Putting paternity leave on equal footing with maternity leave, #hrintelchat

This afternoon, from 3 – 4 pm, EST, I, along with my friend, Jeff Nowak, will be hosting a TweetChat for Thompson Information Services on the “Evolving Rights of Pregnant Employees in the Workplace.” Follow us on Twitter at #hrintelchat, and tweet your questions or comments to @ThompsonHR, @jeffreysnowak, and @JonHyman. We’ll be discussing workplace right and accommodations of pregnant employees. More information is available here.

While our TweetChat will focus on the rights of pregnant women, females aren’t the only ones that have workplace rights when it comes to new babies. According to the New York Times, even though many men have the same right to paternity leave that their female counterparts have to maternity leave, few exercise that right out of fear and stigmatization.

Paternity leave is perhaps the clearest example of how things are changing — and how they are not. Though the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 requires companies with more than 50 employees to provide 12 weeks of unpaid leave for new parents, it requires no paid leave. The 14 percent of companies that do offer pay … do so by choice. Twenty percent of companies that are supposed to comply with the law, meanwhile, still don’t offer paternity leave…. And almost half the workers in the United States work at smaller companies that are not required to offer any leave at all.

Even when there is a policy on the books, unwritten workplace norms can discourage men from taking leave. Whether or not they are eligible for paid leave, most men take only about a week, if they take any time at all. For working-class men, the chances of taking leave are even slimmer.

Here are a few “don’ts” to keep in mind in managing new dads in your workplace.

• Don’t forget the men in your workplace when you’re crafting leave policies.
• Don’t deny leaves to new dads doling out post-childbirth leaves of absence.
• Don’t punish those that use those policies and leaves, such as limiting promotions, opportunities, or raises.
• Don’t apply unconscious stereotypes about the dedication or loyalty of men who take leaves of absence for familial responsibilities.

Sexual discrimination vs. sexual favoritism

The Employment Matters blog recently posted about a 10th Circuit case that upheld the dismissal of a sex discrimination case that alleged sexual favoritism as its lynchpin.

What is the difference between sexual discrimination and sexual favoritism? The former is illegal, while the latter isn’t.

In the words of one federal appellate court:

Title VII does not, however, prevent employers from favoring employees because of personal relationships. Whether the employer grants employment perks to an employee because she is a protegé, an old friend, a close relative or a love interest, that special treatment is permissible as long as it is not based on an impermissible classification.

Or, in the words of another federal court:

As the numerous cases finding that preferential treatment for a paramour does not constitute gender discrimination make clear, nothing about the favoritism … had to do with the protected characteristic of gender. Instead, the alleged favoritism was based only upon a special relationship between certain staff members and managers. All other staff members, whether male … or female…, were equally negatively affected by the purported favoritism.

This is not to say that playing sexual favorites in the office is a good idea. It’s far from it. For starters, is morale crushing for employees to believe (correctly or incorrectly) that they are being treated differently simply because they are not sleeping with or otherwise romantically attached to the boss. It also leads to office gossip and potential conflicts of interest.

Also, lots can go wrong when an office romance goes south. For example, what if, after the relationship ends, one says to the other, “I can do something to your job!”? Or, worse, the threats could be followed by extortion or blackmail.

I will not tell you that employers should forbid their employees from dating. The heart will go where it wants to go. If your employees want to date (or do more), they will, with or without a policy forbidding it. Instead, use workplace romances as an opportunity to educate your employees about your anti-harassment policies and programs.

• Train your employees about what is, and is not, appropriate workplace conduct between the sexes.
• Remind employees that the company expects professional behavior at all times, regardless of the personal relationships (past or present) between employees.
• Advise employees that unprofessional behavior is not tolerated, and will lead to discipline, up to, and including, termination,, which includes such behavior during and after romantic or sexual relationships.

Focusing on conduct (and misconduct) instead of the relationships itself provides your employees the tools to avoid the potential problems that can arise from these relationships, which, in turn, will help any organization avoid the litigation expenses these problems can cause. And we can all agree to love that idea.

The best defense to a discrimination claim is…

Wilson v. Chipotle Mexican Grille (6th Cir. 9/17/15) [pdf] is an unusual or distinct case, yet it teaches employers an important lesson about how to win a discrimination case.

Catherine Wilson, an African-American female, worked as a part-time crew member at a Cincinnati Chipotle. Her reviews listed her as a “low performer,” and her supervisors counseled her about her “attitude.” Wilson requested, and was denied, a 10-day leave of absence to go to Disney World. Because of her insistence for the time off, however, her manager took her off the schedule for those 10 days and considered her to have quit her job.

When she was fired after attempting to work after she “quit,” she sued the restaurant for race and sex discrimination.

The court had little trouble dispensing with the employer’s claim that Wilson had quit her job. Whether or not she requested time off, she returned to work the next day with the intent to work. Those actions do not demonstrate a voluntary resignation.

Regardless, the employer still won the case because Wilson could not show that she was replaced by someone outside the protected classes.

Wilson offered no evidence that Chipotle replaced her with white or male employees. To the contrary, Wilson’s part-time slot was picked up by three African-American females and one African-American male. The Clifton branch work force was 75% African American during the relevant period, and Wilson offers no evidence that this changed at the time.

So, what’s the best defense to a discrimination claim? Hire others in the same protected group. If your workplace is three-quarters black, it become very hard for a black employee to claim disparate treatment. If you replace that black, female employee with three other black females, and a black male, it’s case over.

An African-American, female employee cannot show discrimination when you replace her with another African-American female. All the more reason to maintain a diverse workforce. And, an important point to consider if you need to replace a fired employee that you think might turn around and sue.

Orange is the new sexual harassment lawsuit

Orton-Bell v. State of Ind. (7th Cir. 7/21/14) [pdf] concerns allegations of sexual harassment levied by a substance-abuse counsel at an Indiana maximum security prison against her co-workers and superiors. The allegations break down into two categories:

• Other employees and correctional officers at PCF were having sex on Orton-Bell’s desk. When she complained, a supervisor told her he didn’t care as long as offenders were not involved. Another co-worker suggested she clean her desk every morning.

