DOL publishes proposed new FMLA regulations

Weighing in at an astounding 477 pages, the Department of Labor has published its proposed new FMLA regulations. According to the DOL, these regulations will "preserve[] workers' family and medical leave rights while improving the administration of FMLA by fostering better communication in the workplace." They seem to be an improvement over the current regime, although they are far from perfect. These regulations are not final, and will be subject to at least a 60-day comment period.

If you don't have the time or the willpower to sift through 477 pages to figure out the impact these regulations will have on your FMLA responsibilities, here are some of the high points:

• Except in emergency situations, employees will be required to follow the employer's policy for notification of FMLA leave, eliminating employees' ability under the old regulations to take up to 2 days after an absence begins to notify their employer that they intend to take FMLA leave. This change will greatly improve employers' ability to plan and schedule around employees' medical leaves.
• Employers will be able to directly contact employees' doctors when employers have questions about FMLA medical certification forms that the doctors have filled out. Employers will no longer have to go through the employee as an intermediary, or retain their own doctor to contact the employee's doctor. While this change may have some effect on employee privacy, it will greatly improve the flow of information and streamline the ability of employers to make proper decisions based on full and complete medical information. This rule will also eliminate the expense and burden of companies having to retain their own doctors simply to ensure that a form is properly filled out.
• To employers' dismay, the regulations do not change the time increments in which employees can take intermittent leave, but do require that an employee using intermittent leave use the employer's regular call in procedure except in emergencies. Thus, employees will still be able to take intermittent leave in very short increments, continuing for employers the administrative nightmare of intermittent leave, albeit with some additional notice.
• Employers will be entitled to require employees to obtain certification of FMLA-eligible medical conditions twice a year instead of annually.
• Currently, the clock under which employees accrue their 12 months of service for eligibility has no time limit, even after multiple breaks of service. Thus, if I work for 6 months for a company, and return 10 years later, I am eligible for FMLA leave after another 6 months. The new regulations place a 5-year cap on years of service for calculating eligibility, except for military or childrearing leaves, or where rehiring is covered by a collective bargaining agreement.

The DOL is also soliciting input on how it should handle the recent FMLA expansion for military-related leaves of absence. For the adventurous, the complete proposed regulations are available for download here.

[Hat tip: Jottings by an Employer's Lawyer].

Retaliation decision underscores importance of termination discussions

A couple of weeks ago, the 6th Circuit held that where an adverse employment action occurs very close in time after an employer learns of a protected activity, such temporal proximity between events is significant enough to constitute evidence of a causal connection for the purposes of satisfying a prima facie case of retaliation (see 6th Circuit holds that temporaral proximity alone is sufficient to show a causal nexus in retaliation cases). Today, that same court, in Imwalle v. Reliance Medical Products, illustrates the converse of Mickey v. Zeidler Tool & Die, what additional evidence will prove a nexus when temporal proximity alone is not enough. It also highlights the importance of carefully watching one's words in termination meetings, and how saying the wrong thing can come back to haunt you.

Imwalle concerns a corporate president who was terminated from his long-tenured position 3 months after he filed an age and national origin discrimination charge with the EEOC. During the termination meeting, the COO told Imwalle: "I know that you know that Haag-Streit (HS) never committed discrimination in the past, at present, and will not in the future. I therefore canot [sic] understand why you raise such a claim. We are not discriminatory, just not."

The Court relied heavily on that statement in affirming the jury's verdict in Imwalle's favor on his retaliation claim:

[T]he fact that Ott made this statement about Imwalle's discrimination complaints at such a critical moment raises questions about Haag-Streit's true motivation for firing Imwalle.

On the one hand, the statement can be taken at face value, made solely for the purpose of assuring Imwalle that his firing had nothing to do with the alleged discrimination on the part of Haag-Streit because such discrimination purportedly did not exist. But another plausible explanation for Ott's statement is that Imwalle's discrimination claim had caused both frustration and resentment on the part of Haag-Streit, and that Ott's statement was designed to mislead Imwalle and discourage him from suing. Ott obviously felt strongly enough about the accusations of discrimination to prepare a written statement and read it as the first order of business at the meeting he called to let Imwalle go.

