WIRTW #498 (the “blarney” edition)

Photo by Khara Woods on Unsplash

Tomorrow is St. Patrick’s Day. Have you ever thought about what the Patron Saint of Ireland can teach us about employment-law compliance? I did, seven years ago.

Click here for 10 compliance challenges to chase out of your workplace.

Here’s what I read this week:

Harassment training is about creating a culture, not checking a box

Bloomberg reports that demand for anti-harassment training videos has surged in the #MeToo era.

Here’s the problem, however. The Bloomberg article talks about training videos, the absolute worst kind of training.

Anti-harassment training is all about creating an anti-harassment culture in your workplace—about employees understanding what harassment is, how to complain about it, and that your company does not ever accept it.

How your problem employee is like an old hot water tank

Last night, my hot water tank died. It was old (14, to be exact).

During his shower, I heard Donovan yell, “Dad, there’s no hot water, and I’m freezing!” On a hunch, I traveled down to the basement, which is where I found puddles on the floor under and around the tank.

To be fair, we ignored a whole bunch of signals over the past few years. 

Fluctuating water temperatures. A 50-gallon tank that would often deplete in a half-hour. Neighbors that had replaced theirs years ago. 

Which got me thinking … an old hot water tank is not all that different from your problem employee.

Tattoos at work: more acceptance, yet still some legal risk

By ABC TV [Public domain],
via Wikimedia Commons

I am not a tattoo person. Yet, a whole lot of people are. And the numbers are increasing.

In fact, according to one recent survey, 3 in 10 Americans have at least one tattoo, up 50% in just four years. And, the younger you are, the more likely you are to sport a tattoo: 47% of millennials have a tattoo, as compared to 36% of gen Xers and only 13% of baby boomers.

Department of Labor trying to get employees PAID for inadvertent FLSA violations

Photo by Sharon McCutcheon on Unsplash

For almost as long as I’ve been writing this blog, I’ve been preaching the proactive benefits of wage and hour audits for employers (e.g., here and here).

It appears that the Department of Labor agrees.

Last week, it announced a nationwide pilot program—the Payroll Audit Independent Determination (PAID) program—which will permit employers to self-report FLSA violations to the Department of Labor without risk of litigation or enforcement proceedings. It enables employers to resolve inadvertent minimum wage and overtime violations without litigation.

WIRTW #497 (the “love” edition)

For the past 496 Fridays (plus a few off here and there) I have shared my list of what I read this week.

Implicit in each share is my recommendation that among those links are a few that you should read, too.

This week, however, there is only one thing you should (must) read.

Kevin Love, all-star power forward for the Cleveland Cavaliers, wrote about his life-long mental health issues.

6th Circuit is the latest court to conclude that Title VII expressly prohibits LGBT discrimination

Photo by Sharon McCutcheon on Unsplash

Yesterday, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals joined a growing number of federal appellate courts to hold that Title VII’s prohibition against sex discrimination expressly covers LGBT employees.

The claimant in EEOC v. R.G. &. G.R. Harris Funeral Homes [pdf], Aimee Stevens (formerly known as Anthony Stephens) was born biologically male, and presented as such when hired. The funeral home’s owner and operator, Thomas Rost, fired her shortly after she informed him that she intended to transition from male to female and would represent herself and dress as a woman while at work.

“Measure twice, cut once," and, for the love of God, don’t email porn to everyone on your company’s contact list

Photo by Wes Hicks on Unsplash

In what may be the greatest (or, depending on your perspective, worst) employee mistake of all time, the Utah State Bar emailed a photo of a topless woman to more than 11,000 of its members.

For its part, the Bar has apologized, and has said it is investigating how the incident occurred and will publicize its findings.

Speculation on the cause of the unfortunate email ranges from hackers to a disgruntled employee.

It’s neither.

Readers, let me break this case for you.

The legal implications of employee tracking devices

Photo by N. on Unsplash

I once knew of company (not a client) at which its CEO would sit in his office all day and watch a bank of monitors connected to cameras all over the workplace so that he could track the productivity of his employees. He even had one outside the bathrooms to record how frequently, and for how long, his employees were taking potty breaks. Needless to say, morale among his employees was not great.

Monitoring of employees has gone even more high tech. The Chicago Tribune reports that Amazon has developed wristbands to track worker hand movements as they fill and ship orders in its warehouses and distribution centers.

A lesson on how to terminate an employee, care of David Brent.

