Jury award to alleged harassers illustrates importance of internal investigations

A Los Angeles jury has awarded $1.6 million to two white fire department captains suspended after a black firefighter they supervised had his meal laced with dog food. The captains alleged that they were made scapegoats for the misconduct of a Latino firefighter who placed dog food in the spaghetti dinner of a black coworker. The lawsuit centered on their claim that they were discriminated against because they are white, specifically that the fire department never conducted a formal investigation of the incident and disciplined them anyway under political pressure. The Los Angeles Times quotes a 34-year department veteran, "When it comes to a minority -- female or male -- and there's the word 'discrimination,' everybody runs and hides and puts their heads in the sand. The department is afraid to look at these things fairly."

Because we are so concerned about being fair to the victim, we often forget that the accused are entitled to same degree of fairness in an investigation. Just as a failure to reasonably remedy harassment can create liability problems, so can unjustly disciplining or terminating a wrongfully accused employee. Internal investigations must be conducted thoroughly, fairly, and impartially to avoid presenting liability problems from any of the involved parties.

Employers must allow time off for employees to vote

A reader asked whether Ohio employers are required to provide employees time off to vote - a timely question given tomorrow' presidential primary. Ohio Revised Code section 3599.06 provides:

No employer, his officer or agent, shall discharge or threaten to discharge an elector for taking a reasonable amount of time to vote on election day.... Whoever violates this section shall be fined not less than fifty nor more than five hundred dollars.

Hourly employees do not have to be paid for the reasonable amount of time off they take to vote. To avoid jeopardizing a salaried employee's exempt status, those employees should not be docked.

A quick LEXIS search did not reveal any cases in which an employee claimed a wrongful discharge based on a termination in violation of 3599.06. It is unclear whether the $50-$500 fine sufficiently addresses the public policy so that the termination would not place the public policy behind the statute in jeopardy. The issue muddy at best, such that firing a employee for taking a marginally reasonable amount of time off to vote would be a high risk termination that very well might have to be defended in court.

Avoid hidden interviewing traps

Today's BLR HR Daily Advisor is entitled, "Help, They Made Me a Supervisor — 9 Disastrous Mistakes New Supervisors Make.":

Pity the new supervisor. Sometimes they do the wrong thing, because they think they have to do something, and sometimes they do nothing when it's critical to do something. We'll cover nine typical types of trouble they get into today.
1. Hiring
Hiring gets to be second nature after a while, but it's a tricky matter at first. Overeager new supervisors think they should find out all they can about the candidate, but don't realize that many questions are off limits—questions about race, religion, disability, and marital and family status, among others.

The fact is that many interview questions may seem innocuous enough, but may create serious discrimination problems. The following is just a sample of some exemplar questions that are problematic, as compared to legitimate questions to extract lawful information:
Age

• When did you graduate high school?
• How old are you?
• How many years until you plan to retire?
• How many years seniority did you have at your prior company?

-vs-

• Can you submit a birth certificate or other proof of age if you are hired?
• Are you over 18? [work eligibility]

National Origin

• What county are you from?
• That is an interesting accent, where were you born?
• Where were you or your parents born?

-vs-

• Are you eligible to work in the United States? [work eligibility]

Criminal Records

• Have you ever been arrested? [race]

-vs-

• Have you ever been convicted of a crime? [honesty, qualifications]
• Caution, however, that the EEOC may even find this question illegal. See EEOC targets use of arrest and conviction records

Disability

• What is your medical history?
• Do you have any medical conditions or disabilities?
• How will they affect your job performance?
• Have you ever filed a workers' comp claim?
• Do you have a history or alcohol or drug addiction?
• What medications are you taking?

-vs-

• Do you know of anything that would limit your ability to perform the essential functions of this job, and if so, what accommodations can we make that would enable you to perform those functions?
• How would you perform this particular job task?

The following are some additional considerations stereotypes to keep in mind when interviewing members of protected classes:

• Ask questions that are relevant to the job itself. For example, do not ask an applicant for her opinions on birth control, abortion, women's lib, etc.