–and–

• Orton-Bell was called “Cinderella” and “Princess” by male employees.
• She received excessive pat-downs from female correctional officers. 
• On one occasion, Orton-Bell was required to remove her sweater in the shakedown area so that the sweater could be sent through a scanner. This caused Orton-Bell’s spaghetti-strap camisole tank top to be exposed to male employees and offenders.
• Male employees made comments about how the pat-downs were “almost like sex for them.”
• Orton-Bell was not permitted to wear jeans, but male employees were.
• Male employees engaged in a barrage of sexual banter with Orton-Bell in person and via email, including a comment from the male superintendent that “her ass looked so good that it would cause a riot.” 

The court concluded that the sex-on-desk allegations could not support a claim for sexual harassment because she could not prove the conduct, while egregious and offensive, was because of her sex.

The notion that night-shift staff had sex on her desk because she was a woman is pure speculation.… If there were evidence that the night-shift staff were using her office because she was a woman, and her supervisors were indifferent, that would be enough. If there was evidence that night-shift staff similarly used a man’s office, and her supervisors intervened in that circumstance but not in her circumstance, that would be enough. There is neither. Her supervisors’ insensitive and inattentive responses were callous mismanagement; but absent evidence that this inaction was based on her sex, it did not violate Title VII.… 

The conduct was certainly sexual intercourse on her desk, but that does not mean that night-shift staff had sexual intercourse on Orton-Bell’s desk because she was of the female sex. There is no evidence to indicate that, had her conveniently private and secure, but accessible, office belonged to a man, it would not have been used in the same manner. Accordingly, this incident, while egregious, does not support a hostile work environment claim. 

The remaining allegations, however, painted a different story.

The constant barrage of sexually charged comments, however, was clearly pervasive, offensive, and based on Orton-Bell’s sex.… 

The record does reveal an instance where, in an email conversation with a co-worker named Bruce Helming, she participated in vulgar banter. However, while that may lead a jury to conclude that she was not subjectively offended by the environment, one private conversation via email is not enough for us to conclude, as a matter of law, that she was not subjectively offended by the many other public, unwelcome sexually charged comments in the environment.

What does this case teach us?

1. Apparently, after-hours sex on workplace desks between co-workers is a real thing.
2. “Because of sex” has real teeth to it. No doubt, the desk-sex is gross and offensive. Yet, Orton-Bell could not offer any evidence that the use of her desk was for any reason other than the fact that it was located in a private office. Absent evidence that the use of her desk was sex-based, that allegation could not support a harassment claim.
3. An employee’s participation in some sex-based joking can, under the right circumstances, show that the work environment was not subjectively hostile. One email containing vulgar banter with a co-worker, however, likely is not enough. 

Let me leave you with this thought. If your workplace is sexually charged, it will catch up with you eventually. I cannot fathom the difficulties managing employee behavior in a maximum security prison. Nevertheless, Title VII does not stop at the door just because the workplace is inherently hostile. 

[Hat tip: Indiana Law Blog, via Andrew Cohen]

The united colors of harassment claims

Let’s take a look at two recent settlements of harassment claims brought by the EEOC:

1. A Tampa, Florida, bank paid $300,000, resulting from a manager’s ongoing harassment of subordinate female employees, which included repeatedly trapping a 20-year-old behind the teller counter with his body, telling a woman she should wear a bathing suit to work, regularly staring at women’s breasts, and frequently caressing and grabbing a female employee.
2. A Charlotte, North Carolina, security-services company paid $155,000, resulting from a two managers’ repeated harassment of subordinate male employees, which included making offensive sexual comments, soliciting nude pictures, asking one to undress in front of him, soliciting sex in exchange for promotions, forcing accompaniment to a gay bar while on duty, touching certain employees’ chest and genitals.

It’s difficult to compare settlements in different cases based on value. They involve different parties, lawyers, judges, and allegations. Yet, it strikes me that if one compares the offensiveness of the misconduct alleged in these two cases, number two seems a whole lot more egregious than number one. Yet, number one paid double. I’ll ignore making the generalization that we, as a society, view same-sex harassment differently than the harassment of women by men, and, instead, conclude that similar cases offer lend to different results, often for arbitrary reasons.

I’ll leave you with the words of Lynette A. Barnes, EEOC regional attorney, who comments that employers need to halt all workplace sexual harassment:

All workers have the right to work in an environment free from sexual harassment. No one should have to put up with sexual comments or touching while they are just trying to make a living. Employers need to halt or prevent it—and the best prevention is training supervisors and managers on how to put a stop to such misconduct as soon as it appears.

I’ll let you decide about which of these two cases she made this observation.

An ode to working dads.

I have a good dad. Some of my best memories of my dad of him involve covering the walls of our dining room with paper so that I could practice writing, or sitting down reading books or doing math problems. Growing up, the memories shift to coaching little league, swimming in the ocean, and waiting in long lines at Great Adventure. In between all the play, he worked … hard. I remember my dad sometimes working three jobs — by day he taught special-ed in the Philadelphia School District, at night he taught classes at the local Penn State extension campus, and on weekends he managed my grandfather’s bar. He did all this so that he could provide as best he could for my family. And I am grateful.

Last Monday, the White House held a summit for working fathers, which highlighted on the following statistics:

• In 63% of families with children, both parents work.
• 60% of dads in dual-earning couples report experiencing work-family conflict (as compared to only 47% of moms).

Three days later, the Wall Street Journal ran an article entitled, The Daddy Juggle: Work, Life, Family and Chaos, which asked the question, “Can working fathers have it all?” The answer may lie in whether employers can get past traditional stereotypes about the role of men as breadwinners and women as caregivers.

Working against men is a stigma that those who identify themselves as active fathers are unwilling to work hard or put the company first.

A 2013 paper from the University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management found that colleagues regard active fathers as distracted and less dedicated to their work. At the same time, a Harvard researcher has shown that men with children earn higher salaries when their wives work less than full-time.

Taken together, the evidence suggests that men in traditional breadwinner roles are rewarded, either because of cultural assumptions or because they are able to put their jobs first, while men who act as caregivers are hurt for doing so.

I don’t think dads necessarily want to “have it all.” Here’s what I do think:

1. Dads want to be offered the same flexibility as women to balance their jobs and their work. Employers beware. Getting stuck in traditional mindsets by offering flexibility and balance to women, but not men, is discriminatory. 
2. With technology making communication and instant access more feasible than ever, there is little excuse for employers not to try offering flexibility to their workers (men and women). Today’s employee is tethered to his or her iPhone. Employers should take advantage of this access. Give your employees some rope. If mom or dad has to take a child to a doctor’s appointment, or wants to volunteer at school, or coach a team, let them. They will still answer calls and return emails, because it’s their job to do so. And, if they don’t, then you have a performance issue, not a flexibility issue. We are all accessible around the clock. There is simply no excuse for an employer not to offer flexibility to all employees—men and women—whose jobs permit it.

Equal treatment in workplace misconduct helps avoid an ugly discrimination claim

Matthew Caiazza worked as a nurse at Mercy Medical Center. He would often take smoke breaks with Jennifer Jones, a food services worker.

On August 28, 2010, Jones reported to her supervisor that during one of the smoke breaks, Caiazza had inappropriately touched her breast outside of her clothing. Caiazza explained that Jones asked him to touch her breast in exchange for Vicodin. When he told her that he could not give her any Vicodin, she said he could touch her breast anyway, which he did. Jones reported the incident to HR, who compelled Caiazza to resign. He sued, alleging, among other claims, sex discrimination.

In Caiazza v. Mercy Medical Center (6th Cir. 5/27/14), the appellate court concluded that because of the unequal treatment doled out to the two culpable parties, Caiazza’s sex discrimination claim should proceed to a jury trial. 

Given … Mercy’s concession that the sexual contact during [Caiazza’s] smoke break off property was consensual, there is a clear disparity of treatment between [Caiazza] and Jones.

Parties who are equally culpable in workplace misconduct should be treated equally. If the parties are of different sexes, races, ages (substantially younger), etc., then the “should” turns into a “must.” Disparate treatment is, well, disparate treatment, which, as this case points out is a Title VII no-no. 

Differences of opinion show why we need ENDA

In response to last Tuesday’s post on an Ohio case refusing to protect “sexual orientation” under Ohio’s sex-discrimination laws, EEOC Commissioner (and Twitter friend) Chai Feldblum recommended that I check out a recent decision from the District of Columbia, Terveer v. Billington.

In that case, Peter Terveer, a Library of Congress employee, sued his supervisor for sex discrimination, alleging that the supervisor had created “a hostile environment” by subjecting him to a slew of anti-gay comments.

The employer argued for the dismissal of Terveer’s complaint, since Title VII does not include protections against sexual-orientation discrimination. The court disagreed, and permitted Terveer’s case to proceed under Title VII’s protections from sex discrimination and religious discrimination:

Under Title VII, allegations that an employer is discriminating against an employee based on the employee’s non-conformity with sex stereotypes are sufficient to establish a viable sex discrimination claim.… Plaintiff has alleged that Defendant denied him promotions and created a hostile work environment because of Plaintiff’s nonconformity with male sex stereotypes.… 

Title VII seeks to protect employees not only from discrimination on the basis of their religious beliefs, but also from forced religious conformity or adverse treatment because they do “not hold or follow [their] employer’s religious beliefs.” … [P]laintiffs state a claim of religious discrimination in situations where employers have fired or otherwise punished an employee because the employee’s personal activities or status—for example, divorcing or having an extramarital affair—failed to conform to the employer’s religious beliefs.… The Court sees no reason to create an exception to these cases for employees who are targeted for religious harassment due to their status as a homosexual individual.

This article at Slate.com argues that Terveer shows that anti-gay job discrimination is already illegal. To the contrary, the more prudent conclusion is that Terveer, when contrasted against Burns v. The Ohio St. Univ. College of Veterinary Medicine (the Ohio case I discussed last Tuesday), demonstrates that different courts can, and do, reach different conclusions on this issue. Instead of showing that anti-gay discrimination is already illegal, these cases illustrate the need to amend Title VII to make it absolutely clear that sexual-orientation discrimination is not only abhorrent, but is also illegal.

Please, please, please … be careful what you email

Darren Wyss claims that his former employer, Compact Industries, demoted him on the basis of his gender and replaced him with a female. Wyss’s immediate supervisor was Tracey Brown, one of the company’s owners, and the sister of Michael Brown, another owner. After Wyss’s demotion, Michael emailed his sister, “You demoted Darren without telling me? … Darren is a good worker, too bad he’s male.”

Based on that email, the court—in Wyss v. Compact Indus. (S.D. Ohio 3/12/14)—had little trouble denying the company’s motion to dismiss the sex discrimination lawsuit.

It is reasonable to infer that Michael Brown knew of his sister’s motive for demoting Wyss and was referring to that motive in this email. This plausibly suggests that the decision to demote Wyss, who was otherwise a “good worker,” was motivated by Tracey’s intent to discriminate against men. 

Nothing good comes from putting statements like “too bad he’s male” in emails, or text messages, or voice mails, or any other form of communication. Those words should never leave your lips, let alone flow forth from your fingers in anything typed. Michael Brown may have a logical, non-discriminatory explanation for his statement … or at least he better before he gives his deposition. Even with an explanation, however, his misstep makes his company’s case that much more difficult. Do your damndest to avoid the same miscue.

