Are graduate assistants employees or students?

In Al-Maqablh v. University of Cincinnati College of Medicine (11/5/13), an Ohio federal court answered the question of whether graduate assistants are employees entitled to the protections of Title VII. As with most legal question, the answer depends.

The case concerned the race and national origin claims of a grad student placed on academic probation and ultimately dismissed from the University. Al-Maqablh sought Title VII’s protections as an employee because he “received a paycheck from the University and rendered services to the University by performing extensive research through lab work.” The court, however, disagreed:

Plaintiff received a stipend and/or scholarship after being accepted into the Program. Plaintiff has failed to show that this pay stub was based upon is employment with the University and not a portion of his stipend award. Furthermore, the fact that Plaintiff performed extensive research, as required under the Program, does not make him an employee under Title VII.

Instead, the court looked to the “economic realities” of the relationship between Al-Maqablh and the University to determine whether he was an employee or a student:

Plaintiff participated in the Graduate Program as a student engaging in “courses, seminars and laboratory research during the academic year.” … More importantly, the dominant purpose of Plaintiff’s relationship with the University was educational. Plaintiff’s complaint against the University asserts claims solely related to his academic activities as a graduate student…. [T]he undisputed evidence establishes that the University’s decision to dismiss Plaintiff from the Graduate Program was an academic decision unrelated to Plaintiff’s alleged employment with the University. As such, the undersigned finds that Plaintiff should not be considered an employee under Title VII....

Thus, in this case, the graduate assistant was a student, not an employee. The court made the point, however, that this rule is not universal; the status of a graduate assistant must be analyzed based on the “economic realities” of each individual. If the University had paid Al-Maqablh for his services (as opposed to providing him an academic scholarship), or if the University had dismissed him for an employment reason, as opposed to an academic, reasons, this case likely would have turned out differently.

If you are an educational institution using the services of graduate assistants, do not make this mistake of reading this decision as providing carte blanche to discriminate against graduate assistants (indeed, Title IX would instruct you differently). Instead, understand that these rules are fact specific, and seek legal counsel to guide your actions accordingly.

 

The email curfew for wage-and-hour compliance

As a company you’re doing everything you can to attract and retain young talent, including implementing a broad BYOD policy enabling your Gen-Yers to connect their iDevices to your network. If those employees are non-exempt under the wage-and-hour laws, how do you prevent them from claiming overtime wages for the off-the-clock time they spend receiving, reading, and sending work-related emails?

Have you heard of an email curfew? Me neither, until I read this article in the Kansas City Business Journal (h/t Today’s General Counsel). Here’s the concept:

The law requires employees to be paid for work that their boss either knew or should have known they were doing. If the boss had no reason to know or suspect employees weren’t complying with the curfew, they could be protected.

In other words, you draft a policy (either stand-alone, or as part of your technology or BYOD policies) prohibiting non-exempt employees from emailing off-duty.

At least one management-side lawyer, quoted in the K.C. Business Journal article, is skeptical of using these curfews as a wage-and-hour compliance tool.

“While an email curfew is a clever idea that might in certain circumstances be justified, it typically isn’t going to be much of an answer.” That’s because in most cases it’s unenforceable or could potentially anger clients who might find other companies that are willing to respond to requests 24/7.

I’m not nearly as cynical about the effectiveness of an email curfew to stave off wage-and-hour issues for off-the-clock emailing. If you tell employees not to read, send, or otherwise work on emails off work hours, and an employee disobeys, that employee is subject to being disciplined. Yes, you still have to pay him or her for the “working” time (which would be at a time-and-a-half premium if the typical work week totals 40 hours), but punishing one employee for violating an email curfew will go a long way to deterring the many from future violations.

The more difficult issue, however, is balancing the need for instant access versus the cost of paying your employees for that responsiveness. This business decision will vary from company to company (based, in part, on a company’s culture), and will dictate how you react to this compliance idea.

photo credit: Thomas Hawk via photopin cc

EEOC tackles national-origin discrimination

Have you seen the story about the employee at an Ephrata, Washington, Burger King, fired for posting, “Now Hiring Must Be Mexican” on the store’s marquee?

This story is particularly timely, since last week, the EEOC held a public meeting addressing issues with national-origin discrimination. 

The seven speakers highlighted various issues, including the plight of immigrants, harassment, English-only policies, and the challenges facing multi-cultural workplaces. 

America’s workforce will continue to personify our melting-pot moniker. Employers need to u detests nd and pay attention to these issues of national-origin discrimination, if for no other reason than the fact that the EEOC is watching, and litigating enforcement actions when necessary. 

When the boss is accused of unlawful acts, respond appropriately #RobFord

My law school alma mater, Case Western Reserve University, is currently embroiled in a nasty lawsuit filed by a professor, who alleges that the Dean retaliated against him after he opposed the Dean’s sexually harassing behavior. This is how my school publicly responded:

To the Alumni of the School of Law:

I write today to announce the appointment of health law scholar Jessica Berg and international law expert Michael Scharf as Acting Deans of the School of Law. Longtime faculty at the school, they bring unique experience and expertise to the roles, as well as a history of effective collaboration with one another on school committees. They are widely respected among faculty, staff and students, and will do an outstanding job of building on the school’s recent academic progress….

Of course, we also face obstacles. The pending litigation and accompanying publicity has proved challenging for all of us. Even as the school focuses on its academic priorities, we continue to pursue a thorough and deliberate process regarding the claims raised. As mentioned earlier, we have engaged outside counsel, who in turn has retained an independent investigator. The investigator will review the claims raised and also assess the reviews we conducted in 2011 when concerns first came to our attention. We are committed to taking the time necessary to handle this matter in a full, fair and objective manner; it is not only the right thing to do, but also is in the best interest of the school and university in the long run.

As always, we appreciate your support and involvement with the School of Law. You will continue to receive updates from me and our Acting Deans as developments warrant.

Toronto Mayor Rob Ford is currently embroiled in a mess of his own, which includes, among other things (i.e., smoking crack), that he sexually harassed a former assistant. This is how Rob Ford publicly responded (warning, salty language ahead):

How you choose publicly to respond to allegations is open to cross-examination in later depositions and at trial. Which response would you be more comfortable defending, CWRU’s or Rob Ford? The answer is obvious, and should guide your company’s actions when a high-profile lawsuit demands a public response.

WIRTW #297 (the “Mulhall” edition)

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Unite Here Local 355 v. Mulhall. This case will decide (hopefully) whether labor unions can legally circumnavigate the secret-ballot election procedures of the National Labor Relations Act by reaching agreements with employers to recognize labor unions upon a presentation of recognition cards signed by a majority of employees.

My favorite exchange from the oral argument illustrates my concern over the coercive nature of card-check recognition:

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Well, will you … concede that [card check agreements are] more coercive than a secret ballot? … The union organizer comes up to you and says, well, here’s a card. You can check I want to join the union, or two, I don’t want a union. Which will it be? And there’s a bunch of your fellow workers gathered around as you fill out the card.

…

JUSTICE SCALIA: And he’s a big guy.

(Laughter.)

Here’s what some of my fellow bloggers had to say in the wake of the Mulhall oral argument:

• Mulhall Oral Argument — from Workplace Prof Blog
• SCOTUS hears “the most significant labor case in a generation.” — from Phil Miles’ Lawffice Space
• CATO’s Trevor Burrus on the “Niggling Problem” in Mulhall — from On Labor
• Supreme Court Hears Argument on Legality of Neutrality Agreements — from Labor Relations Today

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

Discrimination

• My favorite legal theory, the “honest belief” rule — from Warren & Associates Blog
• Employment Law Made Unscary: Gina — from Manpower Employment Blawg
• Between two laws: When ADA and FMLA overlap — from HR idiot
• Employment Law Statistics Tell Part of a Story; Still Waiting for CHRO — from Dan Schwartz’s Connecticut Employment Law Blog
• Is it Only a Matter of Time Before LGBT Individuals Have Federal Employment Protection?? — from The Blue Ink
• ENDA (Banning Sexual Orientation Discrimination) Passes In Senate What It Will Mean If It Becomes Law — from Donna Ballman’s Screw You Guys, I’m Going Home
• Employer’s Injured-player Analogy Backfires in ADA Suit — from Smart HR Manager
• What should we do? Employee says he’s allergic to co-worker’s service dog — from Business Management Daily

Social Media & Workplace Technology

• Your Phone Number Is Going To Get A Reputation Score — from The Not-So Private Parts
• Former Employee Defames Employer with Website — from San Antonio Employment Law Blog
• How to Balance Your Personal and Professional Lives on Social Media — from Social Media Strategies Summit Blog
• Seventh Circuit Weighs In on Firing for Facebook Posts — from Corporate Counsel
• Another Facebook Firing Is Upheld — from Molly DiBianca’s Delaware Employment Law Blog
• Social media: Are courts being more understanding? — from HR Morning

HR & Employee Relations

• Four Ways Bosses Cause Stress in the Workplace — from Mike Haberman’s Omega HR Solutions
• Is it a smart move for a company to make work-life balance policies? — from ABA Journal Daily News
• Disney on the Defensive for Background Screening Policies — from employeescreenIQ Blog
• “Drug-Free Workplace Policy Builder” from the Department of Labor — from Eric Meyer’s The Employer Handbook Blog
• Non-Solicitation Means Don’t — from Work Place Coach Blog News
• Microsoft axes its controversial employee-ranking system — from The Verge
• What I Don’t Know About Your Non-Compete Can’t Hurt Me, Right? — from Suits by Suits
• Curse Words & Racial Slurs — from CostofWork
• Nine preliminary lessons from the Miami Dolphins workplace bullying story — from Minding the Workplace

Does social media change the meaning of “solicitation?” (redux)

Earlier this year, I asked the following question: “Does social media change the meaning of solicitation?” I concluded that absent a contract directly defining social media connections as a “solicitation,” “passive” social media activities, such as “continuing an already existing online relationship via social media” will not violate a non-solicitation agreement.

In my earlier post, I was discussing whether maintaining already existing Facebook friends violated a non-solicitation agreement. Yesterday, the National Law Journal brought us the next evolution of this issue: whether a LinkedIn profile update alerting connections about a new job constitutes a “solicitation of business” in violation of a non-compete agreement. According to the order issued by a Massachusetts trial court judge in KNF&T Inc. v. Muller [pdf], the answer is no.  

