Did you know that FMLA policies are mandatory?

Did you know that if you are covered by the FMLA and have an employee handbook, the FMLA's regulations require that handbook to contain an FLMA policy?

If an FMLA-covered employer has any eligible employees and has any written guidance to employees concerning employee benefits or leave rights, such as in an employee handbook, information concerning FMLA entitlements and employee obligations under the FMLA must be included in the handbook or other document. For example, if an employer provides an employee handbook to all employees that describes the employer's policies regarding leave, wages, attendance, and similar matters, the handbook must incorporate information on FMLA rights and responsibilities and the employer's policies regarding the FMLA.

An annual review of an employee handbook or other policy manual is always a good idea. Laws are constantly in flux. New laws are passed (for example, Ohio's workplace smoking ban in 2006) that may require new guidance for employees. Courts issue decisions that may make old policies either obsolete or downright illegal. The only way to make sure that a handbook is up to date is to actually take a close look at it as often as every year.

The bottom line - if you have 50 or more employees for each working day during each of 20 or more calendar workweeks in the current or preceding calendar year, and your handbook at all deals with employee benefits or leave rights (as most do), take a look at the handbook and make sure it has an FMLA policy.

Do wage and hour laws apply to independent contractors?

Every once in a while I'll answer a question that comes from my readers. Sometimes a question comes by email. Other times (to break down the 4th wall) they come from a search someone ran to find the blog.

Last week, someone asked, "Do minimum wage laws apply to 1099 independent contractors?" The answer is no. The FLSA (and Ohio's parallel wage and hour laws) only apply to employees.

But, companies should tread very carefully before classifying a worker as an independent contractor. Among the factors that the Department of Labor will examine in determining whether one is an employee or a contractor are:

1. The extent to which the services rendered are an integral part of the principal's business.
2. The permanency of the relationship.
3. The amount of the alleged contractor's investment in facilities and equipment.
4. The nature and degree of control by the principal.
5. The alleged contractor's opportunities for profit and loss.
6. The amount of initiative, judgment, or foresight in open market competition with others required for the success of the claimed independent contractor.
7. The degree of independent business organization and operation.

If a company errs by misclassifying an employee as a contractor, it would be liable for back wages (up to the minimum wage if the hourly rate is less) and unpaid overtime for two years, or even three years if employer was trying to willfully avoid the FLSA.

In other words, I would think long and hard before paying a worker like a contractor, and would not do so without some input from an employment lawyer and a written agreement setting forth the terms of the relationship.

To whoever typed that search into Google, thanks for the question. If anyone has any topics they'd like to see covered, email me and I'll do my best to accommodate.

House overwhelmingly votes in favor of ADA Amendments Act of 2008

By a margin of 402-17, the House yesterday voted in favor of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008. The New York Times is reporting that the Senate is expected to take similar action soon, but that President Bush is concerned that "it 'could unduly expand' coverage and significantly increase litigation."

The highlights of the bill (the full text of which is available here) are several. It defines "substantially limits" to mean "materially restricts," it specifies examples of major life activities, and expands upon them to include major bodily functions, and helps employers by exempting from "regarded as" claims transitory or minor impairments that last or are expected to last for 6 months or less.

The biggest changes, however, come to the definition of "disability" itself. In Sutton v. United Airlines, the Supreme Court held that whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity is to be determined with reference to the effects of mitigating measures on the impairment. For example, a diabetic who has the condition under control with insulin might not meet the definition of "disability." These amendments expressly reverse that ruling:

• An impairment that is episodic or in remission is a disability if it would substantially limit a major life activity when active.
• The determination of whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity is to be made without regard to the ameliorative effects of mitigating measures, such as medications, equipment, assistive technology, auxiliary devices, learned behavioral, or adaptive neurological modifications.
• Eyeglasses or contact lenses, however, can still be considered in determining whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity.

All in all, the goal of this legislation is to be lauded: "To carry out the ADA's objectives of providing 'a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination' and 'clear, strong, consistent, enforceable standards addressing discrimination' by reinstating a broad scope of protection to be available under the ADA." These amendments may not necessarily increase litigation, but they will certainly make it more difficult for employers to get ADA cases dismissed on summary judgment.

Delay in reporting harassment dooms employee's claim

Federal Express terminated the employment of Deborah Thornton after she failed to return to work from a 16-month leave of absence taken because of alleged stress stemming from sexual harassment by her immediate supervisor, David Bragorgos. She did not report the retaliation to FedEx until two months after her leave of absence began, claiming that she feared retaliation from Bragorgos and others if she reported it. In Thornton v. Federal Express, decided early this week, the 6th Circuit rejected that argument and upheld summary judgment entered in the employer's favor.

An employee’s subjective fears of confrontation, unpleasantness or retaliation do not alleviate the employee’s duty under Ellerth to alert the employer to the allegedly hostile environment.

In other words, employees have an affirmative obligation to report harassment. In return, the employer has an affirmative to ensure that the employee can do so free from retaliation. The employee is not excused from her responsibilities out of a fear that the employer will not live up to its end of the bargain.

Is the FLSA anachronistic?

Earlier this week I wrote about whether employees are entitled to overtime pay for reading emails. Michael Moore (the author of the Pennsylvania Labor & Employment Blog, not the director of Roger & Me) posted a comment to my post that is so wonderful that I'm reprinting it to make sure that all of my readers see it:

The only area immune from technology is the FLSA which is stuck in the year 1938, when it was enacted. Incidentally, this is the same year that the ball point pen was invented by the Argentine-Hungarian journalist László Bíró. I wonder if the DOL sat around in 1938 wondering if employees who wrote themselves work-related “To Do” list at home might actually be engaged in compensable work time activities entitling them to overtime?... or if the invention of the ball point pen (as opposed to the clunky fountain pen) would have so dramatically reduced these efforts that it would make the time de minimis?

