Damn You Auto Correct! (train your employees to proofread)

Do you have employees under the age of 35? If so, the odds are that they communicate with each other with text messages on their mobile devices. If you’ve ever texted, you know the evils of autocorrect. For the uninitiated, autocorrect is a function of today’s smartphones that automatically changes an unrecognized word to its closest match.

Sometimes, these auto-corrects have hilarious results.

Of course, one employee’s hilarious is another’s offensive, which brings us to today’s HR lesson.

When you hold your annual harassment training (you hold annual harassment training, right?) you might want to consider mentioning the evils of autocorrect. You will never succeed in having the Gen-Y’ers and Gen-Z’ers exchange their iDevices for more face-to-face conversations. You may succeed, however, in educating on the importance of proofreading messages before they are sent, which, in turn, could save you the time and expense of an internal harassment investigation, or, worse, defending a lawsuit.

This post originally appeared on The Legal Workplace Blog.

How do you spell civil rights? ENDA

Yesterday, the EEOC announced that it has filed a lawsuit against a Charlotte security-services company on behalf of a group of male employees who claim that their same-sex captain and lieutenant sexually harassment them.

This news comes on the heels of President Obama’s Inaugural Address, which The New Yorker calls, “America’s most important gay rights speech.” It was not only what the President said, but also the context in which he said it—on Martin Luther King Day, as part of a larger discussion about the civil rights movement.

Here are the President’s remarks, courtesy of ABC News:

We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths—that all of us are created equal—is the star that guides us still; just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall….

It is now our generation’s task to carry on what those pioneers began…. Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law—for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.

What does this mean for you, as an employer? It means that President Obama’s second term will likely be the point in history when sexual orientation achieves equality. It means that sometime between now and 2016, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) will become the law of the land, amending Title VII to include sexual orientation and gender identity as protected employment classes on par with race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, and age. It’s about time.

The time is coming when LGBT discrimination will no longer be acceptable. As an employer, you can get ahead of this issue. According to the Human Right Campaign, 88 percent of the Fortune 500 has non-discrimination policies that include sexual orientation, and 57 percent include gender identity. ENDA or not, we should be at 100 percent. It’s appalling that 13 years into the twenty-first century, it is still legal in the United States of America to treat people differently solely because of their inclusion in a marginalized group. Get on the bandwagon now, and send a signal to all of your employees that you are a business of inclusion, not one of bigotry and exclusion.

Requests for unpaid medical leaves should be stamped, “Handle With Care”

If I had to rank questions I get from clients in order of frequency, questions on medical leaves would be near, if not at the top of, the list. These questions usually take the form of, “Sally has been out of work on a medical leave for a few weeks (or months), and tells us she needs to be out for a few more. We need to get her work done. Can’t we just replace her and move on?” The easy answer, whether or not you are covered by, or the employee is eligible under, the FMLA, is a big fat “no.”

Regardless of the FMLA, the ADA will require that you consider, and likely grant, an unpaid leave of absence as a reasonable accommodation for a disability. How long is too long? Bimberg v. Elkton-Pigeon-Bay Port Laker Schools (6th Cir. 1/17/12) [pdf] provides some guidance.

Cynthia Bimberg took an unpaid leave of absence from her teaching position to care for her husband, diagnosed with metastasized melanoma. The employer granted her 12 weeks of leave under the FMLA, extended that leave by 6 months until the end of the school year, and again extended it to the one-year anniversary date of her leave. When she then failed to return to work, the school district terminated her employment.

In affirming the decision dismissing Bimberg’s ADA lawsuit, the 6th Circuit commented on the duration of her leave in relation to the legal merits of her discrimination claim:

The alleged factual dispute concerns Bimberg’s insistence that her year of unpaid leave ended on January 4, 2010, not on December 18, 2009. But Bimberg conceded in her deposition testimony that she would not have returned to work in January 2010 in any event, because she could not leave her terminally ill husband in Houston. Indeed, she did not return to Michigan permanently until a week after his death on February 11, 2010….

It is apparent that Cynthia Bimberg was motivated by the hope that Laker Schools would relent and, on humanitarian grounds, allow her to take what, from their point of view, constituted an indefinite leave. The school district’s failure to do so clearly did not constitute a violation of the ADA.

What should you take away from this case?

• An indefinite leave of absence—one from which neither the employee nor his or her doctor can provide a date upon which the employee can return to performing the essential functions of the position—is per se unreasonable under the ADA.

• You must consider a finite unpaid leave as an accommodation. Even finite leaves, however, can reach a point that tips the leave from reasonable to unreasonable.

• If you are granting a leave to an employee as an accommodation, your best defense to a potential ADA claim is to have an open dialogue with the employee about a return date, and prepare to be flexible (to a point). What is reasonable will depend on the nature of your business and how the employee’s position fits into your organization. You cannot make this determination without talking to the employee, gathering medical information, and making an informed decision about what works best for your company. Then, when the employee asks for “one more extension” to his or her leave of absence, no one will fault you as an unreasonable ogre if you decline.

[Photo credit: jenny louise johnson via photopin cc]

Something different for MLK Day

Today is Martin Luther King Jr. Day, celebrating not only the life of Dr. King, but, more importantly, the lessons of inclusion and respect to be learned from his life and untimely death.

In years past, I’ve provided some words of wisdom for employers from this important day:

• 2012: What Dr. King fought for … and what he didn’t
• 2011: MLK Day calls for reflection about how far race relations have come, and how far we have left to go
• 2008: Some words to ponder on MLK Day

If you’ll indulge me, I thought I’d try something a little bit different to memorialize this day: humor—both in the SFW and NSWF variety—each with something important to say about race relations in our society.

 

Archie Bunker's historical meeting with Sammy Davis Jr. (SFW)

 

Chris Rock asking, "Can white people say nigger?" (NSWF)

And, if humor’s not your thing, I’ll be back to regularly scheduled programming tomorrow with a post answering the age-old disability discrimination question, “How long is too long for a medical leave of absence?”

WIRTW #257 (the “Lawsuit of the Year?” edition)

The year is young, but we already have a strong candidate for the lawsuit of 2013. Above the Law brings us the story of a teacher who claims that her school failed to accommodate her disability—a fear of children.

Above the Law, quoting the Huffington Post, provides the details:

Waltherr-Willard, 61, claims in her lawsuit against the Mariemont school district that for 35 years, she taught Spanish and French to high school students in the system. But when she helped fight the district’s decision to cut French class in favor of an online course, officials retaliated by reassigning her to younger students at a middle school in 2009, ignoring her hypertension, specific phobia and general anxiety disorder, Waltherr-Willard says, according to Cincinnati.com…

Working with younger children at the middle school “adversely affected [Waltherr-Willard's] health, due to her disability,” the lawsuit claims, according to ABC News.

What’s next? Lance Armstrong suing the International Cycling Union for failing to accommodation his fear of winning without PEDs?

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

Discrimination

• Who are YOU to tell ME that I'm not offended by sexual harassment?!? — from Eric Meyer’s The Employer Handbook Blog
• Can You Fire the “Temptress”? — from Michael Haberman’s Omega HR Solutions
• EEOC Lawsuits: “Don’t Fire Qualified Employees Based on Fears, Myths or Stereotypes” — from Employment Discrimination Report
• Vegan Hospital Worker’s Flu Vaccination Refusal May Be Protected Religious Belief — from Healthcare Employment Counsel

Social Media & Workplace Technology

• Teacher's Facebook Firing Upheld by N.J. Appellate Court — from Molly DiBianca’s Delaware Employment Law Blog
• Employees Lie, Get Busted on Facebook – But It’s Their Boss That Gets Fired — from Augmented Legality
• Ten of the Biggest Social Marketing Fails of 2012 — from Social Media Strategies Summit Blog
• Discovery of Social Media Accounts Might Be a Toss-up if Requests are Too Broad – Two Conflicting Federal Points of View — from netWORKed Lawyers
• Notre Dame, Manti Te’o, Catfishing, Online Impersonation, and the Law — from Shear on Social Media Law

