Controlling who is (and is not) “similarly situated” can control a discrimination case

One of the key analyses in any discrimination lawsuit is whether the plaintiff is “similarly situated” to those whom he or she claims the employer treated more favorably. If the plaintiff can establish disparate treatment of those “similarly situated,” he or she can make out a prima facie case and proceed to the bonus round, proving that the employer’s legitimate non-discriminatory reason was a pretext for discrimination. Conversely, a failure to prove “similarly situated” dooms a claim to the summary judgment scrapheap. Similarly situated, though, lies in the eyes of the beholder. How a court frames who is, and who is not, “similarly situated” often is dispositive of the issue of discrimination.

Consider, for example, Diaz v. Kraft Foods (7th Cir. 8/8/11). The trial court concluded that the plaintiff could not prove discrimination because of his race (Hispanic) because the employer ultimately filled the challenged position with another Hispanic. The appellate court, however, disagreed:

Title VII would have little force if an employer could defeat a claim of discrimination by treating a single member of the protected class in accordance with the law. Suppose the district court’s view carried the day: a female employee suffering from discrimination on the basis of her sex would have to establish that her employer discriminated against all women in the workplace to assert a sex discrimination claim. That, sensibly, is not how Title VII operates.…

[T]he employer cannot satisfy its burden by identifying a person within the protected class who was not similarly discriminated against.

What does this mean from a practical standpoint? If you are terminating, or taking another adverse action against, an employee, you need to analyze whether you’ve treated others outside the protected class better. If you merely analyze whether you’ve treat others inside the same protected class better, you risk a court concluding that your analysis is irrelevant. It’s an apples-to-oranges analysis, not an apples-to-apples analysis.

---

Written by Jon Hyman, a partner in the Labor & Employment group of Kohrman Jackson & Krantz. For more information, contact Jon at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

“If I could press a button and instantly vaporize one sector of employment law?”

Today, I am empowering all of my readers with a superpower. As the saying goes, with great power comes great responsibility, so exercise this gift wisely and judiciously.

On Friday, Walter Olson, on Overlawyered, asked the following question, “If I could press a button and instantly vaporize one sector of employment law…”?

My answer—the Fair Labor Standards Act. The FLSA needs to go because compliance is impossible. Congress enacted the FLSA during the Great Depression to combat the sweatshops that had taken over our manufacturing sector. In the 70+ years that have passed, it has evolved, via a complex web of regulations and interpretations, into an anachronistic maze of rules that even the best-intentioned employer cannot hope to comply with. I would bet any employer in this country a free wage and hour audit that I can find an FLSA violation in your pay practices. A regulatory scheme that is impossible to meet does not make sense to keep alive. Instead, what employers and employees need is a more streamlined system to ensure that workers are paid a fair wage.

Readers, what employment law would you get rid of? Leave your thoughts in the comments, on Twitter, or on my Facebook Page. I’ll collate and publish them in a future post.

WIRTW #189 (the “amici” edition)

Last year, I was honored that the ABA chose to include me in its Blawg 100, the list of the top 100 legal blogs. This year, the ABA has again opened its nomination process to the public. From now until September 9, the ABA is accepting nominations via the submission of amici, or friend-of-the-blawg, briefs:

We’re working on our annual list of the 100 best legal blogs, and we'd like your advice on which blawgs you think we should include. Use the form below to tell us about a blawg—not your own—that you read regularly and think other lawyers should know about…. If there is more than one blawg you want to support, feel free to send us additional amici through the form. We may include some of the best comments in our Blawg 100 coverage. But keep your remarks pithy—you have a 500-character limit.

(Mom, Dad, and Wife, please don’t nominate me; it’s against the rules)

The ABA’s blawg directory lists thousands of legal blogs. If there are several that you enjoy reading on a regular basis, please take a few minutes to fill out an amici form and submit it to the ABA for consideration. My fellow blawgers and I appreciate it.

