WIRTW #252 (the “eat, drink, and be merry … and safe” edition)

The end of the year is here, which means that it’s time for the office holiday party. Deep from the archives, here are 7 tips for a safe workplace holiday party, a post which is as pertinent now as when I first wrote it two years ago.

As an added bonus, consider these tips on workplace holiday parties from some other bloggers:

• Horror Stories From the Workplace Christmas & Holiday Party — from Mike Haberman at Blogging4Jobs
• 10-Step Company Holiday Party Planning Checklist — from ERC Insights Blog
• Evil Skippy’s Ten Essential Office Party Tips — from Evil Skippy at Work
• Holiday Parties In The Social Media Age - You Never Know Who Is Watching! — from HR Defense Blog
• Employer’s Holiday Guide — from Heather Bussing at HR Examiner with John Sumser

As another added bonus, here are two exceedingly clever wrap-ups of the year in labor and employment law:

• Once “Moore” With Feeling: ‘Twas the Month of December – Again! — from Employment Essentials
• 2012 Employment Law Year In Review — from Labor Letter

---

Don’t forget to cast your votes for the ABA Journal Blawg 100.

---

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

Discrimination

• 10 rules of etiquette that will save you from a pregnancy discrimination suit — from Robin Shea’s Employment and Labor Insider
• Attempted Suicide and the ADA — from Molly DiBianca’s Delaware Employment Law Blog
• Have Faith in Your Religious Accommodations — from Tim Eavenson’s Current Employment
• Hangman's Nooses And the “N-Word” — from Employment Discrimination Report
• “Younger people are the future” comment creates age-bias claim — from Eric Meyer’s The Employer Handbook Blog
• You’re Damned if You Fall Into the Retaliation Trap — from damnedif

Social Media & Workplace Technology

• This Is How Much Time You Spend on Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr — from Mashable
• @noahkravitz and PhoneDog Settle Twitter Follower Lawsuit — from Social Media for Law Firms
• Employee/Ex-Employer Lawsuit Over Twitter Account Settles — from Eric Goldman
• Which Side Are You On? Employers and Employees Battle Over Ownership of Social Media Accounts — from Socially Aware Blog
• Massachusetts Court Rules That Facebook Posting of New Job Does Not Violate Non-Competition Covenant — from Trading Secrets
• Criminal Facebooking — from Workplace Prof Blog
• How to Respond to an Inappropriate Request for Access to Personal Social Media — from HR Gazette
• The Importance of a Bring Your Own Device to Work Policy — from InhouseBlog
• Obsessed With Checking Your Phone? You’re Not Alone — from ABC News

HR & Employee Relations

• No flu shot? No job! — from EmployerLINC
• No Flu Shot? That's a Firing — from Donna Ballman’s Screw You Guys, I’m Going Home
• Are You a Bad Boss? — from The Sociable Lawyer Blog
• Management Lessons from the NFL: Avoiding Monday Morning Quarterbacking of Your Termination Decisions — from Jason Shinn’s Michigan Employment Law Advisor
• Favoritism at Work: How to Respond When Unequal Treatment Impacts Your Productivity and Satisfaction — from Workplace Fairness
• Should Employers Arbitrate Non-Compete Claims? — from Rob Radcliff’s Smooth Transitions
• The Ugly Side of Employee Complaints — from Elevated HR
• Confidentiality Clauses in Employment Agreements: Who’s Minding the Store? Part I — from The Emplawyerologist

Wage & Hour

• Is It Ever OK For Employers to “Round” an Employee’s Worktime? — from TLNT
• Lawsuits by Restaurant Employees Keep on Coming — from Overtime Advisor
• Sixth Circuit Awards Employer Over $55,000 in Costs in FLSA Collective Action — from Employer Law Report

The Internet is today’s employee complaint box

In Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1433 [pdf], an NLRB administrative law judge ruled that a union did not violate federal labor law by failing to disavow threatening posts made by employees on the union’s Facebook. While the legal nuances of the opinion are interesting, this case raises an issue of deeper import for employers. Labor unions are using social media, and using it effectively, to disseminate information to members and to reach potential members during organizing drives.

It is not just labor unions that are using social media and the Internet to engage employees collectively. Employees are using these tools outside the organizational outreach of labor unions.

Case in point—the recent launch of coworker.org. “What is coworker.org,” you’re asking yourself? “I’ve never heard of it.” I never had either until I read a post yesterday on the Workplace Prof Blog. Coworker.org, describes itself as a website that allows employees to start, run, and win campaigns to change their workplaces. Employees accomplish this mission on the website by starting online petitions.

To date, coworker.org only has one active campaign. It’s against Wal-Mart, seeking the reinstatement of an employee allegedly fired for speaking out against having to work on Black Friday.

I’ll be watching coworker.org to see if it gains any traction. Employers should be watching this site too, but not for the reason you think. Retaliation against any employees who post on the site would be illegal under the National Labor Relations Act, as employees have a right to engage in protected concerted activity.

Instead, employers should pay attention to coworker.org for the same reason they should pay attention to the Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1433 case, Facebook, Twitter, and the blogosphere. Employees are online, talking about what is happening in your workplace. The Internet is today’s complaint box. If you want to fix problems before they get out of control, you need only turn to social media sites and sites like coworker.org and Glassdoor. If your employees are online complaining about you, should you be paying attention?

Officially announcing the release of The Employer Bill of Rights

After a “soft launch” a couple of weeks ago, I am officially announcing the launch of my latest book, The Employer Bill of Rights: A Manager’s Guide to Workplace Law. It is a practical handbook designed to help business owners, managers, supervisors, and human resources professionals navigate the ever-changing maze of labor and employment laws, rules, and regulations. Among other topics, it covers—

• How to make personnel decisions that will help avoid costly litigation.
• The who, what, why, when, where, and how of each of the major federal employment discrimination laws.
• Cutting-edge human resources issues such as wage-and-hour disputes and managing social media in the workplace.
• How to hire and fire employee without the fear of an expensive lawsuit.
• How to control operations by implementing legal policies and procedures related to plant shut downs, employee scheduling, work rules, and the maintenance of confidential information.
• The importance of following the Golden Rule in all personnel matters.

I’m really proud of how the book turned out.

