Silence can be golden when dealing with employee medical issues

“Regarded as” disability discrimination claims are supposed to be blind to whether an employee actually suffers from a physical or mental impairment that limits a major life activity. These claims protect individuals who are able to meet a job’s requirements from an employer’s perception of an inability to perform the job’s functions because of a medical condition.

What happens, however, when an employer makes a personnel decision with no knowledge that the employee suffers from some medical condition? Can the employee still claim that the employer “regarded” him or her as disabled? According to one recent decision from an Ohio court of appeals, the answer is no.

In Field v. Medlab Ohio (11/1/12) [pdf], the employee alleged that her employer transferred to her a less favorable sales territory and ultimately terminated her because it perceived her as suffering from alcoholism (a protected disability).

The court disagreed, because Medlab had no knowledge of Field’s condition at the time it made its decisions regarding her employment:

There is nothing in the record that shows that MedLab had any knowledge that Field suffered from alcoholism or any mental disorder as defined. Moreover, the record establishes that any transfer or reassignment of territories occurred prior to MedLab learning that Field was hospitalized or that she was having a “nervous breakdown.” Finally, Field was not terminated from employment with MedLab until after Field continued to perform unsatisfactorily in her new “smaller” territory. The record reflects that at no time did MedLab refer to her hospitalization or any mental disorder as the reason for transfer or termination. The record supports that Field’s termination was based on job performance, and Field has failed to show that MedLab’s reasons for termination were merely pretexts.

It’s easy to communicate to managers and supervisors the concept that personnel decisions should be made in a vacuum free from any consideration of medial conditions. It’s difficult, however, for decision makers always to remain silent on these issues. One inopportune slip of the tongue about an employee’s medical condition (or perceived medical condition) could convert a defensible disability discrimination claim into a knock-down, drag-out fight culminating in a risky jury trial. Field v. Medlab Ohio illustrates that good outcomes do result from employment decisions made without reference to impairments, regardless of the employee’s underlying medical issues.

What skeletons are you unearthing by suing an ex-employee?

Before you bring suit against an ex-employee, you might want to consider whether their exist any skeletons in your employment closet that could come back to haunt you in the litigation. Case in point—Automotive Support Group, LLC v. Hightower [pdf], decided yesterday by the 6th Circuit.

Automotive Support Group sued two ex-employees for breaching the non-competition provisions in their employment agreements. One of the sued employees, Don Ray McGowan, counterclaimed in the lawsuit for unpaid wages and severance owed under his employment agreement.

The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the company’s claims. It also affirmed the trial court’s judgment for McGowan on his unpaid wage and severance claims. How much did the employee win? $70,501.31—$750 in unpaid wages (trebled under the applicable South Carolina wage payment statute), $2,500 in severance pay, and $65,751.31 in attorneys’ fees. Add to that $70,000 whatever the company paid its own lawyers to litigate this case.

There are two lessons for employers that leap to mind:

1. Unclean hands. Non-competition cases are often decided on equitable bases. In addition to money damages, you are likely asking a court to award you an injunction enforcing the agreement and precluding the employee from working for a competitor. To obtain an injunction, however, one must have what is called “clean hands.” Clean hands means that the party seeking an injunction has not acted inequitably or unfairly toward the party it is seeking to enjoin. Refusing to pay wages raises the possibility of a court refusing to issue an injunction because of your unclean hands. The better practice: pay the wages (you owe them anyway), and then file suit.

2. Sometimes you get what you ask for. Would McGowan have started a lawsuit over $3,250? Probably not. Once he was sued, did have anything to lose by raising those issues as a counterclaim? Again, probably not. If you are going to bring a lawsuit against an ex-employee, make certain that you are not creating an environment to incent that individual to file a claim that otherwise might stay buried and never see the light of day.

WIRTW #248 (the “vote early, vote often” edition)

In case you haven’t heard, there is a presidential election taking place on Tuesday. My guess is that a few of your employees are going to vote, and some may even want to arrive at work late, or leave early, to beat the pre- and post-9 to 5 rush at the polls.

In case you are thinking about holding your workers to their normal work hours on election day, you should know that Ohio has a statute that requires employers to provide a “reasonable amount of time to vote on election day.”

And remember, if you don’t vote, you have no right to complain. Or, is George Carlin right, and it’s the other way around? (Do I need to warn you that a Carlin clip is likely NSFW?)

