New rules for removing cases to federal court will impact employers

If you are an employer, or an attorney representing employers (and if you’re reading this blog I’d bet dollars to donuts you fall into one of these categories), the Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification Act of 2011 [pdf] will significantly impact you. Congress passed this bill last week, and PrawfsBlog notes that President Obama expects to sign it into law.

Without getting overly technical (for those who are not familiar with how the removal of cases from state court to federal court works), with some limited exceptions, a defendant has the right to take a case originally filed in state court into federal court if the plaintiff could have filed the case in federal court in the first place. There are two types of cases a plaintiff is jurisdictionally permitted file in federal court: those based on the diversity of the parties (where no plaintiff is a citizen of the same state as any defendant, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000), and those based on a federal question (where a claim arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States).

The JVCA will make some significant changes in how we remove cases to federal court:

For all removed cases:

• In cases with multiple defendants, it will now be a statutory requirement that all defendants consent to the removal (codifying a long-standing judicial requirement).
• Each defendant will have its own 30-day period after receipt by or service on that defendant of the initial pleading or summons (clearing up a conflict among the circuits, some of which had denied a later-served defendant the benefit of a full 30-day period to file a notice of removal).
• If a later-served defendant is the first to file a notice of removal, earlier-served defendants may consent to the removal even though they had not previously initiated or consented to the removal (also clearing up a circuit conflict).

For removed cases based on a federal question:

• In cases that combine a federal question with non-removable state law claims (workers’ comp claims, for example), the JVCA will require the federal district court to sever the non-removable state law claims and remand them back to state court. This provision presents a risk of bifurcated lawsuits (and duplicative litigation?) in certain instances.

For removed cases based on diversity of citizenship:

• The JVCA adds a bad faith exception to the prohibition against the removal of cases after one year after the commencement of the action. A court can permit this late removal if it finds that the plaintiff acted in bad faith to prevent a timely removal (such as by deliberating hiding the real amount in controversy).
• The JVCA cures the conflict among the circuits in the calculation of the amount in controversy. It permits a defendant to state in the notice of removal the amount in controversy when the complaint is silent, and permits late removal if one learns the amount in controversy via discovery responses. This provision is significant in states like Ohio, which permit boilerplate $25,000 prayers for relief in common pleas court complaints. This provision removes that risk that a defendant who waited to remove a case following discovery on the amount in controversy risked remand based on a late-filed removal. 

It is no secret that employers and their lawyers usually prefer to be in federal court, and removal is often the way we get there. Because the JVCA will affect how we get certain cases into federal court, it is a significant development that warrants our attention. It will go into effect 30 days after President Obama signs it into law.

[Hat tip: @overlawyered]

Pop quiz: is this sexual harassment?

Readers, it's pop quiz time. Do the following allegations support an allegation of a hostile work environment?

• The Plaintiff’s manager stated that he had the best view in the house while walking behind plaintiff and another female employee.
• During a dinner in 2009 with refractive account managers, the manager made a comment about placing his wife in different sexual positions to conceive a boy or girl.
• The manager was present, and laughed, when one of his subordinates told a group of other employees that he did his best interviews with girls in bathing suits.
• During a 2008 National Sales meeting, the Regional Director hugged a female employee receiving an award on stage and mimicked an erection or had an erection. The manager witnessed the incident and just laughed.
• The Regional Director told plaintiff that she had nice legs and he had been watching her in her boots.
• The Regional Director asked plaintiff whether she knew that people referred to another female employee as “tits on a stick.”

According to the court in Kepreos v. Alcon Laboratories (N.D. Ohio 9/21/11), the answer is no:

The Court concludes that these isolated incidents, considered together, are just not severe or pervasive enough such that a reasonable jury could conclude that defendants created a hostile work environment. Accepting all of plaintiff’s evidence, no factfinder could determine that the workplace was permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult sufficiently severe and pervasive so as to alter plaintiff’s conditions of employment.

Surprised? Because hostile environment claims are largely subjective, they are tricky to predict. One person’s (or judge’s, or jury’s) hostile environment is another’s isolated incident or workplace trifle. In addition, other facts in a case might sway the judge or jury to a different conclusion. For example, Alcon fired Kepreos because she had embezzled money via her corporate credit card. Do you think her dishonesty motivated the conclusion that her work environment wasn’t sexually hostile?
You might be thinking, if these claims are so unpredictable, how do you defend against them? The answer is prevention. Have a strong anti-harassment policy. Train all of your employees—from the CEO on down to the lowest paid hourly worker—on what the policy means and how it works. Give the policy teeth by consistently enforcing it, both by investigating all complaints and by taking appropriate remedial measures when needed. Create an environment where employees know they can complain without fear of retaliation and with confidence that their complaints will be taken seriously. By following these few steps, you will limit your opportunities to find your company on the receiving end of a tricky harassment lawsuit.

Apple’s social media policy: a lot to like … and one huge thing to hate

How does a hip, cutting-edge company like Apple handle its employees’ use of social media? Apparently, pretty well. 9 to 5 Mac got its hands on the Apple Retail Blogging and Online Social Media Guidelines, and published the details. There’s a lot to read (it's a long policy), and a lot to like.

For example, Apple’s policy strikes an appropriate balance between the management of its reputation and respect for employees’ lives online or away from work:

In general, what you do on your own time is your business. However, activities that affect your job performance, the performance of other Apple employees, or Apple’s business interests are still covered by company policies and guidelines. This applies whether you engage in these activities in or outside of work, and whether or not you identify yourself as an Apple employee….

