ICYMI: Our Social Media Posts This Week – Nov. 12-18, 2017

Below is a review of the posts (on Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter) from the past week. You can check out the full posts by clicking on the links.

In the post on Sunday 11/12/17 we talked about website accessibility - the emerging trend under the ADA. In June of this year, a federal court in Florida ruled against Winn Dixie and in favor of a visually-impaired man under the ADA. Then a mere 2 days later, a federal judge in California allowed a similar suit to go forward. Finally, and more recently, 2 federal judges in NY denied business defendants' motions to dismiss website accessibility suits. The analyses for all are in the post. So how do you know if you should be worried? The starting point is to find out if you are in one of the 12 categories of businesses considered "places of public accommodation" and therefore subject to the accessibility requirements. The post even talks about how it works if there is no physical place of business, but only an on-line presence. A suggested reference is also in the post.

TAKEAWAY: Website accessibility is not the next frontier – it is the current battleground. Check your site now to avoid legal trouble later.

The post on Monday 11/13/17 was about a Court breaking from DOJ on transgender rights. This follows DOJ's announcement that Title VII does NOT prohibit discrimination based on gender identity (contrary to the EEOC's stance). The federal court in Oklahoma issued a ruling in late October in a case brought by a transgender former professor alleging harassment and discrimination on the basis of gender identity after having been denied tenure following her transition. The post tells of the procedural path and why the suit will go forward. The most important part is that the Court rejected the argument that gender identity is not protected under Title VII. The Court also ruled on the claims of hostile environment and the Faragher/Ellerth defense – those too are discussed in the post.

TAKEAWAY: Courts will not always rule on an issue in a particular way just because the government says that is the way they should rule – they will look at the facts and applicable law and make a legal interpretation and ruling.

In the post on Tuesday 11/14/17 we learned that 9 credit unions are hit with ADA suits over websites. The suits were filed in federal court in Virginia by the same plaintiff for alleged violation of the ADA. The basis for suit is in the post. Website accessibility is a big deal now.       

TAKEAWAY: The ADA applies to most businesses and website accessibility is the next (well, current) frontier – make sure yours is legal before you end up on the wrong side of any judicial determinations.

The post on Wednesday 11/15/17 told us that a discrimination lawsuit was filed against a county based on association. Robert Straub worked in the Business Resource Center – he took a 30-day leave under the FMLA to care for his wife. A mere 4 days after he returned from leave, he was discharged. Comments made by the administration (or relatives of administration members) are in the post – and should make you say "yuck". The suit was for violation of the FMLA as well as retaliation for association with Robert's wife, a disabled person.

TAKEAWAY: Remember this category under the ADA – association with a disable person. Don't take action based on that.

In the post on Thursday 11/16/17 we had answers on outside employment, firing works on leave, and the FLSA. The first question is whether a company can prohibit its employees from getting outside work. The answer is maybe – if there is a conflict of interest or it violates a legal policy of the employer. The other 2 questions are in the post with the answers.

TAKEAWAY: Know the law – including legal policies, FMLA leave and how it affects business decisions, and FLSA requirements for overtime pay. Contact an employment law attorney for help.

The post on Friday 11/17/17 was about 3 more former Tesla workers alleging racial discrimination and harassment. Yep, a collective ugh. The newest suit was filed by African-American men. They say that coworkers and even supervisors routinely called them the N-word. And more as noted in the post. Complaints did not make the behaviors stop. When the first suit was filed, Tesla investigated – but see the post for what happened. The suit is pending.

TAKEAWAY: Train your employees – management level and other – on what they can and cannot say and do – and then enforce it, with discipline, even discharge, if necessary.

Finally, in the post yesterday 11/18/17 we asked: is customer info a trade secret? Well, not so fast … In this case, a pharmaceutical-return company tried to enjoin former employees from operating a competitor business. It got a TRO and asked for a preliminary injunction which the competitor company opposed. The court's analysis of the terms of the restrictive covenants at issue is in the post and is instructive on how to draw up such a provision and make it stick, starting with how the company seeking the injunction protects its information.

TAKEAWAY: Restrictive covenants serve a purpose; if you are unsure if yours will be upheld when they come into play, check with an employment law attorney.


ICYMI: Our Social Media Posts This Week – Nov. 5-11, 2017

Below is a review of the posts (on Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter) from the past week.  You can check out the full posts by clicking on the links.

In the post on Sunday 11/5/17 we noted that no boss should comment on language skills, hearing - unless s/he wants to put the employer at risk. The risk is of the employee claiming the existence of a hostile working environment. The post gives an example about how this might play out. Don't let it play out like this for your company.

TAKEAWAY: Treat employees respectfully – even – and especially – when they are different. Unless it has to do with performance, don't comment on differences in speech or hearing abilities.

The post on Monday 11/6/17 noted EEOC sues Professional Endodontics for age discrimination (and suggested you review your policies). The employer was a dental surgery practice; it is now a defendant in a federal lawsuit brought by the EEOC. The post tells us the allegations relative to Karen, a 37-year employee.

TAKEAWAY: Policies or decisions made solely based on age are most likely illegal – talk to an employment law attorney.

