Do you know? Why statistics are so important in reduction in force cases

For the past week, I’ve been examining the use of statistics in workforce reduction discrimination cases (6th Circuit downgrades importance of statistics in reduction-in-force cases and How small is too small? Litigating sample sizes in reduction in force cases). What’s been missing from this analysis, however, is an explanation of why raw numbers are so important in these cases, especially in age discrimination claims.

Many workforce reductions are accompanied by an offer of severance to the group of terminated employees. In fact, I don’t think any employer should pay severance without getting something in return from the employee, namely a release and waiver of liability.

The Older Workers Benefit Protection Act requires all releases and waivers of federal age discrimination claims provided as part of a severance program offered to a group of employees (such as in a reduction in force) to include a written disclosure of the job titles and ages of all eligible individuals selected for the program and all not selected for the the program. The EEOC, in its guidance on Understanding Waivers of Discrimination Claims in Employee Severance Agreements, provides the following example of what this disclosure should look like:

Job Title	Age	# Selected	# Not Selected
(1)	25	2	4
	28	1	7
	45	6	2
	63	1	0
(2)	24	3	5
	29	1	7

When the lone 63-year-old employee in Job Title 1 is going to decide whether to sign the waiver or pursue an age claim, the only fact he and his lawyer will have to go on is that within his job grouping, 7 out of the 9 oldest employees were RIFed, including the oldest employee. In other words, the raw statistics that the court discussed (and dismissed) in Schoonmaker will likely be the critical piece of information on which your employees will base their decision whether to sue or walk away. And, you have no choice but to turn this information over. Failing to do so will result in the invalidity of the age discrimination waiver.

Schoonmaker may question the relevance of raw statistics, but because the numbers must be disclosed to the terminated employees, they are nevertheless critical to any workforce reduction decision.

---

Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus. For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

How small is too small? Litigating sample sizes in reduction in force cases

Last week’s post on the use of statistics in reduction in force cases garnered some interest from a fellow blogger, Stephanie Thomas. She argues on her blog that small sample statistics still have a place in workforce reduction litigation. After reading Stephanie’s take on this issue, we carried the conversation over to Twitter (Are you following me on Twitter @jonhyman? If not, shame on you).

My conclusion is that the Schoonmaker decision merely begs the question of how small of a sample size is too small to make pure statistics irrelevant in a RIF case. Stephanie and I agree that you will see more expert witness battles on the issue of whether a sample size is large enough to be statistically relevant.

If I’m defending a RIF, the first thing I’m doing is hiring a statistical expert to opine that the sample size is too small to be statistically significant. From there, I’ll argue that under Schoonmaker the case should be dismissed, unless the plaintiff can come forward with some “plus” evidence of discrimination.

Conversely, if a RIFed employee wants to rely on statistics alone, he or she will have to hire an expert to opine that the sample size is large enough to be statistically significant. If you have competing experts, you very well might have a factual issue over the sample size. Or, the judge could decide as a matter of law that the sample size is too small and toss out the statistics as irrelevant.

On my first read through Schoonmaker, I thought it gave concrete answers on a plaintiff’s prima facie requirements in a workforce reduction. After more deliberation, and a healthy Twitter debate with Stephanie Thomas, I’ve now concluded that Schoonmaker may create more questions than it answers.

---

Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus. For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

WIRTW #113

The theme of this week’s review is déjà vu. In each category, I’ve linked back to at least one post I’ve written on a similar subject.

Social Media

• 5 Non-Negotiable Provisions for Your Social-Media Policy from Molly DiBianca at Delaware Employment Law. For my thoughts on drafting a social media policy, see Drafting a social networking policy: 7 considerations.

• It’s Not Just for Teenagers – More Businesses are Using Facebook to Connect from Jennifer Hays at the Warren & Hays Employment Law Blog.

• Privacy: Facebook Legal Department Hopes for Guidance from Court from Megan Erickson’s Social Networking Law Blog.

• Do You Really Want To Take on the 350 Million Pound Gorilla in the Room? from Dan Schwartz’s Connecticut Employment Law.

• Facebook and FINRA: FINRA's Social Media Guidance from Rob Radcliff’s Smooth Transitions.

• A Master’s Class in Hiring a Person With Credit Wrecked By Bad Health and Being Laid Off from Frank Roche’s KnowHR Blog.

Background Checks

• More on Resume Fraud and Fake Job References from Nick Fishman at employeescreenIQ Blog. For my thoughts on fake job references, see Do you know? Fake job references?

• Avoid A Few Common Mistakes When Conducting Background Checks from the New York Labor and Employment Law Report.

• Ring Ring or Ding Ding? Know the Legal Way to Answer Reference Calls from Mindy Chapman’s Case In Point.

Discrimination & Harassment

• Will 6th Circuit case result in cert grant, end employee-rights run at high court? from Colleen McGushins’ Work Matters. For my thoughts on the issue of associational retaliation see En banc panel of 6th Circuit reverses prior holding in Thompson v. North American Stainless and rejects associational retaliation claims.

• English Only Rules Spark Controversy from San Antonio Employment Law. For my thoughts on English-only rules, see EEOC settlement highlights red flags for English-only policies.

• When Is It Okay to Cuss Out Your Boss? from Dennis Westlind’s World of Work. For more on foul language in the workplace, see Warning – vulgar language ahead: 11th Circuit decides whether tasteless workplace behavior is actionable as sexual harassment.

• Movement on Paycheck Fairness Act? from The Word by John Phillips. For my thoughts on the Paycheck Fairness Act, see Something wicked this way comes – Congress’s 2010 employment law agenda.

• Pornography Investigation at SEC Ongoing from Debra Reilly’s Workplace Investigations Blog.

• Once Again---Avoiding the Appearance of Bias Backfires from HR Briefcase.

• Despite Assertions to Contrary, Employment Laws Do Exist from World of Work.

• A Year After Ledbetter - What's Next for Fair Pay for Women? from Workplace Fairness.

• Top 5 HR Mistakes That Small Businesses Make from Michael Haberman’s HR Observations.

• Employers Should Be Vigilant as the EEOC Anticipates Increased Charges, Funding, and Enforcement in 2010 from WorkplaceHorizons.

Courts and Litigation

• Employment Agreement Shortening Statute of Limitation Is Invalid from Labor Employment Law Blog. For the legality of these types of provisions in Ohio, see Some alternatives to arbitration of employment claims.

• Access to an Employment Case Jury Ordered from Workplace Prof Blog.

• A new look at 12(B)(6)? from Russ Bensing’s The Briefcase.

• Stripper Dances Off With $100K From Club in DUI Case from On Point.

• Stripper: getting tipsy was part of my job (update) from Overlawyered.

• What a Mess: The Tenure Appeal Meeting at Ohio University by Bob Sutton.

Labor Law

• SEIU Blog Accepts Chamber’s EFCA Polling Results; Misstates Arbitration Provision from The ChamberPost. For my earlier thoughts on public perception of the EFCA and the need for labor unions, see Employee Free Choice Act officially kicks off, but does anyone care?

• State of the Unions - EFCA-Lite and the Private Sector Decline from Philip Miles’s Lawffice Space.

• Senate Confirms Patricia Smith as Labor Solicitor from Washington D.C. Employment Law Update

---

Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus. For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

6th Circuit downgrades importance of statistics in reduction-in-force cases

Yesterday, I discussed a 6th Circuit decision that provided guidance to employers on how not to RIF an employee on FMLA leave. Today, I’m going to examine another decision out of the 6th Circuit this week on the issue of RIFs, which clarifies what a laid-off employee has to prove to establish age discrimination following a reduction in force.

RIFs provide a built-in protection for employers in age discrimination cases, because the legitimate non-discrimination reason for the termination – the economic necessity for the workforce reduction – is established from the outset. Thus, employees challenging a RIF on account of age have a higher prima facie burden. When a termination arises as part of a work force reduction, the plaintiff must provide “additional direct, circumstantial, or statistical evidence tending to indicate that the employer singled out the plaintiff for discharge for impermissible reasons.”

In Schoonmaker v. Spartan Graphics Leasing (6th Cir. 2/3/10) [pdf], the plaintiff claimed that the fact that her employer retained younger employees in her position, and that her employer RIFed the two oldest employees, satisfied the “additional evidence” necessary to overcome the employer’s economic justification for the RIF. The 6th Circuit correctly rejected this assertion, and in doing so put a dagger through the heart of the use of bald statistics of small samples in RIF cases:

If the plaintiff’s case-in-chief is viewed as satisfying the requirements for a prima facie case of age discrimination, then every employer who terminates an employee between 40 and 70 years of age under any circumstances, will carry an automatic burden to justify the termination….

[S]tatistical evidence may satisfy the fourth element in a work force reduction case ... [but] such a small statistical sample is not probative of discrimination.

In other words, in RIFs with a small sample size, an employee will have to come up with evidence other than pure statistics to go forward with a discrimination claim – evidence that that RIFed employee was objectively more qualified than the younger retained employees.

Despite this case, employers act at their own peril by ignoring statistics. Before any RIF is finalized, businesses should be analyzing the numbers across all key demographics, in addition to comparing the relative qualities and qualifications of the departing versus the remaining. Performing this diligence may not prevent a lawsuit from being filed (especially if the raw numbers appear to look discriminatory), but it will give you the necessary ammunition to defend any subsequent discrimination lawsuits that are filed.

---

Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus. For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

Reduction in Force vs. Leave of Absence: How not to handle the convergence

There is no rule that says that you cannot terminate an employee on FMLA leave in a reduction in force. Conventional wisdom (and the real risk of being sued), though, dictates that it must be done carefully and with every “i” dotted and “t” crossed. It is also best to keep comments about the employee’s leave of absence out of the calculus used to determine who stays and who goes. Take Cutcher v. Kmart (6th Cir. 2/2/10) (unpublished) [pdf] as an example.

Susan Cutcher worked at Kmart from 1984 until her termination as part of a workforce reduction at the end of 2005. From 2000 on, she directly reported to Barbara Borrell, who evaluated Cutcher’s performance on an annual basis. Each of Borrell’s evaluations of Borrell resulted in an overall rating of either “Exceptional” or “Exceeds Expectations,” including her final performance review, which occurred just a month before Kmart announced a nation-wide RIF and which included Cutcher. On that final performance review, Cutcher received highest marks for customer service, but lost points for teamwork.

That nation-wide RIF occurred while Cutcher was out of work on an approved FMLA leave. Cutcher’s store eliminated 6 full-time employees. Employees’ performance evaluations and scores were converted to a different scale and re-ranked for purposes of the RIF. On Cutcher’s RIF appraisal, the following comment appeared: “Poor customer and associate relations. LOA.” Kmart did not eliminate Cutcher’s position, but gave it to a coworker with a higher RIF appraisal ranking. Cutcher sued, claiming that her inclusion in the RIF violated the FMLA.

Kmart correctly pointed out that an employer need not restore an employee who would have lost her job or been laid off even if she had not taken FMLA leave. Thus, it argued for dismissal of the FMLA claims on the grounds that it would have fired Cutcher even if she had not taken FMLA leave. The 6th Circuit disagreed:

Given Cutcher’s prior annual appraisal scores, the minimal amount of time that passed between her most recent annual appraisal and the RIF appraisal, Kmart’s admission that Cutcher’s performance did not change during that short period of time, the inclusion of the “LOA” notation on the Associate Performance Recap Form, and the lack of any documented evidence demonstrating a prior concern with her job performance, a jury could infer that her leave status impacted her RIF appraisal ratings, thus leading to her termination.

The takeaway from this case is that employers planning a reduction in force must be careful in the language used to discuss employees. If you don’t want a judge or jury to infer that you took an employee’s leave of absence into consideration, don’t write “LOA” anywhere near the employee’s name on any document concerning the RIF. It may sound trite, but in litigation, everything you wrote or said can and will be used against you.

---

Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus. For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

Do you know? What to do when you get sued

When you are sued in an employment case, the absolutely first thing you should do is call your lawyer. There are steps that must be taken as soon as you receive notice of the complaint, the failure of which could put your entire defense at risk.

1. An answer or other response must be timely filed. You could waive the right to file certain counterclaims and raise certain jurisdictional and other defenses by missing this critical deadline.

2. If you want to remove a case from state court to federal court, you only have 30 days to act. This is a hard and fast deadline, with no extensions possible. Counsel needs to be involved early to analyze whether the case is removable and to prepare the necessary paperwork.

3. A litigation hold should be put in place to preserve emails, other electronic records, and paper documents that could bear on the litigation. Key documents should be gathered and secured. Your attorney can help make sure that documents aren’t deleted or destroyed, a flub that could submarine your entire case.

4. Witnesses should be identified, and told that they should not communicate with anyone other that counsel about the case. If any employee is at risk for leaving your organization, potential testimony should be memorialized in an affidavit while the employee is still on favorable terms and under your control.

5. If you have EPLI coverage, you should put your carrier on notice so that coverage is not jeopardized and any defense costs are properly credited against your deductible.

6. Depending on the size and notoriety of the case, you may want to get out of the blocks early with some public relations. That message has to be crafted and managed by counsel so that it does not hurt a successful defense.

Tripping on any one of these important early steps can have serious consequences on your overall defense. Resist the D.I.Y. urge and lawyer-up as soon as you find out you’ve been sued.

---

Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus. For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

EEOC announces curious partnership as it expands community outreach

The EEOC has announced that it has partnered with Beachwood’s Maltz Museum of Jewish Heritage to help employees file discrimination complaints. The agency will set up a temporary charge intake station at the museum on the last Thursday of each month. According to EEOC Cleveland Field Office Director Dan Cabot, “It’s a good partnership for us and for the community.”

