WIRTW #189 (the “amici” edition)

Last year, I was honored that the ABA chose to include me in its Blawg 100, the list of the top 100 legal blogs. This year, the ABA has again opened its nomination process to the public. From now until September 9, the ABA is accepting nominations via the submission of amici, or friend-of-the-blawg, briefs:

We’re working on our annual list of the 100 best legal blogs, and we'd like your advice on which blawgs you think we should include. Use the form below to tell us about a blawg—not your own—that you read regularly and think other lawyers should know about…. If there is more than one blawg you want to support, feel free to send us additional amici through the form. We may include some of the best comments in our Blawg 100 coverage. But keep your remarks pithy—you have a 500-character limit.

(Mom, Dad, and Wife, please don’t nominate me; it’s against the rules)

The ABA’s blawg directory lists thousands of legal blogs. If there are several that you enjoy reading on a regular basis, please take a few minutes to fill out an amici form and submit it to the ABA for consideration. My fellow blawgers and I appreciate it.

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

Discrimination

• Employer “Look” Policies and Religious Discrimination – from iSight Blog (featuring me)
• “Beanie Meanie” Lawsuit Dresses Down Religious Garb At Work – from Workplace Diva
• Religion in the Workplace: Avoiding Religious Discrimination Claims – from Michigan Employment Law Advisor
• Why Ban the Box Might Be Key to Allaying Discrimination Concerns – from Nick Fishman’s employeescreenIQ Blog
• Fact or Fiction: Retaliation requires job-related action (e.g., firing) – from Eric Meyer’s The Employer Handbook Blog
• 3rd Circuit: Performance Improvement Plan Not an Adverse Action – from Philip Miles’s Lawffice Space
• The Cat’s Paw Just Got a Little Smaller: New York Federal Court Limits Cat’s Paw Liability After Staub – from Employment Matters Blog
• Counter Lawsuits are not a Good Idea – from Tom Crane’s San Antonio Employment Law Blog
• Illegal drugs and the ADA: What does “current user” mean? – from HR Cafe

Social Media & Workplace Technology

• 50 Social Media Stats To Blow Your Mind – from Social Media Today
• To Tweet or Not To Tweet: Are Companies Allowing Employees to Use Social Media in the Workplace? – from Mindflash
• Twitter, Facebook And LinkedIn: Age, Ethnicity And Gender Of The Major Social Networks – from All Twitter
• Privacy is a Luxury You Don’t Have – from Harvard Business Review
• The Effect of Social Media on the Law – from Lawyerist
• A Majority of Those About to Enter the Workforce Would Rather Lose Their _____ Than Their Facebook – from Manpower Employment Blawg
• How Your Social Media History Could Hurt Your Job Hunt – from MonsterThinking
• The Rise of the Mobile Workforce – from Mashable
• The Secret Spy Living in Your iPhone – from The Fiscal Times

HR & Employee Relations

• 5 egregious errors that endanger employment investigations – from Robin Shea’s Employment and Labor Insider
• The Three Most Powerful Words in an Employment Investigation: “Tell Me About…” – from Minnesota Labor & Employment Law Blog
• Keeping up with the Law is Imperative to HR – from Kara Mignanelli at Social Axcess
• Want To Keep (And Motivate) Your Best Employees? It’s Not About The Money – from Fastcompany
• Discovery Requests Can Play Important Role In Determining Reasonableness of Non-Compete – from Legal Developments In Non-Competition Agreements
• Signs You’re About To Be Laid Off – from Consumerist
• How to Lay Off Staff? Don’t Listen to HR – from BNET

Wage & Hour

• The Myth of “Unauthorized” Overtime – from Wage & Hour Insights
• Overstaying Rest Breaks: Paid Time, Or Not? – from Wage and Hour Laws Blog
• Do We Have to Pay Employees for Checking Email Outside of Work? – from Wage & Hour Insights
• Life After Wal-Mart v. Dukes: Is the FMLA the New Breeding Ground for Class Actions? – from FMLA Insights
• Does “phone care” qualify for FMLA leave? – from Case In Point

Labor Relations

• NLRB and Facebook Firings: Employer’s Worst-Case Scenario – from Molly DiBianca’s Delaware Employment Law Blog
• The U.S. Chamber Of Commerce Echoes Many Of Our Sentiments – from Michael Schmidt’s Social Media Employment Law Blog
• Facebook Firings - Report Finds Dramatic Increase in NLRB Charge Filings Based on Facebook Retaliation Firings – from Chris McKinney’s Texas Employment Law Blog
• Social Media: NLRB Eyeing Employer Policies – from SmartHR
• The recent NLRB advice memoranda: much ado about what?? – from John Holmquist’s Michigan Employment Law Connection
• Chamber Survey Finds Social Media Policies, Firings Becoming NLRB Issues – from TLNT
• NLRB: No backpay remedy for undocumented immigrant workers – from LawMemo Employment Law Blog

---

Written by Jon Hyman, a partner in the Labor & Employment group of Kohrman Jackson & Krantz. For more information, contact Jon at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

Is it discriminatory for a hospital to require the same-sex treatment of patients?

According to the EEOC, a Missouri hospital discriminated against its male nurses by preferring to have female nurses treat female patients. But, is this really unlawful sex discrimination?

A “bona fide occupational qualification” defense permits discrimination based on sex, age, religion, or national origin (but not race) where the protected class is reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise. To qualify as a BFOQ, a job qualification must relate to the essence, or to the central mission of the employer’s business. One example of a BFOQ is a safety-based mandatory retirement age for airline pilots.

Is the sex of the person providing medical treatment another example of a BFOQ? Or, is this the type of sex-based stereotype that Title VII is supposed to eradicate? Or, does it depend on the type of treatment being provided? Readers, what do you think?

