More on internet addiction

Donna Seale at Human Rights in the Workplace is continuing our discussion on the differences between American and Canadian disability discrimination law and Internet addiction. Her latest is as follows:

As for Mr. Hyman's comments that even if an employer paused to consider accommodating an Internet addicted employee the employee would still have to perform the essential duties of the job, I completely agree. Where we part company is on the approach to the actual question of accommodation. While it may not be easy to think up possible ways an employer could accommodate an Internet addicted employee who needed to use the Internet and e-mail to do her job, the law in this country still requires an employer to engage in that process. Failure to actually engage a process to consider what could be done to accommodate is, in and of itself, sufficient to trigger liability under Canadian human rights law even if no accommodation could ultimately be provided. (Besides, aren't there blocking devices employers can use to block employee access to non-work related Internet sites? -- speaking from a real non-techie perspective -- but I digress). In any event, accommodation is an individualized process and would have to be considered from the perspective of what would need to be done to accommodate the specific employee in question in their specific job in question, which may require a lot of an employer or, perhaps, not.

Let me respond as follows:

1. It is entirely defensible to terminate an employee with a disability if you don't know the employee has a disability, and you cannot make an accommodation if you don't know that one is needed.
2. If an employee requests an accommodation, the employer must engage in an interactive process to determine if there is a reasonable accommodation available that will enable the employee to perform the essential functions of his or her job with or without reasonable accommodation. Any accommodation that is provided need not meet the employee's preference -- it just must be reasonable.
3. In all likelihood, this interactive process will result in a dead-end for an employee who claims an Internet addiction. While there is software and other techie solutions to block access to certain websites, those solutions are expensive, hard to implement, and will probably cause an undue hardship on the employer.

In sum, I agree with Donna's conclusion:

Tread lightly whenever an employee raises a potential disability issue connected to their inability to do their job because whatever actions you take after being advised of the potential disability (whether it is Internet addiction or something else) may be considered discriminatory. Forewarned is forearmed.

Companies should not turn a blind eye to potential accommodation issues. Indeed, doing that could result in liability where it does not otherwise exist. In the case of an addiction, however, employees should not be able to lean on the ADA as a crutch to save their jobs when they permit their addiction (whether it's the Internet, sex, drugs, or something else) to pervade the work environment.

The importance of following established criteria

In Dunlap v. Tennessee Valley Auth., decided last week by the 6th Circuit, illustrates the dangers employers face when deviating from established criteria in the hiring process.

David Dunlap, a 52-year-old African American, was one of 21 applicants for 10 positions with the TVA. Before it began interviewing, the selection committee decided that the interview would account for 70% of an applicant's final score and technical expertise would account for the other 30%. While the committed would score each candidates after his or her interview, the committee would also review the the scores from all of the prior interviewees and re-score them. This "score-balancing" caused the final scores to vary widely from the initial scores. For example, Dunlap's attendance record of only a few days off for family illness was scored a 3.7, while two white applicants with the same answer scored a 4.2 and 4.5. Dunlap's perfect safety record received a 4, while another white applicant with two prior accidents scored a 6.

After the interviews, the 21 applicants were ranked in order of most to least qualified. Dunlap ranked 14th. Of the 10 hirees, only one was black. Dunlap alleges that the combined weight of his more than 20 years of technical and supervisory experience made him a more qualified applicant than some of the other applicants who were hired, some of whom had only minimal supervisory experience and poorer safety records. Dunlap scored the same on the technical part of the application as five of the selected white candidates, but he scored much lower on the interview. He alleged that the interview process was biased to select less qualified candidates and hide racial preferences. The Court agreed.

The Court found that the TVA's hiring matrix was a pretext for racial discrimination:

First, the selection committee determined that the interview would account for seventy percent of an applicant’s final score, and technical expertise would account for thirty percent, therefore transferring the bulk of the final score from an objective measurement (merit and experience) towards a subjective measurement (communication skills). The TVA’s "Principles and Practices" on filling vacant positions, however, mandate that "merit and efficiency form the basis for selection of job candidates," stating that "education, training, experience, ability and previous work performance serve as a basis for appraisal of merit and efficiency."

