Tag: discrimination

Posted on

When Alcohol Is Involved, the ADA Distinguishes Between ‘Having a Disability’ and ‘Disability-related Misconduct’

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

Alcoholism is an ADA-protected disability.

Yet the ADA does not require that employers accommodate alcoholics by permitting them to drink, or otherwise be intoxicated, on the job.

Case in point? Dennis v. Fitzsimmons (D. Col. 9/5/19).

Jared Dennis was employed as a deputy in the Summit County, Colorado, Sheriff’s Office. He’s also an alcoholic. While on administrative suspension following his wife’s allegation of domestic violence, Dennis got drunk at home the night before his criminal arraignment. The following morning, he failed his intake breathalyzer. Thereafter, the Sheriff’s Office terminated him for, among other rules violations, conduct unbecoming of an officer and being impaired while on duty.

Dennis sued his former employer for disability discrimination, claiming that it fired him because of a protected disability — his alcoholism.
The court disagreed, and dismissed Dennis’s lawsuit.

It is generally recognized that alcoholism can constitute a disability entitling the employee to protection under the ADA…. The more difficult question is whether Deputy Dennis has come forward with evidence that his termination resulted from his disability, rather than his conduct.…[W]hen the disability at issue is alcoholism, the ADA … draw[s] a distinction between “having a disability” and “disability-caused misconduct.”

It is undisputed that the SCSO based its decision to terminate Deputy Dennis’ on the fact that he reported for his arraignment in an intoxicated state. Thus, there is no dispute that SCSO’s decision arose from his unsatisfactory conduct on the morning of July 28, not from his abstract status as an alcoholic. As noted, the ADA … do[es] not extend protection to actions of alcohol-influenced misconduct, even if the employee’s alcohol use is related to the disability of alcoholism. Accordingly, Deputy Dennis has not come forward with evidence that indicates that his termination was based on his status as a disabled person (as opposed to his conduct).

Addiction is a protected disability. But it does not mean you have to permit its use to accommodate the disability. Under the influence at work does not equal a disability, ever.
Posted on

The Supposed #MeToo Backlash Is Just Discrimination By Another Name

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

A recent study suggests that there has been a backlash against the #MeToo movement.

According to  the Harvard Business Review, men are treating their females co-workers differently because of #MeToo.

  • 19 percent of men said they were reluctant to hire attractive women.
  • 21 percent said they were reluctant to hire women for jobs involving close interactions with men.
  • 27 percent said they avoided one-on-one meetings with female colleagues.
This isn’t a #MeToo problem. It’s the problem that #MeToo is trying to fix. Indeed, Harvard Business Review could rewrite its headline to read, “More than one in four men admit to discriminating against female co-workers.”
Can women falsely accuse their male colleagues of sexual harassment? Absolutely … just as they could before the #MeToo movement. And just as men can falsely accuse women, and women each other, and men each other.

False accusations of harassment are not a #MeToo problem. They are systemic in any system that relies on employees to self-police and report misconduct via complaints. The remedy isn’t sexually segregated workplaces. The remedy is thorough and complete investigations of all complaints of harassment, and appropriate punishment for those who are found to have lodged false complaint.

The risk of false harassment complaints is not an excuse for sexual segregation at work. Instead, the risk of sexual segregation is the reason to double down on efforts to root out and end sexual harassment and other sex discrimination.

Posted on

NLRB Asks for Help to Overturn Some Foul-Mouthed Bad Decisions

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

Editor’s note: This post contains extremely graphic language in the context of the case described here.

“Bob is such a NASTY MOTHER FUCKER don’t know how to talk to people!!!!!! Fuck his mother and his entire fucking family!!!! What a LOSER!!!!”

“Hey, did you bring enough KFC for everyone?” “Go back to Africa, you bunch of fucking losers.” “Hey anybody smell that? I smell fried chicken and watermelon.”

You’d think that if any of your employees lobbed any of these bombs at a supervisor or coworker, you’d have no legal issue if you fired them. And you’d be right … usually.

Except, in the first example, the employee ended his obscene tirade with, “Vote YES for the UNION!!!!!!!”

