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

Last August the National Labor Relations Board Acting General Counsel issued a report detailing the outcome of investigations into 14 cases involving employee use of social media and social media policies. 

A second report issued January 24 on the same subject underscores that social media remains a top NLRB enforcement priority.   In the preface of this most recent report, acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon writes that, “ these issues and their continued treatment by the NLRB continue to be a 'hot topic' among practitioners, human resource professionals, the media, and the public."

The case summaries contained in the report deal primarily with two subjects: 1) whether an employer’s social media policy is overly broad, in that it subjects employees to adverse action for activity that is protected by the NLRA; and 2) whether a particular termination of an employee because of social media postings violates an employee’s right to engage in protected and concerted activity.    I won't go into detail here, but can only echo Jon Hyman when he describes the NLRB's latest foray into social media as "a mess".  

Although it has been stated many times, it bears repeating because it is often forgotten: all employers, not just those with a unionized work force, are subject to the jurisdiction of the NLRB.    An employee’s involvement in social media adds one more area of inquiry before discipline or discharge of an employee.   Even though there are no lawsuits in court or jury trials for NLRA violations, being subject to a NLRB investigation is no picnic. It takes time, energy, and money to respond to these investigations. If your case goes to a hearing, potential remedies include reinstatement of the terminated employee, with back pay, and continued NLRB involvement in policing your employment policies.  

Unfortunately for employers, the social media enforcement is one of the ways the NLRB is trying to remain relevant in the face of long standing and continued declines in private sector union activity. 

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

One of the best ways to predict this year's trends in discrimination litigation is to examine last year’s charge statistics from the EEOC and the Iowa Civil Rights Commission.    Any person who claims a violation of the state or federal anti-discrimination laws must first file an administrative charge with one or the other of these agencies.    While each agency has its own procedures, generally they will issue a “right to sue” letter after conducting a preliminary investigation of the complaint. Last year’s administrative charges become this year’s lawsuits.

In fiscal year 2010, EEOC received a record 99,922  charges, a 7% increase over 2009.   Despite the increase in charges, EEOC reports that its case inventory has decreased, which means more charges are actually being investigated, settled, or otherwise disposed.    

Other evidence that EEOC is becoming more aggressive is its emphasis on what it calls “systemic enforcement.”   As part of its systemic initiative, EEOC identifies common employer practices that impact a large number of persons in the workforce.   In 2010, 465 systemic investigations were undertaken, and the agency filed 20 class action lawsuits involving systemic type claims, the most ever. One of EEOC's focus in this area involves employer’s use of credit histories as part of the application process, which EEOC claims can have a racially discriminatory impact. 

EEOC is also focusing of the area of disability discrimination.  The final regulations interpreting the ADA Amendments Act are expected to be published shortly.    As more disability charges continue to be filed and processed, employers can expect more disability discrimination claims to end up in court.

The silver lining in all these statistics comes from the Iowa Civil Rights Commission, which actually saw a decrease in the number of employment discrimination charges between 2009 and 2010.   It must be noted, however, that the ICRC is itself becoming more aggressive in its investigation and settlement of discrimination charges.  In 2009-10, the total value of mediated settlements with ICRC total $606,486, an increase of 62% over the prior year. 

For additional information and analysis on these issues, I recommend the following:

From Washington D.C. Employment Law Update: Year End Roundup of EEOC Developments, and Upcoming EEOC Regulatory Agenda. 

From Overlawyered: The New (and very activist) Obama EEOC

• 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