Just because lone acts of harassment aren’t always actionable doesn’t mean you should ignore them

By now, you’ve likely heard of the furor over the Confederate flag following the horrific church massacre in Charleston, South Carolina. You haven’t? Well, watch this, from Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, and then let’s talk.

What are you to do if you have employees who like to display the Confederate flag at your workplace (think belt buckles, or do-rags, or maybe even small flags, or pictures thereof, in offices or cubicles)? Do you: a) permit it because solitary acts of harassment that are overtly severe or offensive likely are not actionable under Title VII; or b) prohibit it because it might make your African-American employees uncomfortable, or worse, offend them (heck, even South Carolina and Wal-Mart have relented on the issue)?
If we’re talking about a Confederate flag (or flags) as part of a deeper pattern of harassment, which includes other, more overt, acts, like nooses, monkeys, and racist language (like in this case), then it’s a no-brainer. You investigate, fire the offending employee(s), and institute some serious, heavy duty anti-harassment training. If you think you should do anything else, we need to have a serious talk.
But, if we’re talking just about a Confederate flag, without anything more, what are you to do? Ban, or not ban? 
I’m not suggesting you need a “no Confederate flag” policy, but, if you see, or learn of, an employee displaying this charged symbol, I suggest that you require its removal. You would not permit an employee to display a Nazi flag because of its very clear anti-Jewish meaning. For many African-Americans, the Confederate flag holds the same meaning. So, because you want a harmonious and inclusive workplace, you do the right thing, even if doing the wrong thing may not necessarily be illegal.

What’s next for Uber after independent-contractor loss?

In March, I reported on a lawsuit filed against Uber by a class of its drivers claiming that the taxi company mis-classified them as independent contractors. Apparently, that is not the only claim pending against Uber on this very issue. Earlier this month, a California Labor Commission hearing officer concluded that Uber had mis-classified one of its drivers. Uber has appealed the ruling. Frankly, I think Uber has a pretty good argument on appeal.

Here’s the full decision [pdf].

 
The hearing officer relied on the following factors to conclude that Uber’s drivers are employees, not independent contractors (with my critique in the parenthetical).

• Drivers must provide Uber their personal address, banking information, and social security number. (Doesn’t a company want contact info for anyone providing services for it, and doesn’t it need other information so it can pay its contractors?)
• Drivers cannot drive for Uber without a background check. (If a background check is the standard for an employee, then we might as well get rid of independent contractors all together.)
• Drivers must register their cars with Uber, which cannot be more than 10 years old (Cannot a company set reasonable standards for its contractors?)
• Uber monitors drivers’ ratings from passengers, and terminates the relationship if the rating falls below 4.6. (Contractors are not guaranteed contracts for life; if a contractor falls below certain standards, a company always has the right to terminate the relationship.)
• Uber requires drivers to use its app to drive, and they cannot drive without using it. (How is this different than a taxi company tracking its drivers via GPS and directing routes; if anything, Uber drivers have more independence because they can turn down the fare at any time.)
• Drivers are paid a set percentage of the total cost of each ride. (Isn’t this the hallmark of an independent contractor—pay by the job, not by the hour?)

Last week, I called for a “duck” test for independent contractors. Dear readers, Uber drivers absolutely look, swim, and quack like independent contractors. They control when and where they work; they are paid by the ride; they drive their own cars and are responsible for their own expenses; Uber does not supervise the drivers, but merely holds them to reasonable performance standards. If Uber’s drivers are employees, then what is left for independent contractors? Or, is this the beginning of the end of the ability of companies to use the services of contractors? 

WIRTW #371 (the “no more pencils…” edition)

I love school. I mean, I loved school when I was a student, but now that I work, and my wife works, I really love when my kids are in school. It means that I don’t have to expend any energy thinking about how they are going to spend their days. The bus picks them up and drops them off, period. Now that school’s out, however, we have to manage sitters and camps, and getting them to and from sitters and camps. So, we’ve spent the past two weeks dropping off and picking up at camp (which, for me, is 45 minutes from work, without traffic).

How do other employees, and their employers, cope with this seasonal time-management dance? Read “School’s Out!” Means More Free Time for Kids, But None for Working Parents. Here is Help for Employers Managing the Fallout. — via Employment Law Watch

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

Discrimination

• Rachel Dolezal (Spokane NAACP) and the Deep Circle of Self-ID in the Workplace — via The HR Capitalist, Kris Dunn
• Rachel Dolezal and the Quandary of “Perceived As” Discrimination — via Employment Discrimination Report 
• “Patience” is a great G N’ R song; not a reasonable accommodation under the ADA — via Eric Meyer’s The Employer Handbook Blog
• Revisiting Reasonable Accommodation Under the ADA — Being “Effective” — via Dan Schwartz’s Connecticut Employment Law Blog
• Harassment “must-have” no. 4: The Determination — via Robin Shea’s Employment & Labor Insider
• When hiring, never consider or mention military reserve obligations — via Business Management Daily
• Older workers are a bargain — via Ross Runkel Report

Social Media & Workplace Technology

• Clinton e-mail controversy highlights dangers of using personal online accounts for work — via Technology for HR
• Icing on the cake for Facebook privacy laws & the impact on your workplace — via Employment Law Worldview
• My Boss Questioned Me About Personal Texts — via Evil HR Lady, Suzanne Lucas
• Survey Reveals Social Media’s Biggest Workplace Problem — via Workplace Diva
• Workers in America have problems. Meet the technologies trying to solve them. — via Wonkblog

HR & Employee Relations

• Here Are The 50 Best States For Working Dads — via Workplace Diva
• Are We More Productive When We Have More Time Off? — via Harvard Business Review
• The most common—and bizarre—workplace productivity killers — via Ragan.com

Wage & Hour

• California regulators: Uber drivers are employees — via Walter Olson’s Overlawyered
• Summer Interns and The ACA — via Workplace Insights
• Is Your Company required to Pay You Overtime Compensation For After-Hours Smart-Phone Use? — via Overtime Lawyer Blog
• Surprise!! An OSHA Inspector Is At Your Door! — via The Emplawyerologist
• OSHA Compliance Officers Instructed to Collect Employer Data for Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Executive Order — via OSHA Law Blog

Labor Relations

• NLRB Dramatically Educates Private School on Meaning of Concerted Protected Activity — via Management Memo
• NLRB Orders Reinstatement of Undocumented Workers Terminated in 2003 — via Matt Austin Labor Law
• NLRB Unwinding Temporary Employment Model — via Labor Relations Institute

Until next week…

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.