6 tips to avoid an employment lawsuit

For the past two days, BLR’s HR Daily Advisor has been looking behind enemy lines and providing tips from a plaintiffs lawyer on mistakes employers make that generate litigation (A Peek into Enemy Camp – Plaintiff’s Lawyer Spills Secrets and How to Grease the Skids for Your Employee's Attorney). I culled the following six from those articles, and are designed to point your business in the right direction with some proactive steps you can take to handle employees and policies and help avoid future employment claims.

1. Discounting damages and potential liability. Managers and supervisors often underestimate their own liability. People with decision-making authority need to keep in mind that in Ohio they can be held personally liable for their own discriminatory actions. It’s not just the company that can be held liable. If people stopped and considered that they could be equally liable for back wages, compensatory, and even punitive damages, they might tread more cautiously when dealing with protected employees.

2. Omitting a Reason for Termination. Companies often believe that it is better not to provide a reason for a termination than to give a reason that can be used as potential ammunition against the company. The converse is usually true. The lack of a reason is often the spark that fires the weapon. If an employee is not given a reason, he or she will assume that there is no good reason, and seek help from an attorney. However, if the employee is given a reason that is backed up by prior discipline, reviews, and other communications, the employee is much more likely to understand and move on. The keys are proper prior communication and accuracy.

3. Ignoring the EEOC Response. By ignoring, I don’t mean failing to respond at all (which is also a big mistake). Instead, I mean not taking the time to draft a thorough, proper, and accurate response that gives the EEOC or OCRC sufficient detail to issue a “no probable cause” finding. Be mindful of accuracy, however, as inconsistencies will likely come back to bite you in subsequent litigation.

4.Terminating Employees with Good Evaluations or Scant Documentation. It’s very difficult to justify the termination of an employee for performance problems if the employee has glowing performance reviews and no history of written documentation outlining the problems. The less paper that exists, the more a termination looks like pretext.

5. Ignoring Your Own Policies. Managers and supervisors should be trained in what your policies are and how they should be applied. While policies should state that they are not contracts, they do set standards of conduct that should be met in most cases. Consistency avoids the appearance of pretext, which in turn avoids summary judgment denials and jury trials.

6. Delaying Policy Changes. Laws change frequently. New laws are passed (the FMLA’s military leave amendments, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act), old laws are changed (the new FMLA regulations and the recent ADA amendments), and courts write opinions that reinterpret laws (the Supreme Court’s inclusions of internal investigations in retaliation liability). Companies that are slow to react to incorporating these changes into their policies risk liability. Policies must be well drafted, reviewed by lawyers, and updated frequently.

There is no sure-fire method to prevent a lawsuit from being filed. No company is bulletproof, and there is no guarantee against a terminated employee filing a lawsuit. This list, however, is a good first step to helping put your organization in the best position to dissuade lawsuits from being filed and successfully defending against them when they are.

A primer on inclement weather policies

It seems appropriate as today’s snowstorm plays havoc on KJK’s inaugural Breakfast Briefing to spend some time talking about inclement weather policies.

There is no law that governs whether businesses must, or even should, stay open during bad weather. Instead, it is simply a matter of policy for each company to decide for itself. Like all policies, communication is the key to ensuring that employees are all on the same page when it comes to whether a business is going to open or shut down to account for bad weather.

Bad weather will affect different employees differently. Commute times and distances, methods of transportation, and school closings will all impact whether a certain employee will be able to make it to work when bad weather hits. In drafting a policy for inclement weather, consider the following:

1. Communication. How will your business communicate to its employees whether it is open for business or closed because of the weather? Are there essential personnel that must report regardless of whether the facility closes? If an employee does not get word of a closure and reports to work anyway, will the company pay that employee for reporting?

2. Early closing. If a business decides to close early because of mid-day snowstorm, how will it account for the orderly shut-down of operations on that day? Which employees will be able to leave early and which will have to remain to ensure that the facility is properly closed? Is there essential crew that must stay, or is there an equitable means to rotate who can stay and who can leave?

3. Wage and hour issues. To avoid jeopardizing exempt employees’ status, they should be be paid their full salary when a company closes because of weather. For non-exempt employees, however, it is entirely up to the company whether to pay them for a full day’s work, for part of the day, or for no hours at all. Will employees have to use vacation or other paid time off if they want to be paid for the day, or will the company consider it a freebee?

4. Attendance. Will the absence be counted against employees in a no-fault or other attendance policy, or defeat any perfect attendance bonuses?

For more on inclement weather polices take a look at the Pennsylvania Labor & Employment Blog.

Note the effective date of the Ledbetter bill

From PointofLaw.com, on the effective date of the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act:

SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This Act, and the amendments made by this Act, take effect as if enacted on May 28, 2007 and apply to all claims of discrimination in compensation under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (29 U.S.C. 621 et seq.), title I and section 503 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and sections 501 and 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, that are pending on or after that date.

May 28th? The Supreme Court issued its Ledbetter ruling on May 29, 2007, so Lilly Ledbetter's suit was still pending then. So does she get another shot at her lawsuit?

It looks like the Ledbetter bill will completely wipe away the Supreme Court’s Ledbetter decision, as if it never even happened. President Obama has promised to sign this bill into law on Thursday, January 29.

Do you know? The FLSA’s exemptions for salespeople

Do you know? The FLSA has two different exemptions that could cover salespeople – the outside sales employee exemption and the commissioned retail employee exemption. If an employee qualifies for either of these exemptions, that employee is not owed overtime for any hours worked in excess of 40 in any given work week.

