WIRTW #110

While the tragedy in Haiti has pushed Jay and Conan off the front page, NBC’s late night debacle continues to be one of the week’s biggest stories. My fellow bloggers share their thoughts on the myriad employment law issues this story raises:

• Can Conan Compete in Pennsylvania? – via Philip Miles’s Lawffice Space.

• Why FOX can hire Conan as soon as he leaves NBC and How Conan O'Brien powned NBC – from Jay Shepherd’s Gruntled Employees.

• What Can Employers Learn From Conan O’Brien and NBC? – by William Bowser at Delaware Employment Law.

Other issues covered this week:

Race Discrimination

• Harry Reid Teaches Unintentional Lesson About Racial Language? – from The Word on Employment Law with John Phillips.

• Is Reid racist? (And what we can learn from the recent media frenzy) – from Sindy Warren at the recently redesigned Warren & Hays Employment Law Blog.

• U of Iowa Study Shows Race Not an Important Factor in Hiring NFL Head Coaches – via Patrick Smith’s Iowa Employment Law.

• Forcing Managers to Interview Minority Candidates - Necessary or Pure Bureaucracy? – by Kris Dunn, The HR Capitalist.

Wage & Hour

• Paid Time Off – A Costly Mistake? How Does Your Company Stack Up? – at BLR’s HR Daily Advisor.

• How much influence must someone have in the firing process to qualify as exempt from overtime under the executive exemption to the Fair Labor Standards Act rules? – at the Overtime Advisor.

• EBSA Releases Updated Model COBRA Subsidy Notices – from the Washington DC Employment Law Update.

• Top 10 Wage-and-Hour Settlements Tally 44% More in 2009 – from the ABA Journal.

• Two Steps to Insure You Are Paying Your Employees Correctly – by Marylee Abrams at Minnesota Labor & Employment Law.

Harassment

• What's the Difference Between a Sexual Harassment Investigation and a Sexual Discrimination Investigation? – at Debra Reilly’s Workplace Investigations.

• Eye Witness Testimony is Often Inaccurate – at Tom Crane’s San Antonio Employment Law.

Finally, two follow-ups to earlier posts of mine.

• LaborPains.org reports that AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka is predicting that the Employee Free Choice Act will pass by March. His statement is the exact opposite of my prediction on this same issue.

• The Evil HR Lady asks whether it is legal not to hire someone because she is the sister of a former employee that did not leave on good terms. Associational retaliation – that is, taking an action against someone because a close relation engaged in protected activity – is not illegal in the 6th Circuit. The Supreme Court, however, is considering reviewing this issue, so it is worth keeping an eye on it.

---

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.

Bills seeks to prohibit use of credit information in employment

Ohio House Bill 340 seeks to make it unlawful for an employer to discriminate on the basis of credit history. If enacted, it would amend Ohio’s anti-discrimination law to include the following:

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.

Unlike the federal bankruptcy discrimination statute we looked at on Tuesday, this law would prohibit any use of credit information in employment. While there is no doubt that many have been adversely affected by the ongoing economic crisis, this statute is an overreaction. There exist lots of valid reasons to use consumer credit as one factor in the hiring matrix. For example, if you can conclude that an applicant does not, for whatever reason, manage his personal finances properly, do you want to hire him to handle your business’s finances as its controller or have access to money in your cash register?

The federal Fair Credit Reporting Act already provides protections to consumers in how employers obtain their credit information, and prohibit access without consent. We do not need additional protection to limit how employers use this lawfully obtained information, especially when this information can give employers insight to an employee’s sense of personal responsibility.

---

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.

To taking the high road and not burning bridges…

Conan O’Brien has every right to flat out pissed at NBC. They kept him tethered to his 12:35 a.m. slot for five years by promising him The Tonight Show, and then pulled the plug after a short seven months because of their own programming ineptitude. The following is Conan’s witty, yet graceful, response to his bosses at NBC (via MSNBC.com):

People of Earth:

In the last few days, I’ve been getting a lot of sympathy calls, and I want to start by making it clear that no one should waste a second feeling sorry for me. For 17 years, I’ve been getting paid to do what I love most and, in a world with real problems, I’ve been absurdly lucky. That said, I’ve been suddenly put in a very public predicament and my bosses are demanding an immediate decision.

Six years ago, I signed a contract with NBC to take over The Tonight Show in June of 2009. Like a lot of us, I grew up watching Johnny Carson every night and the chance to one day sit in that chair has meant everything to me. I worked long and hard to get that opportunity, passed up far more lucrative offers, and since 2004 I have spent literally hundreds of hours thinking of ways to extend the franchise long into the future. It was my mistaken belief that, like my predecessor, I would have the benefit of some time and, just as important, some degree of ratings support from the prime-time schedule. Building a lasting audience at 11:30 is impossible without both.

