Ohio Senate proposes ban on sexual orientation discrimination

Senate Bill 305, introduced in the Ohio Senate yesterday, would include "sexual orientation" in the list of protected classes against which it is illegal for employers to discriminate. It defines sexual orientation as "heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, asexuality, or transgenderism, whether actual or perceived." According to today's Cleveland Plain Dealer, if S.B. 305 passes, Ohio would become the 22nd state to ban this type of discrimination. The Plain Dealer also points out that only one Republican crossed party lines to sponsor the bill, which does not bode well for its ultimate fate.

While this blog is unabashedly slanted in the employer's favor, I come down on the side of the employee on the issue of sexual orientation discrimination. As I've said here before, is difficult to argue, in 2008, that it is acceptable to condone intentional discrimination of an innate characteristic such as sexual orientation. I also understand, however, the impracticalities of extending the same protections to gender identity. A company should not be forced to accept a man dressed in drag (for example) if that is not the image its wants to project, or if it think such an image will harm its bottom line by driving away business or customers.

Revisiting the facebooking of job applicants

Several months ago I wrote about basing personnel decisions on an applicant's or employee's off-work online activities. Today, three articles on this same topic came across my screen that make this topic worth revisiting: Do Employers Using Facebook for Background Checks Face Legal Risks?; Facebook a risky tool for background checks, lawyers warn; and Employers may be searching applicants' Facebook profiles, experts warn.

These articles predict indefensible discrimination lawsuits and general gloom and doom for employers who use Facebook, MySpace, YouTube, etc., to conduct background checks on job applicants. They suggest that companies are unnecessarily risking liability in a landscape that is uncertain until courts are asked to lay down some rules on these issues.

What is going on here? I'm the first person to tell companies not to be the test case for emerging HR practices, and to let others blaze the trail by defending the inevitable lawsuits. I just can't see how a company can face liability if it non-discriminatorily looks for information on job applicants on the web. People put this information in the public domain for anyone and everyone to see. It's one thing if employers use Internet searches to pre-screen job applicants before the interview process. That's a big no-no, for the same reason we no longer ask job applicants to submit photos -- it reveals demographic information that an employer could use to screen out certain minorities, genders, and other protected groups. Once a company decides to consider an applicant and actually meets the person, those concerns disappear.

A couple of helpful pointers for companies to consider. As with all personnel practices, it is best to have a written policy for supervisors, managers, and others involved in the hiring process to follow. That policy should make clear that Internet sources cannot be checked until after a job applicant has been interviewed, and that if a search is going to be conducted for one applicant for a position, it must be done for all. It also not a bad idea to put a disclaimer somewhere on the job application stating that publicly available Internet sources may be checked post-interview as part of consideration process.

Today's schadenfreude moment

Schadenfreude is a German word meaning, "happiness in the misfortune of others." I'm certain a feeling of schadenfreude has settled in all over Wall Street this morning, given yesterday's news about the Governor of New York.

Today's question: What do the Governor of New York and an Iowa casino worker have in common? Apparently, love for paid companionship. From the Des Moines Register comes this story of a casino employee terminated for attempting to buy a prostitute on his employer's dime.

Neil Jorgensen, 62, of Kalona worked at the Riverside Casino and Gold Resort south of Iowa City until last November. He was fired after he was given a $100 Riverside gift certificate and a free night's stay at the casino hotel in recognition of a year's employment with the company. He used the gift certificate and free night's stay on the night of Nov. 28.

"I went to Ruthie's, the nice steakhouse within the casino, and I had a cosmopolitan or two and a bottle of wine and a really good dinner," Jorgensen testified at a recent state hearing dealing with his request for unemployment benefits.

He said he went to his hotel room about midnight and called hotel managers for help in figuring out how to order an adult movie. An hour later, he said, he called the managers again "and asked for a hooker." After the managers refused to help procure a prostitute for him, Jorgensen called someone at the adjacent resort and made the same request.

The casino's human resources director, Tim Donovan, testified that hotel workers were then sent to Jorgensen's room to insist that he stop calling for prostitutes.

"When the hotel supervisor knocked on the door, Mr. Jorgensen answered the door in the nude," Donovan testified. Jorgensen was fired the next day.

Undeterred by his termination, Jorgensen filed for unemployment. At his hearing, he offered 6 different defenses for his misconduct, ranging from pedestrian to hilarious:

• "The advertisement is that it's just like Las Vegas, so I thought I was in Las Vegas."
• The casino employs a dual standard because "gamblers have been allowed to continue gambling after they've urinated on the blackjack table standing in full public view."
• That his actions had no detrimental effect on the casino.
• That just prior to his termination, he had received an "excellent" performance review.
• That the casino "overserved" him, which caused him to be "absolutely plowed."
• Finally, Jorgensen claimed that his requests for a prostitute were part of "an off-the-wall surveillance" test.

I could draw some great moral lessons here, or tell you that an employee who tries to hire a hooker on the company's dime should be fired ASAP, no questions asked. The reality, though, is that this story just made me laugh, especially in light of what happened in New York yesterday.

