There exists only one workplace environment in which a white employee can keep his job after yelling the following at a group of African-American employees.
“Hey, did you bring enough KFC for everyone?”
“Go back to Africa, you bunch of f***ing losers.”
“Hey anybody smell that? I smell fried chicken and watermelon.”
A gold star for you if you answered a picket line, when the comments are made by striking workers and are directed at a group of replacements crossing said picket line. Or at least this is the majority finding of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cooper Tire & Rubber Co. v. NLRB [pdf].
How could a court reach this (incorrect) conclusion?
Courts show deference to decisions of administrative agencies, and the NLRB found that Cooper Tire unlawfully terminated the picketer.
The picketer’s comments, while racist and offensive, were not accompanied by threats or violence.
The offensive words were “part of a package of verbal barbs thrown out during a picket line exchange” or were of a “message dealing with the morals and character of crossovers generally,” and did not target a specific replacement worker.
The better argument? Look no further than the dissenting opinion of Judge C. Arlen Bean:
No employer in America is or can be required to employ a racial bigot. Indeed … the court’s requiring of the petitioner to do so here, is tantamount to requiring that Cooper Tire violate federal anti-discrimination and harassment laws … . Engaging in union organizing or efforts to vindicate protected labor activity does not insulate the volatility and heinous nature of racist, or sexist, remarks. … Discriminatory and degrading stereotypes are not legitimate weapons in economic disputes carried out on the picket line.
Amen.
Jon Hyman is a partner at Meyers, Roman, Friedberg & Lewis in Cleveland. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com.
Defending claims for off-the-clock work is one of the most difficult tasks employers face under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
An employee (or worse, group of employees) says, “I (we) worked, without compensation, before our shift, after our shift, or during our lunch; pay me (us).” Often, these employees have their own personal, detailed logs supporting their claims. And the employer has bupkis. It then must prove a negative (“You weren’t really working when you say you were”), which places the employer in a difficult and often unwinnable position. It’s a wage-and-hour game of rock-paper-scissors, where paper always beats air.
When we last examinedAllen v. City of Chicago — a case in which a class of Chicago police officers claimed their employer owed them unpaid overtime for their time spent reading emails off-duty on their smartphones — an Illinois federal court had dismissed the claims, holding that most of the emails were incidental and non-essential to the officers’ work, and, regardless, the employer lacked specific knowledge of non-compensated off-duty work.
Last week — in what is believed to be the first and only federal appellate court decision on whether an employer owes non-exempt employees overtime for time spent off-duty reading emails on a smartphone — the 7th Circuit affirmed [pdf].
The court started its analysis with the basic principle that “Employers must … pay for all work they know about, even if they did not ask for the work, even if they did not want the work done, and even if they had a rule against doing the work.” From there, however, the court applied the rule first announced by the 6th Circuit in White v. Baptist Memorial Health Care, that an employer is not liable for unpaid, off-the-clock overtime if:
the employer has a policy and process requiring that employees report off-the-clock work;
employee(s) ignore the policy and do not report the off-the-clock work for which they are claiming unpaid overtime; and
the employer does not prevent or discourage its employees from accurately reporting off-the-clock work and unpaid overtime.
Based on this rule, the 7th Circuit concluded that that the district court correctly held that the plaintiff-officers were not entitled to overtime compensation for their off-the-clock emailing.
Plaintiffs … worked time they were not scheduled to work, sometimes with their supervisors’ knowledge. They had a way to report that time, but they did not use it, through no fault of the employer …. Reasonable diligence did not … require the employer to investigate further.
In response, the officers argued constructive knowledge—e.g., the employer could have discovered the uncompensated work by comparing the time slips to email records—notwithstanding the employer’s policy. That argument failed, as the 7th Circuit correctly pointed out that the proper legal standard is should have known, not could have known, and that in the face of policy requiring the reporting of uncompensated off-the-clock overtime, an employer’s access to records does not constitute constructive knowledge.
What is the lesson for employers to take away from Allen, and White before it? Employers must have a reasonable process for employees to report uncompensated work-time, and must not prevent or otherwise discourage employees from using that process. Under the FLSA, it is the employee’s burden to show work during non-working time. A policy that underscores that onus by requiring employees to report times during which they were working “off-the-clock” will place employers in the best position to defend against claims for compensation for unreported, off-the-clock time, and should nullify any personal time logs or other records the employees have to the contrary.
In other words, now is as good a time as any to dust off your employee handbook, open to your “overtime” policy, and, as soon as possible, make sure it contains this language to best insulate your pay practices from dangerous and expensive off-the-claim claims.
“Employees like health care,” some survey found. OK, cool. I agree.
Then there’s a week where you come across a lot wild, timely, meaty stories that bring up a lot of questions and frustration. And this isn’t even including everything that’s happened in the U.S. health care space.
I’ve Got You Under My Skin: The most controversial benefits story I’ve seen this past week is regarding a Wisconsin-based tech company that is inserting microchips in 50 of its employees’ fingers. Employees, who signed up for this voluntarily, can use them to get in the building and pay for food at the cafeteria. Some people are excited about this.
Then there’s the more skeptical side (also the side I happen to fall on). This video sums up the concerns pretty succinctly. It could be a slippery slope where this technology “goes from being voluntary to involuntary and then it’s out of your hands.” Also, the video cautions employees to be careful about the agreements they have with employers, since there are a lot of questions out there about what happens with this data and how future companies can use it.
A Wisconsin-based tech company is inserting microchips in 50 of its employees’ fingers — voluntarily, of course.
If wearables in the workplace of any kind — whether they’re strapped around your wrist or inserted in your finger — are really the future, then not setting boundaries present day makes no sense. Yes, employees can be cavalier about the data privacy aspect of this all now. But later? There are future implications.
Don’t Overthink It: Another controversial but often talked-about benefits topic nowadays is paid family leave in the United States. From what I’ve seen and read, the controversy isn’t around whether companies should or shouldn’t offer it. Heck, both presidential candidates in the recent election talked about expanding paid leave, and that might have been the only thing they agreed on in a campaign that felt like it lasted years. The controversy has been more around how much leave and who should be eligible. Birth mothers? Fathers? Single parents? Only married parents? Adoptive parents?
A lot of this felt ridiculous as somebody who grew up the time I did. I can’t fathom why companies wouldn’t offer paid family leave to fathers or single mothers or adoptive parents. It’s 2017. The “traditional family” model isn’t reality for a lot of people anymore, nor should it be.
The Harvard Business Review can explain this better than me. It just released a report that provided some very valuable information on this topic. It advocates for a simple paid leave policy. According to the report, “When it comes to new parents, you need just two simple categories: disability leave for women who are physically unable to work due to pregnancy, childbirth or related conditions, and parental leave that’s equally available to all employees, regardless of gender or caregiver status.”
Makes sense. Especially in today’s workplace where, as this report points out, even policies that have primary and secondary caregiver plans can be flawed. It mentions one company whose policy expressly states that the pregnant woman is assumed to be the primary caregiver. If the point of the primary/secondary differentiation is to allow the mother and father to decide who will have the primary role on their own terms, how can policies like that exist? This is why is makes more sense to have a simple, equal parental leave applicable to all employees.
The Doctor Won’t See You Now: Telemedicine, also called telehealth, is the remote diagnosis and treatment of patients through technology. It’s something that more and more companies are adapting, but that doesn’t mean employees are utilizing it. Researching the topic for a larger story in Workforce’s September/October print issue, I came across a lot of the benefits, limitations and challenges of telemedicine. Telemedicine has a lot of potential, but it’s still relatively new, at least on a mainstream scale. It began in the late 1960s within smaller, niche populations. But, in the employer market, we’ve seen interest jump an impressive level just in the past five years.
As one of my editors noted, a big criticism is that when a patient contacts a doctor via telemedicine, the doctor may just tell them to go to the ER anyway in order to protect themselves in case of a wrong diagnosis.
From what I’ve read and who I’ve spoken to, that’s not really the case. For common or seasonal diagnoses like a cold or the flu, doctors can easily diagnose it over the phone. That’s the whole point, to discourage patients from going to the ER when they don’t need to and to offer medical care with more convenience and less cost.
I recently came across a survey that found that unnecessary ER trips was especially prevalent for people in their 20’s. They visit ER doctors more than any other type of doctor for general health concerns that could be easily diagnosed and treated more affordably by a primary care physician.
So, yes, in some cases telemedicine doctors may tell patients to go to the ER anyway. But I’m optimistic. If so many people are using the ER and racking up unnecessary medical costs now, why not consider an option that could offset that?
Andie Burjek is aWorkforceassociate editor. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com. FollowWorkforceon Twitter at@workforcenews.
Our family dog, Loula, is microchipped. Our vet offered it to us as a service when Loula first joined our family. It provides some peace of mind in the sad event that Loula goes missing and ends up in a shelter or vet office. They would be able to read the rice-grain-sized RFID chip embedded in her leg, discover that she belonged to us, and return her.
Loula, however, is a dog, she’s not an employee. Which is why I’m troubled that a Wisconsin employer has decided to offer microchip implants as a “service” to its employees.
On Aug. 1, employees at Three Square Market, a technology company in Wisconsin, can choose to have a chip the size of a grain of rice injected between their thumb and index finger. Once that is done, any task involving RFID technology — swiping into the office building, paying for food in the cafeteria — can be accomplished with a wave of the hand.
There is nothing illegal about this practice. Employees are providing their consent to the procedure, the implant is 100 percent voluntary and is reasonably safe. Indeed, 50 out of Three Square Market’s 80 employees volunteered for the implant, an astonishingly positive response.
But, if you ask me, chipping employees sure is creepy. No matter the current intent, it’s just a tad too Orwellian for my taste. Or, if you don’t believe me, ask Alessandro Acquisti, professor of information technology and public policy at Carnegie Mellon University’s Heinz College, like The New York Times did:
Another potential problem, Dr. Acquisti said, is that technology designed for one purpose may later be used for another. A microchip implanted today to allow for easy building access and payments could, in theory, be used later in more invasive ways: to track the length of employees’ bathroom or lunch breaks, for instance, without their consent or even their knowledge.
“Once they are implanted, it’s very hard to predict or stop a future widening of their usage,” Dr. Acquisti said.
Today’s cafeteria payments are tomorrow’s location tracking. Microchips are for dogs, not employees. Let’s keep it that way.
Jon Hyman is a partner at Meyers, Roman, Friedberg & Lewis in Cleveland. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com.
I cannot recall a time when our government has been more divided across ideological and party lines. (I don’t count the early 1860s, because that’s not a time a can remember.) Thankfully, an issue has come along to build a peace bridge over the streets and through the halls of Washington, D.C.
This issue — joint employment, via the Save Local Business Act [pdf], which clarifies that two or more employers must have “actual, direct, and immediate” control over employees to be considered joint employers.
Some background.
Two years ago, in Browning-Ferris, the NLRB rewrote its long-standing rules on joint employment. It expanded and liberalized its standard for when two employers qualify as “joint employers” over a group of employees, rendering each liable for the labor-law violations of the other. It accomplished this expansion by adding “indirect” or “potential” control, in addition to “actual” control, as the lynchpin of joint employment.
The Save Local Business Act, introduced with bipartisan support, looks to undo that which the NLRB has wrought, by restoring the “direct control” test for joint employment in both the NLRA and the FLSA.
A person may be considered a joint employer in relation to an employee only if such person directly, actually, and immediately, and not in a limited and routine manner, exercises significant control over the essential terms and conditions of employment (including hiring employees, discharging employees, determining individual employee rates of pay and benefits, day-to-day supervision of employees, assigning individual work schedules, positions, and tasks, and administering employee discipline).
Proponents of the bill tout its “commonsense framework” that gives “much needed clarity and certainty” to “this harmful scheme” which threatens an estimated 1.7 million jobs by holding secondary employers (such as franchisors and contractors) liable for the alleged sins of primary employers (such as franchisees and sub-contractors).
While support for this bill is not universal, if this bill can get Dems and the GOP working together to solve a problem, then it must be doing something right.
Jon Hyman is a partner at Meyers, Roman, Friedberg & Lewis in Cleveland. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com.
A fired NBC employee claims a recruiter who initially contacted her for a job as an audio-visual coordinator told her NBC “specifically asked for good-looking employees”— and wanted to see pictures before she could get her foot in the door.
Stephanie Belanger says the recruiter asked her “to show her Facebook/Instagram profile to NBC before she could be interviewed.”
Despite all the the negative press that this story is going to receive, I would be surprised if one-percent of one-percent of all employers have even considered asking a job applicant for access to a private social-media account, let alone carried through on the thought by making it a hiring requirement.