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

Discrimination

• EEOC Regional Attorneys Speak On the EEOC’s Future Targets — from Employment Discrimination Report
• Can You Be Fired For Supporting A Political Candidate? — from Donna Ballman’s Screw You Guys, I’m Going Home
• Judge Nancy Gertner on the Situation of Discrimination Claims — from The Situationist
• Butt Slapping … Not Harassment? — from Phil Miles’s Lawffice Space
• What happens when the boss is dating the sexual harasser? — from Warren & Associates Blog

Social Media & Workplace Technology

• Employers, beware the siren’s song of social media searches — from Technology for HR
• Gap veers from its social media policy in Twitter blunder — from Ragan.com
• I Was Fired For Recruiting on LinkedIn — from Jessica Miller-Merrell’s Blogging4Jobs
• How to Update your Employee Handbook to Include Social Media — from i-Sight Investigation Software Blog
• Analysts’ Financial Disclosures on Facebook Lead to Fine and Termination — from Dan Schwartz’s Connecticut Employment Law Blog
• Salty about Sandy: 20 Hurricane tweets from your employees — from Eric Meyer’s The Employer Handbook Blog
• eDiscovery 101: BYOD = BYOA (ASPIRIN) — from e-Discovery Insights
• When you and employer split, who gets your friends and followers? — from Bob Sullivan at NBC News

HR & Employee Relations

• Dear Evil Skippy: Can Management Require Employees To Get Flu Shots? — from Evil Skippy at Work
• Why Documentation Is Important — from Mike Haberman’s Omega HR Solutions
• Non-smokers Should Heart Workplace Smoking Bans — from Workplace Diva
• Employment-at-Will: Walking the Fine Line, Conclusion — from The Emplawyerologist
• DIY Employment and Noncompete Agreements: Are You Getting What you Pay For? — from Jason Shinn’s Michigan Employment Law Advisor
• The horror! Nine things employers say that spook their lawyers — from Robin Shea’s Employment and Labor Insider

Wage & Hour

• Modifying Workweeks to Avoid Overtime: Employers Should Still Proceed With Caution — from Wage & Hour Defense Blog
• Do you have to be paid if your office is closed because of weather? — from Evil HR Lady, Suzanne Lucas
• Dads Need Lovin’ Too! Father Can Proceed with FMLA Retaliation Claim in “Macho Culture” Lawsuit — from Jeff Nowak’s FMLA Insights
• Transfer to Lesser Sales Territory Was Okay under FMLA, Court Says — from Smart HR Manager
• How to Negotiate Your Parental Leave — from Harvard Business Review

Labor Relations

• Unions Scold Corporations… For Trying to Keep Up With Union Politicking — from LaborPains.org
• Was the NLRB’s Decision About Employee Use of Social Media on Company Time Much To Do About Nothing? – Maybe — from netWORKed Lawyers

The “I”s have it: NLRB says don’t shred those at-will disclaimers just yet

If you are a non-union employer, you likely have an employee handbook that sets forth the policies and procedures that guide your relationship with your employees. And, if you have an employee handbook, it likely contains a disclaimer stating that employees are at-will, that employees can be fired at any time for any reason, and that nothing in the handbook alters that at-will status. Indeed, employers commonly deploy these disclaimers to avoid claims by employees that the handbook creates a binding and enforceable contract.

Consider the following three at-will disclaimers, taken from real, live employee handbooks:

1. I further agree that the at-will employment relationship cannot be amended, modified or altered in any way.

2. The relationship between you and Mimi’s Cafe us referred to as “employment at will.” This means that your employment can be terminated at any time for any reason, with or without cause, with or without notice, by you or the Company. No representative of the Company has authority to enter into any agreement contrary to the foregoing “employment at will” relationship. Nothing contained in this handbook creates an express or implied contract of employment.

3. Employment with Rocha Transportation is employment at-will. Employment at-will may be terminated with or without cause and with or without notice at any time by the employee or the Company. Nothing in this Handbook or in any document or statement shall limit the right to terminate employment at-will. No manager, supervisor, or employee of Rocha Transportation has any authority to enter into an agreement for employment for any specified period of time or to make an agreement for employment other than at-will. Only the president of the Company has the authority to make any such agreement and then only in writing.

What’s the difference between these three policies? According to the February 1, 2012, opinion of a National Labor Relations Board Administrative Law Judge, #1 is an illegal and overly broad restraint on the right of employees to engage in protected concerted activity. According to two advice memoranda published yesterday by NLRB Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon, #2 and #3 pass muster and are not illegal.

What’s the difference? According to Mr. Solomon, the distinction lies in the use of the personal pronoun, “I.”

The ALJ found that the signing of the acknowledgement form, whereby the employee—through the use of the personal pronoun “I”—specifically agreed that the at-will agreement could not be changed in any way, was “essentially a waiver” of the employee’s right “to advocate concertedly … to change his/her at-will status.” Thus, the provision in American Red Cross more clearly involved an employee's waiver of his Section 7 rights than the handbook provision here.

By comparison, the Mimi’s Cafe and Rocha Transportation disclaimers merely serve to reinforce the unambiguously-stated purpose of the employers’ at-will policies, and do not require employees individually to agree never to alter their at-will status.

