Indiana pushing for passage of Healthy Families Act to help its own economy

If need any more reasons to work as hard as possible to help defeat the Ohio Healthy Families Act, check out the following editorial from the Seymour, Indiana Tribune:

OUR VIEW: Ohio could boost Hoosier economy

We think Hoosiers should encourage Ohio residents to support an effort that would require Ohio companies with at least 25 employees to offer at least seven sick days a year. Such a program — in Ohio — would be great news for Indiana’s economy.

Service Employees International Union District 1199 is pushing an effort to get that plan on the ballot in November 2008 to help drive Democratic voter turnout, The Associated Press reports.

It would be yet another reason for businesses not to choose Ohio, but that isn’t deterring the union. We say go, brothers, get it on the ballot and get it enacted into law.

Ohio already has high taxes, a higher minimum wage and a smoking ban. Why wouldn’t the union look for one more way to keep jobs from being created there? ...

“Workers should not have to choose between a paycheck and recovery time when they get sick,” the union said in a statement.

Measures like this one will ensure the paycheck won’t even be an option for even more Ohioans and perhaps ensure that more companies like Honda and Nestle choose Indiana over Ohio as homes for their plants, much as they did with announcements last year. Again, that’d be good news for the Hoosier economy.

Let’s hope the idea doesn’t cross the state line.

I've also heard that Indiana has billboards just across the state line from Ohio that read: "Come on IN for lower taxes, business and housing costs".

Our Midwestern neighbors are salivating at the opportunity to steal our businesses and jobs if the Healthy Families Act passes in November. Do not give them the opportunity.

WIRTW #42

On August 11, I will be hosting Blawg Review. For those who are unfamiliar with it, Blawg Review is a weekly review of the best of the blawgosphere, with its hosts rotating with each issue. Because of my Blawg Review responsibilities, WIRTW will be on hiatus next week, to return on August 15. Starting Monday (8/4), however, I will begin accepting submissions for the August 11 issue of Blawg Review. If you would like one of your posts considered, please email it to me with "Blawg Review" in the subject line.

On to this week's best labor and employment law posts:

Michael Moore at the Pennsylvania Labor & Employment Blog asks a question that is near and dear to my heart - is the legal system to blame for humorless work environments?

From a legal perspective, should employees be worried about injecting humor into the workplace and is an employer’s “joke slap-down” necessary? If your humor doesn’t demean people based on their membership in a protected class, then joke away.

It is the “off-color jokes” and other “humor” related to gender, race, national origin, religion or other protected classifications that can be considered harassment. These types of comments always find their way into allegations of discrimination or harassment when a complaint is filed.

I don't think it is necessary to scrub all humor from workplace. Indeed, such a measure could do more harm than good in terms of employee morale. Michael, however, offers several good tips to assist in avoiding liability for humor that does make its way into work.

The aptly named Labor and Employment Law Blog gives us 5 reasons why companies prefer to drug test job applicants as opposed to employees.

Meanwhile, the (not so) Evil HR Lady gives some insight on drug testing from an HR perspective.

The Delaware Employment Law Blog summarizes Senator Obama's promises to working women if he becomes President.

George's Employment Blawg tells everyone how to bulletproof employee investigations.

Finally, John Phillips' Word on Employment Law gives his tip of the week on the importance of written job descriptions.

Associational Retaliation Revisited

In Thompson v. North Am. Stainless, the 6th Circuit recognized a claim for associational retaliation, holding: "Title VII prohibit[s] employers from taking retaliatory action against employees not directly involved in protected activity, but who are so closely related to or associated with those who are directly involved, that it is clear that the protected activity motivated the employer's action." This week, another court, the U.S. District Court in New Mexico, took up the same issue and reached the contrary result.

Ramona Kay Bradford, a Wal-Mart employee, filed a charge of discrimination against Wal-Mart with the EEOC. Two months later, her daughter, Robin, applied for a position at the same Wal-Mart store. Although she received positive feedback from her first interview, Robin was not called back for a second interview. At least five individuals with less schedule availability and lower qualifications were hired. Two months after Robin was rejected, Ramona's son, John, suffered the same fate when he applied for a job at the same Wal-Mart store.

In EEOC v. Wal-Mart, the EEOC alleged that Wal-Mart violated Title VII when it failed to hire Robin and John Bradford in retaliation for their mother’s Title VII charge of discrimination. The court was asked to decide whether Robin and John Bradford could sue for retaliation even though they did not personally "engage in protected opposition to discrimination" or "assist or participate in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under [Title VII]." The EEOC took the same position as the Court in Thompson v. North Am. Stainless -- that Title VII prohibits retaliation not only against the person who engaged in the protected activity, but also against "someone so closely related to or associated with the person exercising his or her statutory rights that it would discourage that person from pursuing those rights."

The Court, however, was not persuaded:

Despite the danger that employers might retaliate against an employee’s family member and undermine the overall purpose of the anti-retaliation provision, this Court must apply the plain statutory language unless it results in "an absurd outcome that contravenes the clearly expressed intent of the legislature." ... The clear wording of [Title VII's anti-retaliation] provision limits causes of action to persons who engage in opposition or who participate in some way, even if minimally, in the protected activity. ...  And, expanding the scope of persons by whom an action can be brought beyond the clear language of the statute is not within the purview of the courts, but is the responsibility of Congress.

In other words, if Congress intended Title VII's anti-retaliation provision to reach family members of those who engage in protected activity, Congress would have said so in the statute.

This case illustrates the split on this issue among the various federal courts, a split in which the 6th Circuit is in the minority. At some point, the U.S. Supreme Court will be asked to review this issue. Until then, be mindful that associational retaliation is illegal under federal law in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee, even if other courts correctly disagree.

All hail dads

Being a new dad myself, the following headline from the National Law Journal caught my eye: More Men Filing Workplace Lawsuits - Lawyers are calling this a byproduct of the father's rights movement.

According to the article, more men than ever before are filing employment claims. The EEOC saw a record number of sexual harassment complaints filed by men in 2007, and more men are filing FMLA claims based on family responsibilities.

As more and more men assert their right to strike a balance between their jobs and their families, what steps can companies take to avoid claims being brought by disgruntled men?

1. Incorporate harassment against men into general harassment policies and training.
2. Ensure that all leave policies are gender-neutral.
3. Discipline anyone who makes derogatory comments about an employee's paternity leave.
4. Foster a work environment in which no one, male or female, is discouraged or scared from taking time off.
5. Reward actual performance, and not merely hours spent working.

Adopting some these measures in your workplace can help avoid the following, which is believed to be the largest verdict ever entered in favor of a man in a caregiver discrimination lawsuit:

New Wage and Hour Regulations Proposed by Department of Labor

Very quietly and with zero fanfare, the Department of Labor has published proposed new regulation for the Fair Labor Standards Act. The DOL's stated intent to amend regulations that have "become out of date because of subsequent legislation or court decisions." The biggest changes deal with compensatory time, tip pooling, and overtime pay for fluctuating workweeks. There will be much more on these topics if these proposals are formally adopted into the FLSA's regulations.

[Hat tip: Connecticut Employment Law Blog]

Is the glass ceiling self-imposed?

One blogger has theorized that the glass ceiling and the disparity in pay between men and women is self-imposed by women who prioritize motherhood over their careers. Tracy Coenen, on her Fraud Flies Blog, writes that workplace discrimination against women is largely a myth:

The problem here is clear, and it’s not a case of discrimination. It’s that women make choices which put them behind on the career path. I don’t begrudge any woman her right or her choice to have children. However, if she’s going to leave the workforce or reduce her role at work after having children, she can’t expect to keep up with her peer group.

Many say the choices women must make are difficult, as most don’t have a husband who is willing to stay home and perform the traditional role that a “housewife” used to in order that his wife may focus completely on her career. I don’t doubt that’s the case, but women still must be accountable for their own choices in partners, careers, and family life.

These false cries of “discrimination” upset me because when there are legitimate cases of discrimination, I think they are likely to be viewed more skeptically. Let’s use the word discrimination only when it’s really appropriate.

And for women in corporate America, let’s just acknowledge that not being paid as much as men or not attaining as many high-level positions as many is really related to career and family choices. I think our market is efficient, and works well to award pay at a level that is earned by the employee, regardless of gender.

I have to admit, It's an interesting theory, albeit one without any hard data to back it up. I'd like to think that in 2008, we have gotten beyond stereotyping women, minorities, the disabled, etc., and that all employment decisions are based on ability. Of course, that perception would be hopelessly naive. There are still lots of examples of women being passed over because of the family choices they have made.

Employees, regardless of gender, have the right to have a career and a family and not be punished for it. The balance for employers is not to confuse ability with dedication to job over all else. It's when businesses begin to equate performance deficiencies with an employee's family life that the specter of family responsibility discrimination begins to raise its troublesome head.

Governor seeks compromise to keep Healthy Families Act off the November ballot

Governor Strickland has spoken out against the Ohio Healthy Families Act as bad for Ohio businesses, but he is not necessarily opposed to to idea of paid sick days as a concept. Thus, he has been working with both Sick Days Ohio, the group sponsoring the OHFA, and business groups such as Northeast Ohio's Council of Smaller Enterprises (COSE) to forge a compromised bill and keep the OHFA off the November ballot. Governor Strickland is pushing what he calls "principles of sick leave," which are less specific than the current proposal. Regardless of any changes, however, the Cleveland Plain Dealer reports that COSE and other business interests may nevertheless oppose any sort of paid sick leave:

COSE, which represents nearly 17,000 small businesses in Greater Cleveland, is particularly opposed to the coalition's provision that would allow workers to take sick time in small increments. It says such time-keeping would be an administrative nightmare and would potentially disrupt time-sensitive manufacturing.

But eliminating that provision would not lessen COSE's overall opposition to the proposal. ...

COSE is working with the Ohio Chamber of Commerce and other business groups to oppose the ballot issue. They have formed the Ohioans to Protect Jobs and Fair Benefits coalition.

Millard said the coalition wants to raise $10 million for its campaign. He said he would rather see the money invested in job expansion and to help attract businesses but said the coalition has little choice.

Any compromise would have to be reached in the next two weeks. The coalition behind the OHFA has until August 6 to submit 120,000 valid voter signatures to qualify the proposal for the November 4 ballot, and is expected to hit that mark.

Given the philosophical differences between business and labor on this issue, I would be very surprised if the Governor is able to forge a compromise.

WIRTW #41

Another week, another week of excellent employment law posts from around the country for everyone to peruse.

The Delaware Employment Law Blog takes us back to HR Summer School in its second class on the FMLA, this time covering the meaning of a serious health condition.

Ohio Practical Business Law gives us a primer on non-compete agreements under Ohio law.

The Connecticut Employment Law Blog, meanwhile, teaches us about the WARN Act and what companies must do in mass layoffs and plant closures so as not to run afoul of it.

The Pennsylvania Labor & Employment Blog talks about investigating employee misconduct through the surveillance of data.

Finally, Fair Labor Standards Act Law tells us how to properly structure unpaid internships so they don't violate the FLSA.

The federal minimum wage rises, but does anyone in Ohio care?

Today, the federal minimum wage increases to $6.55 an hour. This should be bigger news than it is, but in Ohio this increase will have almost no impact at all. Thanks to 2006's minimum wage ballot initiative, Ohio's minimum wage in already $7.00 an hour. So, file this information away as interesting trivia, and know that Ohio already outpaces the federal government by $.45 an hour.

Don't estop yourself into coverage

Lots of statutes have thresholds that must be met for coverage. For example, the FMLA only applies to employees with at least 1 year of tenure who worked at least 1,250 hours in the preceding year for an employer with 50 or more employees. As Peters v. Gilead Sciences (7th Cir. 7/14/08) illustrates, those thresholds are not the only way an employee can be covered.

There was no dispute that Peters was not eligible for statutory FMLA leave. Nevertheless, at the outset of his medical leave of absence, Gilead sent him a letter stating that "all employees" were eligible. Gilead's employee handbook makes a similar promise of 12 weeks of medical leave. Because of those representations, Peters might be eligible for medical leave under a promissory estoppel theory, and it may have been illegal for Gilead to replace him while on such leave:

Gilead’s handbook does not exclude any employees from the entitlement to 12 weeks of family and medical leave except those who do not meet the basic prerequisites of 12 months’ employment with the company and 1,250 hours of work in the preceding 12 months. There is no reason employers cannot offer FMLA-like leave benefits using eligibility requirements less restrictive than those in the FMLA .... and that is what Gilead did. Peters’ statutory ineligibility is irrelevant....

In other words, because Gilead promised leave, Peters was entitled to rely on that promise and enforce it to the extent that he relied on it to his detriment.

There are two critical lessons for employers to take away from this case:

1. Triple-check employee handbooks for appropriate disclaimers. The key to a promissory estoppel claim is that any detrimental reliance was reasonable. A disclaimer in a handbook that tells employees that the handbook is not a contract but a general statement of company policy, that the company has the ability to modify such policy at any time, and that employees are not to rely upon anything in the handbook as binding on the company, would go a long way to showing that an employee's reliance was not reasonable.
2. Be careful what you tell employees. The handbook notwithstanding, if you represent to an employee that s/he is entitled to a benefit (such as FMLA leave) you better be prepared to stand behind that statement and live up to everything that goes along with it. Before you tell an employee that s/he is covered by the FMLA, it is best to check whether that statement is accurate. That checking may require a 15 minute phone call to your employment counsel. That 15 minute phone call, however, could save your company 2 years of litigation hell.

EEOC issues new guidance on religious discrimination

This week, the EEOC issued three new publications on religious discrimination: a new chapter in its Compliance Manual, a Q&A, and Best Practices for Eradicating Religious Discrimination in the Workplace. While these documents are not binding, and a court is free to interpret Title VII as it sees fit, it is always good to know how the EEOC views the workplace discrimination landscape.

The Best Practices will prove to be the most helpful for employers. It's not earth shattering, but does give businesses a helpful synopsis of standards that will help minimize liability, such as:

• Carefully and timely recording the accurate business reasons for disciplinary or performance-related actions.
• Ensuring that an anti-harassment policy covers religious harassment.
• Training managers and supervisors on how to recognize religious accommodation requests from employees, and developing internal procedures for processing religious accommodation requests.
• Making an individualized decision instead of one based on stereotypes in determining whether a request for an accommodation poses an undue hardship

[Hat tip: Connecticut Employment Law Blog and Manpower Employment Blawg]

Illustrating the dangers of the Healthy Families Act to Ohio

Yesterday, a commenter left the following on my earlier post, Deconstructing the Ohio Healthy Families Act:

What effect will this have on attracting new business to Ohio? Just the administrative burden alone is formidable, let alone the potential costs. If I have the responsibility of choosing between building a new plant in Ohio, which has the mandated 7 paid sick days, or another state which doesn't have such a provision, I would have to have a lot of other positives to the Ohio location.

This comment underscores just how critical it is to defeat this measure in  November. Ohio is at an economic crossroads, and yet we have the opportunity to bring our state forward into the 21st century. That opportunity includes a burgeoning bio-medical industry to work in tandem with our outstanding hospital systems, and Governor Strickland's efforts to lure so-called "green" companies to Ohio to help develop alternate fuel sources. Enacting legislation that will create labor costs to do business in Ohio that do not exist in any other state is not the way to go about curing our state's ills. We need incentives for companies to settle in Ohio, not incentives for them to look elsewhere and leave.

The OHFA is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Ohioans going to the polls in November will be drawn to vote in its favor because people think that they want paid time off. If there are no jobs left in Ohio because this measure passes, what good will it do?

Some employees should just sail off into the sunset

Every once in a while, you come across a case that, when you read it, makes you wonder why the employee would ever even consider filing a lawsuit. Maurer v. Franklin County Treasurer (Franklin Cty. 7/10/08) is one such case. Chris Maurer was a tax collector in the Delinquent Tax Division of the Franklin County, Ohio, Treasurer's Office. His employer assigned him to work at its booth at the Reynoldsburg Tomato Festival. The County's booth was next to the booth for the Catalyst Church. Manning the Catalyst Church booth were two women in their early 20s, Faith and Jennifer Thoms. The opinion describes what happened:

While Faith was engaged in play with some children, [Maurer] came to the church booth and sat in one of the chairs. [Maurer] began playing with the bubble gun that was there for children's entertainment and, as a result, the liquid or bubbles from the gun spilled onto his hands and a map he had. [Maurer] went to Faith and wiped them on her thigh. After calling Faith's sister-in-law Jennifer to him, he wiped the map on Jennifer's thigh and on her skirt; she told him to stop. The two women attempted to resume their activities, but [Maurer] again called Jennifer over to him. He put his hand up the side of her above-the-knee skirt and then wiped his soapy hands down her thigh and her calf. Faith intervened, standing between them while she answered a phone call, and told him to stop. Meanwhile, the woman Jennifer had been speaking with walked away after witnessing [Maurer's] actions. During his time at their booth, [Maurer] repeatedly talked about wanting a massage and inquired who would give him one.