In the post on Tuesday 11/7/17 we noted you should feel free to terminate if you find wrongdoing while employee is out on FMLA leave. (But consult an attorney to be sure.) Remember that the key is not to terminate because the employee was out on FMLA leave; but termination for other (valid, legal) reasons is ok. The post gives an example. Tracey worked for a company and also had her own business; as part of that, she signed an agreement with the employer. The terms of the agreement are in the post. While Tracy was out on FMLA leave, a colleague told the employer she had violated the agreement. She was fired and sued. The post provides the outcome of the suit and the rationale.

TAKEAWAY: Remember the key: termination for a valid reason other than taking FMLA leave is acceptable.

The post on Wednesday 11/8/17 noted for dreadlocked servicewoman, the fight for acceptance is both a military and civilian battle. And she has been fighting this battle for over 4 years. It centers on grooming regulations prohibiting soldiers from wearing natural hairstyles. The post gives the detailed history, including the definition of "natural hairstyle", and what the Army finally did this past February relative to some of the hairstyles. So the military battle is partly won, but the civilian battle remains – see the post as to why.

TAKEAWAY: Dress and grooming policies often include prohibitions on certain hairstyles – make sure they don't infringe on an employee's religious beliefs.

In the post on Thursday 11/9/17 we learned that former Tesla factory workers are suing over claims of racially motivated abuse. This is the 2nd suit against Tesla by African-American workers at the Fremont factory. Tesla said there were no internal complaints filed. The allegations in the suit as noted in the post differ and provide some details about what happened. As an aside, tesla also faces an inquiry before the NLRB on whether or not it sought to suppress unionization.

TAKEAWAY: Make sure to train managers on what not to say or do – and how to deal with co-workers who harass or discriminate.

The post on Friday 11/10/17 was about avoiding employment lawsuits over the holiday season. Yes, you need to start to think about it now. The post mentions some things, including religious discrimination (don't do it!) and accommodation (do it!) and the holiday party – voluntary, mandatory, liability for injury, and more.

TAKEAWAY: Don't stop celebrating the season – just do it legally and so it doesn't infringe anyone's rights or beliefs.

Finally, in the post yesterday 11/11/17 we noted a bus driver fired for refusing "Mark of the Devil" in background check can sue employer. The employee didn't want to be fingerprinted for her background check on religious grounds. The employer fired her, thinking fingerprinting was required under applicable law. She then sued. The post tells of her bases for suit and what the employer could or should have done.

TAKEAWAY: It can be difficult when one law requires an employer to do (or not do) something, but another law requires it to do something else – consult an employment law attorney to help determine which law takes precedence.


ICYMI: Our Social Media Posts This Week – Oct. 29 - Nov. 4, 2017

Below is a review of the posts (on Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter) from the past week.  You can check out the full posts by clicking on the links.

In the post on Sunday 10/29/17 we asked: did Trump's staff break the law by using private email? Or are they just hypocrites? First, the referenced staff members were his son-in-law (and adviser) Jared Kushner, daughter (and adviser) Ivanka Trump, former chief strategist Steve Bannon, former Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, and advisers Stephen Miller and Gary Cohn. The post includes opinions from 7 legal experts in response to the question and what law(s) might be applicable, especially if there are national security implications. The opinions in the post make interesting reading.

TAKEAWAY: Don't claim someone else did something illegal and then turn around and do it yourself – even if it turns out not to be illegal, you will be a hypocrite. This holds true in the workplace and in politics.

The post on Monday 10/30/17 showed that the Plaza Hotel faces multiple sex harassment charges (and noted it's not 5-star behavior if true). Six employees have filed suit against the prestigious NY hotel (part of the Fairmont chain) alleging illegal behavior by senior management and male colleagues and that the owners did nothing when they complained. The post talks about the behaviors of which they complain.  

TAKEAWAY: If an employee makes a complaint, investigate it – and take action if warranted.

In the post on Tuesday 10/31/17 (and here) we wished you a Happy Halloween and reminded you to follow workplace rules (especially dress codes).

TAKEAWAY: Holidays let employees express themselves, but not to the detriment (or in violation) of company policies.

The post on Wednesday 11/1/17 told us that Blac Chyna sued the Kardashians over slut shaming. Yes it's relevant to the workplace. The suit claims that the Kardashians intentionally defamed and interfered with contractual relations. Not new in their world. But what is new is that it was in the context of slut-shaming which, as the post explains, could be cognizable under Title VII if in the workplace. Ouch.

TAKEAWAY: Title VII and its prohibitions against discrimination have far-reaching effect and implication – make sure to discuss them with your attorney to be sure you are not at risk.

In the post on Thursday 11/2/17 we learned that courts rule Onionhead is a religion but Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is not. No this isn't a joke, but something to take seriously because religious discrimination applies to a sincerely-held religious belief (even if not of an organized religion). The post goes over the Onionhead suit brought by the EEOC in 2014 and the suit by an individual (in prison) over the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

TAKEAWAY: Religion can be amusing, but not when it results in charges or suit for discrimination – know your legal obligations.

The post on Friday 11/3/17 confirmed that yes, fathers are entitled to FMLA leave too. Even if the spouse also takes FMLA leave. But the post does tell us the one caveat.

TAKEAWAY: Keep in mind that FMLA coverage is broader than new mothers - know your legal obligations as an employer.

