Another take on second-hand harassment

Remember Reeves v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide from a few weeks ago. It allowed a plaintiff to proceed with a sexual harassment claim even though she was not the target of the alleged offensive conduct. The 6th Circuit has now also weighed in on this issue of second-hand harassment (sort of), in Bailey v. USF Holland, which we discussed Friday. (Please follow the link for the background of the Bailey case.)

The district court found "that a wide variety of racially motivated harassment occurred at the Nashville terminal." The district court concluded that "some of the conduct was, on its face, clearly racially motivated – such as the continued use of the terms 'boy,' 'hey boy,' 'damn it boy,' and variations thereof, in the face of the plaintiffs' requests not to be called those terms, and after the racial implications of those terms had been clearly explained at sensitivity training sessions. ..." The district court also noted that the “more overtly racially offensive behavior, such as the statement 'I can call him a low-down, dirty nigger and he won't mind' sheds light on the otherwise unclear motivations behind some of the other incidents."

Defendant argues that the effect of this overtly racial statement was minimal because it was made by an hourly employee and merely overheard by Smith. Defendant also suggests that the employee apologized to Smith and that the two of them were friends. This misses the point. The district court did not conclude that this statement itself created a hostile work environment; rather, it found that this statement "sheds light" on what could otherwise be seen as the ambiguous motivations behind some of the other examples of harassment"

In an atmosphere in which fliers depicting one of the plaintiffs as "the boy," nooses, and various other forms of "boy" graffiti were absent, the court might be inclined to believe that the plaintiffs were overreacting when their coworkers slipped the word "boy" into the conversation in more subtle ways. But in a work environment that included nooses, offensive flyers, "boy" graffiti, and other frankly racist behavior, the court concludes that, indeed, the plaintiffs were being baited by white employees in additional, more subtle ways.

Defendant is correct that "merely offensive" conduct does not establish a hostile work environment. ... But after reviewing the totality of the circumstances, the district court concluded: "[i]t is unlikely that, after Mr. Bailey and Mr. Smith had spent years complaining about the terms, a white employee could end a sentence to either plaintiff with 'damn it boy' and mean no offense."

This seems like a much more sensible treatment of second-hand harassment than what a different court did in the Reeves case. The 6th Circuit does not say that the second-hand harassment is actionable in and of itself. Instead, it takes the position that the evidence of second-hand harassment is admissible to shed light on the offensive nature of the work environment itself. In other words, while the use of the word "boy" could be innocuous, coupled with the fact that one of its utterers refers to one of the plaintiffs as "a low-down dirty nigger" strongly suggests that "boy" is anything but innocent. Thus, the "low-down dirty nigger" comment is not actionable as harassment in and of itself, but as evidence of the intent of the word "boy."

In responding to harassment complaint, prompt means prompt

In Bailey v. USF Holland, the 6th Circuit had occasion to examine whether the employer's response to two African-American employees' claims of racial harassment was sufficiently prompt to defeat liability. This case provides a good case study from which companies can learn how, and how not, to respond to an employee's internal complaint.

Bailey and Smith, both African-American, were dock workers for USF Holland. Throughout their employment, their white coworkers constantly subjected them to the word "boy." When they would complain to their coworkers that the word "boy" is offensive when directed at a black man, they would sarcastically respond, "damn it boy." The more they complained, the more serious the harassment would become. It moved from words to vandalism, including "boy" spray painted on equipment, etched into walls, used to depict black men in cartoon drawings, and even written on a calendar on MLK Day. The harassment was not limited to the use of the word "boy." Bailey discovered a noose hanging in the dock area, and Smith overheard one white coworker telling another that he liked Smith because he could call him "a low-down dirty nigger" and Smith would not do anything about it.

Two years after Bailey and Smith started complaining to management about the offensive use of the word "boy," a new terminal manager and the VP of HR decided to conduct "sensitivity training" at the terminal. During that training it was explained that "boy" was offensive to African-Americans because it was used as a racial epithet during slavery. During the training, "several white employees voiced resistance to the idea that it was wrong to refer to African-American men as 'hey boy' or 'damn it boy.'" One white employee, Fred Connor, even told the terminal manager that "boy" was a "southern thing" and he would continue to use it regardless of company policy.

Not surprisingly, the behavior continued for several months after the training, as did Bailey's and Smith's complaints to management. At that time, USF brought in an outside lawyer who conducted a three-day investigation. He concluded that "while the environment likely is not racially hostile [huh?], it is certainly one in which more sensitive employees can feel uncomfortable." As a result, the VP of HR wrote to Bailey and Smith, telling them that the company could not discipline any employees because the use of "boy" was not racially motivated and that everyone had denied the other alleged conduct.

As the graffiti and harassment continued, USF hired a handwriting expert and terminated the offending employee, Fred Connor. He filed a union grievance and was reinstated. After his reinstatement, Connor reiterated to the terminal manager that "he would not adhere to the policy and would continue to use the word 'boy' as he saw fit."

Finally, in 2006, 4 years after Bailey's and Smith's first complaint and a year after they filed their lawsuit, USF installed 25 security cameras, which finally ended the graffiti.

At a bench trial, the district court judge awarded Bailey and Smith each $350,000 in compensatory damages.

On appeal, USF argued that it could not be liable for the harassment because it took "reasonable, prompt, and appropriate corrective action." The 6th Circuit disagreed:

Defendant cites examples of its corrective action, noting for example that it "consistently had a reasonable harassment policy," conducted employee meetings to respond to plaintiffs' complaints, and disciplined the employee responsible for the graffiti. The district court correctly rejected these actions as insufficient. A harassment policy itself means nothing without enforcement, and the persistent harassment plaintiffs received over an extended period of time caused the district court to conclude that the policy was not consistently enforced. Defendant conducted employee meetings, but plaintiffs' coworkers stated that they did not consider their use of "boy" to be offensive and insisted that they would continue to use it. Defendant discharged Connor once it discovered that he created the graffiti, but he was reinstated soon thereafter. USF Holland was unable to stop the graffiti until it installed security cameras – an act it did not take until after plaintiffs initiated this lawsuit.

Termination of the alleged harasser is not the be all and end all of corrective action. Usually courts do not second guess an employer's course of remedial action. Indeed, had the sensitivity training succeeded in ending the harassment, I doubt that Bailey and Smith would have prevailed. When, however, the offending employee tells the VP of HR during sensitive training that he will continue calling black employees "boy," and others offer similar resistance, a company cannot turn a blind eye and hope that everything will work out. By the time employees started being disciplined and security cameras were involved, it was "too little, too late."

The timeline in this case spanned nearly 4 years from the first complaint to the installation of the cameras. In a case such as this, 4 weeks might not even be quick enough of a response. The severity of the response (i.e., counseling, discipline, termination) can vary depending on the severity of the harassment, but the quickness of the response cannot. Companies that allow problems such as these to fester and continue by dragging their feet in investigating and remedying them do so at their own peril, as the $700,000 verdict in this case illustrates.

What I'm reading this week #31

In my absence last week, I completely missed my blogiversary. It's been a little over a year now since I launched the Ohio Employer's Law Blog with my first post, The Song Remains the Same -- Has Burlington Northern Really Changed the Landscape of Retaliation Claims? A quick thank you to all of my subscribers, commenters, everyone who's linked to me, provided an idea for a post, and quoted me both online and in print, and to the more than 26,000 people who've visited. Without each of you, I highly doubt I would still be writing more than a year later.

And with that, on to the best of everything else I've read this week.

In Desert Palace v. Costa, the U.S. Supreme Court held that direct evidence of discrimination is not required to obtain a "mixed-motive" jury instruction. The HR Lawyer's Blog reports on a significant case out of the 8th Circuit this week that flat out disagrees with the Supreme Court. So much for stare decisis.

As someone who cannot get a lick of work done without music playing in the background, I was keenly interested in HR World's take on personal technology such as iPods in the office.

For similar personal reasons, I was also very interested in Guerilla HR's take on bad language in the workplace. For a good laugh, be sure to click through to the Cuss Control Academy.

The Business of Management asks if you have an "office spouse"?

Dan Schwartz at the Connecticut Employment Law Blog writes on the worth of companies that sell workplace posters.

The Evil HR Lady posts on the value of exit interviews.

Finally this week, The HR Capitalist gives one scenario of what can happen to a company when it tries to regulate the use of overtime.

Do your policies cover electronic message boards

The National Law Journal reports that "message boards in the workplace could be a troublesome new source of liability for employers." Many companies have policies that cover the use of traditional bulletin boards. What happens, however, if an employee posts on a company-owned message board that he wants to start a union? Can the company lawfully take action against that employee? What other liability risks do online message boards pose for employers?

DynCorp Inc. v. NLRB sets the standard for employer regulation of bulletin board use in the Sixth Circuit. Like many companies, DynCorp had a bulletin board in its employee cafeteria. Shortly after a union organizing campaign began, an employee posted a pro-union flyer on the bulletin board. A manager removed the flyer and threatened to discipline the employee who posted it. Shortly thereafter, the company designated the bulletin board "For DynCorp Business Use Only." DynCorp unsuccessfully argued that the bulletin board was for company use only and that the Company had consistently removed employee postings on the bulletin board in the past. The Court cited examples of other non-business related postings remaining on the bulletin board. Moreover, no employee had ever been disciplined, or even warned, for posting non-business related materials. Regardless of any policy, the employer's lack of consistency created a practice of allowing non-business related postings, and it was therefore unlawful to remove the pro-Union posting and threaten the employee.

As DynCorp illustrates, consistency is key. If a company want to limit online message boards to discussions of company business only, it must not only have a clear policy stating so, but it also must actively police the message board to prevent violations of the policy. A company cannot turn a blind eye to all sorts of non-troublesome non-business threads, but delete the first thread the pops up talking about a labor union. That selective enforcement is asking for trouble with the NLRB.

Liability risks do not end with the NLRA. Online message boards also present risks from employees who use them as a means to harass or defame a coworker, or post trade secrets and other sensitive confidential information. If a company is going to maintain an online message board, it should be incorporated into sexual harassment policies, technology use polices, and confidential information policies, so that employees understand that online malfeasance will not be treated any differently than any other workplace misconduct.

Of course, policing a message board is much more difficult, time consuming, and expensive than the traditional cork board hanging in a lunch room. That difficulty makes me wonder whether companies are just better off not having employer sponsored message boards in the first place.

Is mommy bias real?

The Cincinnati Enquirer writes that "anti-mommy bias persists. There's an assumption that once a woman becomes a mother, she won't be as competent at her job or as committed or dependable - without the employee ever getting the chance to prove herself." The article continues:

Mother's Day recognizes mothers for their dedication, resourcefulness and persistence. But some working mothers say that on the job, they're viewed in opposite terms. They say employers see them as less reliable, focused and committed than their co-workers, and weed them out of job interviews or bypass them for promotions. 