In that case, Charlotte Muller’s former employer claims that she violated the no-solicitation covenants in her non-competition agreement by posting her new position on her LinkedIn profile, which, in turn, notified her hundreds of contacts of her job change. Her old company claimed, “To the extent this notification has been sent to current KNF&T clients, this notification constitutes a solicitation of business in direct violation of her non-competition agreement.”

The trial judge addressed the LinkedIn issue in a footnote in his order denying the company’s request for a preliminary injunction:

The same reasoning applies to the evidence that Muller currently has a Linkedln profile disclosing her current employer, title, and contact information, and counting among her “Skills & Expertise” such things as “Internet Recruiting,” “Temporary Staffing,” “Staffing Services,” and “Recruiting.” There is no more specific mention of any of KNF&T’s “Fields of Placement” than this. So long as Muller has not and does not, prior to April 12, 2014, solicit or accept business in the Fields of Placement for herself or others (including her new employer), she will not have violated the covenant not to compete.

In other words, the company’s own agreement doomed its argument that the LinkedIn update constituted a breach.

How do you protect your company if you want to include social media announcements of a new job as violations of a non-solicitation agreement? Draft the agreement accordingly:

“Solicitation” includes, but is not limited to, offering to make, accepting an offer to make, or continuing an already existing online relationship via a Social Media Site, or updating an account or profile on a Social Media site to communicate to, publicize to, or otherwise advise online connections or relationships about a new position of employment with an employer other than the Employer to this Agreement. “Social Media Site” means all means of communicating or posting information or content of any sort on the Internet, including to your own or someone else’s web log or blog, journal or diary, personal web site, social networking or affinity web site, web bulletin board or a chat room, in addition to any other form of electronic communication.

We’ve yet to see a case in which a judge has been asked to uphold such an agreement. It should go without saying, though, that you have a much better chance of enforcement with the language than without. More importantly, however, this case illustrates that social media is not creating new laws, but is merely creating new applications of existing laws to an evolving communication and technology tool.

The fluctuating rules for the fluctuating workweek

After yesterday’s jaunt through Bikini Bottom, I’m swinging the blogging pendulum back to more academic pursuits. Today’s lesson: the Fair Labor Standards Act’s fluctuating workweek.

Merely paying an employee a salary does not render an employee exempt from the FLSA’s overtime requirements. Indeed. There is a whole class of non-exempt salaried employees. These employees, even though salaried, earn overtime for any hours worked in excess of 40 in a week.

How is that overtime calculated? As an employer, you have two options:

1. Under the standard method, you calculate the employee‘s weekly rate based on the salary divided by the number of hours worked that week, and then pay the employee 1.5 times that rate for all overtime hours. Thus, if a non-exempt employee earns a salary of $1,000 a week, and works 50 hours in a week, the employee would earn an additional $30 per hours worked over 40 ($1000 / 50 = $20 per hour base weekly rate x 1.5 = overtime premium of $30). Thus, in this week, the employee would earn an additional $300 for the 10 hours of overtime, rendering his total pay for that week $1,300, not his customary $1,000 salary. 

2. Under the fluctuating workweek method, you include the base-rate part of the overtime premium in the employee’s weekly salary, and only pay the 0.5 premium kicker as overtime. Using the same example as in number 1 above, the employee would still have an hourly rate of $30, but would only earn an additional $100 for the week, as under this method, $20 of the $30 overtime rate has already been paid as part of the base salary.

As you can see, there is a clear economic advantage to employers using the fluctuating workweek calculation to pay overtime to salaried non-exempt employees. Under the FLSA, however, an employer cannot unilaterally implement the fluctuating workweek calculation. Instead, to pay salaried, non-exempt employees via this advantageous method, you must meet these four elements :

1. the employee’s hours must fluctuate from week to week;

2. the employee must receive a fixed salary that does not vary with the number of hours worked during the week (excluding overtime premiums);

3. the fixed amount must be sufficient to provide compensation every week at a regular rate that is at least equal to the minimum wage; and

4. the employer and employee must share a “clear mutual understanding” that the employer will pay that fixed salary regardless of the number of hours worked.

For a salaried non-exempt employees, the first three elements are usually easy to meet. It’s number four—the clear mutual understanding—that tends to trip up employers. Consider, for example, Black v. SettlePOU, recently decided by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. In that case, the court relied both on the company’s employee handbook’s definition of “workweek” as a predefined number of fixed hours, coupled with the company’s refusal to pay any overtime no matter how many hours the plaintiff worked in a week, to conclude that the employer and employee lacked the requisite “clear mutual understanding.” Thus, the court required that the employer to pay back pay for unpaid overtime based on the standard overtime calculation, not the fluctuating workweek calculation.

Employers, there is a clear advantage to paying your salaried non-exempt employees via the fluctuating workweek. You’ll realize a 66 percent savings on your overtime pay. Just make sure you meet the FLSA’s four-pronged test, and, most importantly, that you and your salaried non-exempt employees share a “clear mutual understanding” (best in a written document) that you will pay them a fixed salary no matter the number of hours worked. Otherwise, your efforts to save some dollars in overtime could result in a more costly wage-and-hour lawsuit.

SpongeBob SquarePants, employment law professor

On a cold, snowy night in the suburbs of Cleveland, what is there to do besides snuggle on the couch with your 5-year-old son to watch the world premier of SpongeBob, You’re Fired? That’s exactly what Donovan and I did last night.

Who knew that such high art would provide the inspiration for today’s post?

The story begins with Mr. Krabs firing SpongeBob from his fry-cook job at The Krusty Krab to save a whole five cents by not paying his wage. Minimum wage be damned, SpongeBob offers to work for free to keep his job. Amazingly, the historically cheap Krabs turns him down, telling SpongeBob that he already looked into it, and it’s illegal to let employees work for free.

Bravo to Eugene Krabs for bringing the plight of the unpaid intern to the forefront of pop culture. Unless you meet the very limited test for an unpaid intern, if you have employees, you must pay them. Employees are not allowed to volunteer their time or work for free.

Clothes make the man, and the wage-and-hour lawsuit

Last week the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in its first employment law case of its October 2013 term, Sandifer v. United States Steel Corp., which asks under what circumstances employers are required to treat as compensable the time employees spend putting on and taking off protective clothing.

The heart of the dispute in the definition of “clothes.” Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the time changing into and out of clothing is not compensable, while time putting on and taking off “protective gear” is.

So, what qualifies as clothing and what qualifies as protective gear?

The employees’ attorney argued to the Court that anything that employees wear for their jobs is “protective gear,” even if it looks like ordinary clothing. Justice Alito, however, was skeptical of that definition:

I don’t know when a human being first got the idea of putting on clothing. Probably the main reason, was for protection. It’s for protection against the cold, it’s for protection against the sun. It’s for protection against thorns. So you want us to hold that items that are worn for purposes of protection are not clothing?

Yet, other Justices expressed equal skepticism over the employer’s argument that anything an employee wears for work is clothes, not protective gear.

• Justice Sotomayor: “Your definition would include somebody spending an hour of putting on a suit of armor if he’s going to be a jouster.”

• Justice Scalia: “The word of the statute is ‘clothes.’ And nobody would consider eyeglasses or a wristwatch or some of this other specialized equipment to be clothes.”

Reading the tea leaves, this is a case that cries out for a compromised result. Neither side seemed to persuade the Court that either polarized position was a reasonable interpretation of the FLSA. Instead, look for the Court to craft a rule that any gear, whether typically worn as clothing or not, is compensable “protective gear” if it’s intended use is for protection for the specific needs of the job in question.

I’ll report back on the Court’s decision when it is published sometime next year.

WIRTW #296 (the “recap” edition)

This week brought us two big stories, each of which I covered, and each of which are big enough to warrant an wrap-up of posts by some of my fellow bloggers.

Senate Clears a Path for Debate on ENDA

• For employers, the practical side of ENDA — from Michigan Employment Law Connection
• Is This The Beginning of ENDA? — from Currents: Hot Topics in Employment Law
• Interviewed on ENDA — from Walter Olson’s Overlawyered
• ENDA Clears Senate Hurdle but House Prospects Look Grim — from Dan Schwartz’s Connecticut Employment Law Blog
• Senate on the brink of approving bill to improve LGBT workplace rights — from Eric Meyer’s The Employer Handbook Blog

Miami Dolphins Suspend Ritchie Incognito for Bullying Teammate

• Can Jonathan Martin Sue the Miami Dolphins for Bullying? — from Businessweek
• To Haze or Not to Haze at Work — from The Tim Sackett Project
• Telling the Victim in a Harassment Case to Just Fight Back or Toughen Up Is Not a Solution — from Dan Schwartz’s Connecticut Employment Law Blog
• The Cost of Workplace Bullying: Legal Risks and Workplace Disruption — from Michigan Employment Law Advisor
• Fired for What!? - Even NFL Locker Rooms Have Limits — from Phil Miles’s Lawffice Space
• A Lesson about Employee Complaints from the Miami Dolphins — from WinWinHR

I’d also be remiss if I did not thank Sue Reisinger, writing at Corporate Counsel, for linking to my post from last week, Yes, it’s legal… (10 more things companies can do without breaking the law).

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

Discrimination

• Texas Takes On the EEOC: The Case You’ve Been Waiting For — from employeescreenIQ Blog
• Pretext: the litigation dirty word — from Warren & Associates Blog
• An Indefinite Leave Of Absence May Be A Reasonable Accommodation?! Wait, Just A New York Minute… — from Employment Law Lookout
• “Big Data” Could Create an Big Discrimination Problems — from Texas Employment Law Blog
• Sexual Harassment of Interns is Allowed— from i-Sight Investigation Software Blog
• Employment Law Made Un-Scary: ADEA — from Manpower Employment Blawg

Social Media & Workplace Technology

• Google, The One Stop Shop For All Your Legal Research Needs — from The Sociable Lawyer Blog
• Oops! My Bad! Facebook Firing Based on Mistake — from Molly DiBianca’s Delaware Employment Law Blog
• Facebook Confessions: Will They Hold Up In Court? — from Augmented Legality
• Employer’s social media policy challenged — from Technology for HR
• Generation Y Users Treat BYOD Rules With Contempt — from Ride The Lightning
• How Does Human Resources Use Social Media? — from Unbridled Talent

