By George! Here's an angle on NLRB/social media that I bet you haven't thought of

Posted by Robin E. Shea on February 17, 2012

Fellow blogger Jon Hyman, among others, has already written an eloquent critique of the latest report from the Office of the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board on social media and protected concerted activity, and Dan Schwartz has a good roundup of what labor lawyers are saying about it (and also a call for employers not to overreact). If you haven't read Jon and Dan, you ought to do so.

I was interviewed by LXBN TV recently about this topic, but today I'd like to expand on it a bit with the help of my law partner and labor "gladiator," Cliff Nelson. To hear Cliff tell it, he is a low-tech kind of guy. Maybe because of this, he had a fresh insight into the NLRB's social media policy that I haven't heard anywhere else. George Washington.Gilbert_Stuart_Williamstown_Portrait_of_George_Washington.jpg

Cliff notes (hahaha - get it?) that an overbroad no-solicitation policy can result in setting aside a union election, and he says that the same could be true where an employer has an overbroad social media policy. So, even if you agree with Dan Schwartz that generally it's premature to rush out to rewrite your social media policy, you might want to do it post haste if you think your company is vulnerable to a union campaign -- especially with the new "streamlined" election procedures, which don't give employers much time to get ready.

"In any event," Cliff says, "amending the policy once an 'R' case [election] petition had been filed would not insulate the policy from being objectionable and from being ground for overturning a company victory."

He adds, "Of course, it may take some of the unions a bit of time to wake up to this fact, but employers would be taking an unnecessary risk nonetheless."  

Accentuate the Positive

The NLRB report said that almost every social media policy under consideration was overbroad. However, two policies survived the General Counsel's scrutiny*, and they bear some examination: (1) it was ok for an employer's social media policy to prohibit discriminatory or harassing comments based on race, sex, and other "EEO-protected" characteristics; and (2) it was ok for a pharmacy chain's social media policy to prohibit communication of the employer's confidential and proprietary information, client or employee protected health information, or information that had been "embargoed" by corporate (in other words, scheduled for public release but not until a later date).

I will go out on a limb and posit two principles based on the above:

(1) If a communication would violate a law (or cause the employer to be in violation of the law) or a specific legitimate employer interest, the employer can probably prohibit it.

(2) If the policy provides specific guidance, preferably with examples, about what types of communications are prohibited, it is more likely to be upheld because the specificity would make it that much less likely to have a "chilling effect" on all protected communication. This is in contrast to policies that simply ban "inappropriate" use of social media, or "disparaging" comments.

One other reason not to panic about this: As long as you haven't fired an employee for violating your social media policy, or taken some other action that results in a monetary loss (like a demotion or suspension without pay), the legal remedy for your "unlawful" policy is to replace it with a lawful one and to post an NLRB notice in the workplace saying you did wrong and won't do it again. In other words, not the end of the world.

That is, unless your policy invalidates your union election victory and requires you to go through all that mess again. Sigh.

Terminations and Other Adverse Actions 

When the first General Counsel report on social media came out last summer, I provided some bullets on the terminations that were considered legal and illegal. Recall that "protected concerted activity" (affectionately known as "PCA" for short) can exist even if the employer is non-union. For those of you used to the "EEO" world, a protected concerted activity claim is essentially a type of "retaliation" claim. As you read the outcomes of the latest social media/termination charges, keep these two points in mind:

The activity has to be "concerted," meaning that the employee must be part of a group or acting on behalf of a group, or preparing for group action.

The subject matter of the "concerted" activity must pertain to terms and conditions of employment.

A summary of the terminations discussed in the January General Counsel report appears after the jump:

Continue Reading

A few labor and employment gems I got this week

Posted by Robin E. Shea on February 16, 2012

A couple of interesting gems I got this week from other people (thanks, you guys!):

Pro hac vice statements defeat summary judgment! A federal judge in North Carolina denied summary judgment to a law firm who was sued by an associate for wrongful discharge based on race. Although the law firm's evidence showed thatJewels Andalusite.jpg the associate was a poor performer, the judge found that statements made in a motion to admit her pro hac vice in New York (saying she was in good standing, and yadayadayada) created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether "poor performance" was a pretext.

My friend (as long as she isn't suing one of my clients) and most-worthy adversary Julie Fosbinder of Charlotte was representing the plaintiff, so I'm not surprised that she (a) thought of it this idea, and (b) persuaded the judge. Law firms, when firing an associate for poor performance, something to think about . . .

(Hat tip to my partner and mentor Randy Loftis.)

At least one EEOC office says no need to comply with employment provisions of GINA when dealing with workers' comp claims. And a reader of this blog -- I will not identify her unless she wants me to -- told me that she received an off-the-record opinion from her local EEOC office about whether an employer must comply with the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act when administering workers' compensation claims. Surprisingly, the EEOC office told her NO, they do not. Don't even have to provide the safe harbor language (although I would). The EEOC's position was that this is not an employment-related issue, so Title II of the GINA does not apply.

I wanted to share this wisdom while it was still hot . . . but I'll be back with a full-blown post tomorrow.

NLRB and social media: A hard line, to be sure, but all is not lost for employers

Posted by Robin E. Shea on February 08, 2012

Colin O'Keefe of LXBN TV interviewed me yesterday about the NLRB's latest report on social media, and what it means for employers. Here it is, but you may want to turn the volume down before you start -- my volume was a lot louder than Colin's for some reason.

Colin, thank you for the interview and for your kind words about Employment & Labor Insider!

Employers, you might (or might not) be liable for retaliation if . . .

Posted by Robin E. Shea on January 27, 2012

Our friend Judy Greenwald from Business Insurance magazine reported this week that the number of EEOC charges filed in fiscal year 2011 (which ended September 30, 2011) was relatively flat, with the exception of one big category . . . retaliation.

Mobile Home smaller.jpgRetaliation is essentially taking action against an employee because the employee engaged in some type of activity that is protected by law. The law breaks it down into three parts, each of which the employee has to prove:

1-The employee engages in some type of legally protected activity (more on this below).

