OCRC appears to bend on pregnancy leave regulations

Sunday's New York Times is reporting that Ohio business groups have successfully lobbied the Ohio Civil Rights Commission to revise its proposed maternity leave regulations. The article quotes various business organization leaders, in addition to the OCRC's Chairperson, in discussing the merits or lack thereof of the proposed regulations:

Jeanine P. Donaldson, who this year became the first woman to lead the commission, said the law on maternity leave needed to ensure that more women were protected against discrimination.

Ms. Donaldson said she was willing to bend on the number of weeks of guaranteed leave but hoped to preserve the stipulation that length of service would not affect eligibility.

“I don’t think a woman can decide when to get pregnant,” Ms. Donaldson said. “To choose motherhood over livelihood, I don’t think that is what the legislators had in mind.”

Business groups say the expanded leave would damage the economy. “There’s really no reason to change the current law,” said Tony Fiore, director of labor and human resources policy for the Ohio Chamber of Commerce.

Requiring small businesses to hold open positions would be a hardship, he said, as would the immediate eligibility for new workers at large corporations.

Ty Pine, legislative director for the Ohio branch of the National Federation of Independent Businesses, said the market was doing a good job of establishing reasonable maternity leaves for workers and businesses.

“We would like to maintain the current practice of reasonable time off without mandating specifically,” Mr. Pine said.

It now appears that some modified form of the revised OAC 4112-5-05(G) will go the legislature for approval. A revision to the amount of the guaranteed leave entitlement would take away rights that are already available to nearly all Ohio employees under judicial interpretations of the current 4412-5-05(G). I am amazed that the OCRC would bend so easily from a little bit of pressure from business lobbies. If the OCRC actually agrees to bend on the issue of the amount of available guaranteed leave, it will represent a genuine victory for small businesses. I will continue to post updates on this issue as the revised regulations are published.

You might want to double-check those FMLA medical certifications

Check out this article from the Chicago Sun Times. On MyExcusedAbsence.com (and other websites like it) employees can purchase authentic looking doctors notes to excuse their absences from work. According to a testimonial on the website: "I've managed to take the 9 weeks off using these templates! It couldn't be any easier!" Needless to say, providing a fake document for any reason is grounds for immediate termination. However, consider the overburdened HR professional, confused already by the FMLA's myriad requirements. Does that person have the time to check the veracity of each and every note provided by an employee? Nevertheless, the next time you think an employee might by trying to game the system, you might want to take a harder look at that doctor's note. Under the FMLA employers have options to check the veracity of an employee's serious health condition:

• Grant provisional leave until you resolve any doubts about the validity of the serious health condition.
• Send the employee for a 2nd opinion at the employer's expense.
• Request recertification during the leave under certain circumstances.
• Require a fitness for duty exam before allowing the employee to return to work.

These tools, when used consistently, properly, and dovetailed with appropriate corrective action, can deter employees' frauds such as MyExcusedAbsence.com.

Bill Proposes Elimination of Damages Caps

On the heels of the passage of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, Congress continues to try to tinker with the federal employment discrimination laws. Senator Edward Kennedy has introduced legislation that would eliminate the caps on the amount of non-economic compensatory damages and punitive damages plaintiffs can recover in employment discrimination cases under Title VII and the ADA -- the Equal Remedies Act of 2007. Senator Kennedy bases this legislation on the inequities in available damages between race and national origin discrimination and all other forms of discrimination prohibited by Title VII and the ADA (sex, religion, disability, etc.). Employees suing under Title VII or the ADA are capped in the amount of damages they can recover, while employees suing under 42 U.S.C. 1981, which only prohibits race and national origin discrimination, has no such limits. Of course, the Senator could just propose capping damages under Section 1981. As with most of the other pro-employee legislation currently pending in Congress, there is little chance of President Bush actually signing the Equal Remedies Act into law. January 2009, however, is not that far off.

A weighty issue...

In June, I reported on a small but growing trend of overweight employees trying to claim coverage under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Perhaps because these claims are seldom brought, the Boston Globe reports that Massachusetts is considering legislation to cover "fat" (as well as "short") as a protected class. Such legislation finds support in studies which show that obesity holds back one's career. One possible explanation is that obesity is linked to greater health costs, which in turn raise group health plan rates.

One could argue that this legislation is superfluous because the ADA already protects these employees. While courts almost uniformly find that obesity is not a protected disability (as compared to morbid obesity), health conditions associated with obesity (such as diabetes, joint problems, respiratory difficulties, high blood pressure) are most likely protected. Moreover, because it is not only unlawful under the ADA to discriminate because of an employee's disability, but also because the employee is regarded as having a disability, it is arguably unlawful to refuse to hire, to discipline, or to terminate an overweight employee because of the risk of increased health costs from obesity-related illnesses.

Arbitration Fairness Act would ban mandatory ADR of employment disputes

Mandatory arbitration agreements have long been favored as a tool by employers to limit the risks associated with jury trials. If the Democrats have their way, however, that tool may soon no longer be available. The Arbitration Fairness Act is currently pending in both the House and the Senate. These bills would amend the Federal Arbitration Act to render invalid and unenforceable pre-dispute arbitration agreements that require arbitration of employment disputes. Such disputes could only be arbitrated if the employer and employee agree to submit to arbitration after the dispute arises. The law's purpose is to prevent those with less bargaining power, such as employees, from being forced to arbitrate and give up their right to a jury trial. If this bill becomes law (which is doubtful as long as there is a Republican in the White House), arbitrations of employment disputes will all but disappear. It is hard to imagine a situation where a plaintiff would agree to give up a jury trial to have a dispute decided by a panel of arbitrators. If you currently use or would like to use arbitration as a means to resolve claims by your employees, you should write your Congressperson and Senator and urge opposition of these bills.

I am not an anti-dentite!

John Jordan, D.D.S. v. Ohio Civil Rights Commission, out of Fayette County, would not have made my radar except for the fact that it is the second case in as many weeks to involve pretty egregious acts by a dentist. In this case, the OCRC awarded Teresa Smith, a dental assistant, $45,568 for being subjected to the following sexual harassment by the good dentist, all within the span of a few weeks:

• Grabbing her from behind and pulling her towards him, on her second day of work.
• Telling her that his wife was going on vacation and suggesting a rendezvous.
• Describing the breeding habits of his horses in detail.
• Suggesting that she needed a "sugar daddy."
• Advising that several of his friends would "drop money" on her for sex.
• Recounting that the prostitutes in Vegas hated when men took Viagra because it wore them out.
• Relating to patients that she used to work in a strip club.
• Telling her that he could not tell about her body type because he hadn't seen her naked.
• Asking if he could show her nude photos.
• After a patient commented that she was left-handed, recounting that left-handed people make better lovers.

Maybe the ADA should consider a session on sexual harassment training at its next annual meeting.

Sixth Circuit confirms that it will not second-guess an employer's honest belief

The Sixth Circuit this week handed down two decisions that make it clear that pretext for discrimination or retaliation does not exist if the employer engages in a reasonable investigation and has an honest and good faith belief in the rationale for its employment decision. These cases are a good reminder that one of the best defenses to any discrimination, retaliation, or harassment claim is a thorough, well-documented investigation.

Michael v. Caterpillar Fin. Servs. Corp. concerned a six-year African-American employee who had a good employment record until her manager was replaced. Shonta Michael claimed that the discipline, including a very confrontational meeting in which the new manager aggressively yelled at her, was racially discriminatory and that she was retaliated against after she complained over the manager's treatment of her. Caterpillar, on the other hand, claimed that any conflict and discipline was solely because of legitimate performance issues. The Court skirted the issue of whether the disciplinary action (a performance plan) constituted an "adverse employment action," finding that regardless Michael could not prove that the employer's actions were pretext for discrimination or retaliation. Caterpillar's investigation included interviews of all of Michael's co-workers, many of whom found her difficult to work with. Michael claimed that her disagreement those facts established pretext. The Court disagreed:

Michael’s disagreement with the facts uncovered in Caterpillar’s investigation does not create a genuine issue of material fact that would defeat summary judgment “as long as an employer has an honest belief in its proffered nondiscriminatory reason.” The key inquiry in assessing whether an employer holds such an honest belief is “whether the employer made a reasonably informed and considered decision before taking” the complained-of action. An employer has an honest belief in its rationale when it “reasonably relied on the particularized facts that were before it at the time the decision was made.” “[W]e do not require that the decisional process used by the employer be optimal or that it left no stone unturned.” ... Caterpillar presented sound, nondiscriminatory reasons for the action that it took based on a reasonable investigation of events that occurred after Michael’s favorable performance review.

Because Caterpillar had extensive documentation of its investigation, it could reasonably rely on its conclusions with no finding of pretext or retaliatory animus.

By comparison, in Denhof v. City of Grand Rapids, the issue was whether the Grand Rapids Chief of Police reasonably relied upon a psychological fitness for duty exam in refusing to permit the plaintiff to return to work. The Court found that the Chief's reliance on the medical opinion was unreasonable because the doctor's written opinion showed that he had a preordained opinion on Denhof's unfitness for duty:

In his January 11, 2002, letter recommending a fitness for duty examination for Patricia Denhof, Dr. Peterson employed language that, at a minimum, suggested his opinion had already been formed. For instance, he noted that in view of the tension between Denhof and the department, “it is difficult to imagine how she could continue to work in this environment.” ... This language should have signaled to Chief Dolan, and indeed any reasonable recipient, that Dr. Peterson was predisposed to finding Denhof unfit for duty. Indeed, after comments like this, it is hard to see any possibility that Dr. Peterson’s examination would yield a result other than finding that Denhof should be separated from the police force. Instead, when Dolan was confronted with a psychologist who had already formed his opinion before examining the patient, he asked that doctor to proceed with the examination. In doing so, he forfeited the protection of the honest belief rule, because the jury could have easily concluded that his reliance on a doctor who had already made up his mind did not qualify as reasonable reliance.

According to the Court, the employer could not have an honest belief about Denhof's lack of fitness to return to work because, according to the opinion the doctor upon whom it was relying was predisposed. Thus, the decision could not have been bona fide.

I'm troubled by the ease with which the Denhof panel writes off the employer's reliance on a medical opinion and delves into the motivations of the psychologist. The doctor's language does not seem nearly as clear to the me as it did to the Sixth Circuit. Moreover, if an employer cannot have an honest belief about a medical opinion what can it hold an honest belief about? Nevertheless, these two cases reaffirm the honest belief rule, and demonstrate that courts will not second-guess a personnel decision if it is based on a rational, reasoned, honest belief.