The latter example was directed by striking workers walking a picket line to African-American replacement workers crossing that picket line. According to the National Labor Relations Board, the employees’ rights to engage in protected concerted activity trumps all.

The NLRB, however, might be changing its mind on these rules. Last week, the agency invited briefs on the issue of how far the law should go to protect profane or obscene workplace statements.

The National Labor Relations Board requests briefing on whether the Board should reconsider its standards for profane outbursts and offensive statements of a racial or sexual nature. In a notice issued today, the Board seeks public input on whether to adhere to, modify, or overrule the standard applied in previous cases in which extremely profane or racially offensive language was judged not to lose the protection of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

In the specific case at issue, a union committeeperson, while arguing about employee cross-training, told a supervisor that he did not “give a fuck about [his] cross-training” and that he could “shove it up [his] fucking ass.”

Specifically, the board is looking for input on five issues:

  1. Under what circumstances should profane language or sexually or racially offensive speech lose the protection of the Act?
  2. How much leeway should employees engaged in section 7 activity be given, when their language if profane or otherwise offensive to others on the basis of race or sex?
  3. Should the Board continue to consider the norms of the workplace, particularly whether profanity is commonplace and tolerated, in judging the legality of these profane or obscene outbursts?
  4. To what extent, if any, should the Board continue to consider context — e.g., picket-line setting — when determining whether racially or sexually offensive language loses the Act’s protection?
  5. What relevance should the Board accord to anti-discrimination laws such as Title VII in determining whether an employee’s statements lose the protection of the Act?

I find all of the examples above to be abhorrent. The NLRB’s current rules require employers to suborn the worst degree of insubordination, or permit horrific racial or sexual harassment, all in the name of “protecting” employees section 7 rights under the NLRA.

These rules must change, and I am very optimistic that the board will craft a much fairer and equitable rule on this issue.
Posted on

No, FMLA Does Not Grant You License to Threaten Your Co-workers

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

After being harassed by co-workers, Paul Ellis took to Facebook to air his grievances publicly.

Among his comments was one that could be perceived as a threat violence: “he’s gonna have an accident on the dock.” When another employee brought a printout of the post to their employer, FedEx, an investigation began. During that investigation Ellis admitted that one could perceive that comment as a threat. As a result, FedEx fired him.

Prior to his termination, Ellis frequently took leave under the FMLA to receive treatments for his chronic back pain and to take care of his sick mother. He alleged that FedEx retaliated against him for his use of FMLA leave by terminating him.

The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed.

Ellis cannot demonstrate a causal link between his FMLA leave and his termination. He consistently used FMLA leave for two years without issue. Each time he called out sick, his supervisors covered his shifts, and each year that he applied for recertification, FedEx approved. It also actively accommodated FMLA leave for 42 employees between May 2013 and May 2017 at the Delanco service center.

Instead, FedEx terminated Ellis because it concluded he violated the company’s prohibition on workplace violence. He admitted to his supervisors that his Facebook message could be perceived as threatening, and he was fired shortly after the investigation concluded.

Many employees who engage in protected activity (such as taking FMLA leave) mis-perceive that their jobs are bulletproof. Nothing is further from the truth.
Yes, employers need to be diligent when firing an employee who has engaged in some form of protected activity. But, if you would fire the employee absent the protected activity, and have consistently done so with others under similar circumstances, why give an employee a free pass?
Posted on

New Study Says Age Discrimination Remains a Persistent Issue for Employers

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

Insurance company Hiscox just released its 2019 Ageism in the Workplace Study [pdf], which revealed some sobering statistics about the growing problem of age discrimination for American employers.

  • The number of age-related discrimination charges filed with employers and the EEOC by workers aged 65-plus doubled from 1990 to 2017.
  • 44 percent of employees report that they or someone they know experienced age discrimination in the workplace.
  • 21 percent report they faced age discrimination themselves.
  • 36 percent feel their age has prevented them from getting a job since turning 40.
  • 26 percent feel there is some risk they could lose their current job because of age.
  • Only 40 percent who experienced age discrimination filed a charge or complaint.
  • Employers paid $810.4 million to settle age discrimination charges filed with the EEOC between 2010 and 2018 (excluding litigation).