Finally, in the post yesterday 11/4/17 we learned that 21% of the nation lives in a community association. That means a condominium or single-family home community that is governed by an Association – which enforces the Governing Documents consisting of a Declaration, Bylaws and usually Rules or Regulations. All owners are members of the Association and have both the right to enforce the Governing Documents and also the obligation to adhere to them. The statistics in the post, both as to number and value, are staggering – and they will only increase.  

TAKEAWAY: If you live in a planned community, make sure you know your legal rights and obligations. If you are on the Board of a planned community, make sure you know what you can and cannot do in that role. Consult an attorney knowledgeable in this area of the law.


ICYMI: Our Social Media Posts This Week – Oct. 22-28, 2017

Below is a review of the posts (on Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter) from the past week.  You can check out the full posts by clicking on the links.

In the post on Sunday 10/22/17 we learned that a blind, deaf patron denied an interpreter wins in suit against movie theater chain. The federal court said that the theater might need to provide an interpreter to such a patron despite the cost. Why did the suit get to continue? The theater chain's past actions (as noted in the post).

TAKEAWAY: When dealing with public accommodations, you still have the obligation to try to accommodate – make sure you fulfill that obligation so as to avoid being on the wrong side of a suit.

The post on Monday 10/23/17 told us a federal court considers if funeral home must allow staff to cross-dress. Once again, the EEOC filed suit to protect what it sees as religious liberty in "the age of transgenderism". Anthony suffers from gender dysphoria; he told the funeral home employer that he would present as a woman at work. He was fired. The bases of the trial and appellate courts' rulings are interesting and in the post, with RFRA front and center.

TAKEAWAY: The US Supreme Court will ultimately have to answer this question, but until then you have to decide what side of the line you want to be on relative to your workforce (especially given that PA currently has no law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or identification).

In the post on Tuesday 10/24/17 we talked about recording conversations with your cell phone: with great power comes potential legal liability. Seriously. While it's so easy to just turn on the recorder (or record both video and audio), that might not be legal in the circumstances. For example, a meeting at work. So is it legal? The answer is "it depends". The post tells us what the law is in MI as to possible criminal liability; do you know what it is in PA? (You should find out). What about civil liability? Again the post mentions MI law, but you should know PA law. And can the recorded conversation be used in court? The post says …

TAKEAWAY: Don't be trigger-happy just because you have the ability to record conversations with your handy dandy cell phone – make sure you know the law and how it might hit you if you violate it.

The post on Wednesday 10/25/17 was about 3 things to watch as Yahoo fights male employees' gender discrimination suit. The two plaintiffs say they experienced discrimination because they were men in a company that went too far to promote and hire women. They note that 83% of leadership positions at Yahoo were held by women and say it can only be intentional. Yahoo's defense is in the post – if correct, they are off the hook this time. The post also tells us things to keep an eye on as the case progresses. Also identified in the post, almost as a footnote, is that the case could set some precedents relative to the WARN Act and what must be paid out to covered employees.

TAKEAWAY: make sure there is a valid, legal reason to take adverse action against an employee. Even if you think the employee is not part of a protected group, you might find out to the contrary via a charge or suit filed against you.

In the post on Thursday 10/26/17 we read about tips for determining the right fence for you (and suggested you be alert to condo and HOA rules). More and more people each year live in planned communities – those with an Association to take care of some degree of maintenance. With that comes Rules and Regulations, often about landscaping, decorations, and even doors and fences. In addition to any municipal requirements, including permitting, whether you own a house in a planned community or are on the Board, you need to know what the Governing Documents provide as to fences. See the post for more examples and tips.

TAKEAWAY: Life in a planned community can be great – until an owner violates a rule, even if unintentionally. Make sure an attorney well-versed in applicable law and the Association's Governing Documents helps tell you your rights or obligations.

The post on Friday 10/27/17 was about a suit for sexual harassment and retaliation. Yep, something's fishy here. The suit by the EEOC is against a seafood processor and staffing firm (hence our attempt at humor) for an alleged hostile work environment. The complaint says the staffing firm took the Spanish-speaking female workers to the plant where supervisors and managers harassed them. The post lists the harassment. Despite complaints, it didn't stop. And after 3 of them filed charges, 2 were discharged. Pre-litigation conciliation failed, hence the suit.

TAKEAWAY: Don't harass or otherwise illegally act toward your employees – you will be found out and end up paying for it.

Finally, in the post yesterday 10/28/17 we learned that a supermarket chain was sued for religious discrimination over dreadlocks. Ugh. The employee, a Rastafarian, had been hired but not yet started to work; he was told to cut his dreadlocks or quit. The post tells of his offer to resolve things and the employer's response.

TAKEAWAY: Respect employees' sincerely-held religious beliefs and try to accommodate them, especially if there is an easy fix.


ICYMI: Our Social Media Posts This Week – Oct. 15-21, 2017

Below is a review of the posts (on Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter) from the past week.  You can check out the full posts by clicking on the links.

In the post on Sunday 10/15/17 we read that a Banana Republic worker claims boss called her braids too ‘urban. All is not well in paradise. Destiny, a black woman, alleges that her manager would not schedule her any more until she removed her box braids. The post has the details. She wears it that way for protection as do many black women. This runs afoul of EEOC guidelines but not all courts have agreed; see the post.

TAKEAWAY: Remember that race or ethnic or national origin discrimination may come in many forms – don't get caught up in any of them. Carefully think through every adverse decision and make sure you are on solid legal footing before taking the action.

