Dress codes and gender biases

Women are prohibited from showing their bare arms.

Women are required to cover their dress with a second layer.

These are two new rules the Missouri House of Representatives enacted for its current term. It did not enact any new dress code policies for men. That's a big discriminatory problem. 

Dr. King’s struggle has not ended

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

WIRTW #656: the “Dilenogate” edition

Until now, I've avoided writing about Dilenogate, the story that has gripped the Cleveland legal community and the nation. 

To sum it up, Jon Dileno, a (now former) senior labor and employment attorney at Cleveland law firm Zashin & Rich sent a highly offensive and inappropriate text to an employee who, instead of returning to the firm following her maternity leave, accepted a new job and gave her notice. 

He called her "soul-less and morally bankrupt," threatened to trash her in any future job references, and accused her of "collecting salary from the firm while sitting on your ass" while on maternity leave. 

The story went crazy viral after Kelly Barnett shared the story and text message on LinkedIn.

In response to the viral story, the firm put out a weak (and I'd argue further damaging) now-deleted post on its own LinkedIn page: "That single text was sent in the heat of the moment by an employee upset by the belief that the former colleague while on paid leave sought employment with another law firm." As pressure mounted, however, it published another post the next day: "After careful consideration, Jon Dileno is no longer with Zashin & Rich."

So much digital ink has been spilled about this story, there's no need for me to pile on. Instead, I merely direct you to the following:

• When an Employee Returns from FMLA Leave, Don't Be This Employer — via Jeff Nowak's FMLA Insights
• Maternity Leave Is Not "Sitting Around on Your Ass" — via Suzanne Lucas at Inc.com
• Firm Parts Ways with Lawyer Who Called Maternity Leave "Sitting on Your Ass", After Text Calling Maternity Leave "Sitting on Your Ass," Law Firm Looks oo Sit on Its Ass on Response, and "Collecting Salary from the Firm While Sitting on Your Ass" Is Certainly ONE Way for a Senior Lawyer to Describe Maternity Leave — via Above the Law
• Text accusing exiting lawyer of sitting on her keister during maternity leave leads to second departure — via ABA Journal
• Cleveland law firm, attorney criticized after social media post shows insulting text sent to attorney who left firm after maternity leave — via Cleveland.com

I'll merely add the following to this important discussion. The legal community and, more broadly, the entire business community, needs to do better with pregnant workers and new moms. Childbirth and maternity leave aren't a vacation. We as employers (heck, as humans) should never treat it as such, nor should we stigmatize or punish our employees for doing that which their bodies naturally — give birth. Bringing a child into this world is difficult enough. We don't need to make it any harder than it already is. 

Support new moms; don't retaliate against them. Here's a three suggestions to consider that will not only help you support your employees, but will also help you recruit to and keep talent in your business.

1.) Offer strong parental leave programs. The FMLA requires 12 weeks of unpaid leave. Consider offering more, or offering to cover the employee's pay for some/all of the leave. If you're not FMLA covered or the employee isn's FMLA eligible, consider mirroring the statute for your employees anyway.

2.) Ramp up/down policies. Plenty of employees work their full 40 right up until their due date, and jump right back into the deep end of work as soon as their leave ends. But consider a phase out and a phase in with reduced hours on both ends. It helps the new mom's physical health leading up to childbirth and her mental health in returning to work.

3.) Schedule flexibility. Parenting isn't a nine-to-five job. It's a 24/7/365 job that is really good at throwing curveballs to parents. Late nights with little sleep. Unexpected doctor appointments. Visits to the pediatric ER. Do you want a sleep deprived or otherwise distracted employee at work. You certainly won't get their best. So try to be as accommodating and understanding as possible. Flexible hours and remote work help ease the stress caused by the unexpectedness of raising a newborn.

If you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem. Don't be part of the problem.

Here's what else I read this week that you should read, too.

Employers, for the love of God, please stop banning employees from discussing their wages

I came across the following recent post on the legaladvice subreddit.

Work for a brewery. GM and owner … informed everyone that we needed to sign a contract essentially stating that if ANY employee was found to be discussing wages, they would be terminated immediately.… As of last week, GM let everyone know that any employee who hasn't signed the paper will be looked at as a voluntary resignation. I should probably add that, of course, we have no union.

This is what we labor and employment lawyers call … what's the term … ILLEGAL. 

Settlement highlights wage and hour risks of remote work

The City of Cleveland has agreed to pay $50,000 to settle the wage and hour claim of a City Hall employee who claimed that she wasn't paid overtime while working from home during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Eve Bonvissuto, an assistant administrator in the city's public safety department's medical unit, had claimed $68,709 in overtime pay. She alleged that the city had misclassified her as exempt, and that city had no timecard or time-tracking system in place at the time for remote workers.

A supersized harassment settlement highlights the extra care employers must take when employing minors

How bad must sexual harassment be for an employer to settle a harassment case for $2 million? This bad.

AMTCR—the owner of 18 McDonald's franchises across California, Nevada, and Arizona—will pay $1,997,500 to resolve a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by the EEOC.

WIRTW #655: the “FTC did WHAT?!?!” edition

Yesterday, the FTC broke the employment law internet when it announced a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that, if it takes effect, would ban all employment-related non-compete agreements on a national level.

The proposed rule, on which the FTC will accept comments for the next 60 days, would—

• Provide that noncompete clauses are an unfair method of competition, and, as a result, would ban employers from entering noncompete clauses with their workers, including independent contractors; and

• Require employers to rescind existing noncompete clauses with workers and actively inform their employees that the contracts are no longer in effect.

The FTC is also soliciting opinions on certain key issues, such as whether senior executives should be exempted from the rule, or subject to a rebuttable presumption rather than a ban; and whether low- and high-wage workers should be treated differently.

The agency has published a wealth of information, including the proposed rule itself and a fact sheet.

I have serious questions, specifically as to how a federal agency can enact a rule such as this, and whether a change of this magnitude must be enacted by law and not regulation. To me, this rule would go well beyond the FTC's rulemaking authority. Expect litigation to be filed in a business-friendly court, and for the Supreme Court to have the final say on this important issue. It is certainly far from a done deal that this proposed regulation will ever take effect. So keep those noncompete agreements in place, at least for now.

Here's what else I read this past week that you should read, too.