Monday, March 22, 2010

House passes Health Care Bill – What does this mean for employers?


I have not read any version of the health care bill. In fact, anyone outside of Capitol Hill, the White House, lobbyists, or some major news agencies who tells you otherwise is probably lying to you. So, I don’t have a lot to say about this legislation. In fact, I’m not embarrassed to say that I have not yet formed an opinion pro or con about it. What is embarrassing is the partisan politics that this issue has created. No one can honestly say that they are in favor of the bill because they are blue or against it because they are red. They are dishonest opinions based solely on party lines.

So, what can I tell you about this legislation? Employers are not required to provide health insurance to their employees. Instead, employers with 50 or more employees who do not provide health insurance will be fined $2,000 per employee. Employers smaller than 50 employees likely will not feel much of an effect from these changes.

For more on this important issue, I recommend reading Dan Schwartz’s post at the Connecticut Employment Law 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.

Friday, March 19, 2010

WIRTW #119


The best advice of the week comes from BLR’s HR Daily Advisors, which recommends that companies could save thousands by merely spending a few minutes with their employment lawyer. Here’s the rest of the best I read this week.

Big Verdicts

Discrimination

Labor Law

Wage & Hour

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.

Thursday, March 18, 2010

70% of hiring managers report rejecting candidates following internet searches


According to a recent survey conducted by Microsoft, 70% of U.S. hiring managers reject candidates based on information located online, while only 7% of consumers think that online information affected their job search. 2512148775_61fa58b4b3_m

The following are the most two most interesting findings from the study:

Do you review online reputational information about candidates when evaluating them for a potential job / college admission?

  • All the time – 44%
  • Most of the time – 35%
  • Sometimes – 9%
  • Rarely – 5%
  • Never – 6%

What are the types of online reputational information that influenced decisions to reject a candidate?

  • Concerns about the candidate’s lifestyle – 58%
  • Inappropriate comments and text written by the candidate – 56%
  • Unsuitable photos , videos, and information – 55%
  • Inappropriate comments or text written by friends and relatives – 43%
  • Comments criticizing previous employers, co-workers, or clients – 40%
  • Inappropriate comments or text written by colleagues – 40%
  • Membership in certain groups and networks – 35%
  • Discovered that information the candidate shared was false – 30%
  • Poor communication skills displayed online – 27%
  • Concern about the candidate’s financial background – 16%

And yet, nearly 90% of recruiters and HR professionals surveyed report that they are somewhat to very concerned that the online reputational information they discover may be inaccurate. If you want to review the complete findings, Microsoft has made available a summary as a PDF, and its full research results as a PowerPoint.

What does all of this mean? Here’s what I’ve said previously on this issue:

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.

For more on developing a DIY internet background screening strategy for your company, see Googling job applicants. You can also check out what the Delaware Employment Law Blog has to say on this 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.

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

Whose opinion counts for determining “incapacity” under the FMLA?


The FMLA defines serious health condition as “an illness, injury, impairment, or physical or mental condition that involves … continuing treatment by a health care provider.” The FMLA’s regulations define “incapacity” as the “inability to work, attend school or perform other regular daily activities due to the serious health condition, treatment therefore, or recovery therefrom.” The regulations further define a “serious health condition involving continuing treatment by a health care provider” as requiring a “period of incapacity of more than three consecutive, full calendar days.

How does an employee establish incapacity for three or more days? Is an employer required to take the employee and his or her word, or can the employer require the employee to support the claim of incapacity with medical evidence? Courts take three approaches.

Some courts hold that an employee’s own statements, without any medical support whatsoever, are sufficient to establish incapacitation to support a claim for FMLA leave. One court, for example, even allowed an FMLA claim to proceed when an employee’s statements about his health directly contradicted his doctor’s note, which permitted him to return to work without restrictions.

Other courts, including Schaar v. Lehigh Valley Health Services, Inc., a recent case from the Third Circuit, hold that an employee can support a claim of incapacity for FMLA-leave purposes with a combination of the employee’s own statements in combination with documentation from a health care provider. In the Schaar case, for example, the employee supported her claim for an FMLA entitlement with a doctor’s note, which said that she was incapacitated for two days, along with her own statements that she was incapacitated for another two days.

