When is a failure to accommodate an employee’s religion actionable?

If an employee approaches your HR department and asks for an accommodation for his or her religion, you might think that your company has an automatic obligation to provide the accommodation. Reed v. United Auto Workers (6th Cir. 6/23/09) [PDF], suggests otherwise.

In Reed, a union member claimed that the UAW discriminated against him because of his religion by failing to reasonably accommodate his religious objection to financially supporting the union.

Under Title VII employers (and labor unions) have a statutory obligation to reasonably accommodate the religious observances of its employees, short of incurring an undue hardship. To establish a failure to accommodate claim, an employee must show: (1) that s/he holds a sincere religious belief that conflicts with an employment requirement; (2) s/he has informed the employer about the conflict; and (3) s/he was discharged or disciplined for failing to comply with the conflicting employment requirement. If an employee makes this showing, the employer (or, in this case, labor union) can avoid liability by showing that it could not reasonably accommodate the employee without undue hardship.

Reed’s claim failed because he could not show that he was discharged or disciplined as a result of his religious belief: “Unless a plaintiff has suffered some independent harm caused by a conflict between his employment obligation and his religion, a defendant has no duty to make any kind of accommodation.”

The next time you are faced with an employee requesting a workplace accommodation for some religious belief, do not necessarily assume that the accommodation is owed. The employee’s religious belief may not be sincere, the accommodation might be unreasonable and pose an undue hardship, or, as was the case in Reed, the failure to provide the accommodation may not result in any discipline or discharge. 

---

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? Handling a chronically ill employee

In the June 19 New York Times, Lesley Alderman provided chronically ill employees some practical information on how to protect their jobs while coping with a chronic illness. Employers also have to protect themselves from liability in the same situation. Two laws govern employees with chronic illnesses: the Family and Medical Leave Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. It is crucial for employers to understand how these two laws intersect and interact.

The FMLA allows for 12 weeks of unpaid leave for, among other circumstances, an employee’s own serious health condition. A serious health condition is defined as illness, injury, impairment, or physical or mental condition that requires inpatient care or continuing treatment by a health care provider. Only those who have been employed for at least a year, and who have worked a minimum of 1,250 hours in the preceding year, are covered by the FMLA.

Unlike the FMLA, the ADA covers employees on day-one of employment. The ADA also differs from the FMLA in the scope of injuries and illnesses it covers. The FMLA merely requires a serious health condition that prevents the employee from working on a temporary basis (typically at least three days). The ADA, however, requires that the employee must have a current, chronic medical condition that substantially limits one or more major life activities on an ongoing basis. The ADA does not have a leave requirement, although it does require employers to reasonably accommodate employees’ disabilities. Under the ADA, once an employer learns that an employee might need a reasonable accommodation to perform the essential functions of the job, the employer must engage the employee in an interactive process to determine what that reasonable accommodation might be. An extended leave of absence, beyond the FMLA’s 12 weeks, might be reasonable accommodation, depending on the illness or injury, the nature of the job, and the employer’s needs.

The biggest mistake an employer can make is to terminate an employee automatically upon the expiration the FMLA-leave entitlement, without giving any consideration to whether that employee is covered by the ADA and whether a temporarily extended leave or other temporary job restructuring will enable that employee to remain employed.

---

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.

Have you thought about these four issues before you fired that employee?

BLR’s HR Daily Advisor recently published a helpful checklist of the 10 Questions You Must Ask Before Firing (part 1 and part 2). I have synthesized the list into four key considerations:

1. Have you followed your own documents? There are several documents that inform the employment relationship – handbooks and other policy manuals, and contracts, both with individual employees and union agreements. Any well-written handbook should have a disclaimer that it is not a contract, that it is not binding on the company, and that the employee should not rely on it as such. Companies should nevertheless be careful to ensure that if it deviates from a policy, it has a good reason to do so an a history of similar deviations in similar circumstances. Union agreements have their own unique set of issues. Does the contract allow for termination? If so, are there rules or processes that must be followed? Are you acting out of an anti-union animus?

2. Have you been consistent? Consistency is paramount in any employment decision, and will go a long way to dispelling inferences of discrimination. Consistency looks at how you treated similarly-situated employees in similar circumstances. Two special circumstances merit mention. Retaliation is the single biggest employment practices risk facing employers today. If an employee has recently engaged in protected activity, triple-check to make sure the rest of your house is in order before terminating. In Ohio, pregnant employees gain special rights on their first day of employment, and have to be given their job back the expiration of maternity leave.

3. Do you have a well-documented business reason for the termination? When an employer relies on undocumented accounts of misconduct to support a termination, it is fair for a court or jury to infer that those accounts were created post-termination and question their legitimacy. So, have all performance and other problems with the employee been documented? Has the employee signed off on the record, or has it been documented that the employee refused to sign?

4. Have you been fair? This is the most important reason. Lawyers spend months, and sometimes years, preparing their case for trial. A trial lasts days, sometimes weeks. During that trial, the jury will hear from countless witnesses and see myriad documents. Every piece has been carefully laid out by the attorneys to make the most persuasive presentation possible. Jury instructions will be carefully drafted to ensure that the jury is given the correct law to apply to the case in reaching its decision, And, that jury will listen to bits and pieces and retain even less. At the end of day, no matter what the jurors are told, I believe that in most cases, the decision will come down to one fundamental question – was the employee treated fairly? If that juror, or his or her wife, child, or parent, was treated as the plaintiff was treated, would that juror believe he or she had gotten a fair shake, or was mistreated? At the end of the day, how you answer this question will most likely signal how you decision will be judged.

---

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 #84

Last week I posted a clip from one of my favorite movies, Office Space. This week, Dan Schwartz at the Connecticut Employment Law Blog teaches that had Milton engaged in protected activity before Lumbergh moved his desk downstairs to storage B, he could have filed a retaliation claim instead of taking out his anger by burning down Initech. (If you don’t know what I’m talking about, run, don’t walk, and rent Office Space now).

Jay Shepherd, of Gruntled Employees, thinks its pretty lousy to let employees know about layoffs via voicemail.

Two opposing views on arbitration under the Employee Free Choice Act: the Chamber Post, on why it’s wrong to arbitrate first contracts, and Today’s Workplace, on why it’s wrong to favor arbitration of workplace claims but not arbitration of collective bargaining agreements.

The Email Fail Blog points out why you might want to think twice before you send that racist email from a work computer.

The Word on Employment Law with John Phillips discusses some common legal traps that await employers that furlough employees. Do you want more information on these traps for the unwary? Take a look at Do you know? Mandatory unpaid time off may affect salaried employees’ exemptions.

Eric Welter at the Laconic Law Blog has information on how the ADA treats alcoholism.

Richard Bales at the Workplace Prof Blog reports that the EEOC voted to issue regulations implementing the ADA Amendments Act.

Dennis Westlind at World of Work reports that President Obama will extend job benefits to the same-sex partners of federal employees.

Michael W. Casey, III, of the Florida Employment & Immigration Blog, provides his top 10 considerations for implementing a layoff.

Rod Satterwhite, at Suits in the Workplace, on voice recognition technology as a reasonable accommodation under the ADA.

The Labor & Employment Law Blog reports on a $1.6 million fee award awarded to two employees who successfully defended a trade secret theft case brought by their former employer.

Electronic Discovery Law digests a recent case in which an employee was punished for destroying a laptop after his termination.

Employment Law Bits, on female workplace bullying.

Finally, a couple of posts on corporate wellness programs: Where Great Workplaces Start shares some ideas on how to implement a wellness program. The Iowa Employment Law Blog reminds employers not to discriminate when administering such a program. 

---

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.

No buts about it: Supreme Court rejects mixed motives for age discrimination cases

Employees have three traditional methods to prove intentional discrimination: (1) direct evidence (comments that evidence a discriminatory animus made by a decision-maker in close temporal proximity to the challenged employment decision); (2) indirect evidence (which uses the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting formula); and (3) a mixed-motive (discrimination was a motivating or a substantial factor in the employer’s action, and the employer cannot show that it would have taken the same action regardless of that impermissible consideration).