The post on Monday 10/16/17 told us of a suit against Whataburger because manager was told to consider only applications that "sounded white". Yes you read that right. A white manager opposed and refused to participate in a directive to hire only white applicants. The reason for that directive is in the post. And how was she to implement it? See the post. When she refused to comply, she encountered verbal abuse, intimidation, threats, and more (in the post). Is it any wonder the EEOC brought suit on her behalf?!?

TAKEAWAY: Remember that Title VII applies to applicants in addition to current employees – don't take adverse action against applicants based on a protected characteristic.

In the post on Tuesday 10/17/17 we were told that in the Facebook age discrimination lawsuit "older workers 'didn't get it'". The suit was brought by a 52-year-old former employee. Comments Facebook allegedly made are in the post. He also says that Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook's CEO, did not respond when he complained about age discrimination. The suit also says that after complaining, he was accused of poor performance and other things (in the post of course).

TAKEAWAY: When taking adverse action against someone in a protected category (or with a protected characteristic), be sure that you have a valid legal reason behind your action.

The post on Wednesday 10/18/17 asked: Could NASCAR team employees be fired for protesting the National Anthem? Richard Petty wants it to be so. But would it be legal? The answer might depend on whether there is an employment agreement (and what provisions it might contain) or if the employment is at-will. See the post for the distinguishing factors between those 2 scenarios.

TAKEAWAY: When looking at taking adverse action as a result of First Amendment expression in your workplace, take into consideration whether or not there is an employment agreement that covers the situation.

In the post on Thursday 10/19/17 we looked at shifting priorities and concerns for the Iranian-American community - things we in the mainstream don't always think about (but should). A recent shift – since January of this year to be exact. The Iranian-American community is comprised of various religious groups, including Muslim, Baha'i, Zoroastrians and Jewish. The post provides some insight on their support of the new administration. The post also looks at changes within the community since the new administration came in.

TAKEAWAY: Don't look at a group bound by ethnicity or national origin as homogeneous – or all having the same beliefs or agenda. Treat them equally and just like all other employees.

The post on Friday 10/20/17 was about the ABC's of HOAs … why not abiding by the rules can get you in trouble. When you live in a planned community – whether condo or single-family homes – you have to abide by applicable state law and the Association's governing documents too. Some of the more common things that residents encounter, and Boards must enforce, are in the VID in the post.

TAKEAWAY:  Life in planned communities is, in essence, life under contract, so make sure you know what the contract says – get the right attorney to review the documents.

Finally, in the post yesterday 10/21/17 we read about sex discrimination: female chef excluded from working at all-male barbeque. Yep, not so tasty. So what happened? A female chef asked her catering company employer to work a private event; her name, as well as the other males who had asked to work it, were provided. She was turned down for the reason in the post. She sued. The rationale behind the ruling in her favor is in the post (and interesting – employees, especially in the hospitality industry, beware.

TAKEAWAY: Let us say it again: if you take adverse action against an employee, don't do it based on a protected characteristic – or you will find out just how pricey is the protection to which the employee is entitled.


ICYMI: Our Social Media Posts This Week – Oct. 8 - 14, 2017

Below is a review of the posts (on Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter) from the past week.  You can check out the full posts by clicking on the links.

In the post on Sunday 10/8/17 we found out about a waitress fired for pants religious objection. Really. The employee is a Pentecostal which forbids her from wearing the required denim pants. She told the manager that before she was hired. When she arrived for work the first day wearing a denim skirt, she was fired. The employer's reasoning (I use that term that loosely) is in the post. The EEOC sued for failure to accommodate her religious beliefs.

TAKEAWAY: If you cannot accommodate an employee's religious beliefs, make sure it is for a legally valid reason.

The post on Monday 10/9/17 told us that the Trump Administration says employers can fire people for being gay. Yes, this now puts the Administration at odds with the EEOC. The lawyer for the Administration who argues the case said "Employers under Title VII are permitted to consider employees' out-of-work sexual conduct ... There is a common sense, intuitive difference between sex and sexual orientation." Counsel for the plaintiff summed it up in basic terms; see the post. This is all occurring in a case being heard by the full Second Circuit and after the Seventh Circuit recently ruled in favor of the plaintiff in a similar case.                                                                        

TAKEAWAY: LGBT employees can legally be fired in PA for that reason alone, but that doesn’t mean employers should rush to do that – it's not good for morale or business and, needless to say, closes the door on employees performing their jobs day in and day out.

In the post on Tuesday 10/10/17 we talked about how to avoid a sexual discrimination lawsuit. The post gave us 5 tips including setting clear policies, training, and others in the post.

TAKEAWAY: Don't take adverse action against an employee because of sex – make sure any adverse action is based solely on work (non)performance.

The post on Wednesday 10/11/17 asked: Can spousal jealousy provide grounds for a discrimination claim? In the case in the post, the answer was yes. So what happened? The husband and wife owned a chiropractic office. They hired a female massage therapist and yoga instructor. Husband directly supervised the employee. What did he say to her that started this whole mess? See the post. And then a short time later, wife followed that up with a text message (again, see the post). After that, husband fired her. She sued for sex discrimination. And won on appeal.