The practice has been labeled maternal profiling, and it is the source of a growing body of discrimination lawsuits being filed against employers. 

According to the Center for WorkLife Law at the University of California's Hastings College of Law, family-related discrimination cases increased by 400 percent from 1996 to 2005. Some workers sued because they were questioned about their marital status, family plans or child-care provisions during job interviews, then promptly dismissed. Other mothers say they were taken out of contention for jobs that required travel, long hours or physical labor.

But, does the empirical data support the popular notion of maternal profiling. HR World reports on a survey done by Adecco, the staffing firm, which suggests that mommy bias might be more fiction than reality:

Think what you want about parents in the workplace, but a new survey from Adecco found that 71 percent of working moms are likely to work late and respond to emails. That’s only two points below non-parents. However, 32 percent of workers would be less likely to ask working parents to stay late or answer emails after hours. 

Nonetheless, 49 percent of moms believe their companies should do better at helping achieve work/life balance. 

According to the survey:

• Do Moms Have It Better When It Comes to Access to Work/Life Balance?: Depends on who you ask! 60% of working moms think they have the same level of access to work/life benefits as non-parents. Less than half of non-parents (44%) agree with the statement and one in four (25%) non-parents think they have less access.
• Which is Harder to Manage?: According to working moms, managing career is a piece of cake next to managing family: 71% of working mothers find it more difficult to manage their family vs. career (29%).
• Career & Motherhood Can Go Hand-in-Hand: A majority of working mothers (59%) say becoming a mother has not impacted their career path, while 15% say its actually had negative impact on their career.

So, what's the answer? It mommy bias real, fiction, or somewhere in between? It's hard to ignore the realities of maternal profiling when companies are hit with multi-million dollar verdicts. At the same time, it is only a small minority or working moms (15%) who report that motherhood had a negative impact on their careers. At the end of the day, maternal profiling is real, but simply may not be as big of a problem as the Kohl's case makes it seem. Yet, 49% of moms still believe their companies should do better at helping them achieve work/life balance.

The takeaway for employers is that regardless of whether maternal profiling is as prevalent and widespread as some claim, it is still illegal sex discrimination. Separate and apart from the legalities of mommy bias, promoting a strong work/life balance is becoming increasingly important in the recruiting and retention of quality employees. Purposing screening out parents (moms and dads) from hiring or promotions needlessly removes a significant portion of the population of the workforce from a company. After all, today's young go-getter is tomorrow parent. Mommy tracking employees will result in a revolving door of younger, less qualified employees. And, it's illegal.

Carnival of HR is available

The Career Encouragement Blog has posted this week's Carnival of HR. Please take a few minutes out of your day to peruse the best of the of the HR blogosphere.

Cat fight on aisle 6: court leaves open the possibility that a handbook can create a contract

In White v. Fabiniak, Wal-Mart fired Carla White for threatening to "slap the piss" out of a co-worker, Stephanie Jeppe. Prior to the termination, White had used Wal-Mart's Open Door Policy to complain to her supervisor that Jeppe had been threatening her.

White was an at-will employee of Wal-Mart. At the start of her employment, Wal-Mart provided her an employee handbook that contained, among other provisions, an Open Door Policy. That policy provided:

If you have an idea or a problem, you can talk to your supervisor about it without fear of retaliation. Problems may be resolved faster if you go to your immediate supervisor first. However, if you feel your supervisor is the source of the problem, or if the problem has not been addressed satisfactorily, you can go to any level of management in the Company. But remember, while the Open Door promises that you will be heard, it cannot promise that your request will be granted or that your opinion will prevail.

White claimed that the open door policy created an implied contract between her and Wal-Mart, and terminating for using the policy violated that contract. The court of appeals disagreed:

The policy provides an avenue an employee may use in the event he or she has a work related concern, idea, or grievance. Within the context of the policy, therefore, Wal-Mart admits it will not terminate or otherwise punish an employee for choosing to share his or her ideas or problems with management. Read plainly, this is neither an implied or express promise of continued employment. Rather, it is merely an assurance that an employee can utilize the policy without concern of unfair reprisals on behalf of management or the company at large. ...

[W]e hold the plain meaning of the open door policy assured an employee he or she would not be retaliated against for utilizing it as a means to air his or her grievances. This does not imply the policy guaranteed an employee continuous employment if, for example, he or she breached a separate policy set forth in the manual in the course of utilizing the open door policy. ...

Nothing in the open door policy states that an aggrieved employee who decides to use the policy may utilize or threaten to utilize vigilante tactics if a particular supervisor does not handle the grievance in a manner the employee demands. Quite the contrary, the policy provides that, while an employee will assuredly be heard, an employee's view or opinion regarding the resolution of a problem will not always prevail.

Appellant does not specifically allege Chuba refused to hear her complaint, nor did she provide any evidence that her termination was retaliatory in nature. Appellant acknowledges, and the record demonstrates, she was fired for threatening Jeppe in violation of the workplace violence policy. Nothing in the record indicates Wal-Mart acted inappropriately in terminating appellant on this basis.

This opinion, however, may not be as pro-employer as it seems. It does not say that the employee handbook cannot create a contract, but merely that it does not in this case because Wal-Mart terminated White because she violated its workplace violence policy. The court did not find that White had no legal claim, but that Wal-Mart had a good reason to fire her. Thus, this opinion leaves the door open to the possibility that an employee can make a breach of contract claim if the employer does not have good cause for the termination.

