Jon Hyman – Page 11

December 3, 2013June 20, 2018

Don’t be a Jughead by Thinking That White Men Aren’t a Protected Class

A group of male employees of Archie Comics filed a gender discrimination lawsuit against their employer. They allege, among other things, that Nancy Silberkleit, the company’s co-CEO, constantly referred to them by their male anatomy instead of by name.

In her defense, Silberkleit claims that she cannot be liable because “white men” are not a class protected from discrimination.

Rest assured, that defense is a loser. Title VII does not just protect minorities from discrimination. It protects all employees from discrimination. Thus, a male employee enjoys the same rights as a female employee to a workplace free from discrimination, just as a white employee has the same rights a black employee. An employer cannot treat men differently than women, or whites differently than blacks, and the disparately affected and marginalized class (whether or not a historical minority) has a claim.

My advice to Nancy Silberkleit? Abandon your defense, get out your checkbook, and take some Equal Employment Opportunity training.

Written by Jon Hyman, a partner in the Labor & Employment group of Kohrman Jackson & Krantz. For more information, contact Hyman at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com. You can also follow Hyman on Twitter at @jonhyman.

November 21, 2013June 20, 2018

Are Graduate Assistants Employees or Students?

In Al-Maqablh v. University of Cincinnati College of Medicine (11/5/13), an Ohio federal court answered the question of whether graduate assistants are employees entitled to the protections of Title VII. As with most legal question, the answer depends.

The case concerned the race and national origin claims of a grad student placed on academic probation and ultimately dismissed from the University. Al-Maqablh sought Title VII’s protections as an employee because he “received a paycheck from the University and rendered services to the University by performing extensive research through lab work.” The court, however, disagreed:

Plaintiff received a stipend and/or scholarship after being accepted into the Program. Plaintiff has failed to show that this pay stub was based upon is employment with the University and not a portion of his stipend award. Furthermore, the fact that Plaintiff performed extensive research, as required under the Program, does not make him an employee under Title VII.

Instead, the court looked to the “economic realities” of the relationship between Al-Maqablh and the University to determine whether he was an employee or a student:

Plaintiff participated in the Graduate Program as a student engaging in “courses, seminars and laboratory research during the academic year.” … More importantly, the dominant purpose of Plaintiff’s relationship with the University was educational. Plaintiff’s complaint against the University asserts claims solely related to his academic activities as a graduate student…. [T]he undisputed evidence establishes that the University’s decision to dismiss Plaintiff from the Graduate Program was an academic decision unrelated to Plaintiff’s alleged employment with the University. As such, the undersigned finds that Plaintiff should not be considered an employee under Title VII….

Thus, in this case, the graduate assistant was a student, not an employee. The court made the point, however, that this rule is not universal; the status of a graduate assistant must be analyzed based on the “economic realities” of each individual. If the University had paid Al-Maqablh for his services (as opposed to providing him an academic scholarship), or if the University had dismissed him for an employment reason, as opposed to an academic, reasons, this case likely would have turned out differently.

If you are an educational institution using the services of graduate assistants, do not make this mistake of reading this decision as providing carte blanche to discriminate against graduate assistants (indeed, Title IX would instruct you differently). Instead, understand that these rules are fact-specific, and seek legal counsel to guide your actions accordingly.

November 12, 2013August 1, 2018

SpongeBob SquarePants, Employment Law Professor

A screen grab from the SpongeBob SquarePants episode "You're Fired." Photo courtesy of Nickelodeon.

On a cold, snowy night in the suburbs of Cleveland, what is there to do besides snuggle on the couch with your 5-year-old son to watch the world premier of SpongeBob, You’re Fired?

That’s exactly what Donovan and I did last night.

Who knew that such high art would provide the inspiration for today’s post?

The story begins with Mr. Krabs firing SpongeBob from his fry-cook job at The Krusty Krab to save a whole five cents by not paying his wage. Minimum wage be damned, SpongeBob offers to work for free to keep his job. Amazingly, the historically cheap Krabs turns him down, telling SpongeBob that he already looked into it, and it’s illegal to let employees work for free.

Bravo to Eugene Krabs for bringing the plight of the unpaid intern to the forefront of pop culture. Unless you meet the very limited test for an unpaid intern, if you have employees, you must pay them. Employees are not allowed to volunteer their time or work for free.

November 8, 2013June 20, 2018

The Risk Companies Run When Bullying Goes Incognito

By now, you’ve likely read about Miami Dolphins offensive lineman Richie Incognito and the abusive voicemails and text messages he sent to teammate Jonathan Martin.

Among the voicemails is this gem (per ESPN):

Hey, wassup, you half n—– piece of s—. I saw you on Twitter, you been training 10 weeks. [I want to] s— in your f—ing mouth. [I’m going to] slap your f—ing mouth. [I’m going to] slap your real mother across the face [laughter]. F— you, you’re still a rookie. I’ll kill you.

ESPN also report that Incognito did not limit his use of racial epithets to that lone voicemail, and that he also sent Martin a series of texts that included derogatory terms referring to the female anatomy and sexual orientation.

Meanwhile, Fox Sports reports that Dolphins coaches encouraged veterans to toughen up Martin, and knew that some were using hazing as a means to that end.

I’ve never played organized football at any level, and I’m not going to pretend to know of the culture that exists inside its locker rooms. What I do know something about, however, is corporate culture in general. Your company cannot turn a blind eye to hazing and other bullying-related misconduct.

Unless a bully is harassing someone because of a protected class (race, sex, age, disability, religion, national origin…) bullying is probably legal. As the U.S. Supreme Court has famously said, our workplace discrimination laws are not meant to be “a general civility code for the American workplace.” In layman’s terms, our laws allow people to be jerks to each other at work.

Just because it’s legal, however, doesn’t make it right. The question is not whether the law protects the bullied, but instead how you should respond when it happens in your business. If you want to lose well-performing, productive workers, then allow them to be pushed out the door by intolerable co-workers. If you want state legislatures to pass workplace bullying legislation, then ignore the issue in your business. If you want to be sued by every employee who is looked at funny or at whose direction a harsh word is uttered, then continue to tolerate abusive employees.

The reality is that if companies do not take this issue seriously, state legislators will. The high-profile case of Jonathan Martin will only help the cause of those who believe we need workplace anti-bullying laws.

What can you do now to protect your employees?

Review current policies. Most handbooks already have policies and procedures in place that deal with workplace bullying. Do you have an open-door policy? A complaint policy? A standards-of-conduct policy? If so, your employees already know that they can go to management with any concerns — bullying included — and seek intervention.
Take complaints seriously. These policies are only as good as their enforcement. Whether or not illegal, reports of bullying should be treated like any other harassment complaint. You should promptly conduct an investigation and implement appropriate corrective action to remedy the bullying.

November 7, 2013June 20, 2018

NLRB Upholds Workplace Ban on Recording Devices

Two months ago I wrote the following, concerning whether employers should be thinking about implementing bans on employees using recording devices in the workplace:

If you do not have a policy against employees recording conversations in the workplace, you might want to consider drafting one. You never know when an employee is going to try to smuggle a recording device into a termination or other meeting. The proliferation of smart phones has only made it easier for employees to make recordings, both audio and video. Why not address this issue head-on with a policy? Unless, of course, the [National Labor Relations Board] gets its way and renders these policies per se illegal.

At least as to the last point (the legality of such bans under the National Labor Relations Act), we now have the beginnings of an answer, via the decision of an NLRB Administrative Law Judge (the finality of which depends on whether the union appeals the decision to the full Board in Washington D.C.).

In Whole Foods Market, Inc. (NLRB Case No. 01-CA-096965 10/30/13) [pdf], the union challenged the following no-recording policy:

It is a violation of Whole Foods Market policy to record conversations with a tape recorder or other recording device (including a cell phone or any electronic device) unless prior approval is received from your store or facility leadership. The purpose of this policy is to eliminate a chilling effect to the expression of views that may exist when one person is concerned that his or her conversation with another is being secretly recorded. This concern can inhibit spontaneous and honest dialogue especially when sensitive or confidential matters are being discussed.

Violation of this policy will result in corrective action up to and including discharge.

The ALJ concluded that this policy did not violate the rights of the employees of Whole Foods to engage in protected concerted activity under the National Labor Relations Act:

I have found no cases, and none have been cited, in which the Board has found that making recordings of conversations in the workplace is a protected right…. Even if recording a conversation is a protected right, the Respondent is entitled to make a valid rule, such as the one in question here, to regulate its workplace, and in doing so, prohibit such activity….

The rule does not prohibit employees from engaging in protected, concerted activities, or speaking about them. It does not expressly mention any Section 7 activity. The only activity the rule forbids is recording conversations or activities with a recording device. Thus, an employee is free to speak to other employees and engage in protected, concerted activities in those conversations….

There is no basis for a finding that a reasonable employee would interpret this rule as prohibiting Section 7 activity.

In light of this decision, what is an employer to do?

Review any existing workplace recording policies to ensure that the stated reasons for the policy is clear. For example, in Whole Foods, the company relied on the protection of “candor and forthrightness in employee opinions.”
Do not institute a new recording ban, or amend an existing policy, in response to union activity.
Do not apply a recording ban to limit or prohibit the recording of protected Section 7 activity (wages, benefits, terms and conditions of employment, union issues, etc.).
Limit the prohibition to working time and work spaces.

This case offers hope to employers that there exists a more reasonable analysis of the application of Section 7 rights to workplace policies other than suggested by the Board’s recent actions.

October 24, 2013June 20, 2018

The Legal Reason Why You Shouldn’t Force Employees to Turn Over Social Media Passwords

There has been a lot of ink spilled out on the supposed practice of employers requiring employees to provide access to their private social media accounts. I’ve long espoused both that this practice is not occurring with sufficient regularity to justify a legislative fix (despite New Jersey just becoming the 12th state to enact a legislative ban), and that employers should nevertheless avoid this practice because it erodes the trust that is necessary to build a workable employer/employee relationship.

Ehling v. Monmouth-Ocean Hospital Service Corp. (D.N.J. 8/20/13) provides further legal justification for employers to avoid this practice.

Deborah Ehling worked as a registered nurse and paramedic for MONOC beginning in 2004. Beginning in 2008, Ehling maintained a Facebook account with approximately 300 “friends.” She chose restrictive privacy settings on that account so that only her Facebook friend could see her wall posts. While Ehling had no MONOC managers as Facebook friends, she did add many coworkers, including a paramedic named Tim Ronco. Unbeknownst to Ehling, Ronco was taking screenshots of her Facebook wall and printing them or emailing them to MONOC manager Andrew Caruso. Caruso never asked Ronco for information about Ehling, and never requested that Ronco share Ehling’s Facebook activity. Nevertheless, once Caruso received copies of the Facebook posts, he passed them on to MONOC’s Executive Director of Administration.

On June 8, 2009, Ehling posted the following statement to her Facebook wall:

An 88 yr old sociopath white supremacist opened fire in the Wash D.C. Holocaust Museum this morning and killed an innocent guard (leaving children). Other guards opened fire. The 88 yr old was shot. He survived. I blame the DC paramedics. I want to say 2 things to the DC medics. 1. WHAT WERE YOU THINKING? and 2. This was your opportunity to really make a difference! WTF!!!! And to the other guards….go to target practice.

After MONOC management learned of the post, it temporarily suspended Ehling with pay. After MONOC fired Ehling for unrelated attendance issues, she sued, and claimed, among other things, that MONOC’s access of her private Facebook wall violated the Stored Communications Act and her common law right to privacy.

The SCA covers (1) electronic communications, (2) that were transmitted via an electronic communication service, (3) that are in electronic storage, and (4) that are not public. The Court had little issue concluding that the SCA covers non-public Facebook wall posts.

The SCA, however, has an exception for “authorized users.” This exception applies where (1) access to the communication was “authorized,” without coercion or pressure, (2) “by a user of that service,” (3) “with respect to a communication … intended for that user.” Ehling had no evidence to support her claim that MONOC’s access of her Facebook page was unauthorized. To the contrary, the evidence showed that Ronco voluntarily shared the information with Caruso, and, therefore, was “authorized” under the SCA. Thus, no violation of the SCA occurred via MONOC’s possession of wall posts from Ehling’s private Facebook page.

The Court disposed of Ehling’s invasion of privacy claim on similar grounds. In doing so, however, the Court made the following interesting observation:

The evidence does not show that Defendants obtained access to Plaintiff’s Facebook page by, say, logging into her account, logging into another employee’s account, or asking another employee to log into Facebook. Instead, the evidence shows that Defendants were the passive recipients of information that they did not seek out or ask for. Plaintiff voluntarily gave information to her Facebook friend, and her Facebook friend voluntarily gave that information to someone else … This may have been a violation of trust, but it was not a violation of privacy.

In other words, the Court may have found a privacy invasion if the employer had used surreptitious or coercive means to gain access to its employee’s Facebook page. Thus, whether or not a statute specifically prohibits employers from requiring the disclosure of social media account information, this court makes it clear that an employer’s demand of such information is nevertheless illegal. Or, to put it another way, please don’t ask your employees to turn over their online passwords.

October 10, 2013June 20, 2018

How to Handle the Malingering FMLA Abuser

Let’s say you have an employee who claims to be suffering from a chronic back injury. He even has doctor’s notes certifying that his back pain impairs his “ability to lift, to carry heavy objects, to bend repeatedly, or actually bend at the waist.” So, you grant the employee intermittent leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act, which the employee uses several times each month. But, you start to notice a pattern. The employee’s FMLA-protected days off always seem to bookend weekends and holidays. As a result, HR initiates an investigation, which includes surveillance of the employee.

