WIRTW #260 (the “award season” edition)

It’s award season. The Grammys are this weekend, and the Oscars a few weeks later. About.com is also handing out some awards, albeit a lot less glamorously. The web portal is giving out its Human Resources Readers’ Choice Awards. It is asking people to nominate their favorite HR websites in various categories, including Best Site for HR Legal Information.

The nomination process is open until 11 p.m. EST on February 11. If there is an employment law blog you enjoy reading, its proprietor would appreciate your vote (even if it’s not me).

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

Discrimination

• The EEOC on Lesbian/Gay Employees and Sex Discrimination — from Workplace Prof Blog
• I Believe, I Believe! A Vegan and a Flu Shot — from Molly DiBianca’s Delaware Employment Law Blog
• The interactive process under the ADA: Informal? — from John Holmquist’s Michigan Employment Law Connection
• Can A Female Prison Guard Sue Prison Officials For Sexual Harassment By Inmates Who Were Allowed To Watch Violent and Sexually Explicit Movies? — from Employment Discrimination Report
• Think Employment Law Doesn’t Apply to You? Think Again. — from Evil HR Lady, Suzanne Lucas
• Case of Borat Discrimination for Make Benefit Glorious Resources of Humans — from The Employer Handbook Blog
• Top 6 Reasons Why Discrimination Laws Are Good For White Guys — from Donna Ballman’s Screw You Guys, I'm Going Home

Social Media & Workplace Technology

• Your employees’ Facebook opinions – do they bring you into disrepute? — from WorkFace
• Watch What You Tweet: Proposed Social Media Guidance for Financial Institutions — from Socially Aware Blog
• Social media for lawyers : Is it hype or plain common sense? — from Real Lawyers Have Blogs

HR & Employee Relations

• Severance Agreements: Parting is Such Sweet Sorrow? Part I — from The Emplawyerologist
• Wishing You Workplace Civility In 2013 — from BLEG Blog
• 10 Steps To Take When Hiring From A Competitor — from Trade Secrets and Noncompete Blog
• How Many Hours Do You Work per Week (and How Much Is Too Much)? — from Lifehacker
• Having a Plan When Terminating an Employee Minimizes Risk — from Minnesota Labor & Employment Law Blog
• Disgruntled employee spends three years destroying company computers with cleaning supplies — from The Verge

Wage & Hour

• Seventh Circuit Raises The Bar On Collective And Class Certification of Wage-Hour Claims — from The Wage and Hour Litigation Blog
• The Death of FLSA Class Actions Has Been Greatly Exaggerated — from Tim Eavenson’s Current Employment
• What you need to know about sick employees, time off, and paying them — from Employment Law Bits
• The Seven Reasons You Can Dock an Exempt Employee — from Mike Haberman’s Omega HR Solutions
• DOL issues Final Rule on FMLA to address military, aviation amendments … and other things — from Robin Shea’s Employment and Labor Insider

Labor Relations

• Why the DC Circuit's NLRB Recess Appointments Decision Affects (Almost) Everyone — from Phil Miles’s Lawffice Space
• Should Private Employers Still Worry About Unions and What Happens at the NLRB? — from Dan Schwartz’s Connecticut Employment Law Blog
• Labor Relations Today Releases 'Labor Law 2012: A Year in Review' — from Labor Relations Today
• Union violence and legal impunity — from Walter Olson’s Overlawyered

Employer Bill of Rights is (finally) available for Kindle

It took a little head bashing of the fine folks at Amazon, but The Employer Bill of Rights is finally available for download onto your Kindle.

If you’re keeping track, the book is available in the following formats:

• Paperback via Amazon
• Paperback via Barnes & Noble
• Download for Kindle
• Download for iBooks
• Download for Nook
• Download as an eBook directly from the publisher

Thanks to everyone who has purchased so far, and for the kind words I’ve received from those who’ve read the book. Now, on to the best seller list…

Workplace social media policies must account for generational issues

Cisco recently interviewed 3,600 Gen Y College students and workers between the ages of 18 and 30. The purpose of the survey was to gauge the influence of social media, mobile devices, and the Internet on that generation’s job choices. The results (via Gen Y Hub) say a lot about how companies should be managing the divergent expectations of different generations in the workplace.

• 2 out of every 3 college students will ask a prospective employer about its social media policy during a job interview.
• If a company bans the access of social media in the workplace, 56 percent either will not accept a job or will ignore the policy.
• 1 out of every 3 value social media freedom over salary.
• Approximately 70 percent believe that corporate devices should also be used to access personal social media accounts.

Generational issues might be the most important interpersonal aspect of managing social media in the workplace. Yet, this issue is rarely discussed. Each generation has a very different idea both about the role of technology in their daily lives, and the impact of technology on their concepts of personal privacy. A policy that only recognizes the interests of one generation will chase away the others. Take the time to craft a workplace technology program that properly accounts for the divergent ideas of Boomers, X-ers, and Y-ers.

This post originally appeared on The Legal Workplace Blog.

The revolution WILL be televised … Shore up your social media before a termination

Last week, music retailer HMV laid off 190 employees. One of the affected, a former HR employee, hijacked the company's Twitter account and live-tweeted what he described as the “Mass execution, of loyal employees who love the brand. #hmvXFactorFiring ”

In addition to everything else companies have to worry about when terminating employees (lawsuits, sabotage, theft of confidential information, low morale), companies now also have to worry about the maintenance of their public image via social media.