Lactation at work requires reasonableness on both sides

Photo by Joelk75, via Flickr, cc

Both of my children were formula-fed. It wasn’t for lack of lactation effort. We (or, more accurately, she) tried to feed each naturally. My daughter’s birth followed 72 hours of awful labor, from which we were not sure my wife was going to make it (that’s a story for another day), and my son just did not want to eat. So for reasons that made perfect sense to us, we fed both exclusively by formula. The “lactation specialists” at the hospitals were not happy with us, and they let us know all about it. What they failed to do, however, was talk to us. It was a one-sided conversation, which failed.

In Ames v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. (8th Cir. 3/13/14), Angela Ames claimed that Nationwide discriminated against her because of her sex and pregnancy by not providing her access to a room in which to lactate. We know that lactation discrimination equates to pregnancy discrimination, and yet, in Ames, Nationwide won. Why?

Nationwide won because it had a lactation policy that provided employees reasonable access to a private room to express milk, and because Ames refused to even consider an accommodation when a room was temporarily unavailable.

Nationwide’s lactation policy allowed employees to gain badge access to its lactation rooms after completing certain paperwork that required three days processing. Even though Ames had not completed the required paperwork, the company nurse requested for her immediate access to a lactation room. While the company was processing the request, the nurse suggested that Ames use one of the company’s wellness room, which would become available in 15 or 20 minutes. In tears, Ames quit her job and sued.

The court explained its reasoning for affirming the trial court’s dismissal of Ames’s sex and pregnancy claims:

Ames was denied immediate access to a lactation room only because she had not completed the paperwork to gain badge access. Every nursing mother was required to complete the same paperwork and was subjected to the same three-day waiting period. Further, Hallberg [the nurse] tried to accommodate Ames by allowing her to use a wellness room as soon as it was available and by requesting that Ames receive expedited access to the lactation rooms.… That Nationwide’s policies treated all nursing mothers and loss-mitigation specialists alike demonstrates that Nationwide did not intend to force Ames to resign when it sought to enforce its policies.

The moral of this story is that evidence of open conversations with your employees about accommodations wins lawsuits. Nationwide won because it tried to work with Ames to find a temporary solution to her problem. Ames lost because she refused to be reasonable under the circumstances. Conflict requires a give-and-take, not a give-and-give. As long as an employer can show equal enforcement of policies, coupled with an effort to work with an employee, most lawsuits will resolve in the employer’s favor. The lactation folks at the hospitals refused to work with us, and they lost their battle. Nationwide tried to work with Ames, and, because she refused, it won their lawsuit. Let this case be a lesson to you, not only in dealing with the unique needs of lactating employees, but in resolving all conflict within the workplace.

Gender equality is dead; long live gender equality!

http://flic.kr/p/dLGTi8

I rarely write about active cases I’m handling. In fact, I can only think of one other time that I was mad enough to do so. Today marks time number two. Each involves a galling lack of professional courtesy.

I’m currently in the middle of a contentious piece of litigation in western Pennsylvania. The witnesses, however, are scattered all of the country, including two in Dallas, who I had to go to court to defeat a motion to compel their attendance in PA for their depositions. On Friday, I received a phone call from plaintiff’s counsel (who is in his mid to upper 70s), in which he told me he intended to take their depositions in Dallas this coming Wednesday and Thursday. I responded that even if they could be available on such short notice (they can’t be), I’m unavailable because my wife is traveling those two days for her job and one of us needs to be home with the kids.

His response floored me. He says, “You’re a lawyer. It’s unprofessional for you to plan your schedule around your wife. She should be at home taking care of the kids.”

We don’t live in an Ozzie & Harriet world anymore. Long gone are the days when a wife would be waiting at home to greet her husband with a pair of slipper and a martini while she put dinner on the table. Women work. My wife (who, by the way, gave up her career for 6 years to stay at home with our children) has restarted her career. Her job requires her to travel, which means we share a travel calendar. To make sure that our kids are never abandoned, we clear all travel with the other’s out-of-town schedule before making our own business arrangements.

Readers, please don’t carry this attitude into your business. There is only one unhappy ending to telling one of your employees that his wife, or she, belongs at home with the children. It starts with law- and ends with -suit. Women have the right to work, and neither they, nor their spouses, should be punished for exercising that right, regardless of their chosen profession.

As for which one of us in my tale was acting unprofessionally, I leave that decision up to you.

Mind your internal emails to avoid discrimination issues

Shazor v. Professional Transit Mgmt., Inc. (6th Cir. 2/19/14), interests me for two reasons. First, it discusses and applies a “sex-plus” theory of discrimination to save a plaintiff’s race discrimination and sex discrimination claims from the summary-judgment scrap heap. “Sex-plus” recognizes that race and sex are not mutually exclusive, and protects African-American woman as a class of their own. I commend Shazor to your reading list for its interesting narrative on this issue.

I want to discuss, however, the other interesting aspect of Shazor—the evidence the plaintiff used to avoid summary judgment. She submitted various emails between two corporate executives, in which they unflatteringly referred to her as a “prima donna,” “disloyal, disrespectful,” and a “hellava bitch.” Shazor successfully argued that these emails were code for “angry black woman” or “uppity black woman.” The court used these emails as prima-facie evidence of discrimination in support of her “sex-plus” claim.

Emails is a powerful communication tool. It’s also very permanent. I’ve been saying this about social media for years, but perhaps it’s time to remind employers that communication is communication, no matter how it’s transmitted. If you don’t want something to appear on the front page of the newspaper, or to be read in front of a judge or jury, don’t put it in writing. Don’t email it, don’t text it, don’t Facebook it, and don’t tweet it.

“I have a solution,” you say. “What about apps like Confide, which erases a text message as soon as the recipient reads it.”