HR & Employee Relations

• Employees Stealing Your Data - Still an Epidemic — from Ride The Lightning
• Mitigating Your Trade Secret Risk When Hiring an Employee From a Competitor: The Trade Secret Litigator's Five Golden Rules for On-Boarding A New Employee — from Trade Secret Litigator Blog
• When does LinkedIn Activity Violate Non-Solicitation Agreements? — from Trading Secrets
• Trash Your Noncompete Agreement — from HR Examiner with John Sumser
• Guidance on the Use of Biometric Screenings as a Workplace Wellness Tool — from EmployerBrief

Wage & Hour

• Employee or Independent Contractor? How to Tell if Your Workers Are Misclassified — from The Emplawyerologist
• It’s Past Time To Dispel The “Half-Time” Fog — from Wage and Hour Laws Blog
• Wages for Donning Safety Gear Debated at U.S. High Court — from How Appealing
• Hourly Pay for Weekend Work, Identical to Work Performed During Week and Purportedly Paid at “Day Rates,” Rendered So-Called “Hybrid” Day Rates Impermissible — from Overtime Law Blog
• Employers Fear Exemption Audits And Then Some — from Wage & Hour - Development & Highlights

Labor Relations

• SCOTUS to Ask, “What about the Employees?” — from LaborPains.org
• New NLRB GC Begins Building Labor Legal Team — from Corporate Counsel
• Why US non-union employers cannot ignore the National Labor Relations Act — from Employment Intelligence
• Michael Jackson’s “Thriller:” The Pro-Labor Rendition — from Labor Relations Institute

Senate passes ENDA; historic measure likely to die in the House

From CNN.com:

For the first time, the U.S. Senate approved legislation that would protect gay, lesbian and transgender employees from discrimination in the workplace.

The Employment Nondiscrimination Act, or ENDA, passed the Democratic-led chamber on Thursday, 64 to 32.

Unless House Speaker John Boener has a change of heart, however, those (including me) who favor amending Title VII to include protections for sexual orientation and gender identity will have to keep waiting.

The risk companies run when bullying goes incognito

By now, you’ve likely read about Miami Dolphins offensive lineman Richie Incognito and the abusive voicemails and text messages he sent to teammate Jonathan Martin.

Among the voicemails is this gem (per ESPN):

Hey, wassup, you half n----- piece of s---. I saw you on Twitter, you been training 10 weeks. [I want to] s--- in your f---ing mouth. [I’m going to] slap your f---ing mouth. [I’m going to] slap your real mother across the face [laughter]. F--- you, you’re still a rookie. I’ll kill you.

ESPN also report that Incognito did not limit his use of racial epithets to that lone voicemail, and that he also sent Martin a series of texts that included derogatory terms referring to the female anatomy and sexual orientation.

Meanwhile, Fox Sports reports that Dolphins coaches encouraged veterans to toughen up Martin, and knew that some were using hazing as a means to that end.

I’ve never played organized football at any level, and I’m not going to pretend to know of the culture that exists inside its locker rooms. What I do know something about, however, is corporate culture in general. Your company cannot turn a blind eye to hazing and other bullying-related misconduct.

Unless a bully is harassing someone because of a protected class (race, sex, age, disability, religion, national origin…) bullying is probably legal. 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 workplace.” In layman’s terms, our laws allow people to be jerks to each other at work.

Just because it’s legal, however, doesn’t make it right. The question is not whether the law protects the bullied, but instead how you should respond when it happens in your business. If you want to lose well-performing, productive workers, then allow them to be pushed out the door by intolerable co-workers. If you want state legislatures to pass workplace bullying legislation, then 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.

The reality is that if companies do not take this issue seriously, state legislators will. The high-profile case of Jonathan Martin will only help the cause of those who believe we need workplace anti-bullying laws.

What can you do now to protect your employees?

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 their enforcement. 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.

NLRB ALJ upholds workplace ban on recording devices

Two months ago I wrote the following, concerning whether employers should be thinking about implementing bans on employees using recording devices in the workplace:

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? Unless, of course, the NLRB gets its way and renders these policies per se illegal.

At least as to the last point (the legality of such bans under the National Labor Relations Act), we now have the beginnings of an answer, via the decision of an NLRB Administrative Law Judge (the finality of which depends on whether the union appeals the decision to the full Board in Washington D.C.).

In Whole Foods Market, Inc. (NLRB Case No. 01-CA-096965 10/30/13) [pdf], the union challenged the following no-recording policy:

It is a violation of Whole Foods Market policy to record conversations with a tape recorder or other recording device (including a cell phone or any electronic device) unless prior approval is received from your store or facility leadership. The purpose of this policy is to eliminate a chilling effect to the expression of views that may exist when one person is concerned that his or her conversation with another is being secretly recorded. This concern can inhibit spontaneous and honest dialogue especially when sensitive or confidential matters are being discussed.

Violation of this policy will result in corrective action up to and including discharge.

The ALJ concluded that this policy did not violate the rights of the employees of Whole Foods to engage in protected concerted activity under the National Labor Relations Act:

I have found no cases, and none have been cited, in which the Board has found that making recordings of conversations in the workplace is a protected right…. Even if recording a conversation is a protected right, the Respondent is entitled to make a valid rule, such as the one in question here, to regulate its workplace, and in doing so, prohibit such activity….

The rule does not prohibit employees from engaging in protected, concerted activities, or speaking about them. It does not expressly mention any Section 7 activity. The only activity the rule forbids is recording conversations or activities with a recording device. Thus, an employee is free to speak to other employees and engage in protected, concerted activities in those conversations….