This morning, in Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. [PDF], the Supreme Court held that there is no such thing as a mixed-motive in age discrimination cases under the ADEA. To succeed on an disparate treatment claim under the ADEA, a plaintiff must now prove that age was the “but-for” (that is, the only) cause of the challenged adverse employment action:

We hold that a plaintiff bringing a disparate-treatment claim pursuant to the ADEA must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that age was the “but-for” cause of the challenged adverse employment action. The burden of persuasion does not shift to the employer to show that it would have taken the action regardless of age, even when a plaintiff has produced some evidence that age was one motivating factor in that decision.

Because age discrimination plaintiffs must now prove “but for” causation, it is more important than ever for employers to meticulously document employees’ performance problems and other disciplinary action. A well-documented personnel file will make it that much more difficult for a plaintiff to prove that age was the sole reason motivating the termination or other action.

Proposed law would grant working moms breastfeeding rights

Last year, I wrote that even though Ohio has one of the country’s most liberal breastfeeding laws, it likely does not protect a mom’s workplace lactation rights. Moreover, few courts have protected breastfeeding and expressing breast milk under current workplace sex discrimination laws.

A potential new federal law could change all that. Identical bills have been introduced in the House and Senate that would require employers to accommodate working moms’ breastfeeding needs at work. The Breastfeeding Promotion Act [PDF] would make three significant changes to existing laws:

• Amend Title VII to include lactation (breastfeeding or the expression of milk) in the definition of sex discrimination.

• Amend the Fair Labor Standards Act to require that employers provide “reasonable break time for an employee to express breast milk for her nursing child for one year after the child’s birth”, and make “reasonable efforts to provide a place, other than a bathroom, that is shielded from view and free from intrusion” for an employee to express breast milk.

• Amend the Internal Revenue Code to provide a tax credit for employers that provide an appropriate workplace environment for employed moms to breastfeed or express milk.

It’s difficult to say how much traction the BPA has, but this bill is definitely one that warrants watching.

[Hat tip: World of Work]

---

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? “Salting” the wounds of labor organizing

“Salting” is a common organizing tactic used by labor unions. It refers to union organizers applying for jobs with non-union employers. The organizers then attempt to organize the employer’s workforce from the inside. In addition to organizing, the salts also try to inflict economic harm on the targeted employer by triggering unfair labor practice charges and resulting back pay liability. Salting is one the more underhanded methods of organizing used by labor unions.

In Toering Electric Co. [PDF], the Bush-era NLRB attempting to limit the ability of unions to salt non-union workplaces. It ruled that an applicant for employment must be genuinely interested in seeking to establish an employment relationship with the employer in order to qualify as an "employee" under the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, and thus be protected against hiring discrimination based on union affiliation or activity.

Although they face an uphill battle, Congressional Republican are attempting to put another nail in salting coffin. The Truth in Employment Act of 2009 would amend the National Labor Relations Act so that an employer would not be under any obligation to “employ any person who seeks or has sought employment with the employer in furtherance of other employment or agency status.” The Congressional findings contained in the bill make it clear that this intent of this measure is to end salting once and for all:

The tactic of using professional union organizers and agents to infiltrate a targeted employer’s workplace, a practice commonly referred to as ‘salting’, has evolved into an aggressive form of harassment not contemplated when the National Labor Relations Act was enacted and threatens the balance of rights which is fundamental to the system of collective bargaining of the United States. Increasingly, union organizers are seeking employment with nonunion employers not because of a desire to work for such employers but primarily to organize the employees of such employers or to inflict economic harm specifically designed to put nonunion competitors out of business, or to do both. While no employer may discriminate against employees based upon the views of employees concerning collective bargaining, an employer should have the right to expect job applicants to be primarily interested in utilizing the skills of the applicants to further the goals of the business of the employer.

Given the party affiliation of both houses of Congress and the White House, the Truth in Employment Act will likely go nowhere. It’s introduction, though, is a good reminder to non-union employers that salting remains a legitimate threat, especially in today’s pro-union environment.

---

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.