Iowa Employment Law Blog : Iowa Employment Lawyer & Attorney : Patrick Smith : Bradshaw Fowler Proctor & Fairgrave Law Firm : Des Moines, Central IA Discrimination & Labor Law

Several commentators have identified the proliferation of social networking as one of most important new developments/challenges/obstacles that employers faced in 2009, and will continue to deal with in the foreseeable future.

Despite all the discussion in blogs and other places about this phenomenon, for those who do not spend lots of time in this arena,  there is not a clear understanding of what social networking really is, and what are the benefits and potential drawbacks for employers.

There are hundreds of sites and posts containing information and opinions about social networking.  But, for those who want to get started with some basic information, I commend you to the following sites:

First, is "Social Networking Policies: Best Practices for Companies", published in The Metropolitan Corporate Counsel.   This article answers basic questions such as, "what is social networking?", what are the benefits and risks?; are there any best practices? 

Second, is "The 3 Principles of Social Media: How to be a good online citizen, in the Delaware Employment Law Blog.   This post provides a good discussion of the purposes of social media and how it can be used effectively.

Third, is an overview of recent Federal Trade Commission regulations concerning the use of endorsement in advertising, and how those regulations could cause potential liability for companies whose employees use social networking.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

It seems common sense that a lawyer or witness would not answer a ringing cell phone in the middle of a court proceeding, but it happens enough that judges now have to have rules about it.

Molly DiBianca at Delaware Employment Law Blog takes on the entitlement mentality of some  employees who think they should be allowed to do personal business on company time and have complete privacy over personal e-mails sent on the company Blackberry. 

For a low cost perk that  will make your employees happy in 2010, HR Daily advisor recommends a flexible scheduling program. 

Guess who said it:

I always figured that I would [eventually practice]. But it was midway through law school when I thought I wanted to do something different before practicing. I wanted to try something new because I didn’t want to have any regrets.

Answer: former Texas Tech football coach Mike Leach, J.D., in an interview with "BItter Lawyer", on why he went into coaching instead of law practice.   Leach's lawyer has apparently promised to file a lawsuit against the University "soon" over his termination. 

Daniel Schwartz of Connecticut Employment Law Blog notes the difficulty of accurately predicting what will happen in the year ahead; he does go out on a limb with this one though: "We're not making contact with aliens."  Some days I'm not so sure.   

Speaking of predictions (and football), here's a couple:  Iowa State 20, Minnesota 14 in the Insight Bowl.  In the Orange Bowl, Iowa 24, Georgia Tech 21.  Go Cyclones and Hawks!

Happy New Year--see you in 2010!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Update-January 6, 2010:  For information on how employee handbooks, and particularly safety plans, can contribute to lower insurance costs, see Lara Utter's recent post in Iowa Biz.

There is no federal or Iowa law that requires an employer to have a handbook--but most of us do anyway.   While handbooks can be quite useful for communicating information and expectations to employees, a poorly drafted or conceived one can create more trouble than it solves.   Handbooks are often updated to comply with new laws and regulations, but seldom do employers review handbooks with the idea of removing information or making them simpler.  Sometimes, no one in the organization knows where a particular rule or policy came from.  It simply stays in the handbook year after year because...well, because it's always been there.  

A good resolution for 2010 is to review your handbook with at least some of the following in mind:

1.  Just because another company had a particular rule, policy, or procedure does not mean your company should;

2.  Do you really want a detailed progressive discipline procedure? Often, the only time anyone reads this is after they have been disciplined or terminated, and it turns out it wasn't followed;

3.  Make sure the "at-will" disclaimer is in a prominent place, but don't let it lull into thinking you can safely terminate an employee for any reason or no reason at all;

4.  It is important to communicate that you are an equal opportunity employer and do not discriminate; but don't try to paraphrase all the EEO laws in your handbook.  You might get it wrong, or make promises that get you in to trouble later (e.g., "we always accommodate employees with disabilities"). 

5.  Does your handbook adequately communicate your leave policies?  You must set forth clearly the employee's rights and responsibilities under the Family and Medical Leave Act;

6.  Do you have a policy on social networking?  Do you need one?  What are you trying to accomplish with a social networking policy?

7.  Does your handbook comply with the National Labor Relations Act? This is commonly overlooked, because most private employers do not have unions.   However, the NLRA applies to employers regardless whether its employees are organized.   The following policies may potentially violate the NLRA if they are deemed to infringe on an employee's rights to engage in protected, concerted activity:

• prohibiting the use of e-mail for "non-business" communications;
• prohibiting the wearing of pins or decals;
• requiring management approval before posting information on bulletin boards;
• statements to the effect that information about wages or compensation is strictly confidential and may not be disclosed to other employees;

8.  Does your handbook contain information about classifications under the Fair Labor Standards Act?  Are the classifications accurate?

9.  Does your handbook provide easy to understand information about who employees should talk to if they have a complaint about harassment?

