My partner Gary Starr returns with this pre-Thanksgiving tale that seems appropriate not for the holiday, but for the headlines of late. 

Happy Thanksgiving and stay out of trouble.

Another day, another celebrity figure accused of harassment.

Or worse.

Many of the accounts reveal the abuse of power and the lack of respect shown to women.  A recent case adds another aspect to the ways in which harassment or discrimination against women may occur.  While the case is out of New York, the scenario is one that has applicability in states like Connecticut.

The basic facts:

  • A chiropractor hired an attractive yoga and message therapist to his office staff.
  • While he oversaw the medical aspects of the business, his wife served as the chief operating officer.
  • During the therapist’s six months of employment, she described her relationship with the doctor as professional.
  • His wife, however, was disturbed by her presence.
  • Within 3 months, the chiropractor commented to the therapist that she might be “too cute” and his wife may become jealous.
  • Three months later, the wife texted the therapist that she was no longer welcome at the office and she “should stay the [expletive] away from my husband.”
  • Later that day, the chiropractor fired the therapist.

So what happened next?

Perhaps not surprisingly, the therapist filed a gender discrimination claim under New York law.

She said her firing was motivated by sexual attraction and as such was unlawful gender discrimination.

She did not claim that she was actually harassed, but argued that it could be inferred that the discharge resulted from the chiropractor’s desire to appease his jealous wife and therefore the motivation was sexual in nature.

The discharge allegedly occurred for reasons of jealousy, not because the employee had a consensual affair with her boss.

This case was not based on the employee’s conduct, but because the therapist was sexually distracting to the doctor and disturbing to his wife.

While this case originally was dismissed, the appellate division of the New York Supreme Court decided to allow the therapist to pursue her claim.

The court explained that what potentially made the discharge unlawful was not that the wife had urged the firing, but the reason she urged her husband to do it and his compliance.

The therapist had not done anything inappropriate and had allegedly performed her work satisfactorily.  She now has an opportunity to overcome her status an at-will employee to prove that the motivation of the chiropractor and his wife was sexual in nature.

The court made clear that a spouse can urge a husband to fire an employee, but what makes it unlawful is the basis for the firing.  In this case, there are allegations of a gender-based motivation, which was sexual in nature.

What the court ruling suggests is that attractiveness can be a protected condition … if the person is singled out because of his/her appearance. It’s not always going to be the case, but at least here, the allegations are enough to let the case proceed.

The motivation to fire someone due to his/her appearance can be viewed as sexual in nature and therefore discriminatory.  In light of the headlines on sexual harassment, this decision adds a new dimension and another source of problems at work.

You can download the case here.

Employment law lawyers are asked to review a lot of employment decisions.

If we’re lucky, we’re brought in early in the process when the decision isn’t yet final and where our input can be useful.

Other times though, we’re asked to opine on decisions after the fact.

And truth is, it’s really pretty easy to Monday morning quarterback employment decisions.  Because there is sometimes something that wasn’t thought of before the decision was made.

Often, it may not be important. The employer would have still made the same decision if something else was looked it.

Had you known that there was a law protecting free speech in the workplace, would you still have disciplined the employee for putting up a post on Facebook about his working conditions?

Many employers can’t afford an in-house attorney to bounce their decisions off.

So, for those companies, here are five questions to get you thinking BEFORE you make an employment decision.

(Usual caveat: This isn’t advice, isn’t intended to be comprehensive, and isn’t a substitute for actual legal counsel.)

  1. Is the decision fair? If you can’t answer this question honestly, start over. You’re doing it wrong. Fairness matters to judges, juries, and other employees.
  2. Is the employee going to be surprised by the decision? Good management principles dictate that employees should know what is going on. If you’re terminating an employee for poor performance, did the employee know his or her performance was in jeopardy?
  3. Is the decision well documented? Is there backup to support the decision and is the rationale clear from them? And is the decision being properly communicated to the employee too?
  4. Are there any laws that are implicated by the decision?  This is one area that is tough to fake.  You probably know you can’t fire someone because of their age, but what if you are trying to save money; can you fire the highest paid employee who also happens to be the oldest?
  5. Is there anything else going on that should be taken into consideration? For example, did the employee just return from maternity leave? Has the employee been asking for an accommodation?

These five questions won’t solve all your employment law issues.

But it should give you a head start on figuring out what other questions you should be asking and whether the decision you are about to make is one that you’ll be happy with down the road.

Recently, I had the opportunity to see Rags, a new revival now running at the classic Goodspeed Opera House.

I don’t often do theater reviews on this site, but I give it a thumbs up.

The musical tells the story of Jewish immigrants coming to the Lower East Side just after the turn of the century.

They experience outright discrimination and difficult working conditions.