These numbers are only going to get worse. By 2024, workers age 55 and older will represent 25 percent of the nation’s workforce, with the fastest annual growth rates among those aged 65 and older. Indeed, according to the Hiscox survey, 67 percent of surveyed workers age 40-65 plan to continue to work after they turn 66.

This trend is not without its cost to employers. Age discrimination hurts employers, and I’m not just talking about the $810 million paid in settlement costs.

  • It demotivates employees, which can hurt productivity, customer service, and product quality.
  • It causes a loss of talent and institutional knowledge, due to experienced workers leaving from a stalled career or hostile environment.
  • It causes employers to miss the opportunity of hiring and retaining workers who possess knowledge, experience, good judgment, and commitment to the job.

So, how can an employer help prevent age discrimination from permeating its workplace? The EEOC, in its State of Age Discrimination Report, published last year to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the ADEA, offers the following five suggestions.

1. Leadership needs to create and foster a workplace culture that is committed to a multi-generational workplace where all workers can grow and thrive, which extols ability and reject discriminatory stereotypes and words.

2. Employers and employees must recognize and reject stereotypes, assumptions, and remarks about age and older workers, and treat them no differently than stereotypes, assumptions, and remarks about sex, race, disability, national origin, religion, or other protected classes.

3. Companies should work to increase the age diversity of the workforce by hiring, retaining and engaging employees of all generations,

4. Businesses should implement recruitment and hiring strategies that avoid age bias by seeking workers of all ages and not limiting qualifications based on age or years of experience. These strategies should include training recruiters and interviewers to avoid ageist assumptions and common perceptions about older workers, assessing interviewing strategies to avoid age bias, and having an age-diverse interview panel for prospective employees.

5. Employers should develop retention strategies to keep older workers. I’ve written about this point before, which you’ll find here.
Posted on

The Law Is a Floor, Not a Ceiling: Granting FMLA for Individualized Education Program Meetings

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

Last week, the Department of Labor issued an opinion letter [pdf] making clear that covered employers must provide intermittent FMLA leave to eligible employees who need time away from work to attend meetings to discuss the Individualized Education Program (IEP) of the employee’s child.

Rather than discuss the opinion letter in detail, I’ll instead direct you my blogging friends — Jeff Nowak, Suzanne Lucas, and Eric Meyer — each of whom covered this story over the past few days.

Instead, I want to use my space today to make a broader point about the law in general.

According to the National Center for Educational Statistics, in 2017-18, 7 million, or 14 percent of all public-school students, received special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Among those students, 34 percent had specific learning disabilities. Many are on IEPs, and even more are on 504 plans.

What’s the difference? An IEP is made available through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and applies to students with 13 specific disability categories, including, for example, ADHD and autism. 504 plans are more generally available under the Rehabilitation Act and apply to any student with a disability that interferes with the child’s ability to learn in a general education classroom. Both IEPs and 504 plans require a team effort to work. That team always should include the parent(s) or primary caregivers.

Managing a child with special needs is hard. Employment obstacles should not make it harder. A parent shouldn’t have to worry about whether their special needs child is receiving the educational support they need to thrive in school and whether they will have a job when they return from a school meeting.

Bravo to the DOL for applying a common sense interpretation to the FMLA to conclude that attendance at IEP meetings “care for a family member … with a serious health condition,” which is “essential to her ability to provide appropriate physical or psychological care to [her] children.” No employee should have to choose between their family and their job, and this opinion helps ensure these protections.

Yet, with or without the FMLA, all employers should be offering these small amounts of time off. The law is a floor, not a ceiling.

I can hear the protesting cries: “We can’t give every employee time off for every little thing they need. They’ll take advantage of us.”

Seriously? An employee is not taking advantage of you by taking a few hours to meet with the educational team for their special needs child. If you are that worried that an employee is taking advantage of a situation, then deal with that employee.

But don’t deny the time off to all employees just because one employee has taken (or might take) advantage of you. It’s a performance issue specific to one employee. And, if employee leave abuse is a systemic problem throughout your workforce, you should take a look at what you’re doing wrong. Maybe it’s you and not your employees.