10.  What is your policy concerning employer issued mobile phones and smart phones?  Do you allow for personal use? Do you expect employees to answer calls or e-mails after hours, and if so, are they compensated for that time? 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This is the time of year for reflection--when we look back on what happened during the past year, and look ahead to the coming year.  There are many commentaries and opinions on what was good and bad about 2009, but there is no doubt it was an eventful year for those of us in the labor and employment law world.    In this post we give a month-by-month account of the significant employment law events of 2009:

January:   To usher in the new year, on January 1, the ADA Amendments Act became effective.  On January 26, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling in Crawford v. Metro Metro Government of Nashville, which held that an employee who answered questions as part of an internal harassmenti nvestigation was protected from retaliation under Title VII's "opposition" clause.  On January 29,  President Obama signed into law the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.  The Ledbetter Act was the first law the President signed after his inaugeration.  

February:  The president signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (a/k/a the "Stimulus").    Important to employers and employees, the law provided a 65% premium subsidy for nine months to employees involuntarily terminated from their jobs since September 1, 2008.  

March:   On March 10 the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) was introduced in both houses of Congress.   The proposed EFCA contained the most signicant changes to labor law since the NLRA was enacted in the 1930s.  While the law was and is a top priority for labor unions to get enacted, so far its most controversial provisions, inlcuding elimination of secret ballot elections,  mandatory arbitration, and increased penalties for unfair labor practices make the proposed law unpopular with business interests.

April: The U.S. Supreme Court issues its second labor and employment decision this year: Penn Plaza, LLC v. Pyett.   The Court held that “a collective-bargaining agreement that clearly and unmistakably requires a union member to arbitrate ADEA claims is enforceable as a matter of federal law.”  On April 24, the EEOC issued a "Best Practices" document relating to employees with caregiving responsibilities.    The Iowa Supreme Court issued its decision in the case of Varnum v. Brien, which held that Iowa's law that permitted marrigage licenses to be issued only to a man and a woman violated the Iowa Constitution.

May:  On May 1 Governor Culver signed the Iowa version of the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.  This law amended to the Iowa Civil Rights Act to incorporate provisions of both the Ledbetter Act and the Equal Pay Act.    The H1N1 pandemic was in the news, and the EEOC issued guidelines to help employers comply with the anti-discrimination laws while helping stop the spread of the disease.   Sonia Sotamayor was nominated to replace the retiring Justice Souter on the U.S. Supreme Court.

June:  The U.S. Supreme Court issued two important employment law decisions this month: Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc. and Ricci v. DeStefano.    While there is some disagreement, our view is that both decisions were favorable for employers.

July:   The phenomenon of social networking and its impact on the workplace is becoming the issue de jour.    Al Franken is confirmed as the winner of the Senate election in Minnesota, which gives the Democrats a 60th seat and filibuster proof majority.  However, the proposed EFCA law still goes nowhere.  With the economy still in the doldrums, the Department of Labor issues a document addressing frequently asked questions relating to furloughs.

August:  It's the dog days of summer, which means the Iowa State Fair, and controversy over allegations of religious discrimination.

September:  The Iowa Supreme Court issues a ruling in DeBoom v. Raining Rose, Inc. one of the court's most important employment discrimination decisions.   The EEOC released proposed regulations on the ADA Amendments.  In wage and hour news, convenience store chain Casey's General Stores paid $11 million to settle FLSA claims of thousands of current and former employees.

October: President Obama signs into law modifications to FMLA relating to military caregiver leave and qualifying exigency leave relating to military service.

November: The Genetic Non-Discrimination Act becomes effective November 21.  Data from both the Iowa Civil Rights Commission and EEOC show officially what many of us observed in our practices: an uptick in discrimination claims this year.  On November 30, the Eighth Circuit issues an opinion in the remand of Gross v. FBL Financial.   Despite Gross' arguments that his jury verdict under the Iowa Civil Rights Act should stand, the court sent the case back to the Southern District of Iowa for a new trial.

December:  The U.S. Department of Labor issued an "Employment Law Guide" which covers topics such as wage and hour, occupational safety, and employee benefits, among others.   The EEOC and Department of Labor release their regulatory agendas for 2010.   Finally, President Obama signs a law that will extend the COBRA subsidy another two months, until February 28, 2010.