So much so, that they end up even participating in a labor strike asking for better working conditions.

Of course, as an employment lawyer, I’m always looking for a good story to relate.

The musical obviously has undertones of today’s political environment, where refugees are facing barriers to entry from certain countries.

Workplace laws actually limit what employers should be asking in the interview process about immigration status.  And even when a Form I-9 is being process, an employer cannot reject valid documents or insist on additional documentation too.

And it can’t target certain people either.

The EEOC recaps it here:

For example, an employer cannot require only those who the employer perceives as “foreign” to produce specific documents, such as Permanent Resident (“green”) cards or Employment Authorization Documents. Employees are allowed to choose which documents to show for employment eligibility verification from the Form I-9 Lists of Acceptable Documents. Employers should accept any unexpired document from the Lists of Acceptable Documents so long as the document appears reasonably genuine on its face and relates to the employee.

Federal law also prohibits employers from conducting the Form I-9 and E-Verify processes before the employee has accepted an offer of employment.

According to the EEOC, “applicants may be informed of these requirements in the pre-employment setting by adding the following statement on the employment application”:

In compliance with federal law, all persons hired will be required to verify identity and eligibility to work in the United States and to complete the required employment eligibility verification form upon hire.”

I’ve always been a fan of learning from history. With a musical like Rags, you can get many employment law lessons in one.

Probably not the endorsement you will see from other theater critics, but you work with what you have.

Yesterday, I had the opportunity to speak to the IASA Northeastern Conference on a favorite topic of mine of late — Privacy and Data Breaches in the workplace.

Of course, that sounds kinda of boring.

So my presentation is actually called the title of this post: “The Rise of Smartphone Fueled, Social Media Addicted Workplace Zombies.”

Much catchier right?

Speaking before the Insurance Accounting & Systems Association (IASA) Northeastern Chapter at their 54th Annual Regional Conference was great fun though.

In my talk, I highlighted items like Business E-mail Compromise scams, Ransomware, and yes, even workplace zombies.

What do I mean by that? Well, too many of us (including me at times) stare at our phones and sometimes respond to e-mails or click without thinking.  (Think Before You Click would make the name of a good book; fortunately, I wrote a chapter in that very book a while back.)

Protecting workplace data IS about thinking. It’s about protecting personnel files, or benefit information, or retirement plan data.  It’s about protecting trade secrets or just plain confidential information.

It’s about building a CULTURE of data privacy. Where employees buy in that protecting data is a core value and where employees are REWARDED for good data practices while enforcement (with a bit of punishment where needed) is encouraged by all.

It’s not the most exciting topic to be sure but everyone wants to be protected from the zombies, right?

I gave a similar talk early this summer as keynote lunch speaker for the ADNET Worksmart conference and it worked so well, word got around.  Maybe data privacy can be interesting after all.

My thanks to IASA for the invitation and opportunity to speak to the group yesterday.

The supervisor did it.

Yep, you’ve concluded that he sent unwanted texts to his subordinate telling her she looked “beautiful.”  Maybe even stopped by her hotel room unannounced one night at a conference for a “nightcap”.

While the subordinate’s career does not appear to have been harmed in the legal sense (i.e. there’s no “tangible employment action”), you’ve concluded that there was something “inappropriate” that happened.

(And let’s state the obvious: harm can exist even outside the “tangible employment action” context — that’s an issue for another post.)

So, back the the issue of the day — something “inappropriate” happened; maybe even something that meets the legal definition of “sexual harassment”.

What then?

Firing? Perhaps.

But what if you conclude that a lesser type of sanction is warranted?  Can you do that? If so, what’s the standard?

In cases where there has been no tangible employment action taken, the EEOC has actually set forth in its guidance a whole discussion that says that firing is but one possibility.  What’s important is that the remedial measures should be designed to:

  • Stop the harassment;
  • Correct its effect on the employee; and,
  • Ensure that the harassment does not recur.

The EEOC’s guidance notes that these remedial measures “need not be those that the employee requests or prefers, as long as they are effective.”

Moreover, “in determining disciplinary measures, management should keep in mind that the employer could be found liable if the harassment does not stop. At the same time, management may have concerns that overly punitive measures may subject the employer to claims such as wrongful discharge, and may simply be inappropriate.”

The EEOC suggests that the employer balance the competing concerns and that disciplinary measures should be proportional to the seriousness of the offense.

What does that mean?

If the harassment was minor, the EEOC suggests, such as a small number of “off-color” remarks by an individual with no prior history of similar misconduct, then counseling and an oral warning might be all that is necessary.

On the other hand, if the harassment was severe or persistent, then suspension or discharge may be appropriate.