We live in a world in which the walls of privacy are not-so-slowly eroding. Nothing can damage a company’s reputation more quickly than a viral campaign. We no longer have to worry about employees merely discussing the nitty-gritty of a termination. Today, we have to worry about our employees broadcasting it to the entire world in 140 character insta-bursts. And, there’s not much you can do about it after the fact. Once the information is out, it’s out. HMV deleted the tweets, but all it took was one person to “print screen,” and the next thing you know bloggers around the world are republishing the information it tried to hide.

While there is not much you do after the fact, there is one thing you can do before the fact. If you are concerned about employees live-tweeting a termination or a mass layoff, disable their access to your social media channels before you tell them. Change their passwords. Remove their logins. Is there a chance they’ll figure out something is afoot before you officially communicate the termination? Absolutely. Does the harm to your business from that risk pale in comparison to the viral harm you will suffer if said employees hijack your official social media channels? You bet.

DOL: Employers find it easy to comply with the FMLA. What?!?! [poll]

Twenty year ago today, President Clinton signed the Family and Medical Leave Act into law. To commemorate this anniversary, the Department of Labor has released the results of a survey of employers on the status of this law.

According to the DOL:

The study shows that employers generally find it easy to comply with the law, and misuse of the FMLA by workers is rare. The vast majority of employers, 91 percent, report that complying with the FMLA has either no noticeable effect or a positive effect on business operations such as employee absenteeism, turnover and morale.

Did I read that right? Does the DOL really conclude that “employers generally find it easy to comply with the” FMLA? I started practicing law in 1997; I’ve spent my entire career advising employers on the FMLA. I am not aware of any company that finds it “easy to comply with” the FMLA. In fact, most companies whom I have counseled would tell you that FMLA administration is among the most complicated of all HR functions.

Either the DOL found the only 1,649 employers (91 percent of the 1,812 worksites surveyed) who “find it easy to comply with” the FMLA, the DOL is putting some major spin on its survey results, or my read on FMLA administration is way off.

To find out for sure, I’m running my own poll, which asks the question, How difficult has it been for your company to comply with the FMLA?

[Hat tip: Eric Welter]

How do you fight invisible discrimination?

With what seemed like most of Cleveland's western ‘burbs, I spent part of my Sunday afternoon shopping at Costco. My trip not only included the expected bulk items, but also some unexpected bigotry.

Near the samples of mozzarella and pita grilled cheese (delicious), I crossed paths with a family—a father and his two sons—of what appeared to be Arabic descent . The older of the two boys, around age 10, turned to his dad and said:

I got back at that lady who cut me off;
she looked Jewish.

Needless to say, I was stunned, and decided that I couldn’t let the comment go answered. I quietly told the family that I couldn’t stop them from thinking what they want, but they should be careful when and where they express their feelings. They walked away.

In a decade or two, that boy will join the workforce. He could be one of your employees, or, worse, one your managers or supervisors. How do you root out this kind of hatred before it outs itself out in a harassment complaint or discrimination lawsuit? There is no easy answer to this difficult question. Perhaps all we can do is recognize that everyone carries baggage. Some is harmless, and some is hateful. If we foster a workplace of openness and inclusion, when that hatred exposes itself employees will understand that it belongs to a rogue and not your company ,and hopefully, choose not to hold you accountable (provided you respond quickly and decisively when brought to your attention).

WIRTW #259 (the “luddite” edition)

Mozy recently published a list of the 50 Things We Don’t Do Anymore Because of Technological Advancements. It’s weird to think that my kids will never use an encyclopedia to write a last-minute term paper, scour the ground for payphone change because they forget to leave the house with a trusty dime, or dial *69 to figure out which of their friends is pranking us.

Scanning the list, though, I’m proud to say that I’m still a luddite in some key areas:

• Print photographs
• Go into the bank to conduct business
• Remember phone numbers
• Watch DVDs
• Fax documents
• Have a CD collection
• Watch TV shows at the time they are shown
• Try on shoes at the mall
• Buy flowers at a florist
• Buy newspapers

By my count, I’m 20 percent luddite. How do you rank?

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

Discrimination

• Jujitsu in EEOC v. Kaplan — from LaborRelated (and congrats on your new edition)
• The EEOC’s top three of 2012: retaliation, discrimination, and harassment — from Warren & Associates Blog
• 5 Things You Need To Know About Retaliation — from Employment Discrimination Report
• When single employees are “discriminated” against — from Employment Law Bits
• The EEOC on Transgender Employees and Sex Discrimination — from Workplace Prof Blog
• Gender Inequality Claims Make Headlines in Case and in New Study — from Dan Schwartz’s Connecticut Employment Law Blog
• 3d Cir. Issues a Bitchin' Constructive Discharge Decision — from Molly DiBianca’s Delaware Employment Law Blog

Social Media & Workplace Technology

• Do Your Employees BYOD? Here’s How to Reduce the Hassles… — from Hiring & Firing
• Who owns your Twitter followers? — from Evil HR Lady, Suzanne Lucas
• Employee posts “I wish I could get fired” on Facebook. Guess what happened? — from Eric Meyer’s The Employer Handbook Blog
• Should you monitor workers’ electronic communications? — from Technology for HR
• FaceWash Makes Sure Your Facebook Profile Is Clean and Interview-Ready — from Lifehacker

HR & Employee Relations

• Smoking Discrimination — from Texas Employer Handbook
• Employee Takes Too Many Bathroom Breaks — from hr bartender
• Psst… This Is What Your Co-Worker Is Paid — from Rachel Emma Silverman at the Wall Street Journal

