As the public policy turns

Last summer, in Alexander v. Cleveland Clinic Foundation, the Cuyahoga County Court of Appeals held that a police officer, fired after several outbursts while working traffic control, could proceed to trial with his wrongful discharge claim. He claimed that because his termination jeopardized the state’s public policy in favor of police officers enforcing the law, he should have been able to pursue his public policy wrongful discharge claim.

Three months later, the Ohio Supreme Court decided Dohme v. Eurand America, holding that to support a wrongful discharge claim, a plaintiff must identify the specific federal or state constitutional provisions, statutes, regulations, or common law that support the public policy relied upon.

Following Dohme, the Ohio Supreme Court vacated the appellate court’s decision and set it back to the appellate court for a re-do.

Second verse, same as the first. In Alexander v. Cleveland Clinic Foundation II (4/19/12) [pdf], the same panel of the same appellate court again concluded that Alexander was entitled to proceed to trial on his public policy claim.

Pursuant to Dohme, the court considered whether Alexander had clearly supported his public policy argument with a specific statement of law from the federal or state constitution, statutes, administrative rules and regulations, or common law:

Alexander claimed that public policy dictates that police officers enforce the laws of the state of Ohio; thus, discharging a police officer for enforcing the laws “would jeopardize the public policy of wanting police officers to enforce Ohio laws.” … Alexander cited R.C. 1702.80(D) in support of his public policy argument. The statute … provides that … a qualified nonprofit corporation … police department … “shall preserve the peace, protect persons and property, enforce the laws of the state.” … [H]ere, Alexander cited to “a specific statement of law” that was drawn from R.C. 1702.80(D).

The takeaway for employers—Ohio or otherwise—hasn’t changed since I first reported on Alexander last year:

Public policy wrongful discharge claims often hinge on the combination of two influences: the creativity of the employee’s attorney to pigeonhole the circumstances surrounding the discharge into a specific state or federal constitution, statute or administrative regulation, or in the common law; and the court’s opinion of that particular public policy.

The unpredictability of these claims underscores the need for employers to treat every termination like a potentially litigious event.

WIRTW #222 (the “exhausted” edition)

Federal jury trials are exhausting. Looking forward to getting my life back.

Here’s what I read this week (during my down time, on my iPhone):

Discrimination

• New Theory of Discrimination: “Implicit Bias” — from Stephanie Thomas’s The Proactive Employer Blog
• Wall Street Journal Takes the EEOC to Task on Background Checks — from Nick Fishman’s employeescreenIQ Blog
• EEOC: Employers have no right to ask what prescription drugs employees are on — from Walter Olson’s Overlawyered
• Even a voluntary demotion can lead to a retaliation claim — from Eric Meyer’s The Employer Handbook Blog
• Happy (?) Equal Pay Day! — from Maryland Employment Law Developments
• 4 Things Employers Should Know About the ADAAA — from Workplace Insights
• Can an employer insist on regular attendance without violating the ADA? Maybe. — from Robin Shea’s Employment and Labor Insider
• Inside the Racist Mind — from Time

Social Media & Workplace Technology

• Does a Social Media Policy for Employees Apply to Contractors? — from i-Sight Investigation Software Blog
• Anatomy of an Employee Facebook Password Protection Law — from Phil Miles’s Lawffice Space
• Employers requesting Facebook passwords — from George’s Employment Blawg
• Are Employer Social Networking Accounts Protectable Trade Secrets? — from Trade Secrets and Noncompete Blog
• I Get It: 4 Ways I Can Tell You Don't Like Voice Mail (and what I think about each of them...) — from The HR Capitalist, Kris Dunn
• Is the boss spying on you? Cyber-snooping on rise — from the Palm Beach Post

HR & Employee Relations

• Why Pet Insurance Makes Sense as Part of Your Menu of Employee Benefits — from TLNT
• Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get you — from Evil HR Lady, Suzanne Lucas
• Employers Provide Too Little Leave — from Mike Haberman’s Omega HR Solutions
• To Handbook or Not to Handbook — from The Employer's Lawyer
• Employee Handbooks: do’s and dont’s — from Warren & Associates Blog
• Dear Evil Skippy: How Do I Avoid Offending Sensitive Co-Workers? — from Evil Skippy at Work
• Office Romances On The Rise Among Young Employees — from Fox Business

Wage & Hour

• Overtime Lawsuits On The Rise — from Overtime Lawyer Blog
• The Buddha and the Fair Labor Standards Act — from Work Matters
• Keep an Eye Out for Court’s Ruling on Pharmaceutical Sales Rep. Case — from Dan Schwartz’s Connecticut Employment Law Blog
• Clocking in early: a recipe for bogus overtime claims — from HR Cafe

Labor Relations

• Court Upholds Non-Employee Property Access Rights — from Labor Relations Update
• The NLRB and social media: The next phase and more scrutiny — from John Holmquist’s Michigan Employment Law Connection

The Bachelor as discrimination? Publicity stunt lawsuit undermines legitimate discrimination claims

This week, two African-American men filed what their attorney calls a "landmark civil rights case that will move social justice and economic equality forward." The class action lawsuit, Claybrooks v. American Broadcasting Companies, claims that The Bachelor franchise purposefully discrimination against people of color. You read that last sentence correctly. Apparently, casting some color on The Bachelor will cure all of society's discriminatory ills.