While these apps seem like a perfect way to communicate under the radar, their use for business purposes gives me great pause. The intent of this class of apps is to delete communications. I could very easily see a court, confronted with evidence that people have this app on their iPhones and use it for business communications, have willfully destroyed evidence. Spoliation and evidence destruction discovery sanctions would result. For this reason, I believe that company mobile-device policies should police the use of apps like Confide, Snapchat, and their message erasing ilk. And, while your reviewing your policies, mix in some training for your employees about the responsible use of electronic communications.

Don’t be a jughead by thinking that white men aren’t a protected class

A group of male employees of Archie Comics filed a gender discrimination lawsuit against their employer. They allege, among other things, that Nancy Silberkleit, the company’s co-CEO, constantly referred to them by their male anatomy instead of by name.

In her defense, Silberkleit claims that she cannot be liable because “white men” are not a class protected from discrimination.

Rest assured, that defense is a loser. Title VII does not just protect minorities from discrimination. It protects all employees from discrimination. Thus, a male employee enjoys the same rights as a female employee to a workplace free from discrimination, just as a white employee has the same rights a black employee. An employer cannot treat men differently than women, or whites differently than blacks, and the disparately affected and marginalized class (whether or not a historical minority) has a claim.

My advice to Nancy Silberkleit? Abandon your defense, get out your checkbook, and take some EEO training.

[Hat tip: BuzzFeed]

Is the denial of paid paternity leave discriminatory?

ABCNews.com is reporting that a CNN reporter, Josh Levs, has filed an EEOC charge against Time Warner challenging its family leave policy as discriminating based on sex.

Levs, whose wife just gave birth to their third child, claims that his employer treats biological fathers differently. He claims that Time Warner’s policy permits 10 weeks of paid leave to women who give birth to children, or male and female parents following adoption or surrogacy. Biological fathers, on the other hand, are limited to two weeks of paid leave. This treatment, Levs says, discriminates against him as a man.

On his Tumblr, Levs makes a compelling argument for the unfairness of Time Warner’s policy:

If I were a woman, but other elements of my situation were the same — I was still with the same woman (so that would be a same-sex relationship), and she gave birth to our child, legally I would have to adopt in order to be co-parent. I would then have the option of 10 weeks off, paid.

Or how about this: If I gave my child up for adoption, and some other guy at Time Warner adopted her, he would get 10 weeks off, paid, to take care of her. I, however, her biological father, can’t.

The visceral reaction to a story such as Levs’s is to say, “Time Warner is treating men and women differently; therefore, it’s sex discrimination. Case closed.” The question, however, isn’t whether the policy is fair, but whether it’s legal.

There is one key difference between women and men when they welcome a new-born child. Women give birth; men don’t. A women is not medically ready to return to work the day following childbirth; a man is. Indeed, current medical guidelines suggest that women take six weeks off from work following a vaginal delivery, and eight following a C-section. Adoptions also provide different challenges to a couple, including adjusting to new family member without the buffer of a nine-month pregnancy. As Time Warner points out, its policy provides 10 weeks of paid leave, more generous than the medical standards and the FMLA’s guarantee of unpaid leave.

Yes, Time Warner’s policy can lead to absurd results in extreme situations, as Levs points out. But, before we jump the gun and lynch the company from the sex-discrimination gallows, we need to consider that there might be an explanation that justifies its policy other than discrimination.

It’s time to end sexual orientation & gender identity discrimination

There is currently legislation pending in both the Ohio House [H.B. 163] and Ohio Senate [S.B. 125] that would include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to the list of classes from which employees are protected from discrimination by their employers. Notably, the bills protect both actual and perceived sexuality and gender-related appearance:

• “Sexual orientation” = “actual or perceived heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.”
• “Gender identity” = “the gender-related identity, appearance, or mannerisms or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, with or without regard to the individual’s designated gender at birth.”

If Ohio Revised Code chapter 4112 is amended to include these protections, then harassment of employees based on their actual or perceived sexual orientation and gender identity become illegal. In that case, the line-splitting in which courts have engaged under the rubric of “same-sex harassment” will largely become a relic.

Case in point? EEOC v. Boh Brothers Construction Co. (5th Cir. 9/30/13). The facts of this case are horrific. It’s worth a read to understand just how cruel employees can be to each other. Yet, the case split 10-6 on whether the facts supported claim of sexual harassment. One of the two dissents envisioned a world in which employers would have to distribute “etiquette memos” to purge the workplace of speech and gestures that might be viewed in any way as tokens of sex discrimination. I’ve reprinted the court’s very tongue-in-cheek example below.

The dissent is exaggerating to make its point that Title VII was never meant to be a general civility code, and only the worst type of sex-based behavior is meant to trigger the statute.

Exaggerations aside, the time has come for Congress (when the federal government is back in business), along with all 50 state legislatures, to step up to the plate and end this debate. Enact legislation including sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes, and bring to and end the shameful protection of discrimination against this marginalized class of individuals.

---

ETIQUETTE FOR IRONWORKERS

MEMO TO: Management FROM: Legal Department of Apex Co. DATE: September 2013

In keeping up with the newest developments in employment law, we have carefully reviewed and hired specialist outside counsel to give us a legal opinion concerning the implications of a recent Fifth Circuit en banc decision. EEOC v. Boh Bros. . . . Like us, the employer in that case engaged in heavy construction and often operated in all-male crews. Like us, it had an unblemished record, years without a Title VII case. But the court ruled that common sexual epithets and vulgar gestures, when used too frequently by a male, heterosexual supervisor, can support a verdict against the company on behalf of another male, heterosexual plaintiff. Instead of looking on these actions as horseplay or, at worst, bullying, the court approved a jury verdict for “gender-stereotyping harassment.” The EEOC intends to make this case an example for similar workplaces.

We need not advise you of the costs a company can incur in these cases. In addition to hundreds of thousands in outside legal fees, a judgment for damages may run into six figures. The EEOC requested, and got, a sweeping and intrusive injunction that will require significant expenditures in paperwork compliance costs and regular workplace sensitivity training for over one thousand employees.

