Your employees do not understand their (lack of) free speech rights

Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech….

So reads the 1st Amendment of the Constitution.

Take note that it does not say, “You have absolute freedom of speech in all things at all times.” It only prohibits government-imposed restrictions on speech.

Yet, just last week, President Trump tweeted the following:

I am continuing to monitor the censorship of AMERICAN CITIZENS on social media platforms. This is the United States of America — and we have what’s known as FREEDOM OF SPEECH! We are monitoring and watching, closely!!

I promise you that if the President of the United States does not understand how the 1st Amendment works, your employees don’t understand it either.

The three things you need to know from the EEOC's 2018 charge data

Yesterday, the EEOC released its charge statistics for 2018. There are three big things you need to know.

Does Title VII protect an employee's self-help discovery?

Suppose one of your employees believes that she was discriminated against because of her protected class. She files a charge of discrimination with the EEOC, and, in support of the charge, provides the agency information from your confidential personnel files that she had copied. In response, you fire the employee for violating your confidentiality policy? She then files a new charge, alleging that her termination was in retaliation for her protected activity of gathering evidence in support of her discrimination claim.

Does her retaliation claim succeed?

Timing of retaliation is key factor in reinstatement of employee's lawsuit

"See something, say something" is one of the most important elements of any workplace intent on stopping harassment. Employers are supposed to empower employees to report any harassment they witness, whether or not they are the target. Key to this idea is ensuring that employees who report harassment do not suffer retaliation as result. Retaliation of any kind will chill efforts of employees to say what they see.

With this background in mind, consider Donley v. Stryker Sales Corp. (7th Cir. 10/15/18) [pdf].

Temporary employees have permanent legal rights

Temporary employees do not leave their legal rights at your door. In fact, they enjoy the same rights as your permanent employees.

Consider, for example, EEOC v. Massimo Zanetti Beverage USA, in which an employer recently agreed to pay $65,000 to settle claims brought by a temporary employee that she was subjected to a sexually hostile work environment and fired after repeatedly complaining about it.

The allegations are not pretty.

LaToya Young began working as a temp at Massimo Zanetti in late January 2015. Within 10 days of starting her placement, a male co-worker began making sexually harassing comments to her:

• Telling Young that he had "blue balls" and asking her "Why don’t you help me out with that?"
• Telling Young that he wanted to "suck [her] bottom lip."
• Telling Young that he wanted to have sex with her, often using lewd language.
• Telling Young that he imagined himself engaging in sexual relations with her.
• Telling Young that he would "ball [her] up like a pretzel" and would "have [her] screaming."
• Grabbing his groin area while looking directly at her.
• Blowing kisses at her.
• Licking his lips and biting his bottom lip while looking at her.

Young complained three times to her supervisor. The harassment continued unabated after the first complaint. After the second complaint, Young alleges that her supervisor warned her that going to HR "would jeopardize her employment." After the third complaint, she was fired. 

According to EEOC Regional Attorney Kara Haden, "Employers must take appropriate action to stop harassment of all employees, including temporary workers." She adds, "We hope that this case sends a clear message that the EEOC will hold accountable employers who fail to protect all employees from workplace harassment."

Take heed of this lesson. Your temporary employees have the same civil rights as your permanent employees.

* Photo by Sunyu on Unsplash

Nearly half of American workers admit to engaging in workplace revenge

Photo by Avalon_Mists on Pixabay

And every time I scratch my nails
Down someone else’s back I hope you feel it

Alanis Morisette 

Revenge. So natural, and yet so wrong. “Turn the other cheek” is always the preferred practice, and, yet, often life is more “smack you in the cheek” as you turn away.

Even at work.

According to a recent study, 44 percent of workers admit to partaking in some type of workplace revenge.

NLRB dismisses James Damore charge against Google—complaints about too much diversity are not protected

It is lawful for an employer to fire an employee who complains that his workplace is too diverse? 

According to the NLRB, the answer, at least under federal labor law, is yes, the termination is legal.

Is employee copying of documents protected activity or unlawful stealing?

It’s a situation that plays out all too often. An employee emails a slew of documents to a personal email address, or drags them into a personal Dropbox, or copies them to a stick drive.

Your first instinct is to assume that the employee is engaged in something nefarious, fire the employee, and even sue for misappropriation of trade secrets/confidential information.

But might there be something else going on? What if, instead of competing against you, the employee is preparing to go to battle against you in a discrimination lawsuit?

Does an employee have a right to copy your documents to prepare a discrimination lawsuit?

Timing is everything when defending a retaliation claim

Miriam Valle worked as a ticket agent for Frank Martz Coach Company, until it fired her on January 27, 2016.

