EEOC releases “Employer Best Practices for Workers with Caregiving Responsibilities”

It’s been almost two years since the EEOC released its Enforcement Guidance on Unlawful Disparate Treatment of Workers with Caregiving Responsibilities. Since that time, buzz words such “work-life balance,” “family-friendly,” and “family responsibilities” have been put to use in companies all across America, and juries have continued to punish businesses that punish employees who prioritize their families over their work.

To help employers navigate these dangerous waters, today the EEOC published its Employer Best Practices for Workers with Caregiving Responsibilities. While these “Best Practices” are couched in terms of discrimination against caregivers, the tips offered by the EEOC, while not groundbreaking, are universally applicable to any employment practice. Some of the more important tips are:

• Develop, disseminate, and enforce a strong EEO policy that provides examples of illegal conduct and identifies a contact person for questions or complaints.
  
• Ensure that managers at all levels are aware of, and comply with, the organization’s policies.
  
• Respond to complaints of discrimination efficiently and effectively.
  
• Protect against retaliation.
  
• Focus on qualifications, not characteristics.
  
• Develop specific, job-related qualification standards for each position that reflect the duties, functions, and competencies of the position.
  
• Identify and remove barriers to re-entry for individuals who have taken leaves of absence from the workforce.
  
• Ensure that employment decisions are well-documented and transparent (to the extent feasible).
  
• Monitor compensation practices and performance appraisal systems for patterns of potential discrimination.
  
• Reassign job duties that employees are unable to perform because of pregnancy or other caregiving responsibilities.
  
• Provide reasonable personal or sick leave.

Do you know? A company cannot represent itself in an Ohio court

In the April 9 New York Times, Jonathan Glater reported that more and more people are turning to self-representation during the current economic downturn. In Ohio, individuals may be able to do it themselves without lawyers, but businesses cannot.

If a business appears in court without an attorney, the representative is illegally engaging in the unauthorized practice of law. Under Ohio law, a corporation or other business only can maintain litigation or appear in court through an attorney. It may not do so through an officer of the corporation or some other appointed agent or representative. At least in Ohio, there is no such thing as a business appearing pro se (without a lawyer).

The only exception exists in small claims court, where a corporation can bring a claim based on a contract to which it is a party, as long as the representative does not “engage in cross-examination, argument, or other acts of advocacy.” For example, without a lawyer a company can file a claim in small claims court to recover an unpaid account. If the individual disputes the amount due, however, a non-lawyer cannot cross-examine the individual or argue to the magistrate.

Next time your business thinks about going it alone in court to save a few dollars, think about whether it worth the likely risk of a default judgment or dismissal of the case for not being represented by an attorney.

---

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 Senate seeks to ban use of credit in employment decisions

There is little doubt that the current economic crisis has caused havoc on a lot of good intentioned people’s credit scores. During the good old days , people over-extended their credit, bought houses they can no longer afford, and otherwise lived beyond their means. With the retraction of the credit market and the exponential rise in home foreclosures, many people’s credit histories and FICO scores have suffered.

Ohio Senate Bill 91, however, is a reactionary move to this crisis that simply goes too far. This bill proposes to prevent employers considering people’s credit histories when makes an employment decision:

It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice for an employer to use a person’s credit rating or score or consumer credit history as a factor in making decisions regarding that person’s employment, including hiring, tenure, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, or any matter directly or indirectly related to employment.

Jim Siegel, a reporter for The Columbus Dispatch, quotes Tony Fiore of the Ohio Chamber of Commerce:

Senate Bill 91 will face opposition from business groups that want flexibility in how they determine whether someone is right for a job.

“Do you want someone with a bad credit history managing the company’s money, or yours?” said Tony Fiore, a lobbyist for the Ohio Chamber of Commerce.

“The employer needs that ability because they want to make sure they’re putting the best people forward, not only to help the company, but help the people relying on the company.”

Aside from the concerns voiced by Mr. Fiore (which I wholeheartedly echo), there is also a bigger issue at play here. There already exists a federal law the gives employees significant protections in how employers use credit information. The Fair Credit Reporting Act [PDF] make it illegal for any employer to obtain or use one’s credit for making an employment decision without the individual’s written authorization. And, an employer cannot take an adverse action (such as firing, or refusing to hire) based on information contained in a credit report without first giving the individual a reasonable amount of time to dispute the accuracy of the information or otherwise offer an explanation. With these federal protections in place for employees and applicants, Ohio’s businesses do not need to be prohibited from using this important tool.

[Hat tip: employeescreenIQ Blog]

---

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 #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.