2-"Adverse employment action" is taken by the company.

3-There is a "causal nexus" (that's "connection" to you and me) between the protected activity and the adverse action. In other words, there has to be some reason to believe that the adverse action was taken because of the protected activity.

Almost all federal and state employment laws have anti-retaliation provisions. In the labor relations arena, the "non-discrimination" provisions in the National Labor Relations Act are essentially anti-retaliation provisions. A wrongful discharge lawsuit where an employee claims he was terminated for refusing to break the law or for complying with the law is also essentially a retaliation claim.

"Protected activity" can include such things as filing a charge or lawsuit, providing truthful testimony or other help to someone else in connection with a charge or lawsuit, or making an internal complaint about unlawful practices. These activities may be protected even if the employee is wrong -- as long as the employee had a good-faith belief that the employer's conduct was illegal. (Sometimes the employee's belief must also be objectively reasonable to be protected -- check the relevant law and the interpretations from courts in your jurisdiction.)

However, the employer may not be liable if the employee expresses herself in an inappropriate way -- for example, by spray painting on your corporate headquarters building, "MEGACORP DISCRIMINATES AGAINST WOMEN!!!!" (Thank heaven for small favors, huh?)

Now that you have that background, what I'd really like to talk about today is how an employee proves retaliation and how an employer disproves it. With a hat tip to Jeff Foxworthy (you knew there was a reason for that photo of a trailer!),

"YOU MIGHT BE LIABLE FOR RETALIATION IF . . ."

1-You took action against the employee a short time after you found out about the protected activity. Yes, there might be an innocent explanation, and you'll get a chance to provide it, but it looks very suspicious if the adverse action occurred, just as an example, the day after you received your copy of Joe's race discrimination charge in the mail. If the time interval was less than six months and you don't have a good explanation, you might be liable for retaliation.

2-That gun is smokin'! You, or another member of management who directly or indirectly participated in the decision made a statement indicating a retaliatory intent. You know, something like, "I can't believe that little dickens filed an EEOC charge against us! I'll fix her wagon!" If one of the key individuals made a "smoking gun" statement like this before the adverse action was taken, you might be liable for retaliation.

3-You have no "interventions." In other words, there is no intervening event to "break" what we lawyers like to call "the chain of causation." Mary had outstanding performance reviews before she complained that Mr. Romeo was sexually harassing her. She was fired a month later. There was nothing significant that occurred between her harassment complaint and her termination that would "explain away" the suspicious timing of the termination . . . for example, that Mary had botched a million-dollar deal after she complained, or got caught with her hand in the petty cash drawer, or was part of a department that was already scheduled for elimination. If there is a relatively short time between the protected activity and the adverse action, and there is no significant intervening event, you might be liable for retaliation.

4-A foolish consistency is not the hobgoblin of little minds. (Except when it is.) Employers, if you have to take action against an employee who engaged in protected activity, examine your conscience: "Would I be doing the same thing if Lemuel had not complained on behalf of himself and his co-workers about having to work too much overtime?" Oh, really? Are you sure? If you answer that question, "no" or "maybe," then don't take the action. If you answer it "yes," then you're still not done. Now ask yourself this: "Even if I am satisifed that I'm treating Lemuel no differently from any other employee, will I be able to prove it in court?" If you can't convince a third party that you treated Lemuel the same way you would have treated any other employee with similar issues, you might be liable for retaliation.

5-A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. (Except when it isn't.) Do you have other employees who've filed charges or lawsuits against you while they were still employed? Or workers' compensation claims? Or who made internal complaints about discrimination, sexual harassment, working conditions, safety, or what have you? Did bad things happen to them? This could show that you have a pattern of retaliating against employees who engage in protected activity. If so, a judge or jury is likely to find that you probably treated this particular employee the same way, and you might be liable for retaliation. 

We aim to be "fair and balanced," so here is the other side.

YOU MIGHT NOT BE LIABLE FOR RETALIATION IF . . .

1-You are blissfully ignorant. You can't retaliate for something you didn't know about. If you fired Velveeta before you knew that she had been involved in union organizing, then you should be ok. In fact, if you can prove that you made the decision to fire Velveeta, and then found out she was involved in union organizing, and then fired her per the original decision, you'll probably win because the decision had already been made while you were knew nothing of her protected activity. This, by the way, is one of the best reasons to document decisions to terminate employees, even if the termination isn't actually carried out until later.

If the decision was made before you knew about the protected activity, you might not be liable for retaliation.

2-It's been a long time coming. If at least six months has elapsed between the time you found out about Todd's workers' comp claim and the day that you decided to fire Todd, most courts will give you the benefit of the doubt that the decision was not related to his protected activity. Todd can overcome that presumption by presenting evidence that you were still upset with him about his workers' comp claim even after all that time, but assuming he doesn't have any, you might not be liable for retaliation.

3-You have an "intervention." You found out last week that Banshie had filed an EEOC charge against you. Yesterday, you caught her (on tape!) slapping her supervisor across the face for no good reason whatsoever. YES, you can fire Banshie for slapping her boss, even though she just recently filed a charge that you know about. This is what we call a significant intervening event that "breaks" the chain of causation. If a significant intervening event occurred that provided the ground for the adverse action, then you might not be liable for retaliation.

4-A foolish consistency is not the hobgoblin of little minds. (Except when it is.) Yes, you terminated Dishwater only three weeks after finding out about his testimony against the company in Carol's discrimination lawsuit, but he had exceeded the maximum number of absences (non-FMLA/ADA, of course) under your policy, and you checked before you did it and made sure that every other employee whose attendance reached the same level had also been terminated. You also found that Dishwater had received all of the progressive warnings to which he was entitled under your policy. If you treat the "protected" employee the same way you would have treated anyone else with comparable history, then you might not be liable for retaliation.

5-A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. (Except when it isn't.) Yes, you fired Chloreen for poor performance a couple of months after you found out that she'd filed a charge against you. But you have 50 other employees who have filed charges, lawsuits, or workers' comp claims, or who have made internal harassment complaints, etc., etc., who are all still working for you and are in good standing. If you have a long list of employees who are rocking along at work without problems even though they're "protected," then you might not be liable for retaliation.

This week in labor and employment law - Marx Brothers Edition

Posted by Robin E. Shea on January 13, 2012

Marx_Brothers.public domain.jpgIt's been another zany week or so in the world of labor and employment law, rivalling Groucho, Harpo, Chico and Zeppo. Here are a few items that jumped out at me. (Each subhead is a line from a Marx Brothers movie or the title of a Marx Brothers movie. Answers at the end.)

"Hurry up, or you'll be late for jail!" Pepsi Beverages (formerly Pepsi Bottling Co.) agreed to a pre-litigation settlement of $3.13 MM to resolve charges that it considered arrest records in making hiring decisions, which, according to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, meant that approximately 300 otherwise-qualified African-American applicants were rejected. The rejected applicants will be offered positions with the company as part of the settlement. The EEOC is on record as strongly opposed to the use of virtually any criminal background information in connection with employment decisions. However, it appears that the company was using arrest as well as conviction information, which has been a no-no for a long time, and was flatly rejecting anyone with a "history" instead of considering the impact of the conviction on the particular job . . . another no-no. The company has agreed to revise its employment policies as part of the settlement.

Horsefeathers. A federal judge in Chicago denied a motion to compel in a class action filed by the EEOC against carrier DHL, alleging widespread racial segregation in job assignments. DHL requested detailed information and documents from each class member about subsequent employment, as well as personal medical information. The judge denied the request for information about subsequent employment because the EEOC had abandoned its claim for back pay or front pay -- therefore, that information was not "reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Although the EEOC was seeking compensatory damages for emotional distress, the judge held that the medical information did not have to be produced because the agency was seeking only "garden-variety emotional distress" based on humiliation, embarrassment, and the like. Not all courts have bought this "garden-variety emotional distress" argument. Some have found that if a plaintiff pursues an emotional distress claim, he or she has opened the door to discovery of evidence regarding her medical, mental, and emotional condition.

"The party of the first part shall be known in this contract as the party of the first part." National Labor Relations Board Chairman Mark Pearce and now-ex-Member Craig Becker invalidated an arbitration agreement that precluded employees individually from pursuing class or collective actions. (Member Brian Hayes, the only Republican on the Board at the time, had recused himself.) Pearce and Becker said that the agreement interfered with employees' rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act to "engage in . . . concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection . . .." Significantly, the employer was non-union and the agreement was not collectively bargained. The two-member panel invoked the same "protected concerted activity" clause that has been used against non-union employers who crack down on employees who use social media to rant about their employers.

Monkey Business. Speaking of the NLRB, President Obama and the Republican members of Congress have been in quite a battle over recess appointments. Yesterday the U.S. Department of Justice released an internal memorandum that supported the President's position. A recap: As we have reported before, Member Becker's recess appointment to the NLRB expired at midnight December 31, and his last day at work was January 3. Becker's departure left the Board with only two members (Pearce and Hayes) and three vacancies, and the Supreme Court has said that a three-person quorum is necessary for Board action. In an attempt to prevent Obama from making more recess appointments, the Republicans held pro forma sessions every three days during their holiday break. No business was conducted during the pro forma sessions, which lasted about one minute each. Technically, this meant that Congress was not "in recess" for the whole break and that Obama therefore would not be authorized to make any recess appointments. However, Obama outmaneuvered the Republicans (for now, anyway) and, armed with the DOJ memorandum, which declared the pro forma sessions a technical maneuver that could be ignored, made recess appointments to fill the three vacant positions. Legal challenges are sure to ensue. Bring your popcorn.

"Hail, hail Freedonia, land of the brave . . . and . . . free!" In a nice victory for religious employers, the Supreme Court unanimously held that there is indeed such a thing as a "ministerial exception" to the federal anti-discrimination laws arising from the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the First Amendment, and that it applies to people other than the clergy. The plaintiff in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC was a teacher who was formally considered a "minister" in the church and taught religion and led devotions and worship services, but who spent the majority of her time teaching "secular" subjects. She alleged that her employment was terminated in retaliation for exercising her rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Although many lower courts had recognized the ministerial exception, the Supreme Court had not addressed the issue. The EEOC and the government had argued unsuccessfully that the exception was unnecessary. The decision means that, if a court finds that the ministerial exception applies to a case, the case will be dismissed. (Religious employers who are not Protestant Christians will be particularly interested in the concurring opinion by Justices Samuel Alito and Elena Kagan -- not a combination you see every day! -- in which they provide an excellent discussion of how the exception should apply to employees who perform religious functions but are not "ministers.")

"I'll see my lawyer about this as soon as he graduates from law school." The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in a lawsuit filed by a library employee of Ohio State University who alleged that he was ostracized and constructively discharged after he recommended a "freshman-reading" book that had a chapter describing homosexuality as aberrant behavior. The Court found that the plaintiff had waived his claims for damages by first having filed a state-court lawsuit. (Under Ohio law, this results in a waiver of the right to recover damages in any other forum.) His First Amendment retaliation claim was subject to dismissal because, although his speech pertained to a matter of public concern, he spoke in connection with his job duties and not as a "citizen." He also could not establish "adverse action" because both his dean and his immediate supervisor had supported him, even though many of his peers were vocally critical of him and had called for his termination. Finally, the Court rejected his claim that the OSU sexual harassment policy was unconstitutionally overbroad and vague.

 

MARX BROTHERS TRIVIA:

"Hurry up, or you'll be late for jail!" A Night at the Opera, 1935.

Horsefeathers, 1932.

"The party of the first part shall be known in this contract as the party of the first part." A Night at the Opera, 1935.

Monkey Business, 1931.

"Hail, hail, Freedonia [etc.]" Duck Soup, 1933.

"I'll see my lawyer about this as soon as he graduates from law school." Duck Soup, 1933.