Although unclear from the opinion, it is safe to assume that the handbook contained an at-will disclosure, such as: "This handbook is not a contract, express or implied, and does not guarantee employment for any specific period of time. Although we hope that your employment relationship with us will be long term, you are at all times an at-will employee, which means that either you or the company may terminate this relationship at any time, for any reason, with or without cause or notice." If that is the case, I fail to see how any employee could complain that the handbook creates an implied contract that the employer can breach, even if the employer admitted it fired an employee for using a handbook provision such as the open door policy.

Unless handbook disclaimers are to be rendered meaningless, employees cannot be permitted to bring breach of contract claims based on an employer's failure to follow a policy in the handbook. The claim must be based on some other recognized legal right, such as statutory retaliation or some public policy separate and apart from the handbook language itself.

Overtime not required for time not actually worked

One article that caught my eye last week while I was out was a piece by Tracy Coenen, on her Fraud Files Blog, about a scam that was uncovered in the Wisconsin prison system. It seems that under the prison's overtime policy, the guards figured out that they could call of sick for their own shift, but then pick up the next shift and collect time-and-a-half for overtime.

It appears that the Wisconsin prison system might be paying overtime when it is not otherwise required. Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, an employee is entitled to paid time-and-a-half for any hours in excess of 40 worked in a given work week. The key word is worked. Sick days are not days worked. Either are vacation days or paid holidays. In calculating the number of hours an employee has worked in a given week, you only look at the number of hours spent working. Now, there are a lot of variables to look at when determining whether an employee is working. But, for certain, sick days, holidays, vacations, and other paid days off are not time spent working.

Let's take as an example an employee who works Monday - Friday, 8 hours a day. That employee takes a paid day off on Monday, works 9 hours Tuesdays, and 8 hours each of Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday. At what rate should that employee be compensated for the extra hour worked on Tuesday - straight time or time-and-a-half? The answer is straight time. While the employee was paid for 41 hours that week, the employee only worked 33 hours. Thus, the employee did not work in excess of 40 hours in that work week.

Part of any wage and hour audit is a review of not just which employees are eligible for overtime, but the work rules under which overtime is calculated and paid. Depending on the size of your organization, thousands, tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars could needlessly be paid to employees for overtime to which they may not be entitled.

What else I'm reading this week #30

After an exciting week in Tulsa, Oklahoma, I have returned. I hope everyone enjoyed some of the hits from the archives I ran last week in my absence. Before we get back to regular posting, let's take a look at some of what else we missed last week.

Recall that in Dewitt v. Proctor Hosp., the 7th Circuit permitted an associational disability discrimination claim to proceed based solely on evidence that the employment decision was made on the basis of increased medical costs. The Workplace Prof Blog reports that the 10th Circuit has followed suit, and permitted a family to bring a claim that they were fired because of healthcare costs associated with their son's illness.

The Pennsylvania Employment Law Blog provides a very thorough comparison of an employer's responsibilities under the FMLA and the ADA, with a helpful chart included.

Last week gave us two interesting posts on the improper use of workplace computers -- the Evil HR Lady on how to handle a termination for "extremely inappropriate web-site browsing", and The Word on Employment Law's John Phillips on potential corporate liability for an employee's use of company computers to store or transmit inappropriate images of children.

One more from the Evil HR Lady, on managing employees' expectations. To add my two cents, I think 90% of employment relations issues could be avoided simply by management having honest conversations with employees about the expectations of the job and the workplace - performance, production, conduct, rules, and policies should all be laid out up front (where possible, in a writing the receipt of which is signed by the employee) to avoid any confusion or disappointment down the road.

Kris Dunn, The HR Capitalist, writes about one company that decided that penalizing employees for smoking made for bad business and rescinded a wellness $100 penalty. Everyone should also check out Kris's new blog, Fistful of Talent. Kris describes it as a conversation on talent, which includes recruiting, in addition to everything you do with the talent once you've got it in the door.

Best of -- Lessons from Childrens' Lit

"Farmer Brown has a problem. His cows like to type. " So starts Click Clack Moo, Cows That Type, one of my soon to be two year old daughter's favorite books. In Click Clack Moo, Farmer Brown's cows and hens decide that they need electric blankets to keep warm at night in the barn. They deliver their demand to Farmer Brown on notes typed by the cows on a typewriter. When Farmer Brown refuses their demands, they go on strike, withholding milk and eggs. Ultimately, in a deal brokered by the duck, Farmer Brown agrees to accept the cows' typewriter in exchange for electric blankets. The labor dispute ended, and the cows and hens went back to producing milk and eggs. The deal backfired on Farmer Brown, though, as Duck absconds with the typewriter and leverages it into a diving board for the pond.

Click Clack Moo teaches us some valuable lessons:

1. Fair Treatment: The best means to avoid collective action by your employees is to treat your employees fairly. The barn was cold, and the cows and hens perceived that they were being forced to work in intolerable conditions. When Farmer Brown refused even to consider any concessions, they went on strike. If you want your employees to work hard, not unionize, and not file lawsuits, treat them fairly. Maintain reasonable, even-handed work rules and policies. Apply them equally. Don't discriminate. There is no guarantee that you'll stay out of court, but if you end up there, you'll have a much easier time convincing a judge and a jury of the rightness of your decision if you are perceived as being fair, reasonable, and even-handed.
2. Litigation is an Answer, But Not Always the Best Answer: Even in employment cases, where there are so many emotions in play on both sides of the table, it is only the most frivolous of cases that cannot not be resolved at some dollar figure. It is the job of the employer, working with its attorney, to strike the right balance between the cost of litigation and the cost of settlement. Convictions often get in the way, and often times litigation and trial is the only means to an outcome. But, you should always keep an open mind towards a resolution.
3. Don't Go It Alone: When resolving any case, make sure all your loose ends are tied up in a tidy agreement. Farmer Brown missed this last point. A well drafted agreement that included Duck would have avoided the added expense of the diving board. If Farmer Brown had retained competent counsel, he could have potentially avoided the problem with Duck (who probably went to law school).

