Thanks, Supremes! Wal-Mart v. Dukes roundup

Posted by Robin E. Shea on June 21, 2011

In my opinion, the Supreme Court's decision issued Monday in Wal-Mart v. Dukes is fantastic for employers. Not all class action litigation is a racket, but much of it is, and plaintiffs' lawyers have been known to use the threat of financial devastation resulting from nationwide class suits to pressure employers into paying large settlements.

(No, really? You don't say!)

thumbs up.jpgThe Supreme Court has taken some of the wind out of those sails by requiring that claims based on disparate employment decisions be litigated individually (or, at least, as multi-plaintiff non-class claims, which also require individualized proof).

Not only that, but individualized claims for relief (including damages and injunctions) must also be tried under a procedural rule* that allows putative class members to "opt out" and provides more extensive safeguards for defendants' rights. The Court also said that plaintiffs cannot bypass this requirement by using a random sampling and mathematical formula to calculate class members' individual damages.

 

*Law geeks can scroll down to compare Rule 23(b)(2) with Rule 23(b)(3).

I was quoted yesterday in Law 360 about the case, and on Tuesday the publication quoted my colleague, Joe Murray, who will have an article on this subject next week in BNA. (No links to Law360 because subscriptions are required.) There has been a lot of good commentary around the internet, including (but not limited to, as we lawyers like to say) by Daniel Schwartz, Walter Olson, the New York Times (log-in required), Mark Toth, and Constangy's own Mike Maslanka. From the plaintiffs' side was a good piece by Donna Ballman (by the way, I agree with Donna that this decision will not affect the vast majority of plaintiffs' cases), and an interesting feminist perspective from Jezebel. (I report, you decide.)

The latest controversy over the decision has been exactly how much the plaintiffs' lead firm has lost in this case. The firm says $7 million, but PointOfLaw is skeptical, and makes a pretty strong argument that the firm's estimate should be taken with an enormous grain of salt.

What do you think about the decision? Was it a wise one? Do you think it will protect employers? Do you think it will hurt plaintiffs? No matter whom it hurts or helps, do you think it was fair? Do you think, like Walter Olson, that the decision will be legislatively overruled in a couple of years?  Do you think same principles can be used to defeat certification of collective actions under the Fair Labor Standards Act?

Do tell!

GOOD RIDDANCE! Just what can you say about that ex-employee of yours?

Posted by Robin E. Shea on June 17, 2011

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming) recently affirmed the dismissal of a race discrimination lawsuit against a union whose hiring hall refused to refer the plaintiff for laborer positions. Essentially, the Court said that the union was justified because the plaintiff had three no-rehire letters in his file from three separate ex-employers. His alleged "issues" included poor attendance, poor job performance, and insubordination, as well as abandoning a $40,000 Bobcat . . . while the motor was running.

Plaintiffs sure do crack me up sometimesWoman whispering on phone.jpg.

I have no doubt that this guy's prospective victims employers were very grateful to the union, as well as to the three employer "guinea pigs" for providing honest information about his lousy work ethic and attitude.

But, you may be thinking, we can't provide information about an ex-employee. All we can do is provide dates of employment and positions held (aka Name, rank, and serial number)! Otherwise, we'll get sued!

Generally, I agree. Employers who provide negative reference information about former employees can be vulnerable to claims for defamation and retaliation (yes, the law says you can be liable for retaliation against a former employee as well as a current one), and under state anti-blacklisting statutes.

However, there are occasions when it is prudent to provide more than "Name, rank, and serial number" to (1) avoid incurring liability when a bad employee does something really, really bad at his next workplace, and (2) maintain good relations with your fellow employers by providing judicious warnings about the bad apples.

There are also occasions when you might want to provide positive information about an ex-employee.

Wow -- who knew reference information was so complex?