There is no basis for a finding that a reasonable employee would interpret this rule as prohibiting Section 7 activity.

In light of this decision, what is an employer to do?

1. Review any existing workplace recording policies to ensure that the stated reasons for the policy is clear. For example, in Whole Foods, the company relied on the protection of “candor and forthrightness in employee opinions.”

2. Do not institute a new recording ban, or amend an existing policy, in response to union activity.

3. Do not apply a recording ban to limit or prohibit the recording of protected Section 7 activity (wages, benefits, terms and conditions of employment, union issues, etc.).

4. Limit the prohibition to working time and work spaces.

This case offers hope to employers that there exists a more reasonable analysis of the application of Section 7 rights to workplace policies other than suggested by the Board’s recent actions.

Is the denial of paid paternity leave discriminatory?

ABCNews.com is reporting that a CNN reporter, Josh Levs, has filed an EEOC charge against Time Warner challenging its family leave policy as discriminating based on sex.

Levs, whose wife just gave birth to their third child, claims that his employer treats biological fathers differently. He claims that Time Warner’s policy permits 10 weeks of paid leave to women who give birth to children, or male and female parents following adoption or surrogacy. Biological fathers, on the other hand, are limited to two weeks of paid leave. This treatment, Levs says, discriminates against him as a man.

On his Tumblr, Levs makes a compelling argument for the unfairness of Time Warner’s policy:

If I were a woman, but other elements of my situation were the same — I was still with the same woman (so that would be a same-sex relationship), and she gave birth to our child, legally I would have to adopt in order to be co-parent. I would then have the option of 10 weeks off, paid.

Or how about this: If I gave my child up for adoption, and some other guy at Time Warner adopted her, he would get 10 weeks off, paid, to take care of her. I, however, her biological father, can’t.

The visceral reaction to a story such as Levs’s is to say, “Time Warner is treating men and women differently; therefore, it’s sex discrimination. Case closed.” The question, however, isn’t whether the policy is fair, but whether it’s legal.

There is one key difference between women and men when they welcome a new-born child. Women give birth; men don’t. A women is not medically ready to return to work the day following childbirth; a man is. Indeed, current medical guidelines suggest that women take six weeks off from work following a vaginal delivery, and eight following a C-section. Adoptions also provide different challenges to a couple, including adjusting to new family member without the buffer of a nine-month pregnancy. As Time Warner points out, its policy provides 10 weeks of paid leave, more generous than the medical standards and the FMLA’s guarantee of unpaid leave.

Yes, Time Warner’s policy can lead to absurd results in extreme situations, as Levs points out. But, before we jump the gun and lynch the company from the sex-discrimination gallows, we need to consider that there might be an explanation that justifies its policy other than discrimination.

An endgame for ENDA?

Today could prove to be a historic one for civil rights. According to reports, the Senate is likely to vote later today on the Employment Nondiscrimination Act [pdf]. ENDA, as it’s more commonly known, would amend Title VII to include protections for sexual orientation and gender identity. Early reports indicate that it could have enough support to pass in the Senate (even my home-state Republican Senator, Rob Portman, has indicated he may vote for it). Whether it can pass the Republican-controlled House and make it to President Obama’s desk for signature is another story. Trying to do his part, President Obama has penned an article for the Huffington Post urging both houses of Congress “to vote yes on ENDA.”

Those who have read my earlier thoughts on ENDA know that I’ve long preached that I believe it’s shameful that in 2013 there still exist minorities against who the government says it’s legal to discriminate. Critics of ENDA argue that it’s not necessary to impose legislative burdens on employers because most already prohibit this form of discrimination via their own internal policies, or because state and local jurisdictions that have passed similar laws do not report an increase of claims.

To these critics, I say that you miss the point. Anti-discrimination laws that exclude sexual orientation and gender identity suggest that these forms of discrimination are permissible. Additionally, while I look forward to embracing the day that all forms of discrimination cease to exist, I would not argue for the abolition of all anti-discrimination laws if that were to occur. Instead, I would argue that the laws are working, and are needed as a deterrent to maintain the status quo.

Perhaps Apple CEO Time Cook put it best in a Wall Street Journal Op-Ed urging for ENDA’s passage:

So long as the law remains silent on the workplace rights of gay and lesbian Americans, we as a nation are effectively consenting to discrimination against them.

As an advocate for employer rights, it’s rare that I’m in favor of increased regulations on businesses. Yet, this legislation is a no-brainier. As we approach the 50th anniversary of Title VII, now is the time to tell our workers that we, as a nation, support equality among all, including the LGBT community. Otherwise, the very principle upon which our country was founded (that all people are created equal) is nothing but a sham.

I will update the blog after the Senate holds its vote on ENDA.

WIRTW #295 (the “flu” edition)

Flu season is upon us. Do you know, that according to the Walgreens Flu Impact Report [pdf], U.S. adults missed 230 million work days during last year’s flu season? Some additional findings of note:

• In 2012 – 2013, the flu cost U.S. employers $30.4 billion
• Employees missed, on average, three days of work because of the flu
• Three out of four respondents indicated they were personally impacted by the flu last year

What can you do about this? You likely can require your employees to receive flu shots, unless an ADA disability or sincerely held religious belief precludes one from receiving the vaccine. Better yet, offer vaccinations free of charge to your employees, right in your workplace. The cost of the vaccines and a nurse to administer them will pay for itself if it keeps even one employee from missing work.

