http://www.ohioemployerlawblog.com/2010/07/why-employees-sue.html
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.
Famous events that occurred on May 9:
1754: 1st newspaper cartoon in America—the divided snake “Join or Die” Happy birthday to me on Monday. As for me, I’ll be on a much needed vacation next week, so today is the blog’s birthday (observed). I’ll be back with fresh content on May 17. In the meantime, enjoy “Best of…” next week.
Here’s the rest of what I read this week.
Social Media & Workplace Technology
Discrimination
Employee Relations & HR
Wage & Hour
Labor Relations
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.
The Witch: I’m not a witch! I’m not a witch!
Sir Bedevere: But you are dressed as one
The Witch: *They* dressed me up like this!
Crowd: We didn’t! We didn’t…
The Witch: And this isn’t my nose. It’s a false one.
Sir Bedevere: [lifts up her false nose] Well?
Peasant 1: Well, we did do the nose.
Sir Bedevere: The nose?
Peasant 1: And the hat, but she is a witch!
Crowd: Yeah! Burn her! Burn her!
In EEOC v. Konica Minolta Business Solutions USA., Inc. (7th Cir. 4/29/11) [pdf], the 7th Circuit blessed the EEOC’s use of its subpoena powers in single-employee cases to try to develop systemic discrimination claims against the charged employer. By defining the EEOC’s subpoena powers broadly, this court permits the agency to conduct nothing short of witch hunts with very little, if any, evidentiary support.
The facts of the case are simple. Elliot Thompson worked in one of Konica’s four Chicago facilities. Thompson filed a charge with EEOC alleging that Konica discriminated against him because of his race and fired him after he complained about it. The EEOC, in turn, issued a subpoena to Konica seeking information about its hiring practices at all four of its Chicago facilities. Konica refused to comply, arguing that the requested materials were irrelevant to Thompson’s specific charge.
The 7th Circuit agreed with the district court that the EEOC’s subpoena was not overly broad in relation to the underlying charge:
The Commission is entitled generally to investigate employers within its jurisdiction to see if there is a prohibited pattern or practice of discrimination. Here, Thompson alleged both a specific instance and such a pattern of race discrimination…. The question … is whether information regarding Konica’s hiring practices will “cast light” on Thompson’s race discrimination complaint.
We have no trouble concluding that the information the EEOC is seeking meets that standard. The answer to the question whether Konica discriminates in hiring or in assigning employees to its various facilities will advance the agency’s investigation into possible discrimination against Thompson based on his race, as well as any more general case it might choose to bring….
Nothing in this record suggests that the EEOC has strayed so far from either Thompson’s charge or its broader mission that it has embarked on the proverbial fishing expedition. The Commission has a “realistic expectation rather than an idle hope” that the hiring materials it seeks will illuminate the facts and circumstances surrounding Thompson’s allegations of race discrimination…. [T]he EEOC limited its inquiry to the four Konica branches in the Chicago area and to sales personnel. We conclude that the information sought by the EEOC in this case is properly tailored to matters within its authority.
It should come as no surprise that the EEOC conducts investigations with blinders off. It is always on the lookout for patterns and practices of systemic discrimination. Every discrete charge of discrimination lodged by a single employee is an opportunity for the EEOC to look for its witch, even where she doesn’t exist. And, at least some courts are willing to indulge the EEOC’s efforts. Employers should not let their guards down and assume that the investigation of an employee’s charge is limited to that employee and that charge. If there are broader problems, the EEOC will find them, or paper you with subpoenas trying.
[Hat tip: Employer Law Report and Outten & Golden 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.
When I read last week’s EEOC press release announcing the filing of a disability discrimination lawsuit against Sysco Oklahoma LLC, I wondered if I would have counseled the employer to have acted any differently (minus one key fact):
According to the EEOC’s suit, Amanda Thompson, who worked for Sysco as a customer relations expert from December 2008, was observed parking in one of the employer’s unreserved handicap parking spaces in February 2009. The same day, Sysco demanded Thompson provide Sysco a physician’s full medical release, notwithstanding the fact that Thompson had been performing her job satisfactorily at all times. Several days later, before the deadline for providing the medical release had passed, Sysco terminated Thompson’s employment.
Even the EEOC’s own policy guidance discussing reasonable accommodations permits an employer to “ask the individual for reasonable documentation about his/her disability and functional limitations” when the disability or need for an accommodation is not obvious. The EEOC’s hyperbole notwithstanding, the employer’s fatal flaw was not in asking for the doctor’s note to verify the need for the handicap parking space, but in taking action before it’s own self-imposed deadline.
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 little over a year ago, the Department of Labor signaled that it was placing unpaid internships and training programs in its crosshairs, via its publication of Fact Sheet #71 (entitled, Internship Programs Under The Fair Labor Standards Act). That Fact Sheet re-affirmed the DOL’s six-factored analysis for the legality of unpaid internships.
Solis v. Laurelbook Sanitarium and School, Inc. (6th Cir. 4/28/2011) concerned whether students who worked at a school-owned nursing home as part of their schooling were employees (who must be paid) or interns/trainees (who do not).
The 6th Circuit broke ranks from the Department of Labor and refused to apply its six-factored test to determine whether the school properly classified these student workers:
We find the WHD’s [six-factored] test to be a poor method for determining employee status in a training or educational setting. For starters, it is overly rigid and inconsistent with a totality-of-the-circumstances approach, where no one factor (or the absence of one factor) controls….
[W]e hold that the proper approach for determining whether an employment relationship exists in the context of a training or learning situation is to ascertain which party derives the primary benefit from the relationship. Factors such as whether the relationship displaces paid employees and whether there is educational value derived from the relationship are relevant considerations that can guide the inquiry.
The court concluded that even though Laurelbrook obtained some benefit from the students' activities, the primary benefit of the program ran to the students. Therefore, the school properly categorized them as unpaid interns or trainees.
Notwithstanding this seemingly pro-business decision, internships continue to be a touchy wage and hour issue. Employers should be mindful of all of these principles, and tread very carefully if debating the use of unpaid interns, volunteers, or trainees.
[O]nly women undergo surgical implantation procedures; therefore, only women and not men stand in potential danger of being fired for missing work for these procedures. An employer who fires his female employee for missing work for IVF treatment discriminates not on the basis of reproductive capacity or infertility alone, but on the basis of medical conditions related to pregnancy. Thus, women who are fired for undergoing IVF are protected from such discriminatory, sex-based action by the terms of the PDA.
The question presented here is whether an employer, having assumed the financial responsibility of salaried employment, can then fire its female employee solely on the basis that she decided to undergo IVF treatments…. Accordingly, Govori has stated a cognizable claim for sex-based discrimination under Title VII, as amended by the PDA.Pregnancy and pregnancy-related medical procedures (such as IVF) differentiate female employees from their male counterparts. As long an employer is going to permit any employee to take time off for a non-pregnancy related short-term debilitating condition, it must make the same allowance for a female worker’s pregnancy-related medical procedures.
Here’s the rest of what I read this week:
Social Media & Workplace Technology
Wage & Hour
Discrimination
Employee Relations & HR
Labor Relations
Arbitration
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.