But sadly, we were never given that chance. After only seven months, with my Tonight Show in its infancy, NBC has decided to react to their terrible difficulties in prime-time by making a change in their long-established late night schedule.

Last Thursday, NBC executives told me they intended to move the Tonight Show to 12:05 to accommodate the Jay Leno Show at 11:35. For 60 years the Tonight Show has aired immediately following the late local news. I sincerely believe that delaying the Tonight Show into the next day to accommodate another comedy program will seriously damage what I consider to be the greatest franchise in the history of broadcasting. The Tonight Show at 12:05 simply isn’t the Tonight Show. Also, if I accept this move I will be knocking the Late Night show, which I inherited from David Letterman and passed on to Jimmy Fallon, out of its long-held time slot. That would hurt the other NBC franchise that I love, and it would be unfair to Jimmy.

So it has come to this: I cannot express in words how much I enjoy hosting this program and what an enormous personal disappointment it is for me to consider losing it. My staff and I have worked unbelievably hard and we are very proud of our contribution to the legacy of The Tonight Show. But I cannot participate in what I honestly believe is its destruction. Some people will make the argument that with DVRs and the Internet a time slot doesn’t matter. But with the Tonight Show, I believe nothing could matter more.

There has been speculation about my going to another network but, to set the record straight, I currently have no other offer and honestly have no idea what happens next. My hope is that NBC and I can resolve this quickly so that my staff, crew, and I can do a show we can be proud of, for a company that values our work.

Have a great day and, for the record, I am truly sorry about my hair; it’s always been that way.

Yours,

Conan

Do you think NBC will be more or less likely to work with Conan to amicably resolve this dispute because of how he is handling himself? Conan is much better served by issuing this respectful, witty, yet pointed statement, than having his lawyers (and trust me, he has lawyers advising him every step of the way) threaten to unleash unholy hell upon NBC. Kudos for Conan for taking the high road and explaining why he is making his decision without unnecessarily skewering the corporate executives whom he must believe screwed him.

Employees leave businesses each and every day, yet many believe that it is acceptable to burn bridges as they run from one employer to another. For example, it never ceases to amaze me how many employees think its better for them to open a competing shop and poach customers instead of sitting down with their former employer to work out the terms of an existing noncompetition agreement. Employees are best served following Conan’s example in exiting a business – even if they have to swallow a little bit of pride and take the high road.

---

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? Bankruptcy discrimination

The economy will continue to dominate the headlines in 2010. And, as the economy continues to struggle to rebound, it is likely that your business will have employees who have filed bankruptcy. The question is what do you do with this information.

Do you know that bankruptcy discrimination is unlawful under the Bankruptcy Code.

No private employer may terminate the employment of, or discriminate with respect to employment against, an individual who is or has been a debtor under this title, a debtor or bankrupt under the Bankruptcy Act, or an individual associated with such debtor or bankrupt, solely because such debtor or bankrupt – (1) is or has been a debtor under this title or a debtor or bankrupt under the Bankruptcy Act; (2) has been insolvent before the commencement of a case under this title or during the case but before the grant or denial of a discharge; or (3) has not paid a debt that is dischargeable in a case under this title or that was discharged under the Bankruptcy Act.

In other words, federal law prohibits an employer from terminating an employee or taking an other adverse action against an employee because that employee filed bankruptcy or is associated with someone else who filed bankruptcy.

Three key points to make about this statute:

1. With one exception, every court that has applied this statute has found that it only applies to termination decisions – not hiring decisions. Thus, employers are reasonably safe taking a bankruptcy into consideration when making a hiring decision.

2. The Fair Credit Reporting Act still applies to how employers obtain employee credit information from third parties, including information about bankruptcies. This law only impacts what employers do with the information once they get it.

3. Unlike Title VII, this statute is narrowly written to provide that the bankruptcy must be the sole reason for the adverse action before liability attaches. This is a high standard for a plaintiff to meet, and perhaps explains why we see so few of these cases.

---

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.

Something wicked this way comes – Congress’s 2010 employment law agenda

If political pundits are to be believed, the Democrats’ super-majority will go the way of the dodo in November’s mid-term elections. Without a 60-member super-majority, it will be that much more difficult for the current administration to make good on many of 2008’s campaign promises, which makes this year key for Democratic plans to revamp our employment laws. The Dems have an ambitious employment law slate. The following are the key employment law initiatives pending in Congress, ranked in order of the likelihood of passage this year, along with a discussion of what this will mean for your business if each passes (the full text of the legislation is hyperlinked).