Furthermore, the timing of the statement, literally moments before Imwalle was notified that he was no longer President of Reliance or of HSH US and that his employment agreement was being terminated, clearly shows that Imwalle’s complaint of discrimination was at the forefront of Ott's mind.

While it's difficult to know what the COO's true motivation was, it's easy to understand how a jury could interpret the phrase, "I cannot understand why you raise such a claim," uttered while terminating Imwalle, as retaliatory. If the COO's intent was retaliation, then he did an awful job of hiding it. If, however, his intent was innocent, he should have chosen his words much more carefully. Use his mistake as a valuable lesson -- be careful what you say in a termination meeting, and even more careful what is written down. The words can, and will, be used, twisted, and construed against you.

What else I'm reading this week #17

I'm coming out this week smokin' -- or at least with a pair of posts about smoking. John Phillips' Word on Employment Law discusses some of the potential legal implications of smoking in the workplace. Should you think that you needn't worry about this issue since it is illegal to smoke in just about every workplace in Ohio, Representing Management gives us a tale of a lawsuit permitted to proceed under ERISA brought by an employee whose employment was terminated after he tested positive for smoking in violation of his employer's wellness program.

The Pennsylvania Employment Law Blog reminds us that in guarding against potential lawsuits, how you terminate an employee is often as important, if not more so, than the reason for the termination.

The Labor and Employment Law Blog gives us Part 2 of its series on how to avoid a whistleblower claim.

Workplace Privacy Counsel brings us information on whether dead employees' medical records are entitled to protection under HIPAA (short answer, yes).

Finally, Electronic Discovery Navigator provides helpful information on implementing record retention policies.

Blawgosphere criticizes workplace bullying laws

Since I blogged last week on workplace bullying (see Bullying boss justifies unemployment award), there has been a flurry of activity in the blawgosphere on this issue. This month's ABA Journal has an article discussing both sides of the anti-bullying movement, while Overlawyered and the Laconic Law Blog, like me, are critical of this initiative.

The Tennessee appellate decision cited in the ABA Journal article frames this issue best:

It is necessary to distinguish between harassment and discriminatory harassment to insure that discrimination laws do not become a general civility code…. If there is harassment in the work place, the burden is on the plaintiff to establish that such harassment is based upon one's age, race, sex or other protected class characteristic that is prohibited by the civil rights statutes. The fact that a supervisor is mean, hard to get along with, overbearing, belligerent or otherwise hostile and abusive, does not violate civil rights statutes…. Nothing in the record established that Ms. Doyle treated age-protected employees any differently than non-protected employees, rather, the testimony clearly showed that Ms. Doyle was an equal opportunity oppressor, using her intense, dominant, abrupt, rude, and hard-nosed management style on all St. Thomas employees. Disagreement with a management style alone, without evidence of a discriminatory intent or motive, no matter how disagreeable that style may be, is simply insufficient to warrant protection…. The Sixth Circuit has recognized that, "personal conflict does not equate with discriminatory animus," … and it has further emphasized that "it is important to distinguish between harassment and discriminatory harassment in order to ensure that Title VII does not become a general civility code."

Ohio Supreme Court holds that retained memory can constitute a trade secret

It has long been thought that under Ohio's trade secret statute, R.C. 1333.61, that which an employee holds in retained memory does not meet the definition of a trade secret. Thus, prior courts have differentiated, for example, between employees who remove documents or files and those who recreate the contents of those documents from memory. The former were covered by the trade secret statute, while the latter were not. This week, the Ohio Supreme Court, in Al Minor & Assoc., Inc. v. Martin, has upended this conventional wisdom, and in doing so has greatly expanded the enforceability of not only the trade secret law, but also noncompetition agreements.

R.C. 1333.61(D) defines a "trade secret" as:

[I]nformation, including the whole or any portion or phase of any scientific or technical information, design, process, procedure, formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or improvement, or any business information or plans, financial information, or listing of names, addresses, or telephone numbers, that satisfies both of the following:

(1) It derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use.

