitration of collective bargaining agreements.

The Email Fail Blog points out why you might want to think twice before you send that racist email from a work computer.

The Word on Employment Law with John Phillips discusses some common legal traps that await employers that furlough employees. Do you want more information on these traps for the unwary? Take a look at Do you know? Mandatory unpaid time off may affect salaried employees’ exemptions.

Eric Welter at the Laconic Law Blog has information on how the ADA treats alcoholism.

Richard Bales at the Workplace Prof Blog reports that the EEOC voted to issue regulations implementing the ADA Amendments Act.

Dennis Westlind at World of Work reports that President Obama will extend job benefits to the same-sex partners of federal employees.

Michael W. Casey, III, of the Florida Employment & Immigration Blog, provides his top 10 considerations for implementing a layoff.

Rod Satterwhite, at Suits in the Workplace, on voice recognition technology as a reasonable accommodation under the ADA.

The Labor & Employment Law Blog reports on a $1.6 million fee award awarded to two employees who successfully defended a trade secret theft case brought by their former employer.

Electronic Discovery Law digests a recent case in which an employee was punished for destroying a laptop after his termination.

Employment Law Bits, on female workplace bullying.

Finally, a couple of posts on corporate wellness programs: Where Great Workplaces Start shares some ideas on how to implement a wellness program. The Iowa Employment Law Blog reminds employers not to discriminate when administering such a program. 

---

Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus.

For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

No buts about it: Supreme Court rejects mixed motives for age discrimination cases

Employees have three traditional methods to prove intentional discrimination: (1) direct evidence (comments that evidence a discriminatory animus made by a decision-maker in close temporal proximity to the challenged employment decision); (2) indirect evidence (which uses the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting formula); and (3) a mixed-motive (discrimination was a motivating or a substantial factor in the employer’s action, and the employer cannot show that it would have taken the same action regardless of that impermissible consideration).

This morning, in Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. [PDF], the Supreme Court held that there is no such thing as a mixed-motive in age discrimination cases under the ADEA. To succeed on an disparate treatment claim under the ADEA, a plaintiff must now prove that age was the “but-for” (that is, the only) cause of the challenged adverse employment action:

We hold that a plaintiff bringing a disparate-treatment claim pursuant to the ADEA must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that age was the “but-for” cause of the challenged adverse employment action. The burden of persuasion does not shift to the employer to show that it would have taken the action regardless of age, even when a plaintiff has produced some evidence that age was one motivating factor in that decision.

Because age discrimination plaintiffs must now prove “but for” causation, it is more important than ever for employers to meticulously document employees’ performance problems and other disciplinary action. A well-documented personnel file will make it that much more difficult for a plaintiff to prove that age was the sole reason motivating the termination or other action.

Proposed law would grant working moms breastfeeding rights

Last year, I wrote that even though Ohio has one of the country’s most liberal breastfeeding laws, it likely does not protect a mom’s workplace lactation rights. Moreover, few courts have protected breastfeeding and expressing breast milk under current workplace sex discrimination laws.

A potential new federal law could change all that. Identical bills have been introduced in the House and Senate that would require employers to accommodate working moms’ breastfeeding needs at work. The Breastfeeding Promotion Act [PDF] would make three significant changes to existing laws:

• Amend Title VII to include lactation (breastfeeding or the expression of milk) in the definition of sex discrimination.

• Amend the Fair Labor Standards Act to require that employers provide “reasonable break time for an employee to express breast milk for her nursing child for one year after the child’s birth”, and make “reasonable efforts to provide a place, other than a bathroom, that is shielded from view and free from intrusion” for an employee to express breast milk.

• Amend the Internal Revenue Code to provide a tax credit for employers that provide an appropriate workplace environment for employed moms to breastfeed or express milk.

It’s difficult to say how much traction the BPA has, but this bill is definitely one that warrants watching.

[Hat tip: World of Work]

---

Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus.

For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

Do you know? “Salting” the wounds of labor organizing

“Salting” is a common organizing tactic used by labor unions. It refers to union organizers applying for jobs with non-union employers. The organizers then attempt to organize the employer’s workforce from the inside. In addition to organizing, the salts also try to inflict economic harm on the targeted employer by triggering unfair labor practice charges and resulting back pay liability. Salting is one the more underhanded methods of organizing used by labor unions.