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

Discrimination

• Dear Evil Skippy: An Employee Says She Will Sue If We Observe “Satan’s Halloween” — from Evil Skippy at Work
• Don't Forget About Religious Discrimination When Throwing Your Office Halloween Party — from Workplace Fairness
• Target Wants to Hire More Ex-Offenders? Minnesota-based Company is Banning the Box — from employeescreenIQ Blog
• How not to respond when an employee complains about sexual harassment — from Eric Meyer’s The Employer Handbook Blog
• Deaf Applicant’s Rights Violated, EEOC Says in Announcing ADA Settlement With Toys “R” Us — from Joe’s HR and Benefits Blog

Social Media & Workplace Technology

• On our wearable technological future workplace — from Steve Boese’s HR Technology
• Your Employees Are (Still) Stealing Your Data — from Molly DiBianca’s Delaware Employment Law Blog
• Anonymous Tweets Result in High Profile Termination — from netWORKed Lawyers
• What is the right social media policy for your company? — from Ragan.com
• This Map Shows State-by-State Penalties for Texting While Driving — from Lifehacker
• Ohio Teacher Goes On Racist Facebook Halloween Rant — from from Gawker

HR & Employee Relations

• “Yes, It’s Legal.” But Is It a Good Idea? — from Dan Schwartz’s Connecticut Employment Law Blog
• Motel-sex injury doesn’t merit workers’ compensation, Australian high court rules — from ABA Journal Daily News
• 8 HR Policies Every Startup Should Have in Place — from MonsterThinking
• 5 hiring practices you should stop today — from Ask a Manager
• Workplace “boo”-boos – when Halloween in the office gets scary — from HR idiot
• Enforceable Noncompete Agreement Key to $2 Million Judgment Against Former Employee — from Michigan Employment Law Advisor
• Trade Secret Protection: Tips for Protecting Your Company’s “Secret Sauce” — from In-house ACCess

Wage & Hour

• Indefinite Leave — from Work Place Coach Blog News
• Obamacare Individual Mandate Extension — from Phil Miles’s Lawffice Space
• FLSA Investigations Result In Criminal Convictions — from Wage and Hour Laws Blog

Labor Relations

• Rule Against Non-Union Workplace “Disruptions” Can Run Afoul of NLRA — from Currents: Hot Topics in Employment Law
• Employees with Smartphones: An Employer’s Nightmare; the NLRB’s Dream — from Matt Austin Labor Law

How to avoid turning your costume party into an HR nightmare

Today is Halloween. Truth be told, Halloween is one of my least favorite holidays. It always has been and always will be. I never liked it, even as a kid. Sure, all the candy was fun, but I just never got into the whole dress-up thing. As an adult, I like it even less. Not to be a Halloween scrooge, but I can’t even get into the holiday for my kids (this year, going as Mike Wazowski and a rock star), although I trudge though it for them.

A lot of people are into Halloween, and some are really into Halloween. It’s the holiday on which we spend more than any holiday other than Christmas. And, a lot of your workplaces will be having Halloween parties. Some of the parties will request that you dress up for the occasion. If you happen to work in one of the workplaces, you have my sympathies. You also have my top 5 tips to avoid turning your innocent costume party into an HR horror show.

1. Be appropriate. Racist costumes have no roll anywhere, especially in the workplace.

2. Be appropriate (number 2). If the name of your costume starts with “Slutty” or “Naughty” or some other similar adjective, pick another costume. Costumes like “Carlos Danger” (aka sexting Anthony Weiner), or anything else overtly sexual, are also really bad ideas.

3. Can you work in your costume? It may be really cute or clever dressing up as an iPhone, but if it hinders your ability to do even the simplest of tasks (like sitting at your desk), then it’s probably not the right costume for work. Make-up and masks, while impressive and scary, are probably best left at home.

4. Avoid dangerous costumes. No, I’m not talking about Leatherface with a real chainsaw (although that’s also a bad idea). I’m talking about long wigs, feather boas, or other materials that could get caught in dangerous equipment, for example.

5. Are you thinking about dressing up like a coworker or your boss? Does that individual have a good sense of humor? Are they going to take it the right way? You better be 100 percent sure before you don that mimicry.

Do you employ minors? Then read this sexual harassment case.

R.W., age 16, worked at Land of Illusion, a haunted theme park. She reported to Brett Oakley—48 years old—the park’s owner and a friend of her dad. R.W. claimed that while at work one night, Oakley began discussing with her whether she uses birth control, feigned shock that she was still a virgin, and offered to take her to a hotel in Kentucky “for the experience of a lifetime,” to “show her what real sex is like.” Ick.

In Ward v. Oakley (Butler Ct. App. 10/28/13) [pdf], the court of appeals reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the employer. Even though the court concluded that the alleged harassment constituted one single incident, it was sufficiently severe such that a jury could conclude that it constituted a hostile work environment.

The lack of multiple incidents must be balanced against the objective severity of Oakley's alleged conduct. Here, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to Ward, a 16-year-old girl was subjected to a thinly veiled solicitation for sex by a long-time, close family friend who was 32 years her senior…. As Oakley was the owner of the company, there was no one for R.W. to turn to for redress. Oakley placed R.W. in the untenable position of choosing between continued exposure to Oakley or jeopardizing her employment at Land of Illusion and that of Ward and her stepmother. This conduct eclipses the threshold of severity required to defeat summary judgment.