Happy *hic* New Year! 2011 labor and employment law year in review

Posted by Robin E. Shea on December 30, 2011

What a year, am I right or am I right? Here is a catalog of the major employment and labor law developments from 2011. And, just to keep it entertaining, I've started off each month with a weird but true off-topic story that was in the news that month. Many thanks to Drudge Report archives for the strange stuff. Thanks also to Esquire magazine's annual Dubious Achievement Awards (sadly, discontinued in 2008) and Dave Barry's Year in Review, both of which I am ripping off paying homage to.

Now, fix me a drink, will ya? We have a lot to talk about.

JANUARY

Ah-choo! Some teenage burglars stole an urn that contained the cremated remains of a man and two great Danes. The teens, obviously not criminal masterminds, snorted the ashes, believing them to be cocaine. 

and . . .

"He*l, they're all disgruntled. I ain't runnin' no da*n daisy farm!" The EEOC reported that for fiscal year 2010 it received a record number of charges, and that retaliation charges surpassed race discrimination charges for the first time in history.

Express yourself. The U.S. Department of Labor issued guidance on its "lactation accommodationLounge Lizards.jpg" provisions in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (aka "Obamacare") and requested feedback from the public.

GINA: It's more than just a pretty name. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, which prohibits the acquisition, use or disclosure of "genetic information," which includes family medical history information, took effect.

Nice family. I'd hate to see somet'ing happen to 'em, ya know? The Supreme Court held in Thompson v. North American Stainless that the Title VII anti-retaliation provisions extend to fiances and other significant others of the person who engages in legally protected activity.

FEBRUARY

"Of course, you realize this means war." Uber-disgruntled ex-employee Charlie Sheen declared war on his former employers CBS and Warner Brothers.

and . . .

Another county heard from. (Or is it "country"?) Constangy, Brooks launched the most-excellent Employee Benefits Unplugged, which covers income tax, executive compensation, 401(k) and 403(b) plans, fiduciary compliance, and Department of Labor and Internal Revenue Service audits. All of the attorneys in the firm's Employee Benefits Practice group contribute, but the Chief Blogmistress is Jewell Lim Esposito from the firm's Fairfax, Virginia office.

cars in snowstorm - January.jpg

MARCH

I hate to say "You can't make this stuff up," but you really can't make this stuff up. A New York man who had a court appearance on a DWI charge showed up with an open can of beer and (allegedy) was carrying a bag with four more cans of beer. The man, who had prior DWIs, was jailed with no bail.

and . . . 

At the stroke of a pen, entire nation becomes disabled. The EEOC issued its Final Rule interpreting the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act.

Make sure your "paws" know the laws. The U.S. Supreme Court found in Staub v. Proctor Hospital that an employer could be liable under a "cat's paw theory" for employment decisions that were influenced by a supervisor or other member of management who had an unlawful motive.

APRIL

Study: Members of Congress give each other much less grief than they deserve. A Harvard professor conducted a study that concluded that members of Congress spent 27 percent of their time taunting each other.

and . . .

Life begins at Concepcion. The U.S. Supreme Court found in AT&T v. Concepcion that arbitration of class claims was ok and consistent with the policy underlying the Federal Arbitration Act. The Concepcion decision overruled the interpretation of the California courts that class claims could not be arbitrated.

OFCCP starts pilin' on. The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs issued a proposed rule regarding the obligations of federal contractors to recruit and hire veterans. Although the desire to helCrocuses - April.jpgp veterans is laudable, the rule would impose significant compliance burdens on federal contractors.

Nothing could be finah . . . The NLRB filed a complaint against Boeing Corporation for opening a production line in North Charleston, South Carolina, instead of the outskirts of Seattle, Washington, where most of its production was located. The Board alleged that the move to right-to-work South Carolina was the company's unlawful attempt to avoid dealing with the International Association of Machinists, which had carried on a number of strikes at the Washington State facility over the years.

MAY

Cannibal Lecter. A man ran an internet ad seeking someone "who would agree to be killed, cooked, and eaten." A Swiss man answered the ad, thinking it was just a fantasy game, but after talking with the "cannibal" on the phone, determined that he was deadly serious. (Tehe. Get it?) The would-be "meal" called the police, who answered the ad undercover and foiled the banquet.  

and . . .

"I'm a victim of soicumstance!" (Probably true.) Bruce Raynor, President of the Workers United affiliate of the Service Employees International Union and International Executive Vice President of the SEIU, was forced out of both positions after being charged with filing misleading expense reports. Raynor, a labor leader for 38 years and who had been president of UNITE and UNITE HERE for eight years before joining Workers United, contended that he was a victim of SEIU politics.

Kiss our apps! The U.S. Department of Labor launched its wage and hour recordkeeping app (at link, scroll down to "Email your timesheets directly to Big Brother!") for iPhones and iPods, with a promise to develop counterparts for Androids and Blackberrys.

Labor pains. The NLRB sued the state of Arizona over a constitutional amendment that protected the right of employees to have secret ballots in union representation elections. The Board contends that state constitutional amendments like Arizona's are preempted by the NLRB. It has also sued the state of South Dakota for the same reason.

Your money, or your life. The OFCCP proposed changing the scheduling letter that it sends to federal contractors who are being audited. The changes would require contractors to provide detailed, individualized information about employees' compensation, among other proposed changes.

 

Continue Reading

Don't let that employee probationary period lull you into a false sense of security

Posted by Robin E. Shea on December 16, 2011

Employers, are you expecting too much from your "probationary period"?

Most employers have a 90-day "probationary period," and if you believe what's in their policies, they can fire an employee for any reason during that period -- no ifs, ands, or buts. (And if you believe that, I know a Nigerian prince who needs to hold your money for a little while so he can return it to you a thousandfold.)

My colleague Heather Bussing has already written well about how "probationary periods" can givTeacher female.jpge employees the impression that they can't be terminated except for "cause" once the probationary period has ended.

In addition, the probationary period may give employers a false sense of security.

Case in point, tweeted by Vancouver labor and employment attorney Jillian Humphreys:

A hotel in Charlottestown, Prince Edward Island, was in the news recently because management fired an administrative assistant/desk clerk within one hour of her announcement that she was pregnant.