To qualify for the outside sales employee exemption, both of the following must be met:

1. The employee’s primary duty must either be making sales, or obtaining orders or contracts for services or for the use of facilities for which a consideration will be paid by the client or customer; and

2. The employee must be customarily and regularly engaged away from the employer’s place or places of business.

Because sales employees are often commissioned (at least in part), there is no salary requirement with this exemption.

Outside sales typically do not include sales made by mail, telephone, or the Internet. For example, this exemption does not cover telemarketers.

To quality for the commissioned retail employee exemption, all three of the following requirements must be met:

1. The employee must be employed by a retail or service establishment;

2. The employee’s regular rate of pay must exceed one and one-half times the applicable minimum wage; and

3. More than half of the employee’s earnings must be in form of commissions.

For information on other FLSA exemptions, see the following:

• Do you know? The FLSA’s Administrative Exemption

• Do you know? The FLSA’s Executive Exemption

Supreme Court rules that retaliation includes participating in internal investigations

In a unanimous 9-0 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held today that Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision covers employees who answer questions during employers’ internal investigations. The case is Crawford v. Metropolitan Gov’t of Nashville.

The case involved the termination of a 30-year employee who answered her employer’s questions during its investigation into a co-worker’s allegations of harassment against a different employee.

The Court found Crawford’s activity to be protected by the anti-retaliation provision’s “opposition” clause:

[N]othing in the statute requires a freakish rule protecting an employee who reports discrimination on her own initiative but not one who reports the same discrimination in the same words when her boss asks a question….

If it were clear law that an employee who reported discrimination in answering an employer’s questions could be penalized with no remedy, prudent employees would have a good reason to keep quiet about Title VII offenses against themselves or against others…. The appeals court’s rule would thus create a real dilemma for any knowledgeable employee in a hostile work environment if the boss took steps to assure a defense under our cases. If the employee reported discrimination in response to the enquiries, the employer might well be free to penalize her for speaking up. But if she kept quiet about the discrimination and later filed a Title VII claim, the employer might well escape liability, arguing that it “exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct [any discrimination] promptly” but “the plaintiff employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of … preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer.” Nothing in the statute’s precedent supports this catch-22.

Wile the Court went to great lengths to ground its decision in the statutory definition of “opposition,” this opinion really is policy driven. The Court is sending a clear message that it highly values internal workplace investigations. The message to employers is two-fold:

1. If an employee complains of discrimination or retaliation, investigate

   promptly and thoroughly; and

2. The investigatory process should include clear assurances to third-party witnesses that they will not be retaliated against for participating in the investigation.

Reverse age discrimination should not be a concern in layoffs

Last week, BusinessWeek ran the following headline: Employers Avoid Axing Oldies but Goodies. The crux of the story is that the current wave of layoffs is hitting younger employees much harder than in the past. Seniority is being protected because of legal concerns in laying off the over-40 set, and because of the need to keep experienced people in place to help navigate these difficult times. According to the article, hard numbers back this trend:

• Unemployment claims for those 55 and older jumped to 4.9% in December 2008, a 1.8% rise over the prior year.
• In contrast, for those aged 25-54 the rate climbed to 6.3% in December, a 2.3% jump from December 2007.
• Meanwhile, there are 2.8 million less people ages 25-54 employed in December 2008 as compared to December 2007.
• In contrast, there are 878,000 more employees age 55 and over employed this year as compared to last year.

Yet, the article ends with the following word of caution:

Still, companies must tread carefully to avoid showing favoritism based on age. They could wind up facing reverse-discrimination suits from younger workers who feel targeted.

Nothing could be further from the truth. In General Dynamics Land Systems v. Cline (2004), the U.S. Supreme Court conclusively ended the debate over whether one can bring a claim for reverse age discrimination. In that case, the employer provided retiree health benefits only to those people who were over age 50. 196 employees ages 40-49 claimed that since the contract expressly excluded employees between the ages of 40 and 49, providing benefits only to retirees 50 and over was illegal age discrimination. Thus, the Court was asked to decided if the ADEA prohibits “reverse discrimination” against workers over 40 by providing greater benefits to workers over 50 than to younger workers who are still over 40.

The Court rejected the notion of “reverse age discrimination.” The ADEA’s “text, structure, purpose, history, and relationship to other federal statutes show that the statute does not mean to stop an employer from favoring an older employee over a younger one.” According to the Court, the ADEA is “a remedy for unfair preference based on relative youth, leaving complaints of the relatively young outside the statutory concern.”

In structuring any layoff, it is always wise to verify that the affected group does not contain a disproportionate percentage of “protected group” employees. In conducting that analysis, though, one should not be concerned about whether the layoff disproportionately favors older workers over younger workers.

Ledbetter passes Senate – President’s signature is next

It’s looking like the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act will be the first piece of legislation President Obama will sign into law. The Washington Post reports that yesterday it passed the Senate by a vote of 61-36. The Washington Post goes on to quote Lilly Ledbetter, who said that she had spoken to the President following the Senate vote, and that “he has assured me that he will see me in the White House, hopefully in just a few days.”

For more the Ledbetter Act and its implications for employers, see Ledbetter Fair Pay Act likely to be first employment legislation of the Obama Presidency and Are we overreacting to Ledbetter?