Do you know? Reliance on DOL opinions

Do you know that it is an absolute defense to a wage and hour claim that you relied on a written opinion of the Department of Labor in making your minimum wage or overtime payments? According to 29 U.S.C. 259:

[N]o employer shall be subject to any liability or punishment for or on account of the failure of the employer to pay minimum wages or overtime compensation if he pleads and proves that the act or omission complained of was in good faith in conformity with and in reliance on any written administrative regulation, order, ruling, approval, or interpretation, of the [Department of Labor].

The Department of Labor may not be the most friendly place for employers rights now (see Wage & Hour: Not Just Collective Actions Anymore), but its website is a wealth of wage and hour information for employers. It lists more than 200 formal opinion letters that provide a step-by-step guide on how to comply with the FLSA. And, if you rely on one of those letters in paying an employee, you have a defense to a minimum wage or overtime lawsuit.

---

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.

Smoking as a disability redux

It takes a big man to admit when he’s wrong. I’m about to be a big man.

A little over a year ago I engaged in a debate with Michael Moore of the Pennsylvania Labor & Employment Blog about whether the ADA Amendments Act would protect nicotine addiction as a disability. At the time, I wrote as follows:

Whether or not something is a disability with or without remedial measures, however, is only one step in the analysis. The next step is to determine whether that disability “materially restricts” (using the language of the ADAAA) a major life activity. What major life activity does smoking or nicotine addiction materially restrict? Breathing? Maybe, but only if one’s lungs are compromised from years of smoking. At that point, a bronchial disease might qualify as a disability, but how will allowing employees to smoke reasonably accommodate that disability? If anything, an employer’s anti-smoking initiatives present a better accommodation for an employee’s breathing problems.

After reviewing the proposed regulations implementing the ADAAA, I have changed my opinion. I now believe that the ADA can protect an employee’s nicotine addiction, but for different reasons than I previously discussed.

The ADA does not just protect employees’ disabilities, but also protects employees who are “regarded as” having a physical or mental impairment. Critically, an employee is now protected under the “regarded as” prong regardless of whether or not the impairment limits or is perceived to limit a major life activity, and regardless of whether the employer believes the individual was substantially limited in any major life activity. The coverage of this protection is extremely broad. The only exception to the “regarded as” prong is when the impairment is transitory (lasting or expected to last for six months or less) and minor. Examples of such uncovered impairments include a sprained wrist, a broken limb that is expected to heal, the common cold, and the seasonal flu. Employers do not have to make reasonable accommodations for “regarded as” disabilities, but are still prohibited from taking adverse actions because of them.

At the ABA Labor & Employment Conference last week, I had the opportunity to ask Peggy Mastroianni, EEOC Associate Legal Counsel and author of the ADAAA’s proposed regulations, if the EEOC has a position on the coverage of smoking under the ADA. Her answer was that there is no formal EEOC position. The EEOC’s silence notwithstanding, the “regarded as” prong of the new ADA is sufficiently broad to possibly encompass actions taken against employees pursuant to employer anti-smoking policies.

What does all of this mean for employers? Employees can claim that anti-smoking policies violate the ADA. Addiction is a protected disability. Diseases related to or caused by smoking (cancers, lung diseases, asthma, and other respiratory conditions, for example) are also protected disabilities. Employees will claim that an adverse action taken pursuant to an anti-smoking policy is being taken because the employer regards the employee as disabled. Adverse actions taken against employees because of smoking should now be viewed as high risk, at least until courts begin weighing in on this controversial issue.

---

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 #103

The Ft. Hood tragedy dominated the news and the blogs this week. The Word on Employment Law with John Phillips shares his thought on workplace violence, and Sindy Warren, at the Warren & Hays Blog, reminds employers that national origin discrimination is illegal, even when an employee fits a particular profile.