And importantly, remedial measures also should correct the effects of the harassment. In the EEOC’s words, “such measures should be designed to put the employee in the position s/he would have been in had the misconduct not occurred.”

The EEOC provides various examples of measures to stop the harassment and ensure that it does not recur.  These include:

  • oral or written warning or reprimand;
  • transfer or reassignment;
  • demotion;
  • reduction of wages;
  • suspension;
  • discharge;
  • training or counseling of harasser to ensure that s/he understands why his or her conduct violated the employer’s anti-harassment policy; and
  • monitoring of harasser to ensure that harassment stops.

As for examples of measures to correct the effects of the harassment, these include:

  • restoration of leave taken because of the harassment;
  • expungement of negative evaluation(s) in employee’s personnel file that arose from the harassment;
  • reinstatement;
  • apology by the harasser;
  • monitoring treatment of employee to ensure that s/he is not subjected to retaliation by the harasser or others in the work place because of the complaint; and,
  • correction of any other harm caused by the harassment (e.g., compensation for losses).

How does this apply in the real world?

Jon Hyman of the Ohio Employer’s Law Blog, highlighted a case several years back where the employer didn’t terminate the offending supervisor on the first go around, but rather gave them a last chance.

Unfortunately, the employer didn’t follow through when the supervisor STILL engaged in harassment.  The case, Engel v. Rapid City School District, is worth a read to show how an employer’s reasonableness the first go around, can be used against it when it doesn’t follow through.

The EEOC’s guidance is a helpful guide to employers in navigating these issues.  The employer should look to the particular circumstances of any matter and determine what punishment is appropriate in that particular matter.

Perhaps it will conclude that firing is appropriate.

But if it concludes, based on an analysis of the entirety of the situation, that something less than that is appropriate too, the EEOC’s guidance can be a useful guidepost for that determination.

With a new wave of sex harassment complaints making headlines, there is also a bit of reflection that should happen at workplaces and the lawfirms that counsel them.

One area that we can evaluate is whether the training that is provided is effective.

A report yesterday from NPR concluded that training is just not working at many workplaces. 

The primary reason most harassment training fails is that both managers and workers regard it as a pro forma exercise aimed at limiting the employer’s legal liability.

For those of us who have been paying attention, this isn’t new.  I know that for the trainings I give, I try to have them be engaging with discussions of different fact scenarios being discussed.

But I’ve wondered whether we could be doing more.

Indeed, the EEOC issued a report last year highlighting the problems with existing training programs.

In its executive summary, it noted two big issues with the current model of training:

  • Training Must Change. Much of the training done over the last 30 years has not worked as a prevention tool – it’s been too focused on simply avoiding legal liability. We believe effective training can reduce workplace harassment, and recognize that ineffective training can be unhelpful or even counterproductive. However, even effective training cannot occur in a vacuum – it must be part of a holistic culture of non-harassment that starts at the top. Similarly, one size does not fit all: Training is most effective when tailored to the specific workforce and workplace, and to different cohorts of employees. Finally, when trained correctly, middle-managers and first-line supervisors in particular can be an employer’s most valuable resource in preventing and stopping harassment.
  • New and Different Approaches to Training Should Be Explored. We heard of several new models of training that may show promise for harassment training. “Bystander intervention training” – increasingly used to combat sexual violence on school campuses – empowers co-workers and gives them the tools to intervene when they witness harassing behavior, and may show promise for harassment prevention. Workplace “civility training” that does not focus on eliminating unwelcome or offensive behavior based on characteristics protected under employment non-discrimination laws, but rather on promoting respect and civility in the workplace generally, likewise may offer solutions.”

Connecticut requires harassment training; I’ve talked about the requirements in some prior posts (check this one out from 2010, for example.)  But employers who have just gone through the motions, aren’t doing enough as we’ve now seen.

As we continue to work to eliminate sexual harassment in the workplace, having an effective policy is only part of the solution.

Making sure the training we provide to employees is helpful is obviously a part as well — and something that may have been overlooked in the past.

But finding that perfect solution to training still seems elusive.

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.

 

Did you ever have an employee post a status update from his termination meeting with HR?

I wrote about it a few years ago.  It seemed shocking then, and if anything, we’ve only seemed to be shocked more and more as each new tweet or blog post gets distributed with some outrageous behavior from an employee (or sometimes an employer!).

It used to be that companies would have weeks, if not days, to respond to publicity.  Now, it’s hours or even minutes.

Companies want to preserve their culture and reputation — and their corresponding products and services — more than ever. One misstep can get the online outrage machine going.  heck, even McDonalds’ got into a online snafu when it released (and then promptly sold out of) a unique retro szechuan sauce.