The complexity will make sense when you consider that not all involuntary terminations are equal. I think it helps to divide them into four categories:

1. Good employee, lousy luck. This group is predominantly made up of good, hardworking, rule-abiding employees who get caught up in a reduction in force. As a responsible employer, you are going to want to do everything you can to help these folks find other jobs. It would not be wrong for you to provide this category with a letter stating that they were terminated through no fault of their own, that they're eligible to come back if the situation at the company improves, and that they're very good at XYZ.

One caveat here: Sometimes employers use RIFs as an opportunity to eliminate lackluster employees with whom management "failed to deal." In other words, their managers had not addressed their problems, much less documented anything. Assuming you provide letters of reference for the good people who were let go, I'd consider providing them also for employees in this "lackluster" category, but saying only that they were let go as part of a RIF and, perhaps, adding a positive but truthful statement about them -- e.g., "Mary always came to work on time every day when she bothered to show up and was well thought of by her co-workers even though her bosses couldn't stand her."

Another caveat: I wouldn't even do that much for employees who were clearly bad. For example, your RIF criteria might have included everyone on an active written discipline. Unless they fall into my last category (see "Axis of Evil," below), this group should usually get the "Name, rank, and serial number" treatment and no letter of reference.

2. Good guy*, couldn't cut it. This category includes the employee who means well and tries hard, but who just cannot meet the employer's performance expectations and so is eventually fired, hopefully after some sort of performance improvement plan. "Name, rank, and serial number" is fine for this type of employee, but it would also not be wrong to provide a truthful and positive letter of reference -- for example, "Joe was our Chief Financial Officer from [DATE] to [DATE], and when it came to making sure we paid all our bills on time, no one was better."

*As we lawyers so pithily put it, "The masculine shall be deemed to include the feminine, and vice versa."

3. The run-of-the-mill-rotten employee. This category includes the majority of employees who are terminated for cause: lazy employees, employees with unjustified attendance problems, employees who violate work or safety rules, employees who have bad attitudes, employees who commit lower-grade dishonest offenses (for example, falsifying time sheets), employees terminated for "less-serious" harassment (for example, one too many off-color jokes), etc. Of course, you don't owe these folks any letter of reference: they should get the "Name, rank, and serial number" treatment. If you choose to add that they are "ineligible for rehire," that should be fine as long as you have progressive warnings or other appropriate documentation so that you'll be able to prove that they're not being discriminated or retaliated against.

4. "The Axis of Evil." It is hoped that you will not encounter many people in this category, but this would include employees who were terminated for extremely serious reasons: theft, embezzlement, severe harassment (including harassment based not only on sex or race, etc., but also "stalking" or threatening or bullying), violence, crime, and serious safety violations, especially if they endanger co-workers or the public.  For this category of employee, you probably have a moral if not legal obligation to provide some level of warning to would-be employers. Of course, you will have to be very careful about what you say to avoid liability for defamation. But truth is a defense to a defamation claim, so the key is to make sure that what you say is absolutely factual, and that you can prove it.

For example, let's say Mary accuses her supervisor, Joe, of serious sexual harassment -- a sexual assault. You conduct a thorough investigation (that's another blog topic for another day) and cannot determine for sure that it happened. But there is strong evidence to support Mary's allegations, and so you terminate Joe.

When Joe's prospective employer calls you for a reference, why not follow the path of least resistance and limit yourself to "Name, rank, and serial number"? Because of the gravity of the allegations. Joe might go to his next employer and rape an employee there. When it comes to light that Mary had made credible allegations of sexual assault while Joe worked for you but you didn't disclose it when asked for a reference, you could be liable to Joe's next victim and even, possibly, Joe's next employer.

So, what do you say?

NOT THIS: "Joe was terminated from Acme Company for sexually assaulting his employee in the broom closet."

Since you don't have conclusive proof that Joe did it, you won't be able to establish the "truth" defense if Joe sues you for defamation.

DO SAY THIS: "Joe was terminated from Acme Company after an investigation into allegations that he had sexually assaulted his employee."

You aren't saying anything you can't prove in a court of law, so you should be able to take advantage of the "truth" defense. And the next employer is still getting all the information it needs to be able to reject Joe for hire.

Well, you are saying, this discussion has been delightful, but it seems like an awful lot of fine-line-drawing. Does this mean we have to talk to a lawyer every time we provide an employment reference?

For categories 1-3, you should usually not need to consult with a lawyer. For the "Axis of Evil," you should always consult with a lawyer, and it will be time well spent. Here is a quick list of the handful of situations in which I would recommend getting legal counsel involved:

1. Whenever an ex-employee has engaged in some type of legally protected activity (internal complaint of discrimination or harassment, truthful testimony, or charge or lawsuit) and you are not planning to treat her exactly the same way that you treat everyone else.

2. If your failure to give an ex-employee a letter of reference might look discriminatory to an outsider. (For example, you are giving letters of reference to all of your Anglo and African-American employees whose jobs are being eliminated, but you are not giving one to your only Hispanic employee, who happened to have attendance problems. This might be fine because of the attendance problems, but it would not hurt to have an attorney make sure you can justify the differential treatment.)

3. Any time you are considering providing an affirmatively negative reference about an ex-employee.

4. Any time an employee is being fired for an "Axis of Evil" offense but you believe you should not provide truthful reference information.

(Again, don't forget to check your state's laws about blacklisting and references before you provide any information about a former employee.)

The EEOC's 5 warnings about medical leaves and the ADA

Posted by Robin E. Shea on June 10, 2011

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission held a public hearing this week on leave of absence as a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

This is a smokin' hot subject, particularly in light of the ADA Amendments Act and its regulations, which Danger sign.jpgexpand the ADA's coverage to a dramatically larger population, the "new," more activist EEOC under Chair Jacqueline Berrien, and two recent multi-million-dollar settlements in leave-of-absence lawsuits brought by the EEOC against Sears, Roebuck & Co. and Supervalu, Inc. (Jewel-Osco).

John Hendrickson, the EEOC's Regional Attorney for Chicago, said that these settlements contained five lessons for employers, and that's what I'd like to talk about today because Hendrickson's points are consistent with warnings we've been giving to employers for quite some time.

1. An "inflexible period" of leave will not satisfy ADA requirements. Most of the employers I've worked with have very generous leave of absence policies -- one employer I know offers up to two years of leave for a single medical condition (and possibly more, if the employee contracts a new condition). However, many policies provide for "automatic" termination if the employee's leave exceeds the designated period of time.

Nunh-unh, no can do, says the EEOC.

If the employee needs, say, two years plus two weeks, but then will be able to return to work, you have to consider granting that additional two weeks.

Or, if the employee can come back but needs reasonable accommodations (including reassignment to a vacant position), you have to consider allowing the employee to come back in the new capacity.

And when I say "consider," I mean, seriously. I mean, if you decide to say no, you'd better have a darned good reason.

Your next question may be, Well, if our leave is so generous and we still have to do all this when an employee has been out of work (and probably receiving disability benefits or workers' compensation), then why on earth do we want to offer so much leave in the first place? And my answer to that would be, Good question, and a point that was made by an employers' lawyer who testified at the EEOC hearing. You can shorten the "maximum leave" under your policy, as long as you comply with the requirements of the Family and Medical Leave Act. (You should check applicable state laws, as well.)

2. "Appropriate leave" requires an "individualized assessment" when the designated leave period expires, if not before. See #1. The "individualized assessment" would include determining whether the employee needs additional leave beyond the official company maximum, and whether the employee can come back to work with a reasonable accommodation.

Many employers still require employees returning from medical leaves of absence to be "100 percent recovered," or able to return to work without restrictions. These requirements have arguably violated the ADA from the get-go (in my opinion, they have), but there is no question that they should be scrapped in our modern era. If an employee has restrictions, the employer is supposed to assess whether the employee can return to work with a reasonable accommodation. If not, then it may be ok to terminate. But if so, then the employer should allow the employee to return to work.

And, have I mentioned that "reasonable accommodation" includes reassignment to a different vacant position?

