Yes, GINA covers cheek swabs, even ones to uncover employee misconduct

I’ve always said that employment law is a dirty job, and this case more than proves my point.

Atlas Logistics Group, a Georgia food-storage company, had a big problem. One of its employees began habitually defecating in its warehouse. (In case you’re curious, the scientific name for this disorder is voluntary encopresis, one who has control over when and where bowel movements occur and chooses to have them in inappropriate places.)

To solve its mystery, Atlas required its employees to submit to a cheek swab, after which a lab compared DNA samples from the employees’ swabs to DNA from the offending fecal matter. Two employees, Jack Lowe and Dennis Reynolds, whose DNA did not match, filed suit under the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act.

Last month, a federal court granted summary judgment in favor of the employees, concluding that 1) GINA unequivocally covers the DNA tests conducted on their cheek-swab samples, and 2) the employer violated the statute by requesting and collecting the employees’ genetic information.

With liability already established, earlier this month, the parties tried the employees’ damages claims. And, the jury came back with a big number — $2,225,000 — including $225,000 and $250,000 in compensatory damages for the two plaintiffs, and $1,750,000 in punitive damages.

To me, this employer’s actions are not all that outrageous or inappropriate. It asked employees who were in the area of the found feces to submit to swabs of their cheeks. It neither asked for stool samples or for them to bend over and cough. Could the employer have taken a less intrusive measure, like installing hidden cameras? Sure. But, it did what it thought was reasonable under the circumstances to catch its predator. Unfortunately, however, a DNA test is still a DNA test, which runs afoul of GINA.

While I’m not offended by these tests, the jury clearly was. Over $200,000 per employee in compensatory damages? For a q-tip in the mouth? And $1.75 million in punitive damages? Why was this jury so outraged? Because their sense of privacy was offended. While social media seems to be eroding the innate nature of what “privacy” means, this verdict tells us that medical and genetic information are different.

So, employers, tread lightly when dealing with your employees’ genetic information. One case does not make a trend, but $2,225,000 (albeit one that should be reduced to $600,000 per the civil-rights law’s damage caps) in enough to make any employer stand up and take notice that genetic information discrimination is here to stay.

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.