Ultimately, [Maurer] got up from the chair in the church's booth to put candy wrappers in the trash, and both women sat in the chairs so appellant could no longer occupy them. [Maurer] co-worker, Billie Grier, was not present during the incident, as [Maurer] had sent her out of the booth area for various reasons. When Grier returned, Jennifer and Faith told her to tell [Maurer] they were underage so he would leave them alone. Grier advised that supplying [Maurer] with such information probably would not help, as women in the office did not trust him with their teenage daughters.

Jennifer reported the incident to the Treasurer's Office, which conducted an investigation, and, after a hearing terminated Maurer's employment for "immoral conduct, discourteous treatment of the public, mistreatment of the public and sexual harassment."Not surprisingly, the court upheld the termination decision.

Too often, I write about cases in which employers did the wrong thing, either in making the decision to terminate an employee or in not properly investigating a harassment complaint. This case provides a good illustration of an employer that did everything right. It received a complaint of inappropriate conduct by an employee, promptly and thoroughly investigated, and terminated his employment.

This case also teaches a broader lesson. No termination is bulletproof. Even the most rock-solid termination can result in a lawsuit by a disgruntled employee. That fear, however, should not hamstring employers from making appropriate termination decisions based on legitimate reasons.

WIRTW #40

Actually, I'm not reading much this week, but I have pegged a few articles that might be of interest to everyone.

First, congratulations to Michael Fox. His Jottings By An Employer's Lawyer, the granddaddy of employment law blogs, celebrated its 6th anniversary this week. In honor of this milestone, he has graciously published a list of his colleagues around the country who have jumped on the employment law blogging bandwagon since he started.

The Delaware Employment Law Blog takes us to school with a great FMLA hypothetical spun out of Brad and Angelina's twins.

BLR's HR Daily Advisor asks whether employers have a duty to accommodate employees' alcoholism.

Finally, the Connecticut Employment Law Blog calls out the PC police on the term "intellectual disability," and asks what's wrong with good old fashioned "mental retardation." It's a valid question, but with the times, acceptable lingo changes. Just as it's no longer in vogue to refer to black people as "colored," our refined sensibilities have called into question some of the terminology we use to refer to the disabled.

Employee fired for taking time off to undergo in vitro fertilization allowed to proceed with sex discrimination claim

Fertility is a very touchy subject. Most people assume that it is easy for a couple that wants to get pregnant to get pregnant. Unless you experienced a prolonged inability to conceive, and the fertility treatments that go along with it, it's difficult to understand the stress it causes. Part of that stress is caused by the time away from work. Fertility treatments, particularly in vitro fertilization (IVF) are both time consuming and time sensitive.

What happens when a woman undergoing IVF treatments needs time away from work for those treatments? If her company fires her because of her infertility (a gender-neutral condition), does she present a sex discrimination claim? In Hall v. Nalco Co. (7th Cir. 7/16/2008), the Court permitted a woman fired during her IVF treatments to proceed with her Title VII sex discrimination claim.

Hall worked as a sales secretary at Nalco. In March 2003, she requested a leave of absence to undergo IVF, which her supervisor, Mary Baldwin approved. The first IVF cycle failed, and on July 21 she filed for another leave of absence to begin August 18. Around the same time, Baldwin told Hall that their office was merging with another office, and that only the secretary from the other office would be retained. Baldwin told Hall her termination “was in [her] best interest due to [her] health condition.” Prior to informing Hall of her termination, Baldwin discussed the matter with a corporate employee relations manager, whose notes reflect that Hall had “missed a lot of work due to health,” and more specifically, in a section relating to Hall’s job performance, cite “absenteeism—infertility treatments.” Dwyer, the secretary who was retained, was a female employee who, coincidentally, had been incapable of becoming pregnant herself.