To me, it’s a weird partnership. I understand the theming – the EEOC fights intolerance in the workplace and the Maltz Museum advocates for tolerance among religions and ethnicities. But, anyone who knows Cleveland geography will understand that no one in Beachwood and its surrounding communities needs help getting to the EEOC’s main office downtown. While this staged synergy sounds like a publicity stunt, it is one that employers should pay close attention to. The EEOC is clearly empowered, and employers who ignore their EEO responsibilities in today’s political climate do so at their own risk.

[Hat tip: Warren & Hays Blog]

---

Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus. For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

WIRTW #112

Here’s what you missed this week if you’re only reading my blog.

Labor

• Breakfast with NLRB Regional Director - (Part 3) - What Issues Should Employers Be On the Lookout For? – from Daniel Schwartz’s Connecticut Employment law

• Installing webcams an unfair labor practice? – from the LawMemo Employment Law Blog

• WSJ: Labor Leaders Assess EFCA's Prospects After Brown Election in MA – at the EFCA Report

• DOL Argues State Wage and Hour Class Actions are Compatible with the FLSA – from the Washington D.C. Employment Law Update

Sex Discrimination & Harassment

• Pregnancy discrimination in the workplace still a very live issue – from Donna Seale’s Human Rights in the Workplace

• Adverse employment action based on gender-related non-conforming behavior and appearance is impermissible – from Employment Law Matters

• Of slacks and sex discrimination – from Colleen McGushin’s Work Matters

• Do employers have a heightened duty to protect teen workers from harassment? – by Sindy Warren at the Warren & Hays Employment Law Blog by Sindy

• Judging Credibility of Witnesses in Harassment Investigation – via Debra Reilly’s Workplace Investigations Blog

Non-Competition Agreements

• Court Orders Barring Enforcement of a Non-competition Agreement - Reverse Injunctive Relief – via the My Employment Lawyer Wiki

• Jay & Conan - Best Legal Analysis Roundup – via Teri Rasmussen’s Ohio Practical Business Law

Social Networking

• FINRA Issues Guidance on Blogs and Social Networking Web Sites – from the Social Networking Law Blog

• Q&A On Using Social Networks For Background Screening – from fyiscreening.com

Miscellaneous

• State of the Union — Employment Law – from The Word by John Phillips

• “Zubulake Revisited: Six Years Later” Judge Shira Scheindlin Issues her Latest e-Discovery Opinion – from Electronic Discovery Law

• Sorry Fido, You Won't Qualify Your Owner for FMLA Leave – at the Prima Facie Law Blog

• The Aftermath of a Supreme Court Decision: Another MDV – from Michael Fox’s Jottings By An Employer's Lawyer

• Importance of Litigation Avoidance and Proactive Practices – by Stephanie R. Thomas, Ph.D.

• Shabby Treatment at Termination Begs for a Lawsuit – from HR Daily Advisor

---

Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus. For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

Don’t forget about the retaliation

According to a story on NJ.com, a jury has ordered an adult novelty company to pay $500,000 to a fired saleswoman. She had sued for harassment and retaliation following her termination, claiming that she was fired after complaining about harassment by a co-worker. According to her attorney, “The president of the company yelled and screamed at her and disciplined her for the first time in the four years she’d worked there. He accused her of saying bad things about the company.”

We can debate whether someone who chooses sell adult products can be sexually harassed. What should not be open to debate, though, is that a company cannot berate, discipline, or terminate an employee following a harassment or discrimination complaint. Allegations of retaliation often turn a defensible EEO lawsuit into a huge liability risk. Unfortunately, this lesson is one that many companies do not learn until it’s too late.

---

Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus. For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

What’s good for the goose isn’t always good for the gander: legal fees in employment lawsuits

One of the questions clients often ask me is whether they can pursue a plaintiff for defense costs after a successful dismissal. It only seems fair to the client that if they have to pay legal fees if the employee wins a discrimination lawsuit, the employee should be held to the same standard.

The answer is that an employer can pursue a plaintiff for legal fees, but it has to prove that the lawsuit was brought frivolously, which is a tall order. Ohio law defines frivolous conduct as follows:

• It obviously serves merely to harass or maliciously injure another party to the civil action or appeal or is for another improper purpose.

• It is not warranted under existing law, cannot be supported by a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, or cannot be supported by a good faith argument for the establishment of new law.

• The conduct consists of allegations or other factual contentions that have no evidentiary support or are not likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery.

• The conduct consists of denials or factual contentions that are not warranted by the evidence or are not reasonably based on a lack of information or belief.

While it is not impossible, it is very difficult to prove that a employee acted frivolously in filing an employment lawsuit. Instead of spending time and money worrying about recouping legal fees from ex-employees, employers would better served chalking up litigation expenses as a cost of doing business, or simply avoiding litigation in the first place.

---

Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus. For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

Do you know? FMLA leave for unmarried fathers

Do you need another reason to get married? The FMLA provides husbands greater rights than unwed fathers.