Best of -- Use a wage and hour audit to proactively head off claims

"Wage Wars: Workers are Winning Huge Overtime Lawsuits," graces the cover of this week's BusinessWeek magazine. It should serve as a harsh wake up call for all companies. The article cites recent huge wage and hour settlements and verdicts, including an $18 million settlement paid by Starbuck's and eight and nine figure jury verdicts against Wal-Mart. In fact, the article estimates that American companies have collectively paid over $1 billion to settle these types of claims over the past few years.

The sweatshops of the 1920s and 1930s that led to the passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act and its 40-hour workweek are virtually non-existent. Nonetheless, claims for unpaid overtime continue to rise, more than doubling in the federal courts from 2001 to 2006. Almost always, these cases are not the result of the intentional withholding of overtime premiums. Instead, they fall into two classes: off-the-clock pay claims and the misclassification of employees. The former concerns pay for working through lunch breaks, donning and doffing gear, and required travel time. Regarding the latter, employees fall into two basic classes for coverage by the FLSA, exempt and non-exempt. Companies and the employees themselves often mistakenly assume that white collar employees are exempt, and blue collar employees are not. Paying an employee a salary (as opposed to an hourly wage), however, is not enough to qualify an employee as exempt. The FLSA only provides an exemption if an employee meets the specific qualifications for the executive, administrative, professional, outside sales, or computer employee exemptions. These exemptions are highly fact specific, and wholly depend of the nature of the actual work performed, and not a job title. For example, merely labeling an employee as a manager or supervisor is not enough to qualify an employee for the executive exemption, unless that salaried employee customarily and regularly directs the work of two or more other employees, and has the authority to hire or fire. The other exemptions have similarly stringent requirements (click here for a copy of the federal regulations on these exemptions).

The question is not whether companies need to audit their workforces for wage and hour compliance, but whether they properly prioritize doing so before someone calls them on it. According to the BusinessWeek article: "While violations appear widespread, employees themselves rarely think to make wage and hour claims. Instead, they usually have it suggested to them by lawyers." It is immeasurably less expensive to get out in front of a potential problem and audit on the front-end instead of settling a claim on the back-end. The time for companies to get their hands around these confusing issues is now, and not when employees or their representatives start asking the difficult questions about how employees are classified and who is paid what.

Best of -- Document, document, document

As the record reflects, there was a myriad of problems with Plaintiff's job performance and treatment of his subordinates that justified Defendants' decision to fire Plaintiff. This, however, is not what Defendants told Plaintiff during their final meeting. Defendants did not tell Plaintiff he was being fired for poor performance, but rather because of an unspecified "personality conflict." While the law does not specifically require an employer to list every reason or incident that motivates its decision to terminate an employee, we are skeptical of undocumented accounts of employee conduct that may have been created post-termination. Under the facts of this case, however, ample evidence exists that indicates that Plaintiff's performance was inadequate to meet his job requirements. In sum, Plaintiff has not put forth sufficient evidence for a jury reasonably to conclude that Defendants did not have an honest belief that Plaintiff performed his job duties poorly.

So said the Sixth Circuit last week in Abdulnour v. Campbell Soup Supply Company, a national origin discrimination case brought by an Iraqi national fired by Campbell Soup for job performance that was less than "M'm M'm Good". The Sixth Circuit upheld the trial court's dismissal of the lawsuit on summary judgment because Abdulnour could not come forward with any evidence, other than his own subjective disagreement, that Campbell Soup did not honestly believe in the reasons proffered for his termination. Clearly, however, as the quote above demonstrates, the appellate court was troubled by the lack of documentation in Abdulnour's personnel file for the alleged performance deficiencies. It is safe to assume that if Abdulnour could have come forward with any evidence at all to support his allegation of pretext, the court would not have hesitated to ding the company for its poor documentation.

The lesson to be learned is basic, but one that cannot be repeated enough. Any employer's greatest defense against a claim of discrimination is a well-documented history of performance problems to support the termination, coupled with comparable treatment of similarly situated employees. When in doubt, document all performance problems with all employees. If the discipline or counseling is oral only, document that fact also. Have all employees sign off on all such records, and if the employee refuses to signify the receipt of the discipline, document that failure as well. The Sixth Circuit in the Abdulnour case cannot be any clearer that when an employer relies on undocumented accounts of misconduct to support a termination, it is fair for the court and a jury to draw the inference that those accounts were created post-termination. The Abdulnour decision is the anomaly, and almost universally cases with poorly documented personnel files will not end well for the employer. Campbell Soup dodged a bullet; do not put your company in similar risk.

Best of -- A Whopper of a Sex Harassment Claim

One of the surest ways for a company to guard against harassment lawsuits is to have in place a reasonable mechanism by which a victim of harassment can complain to the company. In today's workplace, one would be hard pressed to find a company that does not have a harassment policy, either in its employee handbook or otherwise. It is not enough, however, merely to have complaint procedures in place. Those procedures much be understandable, workable, and meaningful for them to provide any protection to an employer. EEOC v. V & J Foods, out of the 7th Circuit, illustrates the important distinction between a complaint procedure that is or is not meaningful, and the consequences that can befall an employer with an unworkable system.