Be thoughtful about how you present yourself in online social networks. The lines between public and private, and personal and professional are blurred in online social networks. If you identify yourself as an Apple employee or are known to be one, you are now connected to your co-workers, Leaders and even Apple’s customers. You should ensure that content associated with you is consistent with Apple policies.

Apple’s concluding remarks for its employees serve as an excellent boilerplate for any company looking to implement a social media policy:

In sum, use your best judgment. Remember there may be consequences to what you post or publish online including discipline if you engage in conduct that Apple deems inappropriate or violates any Apple policies. If you’re about to post something and you are concerned whether you are following these guidelines or any Apple policy, please discuss it with your Leader or HR before posting.

All is not rosy with Apple’s policy, however. Tim Cook, if you’re reading, give me a call. I have some concerns over what the NLRB might say about the following piece of your policy and its potential to hinder employees’ rights to engage in protected concerted activity:

Respect the privacy of your coworkers. Blogs, wikis, social networks and other tools should not be used for internal communications among fellow employees. It is fine for Apple employees to disagree, but please don’t use your external blog or other online social media to air your differences. Do not discuss your co-workers without their permission, and ask permission before posting their picture. By respecting your co- workers’ privacy you will be helping to maintain the professional work environment at Apple.

Apple, you might want to reconsider a policy that gags your employees and prevents them from “using social media to air … differences.” You don’t want to end up as the biggest notch on the NLRB’s social media belt.

I’m guessing they don’t practice employment law

Wikipedia defines the “casting couch” as “the trading of sexual favors by an aspirant, apprentice employee, or subordinate to a superior, in return for entry into an occupation, or for other career advancement within an organization.” You shouldn’t need to be an employment lawyer to know that the casting couch is a big no-no, right? (Public service announcement: when searching Google Images for “casting couch,” make sure SafeSearch is set to “strict.”)

The ILSCCP Blog (which stands for the Illinois Supreme Court Commission on Professionalism) brings us the story of Samir Zia Chowhan, a (now suspended) Chicago immigration attorney. In his search for a new legal assistant, Mr. Chowhan posted an ad on Craigslist, entitled, “Loop lawyers hiring secretary/legal assistant.” Innocent enough? Did I mention that Mr. Chowhan listed the ad in the “Adult Gigs” section, and that the ad noted that the job called for “additional duties for two lawyers in the firm.”

In response to an email inquiry from a potential applicant, Mr. Chowhan described the “additional duties” the assistant would be expected to provide for him and his partner:

As this is posted in the “adult gigs” section, in addition to the legal work, you would be required to have sexual interaction with me and my partner, sometimes together sometimes separate. This part of the job would require sexy dressing and flirtatious interaction with me and my partner, as well as sexual interaction. You will have to be comfortable doing this with us.

Here’s where the story gets really bizarre. The email also described the firm’s unique interviewing process:

[A]s part of the interview process you’ll be required to perform for us sexually (i didn’t do this before with the other girls i hired, now i think i have to because they couldn't handle it). Because that aspect is an integral part of the job, I think it’s necessary to see if you can do that, because it'll predict future behavior of you being able to handle it when you have the job.

In his defense (insert sarcastic tone), Mr. Chowhan made it clear that previous hires “have not been able to handle the sexual aspect of the job” and that he did not “want you to do anything that you’re not comfortable with.”

One applicant, skeeved by the whole process, filed a complaint with the Chicago Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, which resulted in Mr. Chowhan’s one-year suspension from the practice of law.

Am I alone in thinking that he deserved more?

WIRTW #203 (the “Blawg 100” edition)

The American Bar Association has published its list of the best legal blogs—the Blawg 100. For the second year in a row, I am honored to be selected. These are the kind words the ABA wrote about my blog (and me):

Even readers outside of Ohio will benefit from Clevelander Jon Hyman’s consistent employer-side posts and reading list roundups. Chicago-area lawyer and fan Tim Eavenson writes, “I made a joke once that my career motto was ‘Do whatever Jon Hyman does.’ When it comes to blogging, that’s not far off. Jon posts breaking news … before I’ve even gotten my coffee. Even when there’s 50 posts on a topic by noon, Jon’s take will be unique. Style-wise, Jon’s writing is exactly what employers are looking for: professional and personable. He writes plainly and has fun, but never lets it get in the way of the point. Anybody who pays somebody else should be reading Jon’s blog.”

Flattered? You bet!

The Labor & Employment category includes 8 other worthy reads:

• Molly DiBianca’s Delaware Employment Law Blog
• Donna Ballman’s Screw You Guys, I’m Going Home
• Dinita James’s Arizoneout (a new blog to me, and one I am looking forward to following)
• Robin Shea’s Employment & Labor Insider
• Jeff Nowak’s FMLA Insights
• Mike Maslanka’s Work Matters
• Eric Meyer’s The Employer Handbook
• Dan Schwartz’s Connecticut Employment Law Blog

If you are so inclined, register at abajournal.com and vote (through Dec. 30) for your favorite blawgs.

