My colleague, Gary Starr, returns this morning with a post on a recent case that has implications for employers nationwide.

You wouldn’t think that fingerprinting would be brought into the world of religious accommodations.

After all, the importance of background checks cannot be denied, particularly when the prospective employee is going to work with children or the elderly.

Vulnerable populations need assurance that those with whom they will be dealing have their best interests at heart.

Background checks, however, can raise strange issues for employers when the person asked to authorize a background check indicates that he/she has a religious objection to fingerprinting.

In a recent federal case (download here), a bus driver, who was required to submit to a background check to retain her position, refused to undergo a fingerprint background check.

She explained that it was her sincere religious belief that fingerprinting is the “mark of the devil” and that fingerprinting would bar her entry into heaven.

She asked for an accommodation.

The employer checked with state and federal authorities responsible for doing the background checks, including the FBI, the State Department of Education, and the School District for whom she drove.

They were unable to provide guidance on what alternatives there were under the state law.  As a result, the bus company, faced with a criminal charge and fine if the driver were not tested, terminated the driver.

The fired employee then sued.

The bus company sought to have the case dismissed without having to go through discovery or a trial, but the court rejected this effort.

The court found that the bus driver sufficiently described her sincere religious belief about being barred from Heaven if she were fingerprinted and that an accommodation should have been made, as there was an insufficient basis to establish that the employer would suffer an undue hardship, at least at the initial phase of the litigation.

Further, the court said the employer’s assertion that it lacked the power to grant an exception to the fingerprinting requirements required greater exploration during discovery.

The bus company now must go through discovery before it has another opportunity to have the case thrown out short of a trial.

Connecticut employers face the same potential problem, because Connecticut law does not provide an alternative to fingerprinting.

Recognizing that potential issue, it will be important to look for ways to accommodate applicants and employees who raise religious objections.

Certainly, there are persons who cannot be fingerprinted or whose fingerprints cannot be read.  Employers should seek out accommodations and carefully document the steps they take to explore alternative testing techniques.

They must be able to show that the steps to find an accommodation were reasonable and if an accommodation were not possible, why the situation would create an undue burden.

It would be far better to take the time before firing or rejecting an applicant to explore what is possible than to defend a lawsuit.

For more on Kaite v. Altoona Student Transportation, Inc., click here.

 

An applicant for a job posting in education lists his most recent relevant experience as occurring in 1973.  You don’t bring him in for an interview.

Is it gender discrimination?

Beyond that, if he says that he is the most qualified candidate — do you have to hire him?

And if you don’t hire the most qualified person, is that evidence of gender discrimination?

No to all three, says one recent federal court decision.

The decision by the court was quietly released late last month and might otherwise go unnoticed, but it underscores an important point for employers.

In the matter, the Plaintiff argued that the employer discriminated against him because of his gender by denying him the opportunity for a job interview.   The employer chose four female and two male candidates for interviews.

The Plaintiff argued that he was more qualified than the female candidates who were interviewed and ultimately hired by the employer.

The court said, however, that the mere fact that the employer hired people of a different gender does not suggest that it failed to hire the Plaintiff “on account of his gender”.

Indeed, the employer had various reasons as to why the Plaintiff was not interviewed:

  • he hadn’t filled out the entire job application and didn’t answer whether he had any criminal offenses in the last ten years.
  • his resume was “perceived to be outdated, as the most recent job listing in education was from 1973.”

So, you might not think much of the case.

But the court’s decision is notable because it contains language that will be helpful in other cases for employers.  Says the court: “[T]here is no legal requirement that the most qualified candidate be hired.”

In doing so, the quote revisits a quote from an 1980 decision.

Title VII does not require that the candidate whom a court considers most qualified for a particular position be awarded that position; it requires only that the decision among candidates not be discriminatory. When a decision to hire, promote, or grant tenure to one person rather than another is reasonably attributable to an honest even though partially subjective evaluation of their qualifications, no inference of discrimination can be drawn. Indeed, to infer discrimination from a comparison among candidates is to risk a serious infringement of first amendment values. A university’s prerogative to determine for itself on academic grounds who may teach is an important part of our long tradition of academic freedom.

All that being said, employers should have SOME rational basis for their decisions. Even if the candidate is “more qualified”, the employer may determine that there are other reasons why the employee should not be hired; maybe the employee’s qualifications cannot overcome a bad job interview, etc.

Keeping bias out of your decision-making process is central to employers.  But it’s nice to know that employers don’t have to be perfect in its determinations of qualifications either.

Shorter is better.

Why? The slang TL;DR comes to mind.

But it turns out there’s an educational component too — at least according to the results of a new study that examined workplace contracts.

In the study, published in the Journal of Personality & Social Psychology and recapped by Insights by Stanford Business School, “the researchers found that workers whose contracts contained more general language spent more time on their tasks, generated more original ideas, and were more likely to cooperate with others. They were also more likely to return for future work with the same employer, underscoring the durable and long-lasting nature of the effect.”

In other words, contracts that contained pages upon pages of specific do’s and don’t for workers, ended up harming the employment relationship.

Instead, researchers found that “the more general contracts increased people’s sense of autonomy over their work.”

This isn’t the first time I’ve talked about the need to write employment contracts in plain English — something that is at the core of a book by Ken Adams whose work has appeared on this blog before.

It turns out that even “minimal changes”, in the words of one of the study’s authors, can have “important consequences.  Especially when it comes to behaviors that are notoriously difficult to include in contracts, such as increasing effort, task persistence, and instilling a stronger sense of autonomy, which leads to higher levels of intrinsic motivation. Reducing the specificity of contractual language can also increase creativity and cooperation.”

From a legal perspective, I’ll blame some lawyers for introducing some language in a contract that can be overkill at times.

(Don’t think lawyers are at least partly to blame for long contracts? Next time you see a “This space is intentionally blank” line in a contract, rest assured that it probably came from a lawyer.)

A few years ago, our practice group went through a standard separation agreement template to remove the “Whereas” clauses and the “Definitions”  — all in an attempt to simplify the agreement. The process took months.  Simplification does not necessarily mean increasing risk. It just takes more time.

Just ask Mark Twain (actually don’t — it’s a misattributed quote.)

Of course, you probably don’t need me to tell you that shorter is better. I just read the abstract and not the entire article.

After all: TL;DR.