Samekiea Merriweather, 16 years old, worked after school and on weekends at a Burger King restaurant. It was her first paying job. Unfortunately for her, her boss and the store's general manager, Tony Wilkins, had a propensity of sleeping with his female employees. He rubbed up against her, tried to kiss her, told her he wanted a "young girl" because of "their body. You know, it's not all used up." He offered $600 to have sex with him in a hotel room," and when she refused and told him she had a boyfriend, he told her he wasn't going to do anything else for her because she was giving her body away for free instead of selling it to him. Samekiea, both on her own and through her mother, repeatedly complained of the harassment to her shift supervisors and the assistant manager, who essentially ignored her. Shortly after Samekiea turned down Wilkins's offer to pay her for sex, he became hostile towards her and fired her.

Instead of summarizing the Court, I'll merely quote from the well written opinion of Judge Posner:

[A]n employer can avoid liability under Title VII for harassment (on a ground, such as sex, that constitutes a form of discrimination that the statute forbids) of one of his employees by another by creating a reasonable mechanism by which the victim of the harassment can complain to the company and get relief but which the victim failed to activate....

The mechanism must be reasonable and what is reasonable depends on “the employment circumstances,” ... and therefore, among other things, on the capabilities of the class of employees in question. If they cannot speak English, explaining the complaint procedure to them only in English would not be reasonable. In this case the employees who needed to be able to activate the complaint procedure were teenage girls working in a small retail outlet....

An employer is not required to tailor its complaint procedures to the competence of each individual employee. But it is part of V & J’s business plan to employ teenagers, part-time workers often working for the first time. Knowing that it has many teenage employees, the company was obligated to suit its procedures to the understanding of the average teenager....

Ignoring this point, the company adopted complaint procedures likely to confuse even adult employees. The employee handbook that new employees are given has a brief section on harassment and states that complaints should be lodged with the “district manager.” Who this functionary is and how to communicate with him is not explained. The list of corporate officers and managers at the beginning of the handbook does not list a “district manager,” or for that matter a “general manager,” but instead a “restaurant manager”; and there is evidence that employees confuse “district manager” with “restaurant [or general] manager” — that is, Wilkins, the harasser. There is a phone number on the cover of the handbook, and if you call it you get a receptionist or a recorded message at V & J’s headquarters. But an employee would not know whom to ask for at headquarters because she is not told who her district manager is or the district of the restaurant at which she works.

If an employee complains to a shift supervisor or assistant manager, that person is supposed to forward the complaint to the general manager (and thus in this case to Wilkins) even if the complaint is about the general manager. After receiving the complaint the general manager is supposed to “turn himself in,” which of course Wilkins did not do. Nor did the shift supervisors or assistant manager report Merriweather’s complaints to Wilkins or to anyone else. A policy against harassment that includes no assurance that a harassing supervisor can be bypassed in the complaint process is unreasonable as a matter of law….

An unreasonably costly complaint mechanism would not be reasonable. But it would cost very little, certainly for a company of V & J’s size, to create a clear path for complaints of harassment and other forms of illegal discrimination.... All that it would have to do, we should think, would be to post in the employees’ room (thus not visible to the restaurant’s customers) a brief notice that an employee who has a complaint about sexual harassment or other misconduct can call a toll-free number specified in the notice. The number would ring in the office of a human relations employee and the receptionist would identify the office as that of the company’s human relations department....

Because of the ineffective complaint procedure, Merriweather’s lawsuit was reinstated.

There are several lessons to be learned in the drafting and enforcement of an effective harassment complaint procedure:

1. Comprehension. It must relate to and be understandable by the employees who are going to rely upon it. It cannot be written in legalese or jargon. If your workforce is multi-lingual, so should the harassment policy.
2. Confidentiality. It must not only explain to whom complaints can be made, but how to confidentially contact those people.
3. Options. It must provide optional avenues for complaints that guard against an employee being faced with the Hobson's Choice of staying silent or complaining to the harasser. In Judge Posner's cautionary words: "A policy against harassment that includes no assurance that a harassing supervisor can be bypassed in the complaint process is unreasonable as a matter of law."
4. Policing. It should mandate that supervisors or managers report to senior management and/or human resources any complaints they receive or any conduct they perceive that may be a violation of the harassment policy.
5. Publication. It must be disseminated to the employees, should be conspicuously posted in the workplace, and the workforce should receive periodic training on the policy and complaint procedures.

Best of -- Sixth Circuit confirms that it will not second-guess an employer's honest belief

The following two Sixth Circuit decisions make it clear that pretext for discrimination or retaliation does not exist if the employer engages in a reasonable investigation and has an honest and good faith belief in the rationale for its employment decision. These cases are a good reminder that one of the best defenses to any discrimination, retaliation, or harassment claim is a thorough, well-documented investigation.

Michael v. Caterpillar Fin. Servs. Corp. concerned a six-year African-American employee who had a good employment record until her manager was replaced. Shonta Michael claimed that the discipline, including a very confrontational meeting in which the new manager aggressively yelled at her, was racially discriminatory and that she was retaliated against after she complained over the manager's treatment of her. Caterpillar, on the other hand, claimed that any conflict and discipline was solely because of legitimate performance issues.

