The DOL’s “Fair Labor Data Challenge” presents an interesting strategy, but is it fair?

The Department of Labor is asking for help to create an iPhone/Android app to aid employees in tracking corporate wage-and-hour compliance.

The DOL Fair Labor Data Challenge will “help consumers locate … establishments and view their federal enforcement and violations history as well as read consumer reviews to help them decide where to spend their hard-earned wages.”

According to the DOL, the “app … would work with existing social media and would allow consumers to see if an establishment that they want to frequent has been in compliance with federal labor laws.” Its hope is that by “providing consumers with information at their fingertips about which businesses have treated their workers fairly and lawfully, the app will empower them to make informed choices about where to shop, eat, or even vacation.” Thankfully, in addition to flagging underpaying scofflaws, it “also will recognize those employers who are doing the right thing and playing by the rules.”

In other words, the DOL wants to shame employers into wage-and-hour compliance. The DOL itself says, “Our investigators can’t be in every workplace, and we’ll never reach every establishment through our traditional forms of outreach.” So, to compensate for its enforcement black-hole, the DOL is turning to viral outreach to create a way for people to soft-boycott those businesses that employees say do not comply with the wage-and-hour laws.

I will be very curious to see what this final product looks like if it ever hits the App Store. For this app to live up to its “fair” name, it must provide employers the ability to rebut negative comments. Otherwise, this app will be nothing more than a one-sided vent for disgruntled employees. Regardless, employers should keep this issue on their radars as yet another reason to get their wage-and-hour practices in line.

Court rejects use of social media evidence in defense of wage-and-hour claim

One of the difficulties employers face in defending wage and hour lawsuits alleging “off-the-clock” work is how to prove a negative. The employees say, “We worked during our lunch breaks,” (for example), and the employer says, “No they weren’t.” The trick, however, is how to prove that negative.

Could social media provide some help? If employees are posting to Facebook, Twitter, etc. at time during which they claim to have been working, can an employer argue that the posts help establish that the employees could not have been “working” during those times?

In Jewell v. Aaron’s, Inc. (N.D. Ga. 7/19/13) [pdf], the employer attempt to make that exact argument. To help prove its claim that the employee-class members did not work through their lunch breaks, Aarons sought an order compelling the production of the plaintiffs’ social media activities “during their working hours.”

Despite the limited nature of the request to “working hours” only, the district court still rejected this request:

Even though certain social media content may be available for public view, the Federal Rules do not grant a requesting party “a generalized right to rummage at will through information….” Defendant has not made a sufficient predicate showing that the broad nature of material it seeks is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence…. The exemplar evidence of Kurtis Jewell’s Facebook activity does not persuade the Court that the Facebook postings will show, contrary to Plaintiffs’ claims, that they were not forced to work through their meal periods. The Court agrees with Plaintiff that whether or not an opt-in plaintiff made a Facebook post during work may have no bearing on whether or not the opt-in plaintiff received a bona fide meal period may have no bearing on whether or not the opt-in plaintiff received a bona fide meal period….”

If this employer was merely guessing that there might exist something useful in the plaintiff’s Facebook account, I would have a easier time understanding the Court’s belief that the employer was fishing. This employer, however, was relying on actual time-stamped examples from the lead plaintiff’s Facebook profile [pdf].

I applaud this employer’s attorneys attempted creative use of social media to defend this wage-and-hour claim, and am troubled by this Court’s unfair hamstringing of that effort.

WIRTW #282 (the “shut yo’ mouth” edition)

Language and race have been in the news lately. From Trevon Martin to Paula Deen, it seems that everyone is talking about the meaning of race in 2013-America. It seems appropriate, I suppose, to share this video, and, maybe, bring a little levity to a very serious topic. 