TAKEAWAY: Yep, what we said above: Don't take adverse action against an employee because of sex – make sure any adverse action is based solely on work (non)performance.

In the post on Thursday 10/12/17 we read that a construction company will pay $125,000 to settle an EEOC race harassment suit. The suit alleged that the company subjected 2 black employees to a hostile work environment, including physical threats, based on their race. The employees were carpenters who were subjected to racial harassment form their supervisor, a white male, both verbally and by action. What he said and did are in the post. The settlement was signed off by the court on September 7th of this year and included both the monetary payment and other equitable relief (listed in the post).

TAKEAWAY: Employees should be treated equally and solely based on performance – don't let race (or any other type of) discrimination darken your company's doorstep.

The post on Friday 10/13/17 was about fat-shaming in the workplace: actionable?  The post starts off with a good question and sets the tone for what follows. Yes, fat-shaming is a thing. And apparently may be a legal basis on which to harass employees and create an hostile work environment. The post first attempts to define fat-shaming. Then it tries to answer the question of whether or not it is actionable. The post goes through some scenarios where it might give rise to a claim, including the language used in one case.

TAKEAWAY: Again, just because taking adverse action against an employee might be legal, that does not mean you should green-light it. You might find that an illegal reason underlies the action, thereby opening you up to liability.

Finally, in the post yesterday 10/14/17 we learned the EEOC sued Con Edison for allegedly requiring job applicants to submit to medical exams and provide genetic information. Ugh. The suit was just filed 9/27/17 in federal court in NY. Why? It says that the company violated the ADA, GINA and Title VII by discriminating against 3 employees with disabilities. What it allegedly did is in the post. Con Ed says it expects to get the case resolved.

TAKEAWAY: These laws are there for a reason – to protect people from actions taken not based on performance, but a protected characteristic that has nothing at all to do with performance. Don't get caught in the trap.


ICYMI: Our Social Media Posts This Week – Oct. 1-7, 2017

Below is a review of the posts (on Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter) from the past week.  You can check out the full posts by clicking on the links.

In the post on Sunday 10/1/17 we learned that an employee's FMLA claims survive because the employer miscounted leave days used. And math used to be so simple. Cleon was a teacher's assistant. He applied for, and was granted, FMLA leave from 2/23 – 5/16/16. Spring break was from 3/25 – 4/1. The post explains how, if at all, that affected his FMLA leave entitlement. When he didn't return from leave, he was suspended and he sued. The employer's motion to dismiss was not granted because of simple math. Read the post to see why.  

TAKEAWAY: As with any statute, know how to apply it properly before taking adverse action as a result of what you think is a violation of the FMLA.

The post on Monday 10/2/17 was about what not to say to EEOC investigators. Well, pretty much anything the employer in the post said when contacted. Especially when it's not true. And just digs the hole deeper.                                                        

TAKEAWAY: If the EEOC contacts you, take these steps: (1) stop. (2) Take a deep breath. (3) Conduct an internal investigation (if one has not already been done. (4) Get all of the appropriate documents and information to your attorney to advise you on how to proceed.

In the post on Tuesday 10/3/17 we looked at time sheet tips to beat FLSA off-the-clock claims. The post was originally aimed at Labor Day, but applies to any day that time worked needs to be tracked (so pretty much every day). Some companies use the honor system, where employees write down their time on a sheet of paper (or enter it into a computer), others use a punch-card system. No matter how time is recorded, employees can claim they worked before or after the hours that were recorded – and that they should be paid for those hours. And unless the employer meets its burden of proving accurate time records, pay it must. The post contains tips on how to maintain those accurate time records.

TAKEAWAY: Follow the tips in the post to help keep accurate time records. Also, put in place, or enforce an existing, policy that prohibits employees from working before or after recorded hours without express authority from an authorized individual, and evenly and continuously enforce that policy.

The post on Wednesday 10/4/17 noted that IHOP was sued for sex discrimination – not too tasty. After conciliation failed, the EEOC sued 2 IHOP franchises when the male GM and at least two cooks allegedly sexually harassed many female employees (including one still in high school), 2 of the females resigned as a result, and (yes there's more) the male GM at a related franchise sexually harassed a male employee. So what did the GM allegedly do to the women? Regular and repeated sexual touching for starters; more details are in the post. Actions allegedly taken by the GM against the male employee are also in the post. The cherry on this sexual harassment sundae? Although the owner and managers were aware of the conduct, they neither investigated nor acted to stop it.

TAKEAWAY: If an employee complains about possibly illegal conduct, investigate immediately (and take action if warranted). If you know about illegal conduct, don't be an ostrich; rather, take action to stop it (and appropriately discipline those who took the action).

In the post on Thursday 10/5/17 we learned that a Pottsville transgender woman settled a discrimination lawsuit. A while ago we wrote about Kate Lynn's long-standing suit against Cabela's – now that suit has been settled and she can move on. Kate Lynn transitioned about 13 years ago. She filed the suit in 2014, alleging that Cabela's fired her in retaliation for her sex discrimination complaints. When the judge allowed her case to go forward under the ADA this past May, he broke new ground. The basis of his decision is in the post and worth reading and understanding (and probably precipitated the settlement).

TAKEAWAY: The ADA specifically excludes transsexualism from its protection, but this suit went forward on the basis cited by the judge in the post; make sure you know the law and how it is or might be applied before you take adverse action against any employee.

The post on Friday 10/6/17 was about a federal court calling time out on employee leaves (and here's hoping this makes its way toward us). You should already know from reading this blog that after an employee exhausts FMLA leave, but needs more time off, employers must look into additional unpaid time off as a reasonable accommodation under the ADA. Or at least that has been the EEOC's position, and courts have often agreed in specific situations. Well the tide may have changed in an appellate decision issued late last month. While not binding here in PA, employers should take note of it (and prepare in case it does become the law here in the future). The post gives the details, including the judge determining the interplay of the ADA and FMLA and whether the employee was entitled to protection from the former after leave under the latter expired.

TAKEAWAY: You should continue to look to the ADA for a possible reasonable accommodation for an employee who cannot return to work after an approved FMLA leave, but make sure the person is entitled to ADA protection first.

Finally, in the post yesterday 10/7/17 we read that the EEOC was ordered to pay $1.9M for frivolous claim against a trucking company. The EEOC had filed suit against CRST Van Expedited in 2007 as a result of alleged sexual harassment. Now, 10 years later, the EEOC must pay a huge amount of attorney's fees to the company. Let's go back and find out why. In 2013, the trial court awarded $4.7M to the company as a sanction for the EEOC's frivolous filing of the suit. The EEOC appealed. The appellate court reversed and sent it back for additional findings; the EEOC appealed to the US Supreme Court and got the appellate decision reversed. However, when the case was back at the trial court (after remands), the company asked for additional fees for work after the original 2013 award. It wasn't successful there, but still got an award of $1.9M (a reduction from the original $4.7M, but still a hefty amount). The post provides details on why the fee award was entered and its circuitous procedural route (which is important to keep in mind when dealing with the EEOC).

TAKEAWAY: While the EEOC is a federal agency with much pull and discretion, it still has procedures it must follow when processing cases; if it doesn’t follow those processes, you may wish to hold it accountable and seek reimbursement for your attorney's fees and costs (but consult an attorney first).


ICYMI: Our Social Media Posts This Week – Sept. 24-30, 2017

Below is a review of the posts (on Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter) from the past week.  You can check out the full posts by clicking on the links.

In the post on Sunday 9/24/17 we noted that United Airlines wins judgment in discrimination case by man accused of taking food from plane. Yes he was a former employee – a customer service rep – for about 18 years. His employment ended when the company fired him for allegedly taking food off of a flight in violation of policy (and federal regulations).A white employee who was also caught taking food was treated differently – the post tells why. And that's why his suit failed too.

TAKEAWAY: Just because two (or more) employees of different races are treated differently after taking the same action does not mean there was discrimination – you need to get all of the facts to make sure their situations were the exact same.

The post on Monday 9/25/17 was an ALERT: DOL withdraws its guidance on independent contractors and joint employment. What does it mean? The EEOC said it will continue to "fully and fairly" enforce all laws under its purview, but that doesn't really tell anyone anything about any changes as a result of the withdrawn guidance. Further, as noted in the post, the NLRB is still pushing a broad interpretation of joint employment. Keep your eyes and ears open as the current Administration continues to move in sometimes-different directions than the prior Administration.

TAKEAWAY: Rather than needing agency guidance on whether something is or is not illegal, don't get that close to the line in the first place.

In the post on Tuesday 9/26/17 we asked: Could barring a former employee from your premises lead to suit? Perhaps. This decision comes from the NLRB, but may have broader implications, so be aware of it. The employer, a resort and casino in Reno, has restaurants, lounges, bars, clubs, a casino, and performance venues, all of which are open to the general public. Tiffany worked there briefly as a beverage supervisor and filed suit for unpaid wages. Her boyfriend later started to work at the resort's facilities. She visited that facility and others over a period of tie after her employment had ended. And see the post as to the employer's policy on former employees' access to the various premises. One time she was denied access and then she got a letter bring her based on her pending litigation. She filed an unfair labor practice charge under Section 8 (which protects Section 7 rights – and, as applicable to you, remember that Section 7 applies to both union and non-inion workplaces). The ALJ ruled against the employer as did the NLRB in a recent decision. Its reasoning is in the post and makes quick but interesting reading.

TAKEAWAY: Yes, there are things an employer can do so as not to become a party to a suit like this, including having updated policies that say what the employer wants them to (and reflect how it does or may act in certain situations).

The post on Wednesday 9/27/17 noted that EEOC sues Golden Corral for disability discrimination and harassment. So what happened? The EEOC alleges that the employer discriminated against a disabled employee but subjecting him to a hostile work environment based on disability and sex (and that the employee resigned as a result). Sean, who has high-functioning autism, was a dishwasher. A male assistant manager took actions that underlie the EEOC's complaint – they are in the post. He complained and asked to transfer to a different shift. After being assigned again to work with the same assistant manager, he quit. Pre-litigation conciliation failed, so suit was filed.  

TAKEAWAY: Just because an employee is different – on any basis or characteristic – does not mean s/he deserves to be treated differently. Treat all employees the same (unless legally required to do otherwise) and you will probably stay out of legal hot water.

