WIRTW #324 (the “Wir werden du bald sehen” edition)

I have used this space to write a lot about my family. You know I’m married, have two amazing children, Norah and Donovan, and a dog. But, you may not know that my family includes a teenager too. We call her our German daughter. She’s been living with us for the past 10 months. Next week, she leaves us to go home. You never know what the experience will bring when you permit someone to share your home and your lives for a year. We hoped for the best, and with our year coming to a close, I can say we got it. We gained another member of family, albeit one that lives more than 4,000 miles away. I will always think of Zarah as our German daughter.

For more on the experience, please read my wife’s thoughts on her blog.

As for Zarah, this is not, “Auf Weidersein,” but, “Wir werden du bald sehen.”

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

Discrimination

• Sex at work: test your knowledge! — from Robin Shea’s Employment and Labor Insider
• Management-Side Firm Whines Because EEOC Mediators Are Doing Their Jobs — from Donna Ballman’s Screw You Guys, I’m Going Home
• The EEOC is Focusing on Systemic Harassment. So Should You. — from Jonathan Segal
• Does Telling Me To Stop Complaining Count As Discrimination? — from Evil Skippy at Work
• Miles on Pregnant Workers Fairness Act — from Phil Miles’s Lawffice Space
• “Racism In The Everydayness” — from Employment Discrimination Report

Social Media & Workplace Technology

• “This man says he’s willing to die so he can post naked pictures without getting fired” — from How Appealing
• Why Social Media is Becoming an HR Issue — from GMS Blog
• Employers crack down on social media abuse — from Business Management Daily
• 20 cool iOS 8 features that Apple barely even mentioned at WWDC 2014 — from Boy Genius Report

HR & Employee Relations

• What Single Policy Could Ease Americans’ Time Crunch? — from Time
• Employment at-will trumps the 2nd Amendment (Yes, you can fire the employee who shoots a gun at work) — from Eric Meyer’s Employer Handbook Blog
• By 2020 Millennials Will Represent 40% of the Workforce. Are You Ready? — from Blogging4Jobs
• Employment Protections for Medical Marijuana — from Minnesota Employer

Wage & Hour

• FLSA Transparency Threat Persists — from Compensation Cafe
• Overhauling overtime — from HR Hero Line
• Telecommuters, Minimum Wage and Overtime — Oh My! — from The Emplawyerologist
• FLSA Overtime, Minimum Wage Lawsuits Continue to Skyrocket — from Wage & Hour Insights

Labor Relations

• One Is the Loneliest Number….But Even Acting Alone Employees May Be Engaged in Concerted Activity — from All in a Day’s Work
• NLRB Round-up: The Long Arm of Labor Law — from Blogging4Jobs
• Threatening the boss: the NLRB weighs in — from Michigan Employment Law Connection
• NLRB Finds Employee’s Profane and Insubordinate Conduct Shielded by Protected Activity — from Labor Relations Today

Federal court blows up EEOC's stance on medical leaves of absence

I had this long elaborate post written about Hwang v. Kansas State University (5/29/14) [pdf], in which the 10th Circuit court of appeals held an employer did not have to offer a leave of absence greater than six months to accommodate an employee’s disability, and that an employer can have an inflexible leave of absence policy that places a hard cap on an employee’s medical leave of absence.

Grace Hwang, an assistant professor at Kansas State University, signed a written one-year teaching contract. Before the start of fall term, Ms. Hwang was diagnosed with cancer.  She sought, and the University granted her, a six-month (paid) leave of absence for treatment.  Near the end of her leave, Ms. Hwang’s doctor advised her to seek more time off. She asked the University to extend her leave through the end of spring semester, promising to return in time for the summer semester. The University, however, refused, citing an inflexible policy allowing no more than six months’ time off.  In response, she sued, claiming that by denying her more than six months’ leave the University violated the Rehabilitation Act.

