The New Kid says thank you @rhettmiller — #NailedIt

One of the benefits of maintaining this very public forum is having the opportunity to share with you some personal insight into my family. For example, you know that my 6-year-old son deals with some life-long medical issues, and that my 8-year-old daughter plays rock music. Today is one of those days that I get to share some family stuff, this time of the insanely cool variety. So sit back and relax—no employment-law lessons. Today is a straight up rock-and-roll story.

My daughter’s favorite band is the Old 97’s. You can read the whole history here. Sunday night, my wife and I took Norah to see Rhett Miller, the band’s lead singer, perform a solo gig at the Music Box Supper Club. (Side note: if you’re anywhere near Cleveland, do yourself a favor and catch a show at the Music Box. Mike and Colleen built an amazing venue, with great sound, sight lines, and food; they deserve your business). Front row seats for the Hymans.

Norah’s third-grade class is learning how to write personal narratives. Her first story for the school year was all about going to see the Old 97’s in June and meeting Rhett backstage before the show. He was gracious and kind, and clearly made a big impression on a girl of her size.

Norah wanted to give Rhett a copy of her book at Sunday’s show, and asked if I could tweet Rhett to let him know. So I did. I didn’t get any response (nor did I expect one), and tried to temper Norah’s expectations about Rhett remembering her. But it’s hard to temper an 8-year-old.

There we are at the show, our table abutting the front of the stage, Norah no more than three feet from her idol. Did Rhett remember Norah? Of course he did. He spent his first moment talking to the crowd to say a personal hello to her (while making apologies for some of his songs’ more saltier language). And the show went on, Norah in her seat, right in front of Rhett, singing along to all of her Old 97’s favorites.

During the show, Rhett leaned forward and asked Norah if she knows Fireflies. For those who don’t know Rhett’s catalogue, Fireflies is a beautiful (if a tad biting) duet sung with a female. Historically, when Rhett performs this song live he brings someone from the audience up on stage to sing the female part. Needless to say, the song works much better if the person knows it. When Rhett asked Norah if she wanted to sing Fireflies with him, she had to decline, because she didn’t know it nearly well enough to sing it in front of a crowd. Rhett told her to practice, and they would sing together on his next visit to the Music Box.

And the show goes on. After dueting Over the Cliff with opening-act Jon Langford (whom I really enjoyed), Rhett noticed the similarities between that song and the next on his set list, Let’s Get Drunk & Get It On, so much so that he could not get into the song without confusing the two. He needed a “palate cleanser,” as he put it, and asked Norah for a request. She chose The New Kid, the song that started her Old 97’s obsession. Rhett enthusiastically launched into the song.

After finishing the first verse, and watching Norah belt away from her in front of him, Rhett leaned forward and asked if she wanted to come on stage and sing the rest of the song with him.

This is what happened next:

Rhett put it perfectly after Norah finished — #NailedIt! (Stick around to the end of the video to see Norah give Rhett the copy of her book, and thanks to Marie Popichak for capturing and sharing).

The show ends, and Rhett hands Norah the set list (which you Old 97’s/Rhett fans know is a thing and a big deal). And, sure as you know it, there is Fireflies, with “(NORAH?)” inked in right next to it.

Not only did Rhett remember meeting Norah in June, he pre-planned a duet with her!

Rhett, you are one of a kind. From the bottom of our hearts, thank you for caring enough to turn a special night for our little girl into an absolutely unforgettable one. You undeniably rock in all the ways that matter, and represent the hope that one can be both a celebrity and a good person.

We’ll see you next time you’re in town. Norah’s working on Fireflies, just in case.

@rhettmiller and one of the sweetest onstage moments ever. Norah requested New Kid & sang 2nd verse like a rockstar! pic.twitter.com/yje3ZN2lcd

— Kristie Gripp (@Tippy13) November 3, 2014

“I honestly bet you’re big down there.” SNL tackles workplace diversity training.

NBC does itself a disservice by running classic episodes of Saturday Night Live each week, because the old episodes merely reinforce that the new episodes are longer appointment viewing. But, this sketch on diversity training (spoofing some very bad VHS videos you hopefully didn't use during the last millennium) from this past week’s episode made me laugh pretty hard. Enjoy.

 

Ohio considers paid leave for quarantined employees

As just-back-from-Sierra-Leone Kaci Kickox continues to fight efforts to bind her to a mandatory 21-day Ebola quarantine, states around the country continue to figure out how to deal with these very new issues.

Ohio (which was Ebola ground-zero only a few weeks ago) has entered the fray with H.B. 647. The bill would:

• Provide paid leave to any employee unable to work because of a quarantine or placement in medical isolation.
• Prohibit an employer from requiring the employee to use paid time off in lieu of the statutory paid leave.
• Prohibit an employer from taking any adverse action against an employee who failed to report to work because of a quarantine or placement in isolation, or who has requested quarantine or isolation pay.
• Provide for both administrative and judicial remedies for aggrieved employees.