This week also brought some interesting news about age discrimination. Mary Keating’s Maryland Employment Law Developments comments on a recent New York Times op ed debating whether age claims have second-class status to other forms of discrimination. Philip Miles, on his Lawffice Space blog, is shocked that in this down economy, the EEOC is poised to release statistics that the number of age charges filed in 2009 has fallen by 7%.

Happy 40th birthday Sesame Street. Two lawyers who have done work for the Sesame Workshop and other Jim Henson entities share their memories with Zach Lowe at the American Lawyer.

Jonathan Segal, writing at BusinessWeek.com, shares his top 10 things not to say while firing an employee.

Paul Secunda, at the Workplace Prof Blog, discusses the Employment Non-Discrimination Act – banning sexual orientation discrimination – being a “top priority” for the Obama administration.

LaborPains shares how the SEIU teaches its members to talk about the Employee Free Choice Act.

The Washington DC Employment Law Update links to OSHA’s recently published H1N1 guidance website.

Workplace Investigations, on what makes an investigation thorough.

Workplace Horizons reports that Congress is considering extending COBRA coverage and the premium subsidy.

The Overtime Advisor reminds employers that private employers usually cannot use the services of unpaid volunteers. For my thoughts on the issue of when private employers can get away with not paying a volunteer, see Do you know? Unpaid internships.

Kris Dunn, The HR Capitalist, thinks that if you use profanity at work you should think twice before you file that lawsuit claiming you were offended by others’ workplace shenanigans.

Dennis Westlind, at World of Work, reports that that the EEOC’s ability to issue subpoenas after it has issued a right to sue letter has been upheld.

Bob Sutton thinks that there are 21 things that great bosses do.

The Evil HR Lady offers some advice to a retiring employee seeking severance.

Finally, the Email FAIL Blog has yet another example of why people need to be careful before clicking the send button (link is SFW, but its click-thru might not be).

---

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.

Googling job applicants

According a prediction by Dan Schawbel at the Personal Branding Blog (courtesy of FYIscreening.com), by 2012 100% of companies will be conducting informal on-line background checks of job candidates. This prediction dovetails the following comment from one of the presenters during the ABA’s Labor & Employment Conference, discussing this very issue, “Would you date someone without Googling them first?” His point is a valid one. A hiring decision deserves at least the same minimum level of scrutiny and diligence as a first date.

Informal background checks are subject to a lot of debate in the background screening industry. There is a justified fear that a lot of the information on the internet is unreliable and unverifiable. I have another problem with HR departments willy-nilly performing internet searches on job applicants – the risk that such a search will disclose protected information such as age, sex, race, or medical information.

Consider the following example. Jane Doe submits a job application to ABC Corp. ABC’s HR department, before even deciding whether to interview Ms. Doe, types her name into Google. What happens if a breast cancer survivor group pops up? If ABC declines to interview Ms. Doe, do you think it would be opening itself up to a claim that it failed to hire her because it regarded her as disabled?

Despite these risks, internet searches have some real value for employers. They just have be done carefully and with certain built-in protections:

1. Consult with your employment attorney to develop policies, procedures, and guidelines for the gathering and use of internet-based information without running afoul of EEO and other laws.
2. Print a clear disclaimer on the job application that you may conduct an internet search, including sites such as Facebook, MySpace, and LinkedIn, and general searches using search engines such as Google and Bing.
3. Only conduct the search after a candidate has been made a conditional job offer.
4. Consider using a third-party to do the searching, with instructions that any sensitive, protected, or EEO information not be disclosed back to you.
5. Do not limit yourself to internet searches as the only form of background screening.

The internet holds a wealth of information about potential employees. Be careful in how your hirers and recruiters handle this tool to avoid stepping in a big EEO trap.

Can social networking affect trade secrets?

Do you want to try to protect your customer list as a trade secret? Then you better think about limiting your employees’ use of social networks like Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter for businesses purposes. One of the key elements in any trade secret claim is the efforts taken to maintain the secrecy. It will that much harder to claim that the identity of a customer is a “secret” if your employees are publicly communicating with your customers via social networks for the whole world to see.