Does The Bachelor skew white? Absolutely. Are their other reality shows that skew black, or latino, or gay? You bet. Do any of them technically "discriminate" in their casting choices? Probably, because they are targeting a certain demographic for their audience. Just like The Bachelor has not cast many African-Americans, it also has not cast any septuagenarians. Why? Because their target audience would not watch, and the show would be taken off the air.

This is not discrimination. It's marketing. It's no different than McDonald's running an advertising campaign with an urban music bed and all all-Black cast.

Publicity stunts like this lawsuit undermine the real plight of African-Americans and other minorities, both in the workplace and society in general. If protected groups want people to take discrimination seriously, and treat it as a serious problem, they need to stop screaming discrimination for things like reality television casting decisions.

I’m syndicated! Announcing my launch on Workforce.com as The Practical Employer

For content, they say that five years is the magic number. For example, after five years, television shows are eligible for syndication. Apparently, the same holds true for employment law blogs, as mine will turn five in a few weeks.

This week, Workforce.com—one of the web’s most distinguished portals for all things human resources (and part of the Crain Communications family)—debuted me as one of its featured bloggers, under the title The Practical Employer.

I’m beyond thrilled, and honored, to join their exclusive club, alongside the likes of Kris Dunn, Ann Bares, and Fistful of Talent.

Thanks to Kris Dunn for introducing (and recommending) me to the Workforce people. Thanks also to the staff at Workforce.com, who’ve been great to work with while they got my micro-site up and running.

Never fear. The Ohio Employer’s Law Blog is not going anywhere. You now just have another way to read my content. Either here, or at Workforce.com, as The Practical Employer.

Don’t post those new NLRB notices—finally

On Monday, I reported that a South Carolina federal court had invalidated the NLRB’s attempt to force employers to post a statement of employees’ rights under the National Labor Relations Act. I cautioned that until you heard otherwise, employers should assume that April 30 was still a go for the new posting.

News moves fast in the world of labor and employment law. Yesterday, the D.C. Circuit [order, pdf] enjoined the whole shebang until the issues can work their way through the appellate courts:

We note that the Board postponed operation of the rule during the pendency of the district court proceedings in order to give the district court an opportunity to consider the legal merits before the rule took effect. That postponement is in some tension with the Board’s current argument that the rule should take effect during the pendency of this court’s proceedings before this court has an opportunity to similarly consider the legal merits.…The uncertainty about enforcement counsels further in favor of temporarily preserving the status quo while this court resolves all of the issues on the merits.

Ever gracious in defeat, NLRB Chairman Mark Gaston Pearce said, "We continue to believe that requiring employers to post this notice is well within the Board’s authority, and that it provides a genuine service to employees who may not otherwise know their rights under our law."

The April 30 deadline for posting the NLRB’s employee rights notice is officially dead. It could take into next year before these issues work their way through the circuit courts, not to mention a likely appeal to the Supreme Court. By then, the NLRB could be tinted red and this whole issue could be moot. In the meantime, you’re break-room is free and clear of the NLRB’s latest mission statement.

More social media woes: employee fired for “liking” gay Facebook page

According to MSNBC, an employee has sued the Library of Congress for firing him after his manager discovered that he had “liked” the “Two Dads” page on Facebook. The employee, Peter TerVeer, claims that after his manager discovered he was gay, his performance reviews turned negative. TerVeer also claims that the manager started making derogatory statements about his sexual orientation and sending religiously motivated emails.

Let me offer three takeaways for businesses from this story:

1. Title VII, like Ohio’s anti-discrimination statute, does not protect sexual orientation. Nevertheless, courts have been known to stretch the definition of gender to include sexual orientation in certain cases. Even if TerVeer doesn’t have a sex discrimination claim, the religious overtones of the manager’s emails could provide a claim based on religion.

2. Much has been made lately about employers snooping on employees’ social media activities. According to nbclosangeles.com, however, the manager only learned about TerVeer’s Facebook activities when the manager’s daughter noticed the “like” and told her dad. This fact underscores what Lafe Solomon (the NLRB’s acting general counsel) told me when we appeared on NPR together last fall—that every social media charge filed with the NLRB started with a co-worker printing out the social media post and giving the hard copy to a manager. In other words, management as much of a hobby out of snooping on its employees as some would have you believe.

3. Despite this story’s foreboding tone, employers should not think that all employees’ off-work activities are off-limits. Nevertheless, this story underscores that employers need to tread very carefully when examining what their employees do on their own time.

Don’t post those new NLRB notices just yet (maybe)

As of this moment, April 30 is still your drop-dead date to post the NLRB’s new employee rights notice. Last Friday, however, a South Carolina federal court put that date, and the NLRB’s entire poster itself, in grave jeopardy. In Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. NLRB [pdf], the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina invalidated the NLRB’s attempt to force employers to post a statement of employees’ rights under the National Labor Relations Act.

According to the Court, the NLRB’s powers are reactive, not proactive. Thus, its Congressionally-mandated duty is to prevent and resolve unfair labor practice charges and to conduct representation elections—both of which must be initiated by an outside party’s filing. The NLRB’s proposed posting of employee rights, however, is proactive—it requires employers to do something without any filing by an outside party. As such, the NLRB exceeded its statutory authority.

The South Carolina court is not the first to rule on this issue. Last month, a different federal court reached the opposite conclusion and upheld the NLRB’s right to require most of the posting. The NLRB is reviewing its options as to whether it will postpone the posting requirement nationwide in light of the latest ruling. Likely, it will take some time for these issues to weave their way through the appellate courts for an ultimate resolution.