The bill has only just been introduced, and has not yet even been assigned to a committee. If any action is taken on this bill, I will pass it along.

In the meantime, employers need to be flexible with employees who have potentially been exposed to Ebola or other dangerous infectious diseases. If you send the employee home, do it with pay. Otherwise, you are inviting legislative fixes to what should be common-sense issues.

WIRTW #343 (the “trick or treat” edition)

True confession—I do not like Halloween. I never did. As a kid, I tolerated the holiday because it brought a bounty of candy. As I aged out of trick or treating, however, whatever soft feelings I had for the holiday devolved to hardened ire. The only good thing about Halloween is that it makes way for the Godfather I and II of holidays, Thanksgiving and Christmas. 

Here’s some stuff you need to know about Halloween and your workplace.  

• Employers Beware: Five Tips for Celebrating Halloween in the Workplace — via Employment Intelligence
• Halloween in the workplace? Bah! Humbug! — via Robin Shea’s Employment & Labor Insider
• 5 Tips For Your Office Halloween Party — via The Evil HR Lady, Suzanne Lucas, writing at Inc.com
• Top 5 fears workers have about their jobs — via Cleveland.com

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

Discrimination

• More Transgender Discrimination as Sex Discrimination — via Phil Miles’s Lawffice Space
• LGBT charges are rolling in, EEOC Commissioner says — via Robin Shea’s Employment & Labor Insider
• One-Armed Security Guard Wins ADA Case — via Minnesota Employer
• Employer must consider “job restructuring” if such restructuring would accommodate disabled employee without undue hardship — via Employment Law Matters
• EEOC is Challenging Some Corporate Wellness Programs as Violating the ADA — via Texas Employment Law Blog
• How Courts View Post-Employment Retaliation Claims — via Corporate Counsel
• OCR issues dear colleague letter on bullying on the basis of disability — via Understanding the ADA
• The Taller You Are, The More Your Income: We Re-Visit Appearance Bias — via Employment Discrimination Report

Social Media & Workplace Technology

• Social media blunders cost a chef and a chief their jobs — via Eric Meyer’s Employer Handbook Blog
• PGA President Fired For Calling Ian Poulter "Lil Girl" On Twitter — via Deadspin
• Is Ello something — or not? — via Real Lawyers Have Blogs
• Disruptive Technology in the Workplace: Employment Law Considerations — via Technology Company Counselor
• 5 best practices for lawfully monitoring your employees’ social media activities — via The Philadelphia Business Journal
• Do you know what apps your employees use? — via WSJ.com
• A Perk of BYOD Policies at Work — via Next Blog

HR & Employee Relations

• Is the Future of the Desk a Coffee Shop Table? — via Blogging4Jobs
• Bad bosses literally can make you sick, research finds — via NorthJersey.com
• Dazed and confused: Unemployment benefits OKed for Michigan medical marijuana users — via Employer Advocate
• Today in Small Business: When the Ebola Virus Touches a Business — via You’re the Boss Blog
• Say, What?! The 12 Worst Things An Intern Can Say At Work — via Workplace Diva
• Yes, You Really Do Need to Screen Temporary Holiday Employees — via TLNT
• Do Employers Have To Warn You Before Firing You? — via Evil Skippy at Work
• US Whistleblower Laws: What Employers Need to Know — via i-Sight Investigation Software Blog

Wage & Hour

• NBC Inks $6.4 Million Deal to Stem Intern Uprising — via Law.com
• The Supreme Court’s Recent Decision on the Taxation of Severance Payments — via Suits by Suits
• Wage and Hour Cases to Watch at the Supreme Court: Part 1--Integrity Staffing — via Wage & Hour Insights
• Lee v. Dynamex Operations: Defining “Employee” in Misclassification Context — via Impact Litigation Journal
• NCAA Sued For Wage Violations — via Impact Litigation Journal

Labor Relations

• NLRB Sinks Confidentiality Clause of “Titanic” Director James Cameron — via Matt Austin Labor Law
• Union Campaign Heats Up At B’more Jimmy Johns — via Labor Relations Today
• The NLRB―the new elephant in the room — via HR Hero Line

EEOC files historic lawsuit challenging biometric testing by employers

It’s no secret that health insurance costs are out of control. To help combat this surge, many employers have turned to biometric testing for their employees. Biometric testing is part of corporate wellness programs where employees measure certain levels, such as blood pressure and cholesterol, for breaks on insurance premiums under the Affordable Care Act.

If the Affordable Care Act expressly permits this testing, then why is the EEOC claiming that Honeywell’s biometric testing program violates the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act?

On Monday, the EEOC filed a lawsuit seeking a temporary restraining order declaring Honeywell’s biometric testing illegal. According to the EEOC’s lawsuit, ­Honeywell’s program creates up to $4,000 in penalties for employees unless they and their spouses take blood and medical tests that can identify smoking, diabetes, high blood pressure, obesity and other health problems. The Minneapolis Star Tribune quotes an EEOC attorney, who said, “Honeywell’s tests and threatened penalties go too far because they are not job-related and are not consistent with any business necessity…. They can only do that in ­situations where it’s ­voluntary for the employee to answer.”