• Be careful not to draw assumptions about women's competence based on her soft voice or feminine appearance or attire.



• Be professional and consistent in addressing men and women. If using first names, do so for all candidates.



• Avoid flirting, patronizing, or making sexual/ethnic jokes during the interview.



• Avoid bringing up stereotyped prejudices: women shouldn't travel alone; they are too emotional; they aren't aggressive enough. Don't tell negative stories about former women employees.



• Don't go to the opposite extreme by boasting about your liberation, by pointing out how fair minded you are, or by giving an instant replay of every female or minority success story you know.



• In making a selection or recommendation, avoid making assumptions such as the following: (i) Supervisors or managers might prefer men or employees of certain ethnic/racial origins; (ii) Clients or customers might not want to deal with women or minorities; (iii) Women's work might lack credibility; (iv) The job might involve unusual working conditions that would disqualify the applicant.



• When interviewing people with disabilities don't ask: "What happened to you?" or "How will you get to work?"



• Do not place undue emphasis on conditions of employment (such as travel, heavy lifting, long hours, etc.) in hope of discouraging the candidate and getting him or her to withdraw from the competition.



• If asked, give accurate information about the number of women or minority employees already in the organization. If a candidate asks, and if you don't have women or minorities in your own department, then arrange for the person to meet other women or minority staff members. Do not assume that this person will necessarily want to meet other women or minority employees.



• If you're going to discuss the town or city, mention everything and do not try to over-emphasize the town's aspects as a family place in which to live and bring up children.



• In general, avoid references to a candidate's personal happiness (i.e., social and/or sexual). Don't assume that your town or city is not the place for a single person or for minorities.



• Obviously, do not indicate that you’re interested in hiring a women or minority person as a statistic to improve your department’s Affirmative Action/Equal Employment Opportunity profile. It's unlawful to apply different standards based on an applicant's sex or minority status.



• Don't ask the applicant about what kind of accommodation(s) he or she may need for the job until after the interviewer has established that the applicant is qualified for the job and is considering that person for employment. You can, however, explain what the interviewing and hiring process involves and ask all applicants whether they will need a reasonable accommodation to participate in any part of the process itself.
  
• Treat the applicant like an adult; don't be patronizing.



• If an applicant has an obvious disability or discloses that they have a disability during a job interview, you cannot ask about the nature or severity of the disability. You can discuss the job functions and whether the person can perform the functions with or without an accommodation.



• Accommodations for interviews must be provided.
  
• Citizenship requirements or preferences may be unlawful under Title VII if they have either the purpose or effect of discriminating against individuals because of their national origin.



• Be careful how applicants with disabilities are evaluated. Do not make judgments based on communication skills of people with hearing and speech impairments.
  
• Be sensitive to cultural differences: (i) Do not assume mispronunciation of English as a lack of education; (ii) Do not interpret silence as inability or unwillingness.

These lists give some guideposts to avoid liability. They are not meant to be exhaustive. The general rule of thumb is that unless you are absolutely sure that an interview question is 100% job-related, just don't ask it. Stick to the job requirements and how a candidate's work-related background fits with those requirements.
Tomorrow, we'll take a look at some general stereotypes that can unwittingly pervade the interview process and create problems for the unaware interviewer.

Special considerations for employment of veterans with service-connected disabilities

In Ohio, two laws apply to the employment of veterans: the federal Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA), which provides reemployment rights to returning veterans, and Ohio's ban on military status discrimination, which goes into effect on March 18. If a returning veteran is injured, though, another law might come into play, the ADA. Earlier today the EEOC published guidance for employers on how to handle veterans with service-connected disabilities under the ADA. The following summarizes the EEOC's key points:

How does USERRA differ from the ADA?

USERRA protects the reemployment rights of those who leave their civilian jobs to serve in the uniformed services. The ADA prohibits employers from discriminating against qualified individuals with disabilities with respect to hiring, promotion, termination, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. The ADA also prohibits disability-based harassment and provides that, absent undue hardship, applicants and employees with disabilities are entitled to reasonable accommodation. USERRA requires employers to go further than the ADA by making reasonable efforts to assist a veteran who is returning to employment in becoming qualified for a job.