To avert these consequences, we recommend that the company immediately issue the following rules for proper, non-gender-stereotyping workplace behavior. Employees should be informed that the rules apply across the board, to all-male, all-female, and mixed-sex offices and positions. The workplace must be cleansed of speech and actions that may be misperceived or twisted as reflecting gender stereotyping harassment.

NOTICE CONCERNING TITLE VII

To our Associates:

You are all aware of this company’s unwavering policy to prevent discrimination of any kind based on sex, race, religion or national origin. Because of a new court decision, we must now focus on eliminating same-sex “gender stereotyping” of any kind as well. This means that men may expose this company to liability for their speech and behavior in the presence of other men, and women in the presence of other women. Although these rules will apply throughout the company, you IRONWORKERS have to take special notice. The rules apply throughout the workday, during breaks and lunch hours, and whenever two or more workers are gathered together.

1. At the most general level, all employees must refrain from any communication—spoken, written, or gesticulated—that may create any suggestion of “sexual stereotyping” or “gender-based bullying.” Please consider the broad implications of this prohibition, some of which follow. All employee interactions must be fully gender inclusive (or at least gender ambiguous). Careless phrases and jokes will not be tolerated if they may be interpreted to carry a stereotyping overtone.

2. No more banter about bodily functions, sexual or otherwise, or human physical appearance. Those who do not enjoy references to sweat, toilet humor, tattoos, tight jeans, muscles, or large beards may feel singled out as not “man enough” for such speech.

3. Do not discuss the appearance of women or any intimate sexual encounters, and do not refer to or use words that refer to sex in any way. This includes CUSS WORDS.

4. Do not swivel your hips, make obscene gestures or mimic “twerking.”

5. Avoid discussing topics that may be viewed as “non-inclusive”: bodybuilding, Boy Scouts, hunting, fishing, and riflery. Football and other “macho” sports may be an unwelcome subject to those who consider them boorishly aggressive.

6. Do not engage in any competitive activity, like lifting heavy objects, on the worksite. This can create a sense of unmanly inferiority for non-participants.

7. Do not use gender-stereotyped nicknames or name-calling. Supervisors may not encourage you to work harder by saying “put your backs into it,” or “man up,” and terms like “ladies” or “sissies” will be grounds for immediate discipline.

8. Schoolyard humor, which is common at our jobsites to fill down-times and relieve boredom, raises sensitive issues. Some workers may be put off by jokes about personal grooming, scented deodorant, chest hair, or clothing as a form of gender hostility. Poking fun at a worker for drinking a diet soda, not being able to eat a raw jalapeno, using “Wet Ones” or “Purell” to clean himself, or calling someone a “wimp” or “wuss” or “geek” may get us sued and you in serious trouble.

9. Asinine locker room behavior is forbidden. Examples of this would be comments about anatomy, crude gestures, actions like towel-swatting, simulated sexual acts, and any behavior that would make someone ill at ease with his personal expression of his gender. Relieving yourself in the presence of others is forbidden; the company is reconfiguring all restrooms to prevent any worker from observing another worker’s bodily functions.

10. Avoid touching any coworker in any manner, except if asked to rescue the person from physical danger, and even then, avoid touching private areas.

PENALTIES: A first violation of these rules will result in a warning, a second violation in suspension without pay, and successive violations will result in termination. We will not call this a “three-strikes” policy, as that term might be interpreted to refer to the principally male sport of baseball. We need hardly explain that any worker terminated for same-sex gender stereotyping will have a hard time finding future employment.

The Company will conduct quarterly sensitivity sessions, where you can learn more about offensive gender stereotyping against fellow males and what you can do to prevent or correct it. As questions arise at any time, call our newly hired Sex Stereotype Counselor in the HR Department.

---

Lactation discrimination = pregnancy discrimination

Last February I reported on EEOC v. Houston Funding, in which a Texas district court held that an employee, fired after asking to pump breast milk at work, could not go forward with her pregnancy discrimination claim. The court reasoned that because lactation does not start until after pregnancy, it is not a condition “related to” pregnancy, and therefore the Pregnancy Discrimination Act amendment to Title VII do not protect lactation as sex discrimination.

At the time, I urged everyone not to overreact to one anomalous decision:

[T]he last I checked, women are the only gender that can naturally produce milk, and therefore denying a woman the right to lactate is sex discrimination. ...

Before people over-react and scream from the rooftops for remedial legislation to clarify that lactation discrimination equates to sex discrimination, one case does not make a rule. In fact, it is much more likely that one case is merely an aberration. I stand by my conviction that ... Title VII’s prohibitions against sex and pregnancy discrimination adequately cover the rights of working moms to lactate.

Late last week, the 5th Circuit agreed, and reversed the district court’s decision dismissing the case. Specifically, the court held that lactation is a medical condition related to pregnancy because it is a “physiological result of being pregnant and bearing a child.” In reaching this conclusion, the court analogized lactation to other physiological changes women undergo during and immediately after pregnancy:

Menstruation is a normal aspect of female physiology, which is interrupted during pregnancy, but resumes shortly after the pregnancy concludes. Similarly, lactation is a normal aspect of female physiology that is initiated by pregnancy and concludes sometime thereafter. If an employer commits unlawful sex-based discrimination by instituting a policy revolving around a woman’s post-pregnancy menstrual cycle, as in Harper, it is difficult to see how an employer who makes an employment decision based upon whether a woman is lactating can avoid such unlawful sex discrimination. And as both menstruation and lactation are aspects of female physiology that are affected by pregnancy, each seems readily to fit into a reasonable definition of “pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.”

To simplify matters, because men cannot lactate, it is discriminatory to deny an employee’s lactation request, because such a denial would necessarily treat women (or, more specifically, child-bearing women) differently than men.

When you couple this decision with the FLSA’s recent amendment that require employers to accommodate workplace lactation needs, it is more clear than ever than employees have a workplace right to lactate.

You can download a pdf of the 5th Circuit’s EEOC v. Houston Funding decision here.

Hat tip: Workplace Prof Blog

Are employers screwing up the FLSA’s lactation mandate? Probably not.

At Business Insurance, Judy Greenwald quotes an attorney who believes that employers are doing an inadequate job of accommodating employees’ lactation requests. The article discusses a recent Freedom of Information Act request, in which the Department of Labor disclosed that it has conducted 54 investigations into claims of inadequate lactation accommodations between the date the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act took effect, March 23, 2010, and June 11, 2012. Those investigations, in turn, uncovered 36 violations of the law. Based on that data, the article concludes that “the Labor Department is paying attention to and is prepared to enforce” the FLSA’s lactation mandate, and that “employers either are not aware of their obligations, or do not fully understand them.”

I wholeheartedly disagree. A little more than a year ago, I ran a post on this same issue. At that time, I pointed out that the DOL had only cited 23 companies, or 0.023 percent of all companies with 100 or more employees. Now, with an additional six months of data, the number of citations has jumped by 13, from 23 to 36.

By comparison, according to the EEOC’s recently updated charge filing statistics, individuals filed 99,412 separate discrimination charges during fiscal year 2012. In other words, discrimination complaints with the EEOC in the last year outpaced lactation complaints with the DOL in the last two and a quarter years by a factor of 1,841.

What is the reasonable explanation for this small number of lactation-rights complaints? Companies are not denying new moms the right to lactate in the workplace. Anecdotally, I have never come across the issue with a client in my 15+ years of practice, and I know of no colleague who has either. You would think that if this problem exists, someone would have dealt with it.

Nevertheless, if you are on the fence about your obligations under this provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, here is what you should know:

• If you have 50 or more employees, you are required to provide a reasonable break time for an employee to pump breast milk. If you have fewer than 50 employees, you can deny the break time, but only if would pose an undue hardship, which the DOL considers to be a significant difficulty or expense.

• Employers are not required to compensate nursing mothers for breaks taken to expressing milk. The FLSA’s normal rules that govern unpaid versus paid breaks still apply. Thus, a break should be paid if it lasts 20 minutes or less and falls during an employer’s customary break time.

• In addition to adequate break time, an employer must also provide an appropriate lactation space. The space doesn’t have to be permanent. Any space temporarily created or converted into a space for expressing milk or made available when needed by a nursing mother is sufficient, if the space is shielded from view, free from intrusion from coworkers and the public, and suitable for lactation. The only room that is not appropriate is a bathroom.

If you know of a company that has denied an employee the right to lactate, please either leave a comment below, or tweet me. I would like to know if there is any anecdotal support for the idea that companies are dropping the ball on this issue.

Say it ain’t so: court holds an employer does not have to accommodate a pregnant employee

Last year, I railed against the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, a bill that, if passed, would require employers to make a reasonable accommodation for an employee’s pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions. I argued that the law does not need alteration because Title VII, through the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, already requires employers to accommodate pregnant women at least at the same level as they accommodate any other employee with a similarly disabling short-term medical condition.

Last week, in Young v. UPS, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals held that Title VII does not require employers to provide pregnant women a “reasonable accommodation” when, as a result of pregnancy, they are limited in their ability to perform work duties. Was my musing about the evils of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act off-base?

The facts of Young are simple. UPS required Ms. Young to be able to lift up to 70 pounds as part of her job as a package delivery driver. After she became pregnant, her doctor limited her lifting. Ms. Young requested that UPS move her to a light duty assignment. UPS’s collective bargaining agreement allowed an employee to work a light duty assignment only because of an “on-the job” injury or when “disabled” under the ADA. Because Ms. Young did not meet either of these categories UPS denied her request.

Ms. Young argued that UPS violated Title VII because the Pregnancy Discrimination Act required UPS to provide her with a “reasonable accommodation” to the same degree the employer accommodated a disabled employee. The 4th Circuit rejected her argument, finding that where an employer’s policies treat pregnant workers and non-pregnant workers alike, it has complied with Title VII:

Interpreting the PDA in the manner Young and the ACLU urge would require employers to provide, for example, accommodation or light duty work to a pregnant worker whose restrictions arise from her (off-the-job) pregnancy while denying any such accommodation to an employee unable to lift as a result of an off-the-job injury or illness. Under this interpretation, a pregnant worker who, like Young, was placed under a lifting restriction by her healthcare provider and could not work could claim that the PDA requires that she receive whatever accommodation or benefits are accorded to an individual accommodated under the ADA, because the pregnant worker and the other individual are similar in their ability or inability to work—i.e., they both cannot work. By contrast, a temporary lifting restriction placed on an employee who injured his back while picking up his infant child or on an employee whose lifting limitation arose from her off-the-job work as a volunteer firefighter would be ineligible for any accommodation. Such an interpretation does not accord with Congress's intent in enacting the PDA.

Reading this decision, you might be thinking to yourself, “Hyman, you’re wrong. Title VII does need to be amended to grant accommodation rights to pregnant women.” You, however, would be jumping the gun.

As Robin Shea astutely observed at her Employment & Labor Insider, because of 2009’s ADA Amendments Act, today’s ADA is very different than the statute in effect during Ms. Young’s 2006 pregnancy:

In 2007, the “old” Americans with Disabilities Act was in effect, which had some pretty stringent definitions of who was considered “disabled.” Not only was a 20-pound lifting restriction generally not considered “disabling,” but virtually no temporary impairment, no matter how severe, was. And pregnancy is not a “disability” in itself because the ADA says so. Accordingly, Ms. Young was out of luck.

The ADAAA, of course, greatly expanded the definition of “disability,” and the interpretations of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission indicate that a temporary condition that lasts more than six months could indeed be considered “disabling.” Ditto for a 20-pound lifting restriction.