We now have two conflicting district court opinions. As an employer, what are you supposed to do? For now, and until you hear otherwise, assume that April 30 is still a go for the new posting. In the meantime, this case—which is the strongest rebuke to date of the power-grab by this administration’s agencies—is a huge victory for employers.

[Hat tip: Labor Relations Today]

WIRTW #221 (the “what’s in a name” edition)

If you don’t follow me on Twitter (what are you waiting for?), or if you missed the news as it flew by in your stream, my family is adding a dog in June. We’re super excited, but are stuck on what to name her. Do you want to help? I’m running a poll. We have it narrowed down to three choices, but are open to suggestions.  She’ll be a vizsla, if that helps. Take a few seconds to vote on one of our three choices, or add your own suggestion.

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

Discrimination

• When is the Best Time to Try and Settle Employment Litigation? — from Russell Cawyer’s Texas Employment Law Update
• Men Must be Allowed the Same Child Care Leave as Women — from Employer Defense Law Blog
• The Wrong Way to Help the Disabled — from Walter Olson’s Overlawyered
• Bipolar Disorder Disability Discrimination Lawsuit — from The Proactive Employer Blog
• Workplace pregnancy discrimination cases on the rise — from The Washington Post
• Anatomy of an EEOC Charge — from Casey Sipe’s The Employer’s Lawyer
• Is Weight Discrimination OK? — from HR Examiner with John Sumser
• Obama Won’t Order Ban on Gay Bias by Employers — from the New York Times
• Women, Money, and Bias: “The Economy Is Classist, Then Racist, Then Sexist” — from The Atlantic

Social Media & Workplace Technology

• Is Violation of Employer’s Computer Use Policy a Federal Crime? — from Phil Miles’s Lawffice Space
• Is Your Smartphone Making You Less Productive? — from Harvard Business Review
• Just One More Game ... Angry Birds, Farmville and Other Hyperaddictive ‘Stupid Games’ — from the New York Times Magazine
• Forget Facebook or Emails, Bosses Booting Employees Over Bandwidth — from FOX8.com
• Bosses’ big fear? That employees will film them — from CNET News
• Employers Aren’t Likely to Ask for Your Facebook Password — from US News and World Report’s On Careers Blog
• What Advice Should Lawyers Give Clients Who Want to Ask Prospective Employees for Their Facebook Passwords? — from Mike Maslanka at the Texas Lawyer
• What to Do When A Potential Employer Asks for Your Facebook Password — from Mashable
• The Spotlight is On Practice of Employers Requesting Access to the Social Media Accounts of Employees and Job Applicants — from Fitzpatrick on Employment Law
• Employer not allowed to search for porn on employee’s home computer — from Internet Cases

HR & Employee Relations

• Backstage Peek: Pixar Animation Studios’ “Cereal Bar” — from the disney food blog
• Dear Evil Skippy: Should I Have Been Warned for Using A T.V. Show’s Name at Work? — from Evil Skippy at Work
• Hire Slow, Fire Fast: Revisted — from Mike Haberman’s Omega HR Solutions
• Thanks for the Criticism! — from by Jim Brennan at Compensation Cafe
• Got Trade Secrets? — from The Employer’s Lawyer
• The Employee Handbook is Not Your Handbook — from Strategic HR Lawyer
• Stop being the office slob — from Suzanne Lucas at CBS Money Watch
• L.A. Firefighter Arrested For Moonlighting As MMA Brawler While Allegedly On Workman’s Comp — from Deadspin
• Physics in HR – The Petrino Principle — from The HR Introvert

Wage & Hour

• WINNER TAKES ALL: Supreme Court to Determine if Pharma Reps Should Be Classified as “Exempt”… — from The HR Capitalist, Kris Dunn
• Rebuild America Act Would Hike Tip Credit, Minimum Wage, Paid Time Off — from TLNT
• Volunteers May Be Entitled to Pay Under the Fair Labor Standards Act — from Randy Enochs’s Wisconsin Employment & Labor Law Blog
• Employee Wage Misclassification Should Be Taken Seriously — from Rush Nigut’s Rush on Business

  Labor Relations

• The Pros and Cons of Joining a Labor Union — from Fox News
• Three Weeks Until NLRB Posting Rule Takes Effect — from Dan Schwartz’s Connecticut Employment Law Blog
• Do Employees Read Break Room Signage Anyway? — from Jessica Miller-Merrell’s Blogging4Jobs
• Union says right-to-work law violates free speech — from Bloomberg Businessweek

Standing up for your employees

Last night, the Philadelphia Flyers rallied from 3 goals down to take game 1 of their first round series from their cross-state rivals, the Pittsburgh Penguins. Right now, you’re all thinking to yourselves, what can this possibly have to do with employment law or employee relations?

Four months ago, Dallas Stars’ center Steve Ott delivered a hit to Flyers’ star Claude Giroux, who had just returned to the lineup from a concussion. At the end of the period, Flyers’ coach Peter Laviolette chased down Ott in the Stars’ tunnel and confronted him about what he perceived as a cheap shot. According to Philly.com, Giroux appreciated his coach’s action: “It’s good to see we have each other’s back.”