Wage & Hour

• Employer’s Bane: Unpredictable FMLA leave. Is there a solution? — from Robin Shea’s Employment and Labor Insider
• Why Must Employers Train Their Managers About the FMLA? Here are 1.2 Million Reasons Why — from Jeff Nowak’s FMLA Insights
• What You Need To Know About RIght-To-Know — from Stephanie Thomas at Compensation Café
• Tell Us How You Misclassify Employees — from Mike Haberman’s Omega HR Solutions
• Former Athletics Department Intern Throws Flag On Hamilton College's Pay Practices — from The Wage and Hour Litigation Blog
• The Dirty Dozen Widely-Believed Myths of Wage/Hour — from HR Daily Advisor
• What Do You Mean I Have To Pay My Nanny Overtime?! — from Wage & Hour Insights

Labor Relations

• The Debate Continues: Recent Eighth Circuit Decision Adds to the Growing Tension between Federal Courts and the NLRB Regarding the Enforceability of Class Action Waivers in Arbitration Agreements — from Employment Class Action Blog
• Remember When “Recess” Meant Fun and Games? The Impact of Canning v. NLRB, and What Employers Need to Know While We Wait and See if the Decision Will Remain Intact — from Employer Law Report
• The NLRB is out of business … maybe — from Blogging4Jobs
• Circuit Court Invalidates President Obama's Purported Recess Appointments to National Labor Relations Board, Finds Lack of Quorum — from Seth Borden’s Labor Relations Today
• Court ruling may nullify rules against firing workers for complaining about their jobs on Facebook — from Boy Genius Report
• Obama Risked Executive Power To Give Labor Its Payback — from LaborPains
• Nonunion employers in the crosshairs — from Idaho Business Review

photo credit: Tony Fischer Photography via photopin cc

What can go wrong when employees date?

Since Valentine’s Day will be fast upon us, I thought I’d take a new look at a popular issue this time of year—the office romance.

Gerald v. University of Puerto Rico (1st Cir. 1/28/13) [pdf] is textbook example of the parade of horribles that can happen when an office romance sours.

During at at out-of-town conference, Dr. Melissa Gerald had a week-long sexual relationship with her supervisor, Dr. Edmundo Kraiselburd. According to Gerald, the affair embarrassed her and she rebuffed Kraiselburd’s pursuits after their return home. Two years passed without incident, after which Gerald alleges three separate incidents of harassment occurred, all within two months of each other: (1) Kraiselburd propositioned Gerald for sex, (2) Kraiselburd grabbed her breast, and (3) Kraiselburd asked her, “What will it take for you to f**k me?”.

The hospital defended against Gerald’s sexual harassment claim by arguing that Gerald often engaged in sexual and off-color banter with Kraiselburd, and therefore invited whatever she received in kind. In reversing the district court’s dismissal of Gerald’s lawsuit, the court of appeals shut down any argument that Gerald had “asked for” the harassment:

We fail to see how an employee telling risqué jokes means that she is amenable to being groped at work. Instead the evidence here was enough, at the very least, to raise a factual question as to whether Kraiselburd’s conduct was unwelcome….

Pointing to the fact that Gerald and Kraiselburd often engaged in off-color banter, the University says the supposed harassment was not severe. We disagree and think a jury could have seen things otherwise. Gerald says Kraiselburd grabbed her breasts, sexually propositioned her, and crassly asked in front of others why she would not have sex with him. The University is not denying these occurrences for summary judgment purposes. These offensive incidents, which involved sexual propositioning and uninvited touching, can reasonably be viewed as severe; and, in the case of the breast grabbing incident, physically threatening (not to mention criminal). Like we have said, it is clear that "behavior like fondling, come-ons, and lewd remarks is often the stuff of hostile work environment claims….”

While this case shows what can go wrong when employees become sexually involved, it is not a reason to ban office romances or trysts. I believe that employees’ business is their business. We expect employees to commit long hours to their jobs, and it is often the case that their only opportunity to socialize is at work. The heart goes where it wants to go, and no workplace rule or policy will stop employees from getting involved with each other.

Instead of banning office romances, companies should reinforce appropriate workplace behavior during harassment avoidance and response training.

• Tell employees that office romances are not prohibited, but that the company expects professional behavior regardless of the personal relationship (past or present) between employees.
• Offer examples, such as the Gerald case, of how to not to behave following a break-up.
• Advise employees that unprofessional behavior following an office relationship is not tolerated, and will lead to discipline, up to and including termination.

Following these simple steps will put you in a position to present the best defense possible to a harassment lawsuit stemming from an office dalliance. It also means that you won’t have to fall back on the “she asked for it” defense, which, as Gerald illustrates, rarely works.

Are employers screwing up the FLSA’s lactation mandate? Probably not.

At Business Insurance, Judy Greenwald quotes an attorney who believes that employers are doing an inadequate job of accommodating employees’ lactation requests. The article discusses a recent Freedom of Information Act request, in which the Department of Labor disclosed that it has conducted 54 investigations into claims of inadequate lactation accommodations between the date the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act took effect, March 23, 2010, and June 11, 2012. Those investigations, in turn, uncovered 36 violations of the law. Based on that data, the article concludes that “the Labor Department is paying attention to and is prepared to enforce” the FLSA’s lactation mandate, and that “employers either are not aware of their obligations, or do not fully understand them.”

I wholeheartedly disagree. A little more than a year ago, I ran a post on this same issue. At that time, I pointed out that the DOL had only cited 23 companies, or 0.023 percent of all companies with 100 or more employees. Now, with an additional six months of data, the number of citations has jumped by 13, from 23 to 36.