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

Discrimination

• If you want to win your retaliation case, don’t be a donkey. — from Robin Shea’s Employment and Labor Insider
• EEOC suits claim employers violated genetic bias law by asking for family history in required exams — from ABA Journal Daily News
• Zimmerman Trial Leads to Whistleblower Lawsuit — from Phil Miles’s Lawffice Space
• EEOC Lawyers Discuss Misconceptions, Guidance About Criminal History Checks — from Bloomberg Law
• Sexual Harassment Claim Allowed Based On Spankasaurus And Gabbygail Comments — from Atlanta Employment Lawyer Blog
• Male Employee Who Wears “Girly” Shirts May Have Sexual Harassment Claim — from The Employment Brief
• Sexual Harassment: Crowdsourcing advice — from Mike Haberman’s Omega HR Solutions
• Illegal or Ill-Advised? More on Pre-Employment Interview Questions — from The Emplawyerologist

Social Media & Workplace Technology

• The Nasty Side of Social Media … And What Employers Can Learn From It — from Dan Schwartz’s Connecticut Employment Law Blog
• Is There a Reasonable Expectation of Privacy In Your Tweets? — from Molly DiBianca’s Delaware Employment Law Blog
• Facebook “tagging” adds a new wrinkle to social media discovery — from Eric Meyer’s The Employer Handbook Blog
• What Bosses Can and Can’t See On Your Smartphone — from Yahoo! News
• From Crisis 1.0 to Crisis 2.0: The Need for Social Media Responsible Use Training — from Social Media Today
• Proper Etiquette For Online Lurking When You’re the Boss — from from Workplace Diva

HR & Employee Relations

• Courts Continue Chipping Away at Employees’ Rights — from Texas Employment Law Blog
• More Answers To Your Noncompete Questions — from Donna Ballman’s Screw You Guys, I’m Going Home
• Five Year Non-Compete Enforced In Indiana — from Trade Secrets and Noncompete Blog

Wage & Hour

• 7 do’s and don’ts to keep wage-and-hour lawsuits at bay — from Business Management Daily
• First Circuit Federal District Court Holds Automatic Meal Break Deduction Policy Does Not Satisfy Commonality Requirement for Class Certification — from Wage & Hour Counsel
• Wage and Hour Violations at Restaurants — from Nolo’s Employment Law Blog
• Knock, Knock…It’s The Department of Labor! — from Work Place Coach Blog News
• Can you fire an employee on FMLA leave? — from Warren & Associates Blog

Labor Relations

• What to Expect From the Incoming National Labor Relations Board : Labor Relations Today — from Labor Relations Today
• The “new” NLRB: much ado… — from Michigan Employment Law Connection
• What is this in my email? Oh, just the NLRB — from HR idiot

Giving Employee the “Milton Treatment” Leads to Discrimination Claim

And I said, I don’t care if they lay me off either, because I told, I told Bill that if they move my desk one more time, then, then I’m, I’m quitting … I’m going to quit. And, and I told Dom too, because they’ve moved my desk … four times already this year, and I used to be over by the window, and I could see … the squirrels, and they were merry, but then, they switched … from the Swingline to the Boston stapler, but I kept my Swingline stapler because it didn’t bind up as much … and I kept the staples for the Swingline stapler and it’s not okay because if they take my stapler then I’ll have to … I’ll set the building on fire...

– Milton Waddams, Office Space

I love the movie Office Space. One of the movie’s best sub-plots involves Milton Waddams. Milton works for Bill Lumbergh, and is Lumbergh’s punching bag. Lumbergh belittles him, steals his red Swingline stapler, continuously reduces the size of his cube, and, ultimately, transfers him to a basement storage closet. All the while, Milton mumbles under his breath that he’s going to set the building on fire. True to his word, Milton ultimately gets his revenge by burning down the office.

Why am I telling you the plot of Office Space? Because, according to this story in the St. Joseph, Missouri, News-Press, a former employee of the Missouri Department of Transportation is alleging that the department discriminated against her because of her age by … are you ready … moving her out of her office and forcing her to work from a moldy storage closet.

While there are two sides to every story, generally it is a bad idea to react to an employee’s internal complaint about age discrimination by moving her workspace from an office to a storage closet. Milton earned his revenge by arson. This employee is seeking hers via the courts. Either way, giving any employee the Milton treatment, let alone doing so on the heels of a complaint about discrimination or some other protected activity, is a horrendous idea.