3. Keep your friends close, and your leave administrator and ADA decisionmaker closer. Many employers outsource leave administration to a third party. Meanwhile, the person making decisions on ADA accommodations is usually someone in Human Resources, in consultation with the employee's supervisors and managers, and possibly legal counsel.

This is a fine arrangement, as long as the leave administrator stays in close contact with HR or legal counsel, and knows how to identify potential ADA issues. (Which should be a cinch now that virtually everyone on an extended medical leave qualifies for ADA coverage.)

That said, third party administrators, or even in-house leave administration "specialists," should almost never be the ones to terminate an employee for hitting the maximum allowable leave. A best practice would be for the leave administrator to refer these employees to Human Resources or legal counsel for an ADA assessment. The decision to terminate, extend leave, or bring back to work with or without reasonable accommodations should be made by HR/Legal in consultation with the appropriate operations management.

4. Ya gotta talk to the employee. The reasons for this rule are too numerous to mention. From a pure morale standpoint, it's always good to stay in touch with an employee on medical leave because it makes the employee feel that she's still "part of the family" and makes return to work that much easier. But just in case these warm and fuzzy reasons aren't enough to satisfy you, allow me to use more persuasive methods. (Imagine Dr. Evil laugh here. Mwahahaha.)

Many jurisdictions require that the employer and employee conduct an "interactive process" when discussing possible ADA accommodations, and the EEOC takes this position as well. The "interactive process" is fancy-lawyer-talk for having a discussion with the employee (ideally, face-to-face, but phone or email will suffice if the employee can't come in) about possible reasonable accommodations. In these jurisdictions, the failure to engage in the interactive process is an ADA violation in itself.

Even in jurisdictions like mine, which do not require an interactive process, failing to engage in the process means that the employer "assumes the risk" if there is an accommodation that might have worked but was missed because the employer didn't talk to the employee.

For these reasons, I strongly recommend that all employers, no matter where they are located, discuss directly with employees their reasonable accommodation options and get the employee's suggestions. (Employers with unions will, of course, have to include the union representatives in these discussions.)

5. Better get used to being sued by the EEOC. The agency believes that private plaintiffs' attorneys will not usually have the resources to be able to pursue these "systemic" discrimination cases involving automatic terminations at the end of medical leaves. 

So, to paraphrase all those spam email jokes that we love so much, you may be a defendant in an EEOC lawsuit if

*You have a "100%-recovered/no restrictions" requirement for return from a medical leave of absence;

*You automatically terminate employees who reach their maximum leaves without making "individualized assessments";

*You delegate all of your medical leave terminations to your third-party administrator, or your benefits administrators; or

*You don't engage in "the interactive process" before automatically terminating employees who reach their maximum leaves.

(Sorry that wasn't the least bit funny. Hey - just like the spam email jokes!)

Generally speaking, the EEOC is a formidable plaintiff. Unlike private plaintiffs' attorneys, the agency does not have a strong economic motivation to settle cases early and inexpensively. They'll serve you with aggressive written discovery and requests for documents, and they'll want to take everybody's deposition. They'll file motions and fight every motion that your side wants to file. They dig "systemic" cases, where they can get large verdicts or settlements that they can post on their "Newsroom" web page. This is not to say you can't beat them, but most employers will prefer being in compliance to being a test case.

Forewarned is forearmed, as they say.

5 signs that your sexual harassment case may be a dog

Posted by Robin E. Shea on June 03, 2011

Between "Weinergate," the indictment of John Edwards, and the relatively old news about Dominique Strauss-Kahn and Arnold Schwarzenegger, it is obvious that issues related to sexual misconduct, including sexual harassment, are not going away. How can you, as an employer, know when a sexual harassment case is a "dog"? Here are five signs that you might want to answer "yes, please, and thank you, Sir!" when you get that EEOC request to mediatesad dog.jpg.

