When you care enough to send the very best ... to the unemployed

Hallmark—the purveyor of greeting cards for occasions such as miscarriages and cancer—has tapped into a new market with a line of cards for the unemployed. Some of the gems include:

• When things are looking kinda gloomy, do as I do. Stare into the heavens, breathe deeply, and say … Give Me a %#!@$!! Break!!!
• It’s hard to know what to say at a sensitive time like this. … How about, “I’m buying!”
• One day, you’ll look back on all this with the wisdom that distance bestows, and you’ll say … “Wow, that sucked.”
• Don’t think of it as losing your job. … Think of it as a time-out between stupid bosses.

According to the Department of Labor, our national unemployment rate is holding steady at 9.1%, representing 14 million people out of work. I’m guessing business is booming for Hallmark.

[Hat tip: Eve Tahmincioglu]

Let employees have their say when disciplining

When you counsel or discipline employees, do you give them a chance to have their say? For example, does your written discipline or performance review forms provide space for employees to explain their side of the story? If your answer is akin to, “It won’t change the outcome, so why bother?” consider Cozzuli v. Sandridge Food Corp. (Ohio Ct. App. 9/26/11) [pdf].

Sandridge Food fired Cozzuli after several years of poor reviews and performance problems. In affirming the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the employer, the appellate court relied on the fact that “Cozzuli signed his performance review and opted not to write any comments in the ‘Employee Comments’ portion of the paperwork.” The court did not believe it was credible for an employee to use performance critiques, about which he had not taken issue during his employment, as evidence of discrimination afterwards.

In depositions, I always make sure the employee confirm that the employer provided the opportunity to make written comments about discipline, and that they chose not to do so. It is powerful evidence that—as Cozzuli illustrates—can help obtaining a dismissal.

Dear Congress: Can you fix the economy before you focus on Facebook?

Two related stories caught my eye last week:

• Are Fewer Employers Checking Facebook Before Hiring? – from Molly DiBianca’s Delaware Employment Law Blog
• Senators Worried Job Seekers “Unfairly Harmed” By Social Media Background Checks – from Kashmir Hill at Forbes

Here’s the gist of these stories. According to a recent study by SHRM, fewer employers are using social media websites to vet job candidates now than three years ago:

Has your organization used social networking websites to screen job candidates at any point in the hiring process, or does it plan to do so?	2011	2008
No, and we do not plan to	67%	67%
Yes	18%	13%
Yes, previously, but do not plan to again	4%	2%
No, but plan to	11%	18%

Despite this relatively low use, certain Senators on Capitol Hill have turned their attention to employers’ Facebooking of job candidates. According to Kashmir Hill’s article, Senators Al Franken and Dick Blumenthal have launched a Congressional inquiry on the issue of whether “a job applicant could be unfairly harmed” by the use of social media in the hiring process.

Let me get this straight. Our country is nearly bankrupt, and Congress is spending its time worrying about whether John Doe job applicant can’t get a job because he recklessly posts public pictures of his debaucherous weekend binge, or comments trashing his last boss. People who are searching for a job need to take ownership of their online image, and realize that information that is publicly available is fair game for a potential employer to reach conclusions about your fitness as a future employee. Is it any wonder the Congressional approval rating has reached at an all-time low of 12%?

Another statistic from this SHRM study caught my eye. Only 15% of businesses have any kind of formal policy addressing the use of social media sites to screen job applicants. This number is disturbing. Even if your business falls in the majority that have not used, and do not plan to use, social media to vet applicants, don’t you think you should tell those doing the hiring not to Facebook people? Left to their own devices, curiosity will get the better of people, and we all know what curiosity did to the proverbial cat. You are doing your business a grave disservice if you do not have a social media policy addressing these issues, and if you don’t train your employees on what this policy means.

You can read more about the use social media in the hiring process in Think Before You Click: Strategies for Managing Social Media in the Workplace.

WIRTW #194 (the “sermon on the blog” edition)

On Monday, I dodged the question of whether Jesus was the world’s first socialist. The answer is no:

Apparently, he also was not a fan of the minimum wage (skip ahead to 1:32 for the key piece):

It’s debatable if he can hit a curveball:

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

(Don’t forget to vote for the LexisNexis Top 25 Labor and Employment Law Blogs of 2011.)

Discrimination

• Handling discrimination complaints requires caution, training – from Judy Greenwald at Business Insurance
• “Will restricting criminal background checks actually increase minority unemployment?” – from Walter Olson’s Overlawyered
• Employees Have the Advantage At Trial in Getting to Speak First and Last – from Texas Employment Law Update
• “Best B*** J**s on the #8 Line” – from Phil Miles’s Lawffice Space
• Court Not “Up In the Air”: Travel for Work Does Not Violate “Familial Association” Right – from Dan Schwartz’s Connecticut Employment Law Blog
• Staking out the EEOC and its wave of ADA suits against employers – from Robin Shea’s Employment and Labor Insider
• EEOC: WalMart Refused to Accommodate Employee With Cerebral Palsy – from Joe’s HR and Benefits Blog
• Post-Pregnancy Protections – from The L•E•Jer
• Is Telling an Employee to Forget Her Dead Daughter Proof of a Hostile Work Environment? – from TLNT
• 7th Circuit: Internal Complaint About One Boorish Comment Was Not “Protected Activity” under Title VII – from ZR Workplace Law

Social Media & Workplace Technology

• Why Your Company Needs a Mobile Technology Policy – from hr bartender
• Social Networking in Wrongful Termination Cases – from Bow Tie Law’s Blog
• How to Deal with Facebook Fits and Twitter Tirades – from i-Sight Investigation Software Blog
• Government Employers Can (and Should) Have a Social-Media Policy, Part 1, and Part 2 – from Molly DiBianca’s Delaware Employment Law Blog
• Here’s How to Use Social Media for Retention Purposes – from The HR Capitalist, Kris Dunn
• Protecting Trade Secrets in the World of Social Media—Drawing Appropriate Lines – from Social Media, Esq.

HR & Employee Relations

• Employer Obligations When it Comes to Employees and Jury Duty – from Jason Shinn’s Michigan Employment Law Advisor
• Yes, Virginia, There Are Good Curse Words – from Settle It Now Negotiation Blog
• Why It Doesn’t Matter That Your Coworker Makes More Money Than You Do – from the Evil HR Lady, writing at BNET
• Are Salaries Secret? – from Texas Employer Handbook
• How to Write an Employee Handbook … The Great American Novel, or Just a Short Story? – from Michigan Employment Law
• Average Telecommuter Works Less Than One Hour Per Day – from Workplace Diva

Wage & Hour

• FMLA FAQ: How Many Intermittent FMLA Leave Hours is an FLSA-Exempt Employee Entitled To? – from FMLA Insights
• “Independent Contractors” Are Again Front-And-Center – from Wage and Hour Laws Blog
• Federal/State Cooperation on Independent Contractor Issue – from Michael Fox’s Jottings By An Employer’s Lawyer
• Exotic Dancers Are Employees Not Independent Contractors; Entitled to Minimum Wages and Overtime – from Overtime Law Blog
• Fourth Circuit Rejects Defense Attempt to Decapitate FLSA Collective Action – from Fitzpatrick on Employment Law
• “What happened when I got audited for I-9s” – from HR Daily Report

Labor Relations

• NLRB Pushes Unions’ Destructive Agenda – from The New American
• American businesses fight back against union-rights notice rule – from Eric Meyer’s The Employer Handbook
• U.S. Chamber Sues NLRB to Block Notification Rule – from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
• Bill Would Abolish the National Labor Relations Board – from Labor Relations Counsel
• How Does Latest NLRB Ruling Apply to Background Checks? – from Nick Fishman’s employeescreenIQ Blog

EEOC lawsuit is a reminder that, yes, businesses can still discriminate

Yesterday, I wrote about how far we’ve come since 1943. Today, I bring you another reminder of how far yet we have to go.

The EEOC has announced a lawsuit it filed against Bass Pro Outdoor World, LLC, for failing to hire African-American and Hispanic applicants for positions in its nationwide retail stores. According to the EEOC:

Bass Pro has been discriminating in its hiring since at least November 2005. The EEOC’s suit alleges that qualified African-Americans and Hispanics were routinely denied retail positions such as cashier, sales associate, team leader, supervisor, manager and other positions at many Bass Pro stores nationwide.

The lawsuit alleges that managers at Bass Pro stores in the Houston area, in Louisiana, and elsewhere made overtly racially derogatory remarks acknowledging the discriminatory practices, including that hiring black candidates did not fit the corporate profile….

The lawsuit also claims that Bass Pro unlawfully destroyed or failed to keep records and documents related to employment applications and internal discrimination complaints. Bass Pro punished employees who opposed the company’s unlawful practices, in some instances firing them or forcing them to resign.

A lawsuit is merely a set of yet-to-be-proven allegations. And, as we’ve seen recently, the EEOC can overreach from time to time. Regardless of how much truth is behind these allegations, this lawsuit serves as an excellent reminder that overt racism can still exist, and employers need to be diligent about combating discrimination of all kinds.

We’ve come a long way, baby

1943 was only 68 years ago, which, in the grand scheme of things, was not far off. Yet, consider how far we’ve come, not the least of which in the area of personal liberties and civil rights.

Case in point? The Walt Disney Family Museum recently released the 1943 Disney employee handbook, entitled “The Ropes at Disney.” The handbook included this pre-Title VII gem:

My legal tip of the day—do not have a workplace policy that makes benefits available only to men (or whites, or Americans, or Christians, or, well, you get the point).

Other highlights include various nods to World War II, such as a selective service policy, and the inclusion of a violation of the United States Espionage Act among the grounds for termination. The company’s military severance pay policy strikes me as particularly progressive, but I’ll admit my ignorance on whether that type of policy was prevalent during the war.

Huge thanks to Tim Eavenson, who first posted about this on his Current Employment blog.

Update: Phil Miles, on his Lawffice Space blog, shares his thoughts as well,

Ohio Supreme Court clears up “clarity” element of wrongful discharge tort

Last summer, an Ohio appellate court concluded that retaliation against employees who raise concerns over fire safety violates a clear public policy generally favoring fire safety in the workplace. Last week, the Ohio Supreme Court took away the employee’s victory, and provides ammunition for employers to seek dismissal of vague and nebulous public policy claims.

Before we get to the specifics of Dohme v. Eurand Am., Inc. (9/15/11) [pdf], some background. In Ohio, the termination of an at-will employee usually does not give rise to an action for damages. If, however, a discharge that jeopardizes a clear public policy articulated in the Ohio or United States Constitutions, federal or state statutes, administrative rules and regulations, or common law may create a cause of action for wrongful discharge in violation of that public policy.

In Dohme, the plaintiff merely claimed that his termination “jeopardized workplace safety.” The appellate court saved his claim by articulating a public policy favoring workplace fire safety, supported by citations to various state and federal statutes and regulations. The Supreme Court correctly concluded that is not a court’s job to engage in a search and rescue for a public policy to support a wrongful termination claim:

As the plaintiff, Dohme has the obligation to specify the sources of law that support the public policy he relies upon in his claim. Because Dohme did not back up his assertion of a public policy of workplace safety in his summary judgment documents with specific sources of law, he has not articulated the clarity element with specificity. Unless the plaintiff asserts a public policy and identifies federal or state constitutional provisions, statutes, regulations, or common law that support the policy, a court … may not fill in the blanks on its own….

It’s a big deal whenever the Ohio Supreme Court issues an employment law decision. It only happens once or twice a year. This case, however, really is not that big of a deal. This case is more about the proper role of courts in litigation and less about the wrongful discharge tort. It sends a message to plaintiffs that it is not the role of courts to make sense of their claims for them.