The FMLA distinguishes between fathers and husbands based on the type of FMLA-leave sought:

• Fathers are entitled to FMLA leave for the birth of their child and for paternity leave to be with the healthy newborn child (i.e., bonding time) during the 12-month period beginning on the date of birth.

• However, only husbands are eligible to take leave to care for his incapacitated pregnant spouse, to care for her during her prenatal care, or to care for her following the birth of a child if she has a serious health condition.

The FMLA only grants unmarried fathers paternity leave rights. It gives no benefit to the unmarried for any leave to care for the baby’s mother, either prenatally or postnatally.

---

Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus. For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

Faith healing and the FMLA

The Smart HR Manager brought to my attention a recent case out of Massachusetts which held that an employee could not use FMLA leave to care for a spouse with a serious health condition who seeks to travel abroad for faith-based healing. The opinion, however, dodges the issue of whether faith-based healing is covered by the FMLA. Instead, it dismissed the FMLA claim because more than half of the trip was spent visiting family and friends and sightseeing, and the FMLA does not permit employees to vacation with a seriously ill spouse, even in a caregiving capacity.

The case, though, got me to thinking, is a faith-healer covered under the FMLA as a “health care provider?” The most logical place to look is the FMLA’s regulations. Section 825.125 defines a “health care provider” as—

1. A doctor of medicine or osteopathy;

2. Podiatrists, dentists, clinical psychologists, optometrists, and chiropractors;

3. Nurse practitioners, nurse-midwives, clinical social workers and physician assistants;

4. Christian Science Practitioners listed with the First Church of Christ, Scientist in Boston, Massachusetts; or

5. Any health care provider from whom an employer or the employer’s group health plan’s benefits manager will accept certification of the existence of a serious health condition to substantiate a claim for benefits.

Faith-healers do not fall under any of these categories. This conclusion only resolves whether the FMLA covers leave for faith-healing. It does not address whether other laws – such as Title VII’s religious discrimination protections – protect these employees, which is a topic for another day.

---

Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus. For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

WIRTW #111

Conan O’Brien, Jay Leno, and NBC continue to dominate the headlines this week. I’ve previously shared my thoughts. Here’s what my fellow bloggers had to say this past week:

• What Can Employer’s Learn From Conan O’Brien’s Severance Agreement? – via Molly DiBianca at Delaware Employment Law.

• What Does the Conan-Leno-NBC Debacle Mean for Entertainment Law? – from Above the Law.

• Conan, Leno, Letterman, Money – at The Word on Employment Law with John Phillips.

• Boss Basics: Real Leaders Really Take Care of Their Staffs – from The Business of Management.

• Lessons from Conan's Non-Compete Negotiations – via Rob Radcliff’s Smooth Transitions.

• Thoughts on the Conan O'Brien Debacle – by the Workplace Diva.

The other big story of the week was the election of Scott Brown to fill the late Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat. It cost the Democrats their super-majority, and will have long-lasting effects on the President’s agenda, including his ambitious slate of labor and employment reforms. Here’s what other have to say about the swing of the political tide in Washington:

• The Brown Effect: Is EFCA Dead? – from Mark Toth’s Manpower Employment Blawg.

• How Will Brown's Win Impact Labor and Employment Law? – from the Washington DC Employment Law Update.

• Another Blow to EFCA Passage – via Workplace Horizons.

• Scott Brown win spun as “victory” by Big Labor – at LaborPains.org.

• The Importance Of Scott Brown: Everyone Agrees, But… – via Discriminations.

As for other news of the week that you might have missed…

• The True Cost of Employment Litigation – via Dan Schwartz’s Connecticut Employment Law.

• Comment on ‘Go Time’ For Discrimination Claims – by Stephanie Thomas.

• A Trap for the Unwary: "Professional" Duties and the Professional Exemption – from New York Labor and Employment Law Report by Joseph Dole.

• Employment-related class actions on the rise – by Sindy Warren at the Warren & Hays Employment Law Blog.

• Discrimination on the basis of “color” – at Maryland Employment Law Developments.

• Is This Retaliation or Discrimination? – at the UndercoverLawyer.

• Less Than 15 Employees? There's Always Immigration Discrimination – from Michael Fox’s Jottings By An Employer's Lawyer.

• Non-Disabled Applicant Can Go To Trial Based on Company's Pre-Employment Medical Inquiry, Says Eleventh Circuit – from Florida Employment Law.

• Catch Fishy FMLA Requests With the 3 R's – via Mindy Chapman’s Case in Point.

• Is the job so easy a caveman could do it? – at the Wage & Hour Defense Blog.

---

Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus. For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

Warning – vulgar language ahead: 11th Circuit decides whether tasteless workplace behavior is actionable as sexual harassment

We recite the profane language that allegedly permeated this workplace exactly as it was spoken in order to present and properly examine the social context in which it arose. We do not explicate this vulgar language lightly, but only because its full consideration is essential to measure whether these words and this conduct could be read as having created “an environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive.”

So starts the 11th Circuit’s opinion in Reeves v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide (1/20/10) [pdf], which decides the issue of whether vulgar language to which all employees (male and female) are equally exposed is actionable as sexual harassment.

The court made a clear distinction between general vulgarities and sex-specific epithets:

While the record is replete with evidence of general, indiscriminate vulgarity, there is also ample evidence of gender-specific, derogatory comments made about women on account of their sex….

Reeves … identified a substantial corpus of gender-derogatory language addressed specifically to women as a group in the workplace. Her coworkers used such language to refer to or to insult individual females with whom they spoke on the phone or who worked in a separate area of the branch. Although not speaking to Reeves specifically, Reeves said that her male co-workers referred to individuals in the workplace as “bitch,” “fucking bitch,” “fucking whore,” “crack whore,” and “cunt.”

Thus, the court differentiated between general, gender-nonspecific swear words, such as shit and fuck, (maybe improper, but not necessarily unlawful) as compared to gender-specific epithets such as bitch, whore, and, the granddaddy of them all, cunt (unlawful harassment).

[T]he context may illuminate whether the use of an extremely vulgar, genderneutral term such as “fucking” would contribute to a hostile work environment. “Fucking” can be used as an intensifying adjective before gender-specific epithets such as “bitch.” In that context, “fucking” is used to strengthen the attack on women, and is therefore relevant to the Title VII analysis. However, the obscene word does not itself afford a gender-specific meaning. Thus, when used in context without reference to gender, “fuck” and “fucking” fall more aptly under the rubric of general vulgarity that Title VII does not regulate….

[W]ords and conduct that are sufficiently gender-specific and either severe or pervasive may state a claim of a hostile work environment, even if the words are not directed specifically at the plaintiff…. It is enough to hear co-workers on a daily basis refer to female colleagues as “bitches,” “whores” and “cunts,” to understand that they view women negatively, and in a humiliating or degrading way. The harasser need not close the circle with reference to the plaintiff specifically: “and you are a ‘bitch,’ too.”

To conclude:

• General vulgarities are not actionable as harassment.
• Severe or pervasive gender-specific words or phrases are actionable as harassment even if the words are not specifically directed at one employee, but merely generally used in the workplace.
• Severe or pervasive conduct targeting a protected group also qualifies as actionable harassment.

The takeaway for employers – words are sometimes not just words, and businesses should respond to complaints about coarse or vulgar language as they would to any other complaint of harassment. An employer cannot just assume that words are harmless and bury its head in the sand.

---

Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus. For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

How much is a non-compete worth?

According to one Ohio appellate court, $500,000. Marketing Associates v. Gottlieb (1/14/10) [pdf] upheld a half-million dollar jury verdict against an employee who breached a non-compete by resigning and targeting his former employer’s largest client after opening his own shop.

Non-competition cases tend to follow a pattern. An employee resigns, the ex-employer’s attorney sends out a cease-and-desist letter if competitive activities are threatened or suspected, a lawsuit is filed, and injunctive relief is sought trying to prevent the employee from competing, soliciting customers and employees, and using trade secrets and other confidential information.

Separate from the injunctive relief, though, non-competition agreements have a value. Employees who compete against a former employer in the face of a non-compete not only run of the risk of a court entering an injunction and putting them out of work, but also that any money earned in violation of the non-compete will be paid over to the former employer as damages. And, if the employer can show that an employee breached a duty of loyalty while still employed (misappropriating files or information or diverting customers, for example), that damage figure will only go up.

---

Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus. For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

Do you know? Do you need a moonlighting policy?

Moonlighting is when an employee works a job other than their primary job. In today’s world, for example, many people find it necessary to work second or even third jobs just to get by. Assuming you want to permit employees work a second job, it is best to have a policy in place to address how it affects your business.

Such a policy should, at a minimum, address the following issues:

1. Interference with primary job. The main purpose of most moonlighting policies is to set out your expectation that employees will treat their work at your business as their primary job and will not allow other jobs to interfere with the performance of the primary job. You should make it clear that you expect the employee to put your job first.

2. Conflict of interest. Above all else, you need to protect your business. A conflict of interest policy can help ensure that your employees don’t work for a competitor while working for you. You should also consider the potential impact – positive and negative – of an employee working for a customer or vendor. The same should also cover confidential and other proprietary information.

3. What about leaves of absence? Employees should not be able to work a second job while on a leave of absence – medical, for example – from their primary job.