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

Discrimination

• Hans Bader uncovers a Catch-22 in EEOC enforcement – from PointOfLaw Forum
• Duty to Provide Commuting Accommodations? – from Laconic Law Blog
• Massachusetts Becomes 16th State to Provide Protection Against Discrimination on Basis of Gender Identity – from Wisconsin Employment & Labor Law Blog
• Waterstone on Genetic Discrimination – from Workplace Prof Blog
• Employees Fired for Pornographic Emails Lose Age-Discrimination Case – from Delaware Employment Law Blog

Social Media & Workplace Technology

• Can I Fire This Twit Over That Tweet? – from Lindsay Walker at i-Sight Investigation Software Blog
• Workplace Social Media CYA – from Jessica Miller-Merrell’s Blogging4Jobs
• Social Media Fail, Airline Style – from Harvard Business Review
• Quote of the Day: Another Judge Forces A Facebook Password Handover – from Kashmir Hill’s The Not-So Private Parts

HR & Employee Relations

• Is there a Herman Cain in Your Workplace? – from Kara Mignanelli at Social Axcess
• Be a Jerk: The Worst Business Lesson from the Steve Jobs Biography – from The Atlantic
• Dress Codes: Is Your Ban on Iverson Jerseys and Stretch Pants More About Control Than the Customer? – from The HR Capitalist, Kris Dunn
• Subtle Signals of Disengagement – The “Out of Office” Email... – from Paul Hebert at Fistful of Talent
• Would You Like Fries with that Identify Theft? Thoughts on Limiting Liability for Employee Misconduct – from Jason Shinn’s Michigan Employment Law Advisor
• Lessons from the Penn State Scandal: Reporting Child Abuse at Work – from Employment Essentials
• Onboarding Strategies for Getting Seasonal Workers Up to Speed – from Workplace Insights

Wage & Hour

• I’m exempt but my boss tracks me every minute – from Evil HR Lady, Suzanne Lucas
• Can I Dock Employees for Inclement Weather Days? – from Texas Employer Handbook
• Synagogue youth workers wage-hour suit – from Walter Olson’s Overlawyered
• End-of-Year Bonuses, the Regular Rate of Pay and Overtime – from Russell Cawyer’s Texas Employment Law Update
• Wage and Hour Misclassification Costs Oracle $35 million – from Rush on Business
• How to Explain Stock Options to a Dog – from Compensation Cafe
• Firing an Employee for FMLA Fraud Is Legal, But the Proof Is Hard – from Labor & Employment Law Perspectives
• Employees Take Note: Showing Pictures of Your Boyfriend's Privates Will Doom Your FMLA Lawsuit (or Any Other Lawsuit) – from Jeff Nowak’s FMLA Insights

Labor Relations

• Labor board approves controversial union election rule in 2-1 vote – from The Hill
• NLRB Approves Ambush Election Rule – from The ChamberPost
• NLRB Acts on Quickie Election Proposal – from EFCA & Labor Law Reform Blog
• Here’s a sneak peek into how union-election rules will soon change – from Eric Meyer’s The Employer Handbook Blog
• NLRB: Lockout Equals “Reemployed” – from Labor Relations Counsel

Ohio Supreme Court rewrites, and protects, the tripartite relationship between attorney, client, and insurer

If your business has employment practices liability insurance, or deals with insurance companies for other coverages, you are probably aware of the strange three-headed relationship that exists between you (the insured), your insurance company, and the attorney your insurance company hires to defend you in litigation. One question that always arises in this unique relationship is whether an attorney-client relationship only exists between the attorney and you (the insured), or if it also exists between the attorney and the insurance company. The answer to this question is significant, because if there is no attorney-client relationship between counsel and the insurance company, then the attorney-client privilege will not shield communications between them.

Conventional wisdom in Ohio has been that no attorney-client relationship exists between an insurance company and retained counsel. The seminal case on this issue was Swiss Reinsurance Am. Corp. v. Roetzel & Andress. Earlier this week, however, the Ohio Supreme Court—in State ex rel. Dawson v. Bloom-Carroll Local School District (11/29/11) [pdf]—flipped conventional wisdom on its head. The case focused on the issue of whether someone could compel disclosure, under Ohio’s public records law, of communications between a school district’s insurance carrier and its legal representative. It has much broader implications for the relationship between an attorney and an insurance carrier. The Court concluded that because an attorney-client relationship existed between the insurer and the insured’s retained counsel, the resulting privilege shielded any such communications from disclosure:

In effect, the insurance company stands in the shoes of the district…. Where a person approaches an attorney with the view of retaining his services to act on the former’s behalf, an attorney-client relationship is created, and communications made to such attorney during the preliminary conferences prior to the actual acceptance or rejection by the attorney of the employment are privileged communications.

This case solves a huge problem for employers’ insurance counsel, and consequently for employers. Under Swiss Reinsurance, and because of the lack of any privilege, communications between employment defense insurance counsel and the insurance company were made at the client’s risk. Thanks to a common sense ruling from the Supremes, these communications are now rightfully protected. Counsel should now be able to speak as freely with the insurer as we do with our clients.

Booze, Sex and HR: maintain perspective; accept corporate responsibility

In the spirit of the holiday party season, Mike VanDervort made the following challenge on his blog, The Human Race Horses: On November 30, 2011, write a blog post using the three-word theme of “Booze, Sex and HR.” This is my entry.