In other words, today an employer could be required to provide a reasonable accommodation to a pregnant employee to the same extent it provides a non-pregnant disabled employee an accommodation, or face the possibility of a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit.

Handling accommodation requests by pregnant employees is a thorny area of the law. My recommendation is instead of trying to sort through these issues for yourself, you contact your employment counsel before denying an accommodation request made a pregnant employee.

---

Thanks to Justine Konicki for her help on this post.

Firing of “irresistible” employee does not equal sex discrimination?

She’s unavoidable, I’m backed against the wall
She gives me feelings like I never felt before
I’m breaking promises, she’s breaking every law
She used to look good to me, but now I find her
Simply irresistible

Robert Palmer. “Simply Irresistible.” Heavy Nova. EMI Records, 1988.

Every now and again an employer wins a case that offends my sensibilities as an advocate for employers’ rights. This is one of those stories.

By now, you’ve likely read about the employee fired because her boss found her too attractive. You’ve also probably read how the Iowa Supreme Court concluded that an employee fired under these circumstances cannot pursue a claim for sex discrimination under that state’s civil rights laws.

Melissa Nelson worked as a dental hygienist for Dr. James Knight for ten-and-a-half years. Dr. Knight terminated Nelson at his wife’s request. Nelson never flirted with Dr. Knight or sought an intimate or sexual relationship with him. Dr. Knight, however, was attracted to her, and made several comments to her about the tightness of her clothes, and their effect on the tightness of a certain area of his clothes.

Following Nelson’s termination, Dr. Knight replaced her with another female. In fact, every hygienist who ever worked for Dr. Knight was female.

In Nelson v. Knight (12/21/12), the Iowa Supreme Court concluded that Nelson had not presented a sex discrimination claim.

So the question we must answer is … whether an employee who has not engaged in flirtatious conduct may be lawfully terminated simply because the boss views the employee as an irresistible attraction….

The civil rights laws seek to insure that employees are treated the same regardless of their sex or other protected status. Yet … Dr. Knight's unfair decision to terminate Nelson … does not jeopardize that goal. This is illustrated by the fact that Dr. Knight hired a female replacement for Nelson….

Nelson raises a legitimate concern about a slippery slope. What if Dr. Knight had fired several female employees because he was concerned about being attracted to them? Or what if Ms. Knight demanded out of jealousy that her spouse terminate the employment of several women? The short answer is that those would be different cases. If an employer repeatedly took adverse employment actions against persons of a particular gender because of alleged personal relationship issues, it might well be possible to infer that gender and not the relationship was a motivating factor.

It is likewise true that a decision based on a gender stereotype can amount to unlawful sex discrimination…. If Nelson could show that she had been terminated because she did not conform to a particular stereotype, this might be a different case. But the record here does not support that conclusion. It is undisputed, rather, that Nelson was fired because Ms. Knight, unfairly or not, viewed her as a threat to her marriage.

The media has heavily criticized this decision. That criticism is warranted. Yes, Dr. Knight only employs female hygienists, and replaced Nelson with another female. One could also argue that the doctor only fired Nelson because of her looks, not because of her gender. Those arguments, though, ignore the fact that if  she was a he, her looks would not have been an issue in her employment at all. The sex discrimination laws are supposed to insulate employees from employment decisions based on sex-based stereotypes, not protect the employers who make those decisions.

Nelson, a ten-plus-year employee, should not have to look for a new job merely because her boss might not be able to control himself around her. If the sex discrimination laws do not protect an employee like Nelson, then I fear we are taking a huge civil rights step backwards. 

EEOC opines on domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking as Title VII and ADA violations

There is no federal law that expressly gives workplace rights to employees who find themselves victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking. That omission, however, does not unchain employers to discriminate against employees who find themselves in these unfortunate circumstances.

Earlier this month, the EEOC issued a Q&A entitled, Application of Title VII and the ADA to Applicants or Employees Who Experience Domestic or Dating Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking [pdf].

While Title VII and the ADA do not expressly protect victims from discrimination, they do protect against employers’ use of stereotypes rooted in protected classes (e.g., sex or mental illness) to treat these employees differently.

The EEOC is kind enough to provide some examples of these stereotypes in action:

Title VII—Disparate Treatment Based on Sex

• An employer terminates an employee after learning she has been subjected to domestic violence, saying he fears the potential “drama battered women bring to the workplace.” 

Title VII—Sexual Harassment

• An employee’s co-worker sits uncomfortably close to her in meetings, and has made suggestive comments. He waits for her in the dark outside the women’s bathroom and in the parking lot outside of work, and blocks her passage in the hallway in a threatening manner. He also repeatedly telephones her after hours, sends personal emails, and shows up outside her apartment building at night. She reports these incidents to management and complains that she feels unsafe and afraid working nearby him. In response, management transfers him to another area of the building, but he continues to subject her to sexual advances and stalking. She notifies management but no further action is taken.

ADA—Disparate Treatment Based on Actual or Perceived Disability

• An employer searches an applicant’s name online and learns that she was a complaining witness in a rape prosecution and received counseling for depression. The employer decides not to hire her based on a concern that she may require future time off for continuing symptoms or further treatment of depression.

ADA—Denial of Reasonable Accommodation

• An employee who has no accrued sick leave and whose employer is not covered by the FMLA requests a schedule change or unpaid leave to get treatment for depression and anxiety following a sexual assault by an intruder in her home. The employer denies the request because it “applies leave and attendance policies the same way to all employees.”

Retaliation

• An employee files a complaint with her employer’s human resources department alleging that she was raped by a prominent company manager while on a business trip. In response, other company managers reassign her to less favorable projects, stop including her in meetings, and tell co-workers not to speak with her.

The Q&A contains many more examples. It is worth reading, and incorporating into your harassment/EEO training so that managers and supervisors are aware of these issues.

Hat tip to the Workplace Prof Blog for brining this to my attention.