The accused is a member of management and has admitted to the harassment, OR he hasn't admitted it, but you are pretty sure he's guilty. This one is obvious. Maybe he didn't admit to sending that picture on Twitter, but he can't say "with certitude" that it's not him. Whatever. He's probably guilty, and even if he isn't, you're going to have a hard time persuading the EEOC, a judge, or a jury that it didn't happen.

If you have an admission, or just a terrible feeling in your gut that won't go away, your case may be a dog. 

Your work environment is so bad that you "should have known" the harassment was going on. Normally, an employer is not liable for sexual harassment that it's unaware of, which stands to reason. After all, how can you correct a problem you didn't know existed? BUT . . . and there's always a "but," isn't there? If a work environment is so bad that anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear would have been aware of it, then a court is likely to find that you had "constructive knowledge" of the harassment. This means that, in the eyes of the law, you knew about it, whether you actually knew or not.

If you had actual or constructive knowledge of the harassment, then you probably won't be able to use the defense to your inaction that the plaintiff didn't report the harassment. Your case may be a dog.

You got a complaint of harassment, and then you sat on it. Ideally, the investigation of a harassment complaint will begin the same day you get it (or even earlier, if you had actual or "constructive" knowledge of it before you got the complaint). It looks bad when you get a complaint and don't even start interviewing anybody until two or three weeks later or -- even worse -- when you wait until the day you get the EEOC charge or the nasty letter from the attorney in the mail.

PS-This frequently occurs when someone outside Human Resources or Legal, like a manager or supervisor, receives and tries to "handle" the complaint on his own. Managers and supervisors should be instructed to immediately refer all complaints of harassment to the appropriate individuals for follow-up. Non-HR/Legal folks usually do not know all of the ins and outs of harassment law, many of which are contrary to common sense, and so they are that much more likely to do something wrong (like sit on a complaint).

Sometimes a delay can't be helped. Perhaps, for example, one of the key individuals involved is on a spiritual vacation meditating in a Buddhist temple in the Himalayas, and we all know that Buddhist temples in the Himalayas have no telephones or email. If that's the case, then be sure to document the reason for the delay, and be sure to do as much you can until the key individual comes back. And, of course, promptly follow up with the spiritually-refreshed employee after he returns to work.

If there is a delay and you don't have a good excuse, your case may be a dog.

You can't even remember the last time you had harassment training. The EEOC and a good plaintiff's lawyer will always ask members of management whether they've had harassment training, how long ago, who did it, what it covered, etc. There are at least two reasons for this:  (1) Your company will look very bad if you haven't done it recently, and (2) inadequate training will give the plaintiff an excuse for not having reported the harassment in a timely manner.  She can plausibly claim that she didn't report it because she didn't know she was supposed to report it, or that she didn't know how to do it.

You should conduct harassment training for supervisors and managers at least once a year, and the training should include how to identify harassment, "high-risk behaviors," what to do if the manager receives a complaint of harassment or sees a situation in which she believes that harassment may be taking place, and retaliation. Ideally, you'll conduct annual harassment training for non-management employees, too, which should cover the same topics but in more abbreviated form. This can be done live, or through web-based programs or videos. (Live and web-based are generally better than videos because they are interactive.)

If your harassment training isn't current, your case may be a dog.

You have established that "quid pro quo" harassment may have occurred. Let's say an employee comes to you and says that she was demoted because she did not surrender to her boss's "charms." Let's further say that you have done everything right -- you have mandatory annual harassment training for management and non-management employees, which this boss attended last month, you have a great policy, you promptly investigated the complaint, and you fired him and promoted her as a "thank-you" for coming forward. Unfortunately, you are still liable ("strictly liable") under the law because the employee suffered what the courts call a "tangible job detriment" as a result of the alleged harassment. All the good things you have done are relevant to damages but not to liability, meaning that at a minimum you could be stuck with nominal damages and her attorneys' fees.

One would hope that an employer this good would not have to worry about getting a charge or lawsuit from the victim, but if she chooses to pursue legal action, your case may be a dog. (In this example, maybe just a teacup poodle, though.)