This post originally appeared on The Legal Workplace Blog.

Is this the worst fake doctor’s note ever? And what could you do about it?

Buzzfeed recently published the above note, which an employee provided asking his boss for a day off from work. Not only did the employer refuse the time off, but, as you can see above, the employer edited the note, remarked on all of the typos, errors, and misspellings, and returned it to the employee with the caption, “How NOT to fake a doctor’s note.”

Even though an employer might have every reason to believe that a doctor’s note is fake, an employer runs the risk of an FMLA violation by summarily denying time off without following the FMLA’s procedures for authenticating a medical certification.

Authentication

• The FMLA permits an employer to contact the medical provider who purported to provide the certification to authenticate the document.
• Authentication means providing the health care provider with a copy of the certification and requesting verification that the health care provider who signed the document completed or authorized it.
• An employer may not request any additional medical information.
• An employer must first provide the employee with the opportunity to authenticate the note.
• If, however, the employee fails or refuses, the employer, through a health care provider, human resources professional, leave administrator, or management official—but not the employee’s immediate supervisor—may contact the employee’s health care provider directly for purposes of authentication.

Second and Third Opinions

An employer who has reason to doubt the validity of a medical certification may require the employee to obtain a second (and possibly third) opinion:

• The second opinion must be at the employer’s expense.
• Pending receipt of the second opinion, the employee is provisionally entitled to all of the benefits of the FMLA, including intermittent leave. If the certifications do not ultimately establish the employee’s entitlement to FMLA leave, the employer then has the right to retroactively designate the leave as non-FMLA.
• An employer is permitted to designate the health care provider to furnish the second opinion, but the selected health care provider must be one that it does not regularly contract with otherwise regularly use the services of.
• If the opinions of the employee’s and the employer’s designated health care providers differ, the employer may require the employee to obtain certification from a third health care provider, again at the employer’s expense. This third opinion is final and binding.
• Upon request by the employee, an employer is required to provide the employee with a copy of the second and third medical opinions within five business days of such request.

Your gut instinct might say fire this employee, but following that instinct could get you in trouble under the FMLA if note turns out to be legit. Following the FMLA’s rules for authentication, and second and third opinions, will give you the legal ammo to fire the offending employee. In the meantime, place the employee on conditional FMLA leave, which is unpaid. A few weeks down the road, once you confirm that the note is inauththentic, you can fire the employee without having incurred much expense or burden in the interim (save a couple of medical exams if you have to go the route of second and third opinions).

For more on verifying FMLA leaves of absence, I recommend Jeff Nowak’s recent post on his FMLA Insights Blog, entitled, Is Your Employee Paying a Deception Service to Provide You a Fake Doctor's Note or FMLA Certification?

Instagram, Vine, and … the NLRB (uh-oh)

Are you concerned about the impact of micro photo and video sites such as Instagram and Vine on your workplace? For the past few months, Dan Schwartz, writing at his Connecticut Employment Law Blog, has been all over this issue, suggesting that in light of the growing popularity of these sites, now more than ever employers need social media policies, while also cautioning that the regulation of workplace photos and videos would be the next social media enforcement frontier for the NLRB.

It appears that Dan’s prediction was right on the money. Last week, the NLRB’s Office of General Counsel published an Advice Memorandum [pdf] (dated March 21, 2012, but, for reasons unknown, which sat unpublished for 16 months).

Among other issues, the memo took up the following prohibition in a supermarket chain’s social media policy:

Do not use any … photographs or video of the Company’s premises, processes, operations, or products, which includes confidential information owned by the Company, unless you have received the Company’s prior written approval.

According to the NLRB Office of G.C., that policy is, on its face, an overly restrictive ban on employees’ rights to engage in protected concerted activity:

We further find that the portion of the rule prohibiting employees from photographing or videotaping the Employer’s premises is unlawful as such a prohibition would reasonably be interpreted to prevent employees from using social media to communicate and share information regarding their Section 7 activities through pictures or videos, such as of employees engaged in picketing or other concerted activities.