Best wishes for the rest of 2009 and a happy and prosperous 2010!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Understandably, this is the most important question a client will ask his lawyer when deciding whether to settle a lawsuit or defend the case at trial.   It is also one of the most difficult things for lawyers to predict.   That's why jury verdict research is so valuable, and why this post at Manpower Employment Blawg is a must read for employers and HR professionals.    It turns out that 2009 was not a very good year at the courthouse for employers defending employment related lawsuits.  Here is a summary of the some of the jury verdict data:

• The median jury award in discrimination cases rose 16%, from $208,000 to $241,119.
• Employers won 39% of the time (or lost 61% of the time, depending upon your perspective).   In age cases, employers were successful only 33% of the time, and in disability cases, 52% of the time.
• Age discrimination claims resulted in the largest verdicts, followed by disability, sex, and race.
• Employers are generally better off in federal court: they won 43% of the time there, versus 37% of cases in state court. The median award was also lower in federal court ($164,925 vs. $270,000). Federal Court is also more favorable for employers because of the relatively high percentage of cases for which summary judgment is granted.
• The median settlement amount for all cases: $90,000, 20% higher than last year.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

One of the biggest worries of lawyers defending against employee lawsuits is the stray statement in an e-mail that can be blown up or taken out of context.    We are constantly warning clients that, before they click "send",  they should think about how an e-mail will look to a jury. 

However, the recent acquittal of two former Bear Stearns executives accused of securities fraud provides an important lesson on the limitations of e-mail as evidence.   The government's case against the Wall Street executives relied heavily on statements they made in e-mails.   It seems the strategy backfired, and the e-mail turned out not to be the holy grail the prosecutors thought it would be.  According to one lawyer,  the "texting, twittering, Blackberry toting jurors of today understand that an e-mail capturing a concern, doubt or momentary distress does not reflect thought over time, much less a vetted public statement,  "Skilled lawyers can help pull some of the sting out of the most seemingly damning emails, it seems, by working hard to place them into a broader context."  

While it is still a good idea to think twice before clicking "send", it it good to know that common sense and context is capable of overcoming a damaging e-mail statement. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Thanks to Molly DiBianca of the Delaware Employment Law Blog for including us in the 2009 list of Top Employment Law Blogs.  One of the things I have most enjoyed since launching this blog last April is the collegiality among bloggers and the willingness to share ideas and information. 

Always a good source of practical information, the HR Daily Advisor had two posts this week  dealing with employee's abuse of FMLA leave.   The first addressed the abuse of intermittent leave, and the second tackled the problem of "pattern absences" (such as taking leave on Mondays or Fridays). 

Jon Hyman at Ohio Employer's Law Blog discusses an interview with Phillies' starter Cole Hamels after game 3 of the World Series.   Media reports of the interview contained a quote from Hamels that made it appear he had given up on the Series after his poor game 3 performance.   When considered in the context of the entire interview, however, it was clear Hamels was looking forward to the opportunity to redeem himself in game 7 (alas, a game which never was played).    The lesson for employers: be careful what you say and how you say it, because it is easy to take words out of context, especially for cross-examining lawyers. 

Megan Erickson of the Social Networking Law Blog has two recent posts (here and here) on factors employers should consider before drafting a social networking policy.   With the explosion in social networking over the past year, this has become a hot topic for employers.   See our related posts on this subject here and here.

H1N1 seems to have subsided among school age children in the local area, but now is hitting more adults.   The Washington D.C. Employment Law Update reports that two members of the House of Representatives have introduced a bill that would permit employees five paid sick days if they contract H1N1.  The Emergency Influenza Containment Act would apply to employers with fifteen or more employees.  It would permit both full and part time employees to be paid if sent home by their employer because of the flu. 

Finally, are employers under siege by the EEOC?  This post on Workplace Prof Blog reports on a human resources meeting in Detroit where many attendees reported facing EEOC charges for the first time.   The EEOC denies it is cracking down.   However, there is little doubt that charge statistics are up, and the EEOC's own press releases report the filing of substantially more lawsuits now as compared to one year ago. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The EEOC has revised its "Equal Employment Opportunity is the Law" poster.    The poster was revised to reflect new federal employment laws, including the ADA Amendments, and the Genetic Non Discrimination in Employment Act ("GINA").  Employers can either obtain a new poster, or a supplement their existing poster.   The new posting is mandatory effective November 21, 2009.  Up to ten posters can be obtained from the EEOC free of charge, or can be printed from the EEOC's website.

The FMLA Blog reports on amendments to the FMLA the president signed this week.   Among the changes: military care giver leave will now apply to for veterans of the Armed Forces under certain circumstances.  In addition, Qualifying Exigency Leave is expanded to cover members of the regular military who are deployed to a foreign county.  Under existing law, such leave applied only for covered military members in the Reserves or Guard.

The best way to avoid workplace problems--avoid bad hires in the first place.  Two posts this week on HR Daily Advisor (here and here) identify five steps for gathering critical background information about prospective employees without breaking the bank, and while respecting the privacy rights of the applicant. 

A woman in Missouri sued Wal-Mart and other establishments under the ADA for denying access to her Bonnet Macaque monkey.   The Plaintiff claimed the monkey was trained to assist her with anxiety and agoraphobia, and she could not function in public unless the monkey was with her. The U.S. District Court in the Western District of Missouri granted summary judgment  to the defendants, finding that Plaintiff was not disabled, nor was her monkey a "service animal" under the ADA for which the establishments were required to provide reasonable accommodation.

This Bud's for you.  A former Chief of Communications at Anheuser-Busch (now Anheuser Busch in Bev)  filed a lawsuit against the company for gender discrimination.   The former executive claims the company maintains gender bias in pay and promotions, excludes women from social networks, and promotes few women to top jobs and committee posts.   Most shocking to any viewer of beer commercials is this allegation:  that the company fostered a locker room and frat party atmosphere in the workplace.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Wage and hour collective actions remain active in Iowa.  A Judge in Clinton County just approved a collective action settlement in which Wal-Mart agreed to pay $11 million to settle claims that it failed to pay overtime, properly account for breaks, and altered time records.   Employees and former employees who worked for Wal-Mart in Clinton between 1999-2009 will receive between $25-300 each. 

Flu season is officially underway, and the H1N1 virus has been back in the headlines.  Ogletree Deakins has published an informative Question and Answer document concerning an employer's rights and obligations in dealing with employees who have the H1N1 virus.    In addition, the EEOC recently published a technical advisory entitled "Pandemic Preparedness in the Workplace and the Americans with Disabilities Act."

Also from the EEOC, the Agency released on October 6 an informal opinion letter concerning employee health risk assessments.   The letter, authored by EEOC assistant legal counsel Peggy Mastroianni, takes the position that requiring employees to answer personal health questions as a condition of receiving an employer provided health reimbursement expense benefit violates the ADA.  Although an informal opinion letter is not binding, it provides insight into how the Agency evaluates these issues.   For more analysis see this post at the Washington D.C. Employment Law Update.

Are you a lawyer who regularly uses motions for summary judgment in defending employment claims?  Before you file your next one, check out this post at Workplace Prof Blog.  Lawyers for United Airlines filed a motion for summary judgment in a race discrimination suit pending in California state court.  The Court noted the motion sought "adjudication of 44 issues, most of which were not proper subjects of adjudication.  Defendants’ separate statement was 196 pages long, setting forth hundreds of facts, many of them not material—as defendants’ own papers conceded.  And the moving papers concluded with a request for judicial notice of 174 pages.  All told, defendants’ moving papers were 1056 pages."   Once the plaintiff's resistance and the defendant's reply were considered, 5,415 pages of material were presented to the trial judge. The Appellate Court characterized this as  "what may well be the most oppressive motion ever presented to a superior court ".   

In reversing the trial court's ruling granting summary judgment, the Court spared no criticism of the trial judge.   The reason for the reversal: "what apparently happened is that the trial court did not read all the papers."   However, in the end, the Court gave the trial judge a break: "While not reading the papers cannot be condoned, it can perhaps be understood, as we hesitate to speculate how long it would take a trial court to meaningfully digest over 2200 pages of separate statements, analyze and rule on 764 objections set out in 325 pages, review it all in light of the applicable law, and then write a proper order."

The Court concluded with an admonition we all should heed the next time we file one of these motions: "The incredible volume of material here simply has no place in a system where overburdened trial courts labor long and hard."

Finally, Molly DiBianca at the Delaware Employment Law Blog reports on a survey of employers concerning their use of social networking media as part of applicant screening.    45% of respondents reported using social networking for background checks, with 35% of those having rejected a candidate for what they found there.   What will disqualify a potential employee?  Among other things, provocative photos or information; depiction of drinking or drug use; lying about your background or qualifications; or discriminatory comments.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

EEOC statistics for the year ended September 30, 2008, the most recent data that is available, show that charges of retaliation increased by 23% compared to the prior year.   In addition, more than 1/3 of the charges filed with the Agency allege retaliation as one of the claims.   According to this article in The Wall Street Journal, retaliation claims have tripled since the EEOC started keeping track of them in 1992.   The statistics don't include data for the year ending 2009, but anecdotal evidence from lawyers and human resource professionals suggests the trend continues to accelerate.

One reason retaliation claims are so common is that it is easier to prove retaliation than discrimination.   An employee who charges retaliation does not have to prove that he was discriminated against--only that he engaged in what is called "protected activity", and as a result the employer took some adverse action against him.  

"Protected activity" includes a broad range of actions, from filing a formal charge with the EEOC or state civil rights commission, complaining to an HR official about harassment, giving an interview in connection with an internal discrimination investigation, or providing testimony in support of another employee who claims discrimination.

A 2006 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Burlington Northern v. White, also made it easier for employees to prove retaliation.   In White, the Court held that the "adverse action" to which an employee is subject does not have to involve something substantial like a termination, demotion, or cut in pay.  Rather, the employer's action need only be "materially adverse" to a "reasonable employee".  What does that mean?  According to the Supreme Court, "materially adverse" means anything that would have "dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination"

In Iowa and many other states, an employee may file a retaliation lawsuit if they were terminated for exercising certain legal rights or fulfilling legal obligations.  Examples include reporting an on the job injury, filing a workers' compensation claim, or serving on a jury.  This type of claim is known as "wrongful discharge in violation of public policy."  It is slightly different than retaliation based upon discrimination because it requires an actual termination; some lesser action will not suffice.

