The bar for what qualifies as unlawful harassment in the 4th Circuit is pretty damn high

How high is the bar for what qualifies as unlawful sexual harassment in the 4th Circuit? Pretty damn high, if you ask me. Consider that in Wilson v. Gaston County [pdf], the Court concluded that the following misconduct did not entitle the plaintiff to a jury trial on her sexual harassment claim:

2nd Circuit provides plan for employers to win misclassification cases

In Saleem v. Corporate Transportation Group (2nd Cir. 4/12/17) [pdf], the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals considered whether a company properly classified a group of black-car taxi drivers as independent contractors, or whether it should have classified them as employees. In ruling for the company, the court gifted employers a game plan to use when classifying workers to minimize risk in making the key determination of whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor.

WIRTW #457 (the “sad clown” edition)

You say you want to see a sad clown sing a mashup of The Who’s “Pinball Wizard” to the tune of Johnny Cash’s “Folsom Prison Blues”? I’ve got you covered. Ladies and gentlemen, Puddles Pity Party.


Here’s what I read this week:

6th Circuit avoids key legal issue, but still absolves union of harassment liability

Samuel Gompers, founder of the AFL, wrote that “[w]herever trade unions are most firmly organized, there are the rights of the people most respected.” But Gompers wasn’t quite right if Tanganeka Phillips’s claims are true; she alleges that one of the largest unions in North America discriminated against her on the basis of race.

When a judicial opinion starts out with a quote such as this, it’s usually not a good sign for the defendant, unless you happen to be the United Auto Workers, the defendant in Phillips v. UAW Int’l (6th Cir. 4/12/17) [pdf], which walked away from some pretty bad allegations of racial harassment.

Communicating with employees is key when a PR crisis strikes

Lots has been said about how United Airlines mishandled violently dragging a passenger from an overbooked flight. And none of it is good. Yet, make no mistake, how United CEO Oscar Munoz communicated with his company’s employees immediately following the incident did not do anything to make it any better.

United CEO email to employees obtained by ABC's @Shahriar44R: "there are lessons we can learn from this experience" pic.twitter.com/N1TbohuRc3

— Michael Del Moro (@MikeDelMoro) April 10, 2017

Bill O’Reilly and Fox News teach us how not to ignore workplace harassment

Bill O’Reilly’s (alleged) lewd comments and inappropriate come-ons may have finally caught up to him and his employer, Fox News. I don’t, however, want to focus my attention on the salacious allegations, which are just that, allegation. Instead, I’d like to focus on Fox News’s response to the allegations, as to why it has so dragged its feet to do anything in response.

I’ll let John Oliver explain only as he can.

Promotion after protected activity dooms employees retaliation claim

What does unlawful retaliation not look like? Burton v. Board of Regents of Univ. of Wisc. Sys. (7th Cir. 3/17/17) offers a good example.

WIRTW #456 (the “new music Friday” edition)

I’m always on the lookout for new bands. This week brings us a good one—Diet Cig, whose debut album drops today. Enjoy.


Here’s what I read this week:

A lesson on workplace posters from, of all places, Homeland

If you’re on Homeland, and operating a covert, CIA backed, sock-puppet misinformation operation, where do you hang your workplace posters? In your interrogation room, of course.

State and federal laws require that all employers have posters conspicuously placed in the workplace. 

7th Circuit historically holds that Title VII expressly bans LGBT discrimination

If you spend any time reading or watching the news today, you will inevitably encounter much about the 7th Circuit’s historic (and correct, in my opinion) decision in Hivley v. Ivy Tech Community College [pdf]. You can read the background of this case here.

The court expressly held that “a person who alleges that she experienced employment discrimination on the basis of her sexual orientation has put forth a case of sex discrimination for Title VII purposes.” Hivley now stands in direct contradiction to the opinion of the 11th Circuit in Evans v. Georgia Regional Hosp., which sets up this issue for a showdown in the Supreme Court.

The adverse action standard for retaliation is low (but not this low)

The legal standard for an “adverse action” to support a claim for workplace retaliation is pretty low. How low? According to the Supreme Court, an adverse action sufficient to support a claim for retaliation is any action that would dissuade a reasonable worker from complaining about discrimination.

But, is does it reach this low? In Bien-Aime v. Equity Residential (S.D.N.Y. 2/22/17), a federal court concluded that two managers’ general rudeness towards the plaintiff, which started only after the plaintiff filed a civil rights complaint, stood as a sufficient adverse action to support his retaliation claim.

Job descriptions count (but not as much as you think) in ADA cases

Donald Bush worked as a chef manager for Compass Group. According his written job description, his duties included routinely lifting more than 10 pounds. Bush informed his employer that he suffered from rapidly progressing cervical/thoracic spondylosis (a degenerative back condition), and requested a transfer to a less physically demanding job. Ultimately, Compass Group fired him because his illness prevented him from heavy lifting of over 50 pounds.