(2) It is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.

At issue in Al Minor & Assocs. v. Martin was whether a customer list compiled by a former employee strictly from memory can form the basis for a statutory trade secret violation. The Ohio Supreme Court unanimously answered this question in the affirmative, holding that information that constitutes a trade secret under R.C. 1333.61(D) does not lose its character by being recreated from memory. In reaching its conclusion, the Court relied upon the language of the statute, which does not differentiate between physical information and that which is reproduced from memory.

While this will change the landscape of trade secrets, it does not alter the longstanding rule that information which can otherwise be discovered through reasonable means does not qualify as a trade secret. Thus, customer lists often lose trade secret protection if they can be reverse engineered, such as by simply looking in the phone book. This decision, however, will make it more difficult for an employee to demonstrate that a customer list was reverse engineered, because of the fact that the fruits of such reverse engineering is often the product of the employee's memory.

This case will not only expand trade secret protection, but also the class of employees against whom noncompetition agreements can be enforced. One of the key factors that courts examine in the enforcement of such agreements is whether the agreement seeks to protect a legitimate interest of the employer. That component will be much easier to satisfy with the expansion of trade secrets to include retained memory.

This decision will be a boon for employers who want to protect information or lock up employees with noncompetition agreements. The flip side, however, is that employers must now be more diligent than ever in the hiring process. It will no longer be enough to simply ask that an employee not bring anything (documents, files, etc.) with him or her to a new job. At the same time, it is impossible to ask an employee to turn off his or her mind or erase his or her memory.

Thus, one possible unintended consequence of this decision will be an increase in the transaction costs of recruiting and hiring. Anytime an employee is recruited, that employee now has the potential to bring trade secrets with him or her in memory. The recruiting process might now have to include the former employer in the hiring process to ensure against any future legal claims concerning retained memory trade secrets. Otherwise, I don't know how an employer hiring anyone who had access to anything that could remotely be construed as a trade secret can have any comfort level with the hiring.

Carnival of HR #26 is available

This post comes to you from the Holiday Inn Express in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Three Star Leadership Blog has posted the 26th Carnival of HR. It includes posts on predatory employees, the problems with bored employees, 10 ways to screw up a performance appraisal, and a post from yours truly on bullying bosses and unemployment compensation. I recommend that everyone take a few minutes to click over to the Carnival and read some of the best HR posts from the past few weeks.

Don't confuse "family status" for "family responsibility discrimination"

I've blogged a lot on "family responsibility discrimination," which is discrimination against parents or caregivers because of their status as such. "Family responsibility" or "caregiver status", however, are not protected classes in and of themselves. They are only illegal if the alleged conduct otherwise violates Title VII or the ADA. In other words, the law prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, ancestry, color, age, and disability. Thus, for example, it is not illegal to discriminate against all parents because of their parental status, but only if you treat moms differently than dads, or black parents differently than white parents, or parents of disabled children different than parents of non-disabled children.

Adamson v. Multi Cmty. Diversified Servs., Inc. clarifies this important distinction. In that case, decided last week by the 10th Circuit, the plaintiffs, a husband, wife, and daughter who were terminated by a non-profit organization, claimed that "familial status" is a protected classification under Title VII. The Court rejected that argument:

Title VII protects neither the family unit nor individual family members from discrimination based on their "familial status" alone…. "Familial status" is not a classification based on sex any more than is being a "sibling" or "relative" generally. It is, by definition, gender neutral. The use of gender to parse those classifications into subcategories of "husbands, wives and daughters" is a social and linguistic convention that neither alters this fact nor elevates those subcategories to protected status. Mr. Adamson’s claim that he was terminated in violation of Title VII based on his status as Patricia's "husband" (and Jessica's "father"), and Patricia and Jessica's claims that they were terminated by virtue of being Barry's "wife" and "daughter," respectively, fall outside the scope of Title VII and its purpose in protecting employees against invidious discrimination on the basis of sex, and we reject those claims….

Thus, an employer that discriminates against an individual solely on the basis of his or her "familial status" violates no law, unless the discrimination is tied to some specific protected class.