In Toering Electric Co. [PDF], the Bush-era NLRB attempting to limit the ability of unions to salt non-union workplaces. It ruled that an applicant for employment must be genuinely interested in seeking to establish an employment relationship with the employer in order to qualify as an "employee" under the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, and thus be protected against hiring discrimination based on union affiliation or activity.

Although they face an uphill battle, Congressional Republican are attempting to put another nail in salting coffin. The Truth in Employment Act of 2009 would amend the National Labor Relations Act so that an employer would not be under any obligation to “employ any person who seeks or has sought employment with the employer in furtherance of other employment or agency status.” The Congressional findings contained in the bill make it clear that this intent of this measure is to end salting once and for all:

The tactic of using professional union organizers and agents to infiltrate a targeted employer’s workplace, a practice commonly referred to as ‘salting’, has evolved into an aggressive form of harassment not contemplated when the National Labor Relations Act was enacted and threatens the balance of rights which is fundamental to the system of collective bargaining of the United States. Increasingly, union organizers are seeking employment with nonunion employers not because of a desire to work for such employers but primarily to organize the employees of such employers or to inflict economic harm specifically designed to put nonunion competitors out of business, or to do both. While no employer may discriminate against employees based upon the views of employees concerning collective bargaining, an employer should have the right to expect job applicants to be primarily interested in utilizing the skills of the applicants to further the goals of the business of the employer.

Given the party affiliation of both houses of Congress and the White House, the Truth in Employment Act will likely go nowhere. It’s introduction, though, is a good reminder to non-union employers that salting remains a legitimate threat, especially in today’s pro-union environment.

---

Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus.

For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

Examining our prejudices

As my wife and I were loading our kids into the car for a trip to Lowe’s last Thursday night, we noticed someone we didn’t recognize talking to our neighbors across the street. As we were getting into our car, the man crossed the street and approached us. He was in his early twenties and casually, but neatly, dressed. He was carrying a packet of papers in his hand, and began rambling about running track, a trip to England, and selling magazine subscriptions. He handed me his packet of papers to look at, which ended up being a bunch of handwritten notes of magazine titles. When I told him that we already bought subscriptions from our nieces and nephews, he changed his story to something about soliciting used books for his mom. Needless to say, my spidey sense started tingling. I quickly finished gathering my family into the car, excused ourselves, and drove off. I also called the police. Apparently, I wasn’t the only person skeeved out by this guy, because the police already had a description and two squad cars on the way.

I’ve neglected one fact from this story. The particular person who made me nervous enough to call the police happened to be African American. Given his weird behavior, shifting purposes for going door-to-door, and lack of legitimate handouts, I’d like to think I would have reacted the same way no matter his race, especially in light of our neighborhood’s diversity. But, I am left wondering if his race added to my level of discomfort.

Most people do not set out to discriminate. In my career, I’ve come across very few employers that made a conscious decision to fire someone because of their race. Yet, no matter how enlightened and progressive we like to think that we are, we all harbor life experiences and prejudices that shape our behavior. Those prejudices don’t make us bigoted or racist; they just make us human.

Businesses get themselves in trouble when they believe they aren’t capable of discrimination. The key to avoiding potential liability is to recognize that we are all capable of discriminating. That recognition allows us to examine the prejudices that could lead to disparate treatment and hopefully avoid it. Something to think about the next time you hire or fire someone.

---

Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus.

For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

WIRTW #83

Every now and then a story slips through the cracks. Such is the case with Lima v. State, decided this week by the Ohio Supreme Court, in which the Court ruled that cities cannot enforce residency requirements as a condition of employment. The Cleveland Law Library Weblog has more information.

If the following headline doesn’t make you throw-up your breakfast, nothing will: Former Employee Wins $4.1 Billion. That is not a typo. The award really was $4.1 Billion. World of Work has the gory details of what can go wrong when you terminate a really high earner.

Two states have enacted legislation permitting parents unpaid leave to attend their children’s school activities. Colorado (via the Colorado Employment Law Blog) and Nevada (via the Workplace Prof Blog).

Meanwhile, Compensation Cafe offers a good list of potential new federal employment laws on the horizon.

Dan Schwartz at the Connecticut Employment Law Blog reminds employers that discrimination cases often hinge on whether the employer is consistent in its explanations.

Molly DiBianca at the Delaware Employment Law Blog digests recent polling data on office romances.

Michael Moore at the Pennsylvania Labor & Employment Blog discusses the important issue of who is a “management-level employee” for purposes of imputing harassment liability to an employer.