---

Written by Jon Hyman, a partner in the Labor & Employment group of Kohrman Jackson & Krantz. For more information, contact Jon at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

How companies are using social media to hire

Are you curious how companies are using social media to screen and hire  employees? Mindflash shares the latest data (via Eve Tahmincioglu on Google+).

• 45% of employers use social sites to vet potential hires:
• 29% use Facebook
• 26% use LinkedIn
• 11% use blogs
• 7% use twitter
• 18% of employers discovered social content that influenced them to hire a candidate:
• 50% – personality
• 39% – verification of professional qualifications
• 38% – creativity
• 35% – good communication skills
• 33% – well-roundedness
• 19% – positive references
• 15% – awards and accolades
• 35% of employers discovered social content that caused them not to hire a candidate:
• 53% – provocative or inappropriate photos or other information
• 44% – content about alcohol or drug use
• 35% – bad-mouthing previous employers, co-workers, or clients
• 29% – poor communication skills
• 26% – discriminatory comments
• 24% – lies about qualifications
• 20% – confidential information about a prior employer

Do you want to know the legal risks that arise from using social media to vet job candidates, and the best practices to avoid these legal risks? Pick up a copy of Think Before You Click: Strategies for Managing Social Media in the Workplace.

---

Written by Jon Hyman, a partner in the Labor & Employment group of Kohrman Jackson & Krantz. For more information, contact Jon at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

If your workplace has “No bra Thursday,” it’s time for some harassment training

According to the Salt Lake Tribune, a Utah woman has sued her former employer, claiming she was sexually harassed at work. The allegations, according to her federal lawsuit, are outrageous:

• Her supervisor provided a written work schedule that included “Mini-skirt Monday,” “Tube-top Tuesday,” “Wet T-shirt Wednesday,” “No bra Thursday,” and “Bikini top Friday.”
• Her supervisor repeatedly asked “about her breast size and talked about her breasts in front of other employees.”
• He asked her to show him her breasts, and inquired about whether she shaved her pubic area.
• He slapped her on her buttocks at least twice.
• He repeatedly asked her for oral sex.
• He offered a free mammogram when she asked for time off for a doctor’s appointment.
• He told her he was installing a shower in the office so they could shower together.
• He offered a recipe for a “sex cake.”

He also allegedly told her that she’d be fired if she did not sign a document granting him permission to sexually harass her. You can toss all of the other facts out the window. If the plaintiff can produce a piece of paper in which the employer asked her to give up her rights to be free from harassment, this case is over. And, it will be over with a huge settlement to avoid the risk of a crippling award of punitive damages.

Do I need to even say that “No bra Thursdays” are a workplace no-no?

You can read the complete list of allegations in the complaint:

Anderson v. Lone Peak Controls

 

---

Written by Jon Hyman, a partner in the Labor & Employment group of Kohrman Jackson & Krantz. For more information, contact Jon at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

Workplace social media becomes a federal issue, says U.S. Chamber survey

Last week, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce published the results of a comprehensive survey of the NLRB’s examination of workplace social media policies. In completing its Survey of Social Media Issues Before the NLRB [pdf], the U.S. Chamber examined 129 NLRB cases involving social media. Do not make the mistake of thinking that these issues only affect unionized businesses. As the Chamber made very clear, “a significant percentage of cases in our survey involved non-union employers with no union activity.”

The Chamber reached the following conclusions:

The issues most commonly raised in the cases before the Board allege that an employer has overbroad policies restricting employee use of social media or that an employer unlawfully discharged or disciplined one or more employees over contents of social media posts.

With respect to employer policies restricting employee use of social media, our review of cases found many specific policies alleged to be overbroad, including those that restrict discussion of wages, corrective actions and discharge of co-workers, employment investigations, and disparagement of the company or its management. The context in which the policy was adopted and even the issue of whether a rule or policy has been actually adopted are also important in these cases.

The issues raised with respect to employer discharge or discipline of employees based on their social media posts include the threshold matter of whether the subject of social media posts is protected by the Act, as well as whether the employer unlawfully threatened, interrogated, or surveilled employees.

Despite the Chamber’s survey, this area of federal labor law—which affects every employer, unionized or not—remains very much unsettled. Today’s protected activity is tomorrow’s unprotected employee rant, and vice versa. In other words, taking action against employees for social media comments that discuss wages, benefits, or other terms or conditions of employment remains risky.

If you are interested in learning more about this important issue, the Chamber’s full report is available from its website. I also recommend the chapter written by Seth Borden for Think Before You Click: Strategies for Managing Social Media in the Workplace, in which he discusses these issues in great depth.

---

Written by Jon Hyman, a partner in the Labor & Employment group of Kohrman Jackson & Krantz. For more information, contact Jon at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

WIRTW #188 (the “shill” edition)

I’m hosting the Employment Law Blog Carnival on August 17. If you would like your blog featured, email me the link by August 12. There are only two rules: the content must be employment-law-related, and the link must be to a post on your blog.

I’m also honored to be speaking on social media issues at some cool events over the next few months:

• On August 11, I am presenting Emerging Risks & Social Media for the New York chapter of the Institute of Internal Auditors.
• On September 15, I am co-presenting, with Mike Haberman, a webinar entitled Social Media for HR Pros for Business Management Daily.
• On November 17, I am presenting Think Before You Click: Practical & Legal Guidance to Effectively Manage Social Media in the Workplace, as part of GMSI’s 2011 HR & Employer Compliance Summit, a 3-day event in San Diego.

Of course, my book on social media and HR, Think Before You Click…, is still available now from Thompson Publishing.