HR & Employee Relations

• Bereavement Leave in Connecticut — from Dan Schwartz’s Connecticut Employment Law Blog (with condolences)
• 25 weirdest job interview questions of 2012 — from Evil HR Lady, Suzanne Lucas
• More Vacation Policies to Hate: One Week Off Every Quarter… — from The HR Capitalist, Kris Dunn
• Ignite HR 7: Why You Should Trash Your Policy Manual — from TLNT
• News You Can Use (?) – Flatulence in the Workplace — from Evil Skippy at Work
• Flatulence Warning Withdrawn — from Phil Miles’s Lawffice Space
• Employers Subject to the FCRA Must Use New Forms for Background Checks Effective January 1, 2013 — from Minnesota Employment Law Report

Wage & Hour

• Top Issues for Employers in 2013: Social Media & Independent Contractors — from Employment Matters Blog
• DOL’s Wage and Hour Division Seeks Input on Proposed Worker Classification Survey — from Washington D.C. Employment Law Update
• Unlawful Retaliation Against Nursing Mothers? — from Wage & Hour Defense Institute
• Fifth Circuit Holds Employer’s Mandatory Travel Program Does Not Constitute Compensable Travel Time — from Russell Cawyer’s Texas Employment Law Update

Labor Relations

• NLRB Continues Pro-Union Agenda — from Health Employment and Labor
• Labor and Human Relations Professionals Face More Challenges In Light of Recent NLRB Decisions — from Labor Relations Today

Say it ain’t so: court holds an employer does not have to accommodate a pregnant employee

Last year, I railed against the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, a bill that, if passed, would require employers to make a reasonable accommodation for an employee’s pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions. I argued that the law does not need alteration because Title VII, through the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, already requires employers to accommodate pregnant women at least at the same level as they accommodate any other employee with a similarly disabling short-term medical condition.

Last week, in Young v. UPS, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals held that Title VII does not require employers to provide pregnant women a “reasonable accommodation” when, as a result of pregnancy, they are limited in their ability to perform work duties. Was my musing about the evils of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act off-base?

The facts of Young are simple. UPS required Ms. Young to be able to lift up to 70 pounds as part of her job as a package delivery driver. After she became pregnant, her doctor limited her lifting. Ms. Young requested that UPS move her to a light duty assignment. UPS’s collective bargaining agreement allowed an employee to work a light duty assignment only because of an “on-the job” injury or when “disabled” under the ADA. Because Ms. Young did not meet either of these categories UPS denied her request.

Ms. Young argued that UPS violated Title VII because the Pregnancy Discrimination Act required UPS to provide her with a “reasonable accommodation” to the same degree the employer accommodated a disabled employee. The 4th Circuit rejected her argument, finding that where an employer’s policies treat pregnant workers and non-pregnant workers alike, it has complied with Title VII:

Interpreting the PDA in the manner Young and the ACLU urge would require employers to provide, for example, accommodation or light duty work to a pregnant worker whose restrictions arise from her (off-the-job) pregnancy while denying any such accommodation to an employee unable to lift as a result of an off-the-job injury or illness. Under this interpretation, a pregnant worker who, like Young, was placed under a lifting restriction by her healthcare provider and could not work could claim that the PDA requires that she receive whatever accommodation or benefits are accorded to an individual accommodated under the ADA, because the pregnant worker and the other individual are similar in their ability or inability to work—i.e., they both cannot work. By contrast, a temporary lifting restriction placed on an employee who injured his back while picking up his infant child or on an employee whose lifting limitation arose from her off-the-job work as a volunteer firefighter would be ineligible for any accommodation. Such an interpretation does not accord with Congress's intent in enacting the PDA.

Reading this decision, you might be thinking to yourself, “Hyman, you’re wrong. Title VII does need to be amended to grant accommodation rights to pregnant women.” You, however, would be jumping the gun.

