The 8th nominee for the “worst employer of 2017” is … the cancerous boss

“Jon, you write a management-side blog. Why are you running a contest to find the worst employer of 2017?”

Because of employers like this one (via Courthouse News):

SCOTUS takes largely meaningless swipe at Obama’s NLRB legacy

Lafe Solomon

There is little doubt that under President Obama, the NLRB reinvented itself into an agency about which all employers must pay attention. One can trace much of this reinvention back to Lafe Solomon (a man with whom I once shared an NRP microphone), the NLRB’s acting general counsel from June 2010 through October 2013.

Yesterday, however, in NLRB v. SW General, Inc. [pdf], the Supreme Court held that Mr. Solomon’s tenure from January 5, 2011, through October 29, 2013, was unlawful, as it violated the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 (FVRA).

EEOC offers sage advice on following checklists for harassment compliance

Last June, the EEOC issued a comprehensive, bi-partisan report on harassment in the workplace. The report’s stated purpose was to “reboot workplace harassment prevention efforts” by focusing on efforts employers can take “in designing effective anti-harassment policies; developing training curricula; implementing complaint, reporting, and investigation procedures; creating an organizational culture in which harassment is not tolerated; ensuring employees are held accountable; and assessing and responding to workplace “risk factors” for harassment.”

One such tool the EEOC provided was a series of four checklist for employers to use to create an effective harassment prevention program.

• Leadership and accountability.
• Anti-harassment policies.
• Harassment reporting systems and investigations.
• Compliance training.

Swapping DNA for lower insurance costs is one wellness step too far

It is no secret that health care costs for employers and their employees are out of control. Many employers have attempted to hold down these rising costs by offering wellness-program incentives. The EEOC has signed off on these programs as legal as long as employee participation remains voluntary, which the agency defines as financial incentives for employee participation at or below 30 percent of the cost of coverage. Thus, employees have a choice—participate in the wellness program, or pay a surcharge of up to 30 percent.

One area that has remained off limits for employers under these wellness programs, however, has been genetic testing and other personal and family medical histories. A new bill moving through the House of Representatives, however, aims to change that.

WIRTW #453 (the “Oxford comma” edition)

Who knew that the l’il ol’ Oxford comma was so controversial? I would have never dreamed that yesterday’s post on the importance of its omission in a wage/statute would generate so much feedback, or that people feel so passionately about its use or non-use. In fact, it was my most shared and talked about post since my takedown of Trump’s first immigration ban.

To gauge exactly how you feel about the Oxford comma, I’ve designed a quick, one-question survey. Take a moment, and click “yes” or “no” on whether one should use the Oxford comma when writing.

Create your own user feedback survey
I’ll publish the results in the coming weeks.

Here’s what I read this week:

For want of an Oxford comma

Vampire Weekend once asked, “Who gives a f__k about an Oxford comma?” The answer, apparently, is the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals, a whole lot.

In O’Connor v. Oakhurt Dairy [pdf], that court reversed the dismissal of an overtime lawsuit based on the absence of a Oxford comma in a list of activities that qualify for a certain exemption under Maine’s wage-and-hour law.

The 11th Circuit’s odd LGBT-discrimination decision

Late last week, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, in Evans v. Georgia Regional Hosp. [pdf], held that Title VII does not protect sexual-orientation discrimination per se, and that to sufficiently plead such a cause of action under Title VII, one must allege facts sufficient to establish that the employer discriminated based on non-conformity with sex-based stereotypes. 

As such, this decision directly conflicts with the formal position of the EEOC (a priority that EEOC Commissioner Chai Feldblum announced will not change under President Trump), and expected decision by the 2nd and 7th Circuits.