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

Discrimination

• “Purple Pride” Overshadowed By “Wigger Day” – from Stephanie Thomas’s The Proactive Employer Blog
• Pottymouths don’t usually win sexual harassment lawsuits – from Eric Meyer’s The Employer Handbook Blog
• Gabby Giffords: Working with chronic illness – from CareerDiva, Eva Tahmincioglu
• Is it ok under the ADA and the GINA to offer wellness incentives? The EEOC explains it all for you – from Robin Shea’s Employment and Labor Insider
• GINA prohibits financial incentives as inducement to provide genetic information as part of employee wellness program – from Employment Law Matters
• EEOC sues predominantly African American hospital - for discriminating against black employees – from Developments in Employment Law
• Lillie Leon, 80-Year-Old Kindergarten Teacher, Sues City Over Firing From Public School – from CBS New York

Social Media & Workplace Technology

• How much time are your employees on Facebook? – from Rob Radcliff’s Smooth Transitions
• 76% of Businesses Use Social Media but Fewer than Half have Policies in Place – from Kara Mignanelli’s Social Axcess
• 45% of Employers [Still] Don’t Have a Social-Media Policy – from Molly DiBianca’s Delaware Employment Law Blog
• Google+: Five legal issues for businesses – from MacWorld
• The Internet Equalizer—The Smart Phone – from Jessica Miller-Merrell’s Blogging4jobs
• E-Discovery and Social Media in Workplace Investigations – from i-Sight Blog
• The Simple Way to Avoid Social Media Failures – from Harvard Business Review
• Think the iPad is big now? We’ve only just begun – from The Apple Blog
• Missouri Law Bans Social Media Contact Between Teachers and Students – from Bradley Shear’s Shear on Social Media Law
• Can my boss monitor my computer and then fire me for being unproductive? – from Ask a Manager

Employee Relations & HR

• Should You Care That Your Employees Are Going to a DayGlow Event? – from Dan Schwartz’s Connecticut Employment Law Blog
• Stupid HR: “Sorry It’s Not In the Policy Manual” – from Mike Haberman’s Omega HR Solutions
• Can They Really Say That? What Employers Can Say About You When Giving References – from Donna Ballman’s Screw You Guys, I’m Going Home
• Hotel Employee with Criminal Record Accused of Raping Guest – from Nick Fishman’s employeescreenIQ Blog
• Why Ex-Con Job Seekers Shouldn't Be Discriminated Against – from Time
• Why Should Employers be Fair? – from World of Work
• Employee Leaving? How About We Not Let Them Send an Email to Everyone? – from Lance Haun at TLNT
• From “Workplace Flexibility” to Smart Scheduling – from Work and Family Blog
• Physician Noncompetes: Part 1 Reasonable Limitations On Time And Geographic Scope – from Russell Cawyer’s Texas Employment Law Update
• Ohio Smoke-Free Workplace law is working – from Cincinnati.com
• More People Are Using Smartphones To Secretly Record Office Conversations – from Business Insider

Labor Relations

• Some Employees’ Online Rants Cross the Line: New Guidance From the NLRB – from Brian Wassom’s Augmented Legality
• When Can Employers Lawfully Fire an Employee for an Offensive Facebook Post? Ask the NLRB – from Workplace Privacy Counsel
• Facebook Firings: Feds, Managers Navigate “New Territory” In Employment – from the Huffington Post
• NLRB Creates Lead Technology Counsel Position – from Labor Relations Today
• The Lull Before The Storm: Blizzard Of NLRB Activity Coming – from Labor Relations Update
• NBA Files Suit And Charge Against Players Union – from Workplace Prof Blog

---

Written by Jon Hyman, a partner in the Labor & Employment group of Kohrman Jackson & Krantz. For more information, contact Jon at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

Where does your state rank in discrimination filings? Ohio … we’re not so bad

According to Bloomberg Businessweek, 2010 was a banner year for workplace discrimination claims. Nationwide, there was a record 99,922 charges of discrimination filed. How does your state rank? Businessweek figured that out too. For example, my state, Ohio, ranks 10th, which is not all that bad given that Ohio is the 7th largest state by total population.

Here’s the list of top 20:

1. Texas (2nd largest state by total population)
2. California (1)
3. Florida (4)
4. Georgia (9)
5. Indiana (15)
6. Illinois (5)
7. Pennsylvania (6)
8. North Carolina (10)
9. Tennessee (17)
10. Ohio (7)
11. Alabama (23)
12. New York (3)
13. Michigan (8)
14. Colorado (22)
15. Virginia (12)
16. Arizona (16)
17. Missouri (18)
18. Mississippi (31)
19. Arkansas (32)
20. Washington (13)

Based on total population, Ohio does a little better than expected. New York and Washington do much better than expected. Indiana, Tennessee, Alabama, Colorado, Mississippi, and Arkansas do much worse than expected.

Just one more reason for companies to consider Ohio for their operations—you’re less likely to be sued here.

---

Written by Jon Hyman, a partner in the Labor & Employment group of Kohrman Jackson & Krantz. For more information, contact Jon at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

6th Circuit strikes back against union’s self-help protest

When does a union protest turn from lawful, protected conduct to unlawful harassment? A case decided yesterday by the 6th Circuit provides some guidance.

Pulte Homes, Inc. v. Laborers’ International Union of N. Am. (6th Cir. 8/2/11) [pdf] starts out like any ordinary dispute between an employer and a union over the termination of a union-supporting employee. The union filed an unfair labor practice charge with the NLRB, claiming that Pulte fired the employee because he wore a pro-union shirt, and not because of the poor performance alleged by the company.

Not content with letting the NLRB process the termination, the union took matters into its own hands. It used a paid auto-dialing service to bombard Pulte’s sales offices and three of its executives with thousands of protest phone calls, jamming access to Pulte’s voicemail system and preventing its customers from reaching the company. It also urged its members, through a posting on its website, to “fight back” by sending emails to specific Pulte executives. The members’ compliance overloaded Pulte’s email system. Many of the communications included threats and obscene language. The “protest” resulted in Pulte temporarily shuttering its operations.

The 6th Circuit took issue with these tactics, and permitted Pulte to proceed with its claim against the union that the phone calls and emails constituted an unlawful “transmission” under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The CFAA makes it unlawful to “knowingly cause the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a result of such conduct, intentionally cause damage without authorization, to a protected computer.” The court concluded that the union’s onslaught of emails and voice mails, plausibly designed to disrupt Pulte’s business by bogging down its systems, met this definition.

What is the moral of this story, no matter the side of the table on which you sit? Courts hate self-help. If you have a legal remedy available, use it. Don’t take matters into your own hands. More often than not, you’ll be doing more harm than good.

---

Written by Jon Hyman, a partner in the Labor & Employment group of Kohrman Jackson & Krantz. For more information, contact Jon at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

Must employers pay unused vacation at termination? It depends.

One issue that often arises with employees is whether they should be paid out unused vacation pay at the end of employment. Because Ohio law considers vacation pay a deferred payment of an earned benefit, an employer generally cannot withhold accrued vacation pay at the end of employment (just like it cannot withhold wages from a final paycheck). Unlike wages, however, because this benefit is deferred, an employer can implement a policy under which an employee forfeits unused vacation days.

Thus, the rule for vacation pay is as follows:

• If an employer does not have a policy pursuant to which unused vacation time is forfeited, and if the employee has unused, accrued vacation time, he or she is entitled to be paid for that time.
• If, however, the employer has a clear written policy, set forth in a manual, handbook, or elsewhere, providing that paid vacation time is forfeited on resignation or discharge, an employer may withhold unused vacation pay.

Do you want to know what such a policy looks like? A recent Ohio appellate decision—Majecic v. Universal Devel. Mgmt. Corp. [pdf]—provides the following example:

Paid Time Off (PTO) includes sick, vacation, … and personal time off with pay…. Employees will be given PTO days after one year of employment…. All unused PTO will be forfeited upon an employee’s resignation or termination.

Two thoughts to leave you with:

1. Despite this recent judicial guidance, and as with all employment policies, it is best to check with your employment counsel before rolling out a vacation pay forfeiture policy to your employees.
2. Notwithstanding the ability to implement a vacation pay forfeiture policy, think about whether such a policy makes for sound HR practice, or whether it makes more sense to limit this policy only to “just cause” terminations, if at all.

Is that a hair in my chalupa? (or, Taco Bell and EEOC battle over religious accommodation)

A Nazarite is one who takes a biblical vow to refrain from wine, wine vinegar, grapes, raisins, intoxicating liquors, and vinegar distilled from such, refrain from cutting the hair on one’s head, and to avoid corpses and graves, even those of family members, and any structure which contains such.

History’s most famous Nazarite is Samson, who famously refused to cut his hair because it was the source of his strength. Its second most famous might be Christopher Abbey, on whose behalf the EEOC has filed a religious discrimination lawsuit against a North Carolina Taco Bell that fired Abbey after he refused to cut his hair. From the EEOC’s press release:

According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, Abbey is a practicing Nazirite who, in accordance with his religious beliefs, has not cut his hair since he was 15 years old. Abbey had worked at a Taco Bell restaurant owned by Family Foods in Fayetteville, N.C., since 2004. Sometime in April 2010, Family Foods informed Abbey, who was 25 at the time, that he had to cut his hair in order to comply with its grooming policy. When Abbey explained that he could not cut his hair because of his religion, the company told Abbey that unless he cut his hair, he could no longer continue to work at the restaurant.

Two questions immediately leap to mind:

1. What changed between 2004 and 2010, when the restaurant decided that Abbey could no longer work with long hair?
2. What was so burdensome about Abbey wearing a hair net?

Someday, employers will learn that sometimes it is easier to make a simple accommodation than to dig in their heal and fight.

---

Written by Jon Hyman, a partner in the Labor & Employment group of Kohrman Jackson & Krantz. For more information, contact Jon at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

WIRTW #187 (the “24” edition)

Willie Mays … Jack Bauer … Jon Hyman … what do we all have in common? The number 24. HR Examiner, one of the preeminent online magazines on HR issues, recently named me to its list of the top 25 digital influencers for human resources—number 24, to be exact. Please check out the entire list, which is chock-full of great HR bloggers and tweeters.

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

Discrimination

• What would Kenny Powers do? Interview questions to avoid – from The Employer Handbook Blog
• Sexual Harassment: You Knew or Should Have Known – from Michael Haberman’s Omega HR Solutions
• “Associational Disability Discrimination”—Yet Another Protected Category – from Labor & Employment Law Perspectives
• Non-impaired employee may be able to bring a claim under the ADA’s “associational disability” provision – from Employment Law Matters
• Wal-Mart Agrees to Give Women Extra Time to File Discrimination Lawsuits – from How Appealing
• Verizon Consent Decree Provides Road Map For Surviving EEOC Scrutiny of No Fault Attendance and Leave of Absence Policies – from Employer Law Report
• Two Recent Decisions Illuminate for Employers the Broad Contours of ADA Confidentiality vs. the Narrow Boundaries of HIPAA Privacy – from Workplace Privacy Counsel
• ADA And GINA: The EEOC Suggests That Additional Layers Of Privacy Protections For Employee Health Information May Be Necessary – from Hunton Employment & Labor Law Perspectives™
• Substance abuse and the ADA: Can too much caring get you in trouble? – from HR Cafe

