WIRTW #92

Apparently, my incessant linking has labeled me as a potential spammer according to Blogger. Annoyed but undeterred, here’s what I’ve been reading this week (assuming Blogger gets its act together and releases me from its constraints).

Above the Law reports on an attorney who asks job applicants for their political beliefs, along with a recent personal or family photo before he will consider them for employment. Can you say Title VII violation?

Walter Olson’s Overlawyered has a story on what may be the worst legal defense of all time – a hotel sued by a woman raped in its parking lot claimed that she was negligent, careless, failed to mitigate her damages.

Laura Harshbarger at the New York Labor & Employment Law Report has some very good tips on handling workplace investigations. One point that is missed, though, is to be mindful that whatever work product is created during the investigation, even if done by the employer’s attorney, is likely admissible in a subsequent lawsuit.

The Word on Employment Law with John Philips counsels that investigations of workplace misconduct should be thorough before an employee is terminated.

Strategic HR Lawyer reprints a CareerBuilder survey of the top employee complaints.

Michael Fox’s Jottings By An Employer’s Lawyer reminds employers that ignorance of the law, such as the FMLA, is no excuse. For a similar case out of the 6th Circuit, take a look at ‘Tis better to have learned and lost.

Michael Maslanka’s Work Matters discusses some recent findings on employers’ opposition to union organizing.

Michael Haberman at HR Observations shares his thoughts on racism in the modern workplace.

If you’re looking for information on how to handle disabled employees, Lawffice Space suggests that you try to navigate around the federal government’s new site on the topic – disability.gov.

Lee Sevier at Wage & Hour – Developments & Highlights, on the importance of properly distinguishing between employees and independent contractors.

Jill Pugh’s Employment Law Blog thinks employees should use common sense when it comes to social networking.

Sindy Warren at the Warren & Hays Blog reminds companies that military status discrimination is illegal.

Richard Tuschman at the Florida Employment & Immigration Law Blog, on bystander harassment. For my thoughts on this issue, take a look at Further reflections on Reeves v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide.

---

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.

On redemption and second chances

It’s been a week since my beloved Philadelphia Eagles shocked the sports world by signing convicted felon Michael Vick to a two-year contract. I’ve waited to comment on this story because I needed the time to process how I feel about my team being the one to provide a second chance to someone who did what Vick did.

Here’s what I’ve come up with: an employee’s opportunity for a second chance is proportional to one’s ability and talent. Something to consider the next time an employee makes an colossal blunder – does the employee have enough value to your organization to warrant a second chance?

For more thoughts on what Michael Vick has to do with employment law, I recommend my fellow bloggers:

• Michael Maslanka’s Work Matters: Lessons employers can learn from the Eagles' decision to hire Michael Vick.
• The Word on Employment Law with John Phillips: Michael Vick and Squeaky Fromme.
• Philip Miles’s Lawffice Space: Michael Vick and Hiring Criminals.
• William Bowser at the Delaware Employment Law Blog: What Can Employers Learn From Michael Vick and the Eagles?
• Jason Morris at the employeescreen IQ Blog: As Michael Vick Returns to NFL, Employment Lawyers Push Criminal Records Checks.
• Terri Albee at Compensation Cafe: How Do Your Non-Work Related Activities Affect Your Compensation?

---

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.

Announcing the next KJK Breakfast Briefing: Google and Facebook and Twitter, Oh My! Emerging Workplace Technology Issues

Do you know what your employees are doing on-line? Join KJK’s team of employment lawyers to learn:

1. What are Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn, and do you need a policy to guide your employees on how to use them inside and outside of work?
2. What is “textual” (sexual) harassment, and how does your investigation of it implicate the Stored Communications Act?
3. What wage and hour issues can arise though the use of workplace technology?
4. What are the legal risks of “googling” job applicants during the hiring process?

Date:	Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Time:	8:00-8:30 Continental Breakfast
	8:30-9:30 Presentation
	9:30-10:00 Q&As
Place:	The Club at Key Center, 127 Public Square, Cleveland (on-site parking is free)

If you are interested in attending this free seminar, or for more information, please contact Andrea Hill, (216) 736-7234 or ach@kjk.com, by September 8, 2009.

Government updates swine flu guidance for businesses

Just a quick note to let everyone know that the federal government has updated its flu guidelines for businesses.  Ann Beauchesne at The Chamber Post has the details.

Refusal to take drug test bar workers’ comp retaliation claim

Many companies require employees to submit to drug tests after suffering a workplace injury. The rationale is simple – intoxication is one of the few complete defenses an employer has to a workers’ comp claim for a workplace injury.

What happens, though, if the injured employee refuses to take the drug test? That scenario presented itself to SanMar Corporation in late-2006. Thomas Ferguson left work complaining of a non-work-related backache. He told the ER nurse, however, that his pain was caused by an aerial harness he had to wear at work. Upon hearing the injury was work-related, the nurse asked Ferguson to submit to a drug test, which he did.

