WIRTW #75

The employment law story of the week is courtesy of Overlawyered and OnPoint. The Poplar Bluff, Missouri, library has agreed to pay a former library assistant $45,000 to settle her religious discrimination claim. She resigned after refusing, on religious grounds, to participate in an event promoting the publication of a new Harry Potter book. OnPoint provides additional details:

Library director Jacqueline Thomas had offered to let Smith help out behind the scenes at the Harry Potter celebration “in a way that Plaintiff’s church community would not know she had participated.” Smith alleged she was “constructively discharged” from her job after she “vehemently objected to participating in Harry Potter Night in any role.”

“Plaintiff has a bona fide religious belief stemming from her Christian identity and membership in a Southern Baptist church that she sincerely believes prohibits her from being involved in promotion of the worship of the occult, especially to children,” the complaint said.

Rush Nigut, of Rush on Business, on the efficacy of non-solicitation agreements, as compared to broader non-competition agreements.

Teri Rasmussen at Ohio Practical Business Law provides a very helpful FAQ on Ohio’s new Business Docket, which is being given a test run in Cuyahoga, Franklin, Hamilton, and Lucas counties. Of particular interest to employers, this new docket covers non-competition and trade secret cases, but not other employment disputes such as discrimination claims.

Molly DiBianca at the Delaware Employment Law Blog discusses DuPont’s decision to use voluntary unpaid leave to try to stem the need for layoffs.

Michael Maslanka at Work Matters reports on a case which held that that an employee’s intent to become pregnant (such as telling a supervisor you want to start a family) is protected by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act.

The Evil HR Lady has some advice on whether an employee who is not entitled to FMLA leave under the statute could otherwise obtain leave rights through misstatements by management.

Ginni Garner at COSE Mindspring gives the top 10 trends in the employee screening industry.

The Washington Labor & Employment Wire has information on the choice to head the Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division.

Finally, Bob Sutton’s Work Matters illustrates how not to do a layoff with a real-life example.

---

Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus.

For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

Ohio makes significant changes to its mini-COBRA law, effective April 1, 2009

More ink has been spilled about COBRA in the past two months than was written about it in total since its passage in 1985. And, the hits keep on coming. On April 1, 2009, Governor Strickland signed Sub. H.B.2, which amended Ohio’s mini-COBRA law, which makes health care continuation coverage available to employees of businesses with less than 20 employees.

Under the amended law, group health policies that are issued, delivered, or amended on or after April 2, 2009, must include the following changes:

• Continuation coverage is extended from 6 months to 12 months.
• Entitlement to unemployment compensation is no longer required to be eligible for continuation coverage .
• Employees merely must be involuntarily terminated, other than for gross misconduct (mirroring the federal COBRA requirement).
• If the group coverage includes prescription drug coverage, the continuation coverage must also include it.

Because continuation coverage has been extended to up to 12 months, Ohio employees of small businesses will now be eligible to receive the entire 9 months of federal subsidy under the federal stimulus bill. Small employers are not responsible for paying any portion of the premiums. The ex-employee will pay 35% out of pocket, and the insurance company will claim the IRS payroll tax credit for the remaining 65%.

For more information, the Ohio Department of Insurance issued detailed guidance. It has also available for download a model Continuation Coverage Election Notice.

---

Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus.

For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

EEOC settlement highlights red flags for English-only policies

The EEOC announced that it settled a national origin discrimination claim against a California nursing home company for $450,000. The lawsuit arose from a charge of discrimination filed by a Hispanic janitor who only spoke Spanish. The nursing home terminated him for violating its English-only policy. By contrast, employees who spoke other languages at work, such as Tagalog, were not disciplined or terminated. According to the EEOC, it identified a total of 53 current and former Hispanic employees who were prohibited from speaking Spanish to Spanish-speaking residents, or disciplined for speaking Spanish in the parking lot while on breaks.

The Los Angeles Times further discusses some of the affected employees:

Shilo Schilling, a 40-year-old certified nursing assistant, said she was emphatically told at orientations … that only English would be allowed. In one case … she said a resident told her in Spanish that she needed to use the restroom. When Schilling responded in Spanish, she said, she was told by a supervisor that she would be written up or fired if she continued to speak that language….