Do you employee teens in your workplace? If so, consider these nine tips from the EEOC on how to combat sexual harassment facing our youngest workers:

1. Encourage open, positive and respectful interactions with young workers.
2. Remember that awareness, through early education and communication, is the key to prevention.
3. Establish a strong corporate policy for handling complaints.
4. Provide alternate avenues to report complaints and identify appropriate staff to contact.
5. Encourage young workers to come forward with concerns and protect from retaliation employees who report problems or otherwise participate in EEO investigations.
6. Post company policies on discrimination and complaint processing in visible locations, such as near the time clock or break area, or include the information in a young worker’s first paycheck.
7. Clearly communicate, update, and reinforce discrimination policies and procedures in a language and manner young workers can understand.
8. Provide early training to managers and employees, especially front-line supervisors.
9. Consider hosting an information seminar for the parents or guardians of teens working for the organization.

Halting the tide of religious-discrimination claims

According to the Wall Street Journal, religious-discrimination claims are on the rise.

Companies big and small are being affected by the complex intermixing of work and faith. The trend toward a seven-day workweek sometimes treads on the Sabbath. Religious garb and grooming clash with dress codes. Job duties that intersect with changing public policies—for instance, issuing a marriage license to a gay couple—test some workers’ adherence to their religious beliefs.

While religious-discrimination claims only comprise a small portion of all charges filed with the EEOC, they have more than doubled over the past 15 years, growing at a rate faster than race or sex claims.

These claims are not going away. Indeed, a recent survey by the Tanenbaum Center for Interreligious Understanding, entitled,  “What American Workers Really Think About Religion,” concluded that religious discrimination is rampant in the American workplace.

Some the survey’s more eye-opening findings include:

• Nearly half of non-Christians surveyed (49%) believe that their employers are ignoring their religious needs.
• Employees in companies without religious diversity policies are almost twice as likely to be searching for another job as their counterparts in companies with policies.
• Among American workers at companies where religious bias had been reported to managers or human resources, nearly one-third of workers report that the company took no actions to stop the bias.
• Nearly six out of ten atheists (59%) believe that people look down on their beliefs, as do nearly one-third of non-Christian religious workers (31%) and white evangelical Protestants (32%).
• Atheists (55%) are substantially more likely than workers in any other group to report that they themselves face a lot of discrimination today. Unlike white evangelical Protestants, however, atheists are also more likely than workers overall to believe that Muslims (66%), gay and lesbian people (63%), Hispanics (50%), and women (39%) experience a lot of discrimination.

What can you do to make your workplace religiously diverse and tolerant, so that you are not a target for these claims (also via the Tanenbaum Center)?

1. Ask: When an employee comes to work in a turban, find out if this is due to a sincerely held religious belief. If so, you should try to accommodate (unless it causes too big of a burden).

2. Respect Differences: Americans don’t know much about others’ religions. Tensions often arise around religious difference because of a lack of information or misinformation. If your employees need information to understand different faiths and to make co-workers feel welcome, make it available.

3. Communicate: Do you have written policy on religious accommodation. The Tanenbaum Center suggests that the mere existence of a written policy on religion, in itself, reduces the perception of bias in the workplace. Of course, merely having a policy is never enough. You must communicate it to your employees and enforce it when the need arises.

4. Think Outside the Box: When an employee requests a religious accommodation, think creatively about how to meet the needs of the employee and the needs of the company. Communication and compromise are key. Unless you talk, you cannot know what your employee needs and your employee cannot know what you’re willing to offer. Is these circumstances, lack of communication (and not intentional discrimination) is the root cause of most lawsuits.

Yes, it’s legal… (10 more things companies can do without breaking the law) #yesitslegal

Every now and then, I come across a blog post that I wish I had written. Last Friday, I read one of those posts.

Suzanne Lucas (aka, the Evil HR Lady) and Alison Green (aka, Ask A Manager) jointly wrote a post entitled, Yes, it’s legal … queries from a combined 13 years of blogging about the workplace. The post lists 62 different things—some commonplace (“It’s legal to require overtime.”), and some unusual (“It’s legal for your manager to make you clean up rat poo.”).

I loved the post so much, I thought I’d add 10 of my own (shamelessly built around the themes from the 10 chapters in my book, The Employer Bill of Rights: A Manager’s Guide to Workplace Law).

1. It’s legal to refuse to hire a felon.

2. It’s legal to refuse to let you bring a representative into your disciplinary meeting (as long as it’s a non-union shop).

3. It’s legal to close our business.

4. It’s legal to change our handbook as often as we want (and hold you to the new policies).

5. It’s legal to impose a punishment less than termination on a perpetrator of harassment.

6. It’s legal to fire you if you work unauthorized overtime.

7. It’s legal to tell you why we don’t like labor unions.

8. It’s legal to replace you while you're on a leave of absence (as long as the leave isn’t FMLA-protected).

9. It‘s legal to refuse to hire someone who won’t sign a non-compete.

10. It’s legal to oppose your claim for unemployment.

How about you? What would you add to the list? Leave your thoughts in the comments below, or tweet it with the hashtag, #yesitslegal.