I have a lot of people to thank. Here’s what I wrote in the book’s acknowledgements:

First, I must thank all of my partners at Kohrman Jackson & Krantz and, especially, our managing partner, Marc Krantz, who knows that there exist many ways for a lawyer to market himself or herself. He never hesitated when I suggested that I author a legal blog or write a book (or two), and for his support I am eternally grateful.

Before attending law school, I worked at a few jobs that were less than glamorous. To all of the people who shared those jobs with me, thank you for unknowingly and unwittingly helping me craft my views on the modern workplace.

Thank you to anyone who has ever published anything I have written, quoted me in an article, hosted me on a show, invited me to speak at an event, re-tweeted one of my 140-character thoughts, or linked to my blog. Without each of you, this book would not have occurred.

I thank the wonderful publishing team at Apress—Jeff Olson, Robert Hutchinson, and Rita Fernando—along with the publisher itself. They made the writing process work smoothly, which was essential as I juggled the authoring of this book with my full-time legal practice. They also patiently put up with my less-than-perfect execution of their SharePoint site as we worked though the editorial process.

Thank you to my parents, who taught me the value of education without ever pushing too hard.

Finally, thank you to my family—Colleen, Norah, and Donovan. You put up with my late-night and early-morning blogging and writing. You sometimes suffer in my absence caused by long workdays, late nights, or out-of-town trips. Yet, if I did not know that you are always standing behind me, none of it would be worth it. Thank you for loving me for who I am and supporting me for what I do.

If you want to purchase the book, it’s available in several places and formats:

• Amazon – paperback
• Amazon – Kindle (available soon)
• Barnes & Noble – paperback
• eBook

I have also been told that an iBooks version is coming, although Apple runs a tad behind the others on its approvals.

I cannot think of a better stocking stuffer for that special business owner, manager, supervisor, or HR professional in your life. Amazon will even gift wrap it for you.

---

If you want to hear me talk about the book, you can tune in tomorrow to Stephanie Thomas’s The Proactive Employer. I’ll be live at 3 pm (and available on-demand thereafter) to discuss why employers need a bill of rights, the areas of greatest legal concern for employers, and how my book can help businesses make informed decisions and hedge against the biggest errors that too often result in expensive and time-consuming lawsuits.

Does an unaccepted offer of judgment moot a wage and hour case? Genesis HealthCare Corp. v. Symczyk

Let’s say an employee sues you, claiming that you withheld certain wages owed under the Fair Labor Standards Act. In addition to defending the lawsuit, you make her what is called an “offer of judgment” to make her whole for all wages she claims she is owed (including any liquidated damages and attorneys’ fees). Does the offer render her lawsuit—that she not only brought on her own behalf, but also sought on behalf of a class of similarly situated co-workers—moot? Alternatively, does the fact that she sought relief on behalf of others keep her lawsuit alive, despite the fact that she no longer has any personal skin in the game?

Yesterday, the Supreme Court took up this important issue in Genesis HealthCare Corp. v. Symczyk. The precise issue the Court considered during yesterday’s oral argument is as follows:

Whether a case becomes moot … when the lone plaintiff receives an offer from the defendants to satisfy all of the plaintiff’s claims.

In the case below, the 3rd Circuit offered a succinct explanation of the doctrine of mootness, its role in federal court cases, and how an offer of judgment impacts it:

Article III of the United States Constitution limits the jurisdiction of the federal courts to “actual ‘Cases’ and ‘Controversies.’” When the issues presented in a case are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome, the case becomes moot and the court no longer has subject matter jurisdiction. An offer of complete relief will generally moot the plaintiff’s claim, as at that point the plaintiff retains no personal interest in the outcome of the litigation. Thus, whether or not the plaintiff accepts the offer, no justiciable controversy remains when a defendant tenders an offer of judgment under Rule 68 encompassing all the relief a plaintiff could potentially recover at trial. (internal quotations omitted).

Genesis HealthCare is not the Supreme Court’s first rodeo on the issue of offers of judgment in class actions. In Deposit Guar. Nat'l Bank v. Roper, the Court previously expressed its concern about the use of offers of judgment to strategically “pick off” claimants:

Requiring multiple plaintiffs to bring separate actions, which effectively could be “picked off'” by a defendant’s tender of judgment before an affirmative ruling on class certification could be obtained, obviously would frustrate the objectives of class actions; moreover it would invite waste of judicial resources by stimulating successive suits brought by others claiming aggrievement.

How did the Court address these issues in yesterday’s oral argument, and what do the Court’s questions tell us about how the Court may rule in the case?

• The left wing of the Court hit the employer’s counsel hard on the perceived underlying unfairness of dismissing an entire collective action based on the inactivity of one member of the class.
• The right wing of the Court hit the plaintiff’s counsel hard on the underlying procedural issues, and the inability of a named plaintiff to do anything to affect the interests of potential class members who have yet to join the lawsuit.

The outcome of this case is difficult to gauge based on the oral argument, because both potential sides of the Court attacked the underlying issues so differently. Again and again, however, this pro-business Court has revealed itself to be pro-employee in its recent employment rulings. Reading the tea leaves, I predict that the Court rules against the employer and concludes that the unaccepted offer of judgment did not moot the collective action in this case.

A copy of the oral argument transcript is available for download [pdf] from the Supreme Court’s website.

Do you have a workplace policy banning the electronic recording of conversations?

In Jones v. St. Jude Medical Center (6th Cir. 11/8/12) the employee—fired for surreptitiously recording workplace conversations about her job performance—sought the protection of Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision. She argued that because she made the recordings to gather evidence about discrimination, the act of recording was protected activity under Title VII. Because her employer fired her because of the recordings, she claimed retaliation.

The 6th Circuit concluded that the hospital fired Jones because she violated its policy against recording conversations in the workplace, and rejected her retaliation claim.

Importantly, the Court further concluded that Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision does not protect the act of recording in and of itself:

Jones has not shown why she needed to violate the recording policy in order to oppose defendants’ alleged discrimination. She might have taken notes of the conversations, obtained the same information through legal discovery, or simply asked her interlocutors for permission to record. Jones argues that her conduct was reasonable because the recordings were not illegal, did not breach confidential information, were not disruptive of business operations, and were not disseminated beyond the litigation. But none of this suggests that the recording policy was illegitimate or that it would have been futile to oppose the alleged discrimination in ways that did not violate the policy. In light of these considerations, we decline to hold that Jones’ recordings were protected.

What can an employer learn from this case?