The hotel says that the former employee was not terminated because of her pregnancy, but because of pre-existing problems with her work performance and an inability to get along with her supervisor. According to the hotel, the decision to terminate the employee had actually been made a couple of weeks before she was terminated (and, more importantly, before the hotel had any reason to believe that she was pregnant).

Normally, this is a good defense.

But not always. Like, not when you don't have any proof apart from "scout's honor" that the decision had been made earlier.

In this case, unfortunately for the hotel, the employee was in her "probationary period," and the employer didn't think it had to document any of her issues or even meet with her to let her know that she wasn't meeting their standards.

For some holiday cheer (well, "cheer" may be an overstatement, but for some excellent holiday-themed blog posts), please visit the December Employment Law Blog Carnival:Holiday Edition, hosted by Ari Rosenstein of CPEHR. The carnival includes my post, "10 reasons for employers to be jolly about the ADA." Ari, thank you for including us, and you did a great job!

So, it will be their word against hers that the hotel made the decision to terminate before she announced her pregnancy. And, as the employer itself admits, the timing of the termination was a bit     . . . problematic.

I tweeted to Jillian that this employer would be in big trouble in the United States, and she said that same was true in Canada.

Occasionally, I will talk to employers who, like this hotel, think that the probationary period means they can do whatever they want, which is not correct. I've seen employers terminate employees during their probationary periods for things like

*Protected concerted activity ("For cryin' out loud, she hadn't been here a month, and she was already bi**hing about her overtime!")

*ADA disabilities ("Oh, sure, we accommodate disabled employees, but if they have a non-work-related injury during their probationary period, we terminate them and let them reapply when they're well.")

Oy.

If you have not already done so, please vote for Employment & Labor Insider for best Labor and Employment blog of the ABA's Blawg 100. Just click here or on the ABA Blawg 100 cake badge on the upper right of your screen. To prevent hanging chads and the like, the ABA requires registration, but it's free and spam-free, and you don't have to be a lawyer or a member of the ABA to register and vote. Once you've registered, scroll down to "Labor & Employment," click, and you'll see all the nominees in this category, including us. To vote, just click on the "Vote" button. Thank you very much for your support!

Employers should keep in mind the following about probationary periods:

* Even cowgirls get the blues, and even probationary employees have rights under the anti-discrimination laws. If an employee is terminated for a reason that violates the law, the fact that he or she is "probationary" is not going to help you, the employer, one whit.

* As Heather has pointed out, having a probationary period may cause your employees to believe that they are no longer "at-will" once the probationary period ends. (Not that an employee is ever "at-will" anyway. See comment about Nigerian prince, above.) An employee misunderstanding may not have legal consequences depending on where you are, but in a state like California, it probably does.

 So, what can an employer do? If anything?

*It's usually fine for benefits not to kick in until the "probationary" period is completed, and you can even say that in your handbook if you have one.

*It's fine to have a lower (easier) standard for termination of a probationary employee. However, the lower standards ought to be spelled out and should be applied consistently within the "probationary" population of your work force. And the lower standard cannot violate a law, as in the ADA example above. F'rinstance:

THIS: "Our attendance policy for regular employees is 10 no-fault points and you're out. A probationary employee who accumulates 3 attendance points will be terminated."*

*Even here, you may have to make exceptions for absences associated with "disabilities" within the meaning of the ADA.

NOT THIS: "We do not make reasonable accommodations for probationary employees."

OR: "Only regular employees may make complaints of workplace harassment or unlawful activity in the workplace."

OR: "Only regular employees may complain about their terms and conditions of employment."

Of course, if you are going to terminate a probationary employee under your "easy" (but legal) termination standard, you'll also need to have some evidence that the employee failed to meet the "easier" standard, such as attendance records, or documented warnings, or something besides your word. Yes, this is true even if the employee is "probationary."

Our PEI employer is learning that lesson the hard way.

PHYSICIAN, HEAL THYSELF! Good lessons for employers from AMA case

Posted by Robin E. Shea on October 19, 2011

It could be that the purpose of your life is only to serve as a warning to others.

In any event, that must be what the American Medical Association is thinking. The organization took it on the chin this week in a case involving the Family and Medical Leave Act.300px-The_Anatomy_Lesson.jpg

The case is well worth a post-mortem because of what it teaches employers about "causation" in retaliation and protected concerted activity cases.

Names have been changed to protect the allegedly* guilty.

*Even though the AMA lost a battle with this decision, it has not lost the war. The court found that summary judgment should not have been granted, but that means that the case will be tried before a jury. A jury might side with the plaintiff, but it might also side with the AMA.

Here's what happened:

The AMA, like just about every other employer, suffered from the economic downturn in 2008, and a manager -- we'll call him Dr. Pepper -- was told to reduce costs. Eventually it was determined that he was going to have to eliminate one position.

(One more disclaimer before I go on. Despite my fictional "doctor" names, none of the individuals actually involved in this case were physicians, as far as I can tell.)

Dr. Pepper chose an individual to eliminate -- we'll call him Dr. Seuss -- and sent an email to his boss informing her that he had chosen Seuss, and the rationale for selecting him. The gist of the rationale was that most of Seuss's work was going away anyway, so it made the most sense to eliminate his position.

Dr. Pepper's boss -- we'll call her Dr. Scholl -- sent him a reply asking whether the plaintiff, Dr. Dre, should have been eliminated along with Seuss. Pepper replied no, because he did not think it would be wise to eliminate any more positions than absolutely necessary. Scholl apparently was cool with this answer. This all happened in late October 2008.

So, we get to November 20 at a conference. Dr. Dre was there with Dr. Pepper. Dre told Pepper that he was going to have surgery on his knee in January, would be out of work for a few weeks, and was going to apply for short-term disability.

I hope you've stayed with me, because now it gets interesting.

Ten days after this conversation, on Sunday night of Thanksgiving weekend, Dr. Pepper sent an email to Dr. Scholl, apologizing for his "11th hour" change in decision, and telling her that he now wanted to eliminate Dr. Dre instead of Dr. Seuss. Among other things, Pepper said that they could more easily weather the loss of Dre because they were preparing for him to go out on disability anyway.