Michael is dead on. As our employment laws move forward, the FLSA remains stuck in the past. The FLSA was enacted in 1938 to the curb worker exploitation, boost job creation, and bring the country out of the Great Depression. Last year, I asked if the 40-hour work week is still relevant in the modern world.  Michael's comment really drives home the point that a law enacted to address workplace conditions that existed during the Depression may need to be seriously reworked to address the realities of the modern workplace.

Protected activity does not protect theft of confidential information

Let's suppose an employee opts-in to a class action lawsuit against your company. Let's also suppose after she opts-in to the class action, she believes that her supervisor begins retaliating against her by treating her poorly. As part of discovery in the class action, she provides documents to her attorneys. Those documents not only include documents that might relate to the class action and potential retaliation claim, but also confidential customer files that she believes will jog her memory about specific instances of retaliation. The employer has a Privacy Policy, a Code of Conduct, and a Conflict of Interest Policy, all of which expressly prohibit the disclosure of confidential information, including customer information. When the employer learns of the delivery of the confidential customer files, it terminates her for violating company policy.

Does the delivery of the confidential files constitute protected activity for which the employee cannot be terminated? According to the 6th Circuit in Niswander v. Cincinnati Insurance, decided yesterday, the answer is it depends, but in this case no.

First, the Court analyze the dissemination for whether it constituted "participation" in protected activity. Because the confidential documents were not relevant to her claim, the Court concluded it did not:

This is not a case of an employee mistakenly or inadvertently delivering confidential information out of a belief that the documents provided direct proof of discrimination. Instead, Niswander delivered numerous documents, some of which were copies of e-mails from her supervisors related to her job performance, but some of which were claim-file documents that included confidential personal information of insured individuals....

Our analysis would be different if the documents that Niswander had given to her lawyers, and that they in turn produced to CIC, had reasonably supported her claim of gender-based pay discrimination—or if she reasonably believed that they did.

[C]oncluding that Niswander’s conduct here is protected participation ... would provide employees with near-immunity for their actions in connection with antidiscrimination lawsuits, protecting them from disciplinary action even when they knowingly provide irrelevant, confidential information solely to jog their memory regarding instances of alleged retaliation.

The Court also analyzed whether the dissemination qualified as "opposition" to an unlawful employment practice. The Court laid out 6 factors critical to its determination as to whether the dissemination of the documents was "reasonable" and therefore worthy of protection:

1. How the documents were obtained.
2. To whom the documents were produced.
3. The content of the documents.
4. Why the documents were produced, including whether the production was in direct response to a discovery request.
5. The scope of the employer’s privacy policy.
6. The ability of the employee to preserve the evidence in a manner that does not violate the employer’s privacy policy.

The Court found that the factors generally weighed against Niswander:

Although employees deserve protection when they make reasonable attempts to preserve evidence of illegal employment practices, including discrimination and retaliation, “we are loathe [sic] to provide employees an incentive to rifle through confidential files looking for evidence that might come in handy in later litigation.” To hold in favor of Niswander would turn the opposition clause into “a license to flaunt [sic] company rules or an invitation to dishonest behavior.” (quoting O’Day v. McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Co. (9th Cir. 1996)).

This case underscores the importance for employers to have clearly written confidentiality and other policies to govern employee ethics. The disclosure of confidential materials could very well be transformed into protected activity if the employer does not take active steps to protect the documents' confidentiality.

Moreover, businesses must also act swiftly and decisively when discovering a breach of confidentiality by any employee. Separate from being smart business, consistent enforcement diffuses any claim by an employee like Niswander of pretext - that she was treated differently than employees who breached policy but who had not filed a lawsuit.

What would President Obama look like to employers?

Yesterday, Senator Barack Obama gave some insight into employment policy in his administration. RealClearPolitics has his words from a speech given in Albuquerque. The highlights:

• He will push for the passage of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act, which will overturn Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber. Recall that Ledbetter held that the statute of limitations for a pay discrimination claim under Title VII begins to run when the pay-setting decision is made, and not when the employee learns of the discrimination. The Ledbetter Fair Pay Act would start the statute of limitations when the employee learns of the pay discrimination. In my view, this law would create a floating statute of limitations for pay discrimination claims, which severely undermines the important aspect of certainty that statutes of limitations provide for businesses.

• To assist working parents, he would expand the Child and Dependent Care tax credit to 50%.

• He would expand the FMLA to cover employers as small as 25 employees, to permit leave for the care of elderly parents, to allow parents 24 hours of annual leave to join school activities with their kids, and to cover employees who are victims of domestic violence or sexual assault.

• Finally, he would require employers to provide all workers with seven paid sick days a year.

It's clear from Senator Obama's words that family responsibility will be a driving force in his administration:

As the son of a single mother, I also don't accept an America that makes women choose between their kids and their careers. It's not acceptable that women are denied jobs or promotions because they've got kids at home. It's not acceptable that forty percent of working women don't have a single paid sick day. That's wrong for working parents, it's wrong for America's children, and it's not who we are as a country.

It's hard to argue against greater family leave benefits on a national scale (The Ohio Healthy Families Act is an entirely different story). As I've said before, this country lags behind most of the civilized world, and even some of the third world, in family leave benefits. Until we solve this problem legislatively, aggressive plaintiffs will continue to push for judicial solutions - such as the $2.1 million verdict against Kohl's Department Stores in Cuyahoga County last year.