By comparison, according to the EEOC’s recently updated charge filing statistics, individuals filed 99,412 separate discrimination charges during fiscal year 2012. In other words, discrimination complaints with the EEOC in the last year outpaced lactation complaints with the DOL in the last two and a quarter years by a factor of 1,841.

What is the reasonable explanation for this small number of lactation-rights complaints? Companies are not denying new moms the right to lactate in the workplace. Anecdotally, I have never come across the issue with a client in my 15+ years of practice, and I know of no colleague who has either. You would think that if this problem exists, someone would have dealt with it.

Nevertheless, if you are on the fence about your obligations under this provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, here is what you should know:

• If you have 50 or more employees, you are required to provide a reasonable break time for an employee to pump breast milk. If you have fewer than 50 employees, you can deny the break time, but only if would pose an undue hardship, which the DOL considers to be a significant difficulty or expense.

• Employers are not required to compensate nursing mothers for breaks taken to expressing milk. The FLSA’s normal rules that govern unpaid versus paid breaks still apply. Thus, a break should be paid if it lasts 20 minutes or less and falls during an employer’s customary break time.

• In addition to adequate break time, an employer must also provide an appropriate lactation space. The space doesn’t have to be permanent. Any space temporarily created or converted into a space for expressing milk or made available when needed by a nursing mother is sufficient, if the space is shielded from view, free from intrusion from coworkers and the public, and suitable for lactation. The only room that is not appropriate is a bathroom.

If you know of a company that has denied an employee the right to lactate, please either leave a comment below, or tweet me. I would like to know if there is any anecdotal support for the idea that companies are dropping the ball on this issue.

But he looked black… Court rebukes EEOC’s use of “race rating” in systemic lawsuit

According to the EEOC’s draft strategic enforcement plan for 2012 – 2016, the agency’s number one enforcement priority is ending systemic discrimination in recruiting and hiring. In EEOC v. Kaplan Higher Learning Edu. Corp. (N.D. Ohio 1/28/13) [pdf], the EEOC challenged Kaplan’s use of credit reports in its hiring process as having a systemic disparate impact based on race. Yesterday, the court dismissed the lawsuit in its entirety, excluding the EEOC’s expert witness and concluding that without that expert, the agency could not prove its case.

To determine the race of a particular applicant considered by Kaplan, the EEOC’s expert witness used “race raters.” It subpoenaed the applicants’ DMV records, and used a panel of five people to determine if the photograph looked  “African-American,” “Asian,” “Hispanic,” “White,” or “Other.” The EEOC’s expert required that four out of the five race raters reach consensus to consider that applicant’s race.

Kaplan challenged that the judgment of these “race raters” was nothing more than guesswork, resulting in inherently unreliable data. In agreeing with Kaplan and dismissing the lawsuit, the court cited at least four different reasons for excluding the EEOC’s expert. It was the last reason, though, that caught my eye:

Plaintiff also presents no evidence that determining race by visual means is generally accepted in the scientific community. In fact, the EEOC itself discourages employers from visually identifying an individual by race and indicates that visual identification is appropriate “only if an employee refuses to self-identify.” … According to the EEOC, it implemented these guidelines not because of the accuracy of visual identification, but to facilitate and respect “individual dignity.” Regardless of the reason supporting the pronouncement, it is clear that the EEOC itself frowns on the very practice it seeks to rely on in this case and offers no evidence that visual means is a method accepted by the scientific community as a means of determining race.

In other words, the agency charged with ending racial stereotypes in the workplace based its entire case on stereotypical way in which different races “look.”

If there’s one thing I hate it’s intellectual dishonesty. Whether it’s the EEOC prosecuting a race discrimination case by using “race spotting,” or a Catholic hospital defending a wrongful death suit by arguing that a fetus is not a person because life begins a birth, not conception, intellectual dishonesty is nothing more than the sum of hypocrisy and laziness. I am grateful that we have federal judges in my home district who are willing to call the EEOC on the carpet for this tactic, and I am hopeful that the 6th Circuit will see things the same way when ruling on the inevitable appeal.

Employees, if you don’t want us to get your social media info in discovery, don’t post!

In EEOC v. The Original Honeybaked Ham Co.—a hostile environment sexual harassment brought by the EEOC on behalf of 20 female employees—the federal court compelled the plaintiffs to produce their social media profiles. Donna Ballman, writing at Screw You Guys, I’m Going Home, argues that the court botched this ruling because an order compelling the production of social media information in a sex harassment suit can only lead to an employer arguing that that the plaintiffs “asked for it.” Donna argues:

The big smoking gun the employer pointed to was a shirt one of the women wore in a photo with the word, “Cu**” on it. Apparently, if you wear such a shirt on your own time, no matter your intent, you have extended an open invitation to all your supervisors and male coworkers to sexually harass you. Sort of like the argument that African-American employees who use the n-word can’t be offended when someone else uses it toward them.

Donna’s argument, however, misses the mark. The court did not compel the production of the employees’ social media accounts to bolster a “they asked for it” defense. The court ordered the production because one of the employees “posted on her Facebook account statements that discuss her financial expectations in this lawsuit,” and wrote about “her post-termination employment and income opportunities and financial condition.” She also wrote about other potential causes for any emotional harm (a lost pet), and her positive outlook on life following her termination. Other of the plaintiffs joined in at least some of these posts.