Is a veteran with a service-connected disability automatically protected by the ADA?

No. The impairment must meet the statutory definition of a "disability" under the ADA, meaning a person who (i) has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities; (ii) has a record of such an impairment; or (iii) is regarded as having such an impairment, and who otherwise meets the employer's requirements for the job and can perform the job's essential functions with or without reasonable accommodation.

May an employer ask if an applicant is a "disabled veteran" if it is seeking to hire someone with a service-connected disability?

Yes, if the employer is asking the applicant voluntarily to self-identify for affirmative action purposes. Otherwise, employers generally may not ask for medical information from applicants prior to making a job offer.

What steps should an employer take if it asks an applicant to self-identify as a "disabled veteran" for affirmative action purposes?

If an employer invites applicants to voluntarily self-identify, the employer must indicate clearly and conspicuously (i) that the information requested is intended for use solely in connection with its affirmative action obligations or its voluntary affirmative action efforts; and (ii) the specific information is being requested on a voluntary basis, it will be kept confidential in accordance with the ADA, that refusal to provide it will not subject the employee to any adverse treatment, and that it will be used only in accordance with the ADA. Any information collected must be kept separate from the application to ensure confidentiality.

May an employer give preference in hiring to a veteran with a service-connected disability over other applicants?

Yes. The ADA prohibits discrimination "against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability." The law neither prohibits nor requires affirmative action on behalf of disabled individuals. Therefore, an employer may, but is not required to, hire a qualified individual with a disability over a qualified applicant without a disability.

What types of reasonable accommodations may veterans with service-connected disabilities need for the application process or during employment?

Some examples of possible reasonable accommodations to consider include: written materials in accessible formats; recruitment fairs, interviews, tests, and training held in accessible locations; modified equipment or devices; physical modifications to the workplace; permission to work from home; leave for treatment, recuperation, or training related to the disability; modified or part-time work schedules; a job coach; reassignment to a vacant position.

How does an employer know when a veteran with a service-connected disability needs an accommodation?

Usually, the reasonable accommodation process begin with a request by the employee or someone else on his or her behalf. The request does not have to mention the ADA or use the term "reasonable accommodation" and simply can be an indication that the employee needs a change for a reason related to a medical condition. A request for reasonable accommodation is the first step in an informal interactive process between the individual and the employer. That process usually involves determining whether the employee actually has a "disability" Employers should also ask what is needed to do the job.

May an employer ask a veteran with a service-connected disability whether a reasonable accommodation is needed if none has been requested?

It depends. During the application process, an employer may explain what the hiring process involves and ask all applicants whether they will need a reasonable accommodation to participate in any part. In addition, if an employer reasonably believes that a veteran with an obvious service-connected disability (such as blindness or a missing limb) who is applying for a particular job will need a reasonable accommodation to do that job, the employer may ask whether an accommodation is needed and, if so, what type. Once a veteran with a service-connected disability has started working, an employer may ask whether an accommodation is needed when it reasonably appears that the person is experiencing workplace problems because of a medical condition.

Employer electronic monitoring survey illustrates the importance of clearly defined policies

The Electronic Discovery Navigator is reporting that according to the 2007 Electronic Monitoring & Surveillance Survey from American Management Association (AMA) and The ePolicy Institute, more than half of all employers have fired an employee for e-mail or internet abuse. According to the report:

The 28% of employers that have fired an employee for e-mail misuse cited the following reasons:

• Violation of any company policy (64%)
• Inappropriate or offensive language (62%)
• Excessive personal use (26%)
• Breach of confidentiality rules (22%)
• Other (12%)

The 30% of employers that have fired an employee for internet abuse cited the following reasons:

• Viewing, downloading, or uploading inappropriate/offensive content (84%)
• Violation of any company policy (48%)
• Excessive personal use (34%)
• Other (9%)

The stat that really caught my eye is that of the 65% of companies that use software to block connections to websites they deem inappropriate for work, 18% prevent employees from visiting blogs. And, it's not only the reading of blogs that is getting employees in trouble. Both Ernie the Attorney and John Phillips' Word on Employment Law are reporting on a CNN producer fired for having a blog that CNN deemed to be unfriendly towards it. CNN has a policy in its handbook that prohibits employees from writing for any non-CNN outlet without network approval, and terminated the employee for his off-work musings.