So, who wins Bush’s disability discrimination claim? Bush (based on the 10 pound limit in his job description), or Compass Group (based on its estimation of the practical realities of his job’s lifting requirements)?

WIRTW #455 (the “God’s not in the restaurant biz” edition)

Two years ago I reported on a lawsuit the DOL filed against Akron, Ohio, televangelist Ernest Angley, alleging he employed unpaid volunteers in his church’s for-profit buffet restaurant. The judgment is in, and it’s not good news for Mr. Angley. U.S. District Judge Benita Pearson, in a scathing opinion [pdf], has ordered him and his church to pay employees more than $388,000 in damages (half for unpaid wages and half for liquidated damages).

Reverend Angley would suggest that Church members had an obligation to provide their labor to the Buffet, in service to God, and that a failure to offer their labor to the Buffet … would be the same as failing God. … Reverend Angley would thus coerce Church members into agreeing to volunteer at the Buffet. …  Reverend Angley thus used “scare tactics/bullying” and made “people feel bad” for not working at the Buffet. … Reverend Angley preached that he was God’s prophet, and saying “no” to Angley would be tantamount to saying “no” directly to God. … Reverend Angley also preached that repeatedly saying “no” to God or failing God ultimately leads to a person “blaspheming against the Holy Ghost,” which meant that the individual’s connection to God has been lost and was irredeemable. … 

The Buffet is a commercial, for-profit institution in competition with a number of other commercial eateries in its immediate vicinity. … Defendants stress the alleged religious purpose served by the Buffet and its ability to provide low-cost meals. … But they undoubtedly achieve those low prices, at least in part, by circumventing wage laws and maintaining a workforce that is largely unpaid. … Indeed, Reverend Angley admitted that the Buffet reverted to using volunteers as a cost-saving measure. … 

Seems like the correct result to me.

Here’s what else I read this week:

Social media may distract employees, but should we care?

I posted this from work yesterday

Earlier this week, I asked when employees will learn that online comments can, and will, be used against them. There is another half to the workplace-social-media equation—employers, who have the task of regulating their employees’ use of social media, which happens more and more in the workplace.

Yesterday, Cleveland reporter Olivia Perkins discussed a recent survey, which found that nearly 90 percent of employees access personal social media accounts at work, to varying degrees of distraction.

New surveys reveal that most employees favor paid leave and flexible schedules

America remains the only industrialized nation that doesn’t mandate some level of paid maternity and/or family leave for employees. Meanwhile, while the FMLA provides 12 weeks of unpaid leave, many will tell you that benefit is woefully inadequate for employees. Indeed, more than 40 percent of employees are not covered by the FMLA and are not eligible to take FMLA leave.

http://dilbert.com/strip/2013-05-10

Thus, the results of a recent survey conducted by the Pew Research Center should surprise few.

When will employees learn that online comments can, and will, be used against them?

Business in the front, party in the rear

I’ve recently given two different speeches discussing the balance between an employee’s privacy and an employer’s right to know. One of the themes of this talk is that social media has irreparably blurred the line between one’s personal persona and one’s professional persona, and employees best be careful with that they say online, because employers are watching and holding them accountable.

Case in point? Buker v. Howard County (4th Cir. 3/20/17) [pdf].

Bring me the head of employment at will

At his always excellent Connecticut Employment Law Blog, Dan Schwartz recently asked the following question: “What Does ‘At Will’ Employment Really Mean?”

Dan argues that while employment at will is still a valid legal doctrine, if a judge or jury cannot view your termination as “fair”, then they will look for another (illegal) justification for your decision. That examination may not go your way.

WIRTW #454 (the “Oxford comma, the results” edition)

Damn, does the Oxford comma have some traction. I can’t recall the last time a case as mundane as O’Connor v. Oakhurt Dairy lit up the internet. But it did. And I got curious—just how do people feel about the l’il ol’ Oxford comma. So I asked. And you responded, by the hundreds. You spoke loud and clear. You don’t just like the Oxford comma, you love it.

There you have it. By a margin of more than nine to one, the Oxford comma wins. As for the other eight percent, please step into the 21st century and start dropping in that comma before the “and” in your serial lists.

Here’s what I read this week:

The 8th nominee for the “worst employer of 2017” is … the cancerous boss

“Jon, you write a management-side blog. Why are you running a contest to find the worst employer of 2017?”

Because of employers like this one (via Courthouse News):

SCOTUS takes largely meaningless swipe at Obama’s NLRB legacy

Lafe Solomon

There is little doubt that under President Obama, the NLRB reinvented itself into an agency about which all employers must pay attention. One can trace much of this reinvention back to Lafe Solomon (a man with whom I once shared an NRP microphone), the NLRB’s acting general counsel from June 2010 through October 2013.

Yesterday, however, in NLRB v. SW General, Inc. [pdf], the Supreme Court held that Mr. Solomon’s tenure from January 5, 2011, through October 29, 2013, was unlawful, as it violated the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 (FVRA).