1. If you do not have a policy against employees recording conversations in the workplace, you might want to consider drafting one. You never know when an employee is going to try to smuggle a recording device into a termination or other meeting. The proliferation of smart phones has only made it easier for employees to make recordings, both audio and video. Why not address this issue head-on with a policy?

2. Your managers and supervisors should assume that everything they say is being recorded, if not electronically, then via a mental note that an employee can later jot down. You would be surprised how many plaintiffs keep copious, contemporaneous journals of the goings-on in the workplace. Managers and supervisors need to be vigilant in making sure that they do not say anything that could come back and bite your company in later litigation.

WIRTW #251 (the “sphere of influence” edition)

I’ve been at this blogging thing for more than five-and-a-half years. In that time, I’ve had some awesome opportunities come my way as a result.

• My second book—The Employer Bill of Rights: A Manager’s Guide to Workplace Law—is now available on Amazon. (More details on this next week.)
• My first book, which I co-authored with some friends—Think Before You Click: Strategies for Managing Social Media in the Workplace—remains available for download from Thompson.
• I’ve appeared too many times to count on Stephanie Thomas’s fabulous Proactive Employer Podcast, including my upcoming appearance next Thursday at 3 pm to promote The Employer Bill of Rights.
• I’ve done other radio appearances, including DriveThruHR and NPR.
• I’ve spoken at myriad seminars (thanks to SmartBusiness for my most recent speaking gig, an engaging panel on the legal risks of social media at this week’s Midwest Social Media Summit)
• And, I’ve been syndicated. In addition to reading my posts right here at the Ohio Employer’s Law Blog, you can also read many republished on Crain’s Workforce, under the byline, The Practical Employer.

This week, I’m adding another opportunity. For the past four years, I’ve edited Business Management Daily’s Ohio Employment Law Newsletter. Next month will be its last print edition. The publisher offered to continue our relationship online, and will publish my content in blog form. My newest blog, Business Management Daily’s The Legal Workplace, debuted yesterday. It will feature original content every other Thursday.

If I could just figure out how to clone myself, this would all become a whole lot easier.

Here’s the rest of what I read the past two weeks:

Discrimination

• Holiday Tale From A Jewish Guy Who Wears A Chai — from We Know Next
• Dislike of religious accommodations at work does not constitute a hostile work environment — from Warren & Associates Blog
• We’re More Passive Than We Predict When Sexually Harassed, New Study Shows — from EmployerBrief
• Employer Can Depose All 94 Claimants In EEOC Lawsuit — from Molly DiBianca’s Delaware Employment Law Blog
• You’re Damned if You Aid and Abet Discrimination or Interfere with an Employees’ Rights to Be Free of Illegal Discrimination — from damnedif
• Percentage of EEOC Sexual Harassment Claims Filed by Men on the Rise, But… — from Philip Miles’s Lawffice Space
• Not “Set for Life”: Boomers face layoffs, discrimination, and bullying at work — from Minding the Workplace
• Is Breastfeeding Bias the EEOC's Next Battleground? — from Employer Defense Law Blog
• The most blunt same-sex sexual harassment judicial opinion...evah! — from Eric Meyer’s The Employer Handbook Blog
• HR’s Dirty Little Secret – We don’t like to hire Vets — from Tim Sackett at Fistful of Talent
• The Bump In The Room — from the New York Post

Social Media & Workplace Technology

• Smartphone growth expected to slow again in 2013 — from Boy Genius Report
• Facebook activity did not support claim that employee solicited former employer’s clients — from Internet Cases
• AmLaw 2012 survey shows strong iPhone, iPad support at the most profitable law firms — from iPhone J.D.

HR & Employee Relations

• Are “90 Day Probationary Periods” for New-Hires Required By law? — from Texas Employer Handbook
• The Case for an Employee Rehire Policy: Coach Synder Effect — from Jessica Miller-Merrell’s Blogging4Jobs
• U.S. Supreme Court Holds that Arbitrator, Not State Court, Must Determine Enforceability of Noncompetition Agreement — from Russell Cawyer’s Texas Employment Law Update
• Transitioning from Employee to Shareholder: Businesses and Individuals Need to Pay Careful Attention to Noncompete Agreements — from Jason Shinn’s Michigan Employment Law Advisor
• How much does it cost companies to lose employees? — from Evil HR Lady, Suzanne Lucas
• Recording Rants — from Workplace Prof Blog
• Oversharing at Work: When Gossip Turns Into Something More — from Dan Schwartz’s Connecticut Employment Law Blog
• Flu + Crowded Office + Antibiotic Overuse = Disaster for Your Company? — from Mike Haberman’s Omega HR Solutions
• Taming the Workplace Bully — from Bloomberg Businessweek

Wage & Hour

• Holiday “Volunteer” Services Might Be FLSA Employment — from Wage and Hour Laws Blog
• The Culture Wars: Exempt vs. Non Exempt — from Robin Schooling’s HR Schoolhouse
• Overtime Pay Lawsuits On The Rise — from Overtime Lawyer Blog
• Are you Risking a Wage and Hour Lawsuit when Employees Volunteer? — from i-Sight Investigation Software Blog
• What!?! Time Caring for Mom in Las Vegas is FMLA Leave — from Jeff Nowak’s FMLA Insights
• Recordkeeping: The Often Overlooked Element of FMLA Compliance — from Stoel Rives World of Employment
• Is Your Company A “Large Employer” Subject to “Obamacare”—Understanding the 50 full-time Equivalent Threshold — from California Labor and Employment Defense Blog

Labor Relations

• Petition for EFCA — from Labor Relations Institute
• The Wal-Mart Not-Strike by the Not-Labor Union — from LaborPains.org
• Mandatory Employment Arbitration Agreements and the NLRB: (DR) Horton Hears a “Who”? — from The Emplawyerologist
• NLRB Developments Post-Election – What The Future May Hold In Labor Relations — from Labor Relations Update

Certification harassment? 6th Circuit rejects claim under FMLA

Have you ever heard of certification harassment? Me neither, until I read Smith v. City of Niles [pdf] last week.

According to Leddrew Smith, from 2002 to 2009, the city asked him to provide six separate medical certifications for his 2001 back injury. Those repeated requests, per Smith, exceeded the FMLA’s limits, and therefore interfered with his right to medical leave.

Here is what the 6th Circuit said about Smith’s claim:

He is right about one thing: An unreasonable demand for recertification may interfere with FMLA rights. He is wrong about another: The City’s requests all fit comfortably within the regulatory boundaries.