Thus, because the hiring matrix for these positions differed from the employer's established policies, the Court found the use of the matrix was pretextual. The Court also found that the interviewers' manipulation of the scores to ensure that certain people would rank in the top 10 was also evidence of pretext.

TVA's failure to follow its own established policies and practices is what ultimately doomed it in this case. If it had hired the same 9 white candidates instead of Dunlap, but instead relied solely on objective technical criteria as its "Principles and Practices" required, and had not balanced scores after each interview, it would have been close to impossible for Dunlap to have proved discrimination. The objective criteria were supposed to hire the 10 best candidates, not the nine best white candidates and one token African American.

The use of objective criteria, whether in hiring, or for selecting employees to be included in a RIF, is a great way to insulate your organization from a claim of discrimination. Those criteria, however, must be safe from scrutiny. When a subjective component is introduced, such as interviewing or "score leveling", it looks more and more like something other than objective qualifications are the deciding factor. Courts and juries like to think that companies hire and retain the best, most qualified people. If a plaintiff can show that numbers that were supposed to be objective are anything but, those same judges and juries will look for an explanation as to why. Often times, the answer they will find is discrimination.

Dealing with Internet addiction under the ADA

Last week, I asked whether the ADA affored protection to Internet addicts. I concluded that the ADA would not protect an employee who spends all hours of the workday surfing the Web for non-work reasons:

Rest assured, though, that even if the DSM recognizes Internet or email addiction as a bona fide mental disorder, employers should still be able reasonably to regulate use at work without running afoul of the ADA. Just as the ADA does not entitle an employee who claims sex addiction to sexually harass co-workers, the ADA is almost certainly not going to permit an Internet addict not to perform his or her job.

Donna Seale at Human Rights in the Workplace, a blog on Canadian employment law issues, suggests that under Canadian discrimination laws, the result might be different:

While I agree with the premise that employers have a legitimate interest in ensuring employees remain productive and do not misuse company technology, the pendulum in Canada in relation to the accommodation of disability in the workplace has clearly swung in the direction of employees. As a result, I'm not so certain that Canadian employers who attempt to take a strictly black and white approach to the enforcement of technology use policies (for example) won't come into conflict with human rights legislation.

I agree that issues in employment relations are never black and white. Even something such as an "Internet addiction" falls into some shade of gray. I just think this issue leans much closer to either pole than the middle. If an employee is not doing his or her job, and is caught surfing the Net all hours of the day, the employer should have right to terminate that employee, whether for lack of productivity, theft, or violation of a technology use policy.

If the employee says in response to the termination, "But I am addicted to the Net," the employer has a choice. It can (1) carry through with its decision, (2) reconsider its decision and try to make a reasonable accommodation for the employee, or (3) hold the employee's job while the employee seeks help. The magnanimous employer may choose #2 or #3, but I don't think the ADA requires it.

The situation may be different if the employee requests an accommodation for the addiction before the termination decision, but in that case the employee still has to be able to perform the essential functions of the job with that accommodation. If the employee's job requires Internet and email access, it's hard to imagine an accommodation that would enable to employee to work.

What else I'm reading this week #23

Lots of really good practical advice this week:

Michael Moore of the Pennsylvania Employment Law Blog gives 5 things every HR employee should know about retaliation.

John Phillips, guest blogging at the Connecticut Employment Law Blog, tells us what to do with a problem employee who lacks any documentation to support the termination.

BLR's HR Daily Advisor provides 7 traps to avoid in managing employees with disabilities.

George's Employment Blawg talks about the use of surveys to measure employee satisfaction and other issues.

The HR Capitalist, Kris Dunn, blogs on how not to write vacation policies.

Finally, the Alaska Employment Law Blog talks about why it is not a good idea to conduct locker room video surveillance of your employee.

English-only rule at Philadelphia restaurant upheld

As a native of Philadelphia, nothing makes my mouth water more than a cheesesteak (please, please, don't call it a Philly cheesesteak, which is redundant, or a steak and cheese, which will just show your ignorance). You might be asking yourself, what do cheesesteaks have to do with employment law?

