Crasslighting — Oops, #NotYou is NEVER a defense to #MeToo

Gaslighting — the manipulation of someone by psychological means to question their own sanity. It’s a term you’ve likely heard of.

But, have you heard of crasslighting? Me neither, until I read Did he just harass you or are you imagining it? You might be a victim of ‘crasslighting.’ in The Washington Post.

WIRTW #552 (the “comment of the week” edition)

Big thanks to Kristi Birkeland for the comment of the week, in response to yesterday's 12th blogiversary post.

If I ever I get the t-shirts and coffee mugs printed with this tagline, Kristi gets the first one.

Happy 12th Anniversary to the Ohio Employer Law Blog

Twelve years ago today I launched the Ohio Employer Law Blog.

On May 9, 2007, I published, The Song Remains the Same — Has Burlington Northern Really Changed the Landscape of Retaliation Claims? Not my finest work, but everyone’s gotta start somewhere.

In the dozen years since, I’ve published 3,135(!) posts, which you have read millions of times. It’s truly astounding to me, and I thank all of you who have read, clicked, shared, commented, and connected with me over the years. The absolute best part of this endeavor is the relationships I’ve built and friendships I’ve made.

Workplace civility shouldn’t be something we have to legislate

Workplace harassment isn’t illegal unless it is harassment because of some protected characteristic (sex, race, age, religion, national origin, disability, or any other class protected by law). Generalized workplace bullying or other mistreatment is not illegal unless it falls into one of those categories. Indeed, as the Supreme Court has repeatedly reminded us, workplace discrimination laws are not “a general civility code.”

Lessons from Game of Thrones on an employee’s duty of loyalty #spoileralert

If you haven’t yet watched this week’s episode of Game of Thrones, consider yourself warned. There are spoilers below. Turn back now if you don’t want to be spoiled.

Your employees do not understand their (lack of) free speech rights

Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech….

So reads the 1st Amendment of the Constitution.

Take note that it does not say, “You have absolute freedom of speech in all things at all times.” It only prohibits government-imposed restrictions on speech.

Yet, just last week, President Trump tweeted the following:

I am continuing to monitor the censorship of AMERICAN CITIZENS on social media platforms. This is the United States of America — and we have what’s known as FREEDOM OF SPEECH! We are monitoring and watching, closely!!

I promise you that if the President of the United States does not understand how the 1st Amendment works, your employees don’t understand it either.

WIRTW #551 (the “he went for the head” edition)

#DontSpoilTheEndGame

Really! DON’T SPOIL ENDGAME.

A Friendswood, Texas, Domino’s employee learned this lesson the hard way. He was cited by police after he assaulted a co-worker for revealing an Avengers: Endgame spoiler.

According to ABC13, no one at Domino’s wanted to talk about the incident, and the employee did not respond to inquiries.

Here’s what I read this week:

A cautionary tale on why we background check employees

A cautionary tale on why employers should conduct thorough background checks on employers.

In late 2013, Kristl Thompson, Ashley Raby, and Corbie Leslie filed a lawsuit against The Scott Fetzer Company (doing business as “The Kirby Company”), Crantz Development, and John Fields. The women claimed Fields had sexually assaulted them (including verbal abuse and harassment, inappropriate touching, forced sexual acts, and rape) on numerous occasions between May 2012 and January 2013. A number of these allegations resulted in felony and misdemeanor convictions against Fields.

Handshakes, children’s poems, and the loss of responsibility

Handshakes could be BANNED under new workplace rules to avoid expensive sexual harassment claims

So reads a headline in The Sun. No one is actually considering banning handshakes. Instead, it’s a cautionary “what if” from an “employment expert,” saying what could happen if employers take sexual harassment precautions to far.

I thought of that story as I read a different story yesterday, one about book of children’s poems banned from Costco because a “concerned mom” did not like the content of one of the poems.

Should you pay if your business is attacked by ransomware?

Cleveland Hopkins Airport flight information boards have been out of service since last Monday (story here). Yesterday, after paying contractors more than $750,000 to restore them, the City finally acknowledged the cause—a ransomware attack.

Ransomware is malicious software that locks and encrypts a victim’s computer data. The criminal then demands a ransom to restore access, usually within a set amount of time. If the ransom is not paid, the data is destroyed.

I REALLY thought people knew better not to advertise jobs “for whites”

Cynet Systems, an IT and engineering staffing company, had a viral mess on its hands over the weekend, after it posted a job that asked for candidates “Preferably Caucasian.”

WIRTW #550 (the #NoSpoilers edition)

What are your plans this weekend? I'll be avoiding the internet until 10:30 Sunday night.

We have a 6:40 Saturday showing of Avengers: Endgame, followed by Sunday night on the couch to see if the the gathered forces of good at Winterfell can stop the Night King and his army of the dead on Game of Thrones.