There are two key issues in any case: liability and damages. The court primarily ordered the production of the social media information to permit the employer to build a defense as to the latter. An employee’s financial motivations and emotional well-being are relevant to showing that she has not been harmed to the extent she is claiming, if at all.

Moreover, the court did not compel the free and unfiltered production the employees’ social media accounts. It required an in camera inspection by the court, along with of a forensic special master and detailed questionnaires for each plaintiff to complete concerning their online activities. This case is not an example of a court irresponsibly ordering a prying into plaintiffs’ private lives under the guise of discovery. This court went above and beyond to prevent any unnecessary invasions of privacy while ensuring the employers’ right to gather relevant information.

The bottom line is that social media profiles are a potential treasure trove of information in litigation.  Employees, if you do not want your social media posts to be reviewed in a lawsuit you file, stop posting. Stop writing about your post-termination state of mind. Stop communicating with former co-workers. Stop writing about your lawsuit. And, stop posting photos of yourself wearing a “cu**” t-shirt. If you post, rest assured it will likely be fair game to use against you in the lawsuit you chose to file. As the Honeybaked Ham court reminds us: “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?”

WIRTW #258 (the “imitation is the sincerest form of flattery” edition)

This week, the Connecticut General Assembly (hat tip: Dan Schwartz) introduced Proposed House Bill 5236, which would create an “Employer’s Bill of Rights.” Hey, that sounds kind of familiar. Didn’t someone wrote a whole book called The Employer Bill of Rights?

Representative Kupchick, I’m waiting for my licensing fee. I’m sure the check’s in the mail.

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

Discrimination

• Rethinking Discrimination — from Heather Bussing at HR Examiner
• Fact or Fiction: Your employee's nasty facial scar may be a disability — from Eric Meyer’s The Employer Handbook Blog
• Limits on reemployment rights under USERRA — from EmployerLINC
• Can you terminate an employee covered by USERRA? — from Warren & Associates Blog

Social Media & Workplace Technology

• You Can (Sort Of) Talk Smack About Your Boss Online Now — from Workplace Diva
• Facebook trashing your boss may be OK — from CareerDiva
• The Great Employer/Employee Social Media Passwords Debate — from Jessica Miller-Merrell’s Blogging4Jobs
• How “bring your own cloud” could kill BYOD — from Consumerization Blog

HR & Employee Relations

• Video of Ohio Man Lifting Weights Ends His Workers’ Comp Benefits — from EmployerBrief
• You’re Damned if You Don’t Have the Right Inclement Weather Policy — from damnedif
• Catfishing "Employers" — from Workplace Prof Blog
• Manti Te’o, Notre Dame and the Art of the Crappy HR Investigation — from The HR Capitalist, Kris Dunn
• The Batmobile Employee Handbook Provision — from Employment & the Law
• Four Words the Fair Credit Reporting Act has Class Action Plaintiffs and Their Lawyers Repeating: “Show Me The Money!” — from Employment Class Action Blog

Wage & Hour

• Sex, lawyers, and “independent contractor versus employee” – believe it or not! — from Robin Shea’s Employment and Labor Insider
• DOL Issues Guidance on FMLA for Adult Children — from Phil Miles’s Lawffice Space
• Clarification of FMLA Leave for Children with a Disability — from Jason Shinn’s Michigan Employment Law Advisor
• DOL’s Misclassification Initiative Continues — from Wage & Hour Insights
• “Right to Know” Back On The Table? — from Wage and Hour Laws Blog
• The FLSA's Emergency Exception — from Stephanie Thomas at Compensation Café
• Under Federal Law, Are You Required to Pay Your Employees for Their Breaks or Not? — from Overtime Advisor

Labor Relations

• Another Dizzying Ride on the NLRB Roller Coaster — from Molly DiBianca’s Delaware Employment Law Blog
• The NLRB Hits Just Keep Coming. This Time, Possible Front-Pay — from Trade Secret / Noncompete Blog
• The NLRB Hinders Confidentiality in Nonunion Companies — from Michael Haberman’s Omega HR Solutions
• Union Membership Plummets, According to Today’s Bureau of Labor Statistics Report — from LaborPains

Damn You Auto Correct! (train your employees to proofread)

Do you have employees under the age of 35? If so, the odds are that they communicate with each other with text messages on their mobile devices. If you’ve ever texted, you know the evils of autocorrect. For the uninitiated, autocorrect is a function of today’s smartphones that automatically changes an unrecognized word to its closest match.

Sometimes, these auto-corrects have hilarious results.

Of course, one employee’s hilarious is another’s offensive, which brings us to today’s HR lesson.

When you hold your annual harassment training (you hold annual harassment training, right?) you might want to consider mentioning the evils of autocorrect. You will never succeed in having the Gen-Y’ers and Gen-Z’ers exchange their iDevices for more face-to-face conversations. You may succeed, however, in educating on the importance of proofreading messages before they are sent, which, in turn, could save you the time and expense of an internal harassment investigation, or, worse, defending a lawsuit.

This post originally appeared on The Legal Workplace Blog.

How do you spell civil rights? ENDA

Yesterday, the EEOC announced that it has filed a lawsuit against a Charlotte security-services company on behalf of a group of male employees who claim that their same-sex captain and lieutenant sexually harassment them.

This news comes on the heels of President Obama’s Inaugural Address, which The New Yorker calls, “America’s most important gay rights speech.” It was not only what the President said, but also the context in which he said it—on Martin Luther King Day, as part of a larger discussion about the civil rights movement.