Both of these views give employees a tremendous amount of latitude to game the system by claiming FMLA-leave that may not be medically supported. Luckily for Ohio employers, Ohio’s district courts subscribe to the most restrictive view, that an employee can establish that he or she was required to be absent from work only upon the production of “evidence showing that a health care provider made a professional assessment of his condition and determined, based on that assessment, that an extended absence from work was necessary.”

Regardless of the legal standard employed in determining whether an employee is “incapacitated” and therefore eligible for FMLA leave, your best defense against potential liability is to use the FMLA’s medical certification process to verify the employee’s qualification for the statutory leave.

And, on a totally unrelated topic, in honor of St. Patty’s day here’s a very cool picture I took of O’Neill’s Pub in Dublin.

ry%3D400 (1)  


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.

Tuesday, March 16, 2010

Do you know? 12% of employees knowingly violate IT policies


According to a recent survey conducted by IT security company Fiberlink (H/T Workplace Diva), 12% of employees admit to knowingly violating IT policies. What types of violations might be occurring?

  • Inappropriate or excessive use (YouTube, shopping, gaming, pornography).
  • Misappropriation of confidential information.
  • Harassment of co-workers or others.
  • Moonlighting (e.g., checking Mary Kay sales).

I think the 12% number is light. I would bet that it’s closer to one-quarter to one-third of employees that misuse their employers’ technology. What can you do to best protect yourself. Let me suggest a seven-point plan.

  1. Audit your internet and email systems. Take stock of how much time employees spend on-line, what types of sites are being visited, and the breakdown of personal use versus work use. Once you get a handle on how your systems are being used, you can figure out what type of policy you want for your workplace, and how restrictive it needs to be.

  2. Draft and implement a Technology Policy. It should cover computers, email, social networking, and mobile devices. For more on how to draft this type of policy, see Do you know? 10 tips for drafting a workplace electronic communications policy.

  3. Cross-reference the Technology Policy in your Harassment Policy and training, and in any confidentiality policies, business ethics policies, and non-competition agreements.

  4. Require all employees to sign an acknowledgement that they received the policy, read it, had the opportunity to ask any questions about it, and understand it.

  5. Train all employees on the ins and outs of the policy, including what you consider inappropriate use of the internet and email, and that violations will lead to discipline or termination.

  6. Apply and enforce the policy fairly, consistently, and non-discriminatorily.

  7. At least annually, review and if necessary revise policies to keep them legally up-to-date.


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.

Monday, March 15, 2010

Beware these types of problem employees


Today is the Ides of March. For Julius Caesar, it meant a knife in the back from his best friend. Yet, Caesar had been warned to beware the Ides. I, too, provide the following warning. Beware these archetypes of problem employees in your organization:

  • The chronically absent employee.
  • The chronically late employee.
  • The chronically ill employee.
  • The insubordinate employee.
  • The complaining employee.
  • The bullying or harassing employee.
  • The substance abusing employee.
  • The thieving employee.
  • The disloyal employee.
  • The unhappy employee.

Each of these employees comes bearing a knife in the form of a potential lawsuit. At the same time, each is also loaded with legal landmines. For example, the absent or late employee may have an underlying medical issue causing their attendance issues. The harassing employee will put in a motion a chain of events under your harassment policy. The first step, though, in dealing with these issues is to recognize that they are issues at all.


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.

Friday, March 12, 2010

WIRTW #118


The big story that I missed this week is the refocused Congressional attention on the passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act on Capitol Hill. This law would make the following key changes to pay discrimination law:

  1. Prohibits an employers from retaliating against employees for discussing wage information.
  2. Permits uncapped punitive and compensatory damages for Equal Pay Act claims.
  3. Requires employers to show “a bona fide factor other than sex, such as education, training, or experience” to establish a defense to a EPA claim (a much more difficult standard than the current “any factor other than sex” standard).
  4. Changes classes in EPA class actions from “opt in” to “opt out.”

Take a look at the following posts from my fellow blawgers to catch up on what is happening with this important piece of legislation on the Hill:

Here’s the rest of the best I read this week:

Wage & Hour

Labor Relations

Harassment

Other Discrimination

Technology


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.