The FMLA has a maze of regulations that define when an employer can ask for a recertification of a serious health condition. Critical to this case is the rule that permits an employer to require a recertification any time that the “circumstances described by the previous certification have changed significantly.”

In this case, the court relied upon Smith’s changed circumstances to conclude that the city had not harassed him with its recertification requests.

• In one instance, Smith took six days of medical leave, instead of the two days estimated in his prior certification. Per the 6th Circuit, “If an employee desires more time off than described in the prior certification, the employer may require updated information from a physician. That is all that happened.”
• In another instance, Smith sought to change his work restrictions to accommodate a new physical limitation. Per the 6th Circuit, “The City responded with a request for recertification because the new limitations were not listed on the previous certification. That is the epitome of a reasonable recertification request.”

In other words, following the rules does not equate to harassment. Now if we can all just figure out those annoying rules…

Who is a supervisor under Title VII? (Vance v. Ball St. Univ.)

On Monday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in one of the key employment cases it will hear this term—Vance v. Ball St. Univ. This case asks whether one can qualify as a supervisor under Title VII if one is given any authority to direct and oversee another’s daily work, or if supervisory status is limited to those who have the power to hire, fire, demote, promote, transfer, or discipline others.

This distinction is an important one. Under Title VII, employers are vicariously liable for actionable harassment committed by supervisors that results in a tangible employment action.

The appellate court in Vance drew a bright line, and concluded that “supervisor” means “direct supervisor,” with the power to directly affect the terms and conditions of the plaintiff’s employment via hiring, firing, demoting, promoting, transferring, or disciplining; the mere authority to direct an employee’s daily activities is not enough.

Yet, in the Supreme Court, not even the employer, who won in the court of appeals, could argue that the 7th Circuit got the standard right. At oral argument, the employer argued that the bright line drawn by the appellate court is too rigid:

[S]omeone who does control virtually all aspects of one’s schedule but yet lacks the authority to hire, fire, or demote, nevertheless still would be qualified….

By way of example, the employer’s counsel referred to the following hypothetical posed by Justice Kagan:

There’s a professor, and the professor has a secretary. And the professor subjects that secretary to living hell, complete hostile work environment on the basis of sex, all right? But the professor has absolutely no authority to fire the secretary. What would the Seventh Circuit say about that situation?

Even though no one argued in support of the bright-line rule articulated by the 7th Circuit, I predict that the 7th Circuit’s rule will carry the day when the Court issues its opinion sometime next year. The Justices were clearly looking for a bright line to guide future cases, and appear to be wary of adopting a middle-of-the-road approach that will only serve to muddle the issue in future cases. If we are lining up Justices to get aboard one line or the other, the 7th Circuit’s stricter approach should garner more votes than the loosey-goosey standard the plaintiff sought.

For any additional background on this case, visit SCOTUSblog. The oral argument transcript is available from the Supreme Court’s website [pdf].

It’s a Blawg 100 Three-Peat

Edward James Olmos once said, “I didn’t get into this business to get awards.” And while that may be true, it certainly is nice to be recognized.

Yesterday afternoon, the ABA Journal announced its annual list of the top 100 legal blogs, which it calls the Blawg 100. I was fortunate enough to be part of this list in 2010 and 2011, and equally fortunate that the ABA Journal recognized me again this year as part of its 6th annual list.

The labor & employment blawgosphere is among the richest, and I am pleased that I am sharing this honor with five fellow bloggers, each of whom I consider a friend.

• Dan Schwartz’s Connecticut Employment Law Blog
• Molly DiBianca’s Delaware Employment Law Blog
• Phil Miles’s Lawffice Space
• Jeff Nowak’s FMLA Insights
• Donna Ballman’s Screw You Guys, I’m Going Home (which wins for the best title among the group, hands down)

(For what it’s worth, this list is short by two. Next year, I hope that Eric Meyer’s The Employer Handbook Blog and Robin Shea’s Employment & Labor Insider join the list.)

Now comes the part where I graciously and unapologetically ask for your help. Between now and December 21, you have the opportunity to vote for your favorite blawg. All you need to do is go to www.abajournal.com/blawg100, register, and vote. You’ll find my blog under the “Labor & Employment” category. Thank you for your support.

Congratulations to all of the winners, and thank you to the ABA Journal for, once again, deeming my little project worthy of your recognition. It is much appreciated.

Tomorrow, I start my march toward a four-peat, with a post on the Supreme Court’s oral argument in Vance v. Ball State Univ., which will (maybe) answer the important question of who qualifies as a supervisor under Title VII.

When is confidential medical information NOT confidential?

The ADA requires that employers treat employee medical information obtained from "medical examinations and inquiries … as a confidential medical record." In EEOC v. Thrivent Financial for Lutherans, the 7th Circuit recently decided the extent to which that confidentiality requirements applies when an employee volunteers medical information to an employer.

Gary Messier worked for Trivent as a business analyst, and during his first four months of employment developed a reputation for letting his employer know when he would be absent from work. When he failed to report to work one day, his supervisor emailed looking for a report and explanation. In response, Messier sent an email detailing his long battle with migraine headaches.

Messier quit one month later, but had trouble finding a new job. Whe three jobs fell through after a reference check, he hired a company to conduct a fake reference check for him. In response, his former supervisor at Trivent said that Messier "has medical conditions where he gets migraines."


Based on that statement, the EEOC brought suit on Messier's behalf for a violation of the ADA's confidentiality requirements.

In affirming the district court's dismissal of the lawsuit, the 7th Circuit examined the plain language of the ADA.

The EEOC argued that the ADA's confidentiality provisions protect all employee medical information revealed through "job-related" inquiries.

The 7th Circuit disagreed:

The subject matter discussed in the body of section (d) confirms that the word "inquiries" does not refer to all generalized inquiries, but instead refers only to medical inquiries. The entire section is devoted to a discussion of a disabled employee's "medical record," "medical condition or history," "medical files," and medical "treatment."

Instead, the Court concluded that the ADA's confidentiality requirements only apply to medical information provided by an employee in response to a medical examination (not an issue in this case) or a medical inquiry.

Because Trivent had not made a medical inquiry before Messier sent his email detailing his migraines, any disclosure it made did not violate the ADA.