Two weeks prior, she had advised her immediate supervisor, Edward Steltz, that she needed to apply for FMLA leave for breast cancer surgery. Martz approved the leave to begin on January 19, and was scheduled to return to work on January 25 following her surgery. Complications pushed that return dated back by four days. Before she could return, however, Martz fired her following an investigation into complaints by co-workers that she had made violent threats (allegations which Valle denied).

In Valle v. Frank Martz Coach Company (M.D. Pa. 11/16/17), the court denied the employer’s motion for summary judgment and held Valle’s FMLA retaliation claim for trial.

Letter to employees during EEOC investigation may violate discrimination laws

Suppose an employee files an EEOC charge of discrimination against you. And, further suppose that during the investigation, you receive a request from the agency for the name and contact information for all similarly situated employees. You correctly assume at the EEOC may use the information to contact your employees for investigatory interviews.

Do you—

1. Allow the EEOC process to proceed; or
2. Inform your employees of the nature of the charge, the EEOC investigation, that the EEOC may contact them, and that their participation would be 100 percent voluntary?

If you choose option “2”, you may have violated federal discrimination laws, at least according to a Connecticut federal judge.

The 16th nominee for the “worst employer of 2017” is … the rapid retaliator

The EEOC has sued an Atlanta cemetery company for firing an employee the day after the agency interviewed her as part of an on-going investigation.

More on why holding lawyers liable for retaliation to a client's employee is the worst idea

Yesterday’s post discussing Arias v. Raimondo as the worst employment-law decision of 2017 was way more controversial than I imagined. To me, it’s a no-brainer. It’s dangerous for courts to hold an employer’s lawyer liable for retaliation against the employees of the lawyer’s client. It will chill an attorney’s ability to give proper advice to one’s client, because anything that remotely could result in an employee suffering an adverse action could, under the logic of Arias, give rise to a retaliation claim. Then the comments rolled in:

Is this the worst employment law decision of 2017?

I’ll be vacationing in California with my family the first two week of July. After reading the 9th Circuit’s decision in Arias v. Raimondo—holding an employer’s attorney for liable for FLSA retaliation against his client’s employee because the employee sued his client for unpaid overtime—I’m thinking of adding the 9th Circuit to my list of tourist stops in San Francisco to see if courthouse resembles a Salvador Dali painting. Because this decision is flat out bonkers.

6th Circuit says you can’t spell “cat’s paw” without F-M-L-A

It’s been six year since the Supreme Court decided, in Staub v. Proctor Hosp., which validated the “cat’s paw” as a valid theory of liability in discrimination cases. The “cat’s paw” seeks to hold an employer liable for the discriminatory animus of an employee who played no role in the decision, but nevertheless exerted some degree of influence over the ultimate decision maker.

An open issue in Staub‘s wake is whether other employment laws also apply the cat’s paw. For example, what about the FMLA? In Marshall v. The Rawlings Co. (4/20/17), the 6th Circuit concluded that the cat’s paw does apply in FMLA retaliation cases.

Wait, an employer can’t fire an employee on FMLA leave caught on Facebook on vacation?

Actual firing Facebook photo

Suppose you have an employee who takes FMLA leave for rotator-cuff surgery. Let’s say during said FMLA leave, you discover that the employee is vacationing on a Caribbean island. And, further suppose that you discover this employee’s island vacay via his own public Facebook posts, which included photos of him on the beach, posing by a boat wreck, and in the ocean. Or, more accurately the employee’s co-workers saw the photos and ratted him out to management.

So, what do you do?

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.

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.

The 2nd nominee for the “worst employer of 2017” is … the recorded retaliator

Our next nominee for the Worst Employer of 2017 comes from my very own backyard—Cleveland Hopkins International Airport.

Here in Northeast Ohio  take our snow removal very seriously, especially (we hope) at the airport, where an icy or snow-covered runway could cause disaster. In 2015, airfield manager Abdul Malik-Al complained to his bosses about his belief that the airport did not sufficiently support its winter-weather crews. Those comments led to the FAA levying a $200,000 fine against the airport.

OSHA suggests employer best practices for anti-retaliation programs

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has published recommended best practices to protect from retaliation employees who report workplace safety or other concerns under any of the 22 statutes OSHA enforces.

The document, entitled, Recommended Practices for Anti-Retaliation Programs [pdf], outlines five key elements of an effective anti-retaliation program:

When a self-fondling supervisor earns the nickname “Mr. Bojangles,” it’s not going to end well

The EEOC reports that it has sued Goodwill Industries of the East Bay Area for sexual harassment and disability discrimination, following allegations made by disabled female nightshift janitors against their supervisor. The allegations are … disturbing: