Compliance-by-carrot trumps compliance-by-stick

Democratic administrations are about enforcement.
Republican administrations are about education.

The endgame is still enforcement, but each side approaches this goal very differently.

This dichotomy might be an oversimplification, but, in at least in contrasting the Obama Administration to the Trump Administration, it is very true.

The FLSA's exemptions are becoming more "fair" for employers

In Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, the Supreme Court ruled that overtime exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards Act "are to be given a 'fair reading,' meaning they are not to be construed too narrowly" (as had historically been the case).

The Court applied this "fair reading" standard to conclude that automobile service advisors are exempt under the FLSA's automobile-service exemption.

Training won't fix stupid

A fast-food restaurant fired a recently hired employee after its manager learned she was pregnant.

How do we know this was the manager's reason for the termination? Because he texted it to the employee (which she later posted on Facebook).

WIRTW #521 (the “master of my domain” edition)

What's the top employee issue that makes HR folks queasy? Drugs? Sex? Pornography?

According to Robin Schooling, the worst conversation to have with an employee is about sexual self-pleasuring at work.

What's the most uncomfortable conversation you've ever had with an employee? Please share in the comments below.


Here's what else I read this week:

Does the FMLA protect organ-donation surgery as a "serious health condition?"

Organ donors are living saints. If you are in need of an organ to save your life, and someone is willing to sacrifice a kidney, or a liver segment, or bone marrow, and selflessly accept the pain and inconvenience, you are very, very fortunate.

Sacrificing one's organ to save another's life should not also result in sacrificing one's job.

Earlier this week, the U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division published Opinion Letter FMLA2018-2-A [pdf], which answers the question, "Does organ-donation surgery can qualify as a "serious health condition" under the FMLA?" (Thanks to Eric Meyer for bringing this to my attention.)

The answer is yes.

The FMLA defines a "serious health condition," in part, as an "illness, injury, impairment, or physical or mental condition that involves … inpatient care in a hospital, hospice, or residential medical care facility." "Inpatient care" means as "an overnight stay in a hospital, hospice, or residential medical care facility, including any period of incapacity … or any subsequent treatment in connection with such inpatient care."

According to the United Network for Organ Sharing, donors usually remain in the hospital four to seven days after the harvesting surgery. Thus, because organ donation commonly requires overnight hospitalization, it qualifies as a serious health condition covered by the FMLA.

Thus, covered employers (those with 50 or more employees on the payroll during 20 or more calendar workweeks in either the current or the preceding calendar year) must provide FMLA leave to an eligible employee-donor (someone employed for at least 12 non-consecutive months, who worked 1,250 hours during the 12-month period preceding the start of the requested leave, and who works at a location with 50 or more employees within a 75-mile radius).

What if, however, you are not an FMLA-covered employer? Or the employee-donor is not FMLA eligible? Or they already used up their 12 weeks of FMLA leave? Think twice before you deny requested time off for organ donation.

• Many states have their own specific organ-donor leave laws that require leave above and beyond the FMLA.

• The ADA may require that you grant the time off with, or without, the FMLA or state-specific law. The ADA does not require an employer to provide a reasonable accommodation to a person without a disability due to that person’s association with someone with a disability. Nevertheless, the ADA mandates that an employer avoid treating an employee differently than other employees because of an association with a person with a disability. Thus, if an employer grants time off to employees for their own surgeries, the ADA will require similar treatment to employees taking time off to donate an organ to one’s association or relation.

Is it inconvenient for an employer to provide time off to any employee? Absolutely. Do you want to be in a position of defending your decision to fire that employee in the face of a leave request for the selfless act donating an organ to save another's life? Absolutely not. While such a decision is likely illegal, it's also undoubtedly inhuman. And it's that inhumanity that will cost your company dearly in front of a judge or a jury.

* Photo by Tim Gouw on Unsplash

I ❤️ my wife, and I ❤️ attendance policies

On August 29, 2003, I married my wife.

The ceremony was to start at 11 am, and by 10:55 I was nervous. Not your normal, "I'm about to get married" nervous, but the, "What the hell, we start in 5 minutes and my bride-to-be isn't here yet" nervous. With no cell phone on me, I just had to have faith that Colleen was on her way. Nevertheless, I was most definitely jittery.

Temporary employees have permanent legal rights

Temporary employees do not leave their legal rights at your door. In fact, they enjoy the same rights as your permanent employees.

Consider, for example, EEOC v. Massimo Zanetti Beverage USA, in which an employer recently agreed to pay $65,000 to settle claims brought by a temporary employee that she was subjected to a sexually hostile work environment and fired after repeatedly complaining about it.

The allegations are not pretty.

LaToya Young began working as a temp at Massimo Zanetti in late January 2015. Within 10 days of starting her placement, a male co-worker began making sexually harassing comments to her:

• Telling Young that he had "blue balls" and asking her "Why don’t you help me out with that?"
• Telling Young that he wanted to "suck [her] bottom lip."
• Telling Young that he wanted to have sex with her, often using lewd language.
• Telling Young that he imagined himself engaging in sexual relations with her.
• Telling Young that he would "ball [her] up like a pretzel" and would "have [her] screaming."
• Grabbing his groin area while looking directly at her.
• Blowing kisses at her.
• Licking his lips and biting his bottom lip while looking at her.

Young complained three times to her supervisor. The harassment continued unabated after the first complaint. After the second complaint, Young alleges that her supervisor warned her that going to HR "would jeopardize her employment." After the third complaint, she was fired. 

According to EEOC Regional Attorney Kara Haden, "Employers must take appropriate action to stop harassment of all employees, including temporary workers." She adds, "We hope that this case sends a clear message that the EEOC will hold accountable employers who fail to protect all employees from workplace harassment."

Take heed of this lesson. Your temporary employees have the same civil rights as your permanent employees.

* Photo by Sunyu on Unsplash