The Court skirted the issue of whether the disciplinary action (a performance plan) constituted an "adverse employment action," finding that regardless Michael could not prove that the employer's actions were pretext for discrimination or retaliation. Caterpillar's investigation included interviews of all of Michael's co-workers, many of whom found her difficult to work with. Michael claimed that her disagreement those facts established pretext. The Court disagreed:

Michael's disagreement with the facts uncovered in Caterpillar's investigation does not create a genuine issue of material fact that would defeat summary judgment "as long as an employer has an honest belief in its proffered nondiscriminatory reason." The key inquiry in assessing whether an employer holds such an honest belief is "whether the employer made a reasonably informed and considered decision before taking" the complained-of action. An employer has an honest belief in its rationale when it "reasonably relied on the particularized facts that were before it at the time the decision was made." "[W]e do not require that the decisional process used by the employer be optimal or that it left no stone unturned." ... Caterpillar presented sound, nondiscriminatory reasons for the action that it took based on a reasonable investigation of events that occurred after Michael’s favorable performance review.

Because Caterpillar had extensive documentation of its investigation, it could reasonably rely on its conclusions with no finding of pretext or retaliatory animus.

By comparison, in Denhof v. City of Grand Rapids, the issue was whether the Grand Rapids Chief of Police reasonably relied upon a psychological fitness for duty exam in refusing to permit the plaintiff to return to work. The Court found that the Chief's reliance on the medical opinion was unreasonable because the doctor's written opinion showed that he had a preordained opinion on Denhof's unfitness for duty:

In his January 11, 2002, letter recommending a fitness for duty examination for Patricia Denhof, Dr. Peterson employed language that, at a minimum, suggested his opinion had already been formed. For instance, he noted that in view of the tension between Denhof and the department, "it is difficult to imagine how she could continue to work in this environment." ... This language should have signaled to Chief Dolan, and indeed any reasonable recipient, that Dr. Peterson was predisposed to finding Denhof unfit for duty. Indeed, after comments like this, it is hard to see any possibility that Dr. Peterson's examination would yield a result other than finding that Denhof should be separated from the police force. Instead, when Dolan was confronted with a psychologist who had already formed his opinion before examining the patient, he asked that doctor to proceed with the examination. In doing so, he forfeited the protection of the honest belief rule, because the jury could have easily concluded that his reliance on a doctor who had already made up his mind did not qualify as reasonable reliance.

According to the Court, the employer could not have an honest belief about Denhof's lack of fitness to return to work because, according to the opinion the doctor upon whom it was relying was predisposed. Thus, the decision could not have been bona fide. I'm troubled by the ease with which the Denhof panel writes off the employer's reliance on a medical opinion and delves into the motivations of the psychologist. The doctor's language does not seem nearly as clear to the me as it did to the Sixth Circuit. Moreover, if an employer cannot have an honest belief about a medical opinion what can it hold an honest belief about? Nevertheless, these two cases reaffirm the honest belief rule, and demonstrate that courts will not second-guess a personnel decision if it is based on a rational, reasoned, honest belief.

The softer side of employment law

Ellis v. United Parcel Service, decided this week by the 7th Circuit, is legally interesting in its dealing with the issues of interracial dating, race discrimination, and the ultimate lawfulness of UPS's termination of a manager for violating its nonfraternization policy. What's more interesting to me, though, is the Court's cautionary words on the issue of whether a nonfraternization policy makes good business sense:

In closing, we emphasize that our decision today should not be construed as an endorsement of the UPS nonfraternization policy. When a company like UPS runs expensive ads that ask "What can Brown do for you?" it might be wise for it to ask if this policy is really worth all of the fuss this case has created. As we observed in Hennessy v. Penril Datacomm Networks, Inc., 69 F.3d 1344, 1353 (7th Cir. 1995):

As the work force grows and people spend more of their time at work, the workplace inevitably becomes fertile ground for the dating and mating game. It is certainly not unusual, and it may even be desirable, for love to bloom in the workplace. Contiguity can lead to sexual interest, which can lead to soft music, candlelight dinners, serious romance, and marriage, or any stops along the way.

By all accounts, Ellis was a good employee. He started with UPS as a driver right out of high school in 1979 and worked his way up to a managerial position. After 21 years with the company he met a woman, apparently fell in love, and, after a 4-year relationship, got engaged. A year later he got married. That's a fairly nice story, and so is the fact that Ellis and his wife were smooching at a summer concert several months after their wedding. Heck, some marriages today don’t even last that long. Although UPS, for the reasons we have stated, comes out on top in this case, love and marriage are the losers. Something just doesn't seem quite right about that.

When implementing employment policies, there are legal considerations and human considerations. I too often write about the perils employers face when ignoring the former. The Ellis case is a good reminder that employers face different dangers, such a poor retention and lackluster morale, when they ignore the latter.

Lawsuit illustrates potential problems with employee testing

Today's Jackson (Tennessee) Sun is reporting that Kilgore Flares Co., a Tennessee defense weaponry manufacturer, has been hit with a class action lawsuit related to its neurological testing of hirees:

The class action lawsuit, filed on behalf of Robinette Anderson, states that the company uses a nerve test to determine who it hires. The test is supposed to determine the risk of potential employees' developing carpal tunnel syndrome, according to the suit.

The suit states Anderson was denied a position at the Toone plant after being tested. The suit also states the findings from these tests are "based upon unreliable measures." ...

"The country's leading scientists have concluded the nerve conduction exam has an exceptionally small, and often times wrong, predictive value for determining carpal tunnel syndrome," Anderson's attorney Justin Gilbert said in a press release.

"More fundamentally, we believe this type of 'propensity testing' flings open the door to forced genetic exams for purposes of hiring discrimination," Gilbert said. "We want employers to make judgments based on workers' abilities, not on dubious genetic predictions."