Christopher McKinney at the HR Lawyer’s Blog reports on chronic fatigue syndrome as an ADA-protected disability.

George’s Employment Blawg offers up a plaintiff-side opinion on male sexual stereotyping at work.

Discriminations talks about the disparate impact theory of, well, discrimination.

Finally, The Word on Employment Law with John Phillips draws some employment law lessons from Sesame Street.

---

Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus.

For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

Big verdict underscores importance of background checks

One would think that businesses with whom people entrust children or the elderly would conduct routine criminal background checks of its employees. In fact, in Ohio, it’s the law. At least one employer, however, an assisted living facility in Newport News, Virginia, unknowingly hired an employee with a long criminal history, including assault and battery. On May 28, a jury found the facility liable for failing to exercise reasonable care in hiring the former felon. The lawsuit involved the employee’s sexual assault of a resident. The ex-employee has been criminally charged with five forcible sodomy counts, three carnal knowledge counts, and one abuse and neglect count. For these acts, the jury awarded the abused resident $750,000 in damages.

There is a good lesson for all employers to learn from this example. Backgrounds checks are inexpensive. The potential exposure from hiring an employee with a criminal history, however, is large. Do your bottom line and the safety of your employees a favor and consider implementing routine criminal background checks for all employees. For information on how to use this information without running afoul of EEO laws, I recommend EEOC targets use of arrest and conviction records.

---

Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus.

For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

Drafting a social networking policy: 7 considerations

I could draft a perfect social networking policy using only a few words: “Be mature, be ethical, and think before you type.” Ultimately, you may decide that such brevity is what you want for you business. For the sake of completeness, though, I offer seven thoughts to consider when drafting a social networking policy.

1. How far do you want to reach? Social networking presents two concerns for employers – how employees are spending their time at work, and how employees are portraying your company online when they are not at work. Any social networking policy must address both types of online use.
   
2. Do you want to permit social networking at work, at all? It is not realistic to ban all social networking at work. For one thing, you will lose the benefit of business-related networking, such as LinkedIn. Without turning off internet access or blocking certain sites, a blanket ban is also hard to monitor and enforce.
   
3. If you prohibit social networking, how will you monitor it? Turning off internet access, installing software to block certain sites, or monitoring employees’ use and disciplining offenders are all possibilities, depending on how aggressive you want to be and how much time you want to spend watching what your employees do online.
   
4. If you permit employees to social network at work, do you want to limit it to work-related conduct, or permit limited personal use? How you answer this question depends on how you balance productivity versus marketing return.
   
5. Do you want employees to identify with your business when networking online? Because this blog is affiliated with my law firm, Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, I am cognizant that everything I write reflects on my partners and my business. Employees should be made aware that if they post as an employee of your company, the company will hold them responsible for any negative portrayals. Or, you could simply require that employees not affiliate with your business and lose the networking and marketing potential Web 2.0 offers.
   
6. How do you define “appropriate business behavior?” Employees need to understand that what they post online is public, and they have no privacy rights in what they put out for the world to see. Anything in cyberspace can be used as grounds to discipline an employee, no matter whether the employee wrote it from work or outside of work. There should be consequences for any information that negatively reflects on your business.
   
7. How will social networking intersect with your broader harassment, technology, and confidentiality policies? Employment policies do not work in a vacuum. Employees’ online presence, depending on what they are posting, can violate any number of other corporate policies. Drafting a social networking policy is an excellent opportunity to revisit, update, and fine-tune other policies.
   

For more information on social networking, revisit yesterday’s post -- Do you know? Facebook and Twitter and blogs, oh my! What is social networking and why should you care?

Do you know? Facebook and Twitter and blogs, oh my! What is social networking and why should you care?

Cave drawings were likely the earliest form of social networking. Today people tweet their thoughts for the world to see. In between we’ve had instant messaging, MySpace, Facebook, and blogs. The next several big things are already being hatched by some students at Stanford or MIT. Online social networking is here to stay – the only change will be in what form it takes.

According to a recent survey conducted by Deloitte, 22% of employees say that they use some form of social networking five or more times per week, and 15% of employees admit they access social networking while at work for personal reasons. Yet, only 22% of companies have a formal policy that guides employees in how they can use social networking at work.

Before we can figure out what to do about these exploding media at work, we first need to know exactly what we are dealing with. So, for the uninitiated, the following is a short lesson on the various types of social networking that are likely being accessed from your workplace right now.

