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).

EEOC offers sage advice on following checklists for harassment compliance

Last June, the EEOC issued a comprehensive, bi-partisan report on harassment in the workplace. The report’s stated purpose was to “reboot workplace harassment prevention efforts” by focusing on efforts employers can take “in designing effective anti-harassment policies; developing training curricula; implementing complaint, reporting, and investigation procedures; creating an organizational culture in which harassment is not tolerated; ensuring employees are held accountable; and assessing and responding to workplace “risk factors” for harassment.”

One such tool the EEOC provided was a series of four checklist for employers to use to create an effective harassment prevention program.

• Leadership and accountability.
• Anti-harassment policies.
• Harassment reporting systems and investigations.
• Compliance training.

Swapping DNA for lower insurance costs is one wellness step too far

It is no secret that health care costs for employers and their employees are out of control. Many employers have attempted to hold down these rising costs by offering wellness-program incentives. The EEOC has signed off on these programs as legal as long as employee participation remains voluntary, which the agency defines as financial incentives for employee participation at or below 30 percent of the cost of coverage. Thus, employees have a choice—participate in the wellness program, or pay a surcharge of up to 30 percent.

One area that has remained off limits for employers under these wellness programs, however, has been genetic testing and other personal and family medical histories. A new bill moving through the House of Representatives, however, aims to change that.

WIRTW #453 (the “Oxford comma” edition)

Who knew that the l’il ol’ Oxford comma was so controversial? I would have never dreamed that yesterday’s post on the importance of its omission in a wage/statute would generate so much feedback, or that people feel so passionately about its use or non-use. In fact, it was my most shared and talked about post since my takedown of Trump’s first immigration ban.

To gauge exactly how you feel about the Oxford comma, I’ve designed a quick, one-question survey. Take a moment, and click “yes” or “no” on whether one should use the Oxford comma when writing.

Create your own user feedback survey
I’ll publish the results in the coming weeks.

Here’s what I read this week:

For want of an Oxford comma

Vampire Weekend once asked, “Who gives a f__k about an Oxford comma?” The answer, apparently, is the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, a whole lot.

In O’Connor v. Oakhurt Dairy [pdf], that court reversed the dismissal of an overtime lawsuit based on the absence of a Oxford comma in a list of activities that qualify for a certain exemption under Maine’s wage-and-hour law.

The 11th Circuit’s odd LGBT-discrimination decision

Late last week, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, in Evans v. Georgia Regional Hosp. [pdf], held that Title VII does not protect sexual-orientation discrimination per se, and that to sufficiently plead such a cause of action under Title VII, one must allege facts sufficient to establish that the employer discriminated based on non-conformity with sex-based stereotypes. 

As such, this decision directly conflicts with the formal position of the EEOC (a priority that EEOC Commissioner Chai Feldblum announced will not change under President Trump), and expected decision by the 2nd and 7th Circuits.