As Robin Shea astutely observed at her Employment & Labor Insider, because of 2009’s ADA Amendments Act, today’s ADA is very different than the statute in effect during Ms. Young’s 2006 pregnancy:

In 2007, the “old” Americans with Disabilities Act was in effect, which had some pretty stringent definitions of who was considered “disabled.” Not only was a 20-pound lifting restriction generally not considered “disabling,” but virtually no temporary impairment, no matter how severe, was. And pregnancy is not a “disability” in itself because the ADA says so. Accordingly, Ms. Young was out of luck.

The ADAAA, of course, greatly expanded the definition of “disability,” and the interpretations of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission indicate that a temporary condition that lasts more than six months could indeed be considered “disabling.” Ditto for a 20-pound lifting restriction.

In other words, today an employer could be required to provide a reasonable accommodation to a pregnant employee to the same extent it provides a non-pregnant disabled employee an accommodation, or face the possibility of a pregnancy discrimination lawsuit.

Handling accommodation requests by pregnant employees is a thorny area of the law. My recommendation is instead of trying to sort through these issues for yourself, you contact your employment counsel before denying an accommodation request made a pregnant employee.

---

Thanks to Justine Konicki for her help on this post.

Putting the human back in human resources, redux

As a parent of a child with some medical issues, I am very sensitive to the needs of working parents. Luckily for me, I work at business that understands these needs and has never batted an eye when my son spent 19 days in the hospital, or I want to attend an echocardiogram or some other appointment with one of his doctors. Some employees, however, are not as blessed.

Consider, for example, the case of Wegelin v. Reading Hosp. & Med. Ctr. (11/29/12). Rachel Wegelin’s daughter, Carolyn, suffers from pervasive developmental disorder, which manifests by delays in social and emotional functioning, sensory integration difficulties, and attention deficit. Carolyn attends before and after daycare at a facility to and from which she can be transported to school. When the hospital moved Wagelin’s parking space to a more distant lot, she no longer had sufficient time to pick up Carolyn from the daycare before it closed. So, she requested FMLA leave for the express purpose of finding a suitable daycare that would accommodate her new work schedule and her daughter’s medical needs. The employer refused and fired the employee when she took off the time anyway.

In defending against the inevitable FMLA lawsuit, the employer argued that the FMLA does not provide leave for a parent to locate childcare. The court, in denying the employer’s motion for summary judgment, vehemently disagreed:

Making arrangements for “changes in care” is expressly covered by the regulations. Significantly, the regulations are silent on whether the facility needs to be one that provides medical treatment. The fact that Carolyn’s daycare is not a specialized facility is not dispositive. What is relevant is that Carolyn has a chronic serious health condition resulting in an inability to perform regular daily activities and Wegelin had to make arrangements to find a suitable daycare that could care for her. Bowmansville daycare center was suitable, but no longer available. Therefore, when Reading Hospital changed Wegelin’s parking assignment, she had to make arrangements for a change in Carolyn’s care, entitling Wegelin to FMLA leave.

I’ve written before about the importance in putting the human back in human resources. I also discuss this idea in detail in my latest book, The Employer Bill of Right: A Manager’s Guide to Workplace Law. This case perfectly illustrates this principle. How hard would it have been to accommodate this employee? And, no, I’m not suggesting that the hospital should have given her back her old parking space. As someone whose first question after making partner was, “Do I get a better parking space,” I understand the turmoil that accommodation would almost certainly cause. All kidding aside, this employee did everything she could to balance her job and the unique needs of her family. All she requested was some small amount of unpaid time off to find a childcare solution to accommodation her new work schedule and her child’s serious medical needs.

Or, let me put it this way for those of who are more dollars-and-cents oriented in your thinking. Employers, what do you think costs more? Accommodating a few days of unpaid time off, or defending this lawsuit?

[Hat tip: Pennsylvania Family Law Blog, c/o Employment Discrimination Report]