Geno's, one of the sacred temples of cheesesteaks at the corner of 9th and Passyunk in South Philly, had a small problem with the Philadelphia Commission on Human Relations about a sign hanging in its window that reads, "This is America. When ordering, please speak English." Yesterday, a split three-member panel of that Commission ruled that the sign did not convey a message that service would be refused to non-English speakers. Anti-immigration groups are heralding Geno's owner, Joey Vento, as a hero. Today's Philadelphia Inquirer reports that the one dissenting commission member relied on testimony from witnesses who "felt intimidated and unwelcomed by the sign's message. One witness, University of Pennsylvania sociology professor Camille Z. Charles, likened the 'speak English' signs to 'whites only' signs from the Jim Crow era."

While Professor Charles might be overly dramatic, her comments highlight the raw emotion that people feel over English-only rules. As the debate continues in Congress over the legality of English-only workplaces, and some state legislatures consider similar bills that would permit employers to require their employees to speak English, businesses should continue to tread carefully before implementing such a policy. English-only workplace policies should only extend as far as necessary to reach an articulated business reason (such as safety or work-related communication among employees), and it is a good idea to consult with employment counsel to evaluate whether the policy is not discriminatory as written or applied.

[Hat tip: Overlawyered]

Is Internet addiction a protected disability?

There is no doubt that addiction is a protected disability under the ADA and Ohio's parallel law. The Department of Labor provides the following helpful summary of the impact of the ADA on employees who have problems with drugs and alcohol:

• Employers may prohibit the illegal use of drugs and the use of alcohol in the workplace.
• The ADA is not violated by tests for illegal use of drugs (but remember to meet state requirements).
• Employers may discharge or deny employment to persons who currently engage in the illegal use of drugs.
• Employers may not discriminate against drug addicts who are not currently using drugs and have been rehabilitated or have a history of drug addiction.
• Employers may not discriminate against drug addicts who are currently in a rehabilitation program. (The EEOC has clarified that a rehabilitation program includes inpatient or outpatient programs, Employee Assistance Programs, or recognized self-help programs such as Narcotics Anonymous.)
• Reasonable accommodation efforts, such as allowing time off for medical care, self-help programs, etc., must be extended to rehabilitated drug addicts or individuals undergoing rehabilitation.
• A person who is an alcoholic may be an "individual with a disability" under the ADA.
• Employers may discipline, discharge or deny employment to alcoholics whose use of alcohol impairs job performance or conduct to the same extent that such conduct would result in disciplinary action for other employees.
• Employees who use drugs and alcohol may be required to meet the same standards of performance and conduct set for other employees.
• Employees may be required to follow the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988 and rules set by Federal agencies pertaining to alcohol and drug use in the workplace.
• The ADA does not protect casual drug users; but individuals with a record of addiction, or who are erroneously perceived as being addicts, would be covered by the guidelines.

The bottom line is that the ADA does not protect the impaired, but does protect non-impaired addicts, those who are perceived as addicts, and those who have a record of past addiction. In other words, an employer can terminate an employee who is impaired on the job or tests positive for drugs or alcohol on the job, but cannot terminate someone who is in rehab, for example.

What about other addictions? From Engadget Mobile comes this story about email addiction:

Considering the plethora of facilities that have opened just in the past few years to deal solely with individuals that have become undoubtedly addicted to video games, the internet and all things Hello Kitty (we jest, we jest), we're not surprised one iota to hear that uncontrollably texting / e-mailing could soon become "classified as an official brain illness." According to a writeup in the latest American Journal of Psychiatry, internet addiction is a common ailment "that should be added to psychiatry's official guidebook of mental disorders." More specifically, Dr. Jerald Block, a psychiatrist at the Oregon Health and Science University in Portland, even goes so far as to argue that said phenomenon (neglecting basic drives to spend more time online) be "included in the [next edition of] Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, psychiatry's official dictionary of mental illnesses."

Here's a preview of what might be coming for employers:

• Employer to employee, "Our IT department tells us you've spent 20 hour a week for the past 3 months surfing the Internet on non-work related sites. We're going to have to let you go.
• Employee responds: "But I'm addicted to the Internet."
• Employer: "Sorry, your non-work use of the Internet is stealing."
• Employee's lawyer: "We're suing you for disability discrimination."

Likelihood of success aside, this scenario is not all that improbable to occur. Rest assured, though, that even if the DSM recognizes Internet or email addiction as a bona fide mental disorder, employers should still be able reasonably to regulate use at work without running afoul of the ADA. Just as the ADA does not entitle an employee who claims sex addiction to sexually harass co-workers, the ADA is almost certainly not going to permit an Internet addict not to perform his or her job.

Carnival of HR is available

Wally Bock's Three Star Leadership Blog has posted this fortnight's Carnival of Human Resources. To quote Wally:

Stroll down the midway and you will find posts full of wit and wisdom that will delight, amaze, and educate. But wait, there's more. You'll also discover new blogs you'll want to read.

Workers' comp retaliation case shows importance of careful documentation

If you don't want it read by your spouse, seen by your boss, considered by a jury, or splashed on the front page of the newspaper, do not write it down or send it in an email.

Cunningham v. Steubenville Orothopedics & Sports Medicine, Inc., decided this week by Ohio's 7th Appellate District, illustrates the pitfalls that await companies that terminate employees in the midst of a workers' comp leave. It also shows that managers and supervisors must be vigilant in what they put in writing.

Marianne Cunningham was an x-ray technician for Steubenville Orthopedics. She injured her back at work and took a six-week leave of absence after filing a workers' comp claim for her injury. After informing Steubenville Orthopedics that she would be able to return to work the following week, she was laid off. Among the evidence that the court relied upon in reversing the trial court's dismissal of the retaliation claim was certain notes kept by her boss, Dr. Amin, in his desk:

• Notes that specifically mentioned a back injury Cunningham had suffered at a prior job.
• Dr. Amin gave excessive absenteeism as the reason for Cunningham's termination. His notes, however, documented that Cunningham was only absent 6 times in the 30 months prior to her injury, while the employee who replace her during her workers' comp leave missed 5 to 10 days of work during a shorter prior of time and was not terminated.

I've often written about the importance of documentation in employment cases. The Cunningham case illustrates that what you don't document is often as important as what you do document. Steubenville Orthopedics's case was sunk because Dr. Amin did not carefully vet his thoughts before committing them to paper. His notes gave the court the evidence it needed to find that a question of fact existed on the issue of Dr. Amin's motivation for the termination. Dr. Amin will now have to come up with some non-retaliatory explanation for his notes that passes the red-face test in front of a jury, an unenviable position.

Update on Ohio Health Families Act

The Columbus Dispatch reports that the Ohio legislature is balking at the Ohio Health Families Act in its current form. The legislature has until May 8 to pass the OHFA. If it does not, Sick Days Ohio, the Union-led coalition of 180 different groups that sponsored the measure, would be entitled to circulate a petition to gather 120,683 signatures to qualify the law for placement on the fall ballot. A recent Columbus Dispatch poll shows that Sick Days Ohio likely would not have much problem obtaining those signatures. According to the poll, 76% of registered Democrats and 45% of registered Republicans favor the OHFA, while only 15% of Democrats and 44% of Republicans oppose it.

This wide bipartisan public support likely means that the OHFA will appear on November's ballot and will probably pass by a comfortable margin. In other words, Ohio's businesses better prepare themselves for the likely prospect of mandatory paid sick leave beginning in 2009.

Rehiring of "boomerang" employees poses unique problems

Raytheon v. Hernandez, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2003, confirmed that an employer may lawfully refuse to rehire a previously terminated employee as long as the refusal is based on a neutral no-rehire policy and not on some protected trait. Today's South Jersey Courier Post talks about the benefits to employers to rehiring former employees who left on good terms, so called "boomerang" employees:

[A]s the marketplace becomes more globally competitive for skilled workers, companies find that it makes perfect sense to rehire former workers.... No longer is it seen as disloyal for an employee to go to another company for career opportunities, and employers are welcoming back former workers with open arms.