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

Discrimination

• Employer “Look” Policies and Religious Discrimination – from iSight Blog (featuring me)
• “Beanie Meanie” Lawsuit Dresses Down Religious Garb At Work – from Workplace Diva
• Religion in the Workplace: Avoiding Religious Discrimination Claims – from Michigan Employment Law Advisor
• Why Ban the Box Might Be Key to Allaying Discrimination Concerns – from Nick Fishman’s employeescreenIQ Blog
• Fact or Fiction: Retaliation requires job-related action (e.g., firing) – from Eric Meyer’s The Employer Handbook Blog
• 3rd Circuit: Performance Improvement Plan Not an Adverse Action – from Philip Miles’s Lawffice Space
• The Cat’s Paw Just Got a Little Smaller: New York Federal Court Limits Cat’s Paw Liability After Staub – from Employment Matters Blog
• Counter Lawsuits are not a Good Idea – from Tom Crane’s San Antonio Employment Law Blog
• Illegal drugs and the ADA: What does “current user” mean? – from HR Cafe

Social Media & Workplace Technology

• 50 Social Media Stats To Blow Your Mind – from Social Media Today
• To Tweet or Not To Tweet: Are Companies Allowing Employees to Use Social Media in the Workplace? – from Mindflash
• Twitter, Facebook And LinkedIn: Age, Ethnicity And Gender Of The Major Social Networks – from All Twitter
• Privacy is a Luxury You Don’t Have – from Harvard Business Review
• The Effect of Social Media on the Law – from Lawyerist
• A Majority of Those About to Enter the Workforce Would Rather Lose Their _____ Than Their Facebook – from Manpower Employment Blawg
• How Your Social Media History Could Hurt Your Job Hunt – from MonsterThinking
• The Rise of the Mobile Workforce – from Mashable
• The Secret Spy Living in Your iPhone – from The Fiscal Times

HR & Employee Relations

• 5 egregious errors that endanger employment investigations – from Robin Shea’s Employment and Labor Insider
• The Three Most Powerful Words in an Employment Investigation: “Tell Me About…” – from Minnesota Labor & Employment Law Blog
• Keeping up with the Law is Imperative to HR – from Kara Mignanelli at Social Axcess
• Want To Keep (And Motivate) Your Best Employees? It’s Not About The Money – from Fastcompany
• Discovery Requests Can Play Important Role In Determining Reasonableness of Non-Compete – from Legal Developments In Non-Competition Agreements
• Signs You’re About To Be Laid Off – from Consumerist
• How to Lay Off Staff? Don’t Listen to HR – from BNET

Wage & Hour

• The Myth of “Unauthorized” Overtime – from Wage & Hour Insights
• Overstaying Rest Breaks: Paid Time, Or Not? – from Wage and Hour Laws Blog
• Do We Have to Pay Employees for Checking Email Outside of Work? – from Wage & Hour Insights
• Life After Wal-Mart v. Dukes: Is the FMLA the New Breeding Ground for Class Actions? – from FMLA Insights
• Does “phone care” qualify for FMLA leave? – from Case In Point

Labor Relations

• NLRB and Facebook Firings: Employer’s Worst-Case Scenario – from Molly DiBianca’s Delaware Employment Law Blog
• The U.S. Chamber Of Commerce Echoes Many Of Our Sentiments – from Michael Schmidt’s Social Media Employment Law Blog
• Facebook Firings - Report Finds Dramatic Increase in NLRB Charge Filings Based on Facebook Retaliation Firings – from Chris McKinney’s Texas Employment Law Blog
• Social Media: NLRB Eyeing Employer Policies – from SmartHR
• The recent NLRB advice memoranda: much ado about what?? – from John Holmquist’s Michigan Employment Law Connection
• Chamber Survey Finds Social Media Policies, Firings Becoming NLRB Issues – from TLNT
• NLRB: No backpay remedy for undocumented immigrant workers – from LawMemo Employment Law Blog

---

Written by Jon Hyman, a partner in the Labor & Employment group of Kohrman Jackson & Krantz. For more information, contact Jon at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

Is it discriminatory for a hospital to require the same-sex treatment of patients?

According to the EEOC, a Missouri hospital discriminated against its male nurses by preferring to have female nurses treat female patients. But, is this really unlawful sex discrimination?

A “bona fide occupational qualification” defense permits discrimination based on sex, age, religion, or national origin (but not race) where the protected class is reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise. To qualify as a BFOQ, a job qualification must relate to the essence, or to the central mission of the employer’s business. One example of a BFOQ is a safety-based mandatory retirement age for airline pilots.

Is the sex of the person providing medical treatment another example of a BFOQ? Or, is this the type of sex-based stereotype that Title VII is supposed to eradicate? Or, does it depend on the type of treatment being provided? Readers, what do you think?

---

Written by Jon Hyman, a partner in the Labor & Employment group of Kohrman Jackson & Krantz. For more information, contact Jon at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

How companies are using social media to hire

Are you curious how companies are using social media to screen and hire  employees? Mindflash shares the latest data (via Eve Tahmincioglu on Google+).

• 45% of employers use social sites to vet potential hires:
• 29% use Facebook
• 26% use LinkedIn
• 11% use blogs
• 7% use twitter
• 18% of employers discovered social content that influenced them to hire a candidate:
• 50% – personality
• 39% – verification of professional qualifications
• 38% – creativity
• 35% – good communication skills
• 33% – well-roundedness
• 19% – positive references
• 15% – awards and accolades
• 35% of employers discovered social content that caused them not to hire a candidate:
• 53% – provocative or inappropriate photos or other information
• 44% – content about alcohol or drug use
• 35% – bad-mouthing previous employers, co-workers, or clients
• 29% – poor communication skills
• 26% – discriminatory comments
• 24% – lies about qualifications
• 20% – confidential information about a prior employer

Do you want to know the legal risks that arise from using social media to vet job candidates, and the best practices to avoid these legal risks? Pick up a copy of Think Before You Click: Strategies for Managing Social Media in the Workplace.

---

Written by Jon Hyman, a partner in the Labor & Employment group of Kohrman Jackson & Krantz. For more information, contact Jon at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

If your workplace has “No bra Thursday,” it’s time for some harassment training

According to the Salt Lake Tribune, a Utah woman has sued her former employer, claiming she was sexually harassed at work. The allegations, according to her federal lawsuit, are outrageous:

• Her supervisor provided a written work schedule that included “Mini-skirt Monday,” “Tube-top Tuesday,” “Wet T-shirt Wednesday,” “No bra Thursday,” and “Bikini top Friday.”
• Her supervisor repeatedly asked “about her breast size and talked about her breasts in front of other employees.”
• He asked her to show him her breasts, and inquired about whether she shaved her pubic area.
• He slapped her on her buttocks at least twice.
• He repeatedly asked her for oral sex.
• He offered a free mammogram when she asked for time off for a doctor’s appointment.
• He told her he was installing a shower in the office so they could shower together.
• He offered a recipe for a “sex cake.”

He also allegedly told her that she’d be fired if she did not sign a document granting him permission to sexually harass her. You can toss all of the other facts out the window. If the plaintiff can produce a piece of paper in which the employer asked her to give up her rights to be free from harassment, this case is over. And, it will be over with a huge settlement to avoid the risk of a crippling award of punitive damages.

Do I need to even say that “No bra Thursdays” are a workplace no-no?

You can read the complete list of allegations in the complaint:

Anderson v. Lone Peak Controls

 

---

Written by Jon Hyman, a partner in the Labor & Employment group of Kohrman Jackson & Krantz. For more information, contact Jon at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

Workplace social media becomes a federal issue, says U.S. Chamber survey

Last week, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce published the results of a comprehensive survey of the NLRB’s examination of workplace social media policies. In completing its Survey of Social Media Issues Before the NLRB [pdf], the U.S. Chamber examined 129 NLRB cases involving social media. Do not make the mistake of thinking that these issues only affect unionized businesses. As the Chamber made very clear, “a significant percentage of cases in our survey involved non-union employers with no union activity.”

The Chamber reached the following conclusions:

The issues most commonly raised in the cases before the Board allege that an employer has overbroad policies restricting employee use of social media or that an employer unlawfully discharged or disciplined one or more employees over contents of social media posts.

With respect to employer policies restricting employee use of social media, our review of cases found many specific policies alleged to be overbroad, including those that restrict discussion of wages, corrective actions and discharge of co-workers, employment investigations, and disparagement of the company or its management. The context in which the policy was adopted and even the issue of whether a rule or policy has been actually adopted are also important in these cases.

The issues raised with respect to employer discharge or discipline of employees based on their social media posts include the threshold matter of whether the subject of social media posts is protected by the Act, as well as whether the employer unlawfully threatened, interrogated, or surveilled employees.

Despite the Chamber’s survey, this area of federal labor law—which affects every employer, unionized or not—remains very much unsettled. Today’s protected activity is tomorrow’s unprotected employee rant, and vice versa. In other words, taking action against employees for social media comments that discuss wages, benefits, or other terms or conditions of employment remains risky.

If you are interested in learning more about this important issue, the Chamber’s full report is available from its website. I also recommend the chapter written by Seth Borden for Think Before You Click: Strategies for Managing Social Media in the Workplace, in which he discusses these issues in great depth.

---

Written by Jon Hyman, a partner in the Labor & Employment group of Kohrman Jackson & Krantz. For more information, contact Jon at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.