Poor Dr. Dre was terminated in January, and he hired a lawyer, and his lawyer sent a nasty letter to the AMA in February. The AMA's in-house attorney informed the organization's HR representative about the threatened litigation. We'll call the HR rep Dr. Bombay. (Nowadays, should that be Dr. Mumbai?)

It turns out that Dr. Bombay and Dr. Pepper had discussed the decision to terminate Dr. Dre back in November and that Bombay had taken handwritten notes. Upon learning of the threatened litigation the following February, Bombay typed up his notes and shredded his original handwritten notes, and he dated the typed notes "November 25, 2008," even though it was now February 2009.

Hmmmmm! Verrrrrrry interesting.

But, wait! There's more!

It turned out that Dr. Pepper's calendar didn't show a meeting with Dr. Bombay on November 25, and Pepper didn't remember having had one. Even worse, he testified that he didn't decide to eliminate Dr. Dre until after that date. All this made Bombay's backdating look even more dishonest.

In May 2009, the AMA eliminated about 100 more employees, including Dr. Seuss, the person Dr. Pepper had originally planned to eliminate. Apparently this was enough for a district court to grant summary judgment to the AMA. (I know! I'm not sure how that happened, either.)

But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which hears appeals from federal courts in Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin, reversed, which means that Dr. Dre will be allowed to take his FMLA "interference" and retaliation claims* to trial.

*FMLA "interference" is simply a denial of FMLA leave to someone who is entitled to it, or doing something to discourage the individual from taking FMLA leave. It does not require a bad motive on the part of the employer and can even be based on a mistake or misunderstanding. In the case of FMLA retaliation, the employer "punishes" the employee for requesting or taking FMLA leave. Proof of the employer's unlawful motive is required for a retaliation claim.

So, let's make the usual Y-shaped incision and see what lessons can we learn from our "autopsy" of this case.

1. Timing is really, really important. On October 28, Dr. Pepper told his boss that Seuss should be eliminated, and he gave a good reason for the selection. He also told her that he thought it would be unwise to eliminate anyone else, and specifically Dre. On November 20, Dre informed Pepper that he would need to take FMLA leave in January. Within 10 days, Pepper reversed his RIF decision and recommended that Dre be eliminated instead of Seuss. Whatever Dr. Pepper's actual motive, this timing looks quite damning, doesn't it? The Seventh Circuit thought so, too.

2. Mentioning the FMLA leave in the poorly-timed email was not cool. In Dr. Pepper's "11th-hour" email, he said that the department could adjust easily to Dr. Dre's elimination because they were already preparing for his medical leave. Yes, I know there could be an innocent explanation for this: Pepper wasn't giving that as his motivation, he was simply giving his opinion about the effect of the decision. But this statement, especially when considered along with everything else, helps to make it look like the FMLA leave request was the reason for the selection.

3. Backdating documents is really not cool. Here's what I always tell clients: It's fine to document an event after the fact, even long after the fact, and I strongly recommend it if you didn't document at the time. But never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever in a million zillion years backdate it -- unless you are sure that the backdating is "transparent" (for example, drawing a line through the current date so that the original date is still visible, or saying something like "Created 10/22/11 based on event that occurred 6/1/11."). Any other kind of backdating looks dishonest and, as the Seventh Circuit noted, is more evidence that the employer may have had an unlawful motive and was trying to cover its tracks.

4. Destroying handwritten notes upon learning of threatened litigation (aka "spoliation") is the uncoolest of all. If you're not expecting litigation and don't have reason to expect it, then you can create a "draft" document and destroy the draft after creating the "final" version. But once you either become aware of litigation or have reason to expect it, your right to do this is gone. You must save all of your relevant documentation. Dr. Bombay, the HR representative who destroyed his handwritten notes after learning of the threat of a lawsuit, committed "spoliation," whether he realized it was wrong or not. As a result, when the case goes to trial, the judge may instruct the jury that the notes would have been favorable to Dr. Dre's case.

5. To err is human: be willing to cut your losses if you messed up, or if it will look like you messed up even if you didn't. In this case, it appears that Dr. Dre would have survived at the AMA only about 5 more months if Pepper had stuck with his original plan to eliminate Seuss in January. The undisputed evidence showed that the AMA had a massive reduction in May, and it probably would have included Dre if he'd still been around. Damages under the FMLA are limited to so-called "make-whole" relief (essentially, back pay, back benefits, costs and attorneys' fees, possibly doubled in the case of a willful violation). Even assuming the AMA might have been on the hook for a "willful" violation, it probably had a strong argument that it would not have owed much more than 10 months' pay to Dre, plus his costs and fees. Given that, it might have made economic sense for the AMA to have settled the case in mediation. (Please note that mediations are confidential, so it is very possible that the AMA tried to do just that.)

I was tempted to end this post with a rap about Dr. Dre, the AMA, the FMLA, the month of May, Dr. Bombay, and "anyway." Then I thought better of it. You're welcome.

Tweet freely! Employers get some guidance about social media

Posted by Robin E. Shea on August 19, 2011

Texting.jpgDEAR READERS: If you enjoy this blog, we'd be most grateful if you would nominate it for the 2011 Blawg 100 list of the American Bar Association. (Blawg = blog + law . . . get it?) Attorneys and employees of Constangy are not eligible to vote. All entries must be submitted by September 9. While you're at it, please cast another vote for our sister blog, Employee Benefits Unplugged. Thank you for your support!

A number of employers, non-union as well as union, have been burned recently by the National Labor Relations Board for their social media policies, or the application of those policies.

The National Labor Relations Board issued yesterday a memorandum summarizing its findings on social media cases from the past year. The memo is well worth a read, and provides helpful guidance on the Board's position.

First -- for you non-union folks, a quick summary of "protected concerted activity." The National Labor Relations Act protects even non-union employees who act together in matters related to the terms and conditions of their employment. This can include group activity (a "group" is defined as more than one employee), or even the activity of a single employee, if the employee is acting on behalf of a "group" or preparing for "group" action.