Employers, we should be better than this. We have to be better than this. We are better than this.

Don’t do the bare minimum that the law requires. Strive to do more. Make yourself an employer of choice for your employees. You’ll attract and retain better employees who will work harder for you. Don’t just try to reach the floor, but establish your own ceiling.

Posted on

It’s Inexcusable for an Employer NOT to Have an Anti-discrimination Policy

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

There are some employment policies that you can get away with not having. An anti-discrimination policy is not one of them.

In Hubbell v. FedEx SmartPost (decided Aug. 5 by the 6th Circuit), FedEx learned this lesson the hard way.

Sheryl Hubbell worked for Defendant FedEx SmartPost as a parcel sorter. A jury concluded that it retaliated against her after she filed an EEOC charge alleging that her manager demoted her and ultimately fired her after telling her that “females are better suited to administrative roles and males are better suited to leadership roles.” A jury awarded her $519,550, reduced by the trial court to $415,60 (plus an additional $157,733.75 in attorneys’ fees).

This employer made a lot of mistakes that caused this large judgment, but one of the biggest was that it did not have an anti-discrimination policy until 2013, one year after Hubbell claims she started suffering retaliation.

Several of Hubbell’s managers testified that FedEx had an anti-discrimination policy and that they had been trained on this policy. Jessica Benjamins, FedEx’s corporate Human Resources manager, also testified as to FedEx’s anti-discrimination policy. She testified that FedEx conducts annual online “diversity inclusion training” for managers. And she testified that it has long been FedEx’s policy not to discriminate. But FedEx only promulgated a specific policy on non-discriminatory hiring and promotion on November 26, 2013—after Hubbell was demoted and filed her first EEOC complaint.

So here’s your homework assignment. Open your employee handbook. Turn to the table of contents. Look for the policy that says, “Discrimination.” If you can’t find it, call me.

Posted on

When an Employee’s Religion Clashes With an Employer’s Dress Code

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer
A Muslim woman is suing the hospital at which she works as medical assistant, claiming she was told she needed a “note from the Quran” when she asked for an exception to the hospital’s dress code to wear a face covering during Ramadan.

The case, Boyd v. Cooper University Hospital, is pending in federal court in New Jersey. While it’s just filed and years from resolution, we can use it to learn how an employer should react when a employee dons religious garb in the workplace.

Title VII requires that an employer reasonably accommodate an employee’s sincerely held religious belief. This accommodation includes exceptions to an employer’s dress code or grooming policy.

According to the EEOC, an employer may not “automatically refuse to accommodate an applicant’s or employee’s religious garb or grooming practice if it would violate the employer’s policy.”

Title VII requires an employer, once it is aware that a religious accommodation is needed, to accommodate an employee whose sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance conflicts with a work requirement, unless doing so would pose an undue hardship. Therefore, when an employer’s dress and grooming policy or preference conflicts with an employee’s known religious beliefs or practices, the employer must make an exception to allow the religious practice unless that would be an undue hardship on the operation of the employer’s business. … For purposes of religious accommodation, undue hardship is defined by courts as a “more than de minimis” cost or burden on the operation of the employer’s business.

There are limits, however, and an employer may “bar an employee’s religious dress or grooming practice based on workplace safety, security, or health concerns … but only if the practice actually poses an undue hardship on the operation of the business.”

The employer should not assume that the accommodation would pose an undue hardship. While safety, security, or health may justify denying accommodation in a given situation, the employer may do so only if the accommodation would actually pose an undue hardship. In many instances, there may be an available accommodation that will permit the employee to adhere to religious practices and will permit the employer to avoid undue hardship.

While we have no idea how the Boyd case will play out, it nevertheless serves as a great illustration of the need for employers to consider exceptions to dress codes as reasonable accommodations for employees’ sincerely held religious beliefs, and the risks that occur when employers skirt this obligation.

Posted on

The 14th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the Horrible Harasser

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

In its press release announcing a recently filed sexual harassment lawsuit, the EEOC says that a New York-based housing development and property management company violated Title VII when its owner and top executive repeatedly subjected female employees to crude sexual comments, called them sexually obscene names and showed them pornography.