1. Employment Non-Discrimination Act – ENDA would prohibit employers from discriminating or retaliating against actual or perceived gay, bisexual, or transgender employees or applicants. If this bill passes, you will have to cease discriminating on the basis of these classes, re-write your EEO policies, train your managers and supervisors to be more aware of issues that affect gay, bisexual, and transgendered people, and include these issues in all EEO and harassment training.

2. Protecting Older Workers Against Discrimination Act – In Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., the U.S. Supreme Court held that there is no such animal as a mixed motive under the ADEA, and that to succeed on a federal disparate treatment age discrimination claim, a plaintiff must prove that age was the only cause of the challenged action. This legislation would overturn this case, and permit a plaintiff to establish age discrimination by demonstrating that age was a “motivating factor” for the adverse action. This bill will make it easier for plaintiffs to prove age discrimination, and make it more difficult for employers to defeat age claim on summary judgment. The result will be higher defense costs, more jury trials, and increased settlement values for federal age claims.

3. Healthy Families Act – The swine flu pandemic helped employee advocates prove their point that America’s workers’ need greater access to paid sick leave. This bill would require businesses with 15 or more employees to prove employees seven days of paid sick leave per year. If this bill passes, employers will have to rewrite employee leave policies to provide the required sick leave.

4. FMLA amendments: Family and Medical Leave Enhancement Act and Family Fairness Act – The former would expand the coverage of the FMLA to employers with 25 or more employees, and would expand the reasons for FMLA leave to include a child’s grandchild’s educational or activities extracurricular, or a child’s or elderly relative’s medical appointments. The latter would expand the FMLA’s coverage to include part-time employees. Passage of either of these bills would require employers to revisit and rewrite FMLA leave policies. Along with the Healthy Families Act, these amendments would further limit the ability of employers to manage and schedule employees’ working time.

5. Arbitration Fairness Act – The recent extension of the federal COBRA subsidy contained a provision that prohibits arbitration of Title VII claims for federal contractors who receive more than $1 million. This legislation would void all pre-dispute arbitration agreements that mandate arbitration of employment disputes, except for those contained in collective bargaining agreements. The enactment of this bill would require litigation of all employment disputes (a result, by the way, that I am not entirely opposed to).

6. Paycheck Fairness Act – This bill would provide for compensatory and punitive damages for FLSA violations, and would shift the burden in Equal Pay cases to employers to prove that differences in pay are sex-based and are related to job performance. Wage and hour claims already are the most difficult for employers to handle. This legislation would increase this difficulty, and further underscore employers’ need to be proactively vigilant with wage and hour compliance.

7. Employee Free Choice Act – Enough’s been written about the EFCA. If you are unaware of it, the EFCA would eliminate secret ballot elections for union representation and provide for binding arbitration for first-contract collective bargaining agreements. Next to President Obama’s universal health care, the EFCA is the most controversial legislation the Democrats are putting forth. Because of this controversy, and the hits they have taken during the health care debate, I do not think the EFCA will be pushed this year. And, without a big push from its supporters, I don’t see it becoming law.

---

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 #109

Because of how the holidays fell this year, it’s been a few weeks since I’ve been able to recap what else is happening in the L&E Blawgosphere. Here’s what everyone missed.

• Make a New Year's Resolution to Review Your Anti-Harassment Policies – from New York Labor and Employment Law Report.

• EEOC Warns about Background Checks – via employeescreenIQ Blog.

• Senator Dodd's Legacy With Employers Is Clear: Family and Medical Leave Act – from Dan Schwartz’s Connecticut Employment Law.

• Paid Suspensions: You Don't Use Them Unless You're Pretty Sure They're Not Coming Back – from Kris Dunn, The HR Capitalist.

• No Right to Representation for Accused Nonunion Employees in Workplace Investigations-But for How Long? – via Debra Reilly’s Workplace Investigations Blog.

• Summary Judgment: Myths and Realities – at Patrick Smith’s Iowa Employment Law.

• Why the Philadelphia Eagles (Still) Need a Social-Media Policy – from Molly DiBianca at Delaware Employment Law.

• Recession Litigation Takes Off – via The Word on Employment Law with John Phillips.

• Preliminary Injunction Barring Retaliation Offers a Stern Reminder to Employers – from WorkplaceHorizons.

• ‘Tis the season (for seasonal affective disorder, that is) – from Sindy Warren at the Warren & Hays Employment Law Blog.

• Paying Exempt Employees Who Serve Jury Duty – from the Overtime Advisor.

• Do ‘Team Leaders’ Have the Same Harassment-Reporting Duties as Supervisors? – from Mindy Chapman’s Case In Point.

• Leave of absence taken in order to recover from a disability is not necessarily a “reasonable accommodation” under the ADA – from Employment Law Matters.

• Chart of EEOC Charges 1997-2009 – via Philip Miles’s Lawffice Space.

---

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.

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.