For example, in an employee meeting, two employees may complain that the company is scheduling too much overtime and that it's hindering their safe performance of the job. This is "protected concerted activity," and it would generally be unlawful for the employer to take action against the employees because they raised these concerns.

Protected concerted activity has become a big concern, thanks to the internet and social media, which make it so much easier for employees to complain "in concert," and for employers to find out about it. Anti-employer rants on Facebook, Twitter, and personal blogs are not uncommon. If your gut reaction to this is the same as my gut reaction, you are thinking, "Why in the world can't I fire an employee who calls me a 'scumbag' or an 'as**ole' on the internet?"

Because it may be "protected concerted activity," that's why.

Here is a quickie reference to the guidance provided by the NLRB. As I said, reading the full memo will be well worth your time. The memorandum also contains guidance for employers on developing social media policies that will pass legal muster.

PROTECTED:

*Employee of non-profit was scheduled for a meeting with her executive director to discuss a dispute about her job performance. She posted about it on Facebook and got feedback from her co-workers.

*Emergency medical technician was asked by her supervisor to respond to customer complaint and was denied a request for union representation. EMT posted negative comments about her supervisor on Facebook, received responses from her co-workers, and called her supervisor a "scumbag."

*Car salesman posted on Facebook photos and criticism of food offered by dealership at sales event, saying that food was too chintzy for their clientele and would adversely affect sales commissions. Co-workers commented their agreement.

*Restaurant employees posted on Facebook comments about employer's allegedly improper tax withholding practices, and one employee said employer was "[s]uch an as**ole."

NOT PROTECTED:

*Newspaper reporter tweeted (on Twitter, duh) criticisms of his copy editors and was instructed to stop it. He did, but he continued to tweet about local homicides and sexually oriented topics. Finally, he tweeted a criticism of a local television station, drawing a complaint from the TV station to the newspaper. Presumably the criticisms of the copy editors might have been protected, but there was no indication that the newspaper had terminated him for that. The other tweets were not about terms and conditions of his employment, and he didn't seek to involve other employees.

*Bartender griped to a relative on Facebook about employer's tipping policy, calling customers "rednecks," and saying he hoped they would choke on glass as they drove home drunk. 

*Employee criticized employer on Facebook wall of her Senator but no one else, and was not seeking to involve other employees.

*Employee who worked in program for people with mental health problems posted on Facebook about alleged mental illnesses of the clients, saying that it felt "spooky" being alone in mental institution, that a client "was cracking her up," and making similar comments. The only "friends" who responded were not co-workers.

*Retail employee posted on Facebook about management "tyranny" and called his assistant manager an obscene name, and said that a lot of employees were ready to quit. Although he received generally supportive comments from co-workers (like "hang in there"), the Board's regional office found that it was an "individual gripe."

NOT PROTECTED, AND ILLEGAL:

*Union business agent and three organizers went to worksite of non-union employer and began interrogating workers as to whether they were legally authorized to work in the United States, and threatening to call immigration and have the employees deported. One of the union representatives videotaped the event, and an edited version was posted on YouTube and Facebook. The regional office found that the Union unlawfully interfered with the employees' rights by interrogation, threats, and coercion, and also interfered with the rights of other employees who might have seen the video on the internet.

. . . AND IN OTHER NEWS . . .

EEOC office issues directive on preservation of electronic evidence. The St. Louis office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is issuing written instructions to companies about the preservation of electronic evidence. We don't know whether other EEOC offices are doing this. On one hand, it is not a bad idea for the Commission to remind employers of their obligations in this area and may prevent them from getting into trouble with a spoliation instruction later. On the other hand, will this just give the EEOC one more weapon against employers?

He may have a superior legal mind, but he has a fool for a client. The ABA Journal reported this week that a first-year associate who was fired from his law firm job for sending an all-attorney email touting his "superior legal mind" (and related "ego" issues) is now suing his ex-firm for $77 million. Not surprisingly, he is representing himself. Pretty big case for a first-year going solo . . . one third of $77 million is, what, a little more than $25 million?

My head is spinning so fast, I feel like I'm Linda Blair. (Or, "Keepin' up is hard to do.") Remember Ricci v. DeStefano, in which the U.S. Supreme Court said that the city of New Haven, Connecticut, could not throw out the results of a firefighter promotion exam because of a racial disparity in the results? After that decision, the city complied and promoted the white guys (and one Hispanic guy), and got dismissal of a lawsuit filed by some African-American firefighters who contended that the test had a racially disparate impact. The trial court threw out the black firefighters' lawsuit on the ground that the town was doing what it had to do to comply with Ricci. Now, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (which handles appeals from federal courts in Connecticut, New York, and Vermont) has vacated the dismissal -- allowing the black firefighters' lawsuit to proceed, at least for now. Poor New Haven is damned no matter what it does.

Check us out! Employment & Labor Insider was included in the August Employment Law Blog Carnival, hosted by Jon Hyman (scroll down to "Say you're sorry when you hurt somebody," but read the other fine posts, too).

Employment law roundup: Do sexy immigrants who E-verify on Facebook cause obesity?

Posted by Robin E. Shea on May 27, 2011

Happy Memorial Day weekend, everybody! Top stories this week:

When are employers liable for the bad behavior of their customers? The sexual assault charges against Dominique Strauss-Kahn, former head of the International Monetary Fund, who allegedly attacked an African-immigrant maid in his hotel room in New York City, have spurred some interesting discussion about female employees in the restaurant and hospitality industry, and their exposure to sexual harassment. Maid.jpgAccording to some commentary, women in these industries -- particularly housekeeping staff and waitresses -- are seen as "fair game" by certain guests and patrons. The fact that many of the women are also immigrants may make them even more vulnerable to such behavior.

I have to admit I have a personal bias. I believe it. I was a waitress a very long time ago (when sexual harassment was still legal -- does that date me, or what?), and I do remember getting a lot of comments from male customers that I never got in any other job before or after.

Anyway, employers in these industries and others should be aware that they can, under certain circumstances, be liable if their customers harass their employees.

