A termination is not always a termination when the FMLA is involved

On December 5, 2002, James Randolph suffered a severe episode of depression, blacked out, and failed to report for work. Because December 5 was Randolph’s last day of probation for prior attendance violations, his employer terminated him. When Randolph awoke from his blackout, he discovered a voicemail message on his cell phone from his supervisor terminating him. With that discovery, Randolph had a break-down, abandoned his plans to call work to explain his absence, aborted a trip to his doctor, and drove to his mother’s house. It was his mother who, late that night, spoke to the same supervisor, stating that Randolph was having a nervous breakdown and suffering from a recurring condition that warranted medical leave. Randolph had a similar conversation the following day with the personnel department, but his employer refused to reverse its termination decision.

In Randolph v. Grange Mutual Casualty Co. (Franklin Cty. 12/22/09) [pdf], the court of appeals reversed the trial court dismissal of Randolph’s FMLA claim, and concluded that a jury issue existed on whether the company interfered with Randolph’s attempt to take unforeseeable FMLA leave on December 5. Under the FMLA, “[w]hen the approximate timing of the need for leave is not foreseeable, an employee should give notice to the employer of the need for FMLA leave as soon as practicable under the facts and circumstances of the particular case.”

Grange argued that Randolph did not provide notice of his need for FMLA leave as soon as practicable on December 5, citing to the nearly 9-hour gap between when he awoke from his blackout and when his mother finally contacted his supervisor. The appellate court rejected that argument, concluding that it should be up to jury to conclude whether Randolph’s fragile emotional state excused him from not contacting his employer upon coming to. In other words, what is “as soon as practicable” is a fact question, not a legal question.

Employees’ medical issues should raise a bunch of flags for employers, who must proceed with caution whenever taking action against such an employee. As the Randolph case points out, this caution could even extend to rescinding a termination in the right circumstances.

---

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.

Repeat after me – Don’t bring guns to work

Driving into work this morning, I listened to a legitimate debate over whether the NBA should suspend Gilbert Arenas and his teammate, Javaris Crittenton, for pulling guns on each other during a late-2009 locker room confrontation. While a D.C. grand jury considers whether to indict Arenas, he tweets that he is the new John Wayne.

There is simply no excuse that an employee can make for this level of egregious misconduct. Arenas claims that he was joking when invited Crittenton to choose one of three guns to settle their gambling debt disagreement, but that does not even come close to excusing the misconduct. Yet, the media is having a legitimate debate over whether the NBA should fine Arenas, suspend him, or wait for the criminal justice system to have its say.

Let me make this real simple for everyone. If an employee brings a gun into your workplace, that employee should be fired, period. The fact that we can even have a discussion over the fate of Gilbert Arenas underscores the point that the world in which professional athletes live and work is not the same as ours.

---

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? An employee’s (lack of) right to representation at an investigatory interviews or disciplinary meeting

Yesterday I discussed the illegality of firing an at-will employee for consulting with an attorney. Despite an employee’s right to talk to a lawyer about issues going on in your workplace, non-union employees do not have a right to representation at investigatory interviews or disciplinary meetings. In a union setting, rank-and-file employees enjoy what are called Weingarten Rights – the right to union representation at these encounters.

Those same rights do not extend to a non-union setting. In IBM Corp. (June 9, 2004) [pdf], the National Labor Relations Board concluded that “the right of an employee to a coworker’s presence in the absence of a union is outweighed by an employer’s right to conduct prompt, efficient, thorough, and confidential workplace investigations.” While the holding only mentioned a coworker representative, the employer had denied the employee’s request for a coworker or an attorney to be present.

It is important to note, however, that the federal courts and the NLRB have gone back and forth on this issue over the years, and that IBM was a tight 3-2 decision of a Bush-appointed NLRB. Even the IBM majority recognized that one could reasonably interpret the National Labor Relations Act to reach the opposite conclusion. Because President Obama has already appointed a new Chairperson, and will fill three other vacancies on the NLRB, there is a good chance this rule will change if the issue makes its way back to D.C. in the next three years.

For now, employers are well within their rights to prohibit employees from having representation during investigatory interviews or disciplinary meetings.

Lessons from (a) Leach – retaliation for talking to an attorney is a no-no

One of big stories that broke while I was off last week was the firing of Texas Tech head football coach Mike Leach. The university initially suspended Leech after a player accused him of locking him in a closet following a concussion. The school later changed the suspension to a termination after Leach filed a lawsuit seeking a restraining order to allow him to coach in the team’s bowl game.