• Blogs: Blog is short for weblog. Blogs either provide commentary on news or a particular subject (such as the Ohio Employer’s Law Blog), or serve as an online diary. Most are text-based, but blogs can also focus on art, photos, videos, and audio (you may have heard of podcasts). There are hundreds of millions of blogs on the internet, many updated as often as every day.
  
• Facebook: Facebook started as an online tool for college and university students to connect with each other. It has since expanded to allow anyone over the age of 13 with a valid email address to open a free account. It is loosely organized into a variety of networks based on schools, location, employers, charities, and other causes. Connections are known as “friends.” People update with short written blurbs about what they’re doing, pictures, video, and the like. Users can also post on friends’ pages. If you’re not on Facebook, I guarantee someone you know is. In fact, Facebook has over 200 million registered users. Even my mom has a Facebook page.
  
• LinkedIn: LinkedIn is an online network for professionals. It allows people to search and connect via alma mater, location, employer, or various user-created groups. It has over 41 million members.
  
• Twitter: Twitter is latest big-thing in social networking. It is what is known as “micro-bloggings.” “Tweets” are text-based posts of up to 140 characters, displayed on the user’s profile page and delivered to followers, other users who have subscribed.
  

Employers have three options to try to regulate social networking by employees at work: 1) turn off their internet access; 2) institute progressively harsher discipline against employees caught Facebooking or tweeting at work; or 3) draft a reasonable policy that recognizes the intersection of technology in the workplace and employees’ lives, and establishes reasonable baseline expectations about what is and is not acceptable use at work. Only the latter option makes any real sense.

Tomorrow, we’ll explore the pieces and parts that comprise a useable social networking policy. Until then, feel free to follow my 140 character thoughts on Twitter @jonhyman.

Let’s start the week with a laugh

So much of the news is doom and gloom, I thought I’d start everyone’s week with a little humor from one of my all-time favorite movies, Office Space. If you haven’t seen it, it’s definitely worth queuing on Netflix. Besides being hilarious, it offers an excellent glimpse in how not to manage employees.

Back to more substantive stuff tomorrow, I promise.

---

Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus.

For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

BREAKING NEWS: En banc panel of 6th Circuit reverses prior holding in Thompson v. North American Stainless and rejects associational retaliation claims

There are many types of relationships among employees in a workplace besides being co-workers. Many employees develop close friendships. Many businesses employee individuals from the same family – parents and their children, siblings, cousins, etc. Some employees work with their spouse. And some friendships develop into more, leading to dating, engagement, and even marriage.

Suppose an employee files a charge with the EEOC, and three weeks later, that employee’s fiancée is fired? Does the fiancée have a retaliation claim? Despite the fact that the fiancée engaged in no protected activity of his own, early last year in Thompson v. North American Stainless, the 6th Circuit permitted the employee to proceed with a retaliation claim by recognizing a claim for associational retaliation:

Title VII prohibit[s] employers from taking retaliatory action against employees not directly involved in protected activity, but who are so closely related to or associated with those who are directly involved, that it is clear that the protected activity motivated the employer's action. (emphasis added).

This morning, an en banc panel of the same court overturned its prior holding and expressly rejected this theory of associational retaliation.

Significantly, Thompson does not claim that he engaged in any statutorily protected activity, either on his own behalf or on behalf of Miriam Regalado…. By application of the plain language of the statute, Thompson is not included in the class of persons for whom Congress created a retaliation cause of action because he personally did not oppose an unlawful employment practice, make a charge, testify, assist, or participate in an investigation….

We must look to what Congress actually enacted, not what we believe Congress might have passed were it confronted with the facts at bar. For the reasons we have laid out, it was not “absurd” for Congress to limit the class of persons who are entitled to sue to employees who personally opposed a practice, made a charge, assisted, or participated in an investigation. Our interpretation does not undermine the anti-retaliation provision’s purpose because retaliation is still actionable, but only in a suit by a primary actor who engaged in protected activity and not by a passive bystander.

Retaliation continues to be of the most dangerous employment-law risks to face employers. By limiting this potential liability, this decision is a huge win for Ohio businesses. Employers no longer have to worry about how close of a relationship is close enough for a potential retaliation claim. As far as retaliation is concerned, employers need only worry about employees who actually engage in their own protected activity. Isn’t that enough for employers to worry about? 

---

Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus.

For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.