[P]revious courts have required—at minimum—that the employer already knew something was wrong with the employee before initiating the interaction in order for that interaction to constitute a [protected] inquiry. There is no evidence in the record suggesting that Thrivent … should have inferred that Messier's absence on November 1, 2006 was due to a medical condition. There is no evidence in the record that Messier had been sickly during his first four months of employment. There is no evidence that Messier had experienced a headache at work during his first four months. For all Thrivent … knew, Messier's absence was just as likely due to a non-medical condition as it was due to a medical condition. Indeed, as Thrivent pointed out to the district court, "Messier could have had transportation problems, marital problems, weather-related problems, housing problems, criminal problems, motivational problems, a car or home accident, or perhaps he simply decided to quit his job…."

Thus, Thrivent was not required to treat the medical information that Messier sent in response to the email as a confidential medical record. Accordingly, Thrivent did not violate (and could not have violated) the ADA by revealing Messier's migraine condition to anyone, including to prospective employers.

While this case is a great holding for employers, businesses should still tread carefully when dealing with employee medical information. This area of the law remains risky waters in which companies swim.

Another reason not to ban social media on company time (hint … it’s the NLRB)

I’ve written before about the practical problems employers face when trying to ban employees from accessing social media at work.

Last week, an NLRB administrative law judge provided us another reason for employers not to implement workplace bans on social media—such a ban might be an unlawful infringement on employees’ rights to engage in protected concerted activity.

In Dish Network [pdf], the ALJ considered the following policy in the company’s employee handbook:

Unless you are specifically authorized to do so, you may not … Participate in these activities [Social Media—blogs, forums, wikis, social and professional networks] with DISH Network resources and/or on Company time.

The ALJ struck down the policy as an unreasonable restraint on the right of employees to engage in protected concerted activity:

The Social Media policy is unlawful…. [T]he policy banned employees from engaging in negative electronic discussion during “Company time.” The Board has found that equivalent rules, which ban union activities during “Company time” are presumptively invalid because they fail to clearly convey that solicitation can still occur during breaks and other non-working hours at the enterprise.I’ve written before about the logistical problems of workplace social media bans.

If you are going to consider banning social media in your workplace, the practical reasons far outweigh the legal issues (Dish Network notwithstanding). I call it the iPhone-ification of the American workforce. If most of your employees can take their smartphones out of their pockets to circumvent your policy, how can you possibly police workplace social media access? Why have a policy you cannot police and enforce?

Instead of legislating an issue you cannot hope to control, treat employees’ use of social media for what it is—a performance issue. If an employee is not performing up to standards because he or she is spending too much time on the Internet, then address the performance problem. A slacking employee will not become a star performer just because you limit his or her social media access; he or she will just find another way to slack off.

When dealing with employment concerns, there are legal issues and there are business issues. Decisions cannot be made without considering both, and sometimes one must trump the other. In this case the legal issue and the business issue happen to jive. The legal issue, however, remains in flux, as the NLRB continues to grapple with the role of technology in the 21st century workplace. The business issue, though, dictates the employers think long and hard about implementing a policy they will struggle to enforce.

---

The blog is taking the rest of the week off. I’ll be back on Monday with fresh content. In the meantime, enjoy your holiday, and take a moment to say thank you to that and those for which you are grateful.

If you put up with bullies in your workplace, stop (before someone else makes you)

I came across an article on TLNT last week entitled, The 7 Ways Organizations Justify Bullying in The Workplace. According to the article, these are the seven most popular excuses companies make for workplace bullies:

• He just goes off from time to time; he means no harm.
• OK, I will ask him to apologize again.
• Ron’s skills are so valuable we can’t afford to lose him.
• I just had “another” conversation with Ron. He will be OK.
• It’s easier to keep him than to find a replacement.
• That’s just how Ron is. He is just passionate.
• He doesn’t mean any harm; he’s just under a lot of stress.

If you find yourself making these excuses for anyone in your organization, it’s to reevaluate the type of workplace you want to be.

And, it’s not because bullying is illegal. In fact, in many cases, it’s not. Unless a bully is harassing someone because of a protected class (race, sex, age, disability, religion, national origin…) bullying is probably lawful. As the U.S. Supreme Court has famously said, our workplace discrimination laws are not meant to be a “general civility code” for the American workforce. In layman’s terms, our laws allow people to be jerks to each other at work.

The question, however, is not whether the law protects the bullied, but instead what you should be doing about it in your workplace. If you want state legislatures to pass workplace bullying legislation, then continue to ignore the issue in your business. If you want to be sued by every employee who is looked at funny or at whose direction a harsh word is uttered, then continue to tolerate abusive employees. If you want to lose well-performing, productive workers, then allow them to be pushed out the door by intolerable co-workers.

The reality is that if companies do not take this issue seriously, state legislators will. What can you do now to protect your workplace from a future of anti-bullying legislation?

1. Review current policies. Most handbooks already have policies and procedures in place that deal with workplace bullying. Do you have an open-door policy? A complaint policy? A standards of conduct policy? If so, your employees already know that they can go to management with any concerns—bullying included—and seek intervention.

2. Take complaints seriously. These policies are only as good as how they are enforced. Whether or not illegal, reports of bullying should be treated like any other harassment complaint. You should promptly conduct an investigation and implement appropriate corrective action to remedy the bullying.

In other words, take seriously bullying in your workplace. If you don’t state legislatures will, and you won’t like the results.

WIRTW #250 (the “Tickle Me Petraeus” edition)

What does Elmo have in common with a former four-star general? They both need refresher courses on the proper use of email.

• Former CIA chief David Petraeus resigned his post after an email chain revealed an extra-marital affair. Petraeus and his paramour are claimed to have set up Gmail accounts to communicate with each other.

• Kevin Clash, the voice of Elmo, is taking a leave of absence from Sesame Street amid now-retracted allegations that he engaged in a relationship with an underage teen. According to the Sesame Workshop, an investigation revealed that Clash “violated company policy regarding internet usage.” One of the offending work-sent emails: “I’m sorry that I keep talking about sex with you, it’s driving me insane.”

The lesson should be obvious, but apparently needs repeating—Think Before You Click. (Hey, that’s a good name for a book … or a Sesame Street skit).