Life is full of perspective-defining events. Each chapter in one’s life creates a new perspective that helps shape each successive chapter. One of the chapters that helps define who I am as a management-side employment attorney is the three summers I worked during my college years at a Philadelphia t-shirt wholesaler. The first summer I ran myself over (true story) driving its beat-up delivery van. The next two summers I worked inventory. In retrospect, management must have figured that the college kid could count better than he could drive. The warehouse was full of colorful characters, including one whose idea of employee engagement was to hide buckets of KFC amid the racks of boxes (another true story), and another who complained about not receiving a raise by burning an effigy of the Jewish owner spray-painted with a swastika and the phrase “Die Cheap Jew” (yet another true story). And who could forget the African-American who was (not so) affectionately referred to as either “Ape” or “Gorilla” or simply “N—-er,” depending on people’s whims on any particular day. Suffice it to say this job provided a ton of perspective.

When I returned for my final summer, I noticed that one of the star employees was missing. When I asked what happened to him, I was told that he was fired following that year’s Christmas party. After over-indulging, he decided it was a good idea to strip down to his underwear, grab the owner’s wife on the dance floor, and, well, you can picture the rest.

There is no set of circumstances under which an employee can grind the boss’s wife without consent and in a state of semi-undress and enjoy any expectation of job security. Yet, all of the fault does not lie with this (rightfully terminated) employee. Employers must take some level of ownership over their employees’ holiday party antics when they make available the tools of overindulgence. Holiday parties are supposed to be a celebration of, and a thank you for, the past year. These celebrations and thank-yous do not have to be fueled by enough liquor to drop an elephant.

In this vein, I offer the following as a public service announcement for employers and HR departments everywhere:

• Host responsibly. An office holiday party is not the same as a college frat party.
• Consider holding your party mid-week (or even mid-day), instead of a Friday or Saturday night.
• Limiting the availability of alcohol will curb overconsumption. Making sure enough food is available will also keep people’s drinking in check.
• Limiting consumption will help to limit employees’ misbehavior, legal risks, and potential liabilities (think drunk drivers, sexual and other harassment, fights, and other incivility better left to a Sunday tailgate)
• When employees overindulge, don’t be afraid to cut them off. Make sure trained bartenders and designated sober management-team members are monitoring consumption.
• Just in case, have cab vouchers, designated drivers, and hotel rooms available for those who cannot safely navigate their own way home.

Have a happy and safe holiday season.

RIP Patrice O'Neal

Earlier today, it was announced that comedian Patrice O'Neal passed away. He succumbed to complications from a stroke he suffered last month. Entertainment Weekly offers the details.

Patrice was one of the funniest people on the planet, and he will be missed. Our relationships with celebrities are funny. We feel like we know people we've never met just because we see them on tv or hear them on the radio. I offer my condolences to his family and friends.

In his memory, enjoy an old post of mine discussing one of his bits on sexual harassment.

Supreme Court to hear case on scope of outside sales exemption (and hopefully scope of DOL’s power)

Do you employ outside salespeople (pharmaceutical reps, for instance)? If so, then you are going to want to pay attention to what will transpire at the U.S. Supreme Court next year.

Yesterday, the Court agreed to hear Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham. This case will address two issues:

1. Whether deference is owed to the Secretary's interpretation of the Fair Labor Standards Act's outside sales exemption and related regulations; and 
2. Whether the Fair Labor Standards Act's outside sales exemption applies to pharmaceutical sales representatives.

While issue #2 is more practical, issue #1 has the potential to have the greatest long-term impact. It is no secret that the DOL—with its sweeping enforcement scheme and broad regulatory interpretations—is the bane of employers everywhere. This case has the potential to serve as a judicial referendum on the scope of its regulatory authority. A rebuke by the Supreme Court of the DOL on this narrow issue could signal that the agency’s powers are not as broad as it currently envisions, reigning in the DOL’s other attempts to broaden employee rights via regulatory interpretations.

For more coverage of this important wage and hour development, please click over and read the thoughts of others who got to this headline before me:

• SCOTUS will hear FLSA pharma sales rep case – from LawMemo Employment Law Blog
• SCOTUS Grants Cert. in FLSA Case – from Lawffice Space
• Supreme Court to Hear Arguments on Outside Sales Exemption – from SmartHR
• Supreme Court to Decide Whether Pharma. Sales Reps Are Covered by Outside Sales Exemption – from ZR Workplace Law
• Supreme Court To Decide Whether Pharmaceutical Sales Representatives Meet The FLSA’s Outside Sales Exemption – from The Wage and Hour Litigation Blog
• Supreme Court To Decide Classification of Pharmaceutical Representatives – from Wage and Hour Law Update
• Pharmaceutical Sales Representative Case Goes to Supreme Court – from Wage & Hour Insights

“SAY IT! SAY IT!” Yelling as an essential function

Did you know that the ability to yell at one’s students is an essential function of a teacher? According to Johnson v. Cleveland City School District (6th Cir. 11/15/11), because the ability to “verbally control” resistive students is an essential function of an elementary or middle school teacher, Sha’Ron Johnson was not otherwise qualified for her position with the Cleveland schools and therefore could not succeed on her ADA claims.

After a 1988 car accident damaged Johnson’s spinal cord, she suffered from Cervical Myelopathy, which caused her body to weaken over time, and which could be aggravated by stress or over-exertion. As a result, Johnson’s doctors provided the school district documentation that she “not be required to verbally control resistant behavior in students that persists after initial warning.” The school district, believing that “verbally controlling” students was an essential function of an elementary or middle school teacher or counselor, terminated her employment.

The 6th Circuit agreed: because Johnson was medically unable to “verbally control” students, she was not qualified for any available positions:

As the District explained to Johnson in its letter on July 17, 2007, these restrictions are “problematic.” They seek to exempt Johnson from “the requirement of disciplining students and maintaining order in the classroom,” which is “an essential function of the job.” The District’s letter explained that “[t]he consequences of a failure to maintain such order result in a direct threat to the safety and security of you, the students, and other faculty, staff, and students in the building,” and fail “the responsibility of the District to provide an orderly environment to its students for learning.” …

“Teachers and counselors, whether working with large groups, small groups, or one-on-one, are required to deal with the students in their care, not only when they are quiet and well behaved, but also when they are loud, restless, and possibly belligerent…. Teachers, counselors, and other adults employed at schools need to be physically, mentally, and emotionally capable of managing and controlling students in those circumstances.”

What is the takeaway for employers? Just because the ADA (as amended by the ADAAA) renders virtually every medical condition a protected disability does not render employers defenseless. Essential functions come in all shapes and sizes. When handling an accommodation request from a disabled employee, do not omit consideration of all facets of the job.

WIRTW #202 (the “thankful” edition)

I learned something new yesterday. I learned, from my kindergartener, that the first Thanksgiving feast lasted three days. I am thankful that I am able to learn something new every day—whether from my kids, or from the bloggers and tweeters I follow and whose thoughts I share with you at the end of each week.

The Thanksgiving holiday (and a much needed couple of days off) moves my weekly summary up a couple of days to Wednesday. Even though the week has been short, its been busy. Here’s what I read this week:

Discrimination

• Issue: Doctors, Diapers, and … Discrimination? – from Employment Law Matters
• Pregnancy Discrimination Case Against Chicago Law Firm Allowed to Proceed to a Jury – from Wisconsin Employment & Labor Law Blog
• Is Your Adverse Impact Analysis Arbitrary? – from Stephanie Thomas’s The Proactive Employer Blog
• Federal Express’ Six-Month Limitation on Statutes of Limitations in Employment Disputes Approved – from Fitzpatrick on Employment Law
• A Big Problem: Obesity Discrimination In The Workplace – from Hunton Employment & Labor Law Perspectives™
• Numbers Show That Sexual Harassment Claims on the Decline – from Dan Schwartz’s Connecticut Employment Law Blog
• Can an Evangelical Christian Ask For a Religious Accommodation? (re: Sharing His Faith) – from The HR Capitalist, Kris Dunn
• Public Criticism of Discrimination Claim as Retaliation – from Phil Miles’s Lawffice Space
• The 2011 EEOC Performance and Accountability Report – from Employment & the Law

Social Media & Workplace Technology

• Managing Your Social Media Mullet—Part 1 – from Jessica Miller-Merrell’s Blogging4Jobs
• Social Media Training is Important – and More Companies Need To Do It – from Lindsay Walker at i-Sight Investigation Software Blog
• What To Do When An Employee Violates Your Social Media Policy – from MonsterThinking
• Can you access an ex-employee’s Facebook posts if she sues? – from Eric Meyer’s The Employer Handbook Blog
• Employers Can Discover Employee Facebook Posts, But… – from Social Media Employment Law Blog
• The Worst Way To Lose A Job – from Kashmir Hill’s The Not-So Private Parts
• The Outshiners… – from William Tincup at Fistful of Talent
• Great sex and social media, it’s all about the response – from Mike VanDervort’s The Human Race Horses
• Out on the Town, Always Online – from John Leland at The New York Times
• No 1st Amendment Protection for Teacher’s Facebook Posts – from Delaware Employment Law Blog

HR & Employee Relations

• The Cost of Litigating Competition Cases – from Legal Developments In Non-Competition Agreements
• If you can, give your employees a rest for Thanksgiving – from Robin Shea’s Employment and Labor Insider
• When the CEO refuses to stop dishonesty – from Evil HR Lady, Suzanne Lucas
• Cheating in the Work Place – from Rob Radcliff’s Smooth Transitions
• It’s the holiday season: time to check your solicitation policy – from John Holmquist’s Michigan Employment Law Connection
• 9 Tips For Planning the Company Holiday Party – from Russell Cawyer’s Texas Employment Law Update
• When Employee Misconduct Becomes Criminal - Understanding The Fifth Amendment in Parallel Proceedings – from Michigan Employment Law Advisor by Jason Shinn
• Lessons from Penn State – from Beth Mirza at SHRM  

Wage & Hour

• Paying Employees During Bad Weather Closings – from Mike Haberman’s Omega HR Solutions
• Does An Exempt Employee Who Calls In Sick The Day Before Thanksgiving Get Holiday Pay? – from Wage & Hour Insights
• FLSA Computer Exemption To Get Revised: A Good Thing For Employers – from Wage & Hour - Development & Highlights
• Employer deemed to have interfered with Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) benefits – from Employment Law Bits

Labor Relations

• NLRB bias is a menace to business – from Rep. Trey Gowdy in The Post and Courier
• NLRB Member Hayes: Board Plans to Ignore its Rules to Push Through “Quickie Elections” – from Seth Borden’s Labor Relations Today
• NLRB Trying to Ram Through Pro-Union Ambush Election Rules – from The ChamberPost
• Breaking: NLRB Member Hayes Details Outrageous Pearce Strong-Arming on Quickie Election Rules – from Labor Relations Institute
• NLRB To Vote On Finalizing Some Election Rules – from Workplace Prof Blog
• NLRB sets vote on portions of proposed election rule – from LawMemo Employment Law Blog
• Whining, Sniveling Employee or Protected Concerted Activity? – from Minnesota Labor & Employment Law Blog 