Amazingly, the only citation provided in support of this broad legal statement is a 22-year-old case, which held that an employee’s tape recording of a jobsite to provide evidence in a Department of Labor investigation is protected. Folks, there is a huge difference between recording something at work to gather evidence for a government investigation, and this.

The NLRB needs to allow employers to promulgate reasonable rules that protect their legitimate interests (e.g., confidentiality, or ensuring that employees are actually working during working hours), while protecting the rights to employees to engage in legitimate protected activity (e.g., complaining about discrimination or working conditions, or gathering evidence for a government investigation). Otherwise, the NLRB is attacking facially neutral policies because of an imagined parade of horribles that could never materialize, all the while making it exceedingly difficult for businesses to draft policies that establish reasonable baseline expectations for workers and management.

Hat tip: Labor and Employment Law Perspectives

“That guy” has a valid retaliation claim?

Every workplace has “that guy.” The employee who can’t quite seem to keep his mouth shut, who says inappropriate things, the one you know will someday lead to a harassment lawsuit. (Hint: If you can’t think of who “that guy” is in your workplace, it might be you).

Dunn v. Automotive Finance Corp. (M.D. Tenn. 7/2/13) is about “that guy,” but with a twist. “That guy” was Robert Dunn, a manager terminated by Automotive Finance Corp. for making inappropriate racially based comments during a social gathering following a training session. Present for Dunn’s alleged comments were four other white managers, along with one African-American assistant manager, Rick Hopkins. Several of those present complained about Dunn’s comments; the company investigated and fired Dunn.

Dunn was accused of making three racially insensitive comments:

• A comment that Tiger Woods was being judged by a white man’s standard, as compared to Michael Vick, who went to prison.
• A comment that his mother was Indian and not allowed to sit with White people back in the day.
• In reference to a statement that Hopkins would be the next manager at the company, Dunn said, “Good luck. Have you seen a family photo of this place?” and that the company had very few African-American managers “walking the halls.”

What was Dunn’s explanation when a co-worker expressed her discomfort at his statements? “That’s just how I am, because I’m a country boy.” When that same co-worker complained to management about Dunn’s comments; the company investigated and fired him.

Here’s the twist. Dunn sued for retaliation, claiming that Title VII protected his comment about a lack of upward mobility for African-Americans within the company. Incredibly, the court agreed that Dunn’s statement at least presented a question for a jury to determine as to whether that comment is protected from retaliation under Title VII.

Dunn made one comment or a set of comments that could reasonably be construed as protected activity: complaining in front of the Branch Managers that AFC discriminated on the basis of race with regard to promoting black managers. There are competing accounts as to precisely what Dunn said, although the witnesses who recall the incident appear to agree that Dunn accused AFC of being a racist company and/or that Dunn stated that AFC would not promote Hopkins because he is black…. The fact that Dunn made this comment in front of a black Assistant Branch Manager and that it made the white employees “uncomfortable” was just a side effect of speaking his mind that the company had and would continue to practice illegal racial discrimination.

The company argued that Dunn was merely seeking “to insulate himself from the consequences of [his] inappropriate conduct by concocting a post hoc rationalization that he had actually engaged in some form of ‘opposition’ activity.” I agree.

Cases like this one undermine the protections offered by the anti-retaliation laws, and send the wrong message to employers. The company fired Dunn because a co-worker complained about inappropriate race-based comments. The employer met is obligation under Title VII to investigate the allegations, and implement corrective measures to ensure that the comments stopped. Yet, the employer got punished for meeting its anti-harassment obligations. If the employer retained Dunn, it could have faced a potential harassment lawsuit. An employer should not have to choose between a harassment lawsuit by an offended employee, or a retaliation lawsuit by an alleged harasser who appears less than genuine in his “complaints.”

This case also is a perfect example of the maxim that any employee can sue at any time for any reason, and helps illustrate my point that because of the risk of lawsuits, employers are exceedingly gun-shy about firing employees.

photo credit: foreverdigital via photopin cc