Social Media & Workplace Technology

• Social Media: Used Not Just to “Friend”, but to Hire – from Smart HR Manager
• LinkedIn and Litigation – from Augmented Legality
• Twitter Fail and Compliance – from Compliance Building
• E-Monitoring in the Workplace: Do’s and Do Not’s – from Workplace Insights
• How much time are your employees on Facebook? from Rob Radcliff’s Smooth Transitions
• Monitoring Employee Communications Requires Up-to-Date Consent – from Labor & Employment Law Perspectives
• Computer Fraud and Abuse Act: A Criminal Statute That Extends to the Employment Relationship? – from Michigan Employment Law Advisor
• Employers Hunt Down Your Bachelor Party Pics on Facebook – from Evil HR Lady, Suzanne Lucas
• Google Plus for lawyers : First impressions – from Real Lawyers Have Blogs
• Social Media “Incidents” Costing Average Company $4 Million A Year – from Workplace Diva
• LinkedIn Launches “Apply With LinkedIn” Button – from Social Axcess

HR & Employee Relations

• Can you get fired for cursing at work? – from CNN
• Using Trickery and Deceit in Workplace Investigations – from iSight Blog
• How to Use Payroll Debit Cards to Pay Employees – from Virginia Employment Law Journal
• Criminal Histories and Employment Opportunities – from Stephanie Thomas’s The Proactive Employer Blog
• 21 Workplace Benefits That Are Rapidly Disappearing – from US News and World Report
• HR Mistakes in Mergers and Acquisitions – from TLNT
• What To Do When Angry Employees Leave – from Inc.

Labor Relations

• NLRB Division of Advice Provides Additional Guidance on Social Media Issues – from Seth Borden’s Labor Relations Today
• NLRB: Not All Employee Facebook Posts Deserve Protection After All – from Dan Schwartz’s Connecticut Employment Law Blog
• Ikea’s Virginia Manufacturing Plant Workers Vote for Union – from Bloomberg
• First Circuit Upholds NLRB’s Strike Against Compensation Confidentiality Policy – from Labor Relations Counsel
• NLRB Quickie Election Fact Check – from Labor Relations Institute

Wage & Hour

• U.S. DOL Seeks New Employment-Law-Related Apps – from Molly DiBianca’s Delaware Employment Law Blog
• Parental Bereavement Act Would Amend FMLA to Provide Leave Upon Death of a Child – from FMLA Insights

Trade Secrets & Competition

• Noncompete Defamation Leads to Six-Figure Verdict – from Philip Miles’s Lawffice Space
• Affidavits Not Enough to Obtain Injunctive Relief in Alleged Raiding Case – from Trading Secrets
• Court Enjoins Lawyer From Competing and Soliciting Clients of Former Law Firm – from Trade Secrets & Non-Compete Blog

---

Written by Jon Hyman, a partner in the Labor & Employment group of Kohrman Jackson & Krantz. For more information, contact Jon at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

Did you hear the one about the one-armed man who applied for a job with TSA?

Michael Costantino was born without a left hand. Should the Transportation Security Administration have hired him as an airport screener? Or, has it violated the ADA by refusing to hire him because of his missing hand? Eva Tahmincioglu reports the details at MSNBC.com:

After a physical examination by the agency, he got a notice stating he did not qualify for the position because of the “congenital loss of right hand.” …

But an official, who demanded anonymity, said the congressional act that created the TSA in 2001 “gave the agency the leeway to create its own physical qualifications for the Transportation Security Officer position, and potential employees have to meet certain physical standards to meet those qualifications.” The law requires that screeners “possess basic aptitudes and physical abilities, including color perception, visual and aural acuity, physical coordination, and motor skills.”

This case will hinge on whether Costantino could perform the essential functions of the transportation security officer position, including patting down passengers and checking luggage. As this recent case from the Northern District of Ohio makes clear, the ADA does not require an employer to restructure the essential duties functions of a job as a reasonable accommodation.

I would argue that moving passengers through the line as quickly and safely as possible is also an essential function of this position. It is probably safe to assume that Costantino could screen passengers and luggage one-handed, albeit more slowly. If his limitation would cause him to take longer to screen passengers and cause an unneeded back-up, would he be performing all of the job’s essential functions? Before you slam me for being insensitive, answer these questions honestly. Do you want to be in the unnecessarily long security line when you’re trying to catch your flight? Or, would you be murmuring under your breath for the line to move faster as your eyes dart between the line, your watch, and your boarding pass?

---

Written by Jon Hyman, a partner in the Labor & Employment group of Kohrman Jackson & Krantz. For more information, contact Jon at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

Calling for a balanced approach to criminal background checks

Yesterday, the EEOC continued its series of public meetings examining hiring practices as alleged employment barriers, covering employers’ use of arrest and conviction records. According to the EEOC’s press release, it is trying to strike a balance between workplace fairness and workplace safety. Let’s hope that the EEOC is serious about being balanced in its approach to this important issue.

The EEOC’s position has always been that blanket policies that disqualify people with criminal backgrounds violates Title VII. Instead employers should undertake a job-by-job, employee-by-employee, check-by-check analysis of the relationship between the conviction and the ability to perform the job. At the minimum, the EEOC should continue this approach.

Nothing will be served by tightening the reigns on employers’ ability to conduct reasonable criminal background searches. Consider, for example, the May 2009 verdict against a Virginia assisted living facility that failed to discover that it had hired a sex offender. This example might be extreme, but it illustrates that criminal histories are necessary and relevant for many employers. Every employer does not need to check the criminal background of every applicant. However, it is imperative that the EEOC allow employers the flexibility to decide for themselves which positions warrant criminal history histories, and then which crimes disqualify a candidate from employment.

---

Written by Jon Hyman, a partner in the Labor & Employment group of Kohrman Jackson & Krantz. For more information, contact Jon at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

Start-up offers social media background searches; employers rejoice and privacy advocates mistakenly groan

More employers are turning to social media sites to vet potential employees. There is no doubt that sites like Facebook and Twitter offer a wealth of information about potential hires. Using these sites to vet job candidates offers a great opportunity, and also a huge risk. Using publicly available information on the Internet has the risk of disclosing protected EEO information, such as disability, age, race, or religion, or, at a minimum, raising a dangerous inference that such information was discovered and used in the hiring process.

Nearly two years ago, I cautioned employers against relying solely on online background checks to vet potential employees. I recommended using a “third-party to do the searching, with instructions that any sensitive, protected, or EEO information not be disclosed back to you.” No companies were available, though, that specialized in these types of background searches, until now.

Last month, the FTC signed-off on a year-old company that searches social media sites for employers conducting background searches on employees—Social Intelligence Corp. In last Wednesday’s New York Times, Jennifer Preston wrote a profile of the start-up that has generated a lot of online discussion:

Companies have long used criminal background checks, credit reports and even searches on Google and LinkedIn to probe the previous lives of prospective employees. Now, some companies are requiring job candidates to also pass a social media background check.

A year-old start-up, Social Intelligence, scrapes the Internet for everything prospective employees may have said or done online in the past seven years.

Then it assembles a dossier with examples of professional honors and charitable work, along with negative information that meets specific criteria: online evidence of racist remarks; references to drugs; sexually explicit photos, text messages or videos; flagrant displays of weapons or bombs and clearly identifiable violent activity.

According to Social Intelligence’s CEO, Max Drucker, its services “have turned up examples of people making anti-Semitic comments and racist remarks…. Then there was the job applicant who belonged to a Facebook group, ‘This Is America. I Shouldn’t Have to Press 1 for English.’”

I have not used Social Intelligence’s services, and I am not endorsing its product. What is appealing about it, though, is its professed ability to screen out protected EEO information:

Our technology allows us to turn around reports in 24 to 48 hours while still having social media activity about every job applicant manually reviewed. Social Intelligence Hiring presents employers with reports on only employer-defined objectionable material, such as racist remarks or behavior, explicit photos and video, and illegal activity. We flag job candidates associated with negative and positive material, filtering out their “protected class” information and reporting only relevant and desired data. Summary and detail views present easy-to-understand results, with screenshots of pertinent material.

Social Intelligence has sparked a lively debate on the Internet. The New York Times story alone has a whopping 258 comments to date. I participated in a discussion on Google+ about the New York Times article, where my opinion voicing the validity of checking employees’ social media activities was decidedly in the minority. The majority, who expressed privacy concerns, misses the mark. Social media is inherently public, and employees who do not tend to their online image risk an arduous job search.

If you want to learn more about the proper and improper uses of social media in the hiring process, Think Before You Click: Strategies for Managing Social Media in the Workplace is now available from Thompson Publishing. I also recommend part two of Stephanie Thomas’s Proactive Employer Podcast—the HR and Social Media Roundtable—airing live this Friday (July 29) at 8:30 am on BlogTalkRadio, and later available for on-demand listening at The Proactive Employer and via iTunes.

---

Written by Jon Hyman, a partner in the Labor & Employment group of Kohrman Jackson & Krantz. For more information, contact Jon at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

Is this what a disability analysis looks like under the ADAAA?

A lot has be written over the past couple of years predicting how the 2009 amendments to the ADA have eviscerated the definition of disability. Here’s what I wrote a couple of months ago, after reviewing the EEOC’s then-new regulations:

While the regulations make clear that “not every impairment will constitute a disability,” because of the ADAAA’s expansive definition of disability, most will…. In other words, employers should give up hope that they will be able to prove that an employee’s medical condition does not qualify as a disability.

Now, we finally have an example that starts to prove these predictions correct.

Gesegnet v. J.B. Hunt Transport (W.D. Ky. 5/26/11) concerns whether an employer failed in its obligation to reasonably accommodate an employee’s bi-polar and anxiety disorders by making arrangements for a pre-employment drug screening somewhere other than a small room. Before the court could reach the reasonable accommodation issue, it had to first address whether the employee qualified as “disabled” under the ADA. The following is the court’s searing analysis of this important threshold issue:

In difficult cases, a plaintiff usually proves disability through a combination of medical evidence and personal testimony detailing the practical impact of that medical condition. Here, Plaintiff is lacking in each area.... The Court doubts that the medical and personal evidence here is sufficient to show an actual inability to perform a basic function of life. Nevertheless, given the broad definition of disability Congress intended, the Court will assume that Plaintiff has a disability under the ADAAA.

Because employers will not be able to prove that an employee is not “disabled,” employers will be better served by focusing their ADA-compliance efforts on the two issues that now matter: avoiding discrimination and providing reasonable accommodations.

---

Written by Jon Hyman, a partner in the Labor & Employment group of Kohrman Jackson & Krantz. For more information, contact Jon at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

Announcing the publication of Think Before You Click: Strategies for Managing Social Media in the Workplace

It is with great pride and accomplishment that I announce the publication of Think Before You Click: Strategies for Managing Social Media in the Workplace (née HR and Social Media: Practical and Legal Guidance). This book, which I believe is the first of its kind discussing the intersection of social media, HR, and labor/employment law, comprehensively covers the following:

• What Is Social Media?: An examination of the “Big Four” in social media (blogs, Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn): how they are used today, and what’s on the horizon for tomorrow.
• Drafting the Workplace Social Media Policy: 10 considerations every employer needs to think through before drafting and implementing a workplace social media policy.
• Hiring and Recruiting: How employers are using social media to locate, vet, and screen potential employees and new hires.
• Privacy Protections: How privacy and social media interact in the workplace, and the various constitutional, statutory and common law privacy rights implicated by social media.
• Post-Employment Covenants and Trade Secret Claims: How best to protect confidential information and trade secrets from disclosure via social networks by current and former employees.
• Litigation: How lawyers are using social media as evidence in litigation against employers.
• Labor Law: The meaning of protected, concerted activity, anti-solicitation policies, and how the National Labor Relations Board is applying these long-standing principles in an attempt to gut employers’ attempts to regulate what employees about saying about them online.

Having edited the entire book, I can say without reservation that it is a must for any business owner, executive, manager, human resources professional, or attorney who is concerned about the effect social media is having on the modern workplace and the liability risks that flow from it. In short, this book will prove to be an invaluable resource as businesses try to navigate these uncharted waters.

When Thompson first approached me about authoring this book, I candidly told them that I would love to write the book, but my busy practice would not permit the time to crank out the entire tome. For that reason, I am eternally grateful to my team of contributing authors—Seth Borden (Labor Relations Today; @SHBorden), Molly DiBianca (Delaware Employment Law Blog; Going Paperless; @MollyDiBi), Eric Meyer (The Employer Handbook Blog; @Eric_B_Meyer), Philip Miles (Lawffice Space; @PhilipMiles), Rob Radcliff (Smooth Transitions; @robradcliff), and Daniel Schwartz (Connecticut Employment Law Blog; @danielschwartz)—who helped write an amazing book and without whom the book would not have been possible and would not be as good as it is.

Now click over to Thompson Publishing for more information, including how to order a copy.

---

Written by Jon Hyman, a partner in the Labor & Employment group of Kohrman Jackson & Krantz. For more information, contact Jon at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

WIRTW #186 (the carnival edition)

This week marks the 186th edition of What I Read This Week, where I share the best what caught my eye as I surfed around the blogosphere (mostly) for the last 7 days. This week, Eric Meyer’s The Employer Handbook launched the Employment Law Blog Carnival, a monthly collection of submitted blog links on employment law arranged around a particular theme. I’ll be hosting the Carnival’s 2nd edition (theme tbd), on August 17, so feel free to send (jth@kjk.com) or DM (@jonhyman) your links by August 15.

I’d also be remiss if I did not give one more plug for Stephanie Thomas’s Proactive Employer Podcast on social media, in which I participated, which aired live at 8:30 this morning. Part 2 airs next Friday at the same time. Both installments will be available for on-demand listening at The Proactive Employer and via iTunes.

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

Discrimination

• Cubicle Walls Closing In On ADA Violations – from Stephanie Thomas’s The Proactive Employer Blog
• 4 Ways Employers Skirt Discrimination Laws – from The Street
• Religious Discrimination Based on Abercrombie “Look Policy” – from Employment Matters Blog
• Changing Gears in Reverse Discrimination Claims: Differences under Michigan and Federal Law – from Michigan Employment Law Advisor
• No-Fault Attendance? In light of the EEOC/Verizon settlement, what’s the point? – from Employment and Labor Insider
• Avoiding discrimination class actions – from Inside Counsel

Social Media & Workplace Technology

• Steamed—Employment Law Attorneys & Social Media – from Blogging4Jobs
• OMG! The cost of social-media blunders – from today.com
• Plaintiffs, Beware of Social Media – from Social Media Today
• Nearly Half of Companies Have No Social Networking Policy – from Manpower Employment Blawg
• Using Social Media for Discovery Has Ethical Implications – from From the Sidebar
• Someone Posted Something Nasty About You On The Internet. Now What? – from Kashmir Hill’s The Not-So Private Parts
• The Use of Social Media in Hiring Decisions: Tempting Fruit from a Poisonous Tree – from Pennsylvania Labor and Employment Blog
• The New Norm in HR: Social Media Recruiting – from Social Axcess
• Social Recruiting On The Rise In 2011 – from Cincy Recruiter’s World
• How to Create A Social Recruiting Strategy – from MonsterThinking

Employment Relations & HR

• Potty Training and how it relates to Careers (this should be interesting) – from Smelling Some Roses
• Bill Clinton and the “Extreme and Outrageous” IIED Hurdle – from Philip Miles’s Lawffice Space
• 7 Ways to Get at the Truth in a Workplace Investigation – from iSight Blog
• Employee Morale Tanks When A Co-worker Takes Sick Leave – from Workplace Diva
• Plaintiff’s Lawyer Reveals: Mistakes that Make My Day – from HR Daily Advisor
• Anti-Anti-Smoking Rules – from Workplace Prof Blog
• Leaky Hiring Tests: Are They Your Organization’s Most Expensive Mistake? – from TLNT
• Horrible Bosses? – from Harvard Business Review
• Unlimited Vacation, but Can You Take It? – from The Wall Street Journal

Wage & Hour

• Complaint re: Wages on Facebook Not Basis for FLSA Retaliation Claim – from Molly DiBianca’s Delaware Employment Law Blog
• Salaried Workers, Do You Get Overtime Pay? Odds Are You Should! – from Donna Ballman’s Screw You Guys, I’m Going Home
• You Be the Judge: Did boss tell employee to falsify his time card to omit overtime? – from HR Cafe
• DOL Playbook – from Laconic Law Blog
• Employers Urge Congress To Revise the Fair Labor Standards Act – from Wage & Hour - Development & Highlights
• Using GPS Tracking Technology to Prove Intermittent FMLA Abuse? – from Texas Employment Law Update
• Is There Paternity Leave in Baseball? – from Work and Family Blog
• Taking FMLA Leave to Care for a Parent or Parental Figure – from Wisconsin Employment & Labor Law Blog

Labor Relations

• NLRB’s Invisible Hand Will Hold Back Business – from The ChamberPost
• Bill That Would Remove NLRB’s Authority to Order Employers to Relocate or Close Their Facilities is Introduced – from Washington D.C. Employment Law Update
• Speakers List Grievances About Proposed NLRB Election Rule Changes – from Labor Relations Counsel

---

Written by Jon Hyman, a partner in the Labor & Employment group of Kohrman Jackson & Krantz. For more information, contact Jon at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

Find the sweet spot when firing a bad employee

There is a balance between providing a poor-performing employee sufficient time to improve and waiting to long to fire someone. Cohen v. CHLN, Inc. (E.D. Pa. 7/13/2011) illustrates what can go wrong when this balance goes out of whack.