And do you know why most (nearly all?) employers do not do this? It’s bad HR policy, with significant legal risk:
EEO Risks: Mining Facebook and other social sites for information on job applicants can reveal a wealth of protected EEO information (age, religion, protected medical information, genetic information). The risk is great enough when the information is publicly available; it is exponentially heightened when you gain unfettered access to information shielded by a password. For some thoughts on best practices on conducting Internet searches on applicants or employees, click here.
Stored Communications Act Risks: At least one court has concluded that an employer who requires employees to disclose passwords to social media sites violates the federal Stored Communications Act, which extends liability to parties that exceed authorization to access electronic communications. While this area of the law might be unsettled, testing it could prove a costly mistake.
Legal issues aside, this story raises another, more fundamental, question — what type of employer do you want to be? Do you want to be viewed as Big Brother?
Do you want a paranoid workforce? Do you want your employees to feel invaded and victimized as soon as they walk in the door, with no sense of personal space or privacy?
Or, do you value transparency? Do you want HR practices that engender honesty, and openness, and that recognize that employees are entitled to a life outside of work?
Social media provides a lot of benefits to employers. It opens channels of communication between employees in and out of the workplace. And, when used smartly, it enables employers to learn more about potential employees than ever before. You can learn if an employee has good communication skills, is a good cultural fit, or trashed a former employer. But, this tool has to be used smartly to avoid legal risks. Requiring passwords is not smart.
While it seems like we cannot recall a time without social media in our lives, it remains a new and developing form of media. The rules and regulations that govern it are still evolving. Moreover, governments are looking for opportunities to regulate it.
If a small minority of businesses pursue this poor HR practice, state legislatures and Congress will continue pursuing legislative solutions. Do not provide the government the opportunity. Can we all just agree that requiring social media passwords is a bad idea and finally move on from this story?
Jon Hyman is a partner at Meyers, Roman, Friedberg & Lewis in Cleveland. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com.
A recent posting for a diversity-related job in a medium-sized organization included an all-too-common phrase in its description of the ideal candidate: “Must have a passion for diversity.”
Aside from “passion” and a few years of experience, the description said little else of substance about the ideal candidate’s qualifications. I could already tell the organization was off to a rocky start.
I can’t recall ever seeing a single job description in any industry for a finance director that included “passion” as one of its desired qualifications. The same goes for any other strategic leadership position, except for human resources, and that’s where the problem lies. In old school organizations, diversity and inclusion aren’t seen as strategic priorities like finance. In old school organizations, senior leadership doesn’t know their mission critical “why” for doing D&I, much less what meaningful goals to assign to that function.
Passion then becomes a substitute for clarity, competence, effectiveness and results. This leads to three problems.
The D&I leader and D&I initiatives will struggle to be taken seriously and effect any meaningful change. How is “passion” to be measured, or translated into results that matter?
Most of the people with “passion” for D&I are those most disadvantaged by its lack — women, people of color and LGBT people. While there’s nothing inherently wrong with a member of a historically underrepresented group spearheading diversity efforts, the widespread nature of this practice reinforces the notion that D&I is only about, and for, members of those groups.
Passion can get in the way, especially when it bumps up against the “caring imperative.” I recently had an online exchange with a person of color who took issue with one of my articles because they believed the article gave white people fewer reasons to care about people of color. But while caring is important to drive commitment (as with any strategic initiative), the goal of D&I is not greater caring, but more effective behaviors and more equitable systems and processes.
Caring is not required for a person to follow an equitable process or do more inclusive behaviors, especially once these become habit. Also, examples abound of people who care deeply but wreak havoc with their ineffective behaviors.
One of my favorite examples is a community leader in a city where I once lived who was deeply knowledgeable and passionate about diversity and equity, but managed to divide, undermine and alienate one community group after another with her lack of emotional intelligence and personal accountability. Organizations can likewise care about D&I, yet yield discriminatory or inferior results driven by inequitable systems and organizational biases, like in the oft-cited (and replicated) resume study. Intent does not equal impact.
Passion can also get in the way when it impedes one’s ability to look at “data” and make difficult, strategic decisions. I made this mistake myself as an internal D&I leader in a large organization. My passion and caring got in the way of taking seriously the fact that D&I in our organization was driven almost entirely by my energy and the personal capital of my high-ranking boss. We lacked meaningful commitment from key C-suite leaders, and this not only impeded our progress, but lead to clashes resulting in me leaving the organization.
