Does OSHA provide a defense for employee misconduct? It depends.

As the saying goes, you can’t teach stupid. No matter what safety measure you put in place, your employees will do stupid things at work, and sometimes they will get hurt.

Court rejects customer’s claims based on harassing Facebook posts by employees

Consider the following scenario. An employee makes offensive posts on his personal Facebook page about one of your customers, which include the following:

“I seen Maurice’s bougie ass walking kahului beach road … nigga please!”

A number of other employees comment on or like the post, including a comment to “run that faka over!!! lol.”

When the customer learns of the posts and comments, he complains. You investigate and fire the offending employees.

Case over, right? Not so fast. The customer sued the employer for negligence relating to its supervision, retention, and training of the offending employees.

The EEOC says, “Preventing Discrimination is Good Business”

Are you a small-business owner? Do you have problems understanding your obligations under the federal employment-discrimination laws? Then the EEOC is here for you.

Last week, the agency published a one-page face sheet, entitled, “Preventing Discrimination is Good Business” (available in English and 29 other languages, such as Amharic, Marshallese, or Tagalog … really).

NLRB narrows employer property rights in key solicitation decision

One of an employer’s best tools to stave off labor unions and their organizing campaigns is a no-solicitation policy. It keeps employees focused on work during working hours, and keeps non-employees (including, but not limited to, union organizers) off your property and out of your workplace.

Yet, over the past couple of years, the NLRB has narrowed employers’ no-solicitation rights. For example, employer email systems must now be open for union-related activities during non-working time.

What about low-tech solicitations? Conventional wisdom used to be that employers could prohibit solicitations in work areas during working time and non-working time. Does this work-area rule still hold?

WIRTW #403 (the “royals” edition)

One of the benefits my kids get from going to a K – 12 school is the experience of varsity high-school sports. Don’t get me wrong, Lake Ridge Academy is far from an athletic powerhouse. The school is much more focused on academics and fine arts than sports. However, once in a while, a team catches fire, and, when it does, my kids get to hitch a ride.

Right now, the girls’ basketball team is that team. Tomorrow night, we play Cornerstone Christian (a team we beat in January) for the right to go to Columbus for the State Division IV Final Four. It will be the school’s first ever trip to the Elite Eight in any sport. The Elyria Chronicle-Telegram recaps the thrill of last night’s 41 – 40 come-from-behind victory over the state’s top ranked team.

Go Royals.

Also, I’d be remiss if I didn’t say a thank you to the student from Perry High School who, after I arrived to a very full parking lot, let me park in the press lot after I told her I was a blogger. This is the post I promised you.

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

Is it illegal to “right size” employees to avoid ACA obligations?

In the past six months, I’ve had more questions from clients about group health insurance than I’ve had in the first 18 years of my practice combined. All of the questions start the same: “Our health insurance premiums are out of control. How do we…?”, finished by some inquiry about moving older workers to Medicare, or shifting high-cost workers to the exchange, or some other machination to avoid the Affordable Care Act.

The reality, however, is that the ACA makes it pretty damn hard to move high-cost employees off of your health insurance to combat out-of-control (and still rising) insurance costs.

Dave & Buster’s thought it had the answer—reducing employees from full-time to part-time.

Last month, however, the district court hearing an employee-challenge to this insurance “right sizing” handed round one to the employees.

EEOC sues employers challenging sexual orientation discrimination as Title-VII sex discrimination

Yesterday, the EEOC filed two lawsuits, each claiming that an employer’s discrimination against an LGBT employee violated Title VII’s prohibition against sex discrimination.

From the EEOC’s press release: