DOL proposes FMLA changes

In June 2007, the Department of Labor published a 181-page report on the FMLA that concluded, "In the vast majority of cases, the FMLA is working as intended." So, if the FMLA is working just fine, why is today's New York Times reporting that the DOL has proposed new regulations to address corporate complaints that workers are abusing the FMLA?

The Times reports that the proposed changes would require workers to call in to request a leave before being eligible to take it, eliminating the current two-day grace period, with an exception for employees who are too ill to call in. The DOL also proposes tightening medical certification procedures to eliminate disagreements over whether an employees had done enough to show they qualified for leaves.

While this is certainly a step, it remains be seen if this is a step in the right direction for employers who are dying for some help with the FMLA quagmire.

What else I'm reading this week #15

This week has been a historic one for the Blog, as I passed 10,000 visits. Thank you to all my readers for helping me reach this milestone. Part of this success comes from links from other blogs, so allow me to return the favor.

John Phillips from The Word on Employment Law publishes Part IV in his series on Avoiding Employment Lawsuits, focusing on whether you should offer a terminated employee the opportunity to resign.

Dan Schwartz at the Connecticut Employment Law Blog reports on a 2nd Circuit case that reminds us of a very important wage and hour point: if an employee works overtime, you have to pay it even if it was not authorized and even if you have a policy that says it won't be paid unless authorized.

Michael Moore from the Pennsylvania Employment Law Blog continues his series on Five Things Every HR Generalist Should Know, this time focusing on the classification of workers as employees or independent contractors. For my thoughts on this prickly issue, check out Stripping independent contractor protections.

Workplace Horizons has a very thorough post on Microsoft's scary new employee monitoring patent.

D. Jill Pugh's Employee Handbooks Blog gives us some more pointers to keep in mind when firing an employee.

The Labor & Employment Law Blog gives us 5 ways to avoid whistleblower retaliation claims.

HR World reminds us that family-friendly policies help attract and retain employees. I've also written on the pros and cons of family friendly policies.

Alaska Employment Law comments on how well intentioned laws such as the ADA have unintended consequences.

Finally, Lou Michels from Suits in the Workplace reminds us of the dangers instant messaging can cause in the workplace.

An expectational argument for overtime pay

Another day, another wage and hour issue.

In 2006, IBM settled a wage and hour class action lawsuit for $65 million. In the lawsuit, it was alleged that IBM had misclassified 7,600 technical workers as exempt and therefore withheld overtime from them. As a result of the settlement, IBM has reclassified those employees as non-exempt, and has begun to pay them overtime. However, to ensure that the employees not be paid a higher overall salary, IBM has cut their salaries by 15% to compensate for overtime payments. The goal is not to punish the employees, but to keep their total compensation roughly the same as before the reclassification. [See IBM Cuts Base Salaries by Switching 7,600 Workers to Nonexempt Status.]

The blogosphere is starting to light up with criticism of IBM. From HR World: "Newsflash, people aren’t stupid: salary is guaranteed income and overtime is not. Can you say disgruntled employees?"

Let me offer a different perspective, based on expectations. Let's say someone is hired and told, "We are going to pay you $60,000 a year." So, twice a month, the employer expects to cut a check for $2,500 and the employee expects to receive a check for that amount. Now, let's say the Department of Labor comes in and says, "No, no, that is a non-exempt position. You have to pay that employee overtime." Why should that change the fact that the employee still expects to earn $60,000 per year? The employee is doing the same exact work, and should expect the same pay. The only thing that has changed is the Department of Labor's opinion on an exemption. But that determination should have no effect on the employee's salary expectation. So, if an employer wants to figure out what hourly rate, coupled with an average amount of overtime, will get an employee to the expected $60,000 per year, where's the harm? I need someone to explain to me how the employee has been hurt.

Fortune Small Business Magazine: The ticking time bomb of overtime

Fortune Small Business Magazine has a frightening article this week on fatal wage and hour mistakes. While I've written on this topic repeatedly, this article caught my eye because it spotlights an Ohio company that got caught in the Department of Labor's cross hairs.

Rod Cotner, owner of Jericho Mortgage in Lancaster, Ohio, was shocked when the U.S. Department of Labor showed up at his door to investigate a wage-and-hour lawsuit filed on behalf of his 54 loan officers and sales managers. His company was growing - sales exceeded $4 million that year - and his employees were profiting: "Some of the staffers named in the lawsuit were making over $150,000," he says. "After working in the industry for years, I'd never heard of this happening. Everyone pays their officers on a commission basis. How can someone who makes six figures a year demand back wages for his time?"

Ultimately, the lawsuit cost Cotner a $220,000 settlement of back overtime, untold legal fees, and has caused him to cut his staff to fewer than 10 employees. Needless to say, Jericho Mortgage exemplifies how a Department of Labor investigation can devastate a small business.

What really grabbed my attention was this quote: "Cotner, 37, incorrectly assumed that his employees were exempt under the U.S. Fair Labor Standards Act." Jericho Mortgage was not trying to game the system. He was merely doing what his years of experience told him was industry practice, figuring that commissioned loan officers who were earning a good living during the height of the mortgage boom couldn't possibly gripe about their wages. Nevertheless, this small business owner, who was not out to hurt anyone, has had his business decimated.

The fact is few if any companies do wage and hour perfectly. The biggest mistake the a company can make, though (apart from intentionally trying to skirt their obligations) is to assume that employees are not owed overtime. The regulations that govern who is and is not exempt are complex, tricky, and highly fact sensitive. Companies should be engaging lawyers to scrutinize their exempt classifications to ensure that all employees who are supposed to be paid overtime are being paid overtime. All it takes is one phone call by a disgruntled employee to the Department of Labor for any company to be in the same shoes as Jericho Mortgage. Ask anyone who's been audited by the DOL - those are very uncomfortable shoes to wear.

For other posts I've done on the topic of wage and hour audits and the proliferation of these claims, take a look at:

• Use a wage and hour audit to proactively head off claims
• Wage and hour litigation hits the big time
• Department of Labor investigations highlight important wage and hour compliance issues

[Hat Tip: California Labor & Employment Defense Blog]

Take two in FMLA expansion for military families

Both the House and Senate have again overwhelmingly signed the National Defense Authorization Act that President Bush vetoed at the end of last year. It now sits on President Bush's desk where he again is expected to sign it. While I've been burned on this once before, I am optimistic that the President will sign the bill this time. A White House spokesman has said that President Bush is expected to sign the revised legislation. The bill will expand the FMLA to provide FMLA leave because of exigencies related to active military duty, permit an eligible employee to take up to 26 weeks of FMLA leave to care for an injured servicemember, and adds "next of kin" to the family members entitled to take such FMLA leave.

[Hat tip: The FMLA BLog]

Ohio appellate court puts age discrimination statute of limitations in doubt

Ohio's age discrimination statute of limitations has always been one of the quirks of Ohio employment law. All discrimination claims under R.C. Chapter 4112 have a six-year statute of limitations, except for age claims. Until recently, it has been well established that an age claim brought under R.C. 4112.99 had a 180-day statute of limitations. Meyer v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., decided last month by the Hamilton County Court of Appeals, rejects that longstanding conventional wisdom, and holds that plaintiffs have six years to bring such age claims.

One can bring an action for age discrimination under four different provisions within R.C. Chapter 4112:

• First, R.C. 4112.02(N) prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of age and provides for "any legal or equitable relief that will effectuate the individual's rights." An age-discrimination claim under this statute must be brought within 180 days of the alleged unlawful discriminatory practice.
• Second, R.C. 4112.14(B) provides a remedy for age-based discrimination in the hiring and termination of employees "which shall include reimbursement to the applicant or employee for the costs, including reasonable attorney's fees, of the action, or to reinstate the employee in the employee's former position with compensation for lost wages and any lost fringe benefits from the date of the illegal discharge and to reimburse the employee for the costs, including reasonable attorney's fees, of the action." A six-year statute of limitations applies to these claims.
• Third, R.C. 4112.99 provides an independent civil action to seek redress for any form of discrimination identified in R.C. Chapter 4112. The statute makes violators of R.C. Chapter 4112 "subject to a civil action for damages, injunctive relief, or any other appropriate relief."
• Finally and alternatively, a plaintiff may file a charge administratively with the OCRC under R.C. 4112.05., but such a filing acts as an absolute bar to instituting a civil action in court.

When filing an age claim, one must elect which statute one is filing under.

At least as far back as the Ohio Supreme Court decided Bellian v. Bicron Corp. in 1994, it has been well established that an age claim under R.C. 4112.99 is subject to the 180-day statute of limitations in R.C. 4112.02(N). See Oker v. Ameritech Corp. ("An age-discrimination claim brought pursuant to R.C. Chapter 4112 must be initiated within the one-hundred-eighty-day statute of limitations period set forth in former R.C. 4112.02(N)."); McNeely v. Ross Correctional Inst. ("Whether an age discrimination claim is premised on R.C. 4112.02 or 4112.99, a plaintiff must file the claim within 180 days of the alleged discriminatory act.").