The 10th Circuit held that Hwang’s need for an extended leave of absence disqualified her from the protections of the disability discrimination laws:

Still, it’s difficult to conceive how an employee’s absence for six months—an absence in which she could not work from home, part-time, or in any way in any place—could be consistent with discharging the essential functions of most any job in the national economy today. Even if it were, it is difficult to conceive when requiring so much latitude from an employer might qualify as a reasonable accommodation. Ms. Hwang’s is a terrible problem, one in no way of her own making, but it’s a problem other forms of social security aim to address. The Rehabilitation Act seeks to prevent employers from callously denying reasonable accommodations that permit otherwise qualified disabled persons to work—not to turn employers into safety net providers for those who cannot work.… 

Neither is there anything inherently discriminatory in the fact the University’s six-month leave policy is “inflexible,” as Ms. Hwang would have us hold. To the contrary, in at least one way an inflexible leave policy can serve to protect rather than threaten the rights of the disabled—by ensuring disabled employees’ leave requests aren’t secretly singled out for discriminatory treatment, as can happen in a leave system with fewer rules, more discretion, and less transparency. 

My post would have provided you insightful analysis of Hwang, discussing how this case in an outlier. That employers should still think long and hard (and only after engaging in the interactive process) before denying an extended unpaid leave of absence under the ADA. And that employer’s are most safely served by having a flexible leave of absence policy instead of a hard-capped one.

But, three of my favorite employment law bloggers beat me to the punch with their own thoughts.

• Are Inflexible Leave Policies Lawful After All? One Court Leaves Employers Salivating — from Jeff Nowak’s FMLA Insights
• Just how badly did a federal appellate court trash extended leave as a reasonable accommodation? — from Eric Meyer’s Employer Handbook Blog
• Wait, “Inflexible” Leave Policies Are Actually Okay? Sometimes. — from Dan Schwartz’s Connecticut Employment Law Blog

Jeff went so far as to Twitter-challenge me to pick the best of the three posts.

@danielschwartz @Eric_B_Meyer, we all were thinking the same blog post this weekend. Should we have @jonhyman vote on which 1 is best? :)
— Jeff Nowak (@jeffreysnowak) June 3, 2014

Haven’t I already done enough?

What the f‽ NLRB allows employee to curse out the boss

During a meeting about commissions, minimum wage, and employee breaks, an employee lost his temper, angrily calling his supervisors words such as “f***ing mother f***ing,” f***ing crook[s],” and an “a**hole.” He also stood up, shoved his chair aside, and told them they would regret it if they fired him. Unsurprisingly, that tirade resulted in the employee’s termination. Astoundingly, in Plaza Auto Center (5/28/14) [pdf], the NLRB concluded that the termination was an unlawful violation of the employee’s rights to engage in the protected concerted activity.

We conclude that affording the Act’s protection to Aguirre here serves the Act’s goal of protecting Section 7 rights without unduly impairing the Respondent’s interest in maintaining order and discipline in its establishment because the outburst was not witnessed by, and was not likely to be witnessed by, other employees. Thus, Aguirre’s outburst occurred in a closed-door meeting in a manager’s office away from the workplace; the Respondent chose the location of meeting in the manager’s office where the outburst occurred; and no employee overheard Aguirre’s obscene and denigrating remarks to the owner.

We also conclude that affording the Act’s protection to Aguirre will further the Act’s goal of protecting Section 7 rights without unduly impairing the Respondent’s legitimate interest in maintaining workplace discipline and order for the additional reason that the Respondent provoked Aguirre’s outburst…. Aguirre’s outburst occurred contemporaneously with Plaza’s twice suggesting that Aguirre could quit if he did not like the Respondent’s policies, Plaza’s censure of Aguirre’s protected activities as a lot of negative stuff, and Plaza’s telling Aguirre that he should not complain about Respondent’s pay structure, all of which made clear that he would not engage in the merits of Aguirre’s complaints.

This case should be troubling to all employers. Apparently, we live in a world in which an employee can call his boss a f***ing mother f***er” and get away with it, merely because it was said during a meeting in which the employee also happened to be discussing certain working conditions. If an employer cannot enforce reasonable restrictions agains insubordination (especially to this level), then we are. It that far from the NLRB letting the chickens run the workplace henhouse. How will employers be able to effectively manage then?

[Hat tip: Today’s General Counsel]

A black and blue lawsuit: Tiffany & Co. sued for race discrimination

My dog’s name is Loula Mae. “Loula” is name of the dog on the kids cartoon Pocoyo, which my son was obsessed with when we got her. “Mae” just sounded right to pair with Loula, and gives her a bit of a gentile, southern charm. Little did we know, however, that the birth-name of Holly Golightly, the iconic lead played by Audrey Hepburn in Breakfast at Tiffany’s is also Lula Mae. Now we know why our dog is so damn classy.

