How do you fight invisible discrimination?

With what seemed like most of Cleveland's western ‘burbs, I spent part of my Sunday afternoon shopping at Costco. My trip not only included the expected bulk items, but also some unexpected bigotry.

Near the samples of mozzarella and pita grilled cheese (delicious), I crossed paths with a family—a father and his two sons—of what appeared to be Arabic descent . The older of the two boys, around age 10, turned to his dad and said:

I got back at that lady who cut me off;
she looked Jewish.

Needless to say, I was stunned, and decided that I couldn’t let the comment go answered. I quietly told the family that I couldn’t stop them from thinking what they want, but they should be careful when and where they express their feelings. They walked away.

In a decade or two, that boy will join the workforce. He could be one of your employees, or, worse, one your managers or supervisors. How do you root out this kind of hatred before it outs itself out in a harassment complaint or discrimination lawsuit? There is no easy answer to this difficult question. Perhaps all we can do is recognize that everyone carries baggage. Some is harmless, and some is hateful. If we foster a workplace of openness and inclusion, when that hatred exposes itself employees will understand that it belongs to a rogue and not your company ,and hopefully, choose not to hold you accountable (provided you respond quickly and decisively when brought to your attention).

WIRTW #259 (the “luddite” edition)

Mozy recently published a list of the 50 Things We Don’t Do Anymore Because of Technological Advancements. It’s weird to think that my kids will never use an encyclopedia to write a last-minute term paper, scour the ground for payphone change because they forget to leave the house with a trusty dime, or dial *69 to figure out which of their friends is pranking us.

Scanning the list, though, I’m proud to say that I’m still a luddite in some key areas:

• Print photographs
• Go into the bank to conduct business
• Remember phone numbers
• Watch DVDs
• Fax documents
• Have a CD collection
• Watch TV shows at the time they are shown
• Try on shoes at the mall
• Buy flowers at a florist
• Buy newspapers

By my count, I’m 20 percent luddite. How do you rank?

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

Discrimination

• Jujitsu in EEOC v. Kaplan — from LaborRelated (and congrats on your new edition)
• The EEOC’s top three of 2012: retaliation, discrimination, and harassment — from Warren & Associates Blog
• 5 Things You Need To Know About Retaliation — from Employment Discrimination Report
• When single employees are “discriminated” against — from Employment Law Bits
• The EEOC on Transgender Employees and Sex Discrimination — from Workplace Prof Blog
• Gender Inequality Claims Make Headlines in Case and in New Study — from Dan Schwartz’s Connecticut Employment Law Blog
• 3d Cir. Issues a Bitchin' Constructive Discharge Decision — from Molly DiBianca’s Delaware Employment Law Blog

Social Media & Workplace Technology

• Do Your Employees BYOD? Here’s How to Reduce the Hassles… — from Hiring & Firing
• Who owns your Twitter followers? — from Evil HR Lady, Suzanne Lucas
• Employee posts “I wish I could get fired” on Facebook. Guess what happened? — from Eric Meyer’s The Employer Handbook Blog
• Should you monitor workers’ electronic communications? — from Technology for HR
• FaceWash Makes Sure Your Facebook Profile Is Clean and Interview-Ready — from Lifehacker

HR & Employee Relations

• Smoking Discrimination — from Texas Employer Handbook
• Employee Takes Too Many Bathroom Breaks — from hr bartender
• Psst… This Is What Your Co-Worker Is Paid — from Rachel Emma Silverman at the Wall Street Journal

Wage & Hour

• Employer’s Bane: Unpredictable FMLA leave. Is there a solution? — from Robin Shea’s Employment and Labor Insider
• Why Must Employers Train Their Managers About the FMLA? Here are 1.2 Million Reasons Why — from Jeff Nowak’s FMLA Insights
• What You Need To Know About RIght-To-Know — from Stephanie Thomas at Compensation Café
• Tell Us How You Misclassify Employees — from Mike Haberman’s Omega HR Solutions
• Former Athletics Department Intern Throws Flag On Hamilton College's Pay Practices — from The Wage and Hour Litigation Blog
• The Dirty Dozen Widely-Believed Myths of Wage/Hour — from HR Daily Advisor
• What Do You Mean I Have To Pay My Nanny Overtime?! — from Wage & Hour Insights

Labor Relations

• The Debate Continues: Recent Eighth Circuit Decision Adds to the Growing Tension between Federal Courts and the NLRB Regarding the Enforceability of Class Action Waivers in Arbitration Agreements — from Employment Class Action Blog
• Remember When “Recess” Meant Fun and Games? The Impact of Canning v. NLRB, and What Employers Need to Know While We Wait and See if the Decision Will Remain Intact — from Employer Law Report
• The NLRB is out of business … maybe — from Blogging4Jobs
• Circuit Court Invalidates President Obama's Purported Recess Appointments to National Labor Relations Board, Finds Lack of Quorum — from Seth Borden’s Labor Relations Today
• Court ruling may nullify rules against firing workers for complaining about their jobs on Facebook — from Boy Genius Report
• Obama Risked Executive Power To Give Labor Its Payback — from LaborPains
• Nonunion employers in the crosshairs — from Idaho Business Review

photo credit: Tony Fischer Photography via photopin cc

What can go wrong when employees date?

Since Valentine’s Day will be fast upon us, I thought I’d take a new look at a popular issue this time of year—the office romance.

Gerald v. University of Puerto Rico (1st Cir. 1/28/13) [pdf] is textbook example of the parade of horribles that can happen when an office romance sours.

During at at out-of-town conference, Dr. Melissa Gerald had a week-long sexual relationship with her supervisor, Dr. Edmundo Kraiselburd. According to Gerald, the affair embarrassed her and she rebuffed Kraiselburd’s pursuits after their return home. Two years passed without incident, after which Gerald alleges three separate incidents of harassment occurred, all within two months of each other: (1) Kraiselburd propositioned Gerald for sex, (2) Kraiselburd grabbed her breast, and (3) Kraiselburd asked her, “What will it take for you to f**k me?”.

The hospital defended against Gerald’s sexual harassment claim by arguing that Gerald often engaged in sexual and off-color banter with Kraiselburd, and therefore invited whatever she received in kind. In reversing the district court’s dismissal of Gerald’s lawsuit, the court of appeals shut down any argument that Gerald had “asked for” the harassment:

We fail to see how an employee telling risqué jokes means that she is amenable to being groped at work. Instead the evidence here was enough, at the very least, to raise a factual question as to whether Kraiselburd’s conduct was unwelcome….

Pointing to the fact that Gerald and Kraiselburd often engaged in off-color banter, the University says the supposed harassment was not severe. We disagree and think a jury could have seen things otherwise. Gerald says Kraiselburd grabbed her breasts, sexually propositioned her, and crassly asked in front of others why she would not have sex with him. The University is not denying these occurrences for summary judgment purposes. These offensive incidents, which involved sexual propositioning and uninvited touching, can reasonably be viewed as severe; and, in the case of the breast grabbing incident, physically threatening (not to mention criminal). Like we have said, it is clear that "behavior like fondling, come-ons, and lewd remarks is often the stuff of hostile work environment claims….”

While this case shows what can go wrong when employees become sexually involved, it is not a reason to ban office romances or trysts. I believe that employees’ business is their business. We expect employees to commit long hours to their jobs, and it is often the case that their only opportunity to socialize is at work. The heart goes where it wants to go, and no workplace rule or policy will stop employees from getting involved with each other.

Instead of banning office romances, companies should reinforce appropriate workplace behavior during harassment avoidance and response training.

• Tell employees that office romances are not prohibited, but that the company expects professional behavior regardless of the personal relationship (past or present) between employees.
• Offer examples, such as the Gerald case, of how to not to behave following a break-up.
• Advise employees that unprofessional behavior following an office relationship is not tolerated, and will lead to discipline, up to and including termination.

Following these simple steps will put you in a position to present the best defense possible to a harassment lawsuit stemming from an office dalliance. It also means that you won’t have to fall back on the “she asked for it” defense, which, as Gerald illustrates, rarely works.

Are employers screwing up the FLSA’s lactation mandate? Probably not.

At Business Insurance, Judy Greenwald quotes an attorney who believes that employers are doing an inadequate job of accommodating employees’ lactation requests. The article discusses a recent Freedom of Information Act request, in which the Department of Labor disclosed that it has conducted 54 investigations into claims of inadequate lactation accommodations between the date the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act took effect, March 23, 2010, and June 11, 2012. Those investigations, in turn, uncovered 36 violations of the law. Based on that data, the article concludes that “the Labor Department is paying attention to and is prepared to enforce” the FLSA’s lactation mandate, and that “employers either are not aware of their obligations, or do not fully understand them.”

I wholeheartedly disagree. A little more than a year ago, I ran a post on this same issue. At that time, I pointed out that the DOL had only cited 23 companies, or 0.023 percent of all companies with 100 or more employees. Now, with an additional six months of data, the number of citations has jumped by 13, from 23 to 36.

By comparison, according to the EEOC’s recently updated charge filing statistics, individuals filed 99,412 separate discrimination charges during fiscal year 2012. In other words, discrimination complaints with the EEOC in the last year outpaced lactation complaints with the DOL in the last two and a quarter years by a factor of 1,841.