Here are the President’s remarks, courtesy of ABC News:

We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths—that all of us are created equal—is the star that guides us still; just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall….

It is now our generation’s task to carry on what those pioneers began…. Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law—for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.

What does this mean for you, as an employer? It means that President Obama’s second term will likely be the point in history when sexual orientation achieves equality. It means that sometime between now and 2016, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) will become the law of the land, amending Title VII to include sexual orientation and gender identity as protected employment classes on par with race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, and age. It’s about time.

The time is coming when LGBT discrimination will no longer be acceptable. As an employer, you can get ahead of this issue. According to the Human Right Campaign, 88 percent of the Fortune 500 has non-discrimination policies that include sexual orientation, and 57 percent include gender identity. ENDA or not, we should be at 100 percent. It’s appalling that 13 years into the twenty-first century, it is still legal in the United States of America to treat people differently solely because of their inclusion in a marginalized group. Get on the bandwagon now, and send a signal to all of your employees that you are a business of inclusion, not one of bigotry and exclusion.

Requests for unpaid medical leaves should be stamped, “Handle With Care”

If I had to rank questions I get from clients in order of frequency, questions on medical leaves would be near, if not at the top of, the list. These questions usually take the form of, “Sally has been out of work on a medical leave for a few weeks (or months), and tells us she needs to be out for a few more. We need to get her work done. Can’t we just replace her and move on?” The easy answer, whether or not you are covered by, or the employee is eligible under, the FMLA, is a big fat “no.”

Regardless of the FMLA, the ADA will require that you consider, and likely grant, an unpaid leave of absence as a reasonable accommodation for a disability. How long is too long? Bimberg v. Elkton-Pigeon-Bay Port Laker Schools (6th Cir. 1/17/12) [pdf] provides some guidance.

Cynthia Bimberg took an unpaid leave of absence from her teaching position to care for her husband, diagnosed with metastasized melanoma. The employer granted her 12 weeks of leave under the FMLA, extended that leave by 6 months until the end of the school year, and again extended it to the one-year anniversary date of her leave. When she then failed to return to work, the school district terminated her employment.

In affirming the decision dismissing Bimberg’s ADA lawsuit, the 6th Circuit commented on the duration of her leave in relation to the legal merits of her discrimination claim:

The alleged factual dispute concerns Bimberg’s insistence that her year of unpaid leave ended on January 4, 2010, not on December 18, 2009. But Bimberg conceded in her deposition testimony that she would not have returned to work in January 2010 in any event, because she could not leave her terminally ill husband in Houston. Indeed, she did not return to Michigan permanently until a week after his death on February 11, 2010….

It is apparent that Cynthia Bimberg was motivated by the hope that Laker Schools would relent and, on humanitarian grounds, allow her to take what, from their point of view, constituted an indefinite leave. The school district’s failure to do so clearly did not constitute a violation of the ADA.

What should you take away from this case?

• An indefinite leave of absence—one from which neither the employee nor his or her doctor can provide a date upon which the employee can return to performing the essential functions of the position—is per se unreasonable under the ADA.

• You must consider a finite unpaid leave as an accommodation. Even finite leaves, however, can reach a point that tips the leave from reasonable to unreasonable.

• If you are granting a leave to an employee as an accommodation, your best defense to a potential ADA claim is to have an open dialogue with the employee about a return date, and prepare to be flexible (to a point). What is reasonable will depend on the nature of your business and how the employee’s position fits into your organization. You cannot make this determination without talking to the employee, gathering medical information, and making an informed decision about what works best for your company. Then, when the employee asks for “one more extension” to his or her leave of absence, no one will fault you as an unreasonable ogre if you decline.

[Photo credit: jenny louise johnson via photopin cc]

Something different for MLK Day

Today is Martin Luther King Jr. Day, celebrating not only the life of Dr. King, but, more importantly, the lessons of inclusion and respect to be learned from his life and untimely death.

In years past, I’ve provided some words of wisdom for employers from this important day:

• 2012: What Dr. King fought for … and what he didn’t
• 2011: MLK Day calls for reflection about how far race relations have come, and how far we have left to go
• 2008: Some words to ponder on MLK Day

If you’ll indulge me, I thought I’d try something a little bit different to memorialize this day: humor—both in the SFW and NSWF variety—each with something important to say about race relations in our society.

 

Archie Bunker's historical meeting with Sammy Davis Jr. (SFW)

 

Chris Rock asking, "Can white people say nigger?" (NSWF)

And, if humor’s not your thing, I’ll be back to regularly scheduled programming tomorrow with a post answering the age-old disability discrimination question, “How long is too long for a medical leave of absence?”

WIRTW #257 (the “Lawsuit of the Year?” edition)

The year is young, but we already have a strong candidate for the lawsuit of 2013. Above the Law brings us the story of a teacher who claims that her school failed to accommodate her disability—a fear of children.

Above the Law, quoting the Huffington Post, provides the details:

Waltherr-Willard, 61, claims in her lawsuit against the Mariemont school district that for 35 years, she taught Spanish and French to high school students in the system. But when she helped fight the district’s decision to cut French class in favor of an online course, officials retaliated by reassigning her to younger students at a middle school in 2009, ignoring her hypertension, specific phobia and general anxiety disorder, Waltherr-Willard says, according to Cincinnati.com…

Working with younger children at the middle school “adversely affected [Waltherr-Willard's] health, due to her disability,” the lawsuit claims, according to ABC News.

What’s next? Lance Armstrong suing the International Cycling Union for failing to accommodation his fear of winning without PEDs?

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

Discrimination

• Who are YOU to tell ME that I'm not offended by sexual harassment?!? — from Eric Meyer’s The Employer Handbook Blog
• Can You Fire the “Temptress”? — from Michael Haberman’s Omega HR Solutions
• EEOC Lawsuits: “Don’t Fire Qualified Employees Based on Fears, Myths or Stereotypes” — from Employment Discrimination Report
• Vegan Hospital Worker’s Flu Vaccination Refusal May Be Protected Religious Belief — from Healthcare Employment Counsel

Social Media & Workplace Technology

• Teacher's Facebook Firing Upheld by N.J. Appellate Court — from Molly DiBianca’s Delaware Employment Law Blog
• Employees Lie, Get Busted on Facebook – But It’s Their Boss That Gets Fired — from Augmented Legality
• Ten of the Biggest Social Marketing Fails of 2012 — from Social Media Strategies Summit Blog
• Discovery of Social Media Accounts Might Be a Toss-up if Requests are Too Broad – Two Conflicting Federal Points of View — from netWORKed Lawyers
• Notre Dame, Manti Te’o, Catfishing, Online Impersonation, and the Law — from Shear on Social Media Law

HR & Employee Relations

• Bereavement Leave in Connecticut — from Dan Schwartz’s Connecticut Employment Law Blog (with condolences)
• 25 weirdest job interview questions of 2012 — from Evil HR Lady, Suzanne Lucas
• More Vacation Policies to Hate: One Week Off Every Quarter… — from The HR Capitalist, Kris Dunn
• Ignite HR 7: Why You Should Trash Your Policy Manual — from TLNT
• News You Can Use (?) – Flatulence in the Workplace — from Evil Skippy at Work
• Flatulence Warning Withdrawn — from Phil Miles’s Lawffice Space
• Employers Subject to the FCRA Must Use New Forms for Background Checks Effective January 1, 2013 — from Minnesota Employment Law Report

Wage & Hour

• Top Issues for Employers in 2013: Social Media & Independent Contractors — from Employment Matters Blog
• DOL’s Wage and Hour Division Seeks Input on Proposed Worker Classification Survey — from Washington D.C. Employment Law Update
• Unlawful Retaliation Against Nursing Mothers? — from Wage & Hour Defense Institute
• Fifth Circuit Holds Employer’s Mandatory Travel Program Does Not Constitute Compensable Travel Time — from Russell Cawyer’s Texas Employment Law Update

Labor Relations

• NLRB Continues Pro-Union Agenda — from Health Employment and Labor
• Labor and Human Relations Professionals Face More Challenges In Light of Recent NLRB Decisions — from Labor Relations Today

Say it ain’t so: court holds an employer does not have to accommodate a pregnant employee

Last year, I railed against the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, a bill that, if passed, would require employers to make a reasonable accommodation for an employee’s pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions. I argued that the law does not need alteration because Title VII, through the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, already requires employers to accommodate pregnant women at least at the same level as they accommodate any other employee with a similarly disabling short-term medical condition.

Last week, in Young v. UPS, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals held that Title VII does not require employers to provide pregnant women a “reasonable accommodation” when, as a result of pregnancy, they are limited in their ability to perform work duties. Was my musing about the evils of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act off-base?

The facts of Young are simple. UPS required Ms. Young to be able to lift up to 70 pounds as part of her job as a package delivery driver. After she became pregnant, her doctor limited her lifting. Ms. Young requested that UPS move her to a light duty assignment. UPS’s collective bargaining agreement allowed an employee to work a light duty assignment only because of an “on-the job” injury or when “disabled” under the ADA. Because Ms. Young did not meet either of these categories UPS denied her request.

Ms. Young argued that UPS violated Title VII because the Pregnancy Discrimination Act required UPS to provide her with a “reasonable accommodation” to the same degree the employer accommodated a disabled employee. The 4th Circuit rejected her argument, finding that where an employer’s policies treat pregnant workers and non-pregnant workers alike, it has complied with Title VII:

Interpreting the PDA in the manner Young and the ACLU urge would require employers to provide, for example, accommodation or light duty work to a pregnant worker whose restrictions arise from her (off-the-job) pregnancy while denying any such accommodation to an employee unable to lift as a result of an off-the-job injury or illness. Under this interpretation, a pregnant worker who, like Young, was placed under a lifting restriction by her healthcare provider and could not work could claim that the PDA requires that she receive whatever accommodation or benefits are accorded to an individual accommodated under the ADA, because the pregnant worker and the other individual are similar in their ability or inability to work—i.e., they both cannot work. By contrast, a temporary lifting restriction placed on an employee who injured his back while picking up his infant child or on an employee whose lifting limitation arose from her off-the-job work as a volunteer firefighter would be ineligible for any accommodation. Such an interpretation does not accord with Congress's intent in enacting the PDA.

Reading this decision, you might be thinking to yourself, “Hyman, you’re wrong. Title VII does need to be amended to grant accommodation rights to pregnant women.” You, however, would be jumping the gun.

As Robin Shea astutely observed at her Employment & Labor Insider, because of 2009’s ADA Amendments Act, today’s ADA is very different than the statute in effect during Ms. Young’s 2006 pregnancy:

In 2007, the “old” Americans with Disabilities Act was in effect, which had some pretty stringent definitions of who was considered “disabled.” Not only was a 20-pound lifting restriction generally not considered “disabling,” but virtually no temporary impairment, no matter how severe, was. And pregnancy is not a “disability” in itself because the ADA says so. Accordingly, Ms. Young was out of luck.