Technology in today's workplace comes in too many forms to keep track. It's no longer just enough to have a policy that covers e-mail and internet access. Workplace technology is not going to get any less complicated, and it is important to have policies in place that keep up with the changes. Policies should also cover blackberries and other PDAs, cell phones, and even blogs. Companies have to be careful, however, not to overreach and be too draconian in what they try to accomplish with these policies. If you intend to hold employees accountable for what they do on their private free time (whether it's blogging, smoking, or any other lawful activity), it's best to have those expectations out in the open so that everyone is operating under the same ground rules, and people will have less of a reason to gripe if there is some adverse action taken.

What else I'm reading this week #20

This week starts off with a couple of stories that fall under the related categories of "You can't make this stuff up and "Why I love my job."

• The aptly named Lowering the Bar brings us the tale of an employee who was fired for trying to solicit a hooker on the company's dime and then filing for unemployment.
• From Above the Law, we have a story of a supervisor at a Utah motivational coaching business accused of waterboarding an employee in front of his co-workers as, well, motivation to work harder. The lawsuit also alleges that the managers also allowed the supervisor to draw mustaches on employees' faces, take away their chairs and beat on their desks with a wooden paddle.
• Meanwhile, The Laconic Law Blog and Overlawyered both bring us the story of two young women who claim that Southwest Airlines discriminated against them because they were too beautiful. For the curious, Wizbang has their photo. The following is Southwest Airline's very clever viral response to the claim [Hat tip to KnowHR Blog]:

Dan Schwartz at the Connecticut Employment Law Blog reports on his state's legislature's consideration of Workplace Bullying legislation. More than once, I've argued against this type of legislation - liability for a jerk boss has the real potential to put a stake through the heart of employment at-will. You can read my thoughts on this topic here and here.

Kris Dunn, The HR Capitalist, highlights the evils of "reply all." The comments to Kris' story relate some personal "reply all" horror stories.

George's Employment Blawg gives us a very thoughtful summary of the ERISA landscape post-LeRue.

BLR's HR Daily Advisor gives us 7 stupid things that supervisors say that beg for a lawsuit.

The Evil HR Lady blogs about the importance of computer and Internet use policies at work.

Finally, John Phillips' Word on Employment Law provide a state-by-state survey of which states require employers to provide employees time off to vote. Please note, as we approach March 4, that Ohio requires employers to give employees a "reasonable amount of time off" to vote, and that salaried employees cannot be docked.

High medical costs as direct evidence of disability discrimination

Federal courts of appeals continue to make family responsibility discrimination a hot button issue. Typically, we've seen family responsibility issues arise in the context of childcare. Today, we'll examine a family responsibility case that deals with associational disability discrimination, Dewitt v. Proctor Hospital, which permitted an employee with a terminally ill husband to pursue her ADA claim.

Phillis Dewitt worked at Proctor Hospital as a clinical manager, and by all accounts was a valued employee. Dewitt and her husband, Anthony, were covered under Proctor's medical plan. Proctor was partially self-insured for its medical coverage. It paid the first $250,000 of annual covered medical costs, and anything above that "stop-loss" figure rolled into an insurance policy. Because it was self-insured, Proctor kept quarterly reports of all employees with claims over $25,000.

Throughout Dewitt's tenure at Proctor, her husband suffered from prostate cancer, and the high medical costs that went along with it. In September 2004, Dewitt's supervisor, Mary Jane Davis, confronted her about her husband's medical claims, specifically asking what treatment he was receiving and why his doctor hadn't put him in hospice yet. Davis repeated her inquiry in February 2005. In May 2005, Davis organized a meeting of Proctor's clinical managers and advised them that because of the hospital's financial troubles it required a "creative" effort to cut costs. Three months later, Proctor fired Dewitt and designated her "ineligible to be rehired in the future." Dewitt's husband died a year later.