[Hat tip: Manpower Employment Blawg]

Guest blogging at the Connecticut Employment Law Blog

I'm pulling double duty today. In addition to my regular posts here, I'm also guest blogging at the Connecticut Employment Law Blog to cover for Dan Schwartz while he's in trial. Click on over to Dan's outstanding blog (and I'm not just saying that because of my guest post) and take a look at my thoughts on the federal Healthy Families Act. While your there, be sure to subscribe and add Dan to your feed reader.

Avoiding more discrimination traps

Last week I talked about avoiding common traps in the questions that are asked during job interviews. The questioning, however, is not the end of this story. John Phillips' Word on Employment Law points out that even if the right questions are asked, the notes that interviewers take during the process can prove just as damaging. Interviewers always take notes. The notes enable the interviewer to remember key points about candidates and make pertinent comparisons at the end of the process. The key word, though, is "pertinent." John's point, which is an important one, is to make sure that any notes that are taken are job related and deal with a candidate's experience and skills, and not a protected class:

So, you would never write "black," "AA" (even if your explanation is that this stands for Alcoholics Anonymous instead of African-American, remember that alcoholism is a disability), "Asian," "Hispanic," "crippled," etc. You'll never be able to satisfactorily explain why you made those notes. If the applicant has a name that is used by men and women, don’t write "female," because if you don't hire her, you'll be accused of giving yourself a reminder that this applicant was female. If the applicant is female, don’t write "appears to be pregnant" (pregnancy discrimination is a form of sex discrimination). If the applicant is obviously in his/her 60's, don't write "too old for job."

These ideas don't only apply to interview notes, but any other notes that a supervisor, manager, or HR employee might take -- whether in an investigation, disciplinary meeting, termination meeting, or any other setting that might bear on one's employment. An HR professional might write "discrimination" in her notes taken during a meeting terminating a 60 year old employee. That note could be an admission that the employee was being discriminated against, or an innocent explanation that because the employee is 60 years old the possibility of a claim of discrimination exists. If it's in writing, though, that employee will have to explain what it means during a deposition or to a jury. I guarantee that an employer does not want it left to a jury to decide which interpretation of that note is more believable.

The bottom line -- think before anything is committed to paper. If you have any doubt about whether something can be used against you, omit it. Education about the employment discrimination laws is key to this process. If you don't know what is illegal, it's impossible to know the traps to avoid.

What else I'm reading this week #21

It seems no matter where you turn these days, you just can't escape the presidential campaigns. John Phillips at The Word on Employment Law has been doing a great series on where the presidential candidates stand on various pieces of pending employment legislation and other labor and employment issues. I highly recommend checking out John's thorough posts if you want a sense of what a Clinton or Obama administration might look like to employers.

Childrens' lit is all the rage with bloggers lately. The HR Capitalist blames a Dr. Seuss book, I Am Not Going to Get Up Today, for the mess of FMLA intermittent leave.

Rush Nigut, better known as Rush on Business, draws some lessons from a case on deleted emails.

The Labor & Employment Law Blog gives some pointers on a topic I've touched on quite a bit, preventative and corrective actions for workplace harassment.

Finally, The Laconic Law Blog reports that the District of Columbia has approved legislation for mandatory paid sick leave. In all likelihood, we will see a similar measure, the Ohio Healthy Families Act, on the ballot in Ohio in November.

EEOC posts huge gain in discrimination charges

According to this EEOC press release, discrimination charges filed with the EEOC increased by 9% in 2007. The 82,792 private sector discrimination charges filed last year was the highest volume of incoming charges since 2002 and the largest annual increase since the early 1990s.

Race was the most frequently filed claim, with retaliation a close second and having the greatest percentage increase:

Basis of Charge Filing	2007	2006	Percentage Increase/Historical Comparison
RACE	30,510	27,238	Up 12% to highest level since 1994
RETALIATION	26,663	22,555	Up 18% to record high level, double since 1992
SEX/GENDER	24,826	23,247	Up 7% to highest level since 2002
AGE	19,103	16,548	Up 15%, largest annual increase since 2002
DISABILITY	17,734	15,575	Up 14% to highest level since 1998
NATIONAL ORIGIN	9,369	8,327	Up 12%, above 9,000 for second time ever
RELIGION	2,880	2,541	Up 13% to record high level, double since 1992

EEOC Chair Naomi C. Earp believes that companies' failures in combating workplace discrimination explains these numbers: "Corporate America needs to do a better job of proactively preventing discrimination and addressing complaints promptly and effectively. To ensure that equality of opportunity becomes a reality in the 21st century workplace, employers need to place a premium on fostering inclusive and discrimination-free work environments for all individuals."

Ms. Earp's statement would be more telling if the EEOC also released data on the percentage of charges on which the EEOC found probable cause as compared to how many were dismissed. This increase is much more likely the result of the economic downtown and more job losses, instead of companies avoiding their EEO responsibilities.