In my opinion, the original British version of The Office is far superior to its American counterpart, in large part because David Brent is so much more cringe-worthy than Michael Scott.

I thought I’d start the week off with a little humor (and a little lesson), care of David Brent, via one of the most awkward employee terminations ever.

WIRTW #496 (the “troll” edition)

Troll:

“One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument.”

– Urban Dictionary

Trolls are a sad an unfortunate part of life on the internet. I put myself out there on a daily basis, and there will be idiots in the comments below, or on LinkedIn, Twitter, or Facebook, who will feel the need to have their ignorant say.

Courtney Barnett feels my pain, and crafted, via song, the perfect response:

Don’t you have anything better to do?
I wish that someone could hug you
Must be lonely
Being angry
Feeling over-looked
You sit alone at home in the darkness
With all the pent-up rage that you harness
I’m real sorry
’Bout whatever happened to you

 

Thanks CB!

Here’s what I read this week:

Save money on overtime payments with the fluctuating work week

Photo by rawpixel.com on Unsplash

In my never-ending quest to show you how many different ways you can screw up paying your employees under the federal wage and hour laws, today I am going to talk about how to properly calculate overtime payments for salaried, non-exempt employees.

An employer has two choices in how to pay overtime to a salaried non-exempt employee: by a fixed work week or by a fluctuating work week.

For reasons that will be illustrated below, the latter is a much more cost-effective option, and is your best way to save money overtime payments for this class of employees.

Spoiler alert: there is some math involved.

What the hell is going on at the NLRB with joint employment?

Photo by Cameron Kirby on Unsplash

If you are a small business owner, pay attention. Today’s update on the issue of joint employment will be one of the most important things you read this year.

Joint employment has been on a bit of a roller coaster ride at the NLRB over the past few months.

Today, I’m going to sort it all out for you, and try to explain where we might be headed next.


What is Joint Employment?

Joint employment is the sharing of control and supervision of an employee’s activity among two or more business entities, such that each is liable for the legal wrongs of the other to its employees (e.g., discrimination, wage and hour, OSHA, unfair labor practices…). It’s what would hold a franchisor liable for the wrongful acts of its franchisee, a contractor for its sub, and a business for its staffing company.

What are the Historic Joint Employment Rules?

For decades prior to August 27, 2015, is was uniformly established that for one entity to be a joint employer with another, it had to exercise direct and actual control over the terms and conditions of the other entities employees. Do they supervise? Are they subject to the same work rules? Can they hire, fire, and discipline? Who pays and how? Who provides benefits? Who assigns schedules and otherwise directs work? If one employer maintains control over these issues, then the other would not have been a joint employer.

Given this strict test, entities such as franchisors and general contractors felt reasonably comfortable that they were not liable for the acts of its franchisees and subs relative to their employees.

What Changed on August 27, 2015? 
Browning-Ferris Industries of Calif. 

In Browning-Ferris, the NLRB ignored and tossed out 40 years of precedent, and expanded the definition of “joint employer” not only to include those that exercise direct and actual control, but also those that exercise indirect control or reserve the potential to exercise control. OSHA and the DOL soon followed suit, and announced similar standards under their respective statutes. Small business owners, as well as other employers, (justifiably) panicked. If a franchisor, for example, is liable for the legal wrongs of its franchisees towards employees that the franchisor does not hire, fire, discipline, pay, or otherwise direct, why franchise at all? Why not just run the businesses, control the liabilities, and cut out the middle man?

December 14, 2017—Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss
Hy-Brand Industrial Contractors

In Hy-Brand, the NLRB expressly overruled Browning-Ferris and restored direct and actual control as the lone test for joint employment:

[W]e overrule Browning-Ferris and restore the joint-employer standard that existed prior to the Browning-Ferris decision. Thus, a finding of joint-employer status requires proof that the alleged joint-employer entities have actually exercised joint control over essential employment terms (rather than merely having “reserved” the right to exercise control), the control must be “direct and immediate” (rather than indirect), and joint-employer status will not result from control that is “limited and routine.”

Bravo. Employers rejoiced.


The Celebration was Short Lived

On February 26, 2018, the NLRB vacated Hy-Brand, restoring Browning-Ferris (and its potential/indirect control tests) as the law of the NLRA on joint employment. Why? Because current NLRB board member Bill Emanuel, one of the three votes in Hy-Brand in favor of overturning Browning-Ferris, was a partner at the law firm that represented Browning-Ferris in 2015. This decision followed the report of NLRB inspector general David Berry earlier this month, which concluded that Emanuel should have recused himself from Hy-Brand, not because Emanuel engaged in anything improper, but because the appearance of a potential conflict should have caused his recusal.


What now?

For now, Browning-Ferris remains the law on joint employment under the NLRA. And, it likely will continue as such, as without Emanuel, the highly politicized NLRB will almost certainly split 2-2 on any rehearing of Hy-Brand.

Browing-Ferris had been pending on appeal and awaiting decision. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, however, dismissed the appeal and remanded the case back the NLRB for disposition consistent with Hy-Brand. You should now expect more litigation over that issue in the D.C. Circuit.

As you can see, this issue is a bit of a muddled mess.

One easy solution is the federal (and bipartisan) Save Local Business Act. It expressly defines a “joint employer” under the NLRA and FLSA as one that—

directly, actually, and immediately, and not in a limited and routine manner, exercises significant control over essential terms and conditions of employment, such as hiring employees, discharging employees, determining individual employee rates of pay and benefits, day-to-day supervision of employees, assigning individual work schedules, positions, and tasks, or administering employee discipline.

It passed the House last November, and now awaits action in the Senate.

This past summer, I asked if joint employment was the issue to unite our divided country. For the sake of America’s small business owner, I certainly hope it does. If you are concerned about this issue (and you should be), call or email your Senator and Congressperson to urge their support of the Save Local Business Act.

2nd Circuit holds that Title VII expressly bars sexual orientation discrimination as sex discrimination

Photo by Matias Rengel on Unsplash

Yesterday, the 2nd Circuit federal court of appeals (which covers New York, Connecticut, and Vermont) held that “Title VII prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation as discrimination ‘because of … sex.’”

With its decision in Zarda v. Altitude Express [pdf], the 2nd Circuit joins the 7th Circuit, and the EEOC in interpreting Title VII as such.

My thoughts on this issue are well documented throughout the archives.

“Exhibit A” for what’s wrong with the Fair Labor Standards Act

Consider this scenario.

Employer and Employee have a good-faith dispute over whether Employer owes Employee for unpaid overtime for time Employee spent traveling.

Employee sues.

Court awards Employee $608.08 for unpaid overtime (doubled to $1,216.16 as liquidated damages).

So far, this all seems kosher.

Then, however, Employee files his petition for attorneys’ fees.

$141,236.50 in attorneys’ fees.

WIRTW #495 (the “guns” edition)

I am not a gun person. If you want to dismiss what I am about to say because of my dislike of guns, that is your prerogative. Just skip down to the links, or come back on Monday, or don’t come back at all (although the latter is a bit closed-minded).

We have a major gun problem is this country. The solution starts with a conversation about universal background checks for all owners of firearms, mandatory waiting periods, and bans on assault weapons.

When does telecommuting qualify as a reasonable accommodation?

I’m writing today’s post from the comfort of the kitchen island in my house. My son has the flu, and I’m working from home.

It’s been three years since the 6th Circuit decided EEOC v. Ford Motor Co., a groundbreaking decision in which the court issued its en banc decision declaring that telecommuting is not an appropriate reasonable accommodation, unless the employee can show that that regular attendance in the workplace, and face-to-face interaction with co-workers, are not essential elements of the employee’s job. 

Yesterday, the same court decided Mosby-Meachem v. Memphis Light, Gas & Water Division [pdf], which defined the parameters of when an employee’s job does qualify for remote work as a reasonable accommodation.

Two recent issues of confidentiality of harassment allegations

The confidentiality of harassment allegations has been a hot topic of debate in the #MeToo and #TimesUp era.

Consider, then, each of the following two pronouncements on the issue by two different branches of the federal government—one by the NLRB and one by Congress.

The FMLA does not cover dead pets (maybe)

‘E’s not pinin’! ‘E’s passed on! This parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! ‘E’s expired and gone to meet ‘is maker! ‘E’s a stiff! Bereft of life, ‘e rests in peace! If you hadn’t nailed ‘im to the perch ‘e’d be pushing up the daisies! ‘Is metabolic processes are now ‘istory! ‘E’s off the twig! ‘E’s kicked the bucket, ‘e’s shuffled off ‘is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin’ choir invisible!! THIS IS AN EX-PARROT!!

In all seriousness, it sucks to lose a pet.

But, does it qualify an employee for FMLA leave?

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

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

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