In the post on Thursday 9/28/17 we noted LinkedIn over your head: when socmedia posts count as solicitation. Look at the post as a warning. While the subject case was out of state, the same facts in PA would probably result in a similar ruling. The employee was subject to a non-solicitation agreement. She added former co-workers as connections on LinkedIn after starting to work for a competitor. The court's ruling on that is in the post. Likewise, the post also mentions other recent cases on the same subject which turned out differently. In one of them the subject employee (the defendant) posted things to LinkedIn that were akin to solicitations (see the post for the details) – but did not extend the non-solicitation period as the employer did not show any damages.   

TAKEAWAY: If employers are going to use non-solicitation agreements, then they need to police social media (and do other things) to enforce the agreements.  

The post on Friday 9/29/17 was a follow-up: Attorney for Annapolis car wash denies discrimination against Hispanic workers. Recall our 9/14/17 post where we described the allegations against the employer car wash. Well now the employer's attorney has denounced the suit as revenge as a result of 39 undocumented immigrants having been discharged several years ago. Counsel also denied the allegations in the complaint. Other comments he made are in the post.

TAKEAWAY: It is helpful if both hands are saying and doing the same thing – and have proof in support of the allegations that are being made. Check on that before taking adverse action.

Finally, in the post yesterday 9/30/17 we noted the employee's FMLA claims survive because the employer miscounted leave days used. Ugh. The employee was formerly a teacher's assistant who filed FMLA interference and retaliation claims. More background details are in the post; suffice it to say that employer error will not be looked upon favorably. Even though the employer asked the court to dismiss the case, it did not because it had to credit the employee's allegations at that early stage (and DOL's Regs re the FMLA as noted in the post).

TAKEAWAY: Know what time does and does not count against approved FMLA leave based on statute and your own policy. Make sure to properly calculate the end of leave and the subsequent return to work date before taking adverse action against the employee.


ICYMI: Our Social Media Posts This Week – Sept. 17-23, 2017

Below is a review of the posts (on Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter) from the past week.  You can check out the full posts by clicking on the links.

In the post on Sunday 9/17/17 we asked: a dog, a cat and a bunny walk into a diner – what's the diner's owner to do? This was actually not a joke without a punch line, but rather a question of accommodation under the ADA. Relative to service animals and emotional support animals. The post helps explain what type of animal can be a service animal, what it does, and where it can go (and under what conditions). The post also mentions briefly what the owner can and cannot ask about the animal or the owner and what the owner can and cannot do when the animal is brought into the diner. These things are not all the same for emotional support animals as they have no ADA protection – but the post does mention a few situations where the law may require its presence.  

TAKEAWAY: Know who can bring what type of animal into your business and under what conditions – before you run afoul (as opposed to fowl) of the law.

The post on Monday 9/18/17 suggested you check your COBRA notice! So you know what COBRA is, that you have to give notice, and the situations in which that has to occur. Great. But do you ever actually check the language of the notice to make sure it says everything it should and in the way it should? Probably not. The post includes where to find a sample notice that you can use. The suit referenced in the post alleges that the sample was not used in full, the part that was used was modified in ways that made it unclear and ambiguous, required information was not provided, and other deficiencies. Since the suit is against Wal-Mart, there might be a huge recovery (or settlement) coming down the pike.

TAKEAWAY: Don't be the name listed as a defendant in a lawsuit; make sure your COBRA notices are proper – and, even better, have your employment law counsel review it for legal compliance.

In the post on Tuesday 9/19/17, we noted that Company offering teen a job + firing her (& a friend) after a complaint of lower pay than a male friend hired at same time = suit filed. No surprise, right? Here the suit was filed by the EEOC against a company that owns multiple pizza shops. 2 teens, Jenson and Jake, applied to work at the pizza joint. Both got interviews and both were hired; then they talked about their pay. Turns out Jake was to be paid more than Jenson, so she called the business to complain. What the employer did next is in the post (and led to the suit).

TAKEAWAY: Pay according to job performance, not gender or any other protected characteristic. You will be found out and taken to task (or sued).

The post on Wednesday 9/20/17 was about common handbook mistakes. Let us help you avoid them. Some of the things to look for in your handbook (you do have one, right? If not, you really need our help!) are the EEO statement/policy, off-duty conduct provisions, separation policies, anti-harassment policies, and others in the post. The list in the post is not exhaustive, but merely some provisions that often end up being land mines in litigation.

TAKEAWAY: Having a handbook (or policy manual) is great, but you also need to keep it updated, both as to the law and your operations. Make sure to run it by an attorney for legal compliance.

In the post on Thursday 9/21/17 we noted that when FMLA medical leave runs out, don't forget the ADA, feds say. The EEOC filed suit recently, alleging the defendant failed to accommodate an employee who was undergoing breast cancer treatment that the failure was in violation of the ADA. The leave began as FMLA leave. That's where the problem arose. Read the post for more background.

TAKEAWAY:  We've said it before; don't look at the FMLA and the ADA in a vacuum, but rather together.

The post on Friday 9/22/17 told us that Hershey's faces an ADA suit (which is not the sweetest thing on earth). First, did you know that Hershey's had a place of business in Seattle? Well, apparently it does. A former employee at that location has sued, saying Hershey's refusal to approve her requested medical accommodation, and then discharged her, in violation of the ADA. The post contains more background information and the crux of the suit.

TAKEAWAY: Make sure to follow the steps of the interactive accommodation process as soon as you get a request for accommodation. All steps.

Finally, in the post yesterday 9/23/17 we asked: When is telecommuting considered a reasonable ADA accommodation? Yes, apparently accommodation under the ADA was our theme for the week. The answer to the question, as you might guess, is "it depends". On the job at issue and whether the essential functions can be performed outside of the workplace, either fully or at all. The post contains other things to take into consideration when discussing a telecommuting accommodation.

TAKEAWAY: Don't just rule out telecommuting - discuss why it would or would not be feasible given the essential job functions at issue in any given situation.


ICYMI: Our Social Media Posts This Week – Sept. 10-16, 2017

Below is a review of the posts (on Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter) from the past week.  You can check out the full posts by clicking on the links.

In the post on Sunday 9/10/17 we learned that summary judgment was denied to employer who circulated letter re disability discrimination charge. No surprise, right? An employee filed a charge with the EEOC, alleging disability discrimination. As part of its investigation, the EEOC requested information on other employees. Before it provided the information to the EEOC, the employer sent a letter to 146 employees identifying the employee who had filed the charge and discussing the EEOC charge. That led to an EEOC charge of retaliation and interference. Details of the background and what led up to the first charge are in the post. Both sides filed motions for summary judgment (to resolve all or part of the case) and the judge denied them both for the reasons stated in the post.

TAKEAWAY: Be really, really careful as to when and to whom you disclose information about pending administrative charges – the wrong decision might lead to even more legal trouble.

The post on Monday 9/11/17 was an alert: Court to reconsider ruling allowing women to be paid less than men in some circumstances. In April 2017, a panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that, in some circumstances, women can be paid less than men for the same job. Our 5/14/17 post was about the panel's ruling. The EEOC appealed the panel's ruling and a hearing is set in December.

TAKEAWAY: Might it be legal to pay a woman less for doing the same job as a man? Do you really want to take a chance you will be sued if you try it?

In the post on Tuesday 9/12/17 we talked about workplace language rules: the next new frontier? Top 5 things to know. The EEOC filed suit against a company alleging it discriminated against non-Hispanic applicants by requiring that they be able to speak Spanish. Yes, you read that right. The EEOC set forth 5 bases supporting its position. First, any rule must be justified as a business necessity. Second, rules should be limited to ensuring employees can operate (do their jobs) safely and efficiently. The other 3 bases are in the post. And the scariest thing of all? The last paragraph in the post.

TAKEAWAY: Employers are allowed to have rules for the workplace so that everyone knows what is expected of whom – but the rules still have to be legal.

The post on Wednesday 9/13/17 noted the EEOC sued Estee Lauder for sex discrimination (against men). Again, you read that right. The policy at issue provided male employees who are new fathers less parental leave benefits than female new mother employees. The post details the leave benefits for each gender. After his child was born, a male employee requested benefits (see the post) that would have been granted to a female under the policy. His request was denied so he filed a charge with the EEOC. After it investigated and conciliation failed, the EEOC filed suit.

TAKEAWAY: If you have a rule or benefit in place, make sure it is evenly applied to all employees (or that there is a valid, legal basis for any differences).

In the post on Thursday 9/14/17, we said "and then when you're done with that, please go pick up the dog poop." Sadly, yes this is employment-related. A Maryland company allegedly violated federal law when it treated Hispanic workers differently based on race and national origin. What did it do? It put them in lower-paying jobs and more things in the post. The owners also required the Hispanic workers to do things for them personally, like picking up dog excrement at their houses and other things in the post. The owners also required the Hispanic workers to do things for them personally, like picking up dog excrement at their houses and other things in the post. And if that weren't enough, the company allegedly fired workers who complained. Retaliation at its finest.  

TAKEAWAY: First, don't treat employees differently unless it is based on job performance. Also, don't make employees do non-work-related tasks.

The post on Friday 9/15/17 was about paying employees when weather closes the doors – hurricane, snow, whatever. A timely post due to the recent spate of hurricanes, the rest of hurricane season, and the coming winter weather. So the question is whether you have to pay employees when natural disaster strikes. That can be divided into the following sub-questions: when your business closes, are you required to pay hourly, non-exempt employees for that time? What about salaried, exempt employees? What if the business is open but a salaried, exempt employee cannot get there? What if, due to weather, an hourly non-exempt employee cannot leave and so keeps working? And finally, what if an employee shows up but is sent home early due to inclement weather? All good questions - and answered in the post.

TAKEAWAY: Wage and hour issues go beyond whether an employee is exempt or non-exempt, - but that plays into the answer to some of the questions discussed, so know the answers to avoid legal trouble.

Finally, in the post yesterday 9/16/17, we talked about when accommodating one employee's disability triggers another employee's disability. What's the poor employer now in the middle to do? (Hint: "nothing" is not the correct answer.) Now the employer has 2 employees to try to accommodate. Notice the words "to try". The key to accommodation is that the employer must try to find a reasonable accommodation – and it need not be the one requested by the employee. Examples of how other parts of the interactive accommodation process might work are detailed in the post.

TAKEAWAY: Don't stick your head in the sand; that will certainly be viewed as a failure to accommodate. Instead, try to work things out alongside the employee requesting accommodation (and your attorney if legal questions arise as to your obligations).

Page 1 ... 2 3 4 5 6 ... 28 Next 10 Entries »