For some other thoughts on these stories-of-the-week:

• Lessons from the David Petraeus scandal — from Work Matters
• General David Petraeus Not Very Good At Cyber Defense — from Kashmir Hill’s The Not-So Private Parts
• How CIA Director David Petraeus's Emails Were Traced (and How to Protect Yourself) — from Lifehacker
• David Petraeus, Mike Leach and the Art of the Investigation — from YourHRGuy

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

Discrimination

• What Remedy Is Appropriate When a Jury Concludes Sexual Harassment Occurred? — from Dan Schwartz’s Connecticut Employment Law Blog
• Two Pregnant Employee Terminations in Two Months Too Coincidental for Southern District of Ohio — from Employer Law Report
• EEOC scores another big hit against inflexible leave policies — from Employer Legal Advocate
• Transgender Bathroom Battles—Coming Soon to Your Workplace — from HR Daily Advisor
• Frequent Use Of The “N-Word” Does Not Create A Hostile Environment If Only Made In “Jest” — from Employment Discrimination Report
• Time For Your Sexual Holiday Party — from Social Media Employment Law Blog
• Word to the wise: Centralize ADA accommodations decision-making — from Warren & Associates Blog

Social Media & Workplace Technology

• Obama's re-election evokes ugly Facebook-racism from some employees — from Eric Meyer’s The Employer Handbook Blog
• Facebook Party Pics Doom FMLA Claim — from Phil Miles’s Lawffice Space
• Court Orders Broad Discovery of Class Members' Social Media, Text Messages & Email — from Electronic Discovery Law

HR & Employee Relations

• Why Ms. X Is Leaving BigLaw: Busy Mom Details Untenable Schedule in Departure Memo — from the ABA Journal
• An Overwhelmed Mother’s Departure Memo — from the New York Times Motherlode blog
• Today Show Report Highlights Room for Improvement — from Nick Fishman’s employeescreenIQ Blog
• Workplace Investigations: The Employee’s Lawyer’s Perspective — from WinWinHR
• My boss doesn’t understand that I have kids — from Evil HR Lady, Suzanne Lucas
• Employees Love It, But Does a 4-Day Workweek Work For Your Business? — from TLNT
• Smoking in the Boys’ Room: You’re Fired! — from Blogging4Jobs

Wage & Hour

• Independent Contractor Misclassification Should Remain Key Area of Concern for Employers — from Wage & Hour Defense Blog
• Starbucks Gets a Triple Shot of Damages as $14.1 Million Wage-and-Hour Award Upheld — from Smart HR Manager
• Are Employers Required to Compensate Employees for On-Call Time? — from Minnesota Employer
• 6th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of FLSA Gotcha Litigation — from Molly DiBianca’s Delaware Employment Law Blog
• Facebook Pictures of Employee Socializing at Local Festival Drown Her FMLA Claims — from Jeff Nowak’s FMLA Insights

Labor Relations

• The NLRB will be active in the non union workplace and more visible to the public — from John Holmquist’s Michigan Employment Law Connection
• Mandatory Employment Arbitration Clauses: Clearing the Hurdles, Part II — from The Emplawyerologist

Until next week:

Facebook foible foils FMLA fight

Wendy Barnett worked as a nurse in the psychiatric unit at Aultman Hospital. When her boss, for whom she did not care, was fired, Barnett sent the following email through Facebook to at 14 people, including 9 present or former coworkers:

Lisa got officially ax (sic) today! I am singing DING DONG THE WITCH IS DEAD THE WICKED WITCH, DING DONG THE WICKED WITCH IS DEAD.

How poetic this comes the same day Sexton died, I would much rather get f..cked up the ass with hot pepper than endured what that souless (sic) bitch put me through for 4 years...including turning me into the board...God does grind a fine mill when revenge is taken on by him...back when I was off due to drug accusations and praying, and praying, never would I have imagined she lose (sic) her job, marriage, and family, friends all at the same time! Karma Now I should tell you how I really feel!

Love and fuzzies, Wendy

The hospital undertook a full investigation upon learning of the email, which Barnett initially denied writing. When one of the hospital’s vice presidents contacted Barnett for a meeting, Barnett, sensing that her termination was on the horizon, called in sick and asked for a medical leave. Despite receiving a medical certification from Barnett’s doctor, the hospital proceeded with the termination.

The trial court rejected Barnett’s FMLA claim, both because it made its decision to terminate before she had ever requested a medical leave, and because she lied about being the author of the email rant during the hospital’s investigation.

As the Sixth Circuit said … bluntly, “[A]n employee may not insulate [herself] from a pending dismissal by opportunistically invoking the FMLA.” … In this case Defendant has put forth uncontroverted evidence that Plaintiff lied repeatedly to her superiors regarding her conduct, and that she was terminated for her dishonesty…. The uncontroverted evidence in the case is that her lying was the motivation for her termination.

Yesterday, I made the point that even though people like to treat social media as the new kid on the block, it is really nothing more than a communication tool, to which all of the old rules of the workplace apply. This case helps illustrate that point. The hospital fired Barnett not because of her email rant, but because when confronted with the email, she compounded her problems by lying about the authorship of the email.

Old rules + new technology = same result.

In compelling discovery, court likens social media account to “Everything About Me” folder

Courts are all over the map on whether to order the disclosure of an employee’s social media accounts during discovery in employment cases. The seminal case—EEOC v. Simply Storage Management, decide more than two and a half year ago—ordered the broad discovery of an employee’s social media accounts when the case alleges something more than “garden-variety” emotional distress. Since Simply Storage Management, however, some courts have begun to retract from that broad position, finding that despite the non-private nature of most social media, employees nevertheless enjoy some right not to have their personal lives ripped apart without some showing of relevancy to the issues in the case.

This month, however, brings us EEOC v. The Original Honeybaked Ham Co. (D. Col. 11/7/12) [pdf], which presents one of the most liberal views of the discovery of employees’ social media accounts since Simply Storage Management.

Honeybaked Ham involves allegations of sexual harassment brought by the EEOC on behalf of a class of two dozen female employees. The employer sought discovery of “numerous categories of documents” related to the class members’ emotional and financial damages, credibility, and bias, including the contents of their social media accounts.

The court concluded that there was “no question” that the company had established that “the documents it seeks contain discoverable information.” The court went on to make the following broad-based comment about the role of social media accounts in discovery:

If all of this information was contained on pages filed in the “Everything About Me” folder, it would need to be produced. Should the outcome be different because it is on one’s Facebook account? There is a strong argument that storing such information on Facebook and making it accessible to others presents an even stronger case for production, at least as it concerns any privacy objection. It was the claimants (or at least some of them) who, by their own volition, created relevant communications and shared them with others.