Jose Zazueta, a Mexico native who worked as a janitor at the Royalwood facility, filed the original complaint alleging that he was fired because he could not guarantee he would speak only English. Anna Park [the EEOC’s regional attorney] said Zazueta was a monolingual Spanish-speaker who warned a colleague in Spanish to watch out for the wet floor he had just mopped. When a supervisor heard him, Park said, he was asked to pledge to use only English but could not and was fired.

Despite this lawsuit, there is nothing inherently illegal about English-only policies. Generally speaking, an English-only rule is okay if supported by a legitimate business justification such as promoting communication with customers, coworkers, or supervisors who only speak English, enabling employees to speak one language to promote safety or cooperation, or facilitating supervisors’ ability monitor job performance. The employer in this case made a few critical errors:

1. It applied the rule during employees’ breaks.
2. It selectively applied the rule to certain nationalities, but not others.
3. It prohibited employees from communicating with patients in their native tongue.

As this case illustrates, employers should be careful to limit the reach of an English-only requirement only as far as it necessary to reach the articulated business rationale for the policy. Businesses should also consult with employment counsel before implementing any English-language requirements in the workplace to ensure that the policy is not discriminatory as written or as applied.

---

Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus.

For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

The worst television show ever? FOX to air corporate layoffs

From the network that brought us reality TV gems such as The Littlest Groom, Who Wants To Marry a Millionaire, and My Big, Fat, Obnoxious Fiance comes the next awful idea to grace our airwaves: Someone’s Gotta Go. If you’ve yet to hear about this atrocity, here’s the premise of this in production FOX show, courtesy of Juju Chang and Kelly Hagan at ABCnews.com:

The show will highlight a small business that needs to downsize because of the economy, but instead of the bosses deciding who gets the axe, co-workers must choose who among them has to go. Workers will have to defend themselves, justifying their work habits, all leading to a group discussion to determine who gets dumped.

To help make their decision, employees will have access to each others' usually private records including budgets, human resources files and salaries.

This show is just plain wrong. First, the set-up has myriad legal risks for the employer. Having co-workers instead of management make the decision will not insulate the employer from potential liability. Risks abound for coworker harassment, coworker retaliation, or discrimination courtesy of the cat’s paw. Moreover, the inevitable release that employees will have to sign to appear on the show might insulate the producers from liability, but likely will not protect the employers. (As a side-note, I wonder if the show runners are indemnifying participating employers from any lawsuits that result from the layoffs).

More fundamentally, however, I question the corporate integrity of any company that would agree to take part in this freak show. Except in the most egregious of cases, terminating an employee is the worst thing an employer has to do. Why turn this into public humiliation? Maybe the winner in all of this is the laid-off employee, cast free from a company callous enough to televise his or her termination to millions.

[Hat tip: The Business of Management and Overlawyered]

---

Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus.

For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

Do you know? Employees have no right to access to personnel files

There is no law in Ohio that requires an employer to grant an employee access to his or her personnel file. There are, however, two key exceptions: medical records and wage and hour records.

1. Medical Records

Ohio Revised Code 4113.23(A) covers employees access to their own medical records. It provides:

No employer … shall refuse upon written request of an employee to furnish to the employee or former employee or their designated representative a copy of any medical report pertaining to the employee. The requirements of this section extend to any medical report arising out of any physical examination by a physician or other health care professional and any hospital or laboratory tests which examinations or tests are required by the employer as a condition of employment or arising out of any injury or disease related to the employee’s employment.

Thus, employees have a right to see the medical records from a physical examination that is required for employment or stemming from a job-related injury or disease. Employers can charge employees for these records, up to 25 cents per page.

2. Wage & Hour Records

Ohio Revised Code 4111.14(G) covers employees access to their own wage and hour records. It requires an employer to provide the following information to an employee or person acting on an employee’s behalf (union representative, attorney, or parent, guardian, or legal custodian) upon request:

1. Name

2. Home address;

3. Occupation;

4. Rate of pay, which means an employee’s base rate of pay or annual salary, but does not include bonuses, stock options, incentives, deferred compensation, or any other similar form of compensation;

5. Each amount paid, which means the total gross wages paid to an employee for each pay period; and

6. Hours worked each day, which means the total amount of time an employee works during a day in whatever increments an employer uses for its payroll purposes (except for exempt employees).