Ferguson returned to work the following week with light duty restrictions. SanMar’s HR department that he needed to submit for drug testing. Ferguson complained that he had already taken a test the prior week. SanMar, however, required a re-test because the earlier test did not comply with its policy for the employee to be transported to the testing facility. Ferguson went on his own, without SanMar even knowing he had suffered a workplace injury.

Because of Ferguson’s protests about the re-test, and his “nervous and fidgety” reaction, SanMar’s Assistant Manager required that the re-test be monitored. Upon learning that the drug test would be observed, Ferguson refused to be tested. SanMar subsequently terminated him for refusing to submit to a drug test in contravention of company policy.

Ferguson sued, claiming that SanMar terminated him in retaliation for his workers’ comp claim. In Ferguson v. SanMar (8/17/09), the Butler County (Ohio) Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of Ferguson’s claim:

Kirk, as assistant facility manager, made that determination after noticing Ferguson’s “nervous and fidgety” reaction to being asked to resubmit to a drug test. Kirk’s decision was not punitive action against Ferguson because Ferguson filed a workers’ compensation claim. Instead, it was a management decision predicated on a suspicion that Ferguson was using drugs or alcohol in the workplace.

For Ferguson’s argument to succeed, the evidence would have to show that SanMar knew that requiring him to be transported to the hospital and observed while he submitted to the test would induce Ferguson’s refusal to be tested. There is no way that SanMar, or anyone for that matter, could have known that Ferguson would refuse to be tested…. It was Ferguson’s own refusal to submit to the test that motivated his discharge. That refusal, under the written policy, was likewise sufficient to result in Ferguson’s discharge.

Drug testing policies are complicated and very easy to get wrong. Indeed, while Ohio does not have a specific statute that governs such policies, other states do (Oklahoma comes to mind). If you are considering implementing a drug testing program for your workforce, experienced counsel should vet it before you put it into circulation. If you already have a policy in place, it should be reviewed periodically for compliance.

---

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? Harassment by a non-employee

Last week, an Orlando, Florida, jury convicted a Pennsylvania tourist of groping Minnie Mouse. Apparently, the man thought it was okay to grab Minnie’s breasts and bottom through her costume while visiting the character at the Magic Kingdom.

Do you know what an employer’s obligations are when an employee complains of harassment by a non-employee such as customer, vendor, or contractor? The obligations are exactly the same as if the alleged perpetrator was an employee. In fact, Ohio has a specific regulation that addresses this exact scenario: Admin. Code 4112-5-05(J)(5):

An employer may also be responsible for the acts of nonemployees (e.g., customers) with respect to sexual harassment of employees in the work place, where the employer (or its agents or supervisory employees) knows or should have known of the conduct and fails to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. In reviewing these cases the commission will consider the extent of the employer’s control and any other legal responsibility which the employer may have with respect to the conduct of such nonemployees.

At the end of the day, a harassment complaint by an employee against a non-employee should not be treated any differently than an intra-employee complaint:

1. Separate the complaining employee from the alleged harasser.

2. Promptly and fully investigate the allegations.

3. Evaluate the evidence and make a reasoned conclusion as to what happened.

4. Take prompt and effective remedial steps, if necessary.

5. Use the complaint as an opportunity to retrain employees about your sexual harassment policy.

[Hat tip: Employeescreen IQ 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.

Papering a personnel file as evidence of retaliation?

When Carolyn Upshaw started filing EEOC charges against her employer, Ford Motor Company, it began to document her on-going performance problems. After she filed her 3rd charge and a lawsuit in a 15-month period, Ford terminated her employment. The termination occurred nine months after the last EEOC charge and four months after the lawsuit was filed. In Upshaw v. Ford Motor Co. (8/14/09) [PDF], the 6th Circuit concluded that her underlying discrimination lawsuit was baseless, but that her retaliation lawsuit, premised on the timing of Ford’s documentation of her performance problems, warranted a jury trial:

We have held that the combination of close temporal proximity between an employer’s heightened scrutiny and that plaintiff’s filing of an EEOC charge is sufficient “to establish the causal nexus needed to establish a prima facie case” of retaliation…. Here, Upshaw has proffered evidence that Ford subjected her to heightened scrutiny soon after she filed her 2003 EEOC charge. It is undisputed that Hughes-Sharp and Brooks began developing a timeline of Upshaw’s employment in fall 2003, and that they requested that other Ford employees submit information about Upshaw’s complaints to Human Resources…. Given the close temporal proximity between Upshaw’s August 2003 EEOC charge and Ford’s request for information from other employees documenting Upshaw’s complaint activity, and Brooks’s request for discipline, a reasonable juror could find that Upshaw has established a prima facie case of retaliation.

I’ve written in the past about the importance of timely and accurate documentation of performance problems. The Upshaw case underscores this point. It is not enough to document performance problems. The documentation must be consistent. A lot of employers think nothing of papering a personnel file after an employee becomes a pain in their side. Under Upshaw, such papering, that only begin once an employee files a discrimination charge or engages in other protected activity, could be used as prima facie evidence of retaliation. In other words, document early and document often, and don’t document selectively.

---

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.