A bit of history/nostalgia: In 1976, our nation celebrated its Bicentennial. It was a big deal -- even Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck and Goofy, and Kiss, got into the act. Around that time, the owner of an office building in New York City (what is it with that town, anyway? Kidding!) decided that it would be a good idea to require female employees to wear a "Bicentennial costume," consisting of an American-flag poncho with big gaps in the sides and nothing under it except undies, hot pants, and sheer pantyhose. The plaintiff, who was a lobby attendant and had not intended to become a worker in the sex industry, complained that the immodest costume caused her to be hit upon. She was eventually fired for refusing to wear it.

(Imagine being scantily-clad against your will in an elevator with some newly-separated middle-aged lecher in aviator glasses and a leisure suit who's just discovered the sexual revolution. And no concealed-carry laws back in those days, either. What a nightmare.)

Anyway, the EEOC sued, and won. The case is a landmark, in part because the court found that even though the sexual harassment was by visitors and tenants, and not the employer, the employer was liable for forcing the women to dress in a way that invited harassing behavior.

You may be thinking, Well, then, why don't we ever hear about waitresses at a business like Hooters suing for sexual harassment? The difference, I think, is the nature of the business and the reasonable expectations of female employees when they go to work. If you choose to work at a place called "Hooters," presumably (WARNING: LINK CONTAINS CONTENT THAT SOME MAY FIND OBJECTIONABLE) you know what you're getting into and assume some amount of risk. This is not to say that a "Hooters Girl" couldn't have a valid claim of sexual harassment, but she is probably not going to be able to assert a claim based only suggestive comments or propositions by customers, or even a pat or two.

By contrast, in the "Bicentennial" case, and in most housekeeping and waitressing jobs, the women are not knowingly taking jobs in an industry in which sex is the "product."

I have not seen any indication that the hotel where Mr. Strauss-Kahn was staying should be liable for his alleged behavior. But employers in the retail and hospitality industries should make sure that they have processes in place to deal with customer harassment, whether it's on the basis of sex, or race, or national origin, or any protected category. Employees should know to report inappropriate behavior by customers and that such behavior will not be tolerated.

State laws requiring E-verify are legal, says Supreme Court.  A 5-3 majority of the Supreme Court upheld yesterday the Legal Arizona Workers Act, which requires employers to use E-verify and allows the state to revoke the licenses of businesses that knowingly hire illegal workers. The plaintiffs, who included the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and immigrants' rights groups, had argued that the Arizona law was preempted by the federal Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, joined by Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas. The dissenters were Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Sonia Sotomayor. Justice Elena Kagan recused herself because she had been involved in this case while she was Solicitor General.

Interestingly, the Arizona law had been enacted during the administration of Janet Napolitano, now head of the Department of Homeland Security for the Obama Administration, and upheld by the often-liberal U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Immigration politics certainly does make strange bedfellows.

Three other states -- Mississippi, South Carolina, and Utah -- have similar laws, and we can expect to see many more now that the Supreme Court has given them the thumbs up.

NLRB Facebook cases -- have they jumped the shark? The National Labor Relations Board is issuing complaints right and left against employers who have allegedly fired employees for bad-mouthing the employers on Facebook. This has prompted one commenter to ask whether these complaints are even "news" any more. The NLRB's position is that social media postings are often "protected concerted activity." Employers should certainly be aware of the risks of taking action against employees based on their social media postings and should consult with counsel before doing so. But otherwise, it probably does make sense to chill until we get some actual decisions from the Board and the courts.

Obesity, work linked. The other big story in the news this week was that sedentary jobs  . . . make you fat! An obvious point, to be sure, but wouldn't fresh air and exercise during the day be a great wellness initiative? And, does this mean that we can now collect workers' comp benefits for obesity-related diseases, like diabetes and hypertension? Te-he.

BOO! NLRB "Facebook Firing" case settles

Posted by Robin E. Shea on February 09, 2011

sad face.jpgI am disappointed that the NLRB "Facebook Firing" case settled, even though I certainly understand why both sides wanted to end it.

In November, the National Labor Relations Board issued a complaint against American Medical Response of Connecticut, alleging that the company committed an unfair labor practice by firing an emergency medical technician who had posted some unflattering words about her supervisor on Facebook. Among other things, she referred to him as an [expletive deleted] and the code for a psychiatric patient. (The company said that the EMT was terminated because of complaints that she was rude to patients, not because of her Facebook posting.)

The NLRB said that the employer's social media policy was overly broad because it prohibited employees from disparaging the company or supervisors, and forbade depictions of the company without prior permission.

The case was scheduled to go to hearing on January 25, but the Bureau of National Affairs reported that the parties settled the day before the hearing and that the Board approved the settlement this week. Among other things, the company has agreed to amend its social media policy. BNA reports that the EMT will receive a financial settlement (amount not specified) and a neutral employment reference. In exchange, she promises not to seek reemployment with AMR and has agreed not to disparage the company.

The Union was the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, which, predictably, is claiming a flawless victory.

The company's reasons for wanting to settle are fairly obvious -- unfair labor practices cases can drag on for years while they make their way through a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge, followed by Board proceedings, followed by seeking enforcement in a U.S. Court of Appeals . . . if one can escape years of litigation and attorneys' fees by posting a notice and amending a social media policy . . . and even tossing a few thou to the EMT, who wouldn't do so?

But, in my opinion, the Teamsters had good reason to want to end it, too. The great weight of public opinion (at least, as observed on the internet) was not in the EMT's favor. Judging from comments on web postings about this case, most observers thought it was self-evident that bad-mouthing one's boss on Facebook is what one might call a "career-limiting gesture." Plus, as already stated, the company said the EMT had patient-relations issues. Even if the Teamsters prevailed in the early stages, all this makes it reasonably possible that a Court of Appeals would refuse to enforce the decision.

Selfishly, I am sorry that guidance will not be forthcoming about protected concerted activity and social media. But I'm sure it won't be long before another foolhardy courageous employee gets in trouble for the same thing, and maybe then we'll get to see what happens.