For its part, Honeywell has called the lawsuit “frivolous”—

The Chicago EEOC office is unfamiliar with the details of our wellness programs and woefully out of step with the healthcare marketplace…. The incentives we provide are specifically sanctioned by two separate Federal statutes—HIPAA and the ACA. Honeywell’s wellness plan incentives are in strict compliance with both HIPAA and the ACA’s guidelines, which were designed by Congress to encourage healthier lifestyles while helping to control healthcare costs. No Honeywell employee has ever been denied healthcare coverage or disciplined in any way as a result of their voluntary decision not to participate in our wellness programs…. We’re proud to provide employees with the opportunity to lead healthier lifestyles and are disappointed that the EEOC would take a position that is so contrary to a fundamental component of the President’s health care plan, legislation passed by Congress, and the desire of all Americans to lead healthier lives.

Because the EEOC is seeking a TRO, I would expect this case to unfold quickly. I will keep everyone updated as this important story develops. Special thanks to Kate Bischoff for brining this to my attention.

Court of appeals decision highlights risk of (mis)classifying employees

I once handled a wage-and-hour investigation in which the employer, before retaining my services, hired an HR consultant to help classify its employees as exempt or non-exempt. The DOL, however, disagreed, and reclassified half of the company’s employees (with corresponding back pay awards for unpaid overtime for those employees moved from exempt to non-exempt).

FLSA exemptions are highly fact specific and highly subjective. One person’s exempt manager is another’s non-exempt clerk. Case in point? Little v. Belle Tire Distributors (6th Cir. 10/23/14) [pdf].

Little concerns a first assistant manager at a tire store. As a “manager,” the employer had the employee classified as exempt under both the executive and administrative exemptions. The employer’s written job description defined the first assistant manager position as requiring proficiency in “Professional Selling Skills,” “inventory control and pricing,” and “knowledge of location payroll control.” The job description further states that the employee have “necessary supervisory skills” and “managerial skills,” and be “fully knowledgeable” of “hiring and termination procedures.”

The court of appeals concluded that the employer’s determination that this employee was exempt was not dispositive, and sent the case back to the district court for trial on the issues of whether the employee qualified as exempt under either the executive or administrative exemption:

Belle Tire seeks to paint Little as influential in hiring and as actively leading employee training and other management tasks. Little, on the other hand, seeks to characterize himself as a salesman who provides clerical-type assistance to his store manager….

Though it is clear Little played some role in interviewing job candidates, preparing work schedules, and conducting training, questions remain concerning the exact nature of the work Little performed and the level of discretion that Little exercised. Such questions are suitable for a factfinder’s determination….

Although Little engages in office and non-manual tasks such as typing up the schedule and preparing purchase orders, Little testified that he spends eighty to ninety percent of his time engaged in sales duties. Time spent on a task is not the sole determinant of a primary duty, but the fact that Little spent the vast majority of his time on tasks he could not do concurrently with administrative tasks creates a genuine dispute as to whether his administrative responsibilities were his “primary duty.” Additionally, Little’s deposition—the most detailed account of his day-to-day activities—suggests that Little’s discretion was highly constrained.

The lesson here is not a happy one. No matter how reasonable or rational you think you are being in classifying employees, a court may second-guess you down the road. In close cases, err on the side of caution and classify as non-exempt. You will end up paying more overtime as you go, but will avoid the windfall (and related legal fees) if a court later re-classifies an employee or group or employees.

The times they are a changin’ for LGBT discrimination

Last week, the The U.S. Office of Special Counsel announced a landmark determination that the Department of the Army engaged in “frequent, pervasive and humiliating,” gender-identity discrimination against an Army software specialist who had transitioned from male to female.

According to a press release issued by the OSC, the employee

experienced a significant change in working conditions when the Army improperly restricted her restroom usage, repeatedly referred to her by her birth name and male pronouns, and excessively monitored her conversations with coworkers. In response, the Army agreed to provide training to correct and prevent future discrimination. The Army already had permitted Ms. Lusardi to use the restroom associated with her gender identity.

You can download the full decision here.

Congress has been slow to amend Title VII expressly to prohibit LGBT discrimination. Yet, courts, agencies, the White House and, now, the U.S. military, continue to fill in the gaps.

The time will come when it becomes per se illegal for all employers to discrimination against an employee’s sexual orientation or gender identity. Until that time, we will have to rely on courts’ creative solutions to fit these claims under Title VII’s general prohibitions against sexual stereotyping and sexual discrimination. Nevertheless, employers should not wait for Title VII to include LGBT as a protected class. Instead, employers can, and should, do right by all of their employees by adopting progressive anti-discrimination policies that make it clear that they are employers are inclusion for all employees, even if Title VII still permits discrimination against some.