Two weeks ago, Laviolette again stood up for his players, following a fight-filled conclusion to a game against the Penguins. The fights were precipitated by what Laviolette called a “gutless” move by the Pens to put its enforcers on the ice at end of a 6-3 blowout. As all 10 players on the ice fought, Laviolette stood on the boards yelling at Pens’ assistant coach Tony Granato. After the game, Laviolette defended his tirade (via CSNPhilly.com): “Those guys hadn’t played in 12 minutes; it was a gutless move by their coach.” Again, Giroux stood up for his coach (via CSNPhilly.com): “He’s got our back…. He’s an intense coach who loves his players.”

Which brings me back to last night. The Flyers fell into a quick 0-3 hole. They needed to rally. And, they did. Don’t think for a minute that whatever motivation Laviolette used to jump-start his team had added impact because his players know that he stands up for them. He has their backs, and they responded with 4 unanswered goals and a 1-0 series lead.

Your organization is not a hockey team, but there is a lesson to learn from Peter Laviolette. If you have your employees’ backs, they will reciprocate. You never know when you’ll need your employees to rally for you (overtime, sales quotas, deadlines, etc.). Make it easier for them to go the extra mile by standing up for them when they need it. Reward good performance. Recognize star performers. Take complaints seriously. Have an open-door for your employees. Your employees will pay you back in spades.

Maryland becomes 1st state to ban requiring employees’ social media passwords

The public outcry against employers requiring the job applicants turn over their Facebook passwords has resulted in legislation. Maryland has become the first state to prohibit employers from requiring or seeking user names, passwords, or any other means to access Internet sites such as Facebook as a condition of employment. Demonstrating the outrage over this issue, the measure passed both house of Maryland’s General Assembly with 96% support.

The law—entitled, “User Name and Password Privacy Protection and Exclusions” (full text here [pdf])—prohibits Maryland employers:

• from requesting or requiring that an employee or applicant disclose any user name, password, or other means to access a personal Internet account;
• from taking, or threatening to take, disciplinary actions for an employee’s refusal to disclose certain password and related information; and
• from failing or refusing to hire an applicant as a result of the applicant’s refusal to disclose certain password and related information.

The law exempts employers that are conducting investigations into compliance with securities or financial laws or regulations, and investigations into the unauthorized downloading of the employer’s proprietary information or financial data to an employee’s personal website.

Eric Meyer, at The Employer Handbook blog, nicely summarizes the main critiques of this bill:

[T]he Maryland Chamber of Commerce opposed the prohibition because the bills did not acknowledge there could be legitimate issues for some employers to want to review applicants' or workers' social media messages.

What concerns me is that there are no carve-outs for public agencies that protect and serve the public. I can understand why a police department may need to fully vet its candidates by making sure that applicants and officers don’t have hate speech towards a particular protected class, for example, on their Facebook page. As I imagine that this information could be used to overturn arrests and indictments.

While I agree with Eric’s take, my critique is more about the small percentage of employers who engage in this practice:

Legal issues aside, this story raises another, more fundamental, question—what type of employer do you want to be? Do you want to be viewed as Big Brother? Do you want a paranoid workforce? Do you want your employees to feel invaded and victimized as soon as they walk in the door, with no sense of personal space or privacy? Or, do you value transparency? Do you want HR practices that engender honesty, and openness, and that recognize that employees are entitled to a life outside of work? … Requiring passwords is not smart.

This law affects you only if: 1) you engage in business in Maryland; and 2) you are among what I believe is the small minority of business that are requiring applicants and employees to turn over social media logins and passwords. Nevertheless, I would expect other states to follow suit, and use the Maryland legislation as a model.

Even if few public sector employers, and fewer private sector employers, are engaging in this practice, this issue bears monitoring.

[Hat tip: The Hill]

National origin harassment depends on the national origin of the harassee

Consider the following examples, both of which come from harassment cases decided in the past two weeks by the Northern District of Ohio:

• EEOC v. Spitzer Management [pdf]: Employer denied summary judgment based on allegations that an Asian-American employee was called “slant eye” and “rice rat,” and an African-American employee was called a “jungle bunny” and a “gorilla.”
• Burrage v. FedEx Freight [pdf]: Employer granted summary judgment based on allegations that an employee was repeatedly called “Mexican” and referred to as “cheap labor.”

How do you rationalize these two seemingly incongruous decisions? The reconciliation depends on the national origin or race of the complainant. In Spitzer, an Asian-American was complaining about harassment based on his national origin, and an African-American about harassment based on his race. In FedEx, however, the complainant was not Mexican-American, or any Hispanic descent. In reality, he was half-white/half-black. As the court in Burrage v. FedEx explained:

At best, the references to Burrage as “the Mexican” and “cheap labor,” and the use of the Spanish terms “andale” and “ariba,” represent the very unfortunate employment of offensive stereotypes of Hispanics, and can be said to arise out of a misperception that Burrage was of Hispanic descent….

Burrage seems to argue that he was harassed because of physical characteristics that made him appear to be a member of a protected class of which he was not an actual member. Claims based on perceived class membership are not legally viable under Title VII, and the Court will not expand the reach of Title VII to cover that which Congress chose not to protect.

Do not take refuge in Burrage v. FedEx and use it as an excuse to condone harassment. FedEx just as easily could have gotten dinged for ignoring an employee’s four years of complaints. Regardless of whether there is synergy between the harassment and the harassed, take the complaint seriously, investigate, and deploy appropriate corrective action if necessary. Do not hang your harassment hat on a technicality, because the court hearing your case might not be so generous.

Get rid of at-will employment? Give me a break!