This Thursday, my colleague Jarad Lucan and I will be talking about these issues at our annual Labor & Employment Fall Seminar.  It’s nearly sold out, but you can still see about registering here.

The program session is entitled: Culture Shock: Preserving and Protecting Your Company’s Culture and Reputation in the Digital Age.

And the description is as follows:

In today’s social-media-obsessed digital age, your company and its culture may be put on display for the world to see in mere moments. Whether it’s a Google engineer’s memo claiming gender differences, the sexual harassment scandals at Fox News or the Weinstein Companies, social media rants by employees, or employees participating in hate riots, it has never been more incumbent upon employers to address these issues immediately and appropriately. This session will review state and federal laws and provide employers with steps they can take to create and foster positive company culture and mitigate legal risks.

Of course, it goes without saying that some cultures that have been exposed to the harsh light of social media deserve to be discarded.  Over 20 employees were dismissed at Uber following a detailed sexual harassment investigation into some 215 claims.

Come join us this Thursday and hear about other stories of employees (and employers) behaving badly online and elsewhere.

 

Late yesterday, various press reports signaled what could be the beginning of the end for 2011 Department of Labor guidance that had greatly expanded legal claims against restaurants.

The 2011 rule barred businesses (mainly restaurants) from including nontipped workers in their tip pools.  That practice – if done involuntarily – then entitles the servers or waitstaff who have contributed those tips to the tip pool to minimum wage for their hours (not the tip-credit minimum wage.)

As of this morning, the DOL had not released its’ rule publicly, but according to a Law 360 report the description “suggests it would roll back the DOL’s 2011 rule amending its interpretation of the Fair Labor Standards Act to blog businesses from giving a portion of service employees’ tips to traditionally nontipped workers, such as kitchen staff.”

The attack on this 2011 guidance is also making its way through the courts.  The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to decide soon whether to review a case out of the Ninth Circuit that upheld the tip pooling rule.

The timing of the DOL’s expected rollback is unclear, but it could have a significant impact on many cases pending in the court systems or being threatened now.  At the current rate, a change could be expected in the first quarter of 2018.

For restaurants and other employers such as hotels that have tipped employees, this change ought to be closely followed.  Until we see the scope of the proposed rule change, it is unclear what the full impact on existing cases will be but given past practices on situations like this, but it might just evaporate a whole host of lawsuits that have popped up.

Stay tuned.

A while back, I had a good discussion with a colleague on a topic with no real firm answers.

No, it wasn’t on whether the Yankees are better franchise than the Red Sox.  The answer to that is unequivocally yes.  (Sorry, Sox fans.)

Rather: When is a employee-related issue a legal one? Or alternatively, when can human resources handle the issue on it’s own?

What comes to mind at first is the old Justice Potter Stewart quote of, “I know it when I see it” but that seems unsatisfying.

For some smaller employers, the answer may lean more heavily towards “legal” in part because there may not be an in-house human resources professional to call on.

But on the flip side, there are some other employers that might rely heavily (perhaps overly so) on their HR contacts to handle matters, trying to avoid unnecessary legal expenses.

What I’ve concluded is what I’ve started with — there are no real answers to the question.

But I can outline a few (non-exclusive) times when a lawyer should probably get involved.

  1. You get a letter from a lawyer threatening legal action on behalf of an employee or, in the case of a non-compete, from a former employer.  Pretty self-evident; lawyer = legal issue.  I’m going to not even dwell on the obvious: an actual lawsuit being filed means an attorney ought to be contacted.
  2. You get a notice from a state or federal agency investigating wage/hour laws, anti-discrimination laws, workplace safety issues, or labor union-related issued. Anything from the DOL, CHRO, EEOC, OSHA, or NLRB (to name a few) has the potential to be a big deal. Things you say there can be used against you too.  The earlier the better.
    1. But unemployment compensation claims may not always rise to that level.  Some employers handle unemployment claims and appeals internally.  For those situations, it depends on the complexity of the situation.
  3. You have to conduct an investigation into a workplace issue, such as sexual harassment, AND you may want that investigation to be privileged and confidential.  Again, HR may be able to conduct a whole host of minor investigations but there are going to be some that involve sensitive issues, or perhaps raise company-wide concerns. Bring counsel involved and let them help to manage the investigation.
  4. You have a complex issue that doesn’t have a clear legal answer.  It’s pretty well-settled now that employers need to engage in interactive discussions with an employee regarding reasonable accommodations that they may need.  Qualified HR can handle those discussions.  But suppose the employee is injured on job, is out on workers’ compensation, has exhausted FMLA time and needs additional time off — what then?

But I’m interested hearing from other lawyers or human resources personnel. When is an issue a legal one and when is HR perfectly capable of addressing it? Leave your best tips in the comments below.