For more on social networking and its implications for your workplace, see Drafting a social networking policy: 7 considerations.

---

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? Garden leave contracts

Last week I attended the ABA’s Labor & Employment Conference. Over the next several weeks, I’ll be sharing with my readers some of the best and most interesting nuggets of information I took away from the meeting. We start today with garden leave contracts.

There is nothing more frustrating for a company than a court refusing to enforce a noncompetition agreement, permitting an employee to work for a competitor. Courts have been historically skeptical about the enforcement of such agreements. In today’s economy it has become even more difficult to enforce them. Judges simply do not want to enjoin a family’s breadwinner from working. At best, the enforcement of even the most narrowly drafted noncompetition agreement is a roll of the dice, dependent as much upon the personal whims of the judge hearing the case as the law of your specific jurisdiction.

So, how do you protect your employees, confidential information, customers, and good will without using a suspect noncompetition agreement? Think about using a garden leave contract.

The concept of “garden leave” originated in the UK. It describes the practice of an employer paying an employee to stay on the sidelines during a set period of time following the end of their employment (the garden being where a UK employee would spend free time). A typical garden leave contract requires a lengthy advance notice of resignation, prohibits certain competitive activities during the notice period, and requires that the employee be sent home but still get paid his or her full salary and benefits during the notice period. Alternatively, employers can modify a traditional noncompetition agreement to provide pay during the employee’s time on the sidelines. The latter, however, carries greater risk as it would still be subject to the same analysis as a traditional noncompetition agreement, albeit with less impact on the employee.

Provided that an employee has enough value, garden leave clauses provide many of the same benefits as a traditional noncompetition agreement – the employer is provided time to replace the departing employee, delay competition by the departing employee, cultivate relationships with clients and customers, and maintain good will. Also, because the employee remains an employee during the paid notice period, concepts like the duty of loyalty (which prohibits solicitations of customers and other employees, as well as the misuse of confidential information) remain in place and protect the employer.

Consider garden leave contracts. They are cost effective, at least as compared to the price of enforcing a noncompetition agreement, and a potentially less risky avenue to obtain the same goals.

---

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.

Paying off a bet – What I learned from watching the World Series

So the Yankees are the World Champs of baseball for 2009. I’ve been struggling with what to write for this post. Honestly, it never entered my mind that I would be the one paying off this bet. I assumed, even when the Phils were down 3-1, that they would win and Dan would be extolling their virtues. But, a bet is a bet, and I promised to write a post praising the Yankees, with an employment law bent, if they won the World Series.

So here’s the lesson that I can draw for you from this sad outcome. The team with the most resources doesn’t always win, but it doesn’t hurt to have the best hand to start with. With an uncapped salary system, the Yankees spend money as they see fit, with no limits. Thus, their payroll for their top three players eclipses that of the complete rosters of most of their major league counterparts. Yet, their superiority of resources is only part of their ability of success. After all, they’ve outspent everyone for as long as I can remember, and yet this is only their first title in the past 10 years. And so, while they always have the best chance to succeed (and always assume that they will), it doesn’t always work out that way for them. This year, for example, they appeared to come together as a team, and not just play as an amalgam of superstars, which perhaps accounts for why they succeeded this year and failed in the decade prior.

For employers, the lesson is this – in many cases, you will assume that you should win. You may have better facts, better law, more money and resources, the better lawyer, and you may even have had past successes and a good rapport with the same judge. And yet, with all of these supposed advantages on your side, you could still find yourself on the losing end of big verdict. Advantages are just that, but they do not bring home the win. Hard work, teamwork, and even a little bit of luck are all needed to take advantage of your advantages.

Here’s to a great World Series and the Phillies getting back to the top of the mountain in 2010.

---

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.