On Donna Ballman’s blog, Screw You Guys, I’m Going Home, she argues for a radical change to at-will employment. She believes that unemployment hearing officers should have the power to reinstate, with back pay, anyone fired without just cause:

Most employers can fire you for any reason or no reason at all…. Then, to add insult to injury, our tax dollars pay for the cost of unemployment compensation and the side-effects of unemployment, all because your boss had a hissy fit one day and fired you without just cause…. Every state in the nation already has a set of hearing examiners or referees who hear unemployment cases. If the employee is fired for misconduct, they don’t get to collect. But what about the employer who fires without just cause? Why not give the unemployment hearing officers one more power: the power to reinstate with back pay.

I applaud Donna’s bravado in arguing for a radical solution to a problem she perceives. But, is it really a problem at all? In reality, few employers act on whims of fancy. We can debate what qualifies as “just cause,” but the fact is that few employer fire good employees. It is not a good business decision for a company to let a good worker go. Good employees keep their jobs, marginal employees are at risk, and bad employees are fired. And, when an undeserving employee is fired, there are myriad employment laws to protect their rights from an unjust dismissal.

Moreover, placing into the hands of unemployment hearing officers the power to reinstate (with back pay) would cripple workforce mobility and hiring. If employers face a risk of having overturned all but the clearest of terminations, they will be reluctant to fire all but worst of employees. Businesses will be stuck with the middling and marginal, harming their ability to employ the best and the brightest. Donna’s scheme would therefore result in fewer job opening, which, in turn, would irreparably damage hiring and create longer periods of unemployment for those searching for work.

Finally, at least in Ohio, the premise that individual taxpayers foot the bill for employers’ whims is faulty. In Ohio, unemployment is funded by a tax on employers. Employers’ tax rates go up and down based on the number of claims paid (like any other insurance scheme). For 2012, that rate can be as high as 9.1%. So, it is in employers’ best interests not to fire on a whim, because the resulting unemployment claim will raise their contribution rate, resulting in a higher tax. In other words, bad firing decisions hit an employer where it hurts, the bottom line. 

Donna, if you’re still convinced that your idea makes sense, I’ll make you a deal. When you agree that we need to adopt my Employer’s Bill of Rights, I’ll agree that at-will employment is a dinosaur (and, watch out for the flying pigs).

WIRTW #220 (the “social assassin” edition)

Passover starts at sundown tonight. I have nothing employment-related for this tidbit of information (don’t treat your workers like the pharaoh treated his, or you will likely face the 11th plague, litigation?). But, it does give me an excuse to play the following, which also happens to be one of the few SFW clips in the eight-seasons of Curb Your Enthusiasm.

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

Discrimination

• What Baggage Does The Employment Attorney Carry? — from Dan Schwartz’s Connecticut Employment Law Blog
• You may know where the bodies are buried, but that doesn’t mean you can sue your employer for retaliation — from Robin Shea’s Employment and Labor Insider
• Comments to OIRA on forthcoming EEOC Background Check Guidance — from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
• Intellectual Disability under the ADAAA: A Widening Chasm of Problems? — from Michael Haberman’s Omega HR Solutions
• We Know You Don’t Mean to Discriminate - But Are You Biased Underneath the Hood? — from The HR Capitalist. Kris Dunn
• Employment discrimination by the numbers: Foreign Edition — from Eric Meyer’s The Employer Handbook Blog
• Pending Legislation Employers Can’t Afford to Ignore — from Stephanie Thomas’s The Proactive Employer Blog
• Senators Propose Amendments To ADEA — from Stoel Rives World of Employment
• Statistical disparities don’t necessarily indicate discrimination — from The Tennessean

Social Media & Workplace Technology

• Your Future Employer Is Watching You Online. You Should Be, Too. — from Michael Fertik at the Harvard Business Review
• Employees Need To Take Control Of Their Online Identities — from Anthony Zaller’s California Employment Law Report
• Employers Who Demand Facebook Passwords. Oy Vey. — from Molly DiBianca’s Delaware Employment Law Blog
• Teacher fired for refusing to hand over Facebook password — from Friending Facebook Blog
• Michigan Proposes Legislation to Ban Employers from Accessing Employees’ Social Media Sites — from Jason Shinn’s Michigan Employment Law Advisor
• The Facebook access controversy comes to Michigan — from John Holmquist’s Michigan Employment Law Connection
• Access To Social Media Accounts In The Hiring Process And Employer Ownership Of Trade Secrets Or Confidential Information Contained In Social Media Accounts: Legislation On Horizon? — from Trading Secrets
• Employee Photos on the Company’s Social Media Page? — from Nolo’s Employment Law Blog
• Social Media Ethics: Why You Should Have a Policy — from Social Media Today

HR & Employee Relations

• Should You Fire The Slugs? — from Stephanie Thomas at Compensation Cafe
• Did Your DUI Lawyer Draft Your Employee Handbook? — from TLNT
• Olbermann Employment Law-Palooza — from Phil Miles’s Lawffice Space
• Quoting scripture at work — from Evil HR Lady, Suzanne Lucas
• “Bullying” Is Becoming Part of the Zeitgeist — from Michael Fox’s Jottings By An Employer’s Lawyer
• Pet insurance as a benefit — from HR idiot
• Creating a Conflict-Conscious Workplace — from intown employer
• If the Facebook COO can leave the office at 5:30, maybe you can too — from Amy Joyce’s On Parenting (at washingtonpost.com)
• How to reduce your legal spend on employment issues — from Smart Business