The ADAAA, of course, greatly expanded the definition of “disability,” and the interpretations of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission indicate that a temporary condition that lasts more than six months could indeed be considered “disabling.” Ditto for a 20-pound lifting restriction.

In other words, today an employer could be required to provide a reasonable accommodation to a pregnant employee to the same extent it provides a non-pregnant disabled employee an accommodation, or face the possibility of a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit.

Handling accommodation requests by pregnant employees is a thorny area of the law. My recommendation is instead of trying to sort through these issues for yourself, you contact your employment counsel before denying an accommodation request made a pregnant employee.

---

Thanks to Justine Konicki for her help on this post.

Putting the human back in human resources, redux

As a parent of a child with some medical issues, I am very sensitive to the needs of working parents. Luckily for me, I work at business that understands these needs and has never batted an eye when my son spent 19 days in the hospital, or I want to attend an echocardiogram or some other appointment with one of his doctors. Some employees, however, are not as blessed.

Consider, for example, the case of Wegelin v. Reading Hosp. & Med. Ctr. (11/29/12). Rachel Wegelin’s daughter, Carolyn, suffers from pervasive developmental disorder, which manifests by delays in social and emotional functioning, sensory integration difficulties, and attention deficit. Carolyn attends before and after daycare at a facility to and from which she can be transported to school. When the hospital moved Wagelin’s parking space to a more distant lot, she no longer had sufficient time to pick up Carolyn from the daycare before it closed. So, she requested FMLA leave for the express purpose of finding a suitable daycare that would accommodate her new work schedule and her daughter’s medical needs. The employer refused and fired the employee when she took off the time anyway.

In defending against the inevitable FMLA lawsuit, the employer argued that the FMLA does not provide leave for a parent to locate childcare. The court, in denying the employer’s motion for summary judgment, vehemently disagreed:

Making arrangements for “changes in care” is expressly covered by the regulations. Significantly, the regulations are silent on whether the facility needs to be one that provides medical treatment. The fact that Carolyn’s daycare is not a specialized facility is not dispositive. What is relevant is that Carolyn has a chronic serious health condition resulting in an inability to perform regular daily activities and Wegelin had to make arrangements to find a suitable daycare that could care for her. Bowmansville daycare center was suitable, but no longer available. Therefore, when Reading Hospital changed Wegelin’s parking assignment, she had to make arrangements for a change in Carolyn’s care, entitling Wegelin to FMLA leave.

I’ve written before about the importance in putting the human back in human resources. I also discuss this idea in detail in my latest book, The Employer Bill of Right: A Manager’s Guide to Workplace Law. This case perfectly illustrates this principle. How hard would it have been to accommodate this employee? And, no, I’m not suggesting that the hospital should have given her back her old parking space. As someone whose first question after making partner was, “Do I get a better parking space,” I understand the turmoil that accommodation would almost certainly cause. All kidding aside, this employee did everything she could to balance her job and the unique needs of her family. All she requested was some small amount of unpaid time off to find a childcare solution to accommodation her new work schedule and her child’s serious medical needs.

Or, let me put it this way for those of who are more dollars-and-cents oriented in your thinking. Employers, what do you think costs more? Accommodating a few days of unpaid time off, or defending this lawsuit?

[Hat tip: Pennsylvania Family Law Blog, c/o Employment Discrimination Report]

Can you hear me now? Employer cannot reject disabled employee without individualized inquiry of the ability to do the job

Nicholas Keith has been deaf since birth. He is also, apparently, a pretty good swimmer. He successfully completed the Oakland County, Michigan, lifeguard training course with the assistance of sign language interpreter to communicate instructions. The county rescinded its conditional job offer for a lifeguard position after Keith’s pre-employment physical. The examining doctor approved Keith’s employment as a lifeguard if his deafness was “constantly accommodated.” Without any consultation with Keith, the county unsuccessfully brainstormed possible accommodations, and, ultimately, rescinded the job offer.

In Keith v. Oakland County (1/10/13) [pdf], the 6th Circuit reversed the district court’s order dismissing Keith’s disability discrimination lawsuit. The court relied upon the ADA’s requirement for an “individualized inquiry in determining whether an [employee’s or applicant’s] disability or other condition disqualifies him from a particular position.”

In this case, the county made no individualized inquiry.

After Dr. Work entered the examination room and briefly reviewed Keith’s file, he declared, “He’s deaf; he can’t be a lifeguard.” Dr. Work made no effort to determine whether, despite his deafness, Keith could nonetheless perform the essential functions of the position, either with or without reasonable accommodation. Indeed, Dr. Work has no education, training, or experience in assessing the ability of deaf individuals to work as lifeguards. Dr. Work’s cursory medical examination is precisely the type that the ADA was designed to prohibit.

What is the takeaway for employers? If you are dealing with disabled applicants or employees, you cannot make the employment decision in a vacuum. You must act based on the actual disability and its effect on the particular individual’s ability to perform the job. You should consider:

• the individual’s personal characteristics;
• the actual medical condition; and  
• the effect, if any, the condition may have on the ability to perform the specific  job in question.

Most importantly, you should include the individual in the assessment. No one is a better judge of one’s real-world abilities and limitations than the individual himself or herself.

If you failing to engage in this individualized inquiry, it will look like you are making the employment decision based on stereotypes and generalizations, which the ADA is supposed to rid from the workplace. That perception will not bode well for your defense of an ADA lawsuit.