😒 where is Thanos when you need him... #Eurovison #Euronvision pic.twitter.com/a1QuqCjKNP

— The Night King (@WightsKing) May 12, 2018

I'll need a Xanax and a glass of wine to get to sleep after all this is done. #NoSpoilers

Here's what I read this week:

Supreme Court signs off on death by a thousand cuts

Lingchi was a form of torture and execution used in China from roughly 900 BC until China banned in 1905. It translates variously as the slow process, the lingering death, or slow slicing. It's more commonly known as "death by a thousand cuts," in which the torturer uses a knife to methodically remove portions of the body over an extended period of time, ultimately resulting in death.

Yesterday, in Lamps Plus v. Varela, the Supreme Court held that parties to an arbitration agreement cannot be required to arbitrate their claims as a class action unless they specifically agreed to do so in the arbitration agreement.

This disability discrimination lawsuit was no party

Party City has agreed with the EEOC to pay $155,000 to settle an ADA lawsuit the agency filed on behalf of a rejected job applicant on the autism spectrum and suffering from severe anxiety.

According to the lawsuit, the individual had been receiving services from Easter Seals of New Hampshire to build up her self-confidence, including working and applying for a job. These services included a job coach.

Supreme Court grants review in three cases to decide, once and for all, whether Title VII protects LGBTQ employees from discrimination

Yesterday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear appeals in three cases, to decide whether Title VII's prohibition against "sex discrimination" expressly includes prohibitions against LGBTQ discrimination.

Does Title VII protect heterosexuals from discrimination?

So meet, ROBERTa! Shopping in the women’s department for a swimsuit at the BR Target. For all of you people that say you don’t care what bathroom it’s using, you’re full of shit!! Let this try to walk in the women’s bathroom while my daughters are in there!! #hellwillfreezeoverfirst

Suppose you own a company, and one of your employees posts this rant on her personal Facebook page. Further suppose that in addition to owning the company, you are also a lesbian, and take offense to the employee's views. If you discipline the employee for her Facebook post, and later fire the employee after she complains about the discipline, can the employee sue for retaliation under Title VII? In other words, does Title VII protect heterosexuals from discrimination in reaction to anti-LGBTQ speech?

In O'Daniel v. Industrial Service Solutions, the 5th Circuit said no.

The case put the plaintiff, unabashedly and vocally anti-LGBTQ (as expressed in the at-issue Facebook post), in the position of arguing that Title VII protects against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

The Court held that under its own precedent, O'Daniel could not move forward on her claim.

O'Daniel claims in essence that she was retaliated against because she "opposed" discrimination perpetrated against her on the basis of her heterosexual orientation.… Title VII in plain terms does not cover "sexual orientation." … Because the law in this circuit is clear, we cannot accept O'Daniel’s … suggestions that this panel either overrule the precedents or assume arguendo that the "trend" has upended them.

Thus, because the 5th Circuit does not recognize sexual orientation as class Title VII protects, and employee's complaints about her employer discriminating against her because she is heterosexual could not support a retaliation claim: "Title VII protects an employee only from retaliation for complaining about the types of discrimination it prohibits."

Two points to make about this opinion.

First, if Title VII equates LGBTQ discrimination to "sex" discrimination (as I, like many other courts and the EEOC, believe it does), then logic says that it must also protect heterosexuals from discrimination at the hands of the LGBTQ community because of their sexual orientation. Any other result is logically inconsistent.

Secondly, this employee was not fired because she complained about discrimination. She was fired because she exhibited extremely poor judgment through her Facebook rant. As the concurring opinion succinctly and correctly states: "Simply put, Title VII does not grant employees the right to make online rants about gender identity with impunity." If the employee ranted against interracial marriage, and the company's African-American owner fired her, would anyone think she has a valid claim? This case is no different. The law protects the employee from discrimination and retaliation, but it does not protect the employee's right to express bigoted views, on her personal Facebook page or otherwise.

* Photo by Jim Wilson on Unsplash

WIRTW #549 (the #RespectIsComing edition)

You might have heard that a little show called Game of Thrones premiered it's final season last Sunday. In its honor, Sesame Street prepared a wonderful parody in which Elmo tries to mend bridges between Tyrion and Cersei by teaching them the importance of respect.

A lesson we should all to take to heart, especially at work.


Here's what I read this week:

How to fire an employee

The Wall Street Journal recently asked this simple question:

What's the Best Way to Fire Someone?

I have some thoughts.

Bathroom conversations aren't private conversations

Michael Woods, a mortgage banker at Quicken Loans, was having a bad day at work. A customer Woods had helped four years ago had been trying to get in touch with a Client Specialist; the company routed the call to Woods because of their prior relationship. He aired his grievance to a co-worker, Austin Laff, while they were in the bathroom together. "The client should get in touch with a fucking Client Care Specialist and quit wasting my fucking time."

Jorge Mendez, a supervisor, overheard this conversation from a stall. He responded with an all-employee email reminding everyone of proper conduct in public areas. "Never, EVER, should we be swearing in the bathroom especially about clients."

That's how the ball bounces: 6th Circuit says that the ADA does not require a new supervisor as a reasonable accommodation

Cindy Tinsley was so stressed.

How stressed was she?

She was so stressed that even something as simple as her co-workers at Caterpillar Financial Services bouncing stress balls off the ground would trigger her post-traumatic stress disorder.