Sympathy for the Devil (as religious discrimination)

I haven’t always been a lawyer. During a previous life (high school and college), I spent weekends and summers as a bar mitzvah DJ, a nursing home busboy, and a warehouse loading dock guy. At one of those warehouses, I worked with a man by name of Harland Jester. (I provide his name because he named his son “Court,” and this context provides the necessary color for the rest of the story.) Harland was an interesting cat. He believed, for example, that the Freemasons ran the world from a secret office on the 36th floor of Rockefeller Center, and the Lee Iacocca saved Chrysler by making a pact with the devil. This warehouse was full of colorful characters in addition to Harland, many of whom enjoyed a good practical joke. One such joke, played at Harland’s expense, involved a sketch on Harland’s work desk of Mr. Iacocca shaking hands with Satan, with both saying, “Harland, we’re watching you!” Harland did not find the joke nearly as funny as the rest of us, and complained to management. For its part, the company took the path of least resistance, repainting his desk and requiring everyone at attend sensitivity training.

Suzanne Lucas, the Evil HR Lady, shared a story this morning about another employer which could have taken a lesson from my summer job. Billy Hyatt sued Pliant Corp. after it fired him for refusing to wear a sticker with the number 666 (representing the number of consecutive accident-free days) on it. According to the Workplace Prof Blog, Mr. Hyatt’s complaint alleges that he “asked a manager for a religious accommodation on day 666,” and was fired after he refused to work on that day at all.

Sometimes, the path of least resistance makes sense. Is it silly for an employee to refuse to wear “666” on a sticker? Yup. Was the employer within its rights to fire that employee? Maybe. Could the employer have avoided the cost (in legal fees, bad publicity, and a potential settlement or judgment) by simply exempting this employee from the sticker requirement for that one day? Absolutely. Even if this employer was legally in the right in firing this employee—and think about the reasonable accommodation requirements for an employee’s religious beliefs—sometimes it’s just not worth the cost to be right.

A new era dawns—my first post at Fistful of Talent

Today’s post is a little different. It's the first I’ve ever written that is not being debuted on my own blog. Today is my first endeavor as a guest poster on Fistful of Talent. FOT is the preeminent, collaborative human resources blog, featuring a who’s who of HR bloggers. A few weeks ago, it’s proprietor, Kris Dunn [The HR Capitalist / @kris_dunn] reached out to me looking to fill FOT’s employment law void. So, we’re trying each other out.

Today’s post marks what I hope is the beginning of a long relationship between this blog and FOT. Please help get us off on the right foot by clicking over to FOT to read my thoughts on what you can do about employees who cheat your time keeping system.

WIRTW #201 (the “Mickey Mouse” edition)

The news has been pretty somber this week, with the sexual abuse of children dominating the headlines. So, I thought we needed a light-hearted theme for this week’s WIRTW.

On this day in 1928, Walt Disney released the first Mickey Mouse cartoon, Steamboat Willie:

Steamboat Willie’s success launched an empire that has touched every aspect of pop culture in the last 83 years. Thanks Walt.

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

Discrimination

• 5 signs that you’ll lose your sexual harassment case – from Robin Shea’s Employment and Labor Insider
• Bad Christmas Card Idea – from Phil Miles’s Lawffice Space
• Speech criticizing lawsuit = “retaliation” – from Walter Olson’s Overlawyered
• EEOC to consider disparate impact and reasonable factors other than age at meeting – from John Holmquist’s Michigan Employment Law Connection
• Settling a Discrimination or Harassment Lawsuit – from Delaware Employment Law Blog
• When Is a Test a Medical Examination? – from Labor & Employment Law Perspectives

Social Media & Workplace Technology

• 6 things you must know about social media & your workforce – from Eric Meyer’s The Employer Handbook Blog
• Just The Facts About Workplace Social Media – from Blogging4jobs
• HIPAA Dangers Lurk on Facebook; Ongoing Policy Revisions Are Advised – from Health Business Daily
• Recommendations for Preventing and Responding to Workplace Violence – from Jason Shinn’s Michigan Employment Law Advisor
• The Thorny Combination of Old Laws and New Tech – from The Atlantic
• Social Media for Small Biz: Your HR Survival Guide Source – from Evil HR Lady, Suzanne Lucas
• Social Media: Don’t Get Off Track With the Law in Monitoring Employees – from SmartHR

HR & Employee Relations

• Honoring Veterans Day: USERRA and Employment Law Resources – from Dan Schwartz’s Connecticut Employment Law Blog
• Here is The Reason You Want to Be in Compliance! – from Mike Haberman’s Omega HR Solutions
• Penn State Disgrace: If Only… – from Nick Fishman’s employeescreenIQ Blog

Wage & Hour / Benefits

• Calculating FMLA Leave for Holidays, Breaks and Plant Shut Downs – from Jeff Nowak’s FMLA Insights
• Circuits Split as to Whether Public Officials Can be Sued Individually Under the FMLA – from Fitzpatrick on Employment Law
• You’ve been WARN-ed – from HR idiot
• 73% of Wage/Hour Investigations Result in Findings – from HR Daily Advisor
• Supreme Court To Decide Constitutionality of Obamacare from Above the Law

Labor Relations

• Apple Prepares to Crush Apple Store Unions – from Gawker
• NLRB Acting General Counsel Warns Companies about Social Media and Handbook Rules – from EFCA & Labor Law Reform Blog
• Senate Bill 5 Repeal—What is Next? – from Employer Law Report
• NBA Talks Collapse; Union Disbands – from Workplace Prof Blog
• Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA) Introduces Bill to Reverse NLRB's “Micro-Union” Decision – from Seth Borden’s Labor Relations Today

I’m begging you … have a social media policy

Last week, SHRM released the results of its 3rd survey on Social Media in the Workplace [pdf]. SHRM polled 532 randomly selected HR professionals from its membership. According to the survey, 68% of companies use social media to communicate with external audiences (current customers, potential customers, or potential employees). Yet, only 27% provide their employees using social media any kind of training on its proper use.