Depending on the results of the nerve testing, job applicants are either rated as having no restrictions as to where they work or as it being inappropriate for them to work in "highly wrist-intensive" jobs, the suit states.

The lawsuit contends Kilgore violates the Americans with Disabilities Act because it requires a person who's hired to fall into the no restriction category, according to the lawsuit.

The ADA allows for medical testing of job applicants as long two conditions are met: 1) a conditional offer of employment has been made before the testing occurs; and 2) the employer requires the same testing for all individuals entering the same job category. There is no requirement that the medical exam be job related. Once an employee is hired, however, an employer may only require medical exams if doing so is job-related and consistent with business necessity.

By all accounts, then, Kilgore's testing appears to be on the level in how it's administered. The lawsuit, however, seems to delve deeper by claiming that even if the testing itself is legitimate, Kilgore used the results to discriminatorily screen out any hiree with a propensity for carpal tunnel syndrome. That use of employee testing may pose problematic for Kilgore, even if the testing itself is legal. The test does not seek to determine which hirees currently have carpal tunnel syndrome and therefore might be job restricted, but which have a propensity to develop it down the road. I also question Kilgore's reasonable accommodation obligations to those hirees with actual carpal tunnel syndrome. It will also be a problem for Kilgore if it proves true that the exam has a small and often times wrong predictive value.

The takeaway for employers from this story is two-fold:

• Employers should make sure that any tests and selection procedures are properly validated for the positions and purposes for which they are used, and can be reasonably relied upon for that purpose.
• Selection criteria should be job-related and consistent with business necessity. If a criteria singles out a specific group, employers should scrutinize the risk of using that criteria versus the benefit derived from it.

What else I'm reading this week #29

Just a quick heads-up for everyone that I will be taking next week off from regular blogging while I'm out of town in depositions. In my absence, and in anticipation of the blog's upcoming birthday, I plan on re-running some of the past year's best posts. New content will resume on May 12.

This week's review starts with a couple of wage and hour highlights. The aptly named Wage & Hour -- Developments & Highlights brings us the story of Fenway Park's food vendors, who have filed a class action for unpaid wages and overtime. Meanwhile, HR World reports that Quest Diagnostics has settled with the Department of Labor for $688,772 in overtime back wages regarding the misclassification of 238 employees as non-exempt.

Alaska Employment Law has an interesting bit about how one judge empirically determines a witness's credibility.

The Connecticut Employment Law Blog has more information on the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act.

Finally, BLR's HR Daily Advisor discusses religious accommodations for tattoos and piercings.

Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act clears Congress

In news that surprises no one but is nonetheless significant, the House has passed the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) by a vote of 414-1. It passed the Senate last week by a 95-0 margin. President Bush is expected to sign GINA into law shortly. Among other provisions related to health insurance coverage, the bill will make it illegal for employers to use genetic information in hiring, firing, or promotion decisions.

For information on GINA, take a look at today's AP wire story as reported by the New York Times. The full text of the bill, as passed by the House, is also available.

I'll have more on GINA's potential impact if and when President Bush signs it.

Further reflections on Reeves v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide

I've been thinking a lot about the Reeves case, because something about it just hasn't been sitting right with me. I think I've finally put my finger on it. When a female employee or women in general are not the target of the offensive conduct, finding that the harassment is "based on" sex because women are more likely to be offended by the conduct then men confuses the intent of the alleged harasser with whether the plaintiff welcomed the conduct.
To establish a prima facie case of sexual harassment, an employee must prove, among other factors, that the sexual harassment was unwelcome and that the harassment was based on sex. By injecting a gender's perceived sensitivities into the equation, the court makes the intent of the conduct irrelevant. In doing so, the Reeves court has essentially created a general code of workplace civility. As explained in Yukins v. First Student, Inc., another case in which a female employee claimed sexual harassment based on conduct that offended her but was not targeted at her:

More important still, the cat-rape anecdote and the "fat ass" comment are examples of comments that while they may, depending on their context, offend in respects relevant to Title VII, have only a tangential intersection with the plaintiff. When the manager called one of the woman drivers a "fat ass," he may have been using a term that he would not have used of a man, but what if anything was he saying about the plaintiff, either directly or indirectly? And what if a male coworker is believed ... to be watching pornography on his office computer? It wasn't any of the plaintiff's business what the manager was looking at on his computer. It is not as if pornographic pictures were exhibited on the walls of the work-place or emailed to the plaintiff. ... The relation between the manager's watching pornography on his own screen and the plaintiff's working environment was almost as attenuated as if she had learned that he watches pornography on his computer at home. ...
The American workplace would be a seething cauldron if workers could with impunity pepper their employer and eventually the EEOC and the courts with complaints of being offended by remarks and behaviors unrelated to the complainant except for his having overheard, or heard of, them. The pluralism of our society is mirrored in the workplace, creating endless occasions for offense. Civilized people refrain from words and conduct that offend the people around them, but not all workers are civilized all the time. Title VII is not a code of civility.

Everyone celebrate RSS Awareness Day

Today is May 1, which only means one thing -- it's RSS Awareness Day. For those of you who already subscribe to my feed, feel free to ignore this news. For those who don't, and either found me via a search engine, or maybe you just have me bookmarked and simply visit the site everyday, please click over to rssday.org and read about how subscribing to a blog's feed will greatly simplify your life. Then, please consider subscribing to the Ohio Employer's Law Blog to receive automatic updates of all of your employment law news.