This case is but one in the evolving landscape of social media discovery in employment cases. Part of the struggle we face in seeking discovery of employees’ social media accounts is educating the judges who decide the motions to compel. The reality, however, upon which the Honeybaked Ham court seized, is that while the medium of communication might be different, the rules of the road are same. Discoverable information is discoverable information, whether it’s a paper record or an electronic diary.

The image of an “Everything About Me” folder is a powerful one. I love that analogy, and I am certain I will be using it in future motions to compel to help educate as to why a Facebook or other social media accounts should be discoverable.

[Hat tip: Electronic Discovery Law]

Must an employer accommodate an employee for a family member’s disability?

A little more than year after Mindy Adams began working for Servpro, her husband was diagnosed with cancer. One week after Servpro approved Adams’s FMLA leave, it fired her for insubordination, relying on statements from customers and co-workers that she had been disrespectful, exhibited a poor attitude, and failed to perform her job properly. Believing that the real reason for her termination was the need for time off to care for her ill husband, Adams sued for disability discrimination.

In Adams v. Valega’s Professional Home Cleaning (N.D. Ohio 11/2/12), the court dismissed her claims, concluding that employers are not required to provide reasonable accommodations to employees associated to those with a disability.

In addition to protecting disabled employees, the ADA also protects employees from discrimination based on the “known disability of an individual with whom the qualified individual is known to have a relationship or association.” Yet, at least in the 6th Circuit, “employers are not required to provide reasonable accommodations to non-disabled workers under this section of the Act.”

The Adams court illustrates this rule:

For example, an employee may be fired under a neutral policy concerning attendance or tardiness, even if the reason for the absence or tardiness is to care for the disabled spouse. There is a distinction between firing an employee because of a relative’s disability, and firing an employee because of the need to take time off to care for the relative.

The court recognized and discussed the fine line between firing an employee because of a relative’s disability and firing an employee because of the need to take time off to care for that same relative (quoting the ADA’s legislative history):

“[A]ssume, for example that an applicant applies for a job and discloses to the employer that his or her spouse has a disability. The employer believes the applicant is qualified for the job. The employer, however, assuming without foundation that the applicant will have to miss work or frequently leave work early or both, in order to care for his or her spouse, declines to hire the individual for such reasons. Such a refusal is prohibited….

“In contrast, assume that the employer hires the applicant. If he or she violates a neutral employer policy concerning attendance or tardiness, he or she may be dismissed even if the reason for the absence or tardiness is to care for the spouse. The employer need not provide any accommodation to the nondisabled employee. The individuals covered under this section are any individuals who are discriminated against because of their known association with an individual with a disability.”

There are two points to make about this case:

1. A refusal to grant time off as an accommodation for the disability of an employee’s family member will only pass muster for employers too small to be covered by the FMLA or employees who did not work long enough to be eligible for FMLA leave. If you are an FMLA-covered employee, and an employee is FMLA eligible, then he or she is entitled to 12 annual weeks of leave, which includes leave for the serious health condition of a close family member. The court concluded that Servpro was too small to be covered by the FMLA, and dismissed Adams’s FMLA claim. You must analyze both statues—the ADA and the FMLA—before you can conclude that you don’t have any obligation to provide time off.

2. I cannot over-state enough how fine a line it is between lawfully terminating an employee because of the need to take time off to care for an ill relative, and unlawfully terminating an employee because of a relative’s disability. These decisions are risky, and need to be made carefully. Nine times out of 10, firing an employee who recently asked for time off to care for an ill family member will result in litigation. You need to decide whether you can swallow that risk before you make the termination decision.

Some workplace social media stats to start your week

Northeast Ohio’s Employers Resource Council recently published the results of its 2012 Social Media in the Workplace Survey [pdf]. Some of the results are eye-popping (and not necessarily in a good way):

For example, I find it hard to believe that only 47% of organizations have a social media policy in place.

It’s also hard to believe that only 27% of organizations in Northeast Ohio are using social media for recruiting. Some surveys peg the national number at closer to 90%. Is it possible that our region is that far behind the curve on this issue?

Consider these numbers on the prohibition on the use of social media in the workplace:

• 55% prohibit employee use of social media during work hours on a company-issued computer
• 43% prohibit employee use of social media during work hours on a company-issued mobile device
• 32% prohibit employee use of social media during work hours on a personal mobile device

How about the percentage of companies that block access to various social media sites on company computers:

• 26% block employee access to Facebook
• 18% block YouTube
• 17% block Twitter
• 11% block blogs and wikis
• 9% block photo-sharing sites
• 7% block LinkedIn (Who is blocking LinkedIn, and why?)

With most employees keeping iPhones or Androids in their pockets, it is simply not feasible to prohibit the use of social media in the workplace, or block access to sites. The work-around via a mobile phone is just too easy for an employee to accomplish and too difficult for a company to police.

I also found enlightening the answers to this question—of organizations with a social media policy, what percentage contain these provisions:

• Guidelines for employees professional social media use — 43%
• Disclosure that social media use may be monitored — 35%
• Guidelines for employees personal social media use — 32%
• Guidelines for photo/video postings — 19%
• Guidelines for disclosing sponsorships and affiliations — 18%
• Guidelines over supervisor-employee social media interaction— 5%

If you are one of the 53% of companies that has a social media policy, and yet that policy is missing any of these key provisions, what is left for it to say?

Reading the results of this survey make it clear to me that businesses have a lot to learn about the intersection between social media and the workplace. Yet, companies are not necessarily at fault for being behind the 8-ball on these issues. The reality is that the technology is evolving more quickly than businesses can keep up with the resulting issues. After all, companies have issues on their plates other than employees’ Facebook pages. Yet, the more you fall behind, the harder it becomes to catch up. The pace of these issues will not slow in the coming years. In other words, companies need to get their arms around these issues now, or risk falling off the workplace social media precipice.