This is not to say that passion and caring should be absent from D&I initiatives. In fact, all strategic leadership positions and initiatives should require both! But passion and caring alone aren’t enough, and certainly shouldn’t substitute for: (1) a mission-critical business case for D&I that is driven by senior leadership; (2) measurable, meaningful goals; (3) a trusted D&I leader with robust expertise and a track record of results; and (4) accountability.
The science is clear: diversity plus inclusiveness is an excellence multiplier. Therefore, D&I requires a commitment to excellence the same as any other strategic priority. Passion and caring aren’t enough on their own.
Susana Rinderle is president of Susana Rinderle Consulting and a trainer, coach, speaker, author and diversity & inclusion expert. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com.
LGBTQ prohibitions continue to make headway in the courts. While Congress has remained silent on the issue, more and more state and federal courts hold that the law’s existing prohibitions against sex discrimination implicitly cover sexual orientation and other forms of LGBTQ discrimination.
The latest appellate court to take up this issue in the 2nd Circuit, in Zarda v. Altitude Express. Just last week, the Department of Justice filed its amicus brief [pdf] in this case. Yet, in that brief, the DOJ argued that Title VII’s prohibition against sexual stereotyping as sex discrimination does not include LGBTQ discrimination. This position advanced by the DOJ is contrary to that already espoused by the 7th Circuit, many district courts, and the EEOC.
Just because the DOJ argues that Title VII does not include LGBTQ discrimination does not mean that you are not free to adopt anti-LGBTQ-discrimination policies in your workplace. In fact, I urge that you must. I predict that 10 years from now, history will view those that stood in favor of LGBTQ discrimination the same as it views those that stood opposed to the civil rights movement 50 years ago. Employers, it is time to take a stand, and stand on the correct side of history.
My challenge to employers? On this issue, do what is morally correct, the law be damned. Ignore Title VII, ignore the EEOC, ignore the DOJ and ignore the courts. It is incomprehensible that in 2017 an employer can legally fire someone because of who he or she loves, dates or marries. Do right by all of your employees. Enact policies prohibiting LGBTQ discrimination in your workplace. Send the message to all of your employees that you are an employer of inclusion, not exclusion.
And yes, I’m tired on sounding like a broken record on this issue. But until we as a nation come to a national consensus, this message is worthy of playing on repeat.
Jon Hyman is a partner at Meyers, Roman, Friedberg & Lewis in Cleveland. To comment, email editors@workforce.com. Follow Hyman’s blog at Workforce.com/PracticalEmployer.
Three months after the acquisition of U.K.-based software company Rivo Software, Sphera Solutions is working to bring employees into the Sphera family. Chicago-based Sphera is a global provider of operational excellence software and information services with a focus on operational risk, environmental health and safety, and product stewardship. Laura Hanson, Sphera’s chief human resources officer, is working to assimilate the common culture of both companies as well as recruit the best tech talent to add to Sphera’s workforce. Hanson has 25 years of human resources experience in technology, engineering and professional service firms, and has been with Sphera for six months. Workforce intern Ariel Parrella-Aureli spoke with Hanson about life post-acquisition, finding unique tech talent and Sphera’s communication methods to keep its employees informed, including its 23 percent remote workforce.
Workforce: What are the challenges of being a CHRO at a tech company?
Laura Hanson: Recruiting is definitely one — attracting the right people. A lot of things that attract tech workers are nowadays really table stakes, like stability, working from home [and] developing good snacks. We have a great mission to make the world a more safe, productive, more sustainable place and people who are actually passionate about that kind of thing has helped us. We will target universities or people who have environmental programs.
WF: How have you kept employees engaged and the company culture alive after the acquisition?
Hanson: Acquisitions are so tough but we really have learned a lot; it’s such a great learning but painful [experience]. One thing we do early on, which we have learned from previous ones, is even in diligence, we find out if there is a culture miss; it is so hard to overcome that amid the integration. Assuming you have a good culture mix, then part of it is just highlighting what parts of the culture are alive and then reinforcing it. For example, this company had similar dynamics to us — they were really passionate about the environment and what they do for clients and the world — so we helped cement them as part of Sphera. We also pulled them in immediately to highlight what they are doing; we bought them for a reason: They have a fantastic technology space and people and they came in almost immediately and started teaching others, highlighted their benefits and what they are bringing to the organization, so that has helped a lot. The other thing is we communicate until we are sick of hearing from each other — our throats are sore because we have meeting after meeting with them, touching base, checking in. We are trying really hard to get them into the family but not lose their culture.