What is the reasonable explanation for this small number of lactation-rights complaints? Companies are not denying new moms the right to lactate in the workplace. Anecdotally, I have never come across the issue with a client in my 15+ years of practice, and I know of no colleague who has either. You would think that if this problem exists, someone would have dealt with it.

Nevertheless, if you are on the fence about your obligations under this provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, here is what you should know:

• If you have 50 or more employees, you are required to provide a reasonable break time for an employee to pump breast milk. If you have fewer than 50 employees, you can deny the break time, but only if would pose an undue hardship, which the DOL considers to be a significant difficulty or expense.

• Employers are not required to compensate nursing mothers for breaks taken to expressing milk. The FLSA’s normal rules that govern unpaid versus paid breaks still apply. Thus, a break should be paid if it lasts 20 minutes or less and falls during an employer’s customary break time.

• In addition to adequate break time, an employer must also provide an appropriate lactation space. The space doesn’t have to be permanent. Any space temporarily created or converted into a space for expressing milk or made available when needed by a nursing mother is sufficient, if the space is shielded from view, free from intrusion from coworkers and the public, and suitable for lactation. The only room that is not appropriate is a bathroom.

If you know of a company that has denied an employee the right to lactate, please either leave a comment below, or tweet me. I would like to know if there is any anecdotal support for the idea that companies are dropping the ball on this issue.

But he looked black… Court rebukes EEOC’s use of “race rating” in systemic lawsuit

According to the EEOC’s draft strategic enforcement plan for 2012 – 2016, the agency’s number one enforcement priority is ending systemic discrimination in recruiting and hiring. In EEOC v. Kaplan Higher Learning Edu. Corp. (N.D. Ohio 1/28/13) [pdf], the EEOC challenged Kaplan’s use of credit reports in its hiring process as having a systemic disparate impact based on race. Yesterday, the court dismissed the lawsuit in its entirety, excluding the EEOC’s expert witness and concluding that without that expert, the agency could not prove its case.

To determine the race of a particular applicant considered by Kaplan, the EEOC’s expert witness used “race raters.” It subpoenaed the applicants’ DMV records, and used a panel of five people to determine if the photograph looked  “African-American,” “Asian,” “Hispanic,” “White,” or “Other.” The EEOC’s expert required that four out of the five race raters reach consensus to consider that applicant’s race.

Kaplan challenged that the judgment of these “race raters” was nothing more than guesswork, resulting in inherently unreliable data. In agreeing with Kaplan and dismissing the lawsuit, the court cited at least four different reasons for excluding the EEOC’s expert. It was the last reason, though, that caught my eye:

Plaintiff also presents no evidence that determining race by visual means is generally accepted in the scientific community. In fact, the EEOC itself discourages employers from visually identifying an individual by race and indicates that visual identification is appropriate “only if an employee refuses to self-identify.” … According to the EEOC, it implemented these guidelines not because of the accuracy of visual identification, but to facilitate and respect “individual dignity.” Regardless of the reason supporting the pronouncement, it is clear that the EEOC itself frowns on the very practice it seeks to rely on in this case and offers no evidence that visual means is a method accepted by the scientific community as a means of determining race.

In other words, the agency charged with ending racial stereotypes in the workplace based its entire case on stereotypical way in which different races “look.”

If there’s one thing I hate it’s intellectual dishonesty. Whether it’s the EEOC prosecuting a race discrimination case by using “race spotting,” or a Catholic hospital defending a wrongful death suit by arguing that a fetus is not a person because life begins a birth, not conception, intellectual dishonesty is nothing more than the sum of hypocrisy and laziness. I am grateful that we have federal judges in my home district who are willing to call the EEOC on the carpet for this tactic, and I am hopeful that the 6th Circuit will see things the same way when ruling on the inevitable appeal.

Employees, if you don’t want us to get your social media info in discovery, don’t post!

In EEOC v. The Original Honeybaked Ham Co.—a hostile environment sexual harassment brought by the EEOC on behalf of 20 female employees—the federal court compelled the plaintiffs to produce their social media profiles. Donna Ballman, writing at Screw You Guys, I’m Going Home, argues that the court botched this ruling because an order compelling the production of social media information in a sex harassment suit can only lead to an employer arguing that that the plaintiffs “asked for it.” Donna argues:

The big smoking gun the employer pointed to was a shirt one of the women wore in a photo with the word, “Cu**” on it. Apparently, if you wear such a shirt on your own time, no matter your intent, you have extended an open invitation to all your supervisors and male coworkers to sexually harass you. Sort of like the argument that African-American employees who use the n-word can’t be offended when someone else uses it toward them.