I only tell this story because today’s post is about the famous jewelry store, Tiffany & Co., which has gotten itself into a little legal mess over the racial composition of its management team and its alleged treatment of its lone African-American manager.

The New York Times reports that Michael McClure, a group director Tiffany since 1993, has sued the jeweler, claiming a “systemic, nationwide pattern and practice of racial discrimination.” According to McClure’s lawsuit, he is the only African-American to hold one of the more than 200 management positions at Tiffany. He further alleges that that despite consistently glowing reviews since his hire, the company gave him a “warning for termination” earlier this year. McClure claims that his new boss provided that warning after meeting McClure for the first time, and then telling a group of vice presidents that he was surprised “a black man is representing the Tiffany brand.”

A lawsuit is merely a collection of alleged, unproven facts. For its part, Tiffany says that the lawsuit is meritless, and that it “welcome[s] and value[s] diversity in all forms.”

An employer like Tiffany likely does not have any affirmative action requirements—that is, it does not have an obligation to hire a racially balanced workforce. Having said that, however, it does not look good when defending a race-discrimination lawsuit if only 0.5% of your managers are African American. Companies should hire the best employees and fire the worst. Yet, you also need to think about what your business looks like, if for no other reason than having an “almost-all-white” management team is not going to make it any easier to defend the race claim brought by your lone black manager.

photo credit: Shereen M via photopin cc

Employers beware: EEOC appears to be stepping up disability discrimination enforcement

Last month, the EEOC announced that it was seeking “public input on potential revisions to the regulations implementing Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.” That Act governs employment of individuals with disabilities by the federal government, and was the ADA’s precursor. Without explanation, the Rehabilitation Act’s regulations impose an obligation on federal agencies to be “model employers” of individuals with disabilities; the EEOC is seeking to revise those regulations to provide a detailed explanation of that “model employer” obligation.

On the heels of that news, 10 of the 22 lawsuits filed or settlements reached by the EEOC in May included allegations of disability discrimination. That’s a .455 batting average for the ADA, which is none too shabby in anyone’s book. Some of the issues addressed by the EEOC in the past month include—

• A $72,500 settlement with an Akron, Ohio, medical transportation services company, which fired an EMT-paramedic with multiple sclerosis instead of providing additional leave as a reasonable accommodation.
• A $110,000 settlement with Norfolk Southern Railway Company, which medically disqualified a track maintenance worker because of degenerative disc disease without doing an individualized assessment of whether he could perform the essential functions of his job.
• A $90,000 settlement with a Tennessee nursing home facility, which terminated an HIV-positive nurse. 
• An $18,000 settlement with an Alabama athletic apparel retailer, which fired a legally blind sales clerk (who lost his full use of his sight while serving in the Army) without any consideration of whether an accommodation, such as a magnifying glass or a new computer monitor, might be reasonable.
• A lawsuit claiming a Wisconsin energy company fired an wheelchair-bound employee instead of providing his requested reasonable accommodation of an automatic door opener.
• A lawsuit claiming a Tennessee steel company refused to hire an applicant for a maintenance position after learning through a pre-employment medical examination that the applicant took prescription medications for an anxiety disorder and high blood pressure.
• A lawsuit claiming a Connecticut electrical contractor refused to hire a dyslexic carpenter, without first exploring any possible reasonable accommodations for his disability.

What do all of these cases have in common? They all involve employers that failed, in some way, to engage an employee or applicant in the interactive process to determine if he or she could perform the essential functions of the job with, or without, a reasonable accommodation. Instead, the employer appears to have made snap judgments based on the individual’s disability and related stereotypes.

Disability discrimination is very much on the EEOC’s radar. Is your business sufficiently protected? Answer these questions—

• Do you have a reasonable accommodation policy? 
• Do you have accurately written job descriptions? 
• Do your managers and supervisors know what the interactive process is, and how to engage in it? 
• Have you trained your employees on disability awareness and reasonable accommodations? 

Unless you have answered “yes” to each of these important questions, your business is exposed to potential disability-discrimination issues. Considering how closely the EEOC is looking at these issues, is this risk is one your business wants to take?

photo credit: ratsinis via photopin cc

WIRTW #323 (the "why I hate lawyers" edition)

YouTube is filled with examples of lawyers behaving badly. Yet, this example from Above the Law, entitled, “Pro Tip For Lawyers: Don’t Threaten To ‘Anally Rape’ Adversary,” takes the cake. Here’s a small taste:

You pissed off the wrong attorney. You want to beat up women and then play games with the legal system… well then you will get exactly what you deserve. After I get [my client] out of jail I’m going to gather all the relevant evidence and them I’m going to anal rape you so hard your teeth come loose. I tried working with you with respect. Now I’m going to treat you like the pond scum you are. Watch your ass you little [expletive deleted]. I’ve got you in my sights now.