4. Approval of employment. Consider including a clause that requires approval of any outside employment. In implementing such a clause, however, be sure to do it fairly and equitably across the board, and avoid any appearance of preferential or discriminatory treatment.

You do not have to permit employees to hold other jobs. If you do, however, consider putting a policy in place to set expectations up-front and to give you the protection you need should an employee’s outside work interfere with your business.

---

Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus. For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

WIRTW #110

While the tragedy in Haiti has pushed Jay and Conan off the front page, NBC’s late night debacle continues to be one of the week’s biggest stories. My fellow bloggers share their thoughts on the myriad employment law issues this story raises:

• Can Conan Compete in Pennsylvania? – via Philip Miles’s Lawffice Space.

• Why FOX can hire Conan as soon as he leaves NBC and How Conan O'Brien powned NBC – from Jay Shepherd’s Gruntled Employees.

• What Can Employers Learn From Conan O’Brien and NBC? – by William Bowser at Delaware Employment Law.

Other issues covered this week:

Race Discrimination

• Harry Reid Teaches Unintentional Lesson About Racial Language? – from The Word on Employment Law with John Phillips.

• Is Reid racist? (And what we can learn from the recent media frenzy) – from Sindy Warren at the recently redesigned Warren & Hays Employment Law Blog.

• U of Iowa Study Shows Race Not an Important Factor in Hiring NFL Head Coaches – via Patrick Smith’s Iowa Employment Law.

• Forcing Managers to Interview Minority Candidates - Necessary or Pure Bureaucracy? – by Kris Dunn, The HR Capitalist.

Wage & Hour

• Paid Time Off – A Costly Mistake? How Does Your Company Stack Up? – at BLR’s HR Daily Advisor.

• How much influence must someone have in the firing process to qualify as exempt from overtime under the executive exemption to the Fair Labor Standards Act rules? – at the Overtime Advisor.

• EBSA Releases Updated Model COBRA Subsidy Notices – from the Washington DC Employment Law Update.

• Top 10 Wage-and-Hour Settlements Tally 44% More in 2009 – from the ABA Journal.

• Two Steps to Insure You Are Paying Your Employees Correctly – by Marylee Abrams at Minnesota Labor & Employment Law.

Harassment

• What's the Difference Between a Sexual Harassment Investigation and a Sexual Discrimination Investigation? – at Debra Reilly’s Workplace Investigations.

• Eye Witness Testimony is Often Inaccurate – at Tom Crane’s San Antonio Employment Law.

Finally, two follow-ups to earlier posts of mine.

• LaborPains.org reports that AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka is predicting that the Employee Free Choice Act will pass by March. His statement is the exact opposite of my prediction on this same issue.

• The Evil HR Lady asks whether it is legal not to hire someone because she is the sister of a former employee that did not leave on good terms. Associational retaliation – that is, taking an action against someone because a close relation engaged in protected activity – is not illegal in the 6th Circuit. The Supreme Court, however, is considering reviewing this issue, so it is worth keeping an eye on it.

---

Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus. For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

Bills seeks to prohibit use of credit information in employment

Ohio House Bill 340 seeks to make it unlawful for an employer to discriminate on the basis of credit history. If enacted, it would amend Ohio’s anti-discrimination law to include the following:

It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice for an employer to use a person's credit rating or score or consumer credit history as a factor in making decisions regarding that person's employment, including hiring, tenure, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, or any matter directly or indirectly related to employment.

Unlike the federal bankruptcy discrimination statute we looked at on Tuesday, this law would prohibit any use of credit information in employment. While there is no doubt that many have been adversely affected by the ongoing economic crisis, this statute is an overreaction. There exist lots of valid reasons to use consumer credit as one factor in the hiring matrix. For example, if you can conclude that an applicant does not, for whatever reason, manage his personal finances properly, do you want to hire him to handle your business’s finances as its controller or have access to money in your cash register?

The federal Fair Credit Reporting Act already provides protections to consumers in how employers obtain their credit information, and prohibit access without consent. We do not need additional protection to limit how employers use this lawfully obtained information, especially when this information can give employers insight to an employee’s sense of personal responsibility.

---

Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus. For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

To taking the high road and not burning bridges…

Conan O’Brien has every right to flat out pissed at NBC. They kept him tethered to his 12:35 a.m. slot for five years by promising him The Tonight Show, and then pulled the plug after a short seven months because of their own programming ineptitude. The following is Conan’s witty, yet graceful, response to his bosses at NBC (via MSNBC.com):

People of Earth:

In the last few days, I’ve been getting a lot of sympathy calls, and I want to start by making it clear that no one should waste a second feeling sorry for me. For 17 years, I’ve been getting paid to do what I love most and, in a world with real problems, I’ve been absurdly lucky. That said, I’ve been suddenly put in a very public predicament and my bosses are demanding an immediate decision.