Donna’s argument, however, misses the mark. The court did not compel the production of the employees’ social media accounts to bolster a “they asked for it” defense. The court ordered the production because one of the employees “posted on her Facebook account statements that discuss her financial expectations in this lawsuit,” and wrote about “her post-termination employment and income opportunities and financial condition.” She also wrote about other potential causes for any emotional harm (a lost pet), and her positive outlook on life following her termination. Other of the plaintiffs joined in at least some of these posts.

There are two key issues in any case: liability and damages. The court primarily ordered the production of the social media information to permit the employer to build a defense as to the latter. An employee’s financial motivations and emotional well-being are relevant to showing that she has not been harmed to the extent she is claiming, if at all.

Moreover, the court did not compel the free and unfiltered production the employees’ social media accounts. It required an in camera inspection by the court, along with of a forensic special master and detailed questionnaires for each plaintiff to complete concerning their online activities. This case is not an example of a court irresponsibly ordering a prying into plaintiffs’ private lives under the guise of discovery. This court went above and beyond to prevent any unnecessary invasions of privacy while ensuring the employers’ right to gather relevant information.

The bottom line is that social media profiles are a potential treasure trove of information in litigation.  Employees, if you do not want your social media posts to be reviewed in a lawsuit you file, stop posting. Stop writing about your post-termination state of mind. Stop communicating with former co-workers. Stop writing about your lawsuit. And, stop posting photos of yourself wearing a “cu**” t-shirt. If you post, rest assured it will likely be fair game to use against you in the lawsuit you chose to file. As the Honeybaked Ham court reminds us: “If all of this information was contained on pages filed in the “Everything About Me” folder, it would need to be produced. Should the outcome be different because it is on one’s Facebook account?”

WIRTW #258 (the “imitation is the sincerest form of flattery” edition)

This week, the Connecticut General Assembly (hat tip: Dan Schwartz) introduced Proposed House Bill 5236, which would create an “Employer’s Bill of Rights.” Hey, that sounds kind of familiar. Didn’t someone wrote a whole book called The Employer Bill of Rights?

Representative Kupchick, I’m waiting for my licensing fee. I’m sure the check’s in the mail.

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

Discrimination

• Rethinking Discrimination — from Heather Bussing at HR Examiner
• Fact or Fiction: Your employee's nasty facial scar may be a disability — from Eric Meyer’s The Employer Handbook Blog
• Limits on reemployment rights under USERRA — from EmployerLINC
• Can you terminate an employee covered by USERRA? — from Warren & Associates Blog

Social Media & Workplace Technology

• You Can (Sort Of) Talk Smack About Your Boss Online Now — from Workplace Diva
• Facebook trashing your boss may be OK — from CareerDiva
• The Great Employer/Employee Social Media Passwords Debate — from Jessica Miller-Merrell’s Blogging4Jobs
• How “bring your own cloud” could kill BYOD — from Consumerization Blog

HR & Employee Relations

• Video of Ohio Man Lifting Weights Ends His Workers’ Comp Benefits — from EmployerBrief
• You’re Damned if You Don’t Have the Right Inclement Weather Policy — from damnedif
• Catfishing "Employers" — from Workplace Prof Blog
• Manti Te’o, Notre Dame and the Art of the Crappy HR Investigation — from The HR Capitalist, Kris Dunn
• The Batmobile Employee Handbook Provision — from Employment & the Law
• Four Words the Fair Credit Reporting Act has Class Action Plaintiffs and Their Lawyers Repeating: “Show Me The Money!” — from Employment Class Action Blog

Wage & Hour

• Sex, lawyers, and “independent contractor versus employee” – believe it or not! — from Robin Shea’s Employment and Labor Insider
• DOL Issues Guidance on FMLA for Adult Children — from Phil Miles’s Lawffice Space
• Clarification of FMLA Leave for Children with a Disability — from Jason Shinn’s Michigan Employment Law Advisor
• DOL’s Misclassification Initiative Continues — from Wage & Hour Insights
• “Right to Know” Back On The Table? — from Wage and Hour Laws Blog
• The FLSA's Emergency Exception — from Stephanie Thomas at Compensation Café
• Under Federal Law, Are You Required to Pay Your Employees for Their Breaks or Not? — from Overtime Advisor

Labor Relations

• Another Dizzying Ride on the NLRB Roller Coaster — from Molly DiBianca’s Delaware Employment Law Blog
• The NLRB Hits Just Keep Coming. This Time, Possible Front-Pay — from Trade Secret / Noncompete Blog
• The NLRB Hinders Confidentiality in Nonunion Companies — from Michael Haberman’s Omega HR Solutions
• Union Membership Plummets, According to Today’s Bureau of Labor Statistics Report — from LaborPains