Today’s lesson may seem obvious, but it is one worth repeating: any employee, no matter the on-the-job misconduct, can sue you. Filing a lawsuit is one thing, succeeding on that lawsuit is an entirely different animal.
Saturday evening my family and I returned from our two-week California vacation. Five nights in Los Angeles, two in Paso Robles (if you ever pass through, I cannot more highly recommend Sculpterra Winery and the Paso Robles Inn), three in Palo Alto (where Donovan participated in a research study seeking a link between Noonan Syndrome and ADHD, and which resulted in both of my kids now wanting to attend Stanford … best of luck to them and me), and three in San Francisco. We had epic adventures, experienced Disney (of course), hiked and biked, enjoyed beautiful scenery, reunited with family and friends, and walked … a lot (72 miles to be precise).
Last Saturday, Norah’s band, the Major Minors, played to a packed courtyard outside the legendary Grog Shop. And boy did the crowd have a good time. Especially this woman.
The Major Minors return to the scene on August 3rd, where they’ll play inside the Grog Shop, opening for the School of Rock Allstars (the school’s national touring band).
The blog is going on hiatus for two weeks. I’ll be back on July 17 after a much deserved vacation.
It’s been six months since Ohio made it illegal for employers to prohibit employees (or anyone else for that matter) from storing a firearm in their vehicles on the employer’s property. This law, however, lacks any specific statutory teeth (sort of). If Ohio legislators get their way, this omission will soon change.
Yesterday’s post discussing Arias v. Raimondo as the worst employment-law decision of 2017 was way more controversial than I imagined. To me, it’s a no-brainer. It’s dangerous for courts to hold an employer’s lawyer liable for retaliation against the employees of the lawyer’s client. It will chill an attorney’s ability to give proper advice to one’s client, because anything that remotely could result in an employee suffering an adverse action could, under the logic of Arias, give rise to a retaliation claim. Then the comments rolled in:
I’ll be vacationing in California with my family the first two week of July. After reading the 9th Circuit’s decision in Arias v. Raimondo—holding an employer’s attorney for liable for FLSA retaliation against his client’s employee because the employee sued his
client for unpaid overtime—I’m thinking of adding the 9th Circuit to my list of tourist stops in San Francisco to see if courthouse resembles a Salvador Dali painting. Because this decision is flat out bonkers.
I gotta give my girl credit. She’s got cohones (especially at the age of 11). Through a casual exam-chair conversation with her orthodontist, he learned that she plays music and she learned that he’s involved with an annual summer solstice music festival. From that, she booked herself her first ever solo gig. She spent the next day working up and running through six songs, and played to a mid-afternoon crowd outside our favorite French restaurant. And, like always, she was aces. Here a few highlights strung together medley-style.
And, if you’re local and crave the full band experience, the Major Minors play a full set from 1-3 tomorrow, during the Coventry Village Sidewalk Sale & Carnival Games Party (one of Cleveland.com’s “Top things to do in Cleveland this weekend.” They will rock the courtyard outside of the Grog Shop, 2785 Euclid Heights Blvd., Cleveland Heights (coincidentally, a mere block from my law school apartment).
Employers have a legal obligation to investigate known sexual and other unlawful harassment, and exercise reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct any unlawfully harassing behavior. When in harassment “known” by an employer such that it triggers this obligation? EEOC v. AutoZone (6th Cir. 6/9/17) offers some key guidance when an employee fails to report harassment up the chain of command per her employer’s written harassment policy.
The Witch: I’m not a witch! I’m not a witch! Sir Bedevere: But you are dressed as one The Witch: *They* dressed me up like this! Crowd: We didn’t! We didn’t… The Witch: And this isn’t my nose. It’s a false one. Sir Bedevere: [lifts up her false nose] Well? Peasant 1: Well, we did do the nose. Sir Bedevere: The nose? Peasant 1: And the hat, but she is a witch! Crowd: Yeah! Burn her! Burn her!
How wide of a net is the EEOC entitled to cast when issuing a subpoena for documents during an investigation? According to EEOC v. United Parcel Service, decided earlier this month by the 6th Circuit, the answer is a lot wider than you’d like.
Last week, Derek Rotondo, a dad of two young children, filed a sex discrimination charge with the EEOC against his employer of seven years, J.P. Morgan. Why? I’ll let Derek explain, in a blog he wrote for the ACLU.
The EEOC has taken a judgment of $118,483 against a New jersey debt collection firm in a pregnancy discrimination case. Why? Because the firm rescinded a job offer to a female employee after it learned that she was pregnant.
That alone, however, will not earn one an employer a nomination for “Worst Employer of 2017.” I’ll let the EEOC explain further:
Next week, I am taking a much needed break, as I will be out of the office. I’ll see everyone back on June 19. Of course, now that I’ve committed not to blog next week, the employment-law poop will certainly hit the fan next week, in which case my blogger OCD will compel me to break my pledge, interrupt my trip, and bring you all the news that’s fit to blog. Either way.
The past two years have been busy for the Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division. One can directly track a large part of its busy workload to its enlargement of who qualifies as an “employer” under the Fair Labor Standards Act. In 2015, the DOL issued guidance re-defining, and broadening the definition of, who qualifies as an “independent contractor”. And, the following year, the DOL did the same with its definition of “joint employer”.
Alex Acosta, the newly appointed Secretary of Labor, looks to roll back the clock on these interpretations.
This year, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act turns 50. Which means the law itself has been protected from age discrimination for a decade (rim shot).
To mark the law’s golden anniversary, the EEOC next week will hold a public meeting, “The ADEA @ 50 - More Relevant Than Ever.” According to the EEOC, “The meeting will explore the state of age discrimination in America today and the challenges it poses for the future.”
It’s been six weeks since I reported on NLRB v. Pier Sixty, in which the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals held that the National Labor Relations Act protected the profanity-laced Facebook rant of a disgruntled employee. I have hoped that Pier Sixty is an aberration. Thankfully, last week the 1st Circuit came along with a well reasoned contrarian view in a case in which the alleged employee misconduct was much less severe.
One of the elements of my kids’ school that I like most is that the curriculum provides many opportunities for public speaking at every grade level. Each of mine had their separate chance to exhibit their comfort in front of crowd during the last week of school.
I came across an interesting article at the Harvard Business Review—The Omissions That Make So Many Sexual Harassment Policies Ineffective. The article starts with a simple question. “If 98% of organizations in the United States have a sexual harassment policy, why does sexual harassment continue to be such a persistent and devastating problem in the American workplace?”
When you settle a lawsuit with an employee, you are bargaining for finality. You are paying that employee to resolve all disputes between you, whether asserted or unasserted. You want to be done with that individual forever.