Six years ago, I signed a contract with NBC to take over The Tonight Show in June of 2009. Like a lot of us, I grew up watching Johnny Carson every night and the chance to one day sit in that chair has meant everything to me. I worked long and hard to get that opportunity, passed up far more lucrative offers, and since 2004 I have spent literally hundreds of hours thinking of ways to extend the franchise long into the future. It was my mistaken belief that, like my predecessor, I would have the benefit of some time and, just as important, some degree of ratings support from the prime-time schedule. Building a lasting audience at 11:30 is impossible without both.

But sadly, we were never given that chance. After only seven months, with my Tonight Show in its infancy, NBC has decided to react to their terrible difficulties in prime-time by making a change in their long-established late night schedule.

Last Thursday, NBC executives told me they intended to move the Tonight Show to 12:05 to accommodate the Jay Leno Show at 11:35. For 60 years the Tonight Show has aired immediately following the late local news. I sincerely believe that delaying the Tonight Show into the next day to accommodate another comedy program will seriously damage what I consider to be the greatest franchise in the history of broadcasting. The Tonight Show at 12:05 simply isn’t the Tonight Show. Also, if I accept this move I will be knocking the Late Night show, which I inherited from David Letterman and passed on to Jimmy Fallon, out of its long-held time slot. That would hurt the other NBC franchise that I love, and it would be unfair to Jimmy.

So it has come to this: I cannot express in words how much I enjoy hosting this program and what an enormous personal disappointment it is for me to consider losing it. My staff and I have worked unbelievably hard and we are very proud of our contribution to the legacy of The Tonight Show. But I cannot participate in what I honestly believe is its destruction. Some people will make the argument that with DVRs and the Internet a time slot doesn’t matter. But with the Tonight Show, I believe nothing could matter more.

There has been speculation about my going to another network but, to set the record straight, I currently have no other offer and honestly have no idea what happens next. My hope is that NBC and I can resolve this quickly so that my staff, crew, and I can do a show we can be proud of, for a company that values our work.

Have a great day and, for the record, I am truly sorry about my hair; it’s always been that way.

Yours,

Conan

Do you think NBC will be more or less likely to work with Conan to amicably resolve this dispute because of how he is handling himself? Conan is much better served by issuing this respectful, witty, yet pointed statement, than having his lawyers (and trust me, he has lawyers advising him every step of the way) threaten to unleash unholy hell upon NBC. Kudos for Conan for taking the high road and explaining why he is making his decision without unnecessarily skewering the corporate executives whom he must believe screwed him.

Employees leave businesses each and every day, yet many believe that it is acceptable to burn bridges as they run from one employer to another. For example, it never ceases to amaze me how many employees think its better for them to open a competing shop and poach customers instead of sitting down with their former employer to work out the terms of an existing noncompetition agreement. Employees are best served following Conan’s example in exiting a business – even if they have to swallow a little bit of pride and take the high road.

---

Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus. For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.

Do you know? Bankruptcy discrimination

The economy will continue to dominate the headlines in 2010. And, as the economy continues to struggle to rebound, it is likely that your business will have employees who have filed bankruptcy. The question is what do you do with this information.

Do you know that bankruptcy discrimination is unlawful under the Bankruptcy Code.

No private employer may terminate the employment of, or discriminate with respect to employment against, an individual who is or has been a debtor under this title, a debtor or bankrupt under the Bankruptcy Act, or an individual associated with such debtor or bankrupt, solely because such debtor or bankrupt – (1) is or has been a debtor under this title or a debtor or bankrupt under the Bankruptcy Act; (2) has been insolvent before the commencement of a case under this title or during the case but before the grant or denial of a discharge; or (3) has not paid a debt that is dischargeable in a case under this title or that was discharged under the Bankruptcy Act.

In other words, federal law prohibits an employer from terminating an employee or taking an other adverse action against an employee because that employee filed bankruptcy or is associated with someone else who filed bankruptcy.

Three key points to make about this statute:

1. With one exception, every court that has applied this statute has found that it only applies to termination decisions – not hiring decisions. Thus, employers are reasonably safe taking a bankruptcy into consideration when making a hiring decision.

2. The Fair Credit Reporting Act still applies to how employers obtain employee credit information from third parties, including information about bankruptcies. This law only impacts what employers do with the information once they get it.

3. Unlike Title VII, this statute is narrowly written to provide that the bankruptcy must be the sole reason for the adverse action before liability attaches. This is a high standard for a plaintiff to meet, and perhaps explains why we see so few of these cases.

---

Presented by Kohrman Jackson & Krantz, with offices in Cleveland and Columbus. For more information, contact Jon Hyman, a partner in our Labor & Employment group, at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com.