This disconnect is disturbing. It’s bad enough that employees are using social media to communicate with each other absent any guidance or training. It’s astounding that nearly three-quarters of companies allow their employees to communicate with the public at-large in this manner.

Without a policy establishing expectations for the proper use of social media internally and externally, this is what you are asking for in your business:

Please, for the love of god, do not allow anyone in your organization to use social media for any purpose without putting a policy in place and training your employees on that policy. Anything less is a recipe for a human resources or public relations disaster.

[Hat tip: Social Media Employment Law Blog]

Who owns social media accounts? (part 2)

Last Monday, I asked the following question: “What happens to an employee’s social media account when the employee leaves a company?” The very next day, a California federal court began to sketch the outline of an answer.

PhoneDog v. Kravitz (N.D. Calif. 11/8/11) [pdf] concerns the ownership of a corporate Twitter account. Noah Kravitz worked for PhoneDog as a product reviewer and video blogger. In that role, PhoneDog provided him use of a Twitter account—@PhoneDog_Noah—to disseminate information and promote PhoneDog’s services on its behalf. When Kravitz resigned his employment, PhoneDog requested that he relinquish use of the Twitter Account. Instead, Kravitz changed the account’s name to @noahkravitz, continuing to use it. PhoneDog filed suit, claiming, among other things, that by refusing to relinquish control of the Twitter account, Kravitz stole its trade secrets and other proprietary and confidential information.

In seeking dismissal of the lawsuit, Kravitz argued that PhoneDog cannot establish any damages because it cannot establish ownership over the Twitter account. According to Kravitz: “To date, the industry precedent has been that absent an agreement prohibiting any employee from doing so, after an employee leaves an employer, they are free to change their Twitter handle.” (emphasis added). The court disagreed, and is permitting the claims alleging misappropriation of trade secrets and conversion of property to proceed to discovery.

Despite the employer’s (at least temporary) victory, why take a risk that an employee can challenge ownership rights to a social media account? If you have employees using corporate-branded or other official social media accounts, require them to sign an agreement as a condition of their employment that says the following:

1. The company, and not the employee, owns the social media account.
2. All social media accounts, including login information and passwords, must be relinquished at the end of employment.

Anything else places these issues in the uncertain hands of a judge or a jury.

Don’t ignore common sense when conducting workplace investigations

Light night, I tuned in with curiosity for Bob Costas’s interview with Jerry Sandusky. That curiosity turned to stunned outrage when Sandusky made the following admission (among others): “I shouldn't have showered with those kids.” Of course, I have outrage as a parent and as a human being. That outrage has existed since this story broke. After last night’s public relations debacle, I also now have outrage as an attorney.

There are many teachable lessons for employers from last night’s primetime drubbing. For example, Sandusky’s lawyers, PR people, and other handlers deserve to be fired for letting their client appear so unprepared and so guilty. I’m also curious about whether Sandusky waived any 5th Amendment rights by making public statements about the crimes with which he has been charged (but I’ll leave that issue for my criminal brethren).

Here’s the employment law takeaway: when you are assessing credibility—for example, during a harassment or other workplace investigation—you do not check your common sense at the door. In fact, common sense serves as your best friend. If you eat meat you are not a vegetarian, and if you shower naked with little boys, you are a pedophile—case closed. To argue any differently borders on the ludicrous. Anyone who watched last night’s interview can only reach the conclusion that Sandusky is guilty of the charges levied against him.

Do not ignore your common sense. “I did not inhale” = I smoked pot. “I have horsed around with kids I have showered after workouts” = I am a pedophile. Keep these examples in the front of your mind during your next workplace investigation.

Tell them to their face: firing employees (a lesson from State College, PA)

Frank Roche, writing at his KnowHR blog, made the following observation the morning after Penn State announced that it had fired Joe Paterno: “Penn State did the right thing.” It’s hard to argue that every university employee whose hands touched the Jerry Sandusky scandal needed to be fired. While I cannot question the decision to fire Joe Paterno, I have a huge problem with how the school communicated the termination to him.

As I watched the PSU board of trustees’s press conference last Wednesday night, I was struck by how John Surma dodged any questions about how the board communicated its decision to Paterno. As he avoided answering those questions, I could only conclude that the board did not tell Paterno to his face that he had been fired. ESPN’s Joe Schad (reporting on Twitter) confirmed my hunch:

Paterno received at his home an envelope from a messenger with a # to call 15 minutes b/f BOT announcement.

When Paterno called he was told "you are relieved of your duties."

Don't get me wrong. I believe Joe Paterno deserved to be fired. What I take issue with was how he was fired. Every employee (let alone one with 62 years of tenure) deserves to learn of a job-loss via a face-to-face conversation. It is never acceptable to fire someone by a phone call, letter, email, text message, Facebook message, tweet, or a this-termination-note-will-self-destruct-in-10-seconds note left at the front door.