That surveillance uncovers that while the employee is home supposedly resting his painful back, he is actually going out for coffee, shopping, and working in his garage repeatedly bending down, lifting pieces of wood, and carrying them into his house. When confronted, the employee suggests that “‘maybe’ his doctor had given him a shot of Cortisone earlier in the day.” Unimpressed, the employer ultimately terminates the employee for “fraudulent or illegal conduct.”

In Tillman v. Ohio Bell Tel. Co. [pdf], the 6th Circuit affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the employee’s FMLA retaliation and interference claims. The court concluded that Tillman could not pursue his retaliation claim because the company “held an honest belief that Tillman had abused his FMLA leave and violated the company Code of Business Conduct,” and could not pursue his interference claim because, whether or not the “honest belief rule” applies to interference claims, Tillman was not entitled to FMLA leave on days on which he was not actually suffering from a serious health condition.

This case is a great lesson for employers on how to build a case to support a termination decision. If you believe that an employee is abusing FMLA leave, build your case. Uncover enough facts to support your belief that that employee is committing fraud and otherwise not entitled to leave. Armed with that evidence, a court is unlikely to overturn your decision. While it may cost you a little extra up front in investigatory costs, you will save money on the backend both in litigation costs and future abuses by employees deterred from malingering.

Written by Jon Hyman, a partner in the Labor & Employment group of Kohrman Jackson & Krantz. For more information, contact Hyman at (216) 736-7226 or jth@kjk.com. You can also follow Hyman on Twitter @jonhyman.

October 9, 2013June 20, 2018

It’s Time to End Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Discrimination

There is currently legislation pending in both the Ohio House [H.B. 163] and Ohio Senate [S.B. 125] that would include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to the list of classes from which employees are protected from discrimination by their employers. Notably, the bills protect both actual and perceived sexuality and gender-related appearance:

“Sexual orientation” = “actual or perceived heterosexuality, homosexuality, or bisexuality.”
“Gender identity” = “the gender-related identity, appearance, or mannerisms or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, with or without regard to the individual’s designated gender at birth.”

If Ohio Revised Code chapter 4112 is amended to include these protections, then harassment of employees based on their actual or perceived sexual orientation and gender identity become illegal. In that case, the line-splitting in which courts have engaged under the rubric of “same-sex harassment” will largely become a relic.

Case in point? EEOC v. Boh Brothers Construction Co. (5th Cir. 9/30/13). The facts of this case are horrific. It’s worth a read to understand just how cruel employees can be to each other. Yet, the case split 10-6 on whether the facts supported claim of sexual harassment. One of the two dissents envisioned a world in which employers would have to distribute “etiquette memos” to purge the workplace of speech and gestures that might be viewed in any way as tokens of sex discrimination.

The dissent is exaggerating to make its point that Title VII was never meant to be a general civility code, and only the worst type of sex-based behavior is meant to trigger the statute.

Exaggerations aside, the time has come for Congress (when the federal government is back in business), along with all 50 state legislatures, to step up to the plate and end this debate. Enact legislation including sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes, and bring to and end the shameful protection of discrimination against this marginalized class of individuals.

October 7, 2013June 20, 2018

Fired for Posing for Playboy? Or, How Does an Employer Prove a Negative?

Jessica Zelinske, a 33-year-old Minnesota mom, is suing her former employer after it fired her for appearing in Playboy’s 2011 “Hot Housewives” issue.

According to her lawsuit, she claims that before posing nude, she spoke with her boss at Charter Communications, Timothy McBain, who Zelinske says told her she would not risk her job if she posed nude. Weeks after the magazine’s publication, however, McBain handed her a “Corrective Action Report,” notifying her of her termination for violating the company’s “standards of common decency.” The notice went on to say: “You have violated Charter’s professional conduct policy by making the personal choice to pose nude in a well-known publication.” The company claims that Zelinske never told anyone that she wanted to pose nude in Playboy, let alone ask for permission.

Zelinske’s main claim in her lawsuit is for promissory estoppel — that the company made her a promise about job security, upon which she relied to her detriment by posing for Playboy. To defend this claim, the employer is in a very difficult position — having to prove a negative. The employee claims she had a meeting where her boss blessed her photo shoot, and may even have notes (legitimate or not) to support her claim; the employer claims that no meeting ever took place, and certainly will not have any notes or other evidence to support an event that it claims never happened. How does an employer prove that it never made such a promise to an employee? Sadly for this employer, the answer may be a costly and time consuming jury trial.

Proving a negative — that conversation never took place, or, you did not work those extra hours that your timesheet says you did — is the most difficult position for an employer, and, often, the most expensive for an employer to defend.