These distinctions are nuanced, and the NLRB recognizes their unsettled nature. From the NLRB’s website:

Because Board law in this area remains unsettled, the Acting General Counsel is asking all Regional Offices to submit cases involving employer handbook at-will provisions to the Division of Advice for further analysis and coordination.

It is refreshing (surprising? relieving?) to see that the NLRB’s Office of General Counsel is backing off the position that any at-will disclaimer violates the NLRA, and is willing to evaluate them on a case-by-case basis.

For now, you should take a look at your handbook disclaimers and consider scrubbing them of personal pronouns. Instead, consider using the examples from either Mimi’s Cafe or Rocha Transportation as a template.

Of course, the validity of that template to avoid a binding contract under state law could vary from state to state. For this reason, you are best served running any disclaimer by your employment counsel before rolling it out to your employees.

What scares employers? How about a union organizing campaign

Oooh, Scary!

Since today is Halloween, I thought it appropriate to theme today's post around that which scares employers. Something of which I know most employers live in undying fear is a union organizing campaign.

Do you know what one of the best tools employers have at their disposal to combat this fear? A no-solicitation policy, which prevents employees from discussing union-related matters in work areas and during work time.

These policies, however, have to be both lawfully drafted and lawfully enforced. For example, two weeks ago a federal court in Cleveland entered an injunction preventing an employer from enforcing a no-solicitation policy against its employees who were engaged in a union campaign. The policy, which was non-discriminatory on its face, read as follows:

During work time, each associate is to be occupied with his or her assigned responsibilities. Engaging in the distribution of literature during work time or in working areas or soliciting support of other associates for any group, cause or product on work time is prohibited.

On its face, there is nothing wrong with that work rule. It non-discriminatorily and equally applies to union and non-union activities, and only prohibities solicitations during work time or in working areas. 

The court, however, did not limit its examination to the face of the policy. It also looked at statements made by the employer's CEO about the policy. He allegedly told a non-employee union organizing representative that "the facility would neither recognize nor bargain with the Union." Then, in an employees-only meeting, the CEO bragged about the number of nursing homes he owned, "that none of them are union, and none of them will be union," and that there would be no union solicitations on the premises.

Based on those series of comments, the court concluded that the CEO's statements were sufficient to transform a facially lawful no-solicitation policy into an overly broad illegal policy.

What's the lesson for employers from this scary tale? It is not enough merely to have a no-solicitation policy. You must also take seriously the NLRA's rules against applying policies to single-out labor unions and the employees who support them. 

If you only enforce your no-solicitation policy when faced with a union organizing campaign or to ban union-related activity, no amount of vanilla in your policy will save you from an unsavory trick when your enforcement is challenged.

Whether your managers should “friend” subordinates may be gender based.

I’ve written before about whether you should allow your employees to connect with each across the various social networks (here and here).

Last week, The Washington Post reported on the upcoming publication of a white paper by Wharton School professor Nancy Rothbard, entitled, “OMG My Boss Just Friended Me.” In this white paper, professor Rothbard argues that an employee's decision of whether to accept the friend request made by a manager or supervisor depends on the “creep” factor—the gender of the person making the request:

The boss’s gender plays a role in an employee’s willingness to accept the invitation. In one experiment, Rothbard found that participants were more likely to accept Facebook friend requests from female bosses when the women disclosed more information about themselves online. When male bosses disclosed more information about themselves, however, participants were less likely to want to virtually connect with them.

What does this mean for your business's social media policy? It means you have lots to think about when adopting the right social media policy for your organization. For example, social media use has a generational component. Baby Boomers have a much different conception of how much is appropriate to share online than Gen-Xers, who, in turn, are more guarded than Gen-Yers and Millennials. Your social media policy has to account for these generational differences.

If professor Rothbard is correct, your social media policy also has to account for gender differences. Needless to say, there is no right or wrong answer to this question. As professor Rothbard’s whitepaper illustrates, however, these issues are highly nuanced, and need to be understood and accounted for in your workplace.

Greatest hits: Do you know what to do when severe weather strikes your workplace? #Sandy

I don’t know if you've heard, but there this little storm named Sandy trekking towards the mid-Atlantic and New England. The storm is so potentially dangerous that the National Weather Service is sending out passive-aggressive warnings, just in case people are thinking of riding it out: “If you are reluctant, think about your loved ones, think about the emergency responders who will be unable to reach you when you make the panicked phone call to be rescued, think about the rescue/recovery teams who will rescue you if you are injured or recover your remains if you do not survive.”

Do you know know what to do with your workers when a weather event such as Sandy aims for your workplace? Two winters ago, I offered five suggestions for your workplace extreme weather policy, including how to handle issues such as attendance, wage and hour, and telecommuting. In light of this week’s storm of apparently historical proportions, I thought it best to revisit that post: Do you have a severe weather policy?

In the meantime, for all of my family and friends in the storm’s immediate path, stay safe, and think of a kinder, more gentler Sandy: