What is an employee’s word for the need for FMLA leave worth? Not much

How often does this scenario play out in your organization? An employee tells a supervisor that he’s sick and needs to take FMLA leave. The supervisor refers the issue to HR or management. Paralyzed out of fear that they will screw up an FMLA process that they really doesn’t understand, they approve the FMLA leave with no other questions asked.

Because of a fundamental misunderstanding of when employees qualify for FMLA leave, lots of employers over-compensate when dealing with employee medical issues and the FMLA. They over-compensate by mistakenly assuming that any employee with any illness or medical condition is FMLA-eligible. In reality, only an employee with a “serious medical condition” qualifies for FMLA-leave.

In reality, you do not have to take an employee at his or her word that he or she needs FMLA leave. Case in point? Huberty v.Time Warner Entertainment Co. (N.D. Ohio 2/8/12).

Huberty claimed that Time Warner interfered with his rights under the FMLA when it fired him after he asked his supervisor for time off to deal with “stress in his life.” Before Huberty found a doctor to certify his medical condition, he began taking time off. Time Warner terminated Huberty for violating its no-call/no-show policy for three consecutive days.

The court dismissed Huberty’s FMLA claim, concluding that neither his own subjective assessment of his health did not satisfy his burden to establish a “serious health condition.”

There is an abundance of case law that makes it clear that Huberty’s own subjective assessment of his health cannot be used to demonstrate a serious health condition. A colleague on this Court has noted as follows with respect to this burden:

It does not mean that, in the employee’s own judgment, he or she should not work, or even that it was uncomfortable or inconvenient for the employee to have to work. Rather, it means that a “health care provider” has determined that, in his or her professional medical judgment, the employee cannot work (or could not have worked) because of the illness. If it were otherwise, a note from a spouse, parent, or even one’s own claim that one cannot work because of illness would suffice. Given the legislative history surrounding its enactment, the FMLA cannot be understood to establish such liberal standards for its application.

What does this mean for your management of your employees’ FMLA leave? Don’t just take your employees at their word that they need FMLA leave. You have an absolute right to request and receive a timely medical certification before certifying a leave of absence as FMLA-qualifying. Do not short-circuit your rights by rubber-stamping every employee medical request as “FMLA.”

Nothing can go wrong when employees date each other, right?

In honor of Valentine’s Day, I bring you a story of love, romance … and sexual harassment (what else?).

Sanders v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. starts out like any great love story. Girl meets boy on the assembly line of the local automobile plant. They date for two years. Then, she tells him she doesn’t want to continue their relationship. How does boy respond? Like any alleged harasser, he says, “I can do something to your job.” And, she takes him at his word (he’s a union steward after all). When she has job-related issues returning from a medical leave, she sues the company for, among other things, sexual harassment. Ultimately, this story ended well for the employer; it won the case at trial. But, it cost the company seven years of litigation, more than a dozen depositions, countless motion practice, a costly trial, and a trip to the court of appeals.

I’m not here to tell you that you should forbid your employees from dating. Far from it. The heart is going to go where the heart wants to go. In other words, if your employees want to date, they will — with or without a policy forbidding their relationships and dalliances. Instead, look at workplace romances as an opportunity to educate your employees about the ins and outs of your harassment policy. Train your employees about what is and is not appropriate workplace conduct between the sexes. Focusing on conduct (and misconduct) instead of the relationships will provide your employees the necessary tools to avoid the types of problems that arose in Sanders, which, in turn, will help your organization avoid the litigation expenses those problems often cause.

Happy Valentine’s Day

[Link]

Let’s try not to over-react to the breastfeeding discrimination case

Last month, I wrote that employers denying lactation rights to employees was not problem that needed remedial legislation. Wouldn’t you know it, news broke last week of a federal judge in Houston who dismissed a sex discrimination case—EEOC v. Houston Funding [pdf]—in which the employee alleged that she was fired because she asked to pump breast milk at work.

Here’s the court’s entire analysis dismissing the lawsuit:

The commission says that the company fired her because she wanted to pump breast milk. Discrimination because of pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition is illegal….

Even if the company’s claim that she was fired for abandonment is meant to hide the real reason — she wanted to pump breast milk — lactation is not pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition.

She gave birth on December 11, 2008. After that day, she was no longer pregnant, and her pregnancy-related conditions had ended. Firing someone because of lactation or breast-pumping is not sex discrimination.

Before I put on my employer-advocate hat, let me go on record and say that the last I checked, women are the only gender that can naturally produce milk, and therefore denying a woman the right to lactate is sex discrimination.

This decision has people angry. As of this morning, the case’s online docket reflects that 12 private non-parties have emailed the judge calling her ruling “shameful” and “absurd” (among other similar pejoratives).

Before people over-react and scream from the rooftops for remedial legislation to clarify that lactation discrimination equates to sex discrimination, one case does not make a rule. In fact, it is much more likely that one case is merely an aberration. I stand by my conviction that 1) Title VII’s prohibitions against sex and pregnancy discrimination adequately cover the rights of working moms to lactate; and 2) we do not need any additional legislation (on top of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) to further to protect this right (EEOC v. Houston Funding notwithstanding).

For additional analysis of this case, I suggest checking out the thoughts of some of my fellow bloggers from last week:

• Does Federal Law Prohibit Lactation Retaliation? — from the Delaware Employment Law Blog
• Lactation and Nursing Is a Civil Rights Issue — from Outten & Golden Employment Law Blog
• Lactation Is Not Caused By Pregnancy or Childbirth, Says Judge — from Screw You Guys, I'm Going Home
• Lactation not Related to Pregnancy, Says Federal Judge — from San Antonio Employment Law Blog
• Expressing Milk Under Title VII and the PPACA — from LaborRelated
• Lactation is Not a Condition Related to Pregnancy Says S.D. Tex. — from Workplace Prof Blog

WIRTW #212 (the “something for nothing” edition)

One of the benefits of hitting the road to speak as much as I do is all of the great people I meet. One of those people is Jessica Miller-Merrell, who authors the fabulous HR blog, Blogging4Jobs. On February 21 I, along with Mike VanDervort (author of The Human Race Horses) will guest on a free webinar Jessica is presenting, Understanding Unions, NLRB, & Corporate Social Media:

This session provides a broad overview for senior business leaders (and not just HR) regarding the recent legislation surrounding social media, the NLRB, and strategies for how company leaders can maneuver and monitor employee activity on social networking sites. Learn best practices how to manage and discipline your employees, create policies, and awareness throughout your organization.  

I’ll be addressing the NLRB’s latest attempts to regulate employer restrictions on employees’ use of social media, in and out of the workplace. The webinar will run from 12:00 to 1:30 pm on February 21, and registration is free.

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

Discrimination

• Refusal to Rescind Resignation is Not an Adverse Employment Action — from Phil Miles’s Lawffice Space
• Attractiveness A (Dis)Advantage In The Workplace? — from The Proactive Employer Blog
• 10th Circuit Holds Migraines Not a Disability Under the ADA — from Randy Enochs’s Wisconsin Employment & Labor Law Blog
• Disparate Impact – Why Mobile Matters — from Heather Bussing at HR Examiner
• The changing definition of a covered disability — from Work Matters
• An Employer’s Playbook for Responding to an Allegation of Sexual Harassment — from Jason Shinn’s Michigan Employment Law Advisor
• Retaliation Redux: Two cases that should scare employers a lot — from Robin Shea’s Employment and Labor Insider
• The first question the EEOC asks — from Warren & Associates Blog

Social Media & Workplace Technology

• Facebook addiction explained: study shows psychophysiological arousal from social media — from Boy Genius Report
• GSMI’s Social Media White Paper Now Available — from Social Axcess
• The so-called “privacy” of employee emails — from Eric Meyer’s The Employer Handbook Blog
• BYOD in the Modern Workplace — from i-Sight Investigation Software Blog
• Privacy Advice Potpourri: Don’t Lose Your iPhone, Don’t Consider Anything On Your Work Computer Private, and Do Wonder About Mysterious ‘Dings’ On Your Conference Call — from Kashmir Hill’s The Not-So Private Parts
• Pinterest accused of replacing external affiliate links with its own — from The Verge

HR & Employee Relations

• Workplace Investigation Pitfall: Failure to Take the Complaint Seriously — from Strategic HR Lawyer
• Home Alone, Telecommuting, and Man’s Best Friend — from Fitzpatrick on Employment Law
• Should I rat out my boss? — from Evil HR Lady, Suzanne Lucas
• Keeping Everyone Safe in the Workplace — from Robin Schooling’s HR Schoolhouse
• Do You Love Love Contracts? — from Mark Toth’s Manpower Employment Blawg
• Nepotism Is Not Illegal — from Donna Ballman’s Screw You Guys, I’m Going Home

Wage & Hour

• (FMLA) Form Over Function — from Delaware Employment Law Blog
• 4th Circuit: FLSA Prohibits Retaliation For Internal Complaints — from Wage & Hour Insights
• When Is An “Intern” An Employee Under The FLSA? — from Wage & Hour - Development & Highlights
• Overtime for Nannies — from Jim Brennan at Compensation Cafe
• The Danger of Unpaid Interns — from Overtime Advisor

Labor Relations

• The Fallout from the Latest NLRB Salvo on Social Media — from Dan Schwartz’s Connecticut Employment Law Blog
• U.S. Chamber of Commerce and National Labor Relations Board File Competing Summary Judgment Motions in “Quickie” Election Rule Case — from Seth Borden’s Labor Relations Today
• New “Right-to-Work” Law- A Test for Union Clout? — from Mike Haberman’s Omega HR Solutions

What isn’t a “complaint” under the FLSA? An Ohio federal court weights in

In Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics, the United States Supreme Court concluded that the anti-retaliation provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act covers oral complaints — but only if they are “sufficiently clear and detailed for a reasonable employer to understand it, in light of both content and context, as an assertion of rights protected by the statute and a call for their protection.” The issue of what qualifies as a “clear and detailed … assertion of rights” was front and center in Riffle v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (N.D. Ohio 1/24/12).

In Riffle, the only complaints the plaintiff made to her Wal-Mart supervisors were complaints about receiving telephone calls she received at home from co-workers who needed assistance in the cash office. The court concluded that the complaints did not satisfy the threshold established in Kasten.

Plaintiff’s complaints … are insufficient because they are not framed in terms of an FLSA violation as required by Kasten. The complaints plaintiff testified she made to her supervisors could not have reasonably been perceived by defendants as a complaint that plaintiff was not being paid in accordance with the requirements of the FLSA or that defendants otherwise violated the FLSA.

Following Riffle, employers have some guidance as to the types of communications that do not qualify for protection under the FLSA’s anti-retaliation provision. Figuring out what does qualify will prove trickier, and will take years of cases and judicial opinions to sort out.

In the meantime, try not to do the following to your employees who engage in some protected activity:

[Link to YouTube video for those reading in an email]

Another consideration in the high cost of wage and hour litigation: e-discovery

I’ve written before about the high risks companies face from wage and hour class/collective lawsuits (here’s one example). Here’s another factor to consider: the exorbitant costs imposed by e-discovery and employers’ obligations to preserve electronic records.

Workplace Prof Blog brings us the story of Pippins v. KPMG, a wage and hour collective action alleging that the accounting firm deprived its Audit Associates of overtime wages. Before the class was even certified, the court imposed upon KPGM the obligation to preserve the potential class members’ more-than 2,500 laptop hard drives. Following certification, KPMG argued that instead of preserving all of the hard drives—at an astounding cost of more than $1.5 million—it should only be required to keep a representative sample comprised of the named plaintiffs.

The court disagreed:

Based on Plaintiff’s recollections regarding their former hard drives, I agree with [Magistrate] Judge Cott that the hard drives are likely to contain relevant information. The information on the hard drives will likely demonstrate when the Audit Associates were working (hours) and what they did while at work (duties). This information is obviously relevant in a case asserting violations of the FLSA … since Plaintiffs need to establish what type of work they performed in order to prevail on the merits, and how many hours a week they worked in order to collect damages….

I gather that KPMG takes the position that the only Audit Associates who are presently “parties” are the named plaintiffs, and so only the named plaintiffs’ hard drives really need to be preserved. But that is nonsense…. [T]he duty to preserve all relevant information for “key players” is triggered when a party “reasonably anticipates litigation.” At the present moment, KPMG should “reasonably anticipate” that every Audit Associate who will be receiving opt-in notice is a potential plaintiff in this action.

What are the lessons for employers?

1. When considering the goofy costs (and risks) of wage and hour non-compliance, you not only have to factor in unpaid wages, liquidated damages, your legal fees, and the employees’ legal fees, but also the costs of preserving all of the electronic information the plaintiffs will seek in discovery. Like most employment cases, there exists a palpable disparity in the ownership of information. Employers possess most of the relevant information, and therefore carry most of the costs in the retention and production of documents. 
2. To guard against these goofy costs, audit your wage and hour practices. ’Tis better to spend a few thousand dollars up front to gain knowledge of which of the myriad wage and hour laws your company might be violating, than to spend a few hundred thousand (or a few million!) dollars later to defend against, or pay out on, a wage and hour class action. (Not that employers can't win these cases).

The digital divide and disparate impact

According to statistics recently published by Mashable, the digital divide—those who are connected to the Internet versus those who are not—is partially racial. 72% of white homes are connected to the Internet, as compared to only 57% of Hispanic homes and 55% of African American homes.

These numbers mean that if you are using access to technology as a qualifying factor for employment, your hiring practices might have a disparate impact on Hispanics and African Americans. For example, do you only accept job application over the Internet? Or, do you only recruit via Monster.com or LinkedIn? Or do you only consider candidates whom you can vet via Facebook or some other digital footprint? If so, you might want to consider casting a wider net, unless remote technology access is truly job related and consistent with business necessity.