WIRTW #249 (the “four more years” edition)

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. POTUS 44 is still POTUS 44. What does the next four years of President Obama mean for labor and employment law? Some of my fellow bloggers share their thoughts:

• A Look Back at Obama’s (First?) Four Years and Employment Law and Four Potential Employment Law Impacts of Obama’s Next Four Years — from Dan Schwartz’s Connecticut Employment Law Blog
• How will the 2012 Presidential election affect federal employment and labor law? — from David Yamada’s Minding the Workplace
• Obama’s Next Four Years: What It Means for HR and Employment Law — from Stephanie Thomas’s Proactive Employer Blog
• What Obama’s re-election means for HR and employment issues — from BLR HR Daily Advisor
• Future Shock: What the Election Results Mean For the U.S. Workplace — from Workplace Diva
• Obama Wins, Senate Democrats Keep Majority - What Will it Mean for Employers? — from Washington D.C. Employment Law Update

---

Please remember — if you subscribe to my RSS feed, you need to re-subscribe at this link to ensure that you do not lose your daily updates.

---

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

Discrimination

• Harassment Prevention: It's All Fun and Games … Until It's Not — from Molly DiBianca’s Delaware Employment Law Blog
• Supervisor Stating I’m “Going To See To It” That Worker Retires When He’s 62 May Be Direct Evidence Of Age Discrimination — from Atlanta Employment Lawyer Blog
• Maintaining a “Good Ol’ Boys” Environment Is A Sure Way To Get Sued — from Employment Discrimination Report
• I was fired while undergoing medical treatment: Is it legal? — from Evil HR Lady, Suzanne Lucas

Social Media & Workplace Technology

• Emerging Issues in Social Media – The Status of Social Media Password Legislation — from netWORKed Lawyers
• Is Technology Making You More (or Less) of a Jerk? — from Harvard Business Review
• LinkedIn Now Has 187 Million Members — from Mashable
• Do “sexting” and “mash-up” belong in the dictionary? — from Lawyerist

HR & Employee Relations

• Four Tips to Remember When Documenting — from Workplace Insights
• What the Questions in Job Related Personality Tests Really Mean — from Lifehacker
• The Cost of Obesity — from Rob Radcliff’s Smooth Transitions
• No Bathroom Breaks For You! — from Donna Ballman’s Screw You Guys, I’m Going Home
• Madison Square Garden Company Strong-Arms Employees Into Using Vacation Days Post-Sandy — from Deadspin
• Playbook for Protecting Trade Secrets Begins with Protecting Your Home Turf — from Jason Shinn’s Michigan Employment Law Advisor

Wage & Hour

• Paying banana boxes of food as OT is not an a-peeling option — from Eric Meyer’s The Employer Handbook Blog
• Three Myths about Holiday Pay Under the FLSA — from Blogging4Jobs
• De Minimis Exception Applies Only in Cases Where There is a “Practical Administrative Difficulty in Recording Time” — from Overtime Law Blog
• The 40 Hour Workweek is Alive and Well… — from China Gorman
• Handling Intermittent Leave (and Not Intermittently Losing Your Mind) — from Mark Toth at TLNT
• Transfer to Lesser Sales Territory Was Okay under FMLA, Court Says — from Smart HR Manager

System for employees to report unpaid time insulates company from wage and hour claim, says 6th Circuit

In White v. Baptist Memorial Hosp. (6th Cir. 11/6/12) [pdf], the 6th Circuit answers one of the more difficult questions that faces employers under our wage and hour laws—what is an employer’s responsibility to pay an employee for off-the-clock work?

The employer in White maintained a policy under which all employees received a daily, automatic unpaid meal break. The policy also provided, however, that if an employee worked through a meal break, or had a meal break interrupted for a work related reason, the employee would be compensated for the time worked. The policy instructed employees to record all time spent working during meal breaks in an “exception log,” from which the employer calculated any off-the-clock pay owed.

The plaintiff, Margaret White, testified that she usually was paid when she reported a missed meal break in the exception log. She also testified that there were occasions when she missed meal breaks and was not compensated. When there were payroll errors, White stated that she reported the mistake to a nurse manager, and the problem were “handled immediately.” White testified that while she told supervisors and the HR department that she had missed meal breaks, she never told them that she had not been paid for them.

Eventually, White stopped reporting her missed meal breaks in the exception log, and stopped reporting payroll errors to a nurse manager. Instead, she brought suit under the Fair Labor Standards Act for failing to compensate her for working during meal breaks.

The 6th Circuit concluded that White’s case was properly dismissed. It focused its analysis on this issue—whether the employer knew, or had reason to know, it was not compensating White for working during her meal breaks. Because White had failed to follow the hospital’s procedures for reporting unpaid time, the employer was not at fault:

Under the FLSA, if an employer establishes a reasonable process for an employee to report uncompensated work time the employer is not liable for non-payment if the employee fails to follow the established process. When the employee fails to follow reasonable time reporting procedures she prevents the employer from knowing its obligation to compensate the employee and thwarts the employer’s ability to comply with the FLSA….

Baptist established a system to compensate its workers for time worked during meal breaks. When White utilized the system she was compensated and when she failed to use the system she was not compensated. Without evidence that Baptist prevented White from utilizing the system to report either entirely or partially missed meal breaks, White cannot recover damages from Baptist under the FLSA.

What is the lesson for employers to take away from White? Have a reasonable process for employees to report uncompensated work time. Under the FLSA, it is the employee’s burden to show that he or she was working during non-working time. A policy that underscores that burden by requiring employees to document times during which they are working “off-the-clock” can only help an employer defend against an employee’s claim for compensation for unreported, off-the-clock time.

It just doesn’t matter (who’s the President of the United States)

By the time you’re reading this, we’ll either have the same President, or a new President, or, they’ll still be counting Ohio’s provisional and absentee ballots, and we’ll have no idea who the next President will be. (Update: Ohio was nowhere near as close as anyone thought it might be.)

The President has a large impact on labor and employment policy in this country. If one candidate wins we’ll have universal health care and activist federal agencies. If the other candidate wins we may not (or may) have universal health care, and we will have less activist federal agencies. Who wins also impact who is appointed to the federal bench, including the Supreme Court, which may be any President’s most lasting legacy.

And yet, whether we have President Obama or President Romney for the next four years shouldn’t make a lick of difference on how you manage your employees. You should still follow the golden rule. You should still treat employees with dignity and respect. You should still pay employees for all the hours they work. You should still avoid discrimination, and harassment, and retaliation.

Each President will offer his own agenda. The next four years under President Obama will look very different to businesses than the next four year under President Romney. Be good to your people, and the rest, more often than not, falls into place.

In other words, if you manage your employees reasonably, pragmatically, and with decency, it just doesn’t matter, from a day to day perspective, who the President is.