Hair discrimination; not a thing

Give me a head with hair, long beautiful hair
Shining, gleaming, steaming, flaxen, waxen
Give me down to there hair, shoulder length or longer
Here, baby, there, momma, everywhere, daddy, daddy
Hair, hair, hair, hair, hair, hair, hair, hair
Flow it, show it, long as God can grow it, my hair

– “Hair”

Friday’s tongue in check post about the beauty of baldness got me thinking about hair and employment law.

Or, more to the point, can an employer run afoul of discrimination laws by making an employment decision based on one’s hairstyle?

WIRTW #503 (the “bald is beautiful” edition)

I need to get something off my chest. An albatross I’ve carried since my teenage years. I’ve been crushed by the weight of success, intelligence, and sheer masculinity.

And now science has finally, and thankfully, provided a rational explanation for my years of pain.

Bald men look more successful, intelligent and masculine — science says 

The 7th nominee for the “worst employer of 2018” is … the pregnancy provoker

Kayla Edwards worked as a cashier for Aramark at its location in Gettysburg National Park.

In February 2017, Edwards became pregnant with her third child.

That’s when her troubles at work began, at least according to Edwards’ lawsuit [pdf] (filed earlier this week in federal court in Pennsylvania).

Nearly half of American workers admit to engaging in workplace revenge

Photo by Avalon_Mists on Pixabay

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

Alanis Morisette 

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

Even at work.

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

Maternity leave does not guarantee continued employment

By Grand Parc CC BY 2.0 via Wiki Commons

Michelle Bailey worked in the human resources department of Oakwood Healthcare. During her maternity leave, her immediate supervisor and others assumed her responsibilities, and discovered certain deficiencies in how she performed her job.

Discovery of those deficiencies led the supervisor to review Bailey’s qualifications as set forth in her employment application. That review, in turn, uncovered an application Bailey had submitted for a different position at Oakwood two years earlier. A comparison of Bailey’s two resumés on file lead to the conclusion that Bailey had falsified her later application by exaggerating her prior experience and qualifications.

That discovery, coupled with the performance deficiencies, caused Oakwood to terminate Bailey’s employment upon her return from maternity leave.

DO NOT sacrifice employee safety for productivity

Photo by Milo McDowell on Unsplash

The Verge reports that workers at an Amazon distribution facility are “forced to pee in bottles or forego their bathroom breaks entirely because fulfillment demands are too high.”

While this is horrible, and demeaning, it’s still just employees peeing in bottles. It’s not THAT big of deal? Right?

Wrong.

WIRTW #502 (the “AirTalk” edition)

Earlier this week, the U.S. Senate made history by unanimously changing its rules to permit Senator (and new mom) Tammy Duckworth to bring her newborn onto the Senate floor while she cast votes.

Yesterday, I guested on Los Angles public radio station KPCC’s AirTalk and spoke with Libby Denkmann about what this means for the future of parental leave laws in America, and why we should be ashamed that countries like Iran and Afghanistan do more for their working moms than we do.

Thanks to Libby for the great conversation, and to my friend, Kate Bischoff, for the connection.

You can listen here. The segment starts at 29:50, and my interview starts at 41:30.



Here’s what I read this week:

If you weren’t angry about the fired Saints cheerleader before, you will be now.

Remember Bailey Davis? She’s the New Orleans Saints cheerleader fired for violating the team’s social media policy.

Her offense? This photo, which she posted to her personal Instagram.

She’s already filed a civil rights complaint, and now she’s speaking out about her alleged discriminatory treatment, and discriminatory policies in professional cheerleading in general.

Apparently God is in the restaurant business, at least according to the 6th Circuit

Photo by chuttersnap on Unsplash

It’s been nearly three years since I first reported on the Department of Labor’s wage and hour lawsuit against Akron, Ohio’s, Cathedral Buffet, owned and operated by the Earnest Angley Ministries.

The DOL’s allegations are pretty offensive. Not only did it claim that all of the restaurant’s employees worked for free, it also claimed that the ministry coerced church members into volunteering, telling them they “had an obligation to provide their labor to the Buffet, in service to God, and that a failure to offer their labor to the Buffet … would be the same as failing God;” that Angley “was God’s prophet, and saying ‘no’ to Angley would be tantamount to saying ‘no’ directly to God,” and “‘blaspheming against the Holy Ghost.’”