WF:How do you attract new talent to a tech company when tech talent is in the highest demand, especially among millennials who are increasingly joining the tech workforce?
Hanson: We have to identify what are we, what behaviors work well here and what does success look like here, and then it makes it harder to search because it narrows our search. However, the upside is you get people who are more productive, stay longer, more intrigued in the organization and opportunity. With the different populations, attracting them to what we do here is part of it. Making sure we have all the things important to them — the flexibility, the balance, the giving back to the community, is critical. The other thing is making sure there is good development opportunity and that doesn’t just mean, ‘Hey I took this training class at this really expensive conference.’ It really means making your learned skills marketable because that is a big deal. One of our mottos is to make a more sustainable world but we are trying to make more sustainable people, too. We want you to build your skill — if you are going to be somewhere else that’s OK, but we want to keep you and make sure we are getting a benefit from you and you are getting a benefit from us.
WF: What is the demographic of your company?
Hanson: I wish we have a more diverse demographic. We don’t have enough women! We don’t have enough women in the tech world. We have a relatively older population because people have long tenure here; we have retained these developers for many years. They have migrated their skills and learned new platforms. We do have a lot of work to do to get more cross-training for these people and learning different platforms and tech as well, but we have a great retention record.
WF: How are you going to bring more women into the workforce?
Hanson: We got a lot of people to stay with us for a long time, so as we bring in new talent, we are being more diligent about opportunities. Part of our strategy going forward is to target other organizations where you can find good tech talent. Teaching tech skills is less difficult than teaching behavior skills. There is so much talent out there and we could really be helping in that regard. I am a big fan of women in tech.
Ariel Parrella-Aureli is a Workforce intern. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com.
Consider the following lawsuit the EEOC filed against a California senior-care provider:
The civil rights agency found that Rashon Sturdivant, an experienced care provider, faced daily harassment, including racially offensive remarks about “brown sugar” and “black butts,” requests to perform sexual acts, and lewd comments about her body. The client also masturbated in front of her and groped her when she performed routine tasks like helping him sit up in bed or cleaning him. Although Sturdivant and other care providers informed R. MacArthur of his conduct, the EEOC charges that the employer failed to act on these complaints and also retaliated against Sturdivant by refusing to reassign her to another client.
This employer mistakenly assumed that the law does not cover employees harassed by non-employees. Nothing is further from the truth. In fact, an employer’s obligations to an employee harassed by a non-employee are exactly the same as if the alleged perpetrator was an employee — to take prompt remedial action to ensure that the harassment stops and does not reoccur. In other words, the employer must:
Be prompt. Upon receipt of a complaint of harassment, a business must act as quickly as reasonably possible under the circumstances to investigate, and if necessary, correct the conduct and stop from happening again.
Be thorough. Investigations must be as comprehensive as possible given the severity of the allegations. Not every complaint of offensive workplace conduct will require a grand inquisition. The more egregious allegations, however, the more comprehensive of an investigation is called for.
Consider preliminary remedial steps. While an investigation is pending, it is best to segregate the accused(s) and the complainant(s) to guard against further harassment or worse, retaliation. Companies place themselves in a much worse position if they are too lax instead of too cautious.
Communicate. The complaining employee(s) and the accused should be made aware of the investigation process—who will be interviewed, what documents will be reviewed, how long it will take, the importance of confidentiality and discretion, and how the results will be communicated.
Follow through. There is nothing illegal about trying remedial measures less severe than ending the relationship in all but the most egregious cases. A valued customer may be no less valued after asking an employee about her underwear, for example. If the conduct continues, however, the discipline must get progressively more harsh. If you tell an employee that termination is the next step, you must be prepared to follow-through.
I’ll give EEOC San Francisco District Director William R. Tamayo the final word on this issue:
The customer is not always right. The law requires employers to ensure that workers are protected from sexual harassment, even when that workplace is non-traditional, like a client’s home, and even when the alleged harasser is a customer or client.
Jon Hyman is a partner at Meyers, Roman, Friedberg & Lewis in Cleveland. To comment, email editors@workforce.com. Follow Hyman’s blog at Workforce.com/PracticalEmployer.