In rehiring a former employee, consideration must be paid to whether that specific rehiring decision will make a decision not to rehire another employee appear discriminatory. It may make perfect business sense to rehire one employee and not another, but if the rehired employee is outside a protected class, it may cause the rejection of other former employees to be questioned. If you have a blanket no rehire policy, it is best to either follow it, or be prepared to explain why you chose not to follow it in a specific instance. If you instead choose to rehire ex-employees on a case by case basis, make sure to have a legitimate business reason why one employee's request was granted and not another's.

What else I'm reading this week #22

This week's review starts with a couple of posts that should be of particular interest to Ohio businesses. Kris Dunn, The HR Capitalist, reports that Wal-Mart has overtaken GM as Ohio's largest employer. Meanwhile, The Union-Free Employer details a nasty labor dispute between the Service Employees International Union and the California Nurses Association for the right to organize at Ohio's Mercy Health hospital system.

The big news of the week, though, is hooker-gate in New York. Michael Moore at the Pennsylvania Employment Law Blog draws from Governor Spitzer's crisis some lessons for HR in scandal management .

Philip Gordon, the Workplace Privacy Counsel, has a great post on the problems inherent in dealing with a former employee's damaging web posts about your company.

Sticking with the technology theme, Rush Nigut's Rush on Business gives businesses some lessons in the litigation dangers presented by deleted emails, and Alaska Employment Law talks about the legalities of secret locker room surveillance.

Finally, John Phillips of The Word on Employment Law provides a helpful Q&A on employee handbooks.

Defamation liability in internal investigations?

Jackson v. City of Columbus, decided today by the Ohio Supreme Court, illustrates the importance of being thorough in all internal investigations of employee misconduct, and only disclosing the results of such investigations on a need to know basis.

The Mayor of Columbus asked his Columbus Public Safety Director, Thomas Rice, to conduct an internal investigation of his Police Chief, James Jackson, on allegations of police corruption. In June 1997, Rice presented his report of the investigation to the Mayor and released it to the public. In the report was a statement attributed to Keith Lamar Jones, an inmate at the Chillicothe Correctional Institution, which alleged that Jackson had impregnated a juvenile prostitute. A polygraph conducted during the interview of Jones concluded that he was deceptive during the interview but that his statements about the underage prostitute were not entirely invalid. Following the public release of the report, Jackson filed a defamation suit against the City. Both the trial court and the court of appeals found in the City's favor, in that the comment about the juvenile prostitute was subject to a public interest privilege. The Ohio Supreme Court accepted the case on the issue of whether one "commits defamation by publishing the defamatory statements of a third party when the publisher has a high degree of awareness of the probable falsity of those statements.”

Defamation occurs when a publication contains a false statement "made with some degree of fault, reflecting injuriously on a person’s reputation, or exposing a person to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, shame or disgrace, or affecting a person adversely in his or her trade, business or profession." If a plaintiff makes out a defamation case, a respondent may then invoke a conditional or qualified privilege, which must be supported by "good faith, an interest to be upheld, a statement limited in its scope to this purpose, a proper occasion, and publication in a proper manner and to proper parties only." A qualified privilege may be defeated only if a plaintiff proves with convincing clarity that a publisher acted with actual malice. "Actual malice" is defined as "acting with knowledge that the statements are false or acting with reckless disregard as to their truth or falsity." "reckless disregard", in turn, means that a publisher of defamatory statements acts with a "high degree of awareness of their probable falsity," or when the publisher "in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication."

The Ohio Supreme Court decided that the City abused its privilege in reporting that Jackson had impregnated a juvenile. First, the City relied solely on the word of a convicted felon with a history of being a liar, and who had a questionable polygraph result. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, Rice never interviewed Jackson about the allegation. According to Jackson, had he been asked, Rice would have been told that Jackson had a vasectomy and could not have impregnated anyone.

Before you conclude that the Jackson case doesn't apply to your business, consider that it teaches some general lessons on the handling of all internal investigations. Ohio court have held that employers enjoy a qualified privilege to disclose the results of internal investigations. See Lennon v. Cuyahoga Cty. Juvenile Court; Blatnik v. Avery Dennison Corp. When conducting internal investigations into allegations of sexual harassment or other employee misconduct, Jackson highlights a couple of important points.

• Consider your source. Who is providing certain information is as important as the information that is provided. Do not take what a witness says at face value without taking into consideration the witness's credibility. Does the witness have history of truthfulness? Does the witness have something to gain in the outcome, such as a promotion if another employee is terminated? Is the witness biased towards either the victim or accused? These questions are important in determining how much weight to give to a witness's statements, if any at all.
• Only disclose to those who need to know. Confidentiality is key in any internal investigation, even more so if the allegations are as devastating as sex with an underage prostitute. The more widely you disclose the fruits of any investigation, the more you open yourself up to a claim that you have abused the qualified privilege. The best practice is to limit the sphere of knowledge to those who absolutely need to know, and further limit what is told to those who need to know. How much information to disclose and to whom is largely a judgment call, but as a rule of thumb less is better.

Ohio Senate proposes ban on sexual orientation discrimination

Senate Bill 305, introduced in the Ohio Senate yesterday, would include "sexual orientation" in the list of protected classes against which it is illegal for employers to discriminate. It defines sexual orientation as "heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, asexuality, or transgenderism, whether actual or perceived." According to today's Cleveland Plain Dealer, if S.B. 305 passes, Ohio would become the 22nd state to ban this type of discrimination. The Plain Dealer also points out that only one Republican crossed party lines to sponsor the bill, which does not bode well for its ultimate fate.

While this blog is unabashedly slanted in the employer's favor, I come down on the side of the employee on the issue of sexual orientation discrimination. As I've said here before, is difficult to argue, in 2008, that it is acceptable to condone intentional discrimination of an innate characteristic such as sexual orientation. I also understand, however, the impracticalities of extending the same protections to gender identity. A company should not be forced to accept a man dressed in drag (for example) if that is not the image its wants to project, or if it think such an image will harm its bottom line by driving away business or customers.

Revisiting the facebooking of job applicants

Several months ago I wrote about basing personnel decisions on an applicant's or employee's off-work online activities. Today, three articles on this same topic came across my screen that make this topic worth revisiting: Do Employers Using Facebook for Background Checks Face Legal Risks?; Facebook a risky tool for background checks, lawyers warn; and Employers may be searching applicants' Facebook profiles, experts warn.

These articles predict indefensible discrimination lawsuits and general gloom and doom for employers who use Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, etc., to conduct background checks on job applicants. They suggest that companies are unnecessarily risking liability in a landscape that is uncertain until courts are asked to lay down some rules on these issues.

What is going on here? I'm the first person to tell companies not to be the test case for emerging HR practices, and to let others blaze the trail by defending the inevitable lawsuits. I just can't see how a company can face liability if it non-discriminatorily looks for information on job applicants on the web. People put this information in the public domain for anyone and everyone to see. It's one thing if employers use Internet searches to pre-screen job applicants before the interview process. That's a big no-no, for the same reason we no longer ask job applicants to submit photos -- it reveals demographic information that an employer could use to screen out certain minorities, genders, and other protected groups. Once a company decides to consider an applicant and actually meets the person, those concerns disappear.

A couple of helpful pointers for companies to consider. As with all personnel practices, it is best to have a written policy for supervisors, managers, and others involved in the hiring process to follow. That policy should make clear that Internet sources cannot be checked until after a job applicant has been interviewed, and that if a search is going to be conducted for one applicant for a position, it must be done for all. It also not a bad idea to put a disclaimer somewhere on the job application stating that publicly available Internet sources may be checked post-interview as part of consideration process.

Today's schadenfreude moment

Schadenfreude is a German word meaning, "happiness in the misfortune of others." I'm certain a feeling of schadenfreude has settled in all over Wall Street this morning, given yesterday's news about the Governor of New York.

Today's question: What do the Governor of New York and an Iowa casino worker have in common? Apparently, love for paid companionship. From the Des Moines Register comes this story of a casino employee terminated for attempting to buy a prostitute on his employer's dime.

Neil Jorgensen, 62, of Kalona worked at the Riverside Casino and Gold Resort south of Iowa City until last November. He was fired after he was given a $100 Riverside gift certificate and a free night's stay at the casino hotel in recognition of a year's employment with the company. He used the gift certificate and free night's stay on the night of Nov. 28.

"I went to Ruthie's, the nice steakhouse within the casino, and I had a cosmopolitan or two and a bottle of wine and a really good dinner," Jorgensen testified at a recent state hearing dealing with his request for unemployment benefits.

He said he went to his hotel room about midnight and called hotel managers for help in figuring out how to order an adult movie. An hour later, he said, he called the managers again "and asked for a hooker." After the managers refused to help procure a prostitute for him, Jorgensen called someone at the adjacent resort and made the same request.

The casino's human resources director, Tim Donovan, testified that hotel workers were then sent to Jorgensen's room to insist that he stop calling for prostitutes.

"When the hotel supervisor knocked on the door, Mr. Jorgensen answered the door in the nude," Donovan testified. Jorgensen was fired the next day.

Undeterred by his termination, Jorgensen filed for unemployment. At his hearing, he offered 6 different defenses for his misconduct, ranging from pedestrian to hilarious:

• "The advertisement is that it's just like Las Vegas, so I thought I was in Las Vegas."
• The casino employs a dual standard because "gamblers have been allowed to continue gambling after they've urinated on the blackjack table standing in full public view."
• That his actions had no detrimental effect on the casino.
• That just prior to his termination, he had received an "excellent" performance review.
• That the casino "overserved" him, which caused him to be "absolutely plowed."
• Finally, Jorgensen claimed that his requests for a prostitute were part of "an off-the-wall surveillance" test.

I could draw some great moral lessons here, or tell you that an employee who tries to hire a hooker on the company's dime should be fired ASAP, no questions asked. The reality, though, is that this story just made me laugh, especially in light of what happened in New York yesterday.

[Hat tip: Manpower Employment Blawg]

Guest blogging at the Connecticut Employment Law Blog

I'm pulling double duty today. In addition to my regular posts here, I'm also guest blogging at the Connecticut Employment Law Blog to cover for Dan Schwartz while he's in trial. Click on over to Dan's outstanding blog (and I'm not just saying that because of my guest post) and take a look at my thoughts on the federal Healthy Families Act. While your there, be sure to subscribe and add Dan to your feed reader.

Avoiding more discrimination traps

Last week I talked about avoiding common traps in the questions that are asked during job interviews. The questioning, however, is not the end of this story. John Phillips' Word on Employment Law points out that even if the right questions are asked, the notes that interviewers take during the process can prove just as damaging. Interviewers always take notes. The notes enable the interviewer to remember key points about candidates and make pertinent comparisons at the end of the process. The key word, though, is "pertinent." John's point, which is an important one, is to make sure that any notes that are taken are job related and deal with a candidate's experience and skills, and not a protected class:

So, you would never write "black," "AA" (even if your explanation is that this stands for Alcoholics Anonymous instead of African-American, remember that alcoholism is a disability), "Asian," "Hispanic," "crippled," etc. You'll never be able to satisfactorily explain why you made those notes. If the applicant has a name that is used by men and women, don’t write "female," because if you don't hire her, you'll be accused of giving yourself a reminder that this applicant was female. If the applicant is female, don’t write "appears to be pregnant" (pregnancy discrimination is a form of sex discrimination). If the applicant is obviously in his/her 60's, don't write "too old for job."

These ideas don't only apply to interview notes, but any other notes that a supervisor, manager, or HR employee might take -- whether in an investigation, disciplinary meeting, termination meeting, or any other setting that might bear on one's employment. An HR professional might write "discrimination" in her notes taken during a meeting terminating a 60 year old employee. That note could be an admission that the employee was being discriminated against, or an innocent explanation that because the employee is 60 years old the possibility of a claim of discrimination exists. If it's in writing, though, that employee will have to explain what it means during a deposition or to a jury. I guarantee that an employer does not want it left to a jury to decide which interpretation of that note is more believable.

The bottom line -- think before anything is committed to paper. If you have any doubt about whether something can be used against you, omit it. Education about the employment discrimination laws is key to this process. If you don't know what is illegal, it's impossible to know the traps to avoid.

What else I'm reading this week #21

It seems no matter where you turn these days, you just can't escape the presidential campaigns. John Phillips at The Word on Employment Law has been doing a great series on where the presidential candidates stand on various pieces of pending employment legislation and other labor and employment issues. I highly recommend checking out John's thorough posts if you want a sense of what a Clinton or Obama administration might look like to employers.

Childrens' lit is all the rage with bloggers lately. The HR Capitalist blames a Dr. Seuss book, I Am Not Going to Get Up Today, for the mess of FMLA intermittent leave.

Rush Nigut, better known as Rush on Business, draws some lessons from a case on deleted emails.

The Labor & Employment Law Blog gives some pointers on a topic I've touched on quite a bit, preventative and corrective actions for workplace harassment.

Finally, The Laconic Law Blog reports that the District of Columbia has approved legislation for mandatory paid sick leave. In all likelihood, we will see a similar measure, the Ohio Healthy Families Act, on the ballot in Ohio in November.

EEOC posts huge gain in discrimination charges

According to this EEOC press release, discrimination charges filed with the EEOC increased by 9% in 2007. The 82,792 private sector discrimination charges filed last year was the highest volume of incoming charges since 2002 and the largest annual increase since the early 1990s.

Race was the most frequently filed claim, with retaliation a close second and having the greatest percentage increase:

Basis of Charge Filing	2007	2006	Percentage Increase/Historical Comparison
RACE	30,510	27,238	Up 12% to highest level since 1994
RETALIATION	26,663	22,555	Up 18% to record high level, double since 1992
SEX/GENDER	24,826	23,247	Up 7% to highest level since 2002
AGE	19,103	16,548	Up 15%, largest annual increase since 2002
DISABILITY	17,734	15,575	Up 14% to highest level since 1998
NATIONAL ORIGIN	9,369	8,327	Up 12%, above 9,000 for second time ever
RELIGION	2,880	2,541	Up 13% to record high level, double since 1992

EEOC Chair Naomi C. Earp believes that companies' failures in combating workplace discrimination explains these numbers: "Corporate America needs to do a better job of proactively preventing discrimination and addressing complaints promptly and effectively. To ensure that equality of opportunity becomes a reality in the 21st century workplace, employers need to place a premium on fostering inclusive and discrimination-free work environments for all individuals."

Ms. Earp's statement would be more telling if the EEOC also released data on the percentage of charges on which the EEOC found probable cause as compared to how many were dismissed. This increase is much more likely the result of the economic downtown and more job losses, instead of companies avoiding their EEO responsibilities.

The uselessness of the Working Families Flexibility Act

WorkplaceHorizons has tipped me off to a recently introduced Senate bill, the Working Families Flexibility Act.

This bill, sponsored by Senators Obama and Clinton among others, would provide employees with the right to request, once every 12 months, that his or her employer modify the employee's work hours, schedule, or location. The Act would then require the employer to meet with the employee to discuss the requested modification within 14 days. Within 14 days of that meeting, the employer would have to provide the employee with a written decision regarding the requested modification, stating the grounds for any denial and any proposed alternative modifications. If the employee is still dissatisfied with the employer's decision, the bill would allow the employee to request reconsideration and require the employer and the employee to meet to again discuss the request. The Act covers employees who work at least 20 hours per week and 1,000 hours per year, and employers with 15 or more employees.

The Act also would make it unlawful for an employer to interfere with an employee's attempt to exercise his or her rights under the Act or to retaliate against an employee. Aggrieved individuals could file a complaint with the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division of the Employment Standards Administration of the United States Department of Labor. Violations could result in civil fines of up to $5,000 per violation and equitable relief such as reinstatement, promotion, back pay, and changes to terms and conditions of employment.

Last I checked, the employer sets the terms and conditions of employment, especially on the core issues of work hours, schedules, and locations. Do employees really need federal legislation to go to a supervisor and ask for such an accommodation? Will this legislation change employers' responses to reasonable requests? Won't employers still guide their responses by the specific needs of their businesses? Further, as long as an employer goes through this interactive process, where is the harm to the employee, who is granted no right to any modification? However, every time an employee's request is rejected, he or she will scream interference or retaliation to the DOL, creating an administrative nightmare. Talk about worthless legislation. This bill is currently sitting in the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, where I hope it dies a quick death.