Wage & Hour

• “Employers grow reluctant to offer internships following complaints” — from Walter Olson’s Overlawyered
• Intern or Employee? Unpaid Internships May End Up Costing Employers — from LE Blog
• Argument preview: The “outside salesman” exception to the FLSA’s overtime-pay requirement — from SCOTUSblog
• Will breastfeeding support die with Obamacare? — from Eve Tahmincioglu’s CareerDiva
• Can an Employer Require an Employee to Make Up Time Taken as FMLA Leave? from Jeff Nowak’s FMLA Insights

Until next week (also, remarkably, SFW):

Disturbing study about the (mis)use of employers’ confidential information

Here’s the good news: According to a recent survey conducted by FileTrek, 79% of Americans believe that removing confidential files from the office is grounds for termination. Here’s the bad news: 90% think that employees do it anyway. What is the most popular method of removing information? Exporting it to a USB drive.

Some more scary numbers? How about the answers to the question, “When is it acceptable to remove confidential company information out of the office?”

• 48% — When boss says it’s okay
• 32% — To finish a late night project from home
• 30% — To work over the weekend or while on vacation
• 16% — When the confidential information about themselves
• 2% — When it can be brought back to the office before the boss knows it was gone
• 2% — To show something to family or friends who promise to keep it confidential
• 40% — Never

According to Dale Quayle, CEO of FileTrek, “Today’s workforce believes information is an asset to be shared…. It’s critical for today’s management teams to be more IP aware to ensure data security.”

Where does this IP awareness start? With a clear set of policies and agreements that prioritize the confidentiality of your information and data. You need to set the expectation in your organization that you take confidentiality seriously, and those that do not should not expect to remain employed. You also need to be prepared to enforce that confidentiality with litigation when necessary. Otherwise, the agreements may not be worth the paper on which they are printed.

[Hat tip: Huffington Post]

NLRB Administrative Law Judge splits the baby in ruling on a social media policy

Anytime any piece of the NLRB takes action with regard to an employer’s social media policy, it’s newsworthy (even if you’re getting tired of reading about it). Such is the case with G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Inc. (3/29/12) [pdf], decided by an administrative law judge.

At issue in G4S Secure Solutions were the following two provisions of the employer’s social media policy:

• Do not comment on work-related legal matters without express permission of the Legal Department.
• Photographs, images and videos of G4S employees in uniform, (whether yourself or a colleague) or at a G4S place of work, must not be placed on any social networking site, unless express permission has been given by G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Inc.

The ALJ agreed with the NLRB’s General Counsel that the “no comment on work-related legal matters” provision was overly restrictive of employees’ rights to engage in protected concerted activity:

I find the rule is reasonably interpreted to prevent employees from discussing working conditions and other terms and conditions of employment, particularly where the discussions concern potential legal action or complaints employees may have filed…. The rule at issue here would reasonably be read to prohibit two employees … from sending messages to each other about their issues at work … via a social networking site. Likewise, it would reasonably prohibit a discussion group among concerned employees on a social networking site.

Conversely, however, the ALJ concluded that the “no photograph” provision was lawful:

Respondent clearly has legitimate reasons for not having pictures of uniformed employees or employees who are at work posted on Facebook and similar sites. Starting with the worksite, Respondent does have patient privacy concerns for the EMT services it provides. Moreover, Respondent serves a variety of clients on a national basis. The various businesses and government agencies where its employees work can be presumed to have their own rules centered on privacy and legal concerns. I find the rule at issue here is reasonably construed as protecting Respondent’s clients. To read it as a prohibition on Section 7 activity strikes me a stretch, particularly considering the rule does not ban photographs but merely prohibits employees from posting them on social networking sites.

I’ll leave you with two observations:

1. The NLRB’s Acting General Counsel does not have the last word on these issues. Many (including me) were up in arms when the NLRB’s Office of General Counsel issued its latest report on social media in the workplace, which opined that almost all workplace policies that could potentially regulate social media violate the NLRA. G4S Secure Solutions disagreed with the General Counsel, and concluded that an employer’s reasonable and legitimate reason to regulate employees’ use of social media trumps a potential and tangential effect on employees’ protected, concerted activity.

2. These issues remain very unsettled. One opinion from an ALJ is nowhere close to a conclusive proclamation of the law. This case will head to Washington for consideration by the NLRB, which could reach an opposite conclusion on the “no photographs” policy. Ultimately, the federal circuit courts, and the Supreme Court, will have to weigh-in on these issues. But, that guidance is years away. Until then, move very cautiously, and only with the advice of counsel well-versed on these issues, if trying to regulate social media in your workplace.

Dealing drugs disqualifies an employee from collecting workers’ comp

Ever heard of the phrase “sustained remunerative employment?” In the world of workers’ compensation, it means that if you are earning money, or capable of earning money, you cannot be eligible for an award of PTD (permanent total disability) for a workplace injury. Seems like common sense, right? What, if, however, the evidence of sustained remunerative employment is illegal activity? Last week, the Ohio Supreme Court weighed-in with an answer.

Donald McNea was a police officer the city of Parma. In 2004, the state awarded him PTD compensation for alleged on-the-job injuries. As it turns out, at the same time McNea was receiving PTD payments, he was being investigated for the illegal sale of narcotics. Ultimately, he was arrested, indicted, pleaded guilty, and sentenced to three years in prison. The Industrial Commission terminated McNea’s PTD benefits as of the date of his incarceration. It also concluded that McNea’s side business selling narcotics was “sustained remunerative employment,” and as a result declared that all compensation paid after his first confirmed drug sale constituted an overpayment.

McNea appealed the determination of the overpayment all the way to the Ohio Supreme Court, where—in State ex rel. McNea v. Industrial Commission (3/29/12) [pdf]—common sense prevailed:

In this case, the evidence established an ongoing pattern of phone calls and other sales-related activity that culminated in the four recorded sales that McNea made between October and December 2005. The commission characterized this sales activity as sustained remunerative employment, and we decline to disturb that finding.

It is unlikely that you will ever face the situation of having to seek disqualification of an employee from collecting workers’ comp benefits because he’s dealing drugs. Nevertheless, this case holds an important lesson. Despite all of the laws technicalities and nuances, when you rip most cases down to their cores, ligation is a morality play. If you can show that an employee did something that offends our idea of what is right versus what is wrong (dealing drugs, stealing, other dishonesty, etc.), you will place yourself in a very good position to win your case.

An good example of an overly broad social media policy

Reuters is reporting that a union representing employees at a New York grocery chain has asked the NLRB to investigate whether the store’s social media policy is violates employees’ rights to engage in protected concerted activity under the National Labor Relations Act.

According to the article, the policy in question “forbids employees from disclosing confidential information—including salaries—on social networking sites like Facebook or Twitter, and from discrediting the store’s practices or products.” For its part, the employer commented that “the store’s policy is meant simply to remind employees to use ‘reasonable guidelines’ when posting to social media sites.”

The employer’s goal is commendable, and reminiscent of my four word social media policy, “Think before you click.” But, if the article is correctly reporting the scope of the challenged policy, it goes well beyond reasonable. The clearest example of protected, concerted activity is conversations about wages. You cannot have a policy that prohibits employees from talking about how much they make, and that rule doesn’t change whether the conversations are at the water cooler, in the break room, or over the Internet. If I was the company’s lawyer, I’d be telling them to change the policy ASAP, before the NLRB orders them to do so.

[Hat tip: Delaware Employment Law Blog]

WIRTW #219 (the “recap” edition)

The Labor & Employment blawgosphere nearly blew itself up this week, with Facebook passwords and the Supreme Court’s healthcare argument dominating the headlines. In case you were under a rock this week, here’s my 140 character summary, fit for you to copy and paste into Twitter: “Requiring Facebook passwords from job applicants is bad, but, it looks like S Ct might think individual health insurance mandates are worse.”

Looking for more details?

Facebook Passwords

• Don’t Demand Facebook Passwords — from Manpower Employment Blawg
• Requiring Social Media Information Is a Bad Idea — from Workplace Privacy Counsel
• What Could Go Wrong? Facebook Passwords — from LaborRelated
• Leave Facebook out of your hiring decisions — from HR Cafe
• Password Protected - Proposed Social Media Privacy Legislation — from Labor Employment Law Blog
• Facebook Controversy Spawns Legislation — from New Jersey Employment Law Blog
• Facebook Policy Against Sharing Passwords to Block Employers — from Texas Employer Handbook
• Employers Requesting Facebook Access May Face Federal Consequences — from LE Blog
• Think Twice Before Asking Applicants for Facebook Passwords — from Dan Schwartz’s Connecticut Employment Law Blog
• Relax! Businesses don’t want employee Facebook passwords. — from Eric Meyer’s The Employer Handbook Blog
• UPDATE - Still Trending On Password Demands — from Social Media Employment Law Blog
• Facebook Finally Takes a Position on Screening! — from employeescreenIQ Blog
• Is Social Media Legislation Coming Your Way? — from Rob Radcliff’s Smooth Transitions

Health Care Law Oral Argument

• SCOTUSblog, health care, and a few things you might have missed — from SCOTUSblog (with links to all of SCOTUSblog’s amazing coverage)
• In Plain English: Is half a loaf better than no loaf? — from SCOTUSblog
• “A Moment of Silence for Obamacare: Prayers, depression, and Latin phrases. Obamacare looks to have had another very bad day.” — from Howard Bashman’s How Appealing
• As health care arguments close, fate of law seems uncertain — from Law.com
• Oral Arguments Close With Severability, Medicaid Expansion Issues — from Joe’s HR and Benefits Blog
• Supreme Court Hears Final Day of Oral Argument on Severability, Medicaid Expansion — from Washington D.C. Employment Law Update
• SCOTUS on ACA, Day 1: Supreme Court Signals Reluctance to Postpone ACA Decision on Procedural Grounds — from E is for ERISA

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

Discrimination

• ENDA “Lite” On the Way? — from Michael Fox’s Jottings By An Employer’s Lawyer
• March Madness and Employment Litigation – It’s All About the Numbers … and a Little Luck — from Jason Shinn’s Michigan Employment Law Advisor
• Reasonable accommodation: Shifting tasks among employees — from HR Cafe
• Discriminating Against the Long-term Unemployed: Tips to Avoid This Practice — from Mike Haberman’s Omega HR Solutions
• Fourth Circuit Allows Sex Discrimination in Severance go Forward — from Maryland Employment Law Developments
• If your job makes you want to kill yourself, you may (or may not) be an ADA “direct threat” — from Robin Shea’s Employment and Labor Insider

Social Media & Workplace Technology

• 10.5 billion minutes spent on Facebook daily, excluding mobile — from Friending Facebook Blog
• What Should Go Into a Social Media Policy? — from Lindsay Walker at i-Sight Investigation Software Blog
• A (Hopefully Needless) Reminder That Skype Conversations On Your Work Computer Aren’t Very Private — from Kashmir Hill’s The Not-So Private Parts
• My So-Called (Double) Life … On Facebook — from Fistful of Talent
• Why Pin(interest)? — from Social Axcess

HR & Employee Relations

• The Real Leadership Lessons of Steve Jobs — from Harvard Business Review
• Rogue Employees of the Week – Saints Coach Sean Payton and Defensive Coordinator Gregg Williams — from damnedif
• Stupid (beep) People Say — from Cost of Work
• Victoria Hospital Won’t Hire Very Obese Workers — from The Texas Tribute
• The How and Why of Employee Background Screening — from Stephanie Thomas’s Proactive Employer Blog

Wage & Hour

• Don’t Let Your Babies Grow Up To Be Interns — from Dan Schwartz’s Connecticut Employment Law Blog
• 6 keys to keeping unpaid internships from becoming a hot wage & hour mess — from Eric Meyer’s The Employer Handbook Blog
• HR clueless on Family and Medical Leave — from CareerDiva
• When FMLA Intermittent Leave Leads to Suspicious Attendance Patterns — from HR Hero Line
• Court Clarifies Timing Calculation for FMLA Retaliation Claims — from Minnesota Employment Law Report

Labor Relations

• Fired for Wearing Orange and Orange Employees Strike Back — from Phil Miles’s Lawffice Space
• Posting Rule Update: Brace for Concerted Activity! — from Labor Relations Institute
• Target to temporarily close store in union fight — from Michael VanDervort’s The Human Race Horses

What’s on your tombstone?

At his Work Matters blog, Mike Maslanka asked the following question: “What will be on your tombstone?” Don’t get me wrong. I love my job and would not trade what I do for a living for any other profession. But, please kill me again if my tombstone is work-related. I’d much prefer, “He was a great husband and dad,” or, “He loved his family,” to, “He could write a great brief,” or, “He could oral argue with the best of them.”

That’s my tombstone, but what about yours? A tombstone is your legacy. It’s a phrase that is supposed define you for all eternity. That’s why it's etched in stone. So, if you could pre-write your own tombstone as an employer, what would it say? How does this sound? “A company that treated everyone fairly.” Or, “Employees loved to work there.” So, what does your tombstone say? Leave me a comment below, or, post on Twitter with the hashtag #HRtombstone.

Courts are finally starting to apply ADAAA—and it ain’t pretty

It’s taken awhile for courts to start applying the ADAAA—the January 1, 2009, amendments to the Americans with Disabilities Act that rendered everyone with a medical condition disabled for purposes of the disability discrimination law. With one glaring exception, courts have concluded that the amendments are not retroactive, and only apply to personnel decisions taken on or after January 1, 2009. After a bit of a waiting period, courts are now starting to weigh-in on disability cases under the ADAAA, and, as expected, for employers it is not pretty.

Consider Wells v. Cincinnati Children’s Hosp. Med. Ctr. (S.D. Ohio 2/15/12). Elizabeth Wells, a nurse at Cincinnati Children’s, suffered from gastrointestinal problems. When she returned to work following gall bladder surgery and FMLA leave, she committed various errors (e.g., pulling morphine for a patient that had no orders for it) that called into question her fitness to work as a nurse in a Critical Airway Transplant Surgery unit. The hospital believed the errors were related to her post-surgical medicine, Lotronex, which can cause confusion, sedation, and equilibrium disorders. The hospital placed Wells on administrative leave and referred to her its employee assistance program. The hospital refused to reinstate Wells to the transplant unit after her doctor cleared her to return to work. Ultimately, it found her a position in a bone marrow transplant unit, albeit at reduced hours and with a pay cut.

The trial court concluded that Wells’s disability discrimination claim relating to the hospital’s failure to reinstate her to her old position should go to a jury. Notably, the court pointed out that she need only prove that the hospital “regarded her as having an impairment,” and, in contrast to the pre-amendment ADA, under the ADAAA’s “regarded as” prong, “a plaintiff … only has to prove the existence of an impairment…; she no longer is required to prove that the employer regarded her impairment as substantially limiting a major life activity.” In other words, as long as Wells could prove that the hospital believed she was impaired, the ADA covers her. That burden was easy for her to meet: “The gastrointestinal problems which caused Plaintiff nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea clearly qualify as a physiological disorder. Moreover, to the extent that the side effects of Plaintiff’s proper use of prescription medication adversely affected her ability to work, it would contribute to a finding that she was disabled.” Because the hospital essentially demoted her following her leave, her ADA claim survived.

The hospital’s only sin was that it did not want a nurse who blacks out and becomes confused when treating and administering narcotics to critically ill children. Perhaps, however, the hospital doomed itself by re-employing Wells at all. Because the bone marrow transplant unit also involved critically ill children, the court was skeptical of the employer’s rationale.

The ADA has become one of the most dangerous statutes for employers to administer. It covers virtually any medical condition, actual or perceived. Any time you are making an employment decision concerning any employee about whom you know, or believe, to have a medical condition, you will be best served to take a step back, take a deep breath, and take a few minutes to consult with your counsel. You do not want to shoot first and have to answer questions later.