This is a lesson most employers and HR Professionals have heard, but it bears repeating: be cautious and deliberate when taking any action against an employee who may have engaged in protected activity.  That does not mean avoiding discipline or other action that is necessary, but it does mean making sure you have legitimate and documented reasons for whatever action is taken. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

More signs this week that the federal government is ramping up enforcement of employment laws.  The Department of Justice Civil Rights Division is seeking a $22 million budget increase for 2010, and is seeking to hire 50 new attorneys.   Law Memo Employment Law Blog reports that the EEOC has been very active recently in filing lawsuits.   The Agency  filed 32 lawsuits against employers during one seven day period in September.  Add to that 13 new lawsuits filed or announced on September 29 alone.   The Department of Labor is in the process of hiring 250 new investigators to look for wage and hour violations, particularly in the areas of overtime requirements, minimum wage, and employee breaks.   If you have not done so already, now would be a good time to conduct an audit of your employment practices and procedures. 

This post on HR Daily Advisor offers practical advice on how to avoid retaliation claims.  The first rule: don't let managers or supervisors take adverse action against employees who have complained without first checking with HR.

Washington DC Employment Law Update reports that Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D, VT) announced his committee is going to hold a hearing to investigate whether the Supreme Court has been misinterpreting laws designed to protect workers from discrimination.  On the witness list, Jack Gross, the plaintiff from Des Moines in the case Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc.  (See our related post on this subject here, as well as this one from Workplace Prof Blog).   Gross held that an age discrimination plaintiff must prove that age was the "but-for" reason for the adverse employment action; in other words, the employment action would not have been taken "but-for" the employee's age.  Before Gross, most courts required the plaintiff to prove only that age was "a motivating factor".   Amending the ADEA to lower the burden of proof for employees may be added to Congress' list of pending employment legislation.

Are lawyers giving bad advice about the impact of new technology in the workplace?   In this post on the Fistful of Talent blog, Kris Dunn complains that lawyers too often advise clients only about the perils of social networking and other cutting edge communication tools.  She contends this type of legal advice only scares HR professionals away from modern technology, rather than empowering them to use it effectively.   Attorney Anthony Zaller of California Employment Law Report  proposes this solution: if you want practical legal advice about social networking technology, make sure your employment lawyer uses Facebook, LinkedIn or Twitter,  or at least uses a Blackberry or iPhone.   I'm not sure a lawyer's own use of social networking technology will allow them to give better advice on the subject;  but, the point is well taken that clients need solutions to the legal issues this technology presents, not merely warnings about the inevitable lawsuits.  

Next Friday (October 9) I will be presenting a talk entitled "the Brave New World of Employment Law: What's New in 2009 and What to Expect in the Year Ahead" at the 3rd Annual American Corporate Counsel Association (Iowa Chapter) Annual Seminar in Iowa City.  This has become a marquee event for corporate counsel in Iowa, and I look forward to seeing many of you there.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The biggest news this week is the EEOC's release of the proposed regulations for the ADA Amendments Act of 2009.   This post from Jackson Lewis provides some of the highlights.   Note that these are proposed regulations.  There is a 60 day period during which the EEOC will receive comments.  After considering the comments, the EEOC will publish the final regulations and the date the regulations will become effective.   Stay tuned for more information and analysis.

Pop quiz: how many new federal employment laws have been passed by the 111th Congress in 2009 and signed into the law by the President?  Answer: one (the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act signed into law January 29, 2009). 

With all the buzz in the employment law community about the anticipated changes in 2009, some may be surprised by that answer. Employers should not rest on their laurels, however, because there are plenty of bills in the pipeline.   In this post, Dennis Westlind of World of Work blog identifies thirteen employment related bills that were introduced in 2009 and remain pending, including the Employee Free Choice Act (permitting union recognition by "card check", among other things;  Employment Non-Discrimination Act (prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity); Paid Vacation Act (mandating employers with 50 or more employees to provide paid vacation), and Paycheck Fairness Act (providing for "enhanced enforcement" of equal pay requirements between male and female employees).

Unpaid internships illegal?  In this post, Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban rails against the Federal Wage and Hour Regulations that make the traditional "foot in the door" experience unlawful.  

Is there a looming crisis with wage and hour litigation?  Dan Schwartz at Connecticut Employment Law Blog and Jon Hyman at Ohio Employer's Law Blog show that, despite the buzz about wage and hour suits, the actual number of federal labor cases filed in their jurisdictions has remained steady.    The real concern is that many of these cases are collective actions, which can result in substantial monetary liability.   In May 2009, local convenience store chain Casey's General Stores paid over $11 million to settle two wage and hour collective actions filed by 7,600 former management level employees and 76,000 non-management employees.

Finally, according to the U.S. Department of Justice, the federal government has the right to read even the personal e-mail of its employees.    Notes one commenter on the ABA Journal site: "At least somebody is reading the emails I send to federal government employees…."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A recent decision from the Eighth Circuit provides good training material about what "not to do" if you want to your company to avoid being liable for discrimination, and possibly punitive damages.

The EEOC filed suit against Siouxland Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Associates, a medical clinic in Sioux Falls South Dakota.   The complaint alleged that Siouxland terminated one employee and refused to hire another because of their pregnancy.  

The first employee, Richelle Dooley, had worked for the clinic for two days when she was terminated.   She told the office manager she was pregnant at the time she was filling out health benefit forms.   The next day during a meeting with the business manager, the managing partner was informed about Dooley's pregnancy.   He reportedly responded as follows:

"the young lady we just hired is going to have a baby this summer, she isn't going to be available to work.  It doesn't make any sense to begin training her...when she won't be able to work the summer.... [W] are going to have to let her go."

The business manager and another physician in the clinic apparently told the managing partner they could not terminate Dooley because of her pregnancy.  Nonetheless, she was fired.

When Dooley asked the business manager why she had been fired after only her second day on the job, she says she was told:

"your baby is going to be due during the busy season";  the clinic "never would have hired [you] if they had known [you were] pregnant." 

A few months later, the office was seeking an employee to work in central sterilization and post-operative recovery.   Angie Gacke applied for the job.  The following is reported to have occurred in the job interview:

Applicant:  "I don't know if this is a problem or not, but I do want to let you know that I am four months pregnant."

Interviewer: "yes, it's a problem.  You are just going to end up causing more work for everybody else than you will be helping them."   

Applicant:  "my due date is in August"

Interviewer: "that's the middle of our busy season, and we don't grant any vacation or anything to anybody during the busy season."

The clinic's defense to Gacke's failure to hire claim was that she was overqualified.   The interviewer had written the following on a copy of her resume:

"overqualified for job", she "needed insurance", and she was "4 months pregnant!"

Based upon this evidence, the jury found Siouxland had discriminated against the plaintiffs because of their pregnancy.  However, the trial court refused to instruct the jury about punitive damages.    On appeal, the Eighth Circuit found there was evidence managerial employees engaged in discrimination while knowing that such discrimination was prohibited by federal law.  The Appellate Court held it was error to grant Siouxland judgment as a matter of law on the punitive damages claims, and remanded for a new trial solely on the issue of punitive damages.

Enough said.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This post in HR Observations (Hat tip: Ohio Employer's Law Blog) explores whether obesity could be the next characteristic to become protected under the anti-discrimination laws.   A group called the "Obesity Action Coalition" complains that discrimination against obese people is widespread.  Employer concern about rising costs associated with employee health coverage, workers' compensation costs,  and an emphasis on employee wellness may also contribute to the perception among the overweight that they have been marginalized in the workplace.

Although obesity is not officially a protected class under the federal discrimination laws or Iowa Civil Rights Act, employers are wise to be alert to weight related conditions that might lead to discrimination claims.   Health problems associated with obesity may protect an employee under the recent amendments to the ADA.   To the extent that gender or age contribute to weight related health conditions, policies or practices that favor fit and healthy employees may adversely impact one gender or age group more than others.   Even an employer wellness program designed to combat obesity could potentially discriminate against those who do not benefit from it.    It remains to be seen whether the EEOC will address obesity in the revised ADA regulations, and whether the Courts are open to expansive interpretations that will, in effect, result in weight becoming a new protected class.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Between a busy trial schedule and the other distractions of summer, we have been a little delinquent in keeping you up to date during the past couple of weeks.  We apologize for the inactivity on the blog, as there have been many developments in the employment law world since our last posting at the end of June.   The following is a brief summary of four of the more interesting and important current events:

1.  Ricci v. DeStefano. 

The Supreme Court issued its opinion on June 29.   This is a significant case dealing with the sensitive and controversial issue of reverse discrimination.   The case is notable not only for the subject matter, but because Sonia Sotomayor, whose Senate confirmation hearings are now underway, was one of the judges on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals who decided the case below.  

The case was about firefighers in New Haven, Connecticut who applied to be on the promotion list for captain and lieutenant positions.   A candidate's rank on the list was determined by process that included written and oral exams.    After the testing process, only white and Hispanic candidates qualified for a promotion to captain, and only white candidates for lieutenant.   The City's Civil Service Board refused to certify the test results because it would result in no black candidates being eligible for promotion. 

The Ricci case presents a clash between two types of discrimination, disparate treatment and disparate impact.  Disparate treatment is intentional discrimination based upon race or some other legally protected classification.  Disparate impact, on the other hand, is not necessarily intentional discrimination, but occurs when job criteria that are neutral on their face have an adverse impact on certain groups.   In this case, the black firefighters contended the testing process was discriminatory because it resulted in no black candidates qualifying for the promotions list.     The City's defense in the lawsuit brought by the white firefighters was that it could not certify the list because if it did, it would be subject to disparate impact liability.   In other words, the City did not believe it could promote only white candidates because it would be sued by the non-white candidates who did not qualify for promotion.

The Supreme Court held it was unlawful for the City to refuse to certify the results of the promotional exam based solely upon the relative racial make-up of the candidates who qualified versus those who did not qualify.  The Court sympathzed with the City's position that it would be liable for disparate impact discrimination if the test results had been certified.  However, Justice Kennedy, writing for a 5-4 majority, held that, at least in this case, such concerns did not justify denying promotions to candiates who had the highest scores because no black candidates were in that group.   

Is is ever permissible to make an employment decision based upon an employee's race because of the fear of disparate impact liability to persons of another race?  The Court concluded such a decision would be permissible only if there is a  "strong basis in evidence" it would be subject to disparate impact liability.  In the Ricci case, the Court concluded, the evidence showed the City had taken great care to ensure its testing process was free from discriminatory impact and reasonably related to the jobs for which it tested.  Therefore, there was insufficient basis for the City to conclude its tests had an unlawful disparate impact.

For detailed discussion, analysis, and contrasting arguments on the Ricci case, I recommend the following posts:  First, for a local flavor, Connecticut Employment Law Blog provides a good summary of the lessons to be learned from the case.   Employee rights attorney Ellen Simon opines at Employee Rights Post that the Ricci decision was not only wrongly decided, but is bad for both employers and employees.  Finally, for an analysis without the rhetoric, try SCOTUSblog.

2.   Employers and Social Networking

Facebook, Linked In, and other social networking sites have exploded in popularity in recent years.  Are employers entitled to make employment decisions based upon information an employee posts on the internet outside of work time?  Should an employer allow or even encourage employees to use the social networking on the internet? 

For a detailed analysis of some of the issues surrounding social networking, I recommend the following:

• In "The Voice", a weekly publication of the Defense Research Institute, attorney Helen Adams writes about the employment implications of "Doocing", a new slang word to describe terminations based upon an employee's activities on the internet. 
• The Delaware Employment Law Blog discusses reasons employers should have a policy covering social networking sites.   
•   The National Law Journal reports that some management side lawyers have warned about the use of Linked In to make recommendations of employees, for fear it will be used against the employee in the event  of a termination.
• Locally, The Des Moines Register reported on the case of a police officer who was asked to resign because of photographs she posted on Myspace. 

Suffice it to say that social networking is not going away any time soon, and employers would be well advised to develop practices and policies for dealing with its impact on the workplace. 

3.  Al Franken Certified as the Winner of the Senate Race in Minnesota

This is imporant because Mr. Franken becomes the 60th Democratic Senator, giving the party a filibuster proof majority.   The Senate thus constituted is in a better position to pass EFCA, or the so-called "Employee Free Choice Act."  EFCA would have a substantial impact on labor law in the United States and present many challenges for employers.  I recommend the the blog at Laborpains.org to keep track of the latest developments on EFCA and other labor union matters.

4.  WARN Act

The WSJ Law Blog notes that litigation relating to layoffs is heating up, particularly under the heretofore seldom utilized WARN Act.  WARN requires employers under certain circumstances to provide at least 60 days notice of plant shutdowns or significant layoffs.   A violation means the employer has to pay wages to the laid off employees for the sixty period, plus other potential penalties.   However, the fact that the downturn occurred so swiftly and is protracted  may provide a defense to a WARN Act claims.

Stay Cool!

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A recent study of Iowa employers revealed that 51 percent offered some type of health screening to their employees.  Many companies also offer other "wellness" benefits to encourage employees to exercise and adopt healthy lifestyles.   The wellness program of a prominent Des Moines employer was recently profiled in the Des Moines Register (link here). 

Company wellness programs present many benefits for employers and employees, including increased productivity and lower health costs.   Like other benefits, however, there are limitations and restrictions about what can be offered without running afoul of federal and state laws governing health insurance, benefit plans, and discrimination. 

First is the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), which prohibits denying an employee eligibility or charging higher premiums to individuals based upon eight health factors, including health status, medical condition (including both physical and mental illnesses), claims experience, receipt of health care, medical history, genetic information, evidence of insurability (including conditions arising out of acts of domestic violence), and disability.   A summary of the Department of Labor's Guidelines concerning application of HIPAA to wellness programs is here.

