Get in the zone … the no-blacks zone

Does Title VII permit an employer to staff its stores based on the racial composition of its customers? That’s the question at the heart of EEOC v. AutoZone, currently pending in federal court in Chicago.

In the lawsuit, the EEOC alleges that the auto-parts retailer transferred African-American employees to certain stores in the Chicago area based on its conception that its Hispanic customers preferred to interact with Hispanic employees.

According to Employment Law 360 [sub. req.], AutoZone claims that the EEOC cannot prove its claim because the transferees would have suffered no loss in pay, benefits, position, or responsibilities, and therefore suffered no adverse employment action under Title VII.

Meanwhile, the EEOC claims that this brand of segregation is the exact type of discrimination Title VII is supposed to prohibit: “Structuring a workforce or work assignments by race is at the core of what Title VII was enacted to combat. Autozone’s argument boils down to the proposition that an employer is free to segregate its workforce so long as it is careful to do so through lateral transfers. Title VII is not that narrow.”

It seems to me that even if the pay, benefits, etc. were exactly the same in both stores, we abolished “separate-but-equal” 61 years ago, and Title VII should not permit an employers to Plessy v. Ferguson its workforce for any reason.

For more on customer preference as discrimination, check out the following two posts from the archives:

• Customer preference does not protect employers from race discrimination claims 
• Customer preference and race discrimination—when the customer isn’t right

The “duck” test for independent contractors

Earlier this week, FedEx announced that it would pay an astounding $228 million to settle claims that it had misclassified drivers as independent contractors. This news comes on the heals on the Department of Labor’s announcement of pending guidance on independent contractor status.

Meanwhile, on the same day as the FedEx settlement, the Ohio Supreme Court issued its decision in State ex rel. WFAL Construction [pdf], which decided that under the facts presented, individuals working under a construction contract were “employees” for workers’ compensation purposes.

As a technical matter, in Ohio, R.C. 4123.01(A)(1)(c) lists 20 factors to determine whether a person is an “employee” for purposes of workers’ compensation; if 10 of those criteria are met, the worker is an employee. In WFAL Construction, the workers met the following 10 criteria:

1. The individuals were required to comply with instruction from either the owner or an onsite lead carpenter.
2. The services provided by these workers are integrated into the regular functioning of this employer as they do all of the work.
3. The named persons on the various timesheets and logs performed the work personally.
4. The individuals were paid by the employer.
5. Records that were available to the auditor showed that the same workers performed work repeatedly for the employer.
6. The individuals were paid for the specific number of hours worked on a weekly basis.
7. As the employer had a supervisor or foreman on the worksite if he was not present himself, the Committee finds that the order of work was determined by the employer.
8. Given the hourly payments, the workers would not realize a profit or loss as a result of the services provided.
9. The employer has the right to discharge any of these individuals.
10. There is no indication that any of the individuals would incur liability if the relationship ended.

Despite these specific criteria, I have reached the conclusion that the best test to determine whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor is the “duck” test—if it looks like an employee, acts like an employee, and is treated like an employee, then it’s an employee. I know this isn’t clear guidance, but, much like how Justice Potter Stewart years ago famously defined obscenity, I think you know an employee when you see one. 

So, Department of Labor, bring on your guidance. I doubt it will be any clearer or more workable than my “duck” standard.

Legal marijuana remains off-limits in the workplace

It is likely that when Ohioans go the polls this November, we will have the opportunity to vote on whether to amend our state constitution to permit for the medicinal and recreational use of marijuana. Meanwhile, Cleveland.com reports that business groups are concerned over certain language in the proposed ballot measure, which, if passed, would require employers to accommodate their employees’ use of legally prescribed marijuana for medical purposes.

This language has employers questioning whether one could interpret the proposed amendment to mandate that employers permit certain employees to show up to work high, or, worse yet, use marijuana on-the-job.

To this end, business groups have been closely watching Coates v. Dish Network [pdf], a Colorado Supreme Court case asking whether an employer must accommodate an employee’s lawful use of marijuana under that state’s laws.

Thankfully, in a unanimous opinion, the Colorado Supreme Court held that the legality of marijuana under Colorado state law does not limit the right of an employer to otherwise regulate its use or effects in the workplace.

I have yet to read an opinion which suggests that legalized marijuana requires accommodation by employers for workplace use, even for medicinal purposes. Unless and until a court reaches that absurd conclusion, assume that employees have zero rights to show up to work high, even if personal off-duty marijuana use is legal under the law of your state, and even if the use is pursuant to a valid prescription to treat a medical condition.

Why don't discrimination laws protect everyone from abuse?

The Huffington Post asks the following question:

Laws Protect Certain Classes from Workplace Abuse: Why Not Everyone?

It’s a valid question. The law only protects an employee from being treated poorly at work if he or she happens to fall into a legally protected category, which, on the federal level, includes race, sex, religion, national origin, age, disability, genetic information, and military status. Depending in what state one happens to work, these classes might expand to include sexual orientation, gender identity, or marital status.

The article goes on to argue that “federal and state employment laws should be developed to protect all … from workplace bullying and companies from allegations of unfair treatment via clearly defined expectations for acceptable standards of behavior.”

Here’s the problem with this argument. You can’t legislate being an asshole. The world is full of them, and no set of laws, rules, or regulation will stop this mis-behavior. All it will do is either create an environment in which it is too expensive for employers to employ anyone because of the increased risk and attendant costs associates with firing anyone, or create an environment in which an employer fears managing anyone because of risk that the managed employee will cry “bully” and sue.

Yet, there is a tremendous amount of sex appeal behind the idea of anti-bullying laws. I believe, especially in the politically correct culture in which we currently live and work, that anti-bullying workplace laws are a likely inevitability. All it will take is one state to fall, and the rest will drop like dominoes. 

So, what is an employer to do? Shape up before a legislature requires it. Take a stand against bullies in your business. Treat all of your employees with the respect with which you would want to be treated if in their shoes. Hold your managers and supervisors accountable for any mis-treatment of employees, even if it falls outside one of the legally protected classes. Otherwise, the din of support for anti-bullying laws will grow into a roar that the government will not be able to ignore. While that would be good for my business, it most certainly would not be good for yours.

WIRTW #370 (the “I’m ready for my close-up”) edition

What are you doing at 8 pm tonight? I know what I’m doing. I’ll be watching Stossel on Fox Business Network. I was in New York on Tuesday taping a segment that airs on tonight’s show. Here’s the official description of my segment:

With politicians talking about job creation, you would hope government would make it easy to hire people. But the opposite is true. There are a thousand questions you may not ask when hiring someone… “how long have you been working?” or “how tall are you?” could get you into big trouble.

Pop some corn, or, if you’re out and about on a summer Friday eve, set your DVR, to get your seven-minute fix of Hyman on employment law.


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

Discrimination

• Post-trial maneuvering in a discrimination verdict — via Walter Olson’s Overlawyered
• “Must-haves” for your harassment investigation — via Robin Shea’s Employment & Labor Insider
• SCOTUS ruling on religious garb puts employers in a double bind — via HR Café
• Your employee has a fragrance allergy. What does the ADA require you to do? — via Eric Meyer’s The Employer Handbook Blog
• State of Ohio Jumps in and “Bans the Box” For All Civil Service Jobs — via TLNT

Social Media & Workplace Technology

• Keep God in Your Heart-and Off Your LinkedIn Profile — via Suzanne Lucas at Inc.com
• Zoo employee fired over “racist” social-media post — via wpxi.com

HR & Employee Relations

• OSHA and Workplace Violence — via The Emplawyerologist
• MOVE Act Introduced; Non-Compete Agreements Would Be Limited, if Passed — via Dan Schwartz’s Connecticut Employment Law Blog
• Enforcing a Noncompete Agreement Takes More Than Bluffing — via Michigan Employment Law Advisor
• Men Are Struggling With Work-Family Balance, Too — via Huffington Post
• Planning Maternity or Paternity Leave: A Professional’s Guide — via Harvard Business Review
• Online Background Check Disclosure Form Did Not Violate the FCRA — via Laconic Law Blog
• Employee Resigns: Walk Them Out the Door Or Let Them Work a Notice? — via Fistful of Talent
• 5 New Rules for the World of Work — via Blogging4Jobs

Wage & Hour

• SCOTUS takes another class action case — via Ross Runkel Report
• HR 101: Are You Classifying Your Independent Contractors Correctly? — via TLNT
• General Release May Not Preclude FLSA Claims Says Fifth Circuit — via The Wage and Hour Litigation Blog
• Five most targeted industries for government wage and hour audits — via California Employment Law Report
• Even for Hourly Workers, Calculating the “Regular Rate” Can Be Complex — via Wage & Hour Insights
• Intern Settlement Is a Blockbuster — via Minnesota Employment Law Report
• 3d Cir. Rules on FMLA Definition of Overnight Stay — via Delaware Employment Law Blog
• Court Imposes FMLA Catch-22 — via Donna Ballman’s Screw You Guys, I’m Going Home

Labor Relations

• How the NLRB’s “Quickie” Election Rule Is Impacting Workplace Elections — via TLNT
• “6th Circuit says Michigan tribe subject to federal labor laws” — via How Appealing
• English-Only Rules – A New Unfair Labor Practice — via Employment Essentials
• Hey NLRB: WTF? That Means “Why The Foolishness?” What Did You Think it Meant? — via The Employment Brief
• Why labor groups genuinely believe they can unionize McDonald’s one day — via Wonkblog

Beware the email chain of fools

A software engineer rejected for a job by GoDaddy is suing the company for discrimination. Why does he believe that the company discriminated against him? According to USA Today, he read it in the email chain included in his otherwise vanilla rejection email.

The e-mail…, which appears to be sent from a group titled the “GoDaddy Recruiting Team,” begins with a tame form letter, explaining that Connolly had not been selected for a job as a mobile IOS developer. But the note he said he saw below it in the e-mail chain packed an unusual punch.

It read, “about keith he’s great for the job in skills but he looks worse for wear do we really want an obeese (sic) christian? is that what our new image requires of us.”

Like many before it, GoDaddy says that either it was hacked or the email was fabricated. Some computer forensics will sort out the truth of that defense. If it turns out that the email is legit, GoDaddy might want to rethink its “we are not offering any kind of settlement or an apology” position.

Do I really need to tell you not to ever put something like “do we really want an obese Christian” in an email. Some things are better left unsaid, or, more to the point, un-typed. And, for god’s sake, please read those emails (all of them) before you click send. It makes my job a whole lot easier defending you without that smoking gun. 

And, before my employee-advocate readers get all over my case for defending one’s right to discriminate merely by keeping silent, yes, in an ideal world no one would think this way. But, my job is to defend the companies that have the misfortune of employing those that do. If GoDaddy is wrong, and one of its recruiters did send that email, then it should stand by its pronouncement that it is “proud to be an Equal Opportunity Employer” and settle, period.

Racist comments as protected concerted activity (really!)

Racism at work cannot be tolerated, right? So here’s a quick quiz. Assume you hear a white employee yelling the following at black co-workers:

• “Hey, did you bring enough KFC for everyone?” and
• “I smell fried chicken and watermelon!”

Do you: a) fire the offending employee; or b) brush it off? 

I’m going to lay pretty decent odds that most of you opted for choice “a.” Would you believe, though, that according to one NLRB judge, the answer depends on whether the racist employee is walking a picket line.

In Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. (6/5/15) [pdf], Administrative Law Judge Randazzo concluded that, while clearly racist, offensive, and inappropriate, the employer violated the NLRA when it fired the offending employee because he made the remarks in the context of a strike and there were no corresponding threats of violence:

Runion’s “KFC” and “fried chicken and watermelon” statements most certainly were racist, offensive, and reprehensible, but they were not violent in character, and they did not contain any overt or implied threats to replacement workers or their property. The statements were also unaccompanied by any threatening behavior or physical acts of intimidation by Runion towards the replacement workers in the vans.… The record evidence in this case does not establish that Runion’s statements were coercive or intimidating to the exercise of employees’ Section 7 rights, and it does not establish that the statements raised the likelihood of imminent physical confrontation.

Thus, an employee is justified, under the NLRA, to be as racist as he wants to be as long as: 1) the comments are made in the context of otherwise protected, concerted activity, and b) the comments are not accompanied by violence or overt threats of violence.

Although the breadth of the NLRB’s current iteration’s interpretation of “protected concerted activity” should surprise no one, I am stunned that this ALJ has gone this far. 

1. No employee should be subjected to this type of abuse, picket line or no picket line, and it is shameful that this type of misconduct is condoned.
2. Employers should not be forced into a Hobson’s Choice between the NLRA and Title VII. Retaining the offender may save the employer from liability under the NLRA, but it won’t do the employer any favors if the victim pushes the issue under Title VII.

If nothing else, this case is a scary reminder of how far the NLRB and its judges will go to fine protected concerted activity. Employers, you are warned/