In her lawsuit, Dewitt claimed "associational discrimination" under the ADA, that Proctor fired her to avoid having to pay for the substantial self-insured medical costs it incurred because of her husband. The 7th Circuit pointed out the associational discrimination plaintiffs fall into 3 categories: expense, disabled by association, and distraction. Dewitt's claim falls into the "expense" category, an employee fired because a family member has a "disability" costly to the company.

The Court found that Dewitt had presented a jury question on her disability claim and reversed the trial court's dismissal of her claim. Specifically, the Court found that she had presented "direct evidence" of discrimination. Proctor fired Dewitt 5 months after Davis' last conversation with her about her husband's medical treatment and costs, and 3 months after Proctor warned employees about "creative" cost-cutting measures. In the Court's words:

[T]he timing of Dewitt’s termination suggests that the financial albatross of Anthony's continued cancer treatment was an important factor in Proctor's decision.... One could reasonably infer that Dewitt was terminated after Proctor conducted its latest periodic analysis of medical claim "outliers" and, this time around, decided that its "wait and see" strategy with the Dewitts was costing the hospital tens of thousands of dollars every year. A reasonable juror could conclude that Proctor, which faced a financial struggle of indeterminate length, was concerned that Anthony—a multi-year cancer veteran—might linger on indefinitely.... Because Dewitt has established that direct evidence of "association discrimination" may have motivated Proctor in its decision to fire her, a jury should be allowed to consider her claim.

This case is an example of an employer who did just about everything wrong. It repeatedly grilled an employee about her husband's medical condition, and then clearly fired her because of the high cost of his medical care. From the employer's point of view, this case would be scary to present to a jury. It's difficult to think of a more sympathetic plaintiff in an employment case, which presents a real big problem for Proctor at trial.

While I don't mean to sound heartless, the concurring opinion makes a good point as to what is and is not "disability" discrimination. The ADA makes discrimination based on "disability" illegal; discrimination based solely on medical costs simply is not illegal. [ERISA discrimination is another issue entirely, which the court did not reach].

An employer's most likely concern about an employee who has a disabled relative, especially a spouse or child, is that the relative's medical expenses may be covered by the employer's employee health plan. There is a positive correlation between being disabled and having abnormally high medical expenses, just as there is a positive correlation between the age of an employee and his salary because most employees receive regular raises as long as they perform satisfactorily. Suppose a company encounters rough waters and decides to retrench by firing its most expensive employees. They are likely to be older on average than the employees who are retained, but as we said many years ago, "nothing in the Age Discrimination in Employment Act forbids an employer to vary employee benefits according to the cost to the employer; and if, because older workers cost more, the result of the employer's economizing efforts is disadvantageous to older workers, that is simply how the cookie crumbles." ...

[A]n employer who discriminates against an employee because of the latter's association with a disabled person is liable even if the motivation is purely monetary. But if the disability plays no role in the employer’s decision—if he would discriminate against any employee whose spouse or dependent ran up a big medical bill—then there is no disability discrimination. It's as if the defendant had simply placed a cap on the medical expenses, for whatever cause incurred, that it would reimburse an employee for. This appears to be such a case. So far as the record reveals, the defendant fired the plaintiff not because her husband was disabled but because his medical expenses—which might not have been any lower had they been due to a condition that did not meet the statutory definition of a disability—were costing the defendant an amount of money that it was unwilling to spend. All the evidence recited in the majority opinion concerns costs ("cutting costs," "high cost of Anthony's medical treatment," "financial albatross," etc.) that a person who had a nondisabling medical condition could equally incur. If cost was indeed, as appears to be the case, the defendant's only motive for the action complained of, the defendant was not guilty of disability discrimination.

I am no way suggesting, from either a legal, HR, or human perspective, that companies should do what Proctor did. However, I do think that Judge Posner's concurrence makes a compelling argument on whether an employment decision based solely on medical costs constitutes "disability" discrimination. Proctor's job at trial is to convince the jury that medical costs were its only reason for the discharge, and that the disability itself played no role, a difficult argument to make and difficult distinction for a jury to draw.