Hall alleged she was fired on account of being “a member of a protected class, female with a pregnancy related condition, infertility.” Without reaching the merits of Hall’s claim, the district court granted summary judgment for Nalco on the ground that infertile women are not a protected class under the PDA because infertility is a gender-neutral condition.

The 7th Circuit disagreed and reinstated Hall's claim. The Pregnancy Discrimination Act made clear that discrimination based on a woman’s pregnancy, or childbirth and medical conditions related to pregnancy or childbirth, is, on its face, discrimination because of her sex. The Court believed that the district court's reliance on infertility as a gender-neutral condition was misplaced given the facts of Hall's case.

Employees terminated for taking time off to undergo IVF—just like those terminated for taking time off to give birth or receive other pregnancy-related care—will always be women. This is necessarily so; IVF is one of several assisted reproductive technologies that involves a surgical impregnation procedure.... Thus, contrary to the district court’s conclusion, Hall was terminated not for the gender-neutral condition of infertility, but rather for the gender-specific quality of childbearing capacity.

Moreover, the Court was troubled by the timing of and circumstances surrounding Hall's termination:

Hall was fired shortly after a failed IVF procedure and just before she was scheduled to undergo a second attempt; her boss, Marv Baldwin, told her that the termination was “in [her] best interest due to [her] health condition.” In her notes documenting Hall’s termination, Jacqueline Bonin, Nalco’s employee-relations manager, wrote that Hall "missed a lot of work due to health,” and also noted in a section regarding Hall’s job performance, “absenteeism—infertility treatments.” This evidence is susceptible of both discriminatory and nondiscriminatory explanations; a jury will have to decide.

The lessons to take away from this case are several:

1. The court got it absolutely correct that infertility treatments fall under the PDA as actionable sex discrimination. To me, it does not pass the smell test for the employer to rely on the retention of Dwyer to argue that it does not discriminate on the basis of infertility. Dwyer had not missed work for IVF treatments, and there was a clear factual question as to whether Hall would have been terminated but for her time away from to try to start a family.
2. Sometimes, too much documentation is a bad thing. If you right it down, it will be used against you in a lawsuit. Kudos to the corporate employee relations manager for taking diligent notes, but I'm not sure it was in her company's best interest to fully document that it was terminating Hall because she had “missed a lot of work due to health” because of “absenteeism—infertility treatments.”
3. Family responsibility continues to be a hot issue in the courts, and it is becoming easier and easier for employees to get these types of cases to juries.

Ohioans to Protect Jobs and Fair Benefits vows to fight against Healthy Families Act

Ohioans to Protect Jobs and Fair Benefits, a coalition of businesses, organizations, and others  that oppose the Healthy Families Act, has formally launched its campaign to defeat the November ballot initiative. It calls the sick leave mandate a "job killer" for Ohio, and has just issued the following news release:

Opponents of the union-backed mandated sick leave proposal today announced formation of a campaign committee to defeat the proposal, labeling it “a job-killer” that threatens Ohio’s economy at a time when it is already reeling.

The committee, representing a broad coalition of individual employers, trade associations and businesses organizations, said it intends to educate voters about the devastating effects the proposed state mandate will have on individual employers, their workers and the Ohio economy.

“Few people in Ohio are against sick leave,” said John C. Mahaney, Jr., treasurer of Ohioans to Protect Jobs and Fair Benefits. “But Ohio’s struggling businesses – particularly our small businesses – can’t withstand provisions in this proposal that threaten pay, benefits and jobs.”

“To make things worse, the proposal also severely penalizes employers who already provide sick leave by imposing rules that will make it much more expensive to operate assembly lines and facilities like hospitals and nursing homes,“ Mahaney added.

Mahaney said the mandate will brand Ohio as a “job-killer” in the eyes of businesses nationwide at a time when the state is in desperate need of new jobs.

“This proposal will make Ohio the only state in the union with a mandated paid sick leave law,” he said. “It will significantly drive up the cost of doing business when we can least afford it, and it will kill our job-development efforts.”

