Gawker intern lawsuit shows the need for social-media savvy in the legal profession

Have you recently tried to communicate with someone under the age of 25? Have you tried to call them? How about email? What about text message, Facebook, or Twitter? I bet that your communicative outreaches are much more likely to gain a response if you choose any of the latter over the former.

Thus, it shouldn’t be that surprising that a federal court is permitting a group of former interns (now plaintiffs) to use social media to reach out to potential class members concerning a wage-and-hour lawsuit against online blog network Gawker. According to Gawker, however, in this letter filed with the court [pdf], the plaintiffs’ planned social media outreach goes too far.

The court previously green lit the plaintiffs’ use of social media to reach potential class members. Their proposed plan? In addition to tweets directing potential class members to a website about the lawsuit, the use of the hashtag “#gawkerinternlawsuit, and the creation of a Facebook pages and LinkedIn group to disseminate information to potential class members. Other proposals, to which the employer objects, include:

• Repeat messages over numerous social media sites, including Twitter, LinkedIn, Reddit, Facebook.
• The use of inflammatory hashtags such as #fairpay and #livingwage.
• Plaintiffs’ counsel adding potential claimants as Facebook friends.
• Using Reddit to tie the lawsuit to unrelated political causes.

I don’t need to tell you that social media has become ubiquitous. I also don’t need to tell you that lawyers are notoriously slow to adapt. As the Gawker case illustrates, social media is playing, and will continue to play, an important role in litigation. If I were hiring an attorney to handle my employment litigation, one question I would be asking is whether that lawyer understands social media, uses social media, and knows how it could be used to help the case.

[Hat tip: Employment Law 360]

Target (inadvertently) teaches the importance of avoiding age-based stereotypes

I do a lot of speaking. One speech that I’ve been giving over the past couple of years is entitled, “X+Y+Z = A Generational Mess for Your Workplace.” I teach how employers can best manage the diverse needs and abilities of four different generations of employees. I discuss some broad-based generalizations about Traditionalists (age 70+), Baby Boomers (50-69), Gen X (35-49), and Gen Y (under 35). I always finish by discussing the very real risk of age discrimination if you treat these generalizations as gospel, and do not treat each employee, of age any, as an individual, with individual talents and abilities.

Target saw the need to offer the same type of training to its managers, but it left off the part about age discrimination. Gawker (h/t Business Management Daily) published Target’s training materials, entitled, Managing Generational Differences,” which, among other things, describe its oldest workers as “slow to adapt to change,” “rarely question[ing] authority” and see[ing] technology as “complex and challenging.”

When you are sued for discrimination, your training materials are fair game in litigation. While you write them to aid your employees, you must do so with (at least) one eye on the jury that will read them during trial. You do not want to have your manager explain to a jury, in an age discrimination case, if he thought the plaintiff was “slow to adapt to change” when he made the termination decision.

Federal appeals court rejects “retaliatory rehiring” claim

As part of massive reorganization, Allstate severed the employment of approximately 6,200 employee agent. In connection with the layoff, Allstate offered all of the employee agents the opportunity to convert their employment status into that of an independent contractor selling Allstate insurance products, provided that they signed a release of all legal claims against Allstate, including federal employment discrimination claims.

In filing suit on behalf of the employees, the EEOC took the position that conversion from an employee to an independent contractor, coupled with a general release, constitute unlawful retaliation under the federal civil rights laws.

In EEOC v. Allstate Ins. Co. (2/13/15) [pdf], the Third Circuit flatly rejected the EEOC’s folly.

It is hornbook law that employers can require terminated employees to release claims in exchange for benefits to which they would not otherwise be entitled. Nothing in the employment-discrimination statutes undermines this rule….

According to the Commission, Allstate could have complied with the antiretaliation statutes by simply firing all its employee agents for good, instead of giving them the opportunity to sell Allstate insurance in a different capacity. We are confident that federal laws designed to protect employees do not require such a harmful result….

The EEOC here fails to articulate any good reason why an employer cannot require a release of discrimination claims by a terminated employee in exchange for a new business relationship with the employer.…. [W]e are not persuaded by the Commission’s efforts to arbitrarily limit the forms of consideration exchangeable for a release of claims by a terminated employee.

In other words, the employer, and not the EEOC, gets to decide the post-employment benefit to provide an employee in exchange for a release of claims—whether it’s severance pay, continued health benefits, an engagement as a independent contractor, or something else. As long as the consideration is not something to which the employee is already entitled, a court will not second-guess its sufficiency.

FCRA class-action lawsuits should have your attention

In the last month alone, at least three huge national employers (Home Depot, Time Warner, and Michael Stores) have been hit with class action lawsuits alleging that their background screening practices for job applicants violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

What is the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and why must you, as an employer, pay attention to it? Thankfully, I have the answers, wrapped up in a tidy one-hour webinar I presented for BackTrack late last month. Enjoy!

WIRTW #355 (the “paraskevidekatriaphobia” edition)

Paraskevidekatriaphobia is the fear of Friday the 13th. Fragapane Phobia is the fear of celebrating birthdays. Today is my birthday, and, thankfully, I suffer from neither of these phobias. Happy birthday to me.

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

Discrimination

• EEOC Regional Attorney John Hendrickson Offers Insights on EEOC’s Pregnancy Discrimination Guidance — via Jeff Nowak’s FMLA Insights
• Agreeing with EEOC, jury awards demoted boozing truck driver $119,000 — via Overlawyered
• “Fifty Shades” at the Water Cooler — via Evil HR Lady, Suzanne Lucas
• transvestism, transsexualism, gender identity disorders and ADA; True-False version — via Understanding the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
• The Supreme Court and the Men Who Lactate — via Phil Miles’s Lawffice Space
• Employment Litigation is Too Expensive — via Christopher McKinney’s Texas Employment Law Blog
• Faruqi sex harassment trial: it’s a wrap! — via Robin Shea’s Employment & Labor Insider
• DOL Interactive Map Highlights State-by-State Protections for Pregnant and Nursing Women — via Joe's HR and Benefits Blog
• Three Observations about the New EEOC Statistics — via Dan Schwartz’s Connecticut Employment Law Blog

Social Media & Workplace Technology

• How Not to Start a New Job — via San Antonio Employment Law Blog
• Who CAN you fire for their social media activity? — via Mike Haberman’s Omega HR Solutions
• Facebook now lets you choose who controls your account after you die — via The Verge
• Invasion of the Body Cameras: You Need to Be Ready — via Inc.com
• Avoiding liability when searching employee devices — via Technology for HR
• Are RFID Chip Implants on the Horizon for Employees? — via Abovethelaw.com

HR & Employee Relations

• Can You Deny Employment for Falsifying a Job Application? — via employeescreenIQ Blog
• Does Your Office Have Dating Policies and Guidelines? — via ERC Insights Blog
• It Isn’t Your Father’s Workplace Anymore — via Huffington Post
• HR Lessons from Downton Abbey — via Blogging4Jobs
• Refresh Your Lame "Employee of the Month" Program With This Idea — via The HR Capitalist, Kris Dunn

Wage & Hour

• Worker underreports hours? You still owe OT — via Business Management Daily
• Must you pay an employee for mandatory alcohol treatment? — via Eric Meyer’s The Employer Handbook Blog
• Furious Lobbying Continues Ahead of New FLSA Regulations — via Wage & Hour Insights
• Is Ohio’s Minimum Wage On the Rise? — via Employer Law Report

Labor Relations

• Trade Groups Take Aim At Quickie Election Rule — via Labor Relations Today
• Calling the Police Over Handbilling in Front of Workplace Unlawful Because City Previously Designated Area as Public Right of Way — via Matt Austin Labor Law

Clowns, Black Sabbath tribute bands, and a lesson on the ADA

When I was a little kid, I was petrified of clowns. I would run screaming anytime I would see one in a parade, or one would show up on TV. I vividly remember a recurring nightmare of Ronald McDonald chasing me around the coffee table in our basement. Upon reflection, the dream was inevitable, given my coulrophobia, and the McDonald-land motif of a yellow coffee table, and bright red shag carpet that bore a striking resemblance to Ronald’s hair. I’ve been over my fear for nearly 40 years. But, if I wasn’t, I could flat our guarantee that I wouldn’t be applying for jobs at the circus. And, if I applied, I wouldn’t expect the circus to hire me.

Even if coulrophobia is an ADA-protected disability (and it likely is), that is only half of the equation to determine whether the ADA offers job protections to an individual with a disability. The individual must also be “qualified,” which means he or she must be able to perform the essential functions of the job, with or without reasonable accommodation.

With all of this as background, consider Waltherr-Willard v. Mariemont City Schools [pdf], decided yesterday by the 6th Circuit. Maria Waltherr-Willard is a schoolteacher suffering from pedophobia, a debilitating fear of young children. She sued Mariemont City Schools for disability discrimination when it denied her transfer request. Needless to say, she lost.

The ADA, as amended in 2009, is wide-reaching. I’m on record as saying that most medical conditions will qualify as “disabilities” under the statute. But, just because an employee is “disabled” does not mean that you must accommodate the disability. You need to engage to employee in the interactive process to determine if an accommodation is needed at all to enable the employee to perform the essential functions of the job, and if so, whether such an accommodation is reasonable and available. If the answer to these questions is no, then the ADA does not protect the employee.

(Yes, this is a real band).

Can you require vaccines for your employees?

You may heard that we have a bit of a measles issue going on around the country.

At his HR Solutions blog, and on his Twitter, Make Haberman asked, “Are measles protected by the ADA?”

The ADA no longer carves-out “short-term” impairments from its definition of “disability.” Thus, there is an argument to be made that the measles could qualify as an ADA-disability, provided that it substantially limits a major life activity of the sufferer. Given that one only suffers from measles symptoms (albeit rather severe symptoms) for a week or so, I have my doubts that a one-week impairment “substantially limits a major life activity” of the sufferer. No matter how loosely the Act’s 2009 amendments liberalized the definition of “disability,” I can’t imagine Congress intended the ADA to apply to short-term viruses.

Whether or not the ADA covers the measles as a disability, if you are going to fire an employee who cannot come to work because of the measles (FMLA notwithstanding), you need to engage in some serious self reflections about the type of employer you are.

Of course, if everyone was vaccinated against the measles, we wouldn’t need to have this discussion. So, can you require that your employees present proof of vaccination as a condition of employment? Here’s what the EEOC has to say on the issue:

An employee may be entitled to an exemption from a mandatory vaccination requirement based on an ADA disability that prevents him from taking the influenza vaccine. This would be a reasonable accommodation barring undue hardship (significant difficulty or expense). Similarly, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, once an employer receives notice that an employee’s sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance prevents him from taking the influenza vaccine, the employer must provide a reasonable accommodation unless it would pose an undue hardship as defined by Title VII (“more than de minimis cost” to the operation of the employer’s business, which is a lower standard than under the ADA).

Generally, ADA-covered employers should consider simply encouraging employees to get the influenza vaccine rather than requiring them to take it.

At least as far as the EEO laws are concerned, private employers can require vaccinations, as long as you are willing to accommodate employees’ disabilities and religions.