The most astounding part? The lawyer posted this threat on Facebook. Good grief. 

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

Discrimination

• Can Employers Win a Case Where a Single Use of the N-Word Is Alleged? Perhaps — from Dan Schwartz’s Connecticut Employment Law Blog
• Stupid “discrimination” complaints: How should an employer handle? — from Robin Shea’s Employment & Labor Insider
• An ADA accommodation just has to be reasonable—not the employee’s first choice — from Eric Meyer’s The Employer Handbook Blog
• Don’t Lick Your Lips at Me. That’s Harassment! — from California Employment Law
• Disability-Related Inquiries: Don’t Ask! — from Employment Discrimination Report
• Age discrimination or legitimate termination? Firing a 65-year-old can be tricky — from HR Hero Line
• Avoid Accidentally Revealing Your Age with Your Email Address — from Lifehacker
• Pregnant Workers Need More Protection than Walmart’s Giving Them — from Workplace Fairness

Social Media & Workplace Technology

• How to grant employees access to social media at work — from Ragan.com
• O’Brien and the NLRB on Social Media — from Workplace Prof Blog

HR & Employee Relations

• My Boss Called Me Out Of The Delivery Room When My Wife Was In Labor — from Evil Skippy at Work
• Are Your Employees Takers or Givers? — from Molly DiBianca’s Delaware Employment Law Blog
• NPR and Progressive Radio Network on workplace bullying — from Minding the Workplace
• Are U.S. Employees Overworked or Not? — from Families and Work Institute Blog
• Are Employers Adapting to EEOC Guidance on Employment Background Checks? — from employeescreenIQ Blog
• There’s No Place in Your Workplace For Bullying Behavior — from TLNT
• Beyond Flip-Flops: Dress Code Policies for All Seasons — from ERC Insights Blog

Wage & Hour

• Number Of Wage And Hours Cases Increases For 7th Straight Year — from Overtime Lawyer Blog
• Before You Hire Those Summer Interns…. — from The Emplawyerologist
• Department of Labor Sets FLSA Regulation Deadline for November 2014, Final Regulations Unlikely to Arrive Before Spring 2015 — from Wage & Hour Insights

Labor Relations

• Uber, Lyft, & Sidecar Drivers Vote to Form Union in Seattle — from Blogging4Jobs
• Organized labor continues to branch out — from HR Hero Line

Why you should be paying your interns

Unpaid interns have been on the DOL’s hit list since 2010. I’ve warned employers that most unpaid internships have gone the way of the dodo, and you should be paying your interns at least the minimum wage, and overtime, for hours worked in excess of 40 in a week.

Now, we have some meat to put on the bones of this information. In Grant v. Warner Music Group Corp. (S.D.N.Y. 5/13/14), a former student intern for Warner Bros. Records sought a nationwide collective action on behalf of all similarly situated student interns, claiming that the company misclassified him exempt from the FLSA’s minimum wage and overtime requirements. The named plaintiff alleged that he typically worked 50 or more hours in a week performing the same type of work as paid employees, but was not paid and did not receive academic credit.

The FLSA only requires a “modest factual showing” for a court to certify a putative collective action, and authorize opt-in notices be sent to potential class members. In this case, the court concluded that Grant made that showing by putting forth facts that he and others suffered under a common policy or plan that violated the FLSA. Warner Bros. now has a nationwide wage-and-hour lawsuit to defend.

The burden for a court to certify a collective action under the FLSA is low, yet the risks are high. Many issues under the FLSA are fact-specific and rest on razor-thin distinctions. Unpaid interns, however, are the low-hanging fruit of the wage-and-hour laws. The money you will spend defending a wage-and-hour collective lawsuit will dwarf the money you would save by classifying your interns as “unpaid.” If you use the services of interns pay them, unless they are students, receiving academic credit for the internship, and the work they are performing for you is bona fide training and instruction to them. Otherwise, you are taking a huge gamble that is difficult to win.