I abhor the term “wage theft,” and you should too

Photo by Thirteen .J on Unsplash

This past Sunday’s Cleveland Plain Dealer ran a story entitled, Do wage theft laws in Ohio harm or help workers? Notably, it quoted yours truly as the voice of management on this issue (thanks to Olivera Perkins for the interview):

Some business advocates argue with the very term “wage theft.” Jon Hyman, a local lawyer who represents employers, says not every employer cited for wage theft has willingly denied rightful wages.”To me, wage theft is a loaded term,” he said. “It presumes an intent to steal.” 

Must you pay employees for FMLA-related breaks during the work day?

Photo by Liam Stahnke on Unsplash

Last week, the Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division resumed its practice of publishing Opinion Letters. One of the first it published answers an interesting question about the intersection of the FLSA and the FMLA.

Must an employer pay an employee for FMLA-approved breaks taken during the work day?

I’ve taken some journalistic license and paraphrased the questions. The answers, however, are verbatim from the DOL Opinion Letter FLSA2018-19 [pdf].

WIRTW #501 (the “fireflies” edition)

According to a recent study, going to concerts adds years to your life.

If this is true (and who am I to argue with science), then last Thursday should propel me into triple digits.

We went to see our fav, Rhett Miller, who invited Norah to share the stage and duet with him.

I learned 4 things watching Norah:

1. She’s got nerves of steel (which I kind of already knew).
2. Her performance belies her 11 years of age (which is also kind of already knew).
3. She can hold her own with a 30-year veteran of the industry.
4. Thanks to Fake ID, I’m probably on an FBI watchlist.

Thank you Rhett, from Norah (and us, too). You are one of a kind.

Here’s what I read this week:

Anti-harassment anthems

Yesterday, I came across the very cool video for a new Speedy Ortiz song, “Villain.”

The song tackles issue of harassment, assault, and consent.

Rock music has always tackled the important social issues of the times, and #MeToo should be no exception.

The other side of diversity

Photo by Igor Ovsyannykov on Unsplash

Workplace diversity has two sides.

One side says that employers cannot discriminate against minorities. The other says that employers cannot discriminate against non-minorities in favor of minorities.

Some people call this reverse discrimination. I just call it discrimination.

#Me(n)Too

According to the Washington Post, nearly one in five — about 17 percent — of harassment complaints filed with the EEOC come from men.

And many involve same-sex harassment.

Some examples:

Cyclist fired for flipping off Presidential motorcade sues former employer

You may recall Juli Briskman, the biker that flipped the finger to Trump’s passing motorcade, and lost her job after a photo she posted went viral.

Ms. Briskman is not taking her termination lying down. In what appears to be a deep-funded and well-orchestrated campaign, she has filed suit in Virginia state court against her ex-employer.

WIRTW #500 (the “500th” edition)

Photo by Alexas_Fotos, via Pixabay

October 12, 2007. I posted my first ever edition of WIRTW (What I Read This Week). It looked a little different back then.

It’s since morphed into what I hope is a useful weekly resource for employers to find the best labor and employment blog posts each week.

Also, holy heck! Ten and a half years and 499 installments later! Who’d have thunk it‽

Thank to everyone for reading along all these weeks and year, and to the other great bloggers who’ve published content that I’ve shared. I literally could not write this column without y’all.

Here’s this week’s list of what I read this week:

In the era of #metoo, let’s not lose focus on the “me”s other than sex

Photo by Luke Braswell on Unsplash

We’ve all done a lot of talking over the past six months about sexual harassment. We should not forget, however, that our laws make harassment unlawful if it’s based on membership in any protected class.

A federal jury in Detroit just provided employers a very real reminder of this fact.

It tagged Ford Motor Co. with a $16.8 million verdict. The plaintiff, a former Ford engineer, proved that the automaker created a hostile work environment based his Arab background.

Does your company need an Affirmative Action Plan?

Photo by Tirachard Kumtanom from Pexels

Compliance is a tricky beast, especially when you don’t know what laws your organization is supposed to be complying with.

Thus, every now and again it’s worthwhile to take a topic and break it down to it’s most basic level. Today is one of those days, and the topic is Affirmative Action Plans. 

As in, do you even know if your organization needs one?

It’s as simple as answering these four questions.

Supreme Court puts the breaks on the narrow constructions of FLSA exemptions

Photo by Coolcaesar (Own work),
via Wikimedia Commons

Yesterday, in a narrow 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held that automobile service advisors are exempt from the FLSA’s overtime requirements.

The exemption applies to “salesmen … primarily engaged in … servicing automobiles.” The majority broadly defined these terms to hold that the plaintiffs were exempt.

And while this aspect of the decision is interesting to automobile repair shops and car dealerships, it's the opinion’s broader implications that are more interesting to me.