Howard Cohen managed various restaurants from 1998 through 2006, and again from 2007 until his termination in August 2009. During his second tenure with the restaurant company, his performance was less than stellar; he received various disciplinary warnings, write-ups, and suspensions, and two consecutive negative annual reviews. The restaurant waited to terminate Cohen, though, until the day after he advised of his need for back surgery. Based on that fact alone, and ignoring management’s internal discussions about terminating Cohen before he communicated his need for surgery, the trial court denied the employer’s motion for summary judgment:

Defendants have undoubtedly presented a wealth of evidence justifying their termination of Plaintiff. Nonetheless, their failure to fire Plaintiff, after years of poor performance reviews, until the morning after he requested leave for his back condition raises a sufficient question as to Defendants’ alleged discriminatory motive to render summary judgment inappropriate.

Don’t make the same mistake. Look for the sweet spot before firing a poor performer.

• Fire after you’ve provided the employee sufficient and reasonable warnings and opportunities to improve. Firing too early could lead a judge or jury to conclude that the termination was an ambush, and punish accordingly.
• Fire before the employee engages in some protected activity. Firing too late—as in the Cohen case—could lead a judge or jury to conclude that something other than poor performance motivated the decision. The last thing you want in a discrimination or retaliation case is a search for an explanation other than your proffered legitimate non-discriminatory reason.

---

Written by Jon Hyman, a partner in the Labor & Employment group of Kohrman Jackson & Krantz. For more information, contact Jon at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

You’d think a businesses named “Menorah House” would know something about accommodating the Sabbath

The EEOC is alleging that Menorah House, a Boca Raton, Florida, nursing home, violated Title VII when it fired an employee who wanted time off to observe the Sabbath. From the EEOC’s press release:

According to the EEOC’s suit … Menorah House denied a religious accommodation to Philomene Augustin and fired her because of her religious beliefs. Augustin … is a Seventh-Day Adventist, and her Sabbath is from sundown on Friday to sundown on Saturday evening. Menorah House had accommodated Augustin’s request not to work on her Sabbath for over ten years until management instituted a new policy requiring all employees to work on Saturdays, regardless of their religious beliefs.

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 poses an undue hardship if it causes more than de minimis cost on the operation of the employer’s business.

When will accommodating the weekly Sabbath requests of an employee pose an undue hardship?

• If it would require hiring additional employees.
• If it would require paying other employees overtime.
• If other employees refuse to voluntarily swap shifts to cover.
• If it would deprive another employee of a job preference or other benefit guaranteed by a bona fide seniority system or collective bargaining agreement.

If, however, an employer can schedule around the request without adding employees or costs, or without forcing employees to swap shifts, then the accommodation likely should be made.

If the facts as alleged by the EEOC are true, this employer should have forsaken its across-the-board prohibition against Saturdays off. Instead, it should have engaged in a cooperative information-sharing process with the employee to determine if it could provide a reasonable accommodation without incurring an undue hardship.

For more information on religious discrimination and reasonable accommodations, the EEOC offers the following resources on its website:

• Compliance Manual on Religious Discrimination
• Questions and Answers: Religious Discrimination in the Workplace
• Best Practices for Eradicating Religious Discrimination in the Workplace

---

Written by Jon Hyman, a partner in the Labor & Employment group of Kohrman Jackson & Krantz. For more information, contact Jon at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

Can you hear me now? Don’t forget mobile devices in your social media policy

You think you’ve crafted the perfect social media policy for your employees. You let employees have the freedom to engage in limited and reasonable social media from work, yet use server-side software to spot-monitor their activities just in case things get out of hand. Your company Internet also blocks grossly inappropriate content, such as pornography. Yet, your policy is missing one key component ... mobile devices.

According to a recent report by the Pew Internet Project (c/o Mashable), more U.S. adults have a smartphone than a college degree. 35% of surveyed adults reported that they own a smartphone, and of those people 87% use their smartphones as an Internet device. Moreover, smartphone adoption is set to grow an additional 45% this year alone. (GigaOm). Smartphone use is approaching a critical mass in our society.

What are these smartphone owners doing with their devices at work? If a recent survey published by TechNewsDaily is to be believed, they are accessing websites they wouldn’t ordinarily visit from their workstation PCs:

• 52% look for a new job
• 47% watch pornography
• 37% research embarrassing illnesses or conditions

In light of these stats, if your social media policy is written as an outright ban on the use of social media in the workplace, that policy is not workable. Moreover, if your social media policy does not account for smartphone use, it has a gaping hole that you need to fill immediately.

If you want to learn more about these issues, I cannot more strongly recommend picking up a copy of HR and Social Media: Practical and Legal Guidance, which (God willing) finally will be published and available for purchase this week. I’ll have more information as soon as it is launched.

You should also check out a special two-part edition of Stephanie Thomas’s Proactive Employer Podcast, during which Seth Borden (Labor Relations Today; @SHBorden), Molly DiBianca (Delaware Employment Law Blog; Going Paperless; @MollyDiBi), Eric Meyer (The Employer Handbook Blog; @Eric_B_Meyer), Phil Miles (Lawffice Space; @PhilipMiles), Rob Radcliff (Smooth Transitions; @robradcliff), Dan Schwartz (Connecticut Employment Law Blog; @danielschwartz), and I will discuss all things social media and HR (and promote our new book at the same time). Part 1 airs on BlogTalkRadio at 8:30 AM on Friday, July 22; part 2 at 8:30 AM on Friday, July 29. Both installments will be available for on-demand listening at The Proactive Employer and via iTunes.

---

Written by Jon Hyman, a partner in the Labor & Employment group of Kohrman Jackson & Krantz. For more information, contact Jon at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.