The provision that worries employers who currently grant sick leave is one that allows employees to take sick leave without warning in one-hour increments or less. Mahaney said such a provision poses a serious threat to production stability at process-dependent employers like assembly line manufacturers and staffing-critical operations like hospitals, nursing homes and day-care facilities.

“Companies like Honda, Ford, General Motors, Chrysler, Whirlpool and others have long-standing agreements that provide employees with good pay and benefits in exchange for work arrangements that ensure a continued high level of production,” he said. “This proposal directly interferes with long-established employer-employee relationships and the production stability achieved over many years of working together.”

Employers of every size worry that the cost to implement the mandate would require them to make up the difference by taking money from other benefits such as health care, curtailing raises or even cutting jobs, Mahaney said.

Ohioans to Protect Jobs and Fair Benefits promised a vigorous grassroots campaign in all 88 Ohio counties to defeat the proposal in November.

Ohio is suffering through its worst economic period in 20 years. This issue will make us one of the most business-unfriendly states in the country. With our nation's economy at a crossroads, Ohio's working people simply cannot afford our state to be branded a "job-killer."

If you want to get involved in this grassroots campaign, if you want to know how your business or organization can sign up as a supporter of Ohioans to Protect Jobs and Fair Benefits, or if you simply want more information on the dangers that the Healthy Families Act presents to Ohio, please contact me:

Jon Hyman - jth@kjk.com - 216-736-7226

Duty to reasonably accommodate obvious disabilities

Brady v. Wal-Mart Stores (2nd Cir. 7/2/08) asks whether an employer can ignore an employee's obvious disability when making employment decisions about that employee.

Patrick Brady has cerebral palsy, which very obviously manifested itself in his mannerisms. One trial witness testified: "Just by looking at him, you could tell he had a disability."

He applied for a part-time job at his local Walmart in its pharmacy department. He very quickly observed that his boss, Yem Hung Chin, was unhappy with his performance. He testified that "she was kind of short with me. At trial, Chin testified that she thought that Brady was too slow and that he appeared to have difficulty matching customers' names with their prescriptions. She thought Brady's performance was "absolutely awful,"and she "wanted [him] away from [her] prescriptions." Brady testified that he never handed out the wrong prescription, was never unable to find a prescription in the bin, and never required assistance from Chin or any other co-worker to perform his job.

After his first week of work, Walmart transferred Brady to collect shopping carts in the parking lot. After learning that Brady was unhappy with his new position, the store manager transferred him again, this time to stock grocery shelves. Frustrated, Brady quit and sued Walmart for disability discrimination. The jury returned a substantial verdict in his favor.

One of the issues on appeal is whether an employer is obligated to provide a reasonable accommodation when it perceives the employee to be disabled, whether or not the employee has asked for an accommodation. The court held that "an employer has a duty reasonably to accommodate an employee’s disability if the disability is obvious—which is to say, if the employer knew or reasonably should have known that the employee was disabled:

Indeed, a situation in which an employer perceives an employee to be disabled but the employee does not so perceive himself presents an even stronger case for mitigating the requirement that the employee seek accommodation. In such situations, the disability is obviously known to the employer, while the employee, because he does not consider himself to be disabled, is in no position to ask for an accommodation. A requirement that such an employee ask for accommodation would be tantamount to nullifying the statutory mandate of accommodation for one entire class of disabled (as that term is used in the ADA) employees.

Thus, if an employer knows of should know that an employee is disabled, the employer has a duty to engage in an interactive process with that employee to assess whether the disability can be reasonably accommodated.

For employers, the lesson is that one cannot turn a blind eye to an employee's obvious disability. Next week, we'll take a deeper look at the interactive process: what it means, how it is supposed to be carried out, and the risks inherent in ignoring it.

Dads get FMLA leave too

Even though new dads have the same FMLA rights as new moms, technically I'm not on FMLA leave. I'll be in and out of the office over the next several weeks as we get acclimated to our new family member. New parents don't qualify for intermittent leave:

(a) Intermittent leave is FMLA leave taken in separate blocks of time due to a single qualifying reason. A reduced leave schedule is a leave schedule that reduces an employee's usual number of working hours per workweek, or hours per workday. A reduced leave schedule is a change in the employee's schedule for a period of time, normally from full-time to part-time.