There is nothing easy about the communication of a firing. I’ve had to fire people. It’s the worst part of my job. It’s also part of what you sign up for when you assume a management role. But, as uncomfortable as it is to tell someone they are losing a job, it is exponentially more difficult to be on the receiving end of that news. Do the right thing by your employees and provide them the courtesy of delivering the news in person, no matter the circumstances.

WIRTW #200 (the “bicentennial” edition)

This week offered a lot of potential themes from which I could pick for today’s “WIRTW”: Joe Paterno (come back Monday for my thoughts on the handling of his termination), Herman Cain, Veteran’s Day, the anomaly of today’s date (11/11/11—see below). Milestones, however, are important, and today’s is significant—the 200th publication of my weekly roundup. Thanks for reading.

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

Discrimination

• Yes, Conservatives, There Is Sexual Harassment – from Donna Ballman’s Screw You Guys, I’m Going Home
• Why Panera should settle lawsuit regarding racism – from Evil HR Lady, Suzanne Lucas
• When People Get Angry: Power Outages & Khan – from Dan Schwartz’s Connecticut Employment Law Blog
• Gender discrimination at a “Big Four” accounting firm – from Employment Law Bits
• Women Who Work in Positions with Greater Likelihood of Sexual Harassment Paid More – from Wisconsin Employment & Labor Law Blog
• The impact of the Penn State controversy: filling a gap in an employer’s harassment policy – from Michigan Employment Law Connection
• Employer lessons from Penn State (Hint: ignorance is not bliss) – from Eric Meyer’s The Employer Handbook Blog
• “A closed mouth gathers no feet”: What Herman Cain teaches employers about sexual harassment – from Robin Shea’s Employment and Labor Insider
• Make War No More–Weapons Manufacturer Must Accommodate Employee Who Objects to Weaponry, EEOC Says – from Joe’s HR and Benefits Blog

Social Media & Workplace Technology

• Social Media in the Workplace: Common Sense Goes a Long Way – from Lindsay Walker at i-Sight Investigation Software Blog
• Using Social Media to Screen Job Applicants - A Few Recommendations for Employers – from Michigan Employment Law Advisor
• Facebook Spoliation Costs Widower and His Attorney $700K in Sanctions – from Above the Law
• Nielsen: Soon-to-be seniors adopting smartphones faster than any other age group – from Engadget Mobile

HR & Employee Relations

• Is it Settlement or Severance? – from Phil Miles’s Lawffice Space
• The Importance of Employee Documentation – from CPEhr
• Penn State Disgrace: If Only… – from Nick Fishman’s EmployeeScreenIQ Blog
• EDDIE MURPHY: On Taking the Job That Offers No Balance and Almost Kills You… – from The HR Capitalist, Kris Dunn
• Trade Secrets and Confidentiality – from Texas Employer Handbook

Wage & Hour

• The War on Wage Theft and WHD – from Stephanie Thomas’s The Proactive Employer Blog
• Even Best Practices Can't Always Ensure Quick Dismissal of Wage & Hour Claims – from Wage & Hour Insights

Labor Relations

• NLRB lawyer: “We screwed up the U.S. economy” – from The Washington Examiner
• Is it Protected Concerted Activity to “Occupy” Your City? – from Kara Mignanelli at Social Axcess
• The state of the NLRB (a self-appraisal) – from Michael VanDervort’s The Human Race Horses

Until next week, remember, today goes to 11.

Regulating workplace photography? Think again, says one federal court

This time next week, I’ll be in San Diego presenting on workplace social media issues at the 2011 Human Resources & Employer Compliance Summit. If past presentations are any predictor, I’ll be spending a lot of time answering questions about the NLRB’s intrusions into this area. NLRB v. White Oak Manor (4th Cir. 9/22/11)—while not a social media case per se—is a great example of how workplace technology and social media issues can arise under the guise of protected concerted activity.

White Oak Manor, a long-term care facility, maintained a policy against taking pictures inside its facility without prior written approval. Nicole Wright-Gore, a supply clerk, filed a grievance over discipline she received for wearing a hat in the workplace. To document her belief that she had been unfairly disciplined for a dress code violation, she took pictures of her fellow employees, also wearing hats but un-disciplined. When the employer learned of the photographs, it terminated her.

In reviewing Wright-Gore’s unfair labor practice charge, the NLRB concluded that she engaged in protected concerted activity for which she was discharged: “a joint discussion of the unfairness of the dress code, … seeking a change in the enforcement of the dress code.” On appeal, the 4th Circuit agreed:

Wright-Gore’s complaints about White Oak's disparate enforcement of its dress code are protected under the NLRA…. Wright-Gore's documenting of the problem through photography is similarly protected conduct…. Because Wright-Gore’s conversations were initiated to induce group action—she explained that she spoke with other employees "[t]o get their support so I could go to management…,”—they constitute concerted activity.

The NLRB continues to use social media to expand the definition of protected concerted activity. As the agency (and now courts) become more involved in these issues, the rules governing what you can and cannot regulate regarding employees’ use of social media and other technologies in the workplace will continue to evolve. For now, the best course of action may be to err on the side of caution in all but the most obvious of cases, and to consult with labor counsel well-versed in social media issues in everything else. 

[Hat tip: Social Media Employment Law Blog]