And, as bad as that sounds, that description barely scratches the surface of what is actually alleged to have happened in this workplace.

The complaint that the EEOC filed fills in the blanks with disgusting details about the daily barrage of unwelcome and offensive misconduct.
    • The owner made crude remarks about his sexual interests, such as: that his “dick may not always work but my tongue will”; and that he “knows how to satisfy a woman” and “likes the way they [women] taste.”
    • The owner made unwelcome and sexualized comments about female employees’ bodies, such as: telling a female employee that her body was curvy and reminded him of his wife’s body, telling another that he admired her breasts, and telling another that he “felt like a kid in a candy store,” when she bent over.
    • When angry, the owner called female employees hostile, abusive, and demeaning names, such as: “cunts.”
    • The owner repeatedly put his hand down his pants and touched his genitals while speaking to female employees.
    • The owner showed female employees pornography on his cell phone.
The women say in the complaint that this egregiously offensive misconduct happened on daily or near-daily basis, that their complaints to the company’s CFO fell on deaf ears, and that it finally compelled them to quit.
I’m speechless, other than to say that if these allegations are true, “Congratulations, Birchez Associates and Rondout Properties Management of Kingston, N.Y., you’re the 14th nominee for the worst employer of 2019!”
Thanks to Janette Levey Frisch for bringing this story to my attention.

Previous nominees:

The 1st Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the Philandering Pharmacist

The 2nd Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the Little Rascal Racist

The 3rd Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 is … the Barbarous Boss

The 4th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 is… the Flagrant Farmer

The 5th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 is… the Fishy Fishery 

The 6th Nominee for Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the Diverse Discriminator

The 7th Nominee for Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the Disability Debaser

The 8th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the Lascivious Leader

The 9th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the Fertile Firing

The 10th Nominee for Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the Exorcising Employee

The 11th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the ****y Supervisor

The 12th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the Disguised Doctor

The 13th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the Excoriating Executives
Posted on

Parental Discrimination Claims Pose Big Risks for Employers

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer
The article is right — parental discrimination claims (which are really just sex discrimination claims brought by working parents) are very dangerous for employers.

What is parental discrimination? The article breaks this claim down into four different subsets.

    1. Pregnancy discrimination: Examples include firing someone because she is pregnant, refusing to hire someone because she’s pregnant, or denying an accommodation to a pregnant employee that you otherwise grant to other employees with similarly disabling limitations.
    2. Caregiver discrimination: Treating moms (or dads) differently than non-parents because of their parental responsibilities outside of the workplace.
    3. Breastfeeding discrimination: Denying accommodations, including unpaid break time and private lactation spaces, to new moms.
    4. Stereotyping discrimination: Denying employment or employment-related opportunities (i.e., promotions) to moms (and dads) based on stereotypes like, “You’re more dedicated to your family than your job.”
According to the article, the number of parental discrimination claims filed in federal courts rose an astounding 269 percent between 2006 and 2015, and continues to rise.

Moreover, not only are parents suing more, but they’re also more likely to win. A typical employee only wins a workplace discrimination case between 16 and 33 percent of the time. Parental discrimination claims, however, are two to four times more successful for employees, with plaintiffs winning 67 percent of cases that go to trial.

Why are these claims so dangerous for employers? Working Mother offers several theories.

1. The number of employees with family responsibilities has swelled.

2. #MeToo has affected a cultural shift towards the rights of women in the workplace.
3. There exists more awareness of sex and pregnancy discrimination laws.
4. Society can be more progressive than many employers, who are still operate from the stereotypical idea of one-working-parent households.

We no longer live in an Ozzie & Harriet world. Long gone are the days when the wife would be waiting at home to greet her husband with a pair of slippers and a martini while she put dinner on the table for the family. Women work. Moms work. And no one should be treated differently or punished as a result.

As the Working Mother article adroitly points out, there is only one unhappy ending to telling an employee that his wife, or she, belongs at home with the children. It starts with law- and ends with -suit. Women have the right to work, and neither they, nor their spouses, should be punished for exercising that right, regardless of their chosen profession. Employers, force a working parent to make that unlawful choice at your own risk.