In addition, to the extent a wellness program provides rewards to employees (such as reduced health insurance premiums, deductible waivers, etc.), the plan should  be carefully tailored so as to reward participation, and not results.   Some of the criteria for evaluating whether a wellness program is bona fide under the HIPAA regulations include the following:

1. The cost of the wellness program mustn't exceed 20% of the cost of coverage under the group health plan. When calculating the 20%, you must include all of the plan's wellness programs that require individuals to meet a health-related standard.
2. The program must be reasonably designed to promote health or prevent disease.
3. Individuals must have a chance to qualify for the reward at least once a year.
4. The reward must be available to all similarly situated individuals and must provide a reasonable alternative standard for obtaining the reward for individuals for whom it's unreasonably difficult to satisfy the standard because of a medical condition.
5. All group health plan materials that describe the wellness program must disclose the availability of a reasonable alternative standard.

Other laws that may impact wellness programs include the Employee Retirement Income and Security Act (ERISA), which governs employee benefit plans, and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).   For example, the ADA prohibits an employer from inquiring about medical conditions unless the inquiry is job related and a business necessity.   Any information gathered in connection with a wellness program must be truly voluntary to meet ADA requirements, and must be done in a manner so as to preserve the confidentiality of the information and prevent it from being relied upon to make employment or benefit decisions.  Finally, employers are required to offer reasonable accommodation to employees who cannot participate in any aspect of a wellness program because of a disability.

As with many employment decisions, it is wise to consult counsel to ensure your company's wellness program complies with applicable laws and regulations.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A recent post at Human Resources Executive Online, entitled "Warnings from the Top".  provides an excellent overview of some of the new challenges employers have been presented since the beginning of 2009.   "Like it or not" say the authors, changes are coming, and employers better be prepared.

According to several attorneys the authors interviewed, some of the most pressing new laws and regulations relate to the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the Employee Free Choice Act being debated in Congress, and Amendments to the ADA.    These new laws mean it is time to train--about labor relations issues, what managers can and cannot say about unions; about safety, and about reasonable accommodation.   Now is also a good time to conduct an audit of your company's human resources practices, especially wage and hour compliance issues and compensation practices.  

Iowa employers are not immune from these changes.  Indeed, as discussed in a prior post on Iowa Employment Law Blog, compensation fairness issues may be even more urgent in Iowa because the the State has enacted its own version of the Lilly Ledbetter Act.

We will continue to keep you posted on developments in these important areas of the law.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Employers should take note of a recent EEOC publication entitled "Employer Best Practices for Workers with Caregiving Responsibilities", available on the EEOC website, or by clicking here.   

Although an employee's status as a caregiver is not protected under any federal or Iowa law, the EEOC nonetheless takes the position that discrimination against such employees can constitute discrimination on the basis of characteristics that are legally protected, such as sex or disability.   EEOC "Best Practices" documents do not carry the force of law, but are intended to provide suggestions for practices that employers may adopt to reduce the chance of EEO violations against caregivers, and to remove barriers to equal employment opportunity.  Best practices are proactive measures that go beyond federal non-discrimination requirements.    As courts often defer to the EEOC's interpretation of the discrimination laws, employers should familiarize themselves with some of the EEOC's suggestions.

The EEOC recommends that employers develop, disseminate, and enforce a strong EEO policy that clearly addresses the types of conduct that might constitute unlawful discrimination against caregivers based on characteristics protected by federal anti-discrimination laws.   The document states that an "effective" policy should include, among other things, the following:

• Definitions of relevant terms, including “caregiver” and “caregiving responsibilities.
  • Provide an inclusive definition of “family” that extends beyond children and spouses and covers any individual for whom the applicant or employee has primary caretaking responsibilities.
• Describe common stereotypes or biases about caregivers that may result in unlawful conduct, including:
  • assuming that female workers’ caretaking responsibilities will interfere with their ability to succeed in a fast-paced environment;
  • assuming that female workers who work part-time or take advantage of flexible work arrangements are less committed to their jobs than full-time employees;
  • assuming that male workers do not, or should not, have significant caregiving responsibilities;
  • assuming that female workers prefer, or should prefer, to spend time with their families rather than time at work;
  • assuming that female workers who are caregivers are less capable than other workers; and
  • assuming that pregnant workers are less reliable than other workers.
  •  
• Provide examples of prohibited conduct related to workers’ caregiving responsibilities, such as:
  • asking female applicants and employees, but not male applicants and employees, about their child care responsibilities;
  • making stereotypical comments about pregnant workers or female caregivers;
  • treating female workers without caregiving responsibilities more favorably than female caregivers;
  • steering women with caregiving responsibilities to less prestigious or lower-paid positions;
  • treating women of color who have caregiving responsibilities differently than other workers with caregiving responsibilities due to gender, race and/or national origin-based stereotypes;
  • treating male workers with caregiving responsibilities more, or less, favorably than female workers with caregiving responsibilities;
  • denying male workers’, but not female workers’, requests for leave related to caregiving responsibilities; and
  • providing reasonable accommodations for temporary medical conditions but not for pregnancy.

 Proactive employers would do well to review their policies to take into consideration potential discrimination claims by employees with caregiver responsibilities.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link