The Hamilton County Court of Appeals, however, has put this conventional wisdom in doubt. In Meyer v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., that court concluded that because R.C. 4112.99 provides an independent cause of action, it is separate from R.C. 4112.02(N), and therefore subject to the same six-year statute of limitations as other claims brought under R.C. 4112.99. The Court based its rationale on the recent Ohio Supreme Court decision in Leininger v. Pioneer National Latex holding that Ohio does not recognize a common-law tort claim for wrongful discharge based on the public policy against age discrimination:

Recently, in Leininger v. Pioneer National Latex, the Ohio Supreme Court held that Ohio does not recognize a common-law tort claim for wrongful discharge based on the public policy against age discrimination, "because the remedies in R.C. Chapter 4112 provide complete relief for a statutory claim for age discrimination." In reaching its holding, the court reiterated its prior holding that had rejected the argument that the specific-remedies provisions of subsections within the chapter prevail over the more general provisions of R.C. 4112.99. The court noted that "R.C. 4112.08 requires a liberal construction of R.C. Chapter 4112. Although R.C. 4112.02(N), 4112.08, and 4112.14(B) all require a plaintiff to elect under which statute (R.C. 4112.02, 4112.05, or 4112.14) a claim for age discrimination will be pursued, when an age discrimination claim accrues, a plaintiff may choose from the full spectrum of remedies available. Leininger's argument also does not take into account the scope of R.C. 4112.99's remedies. In Elek v. Huntington Natl. Bank (1991), 60 Ohio St. 3d 135, 573 N.E.2d 1056, we stated that R.C. 4112.99 provides an independent civil action to seek redress for any form of discrimination identified in the chapter. Id. at 136. A violation of R.C. 4112.14 (formerly R.C. 4101.17), therefore, can also support a claim for damages, injunctive relief, or any other appropriate relief under R.C. 4112.99. This fourth avenue of relief is not subject to the election of remedies."

Meyer's logic is a tortured reading of Leininger, which expressly found that R.C. 4112.02(N) and R.C. 4112.99 are subject to the same statute of limitations for age claims:

Although R.C. 4112.14 was the only statutory claim available to Leininger at the time she filed her complaint due to the expiration of the statute of limitations for claims under R.C. 4112.02 and 4112.05, this fact does not justify limiting our examination of the available remedies under the chapter as a whole. In determining whether a common-law tort claim for wrongful discharge based on Ohio's public policy against age discrimination should be recognized, we need to look at all the remedies available to a plaintiff at the time the claim accrued.

There is certainly some appeal to the argument that it does not make any sense that age claims and all other discrimination claims have different statutes of limitations. On the other hand, R.C. Chapter 4112 has three distinct remedial statutes for age discrimination, more than any other type of discrimination. The point is that if we are going to change the statute of limitations, it should be done by the legislature, and not by an appellate court diverging from 14 years of precedent. To again quote the Leininger decision: "Leininger contends that the short statute of limitations of R.C. 4112.02 ... detracts from the remedial scheme of R.C. Chapter 4112. The period within which a claim must be brought, however, is a policy decision best left to the General Assembly."

The Meyer case is most likely an anomaly. Regardless, if you are practicing in Hamilton County, you should be aware that employees have six-years to file their age claims in that court. This issues bears watching to see if any other appellate districts follow suit, or if the Supreme Court takes up this issue to resolve this recent divergence of opinion.

New breed of employee handbook creates legal problems

The blogosphere has been hopping the past several days over the new employee handbook drafted by newspaper conglomerate the Tribune Company. Rather than recapping the issues, I'll merely direct everyone to a very good summary at the Connecticut Employment Law Blog.

To sum up, though, the Tribune's new handbook (which comes in at a very concise 11 pages) is very informally written, probably in an attempt for it to be better understood. When your harassment policy, however, tells employees:

Working at Tribune means accepting that sometimes you might hear a word that you, personally, might not use. You might experience an attitude that you don't share. You might hear a joke that you might not consider funny.... This should be understood, should not be a surprise and is not considered harassment. Harassment means being told that a raise, promotion or other benefit is dependent on you going on a date with your boss or some other similar activity.

you might have a problem. Limiting the definition of sexual harassment to quid pro quo is a serious misstatement of the law that a review by a lawyer would have caught and corrected. Jocularity and informality are one thing, if that is the image you want to present. Discouraging employees from reporting a hostile environment by incorrect statements of the law is entirely different. There is nothing wrong with savings costs by drafting your own employee handbook. Not having a lawyer review it before it is disseminated, however, will end up costing a company a whole lot more in litigation costs then if it just had a lawyer draft it in the first place.