(b) When leave is taken after the birth or placement of a child for adoption or foster care, an employee may take leave intermittently or on a reduced leave schedule only if the employer agrees. Such a schedule reduction might occur, for example, where an employee, with the employer's agreement, works part-time after the birth of a child, or takes leave in several segments. The employer's agreement is not required, however, for leave during which the mother has a serious health condition in connection with the birth of her child or if the newborn child has a serious health condition.

Donovan Joseph Hyman was born at 12:42 yesterday, 7 pounds, 6 ounces, and 18.25 inches. And, not that I'm biased, but he's the best looking baby in the nursery.

WIRTW #39

Starting Monday, my posting may become more sporadic than I'd like, as my wife is going into the hospital to have our second child. I'll be taking care of my family responsibilities for a couple of weeks before I return to the office full time. I hope to do my best to keep posting, but it's all dependent on sleep patterns and how cooperative my normally very cooperative two-year-old wants to be. So bear with me, and I'll be back to regular postings later this month.

In the meantime, enjoy this week's best posts from other blogs.

The Delaware Employment Law Blog is taking everyone to HR Summer School by posting a series of "Back-to-Basics" articles on the 3 toughest employment laws - the ADA, the FMLA, and the FLSA. This week's lesson - What Does the ADA Require?

The Connecticut Employment Law Blog touches on a topic that I've covered before, that the presence of absence of fair treatment has a lot to do with whether an employee will sue you. For my thoughts on this issue, take a look at The Golden Rule of Employment Relations.

The Workplace Privacy Counsel lets us know about Sidell v. Structured Settlement Investments, recently filed in Connecticut, which will decide the limits on an employer's access, using its own computer equipment, to an employee's e-mail stored in an employee's personal e-mail account.

Case in point, the ABA Journal brings us the story of Philadelphia television news anchor Larry Mendte, fired for installing key stroke monitoring software on a station computer, which enabled him to access the private email account of his co-anchor, Alycia Lane. Philly.com has tons more on this bizarre story, including Lane's e-mailing of bikini photos of herself to NFL Network anchor Rich Eisen, who is married, her subsequent termination for allegedly assaulting a New York City cop, and the wrongful discharge lawsuit she has filed.

Electronic Discovery Navigator predicts that the added mobile technology made necessary by telecommuting will present an electronic discovery nightmare.

The Workplace Prof Blog lists 5 lifestyle choices that could cost an employee his or her job.

A lesson in union avoidance

No company does more to avoid unions than Walmart. Case in point - Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (NLRB 6/20/08). In the summer of 2000, Walmart's Kingman, Arizona, Tire and Lube Express (TLE) employees contacted United Food and Commercial Workers. The Union filed a representation petition on August 28. Two days later, a labor relations team from Walmart's corporate headquarters arrived at the store. During the organizing campaign, members of that labor relations team did such things as: threaten to postpone any merit pay increases for the TLE employees during any contract negotiations; engage in surveillance of employees' union activities; grant benefits and improved working conditions to discourage employees from supporting the Union; discriminatorily and disparately apply and enforce its no-harassment policies to the detriment of employees who supported the Union; and discharge and deny COBRA coverage to employees for supporting the Union.

It is not much of a surprise that the NLRB found that Walmart engaged in unfair labor practices. The point, however, is not whether Walmart violated the NLRA, but in how Walmart handled the litigation. The organizing campaign started in August 2000. The NLRB issued its final decision and remedial order nearly 8 years later. And that timeline does not include any appeals to federal court, which will add at least another 12 - 18 months. Does anyone doubt for a second that Walmart's strategy is to drag this process out as long as possible, making it as costly, difficult, and time consuming for the union and its members? Does anyone want to wage a bet on how long it will take Walmart to actually sit down and bargain with this union? By the time Walmart has exhausted all of its appeals on every claim the Union could possibly bring, will any of the original LTE employees be left at the store? If not, how can the Union say a majority of the bargaining unit even wants a union? The de-certification petition will surely follow.

The lesson from this case is that a successful organizing campaign is not necessarily the end game for a unionized workforce. The laws might be tilted towards the unions, but for companies that have the resources and the patience, the process can be used to their advantage to ultimately break the union.