In Ohio, Texas Tech’s actions could lead to a wrongful discharge claim, provided that the employee is at-will. Ohio law does not allow an at-will employee to be fired solely for consulting an attorney. Ohio law also does not allow an employee to be fired for filing a lawsuit. While an at-will employee generally can be fired for any reason or no reason, an exception exists when the termination jeopardizes a clear public policy. Access to legal services and access to the courts are such public policies.

What does this mean for employers? Simply that you cannot terminate an employee who you suspect may be consulting with counsel. These employees are protected as if they had come to you directly with a complaint about harassment or discrimination, or engaged in any other protected activity.

Come back tomorrow as we take this question to the next level, and answer the question of what happens when an employee asks to have counsel present at a disciplinary or termination meeting.

Top 10 Labor & Employment Law Stories of 2009: Numbers 2 and 1

2. The Economy. This past year brought us the worst recession this country has seen in nearly 80 years. It should not surprise anyone that as the economy sinks, the number of lawsuits brought by employees goes up. Workers considered the ethics of layoffs, while businesses thought up creative alternatives (furloughs and reduced work schedules) to reducing headcounts.

1. Social Media. 2009 was the year that social media exploded onto our cultural consciousness. Facebook has enough members to be the 4th largest country in the world, and Twitter (follow me @jonhyman) synthesized thoughts down to 140 characters. If you don’t think you’re employees are Friending each other or tweeting about your business, you are either naive or have ludites for employees. For more information about the impact of social media on your business and your employees, check out the following from this year:

• Do you know? Facebook and Twitter and blogs, oh my! What is social networking and why should you care?
• Drafting a social networking policy: 7 considerations
• Is LinkedIn a risk for employers?
• Employees’ social networking continues to confound employers
• Companies are banning social networking. Should you?
• Textual harassment
• Googling job applicants

There you have it – the top 10 labor and employment stories of the past year. Everyone have a safe and happy new year. I’ll be back on January 4 with a peak at what I think will be the 5 biggest stories to follow 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.

Top 10 Labor & Employment Law Stories of 2009: Numbers 4 and 3

4. The Swine Flu. Apart from the economy, no story dominated the headlines more in 2009 than H1N1. Because employees get sick, and need to be away from work when they are, H1N1 greatly impacted our workplaces:

• Swine flu: panic versus preparedness
• EEOC chimes in on swine flu with guides on how to prepare and remain Title VII/ADA compliant
• Can employers require flu shots for their employees?
• Do you know? Handling employees with suspected swine flu
• Do you know? H1N1 and employees’ leave rights

3. The Obama Administration’s DOL & EEOC. True to his word, President Obama has prioritized the plight of the working-class. One need only scan the EEOC’s press releases to see that it has significantly ramped up its prosecution of EEO violations. Meanwhile, the Justice Department announced that it is hiring an additional 50 attorneys to increase its enforcement of civil rights violations. The Department of Labor has hired 250 new investigators to step up enforcement of its Wage & Hour Division, specifically to target industries that employ vulnerable workers, such as agriculture, restaurants, janitorial, construction, and car washes.

---

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.

Top 10 Labor & Employment Law Stories of 2009: Numbers 6 and 5

6. The U.S. Supreme Court’s Pro-Employee decisions. 2009 brought us two important pro-employee Supreme Court decisions. In Crawford v. Metropolitan Gov’t of Nashville, the Court held that Title VII’s anti-retaliation provision covers employees who answer questions during employers’ internal investigations. In Ricci v. DeStefano, the court found that disparate treatment of non-minorities trumps a disparate impact on minorities.

5. The Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. A mere 9 days after his inauguration, President Obama made the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act the first piece of legislation he signed into law. The Ledbetter Act reversed the Supreme Court’s eponymous decision, which had held that in Title VII pay discrimination cases the statute of limitations begins to run when the pay-setting decision is made. This law provides that a new and separate violation occurs each time a person receives a paycheck resulting from “a discriminatory compensation decision.” Thus, each paycheck that reflects an alleged discriminatory pay decision will start a new and distinct limitations period. Unfortunately for employers, courts have been applying this law broadly by extending statutes of limitations for all sorts of employment decisions – promotions and demotions, for 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.