An employer may require that the request be in writing, signed by the employee, notarized, and that it reasonably specifies the particular information being sought. The employer cannot charge the employee for this information, and typically an employer has 30 days to produce the records following a request..

It is not a bad idea for employers to review their current handbooks and other policies to check whether they allow for the disclosure of these two classes of information.

Guarding against defamation liability

Courtesy of my friends at PointofLaw.com is the story of the dangers that lurk when distributing information about an employee’s termination.

Staples fired one of its salesmen, Alan Noonan, after an internal audit discovered he had deliberately falsified expense reports. The day after his termination, Staples’s Executive Vice President sent the following email to all of the company’s North American employees:

It is with sincere regret that I must inform you of the termination of Alan Noonan’s employment with Staples. A thorough investigation determined that Alan was not in compliance with our [travel and expenses] policies. As always, our policies are consistently applied to everyone and compliance is mandatory on everyone's part. It is incumbent on all managers to understand Staples[’s] policies and to consistently communicate, educate and monitor compliance every single day. Compliance with company policies is not subject to personal discretion and is not optional. In addition to ensuring compliance, the approver’s responsibility to monitor and question is a critical factor in effective management of this and all policies.

Noonan sued Staples for defamation based on the content of the email. Even though the contents of the email were truthful, the court, in Noonan v. Staples, Inc. (1st Cir. 2/13/09), still found that Noonan could proceed to trial on his claim because a jury could conclude that the email was sent with what is called “actual malice.” The court focused on three key facts:

1. In his 12 years with Staples, it was the first post-termination email in which the Executive Vice President ever referred to the terminated employee by name.

2. The EVP could have sent the email to cover his own misfeasance in failing to detect widespread expense report abuses.

3. Because many of the employees who received the email did not travel, they had no reason to be advised of the travel policy or its enforcement.

Ohio law grants employers a privilege to make truthful disclosures about an employee’s job performance. Ohio’s statute, however, has an exception for the disclosure of information “with the knowledge that it was false, with the deliberate intent to mislead the prospective employer or another person, in bad faith, or with malicious purpose.” The Noonan case provides insight in how to avoid an inference of a malicious purpose when giving job performance information.

1. Consistency. If your company has a policy or practice in what types of information it discloses, stick to that policy or practice. Giving more than what is customary for your business, even if truthful, could lead one to conclude that some ulterior motive to harm motivated the disclosure of additional information.

2. Narrowness. Information should only be disclosed on a need-to-know basis. If information is sent to people who have no reason to receive it, one could infer a motive to smear one’s reputation, even if the information is truthful.

As PointofLaw.com makes clear, “in the down economy, workplace defamation lawsuits are on the rise.” Being truthful and consistent, in what you say about employees, and narrow in to whom you say it, is the best defense against such a claim.

---

Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus.

For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

WIRTW #74

Yay! I’m number 71, alphabetically, on the Delaware Employment Law Blog’s list of the top 100 employment law blogs. Seriously, this list is a great resource if you are looking for more employment law information. Take a few minutes to add a few of my blogging colleagues to your feed reader. If you don’t know what a feed reader is, Problogger has a very good explanation. Then, add my feed also.

This week brings us some thoughts on social networking in the workplace. Rob Radcliff at Smooth Transitions gives some ideas on appropriate social networking policies. Nolo’s Employment Law Blog reminds everyone to behave on spring break lest embarrassing pictures end up online. Molly DiBianca at the Delaware Employment Law Blog has some thoughts on whether Facebook makes employees more productive.

The Trade Secrets Blog reports that the Ohio Supreme Court will decide whether standardized tests qualify as a school district’s trade secrets.

Alaska Employment Law itemizes ways plaintiffs can prove pretext in discrimination cases.

ScotusBlog analyzes the Supreme Court’s opinion in 14 Penn Plaza, LLC v. Pyett, which held that mandatory arbitration clauses in collective bargaining agreements can cover statutory discrimination claims.

Michael Maslanka’s Work Matters, on how to handle violent employees.

Michael Fox at Jottings By An Employer’s Lawyer looks at a 1st Circuit case holding that a mother of triplets was entitled to a jury trial on her sex discrimination claim based on her employer’s stereotyping of working moms.

Finally, the EFCA Report (PDF download) has put together an excellent white paper on what lies ahead for the EFCA in Congress.

---

Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus.

For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.