Tag: human resources

Posted on

A Blog to Change the Game

Workforce Game Changers

Hey, Game Changers!

Yeah, I’m talking to you, Pritika Padhi (Game Changers Class of 2019), and you, Jason Hite (Class of ’16) and you too, Monica Sauls (Class of ’13) and Tiffani Murray, who was among the 11 recipients in our inaugural class of Game Changers in 2011.

We are launching a blog specifically dedicated to you, for you and by you! It will be a community blog that all Game Changers can post to. And it can be on any topic under the people management umbrella.

We now head into a decade of Game Changers, our awards program recognizing workforce management professionals under 40 who are pushing the field forward with innovative people-management practices.

For the first time in the program’s history, our judges selected 40 Game Changers in 2019. While the majority works in the United States, numerous winners also span the globe, from Nigeria to Norway to Bahrain, as well as several winners from across India.

The thread that ties this year’s winners with all past recipients is that their efforts engage employees and help their respective companies succeed.

And while Game Changers is a 40-under-40 program, our first couple of classes are pushing 50 years old now. Crazy to think how time flies.

Game Changers
Jason Hite, a 2016 Workforce Game Changer.

No matter what year you were named, consider your area of game-changing expertise as a starting point. Think broadly about how HR affects the workplace, and how the workplace affects HR. What is unique to HR practices in your geographical area? Are there news issues affecting HR? Are there big-picture workplace issues you’d like to address? These are all topics to blog about.

Now, we have lost touch with a number of our past winners. Job changes, shifting from one content management system to another, lost Excel docs(who uses Excel anymore right? All about Google docs in 2019!). Whatever the reason we want to reconnect and maintain you as a Workforce thought leader.

We want to ask you, our vast audience, to help. If you have a colleague who was recognized as a Game Changer please let them and us know! Our contact information is below.

You Game Changers can blog up to once a week if you’d like, or as often as time allows, or even never. It’s just that as young, up and coming thought leaders in your field, this is an opportunity to engage and enlighten our readership (and do a bit of personal brand-building, as well!). As of right now we’re planning to title the blog simply “The Game Changers.”

international HR Game Changers Pritika Padhi and Dharshana Ramachandran, India
Pritika Padhi, left, and Dharshana Ramachandran, 2019 Workforce Game Changers.

The parameters are simple. Word count is between 450 and 850 words (if you have an amazing idea worth more words, just ask; we’re pretty lenient); no outright promotion of a company or product; write in a persuasive, op-ed style (first person is fine if you’d like); and have fun with it! Blogs are supposed to be engaging and spur discussion, so engage and spur some discussion!

When you file your blog, please send it to me, Rick Bell (rbell@humancapitalmedia.com), and my Workforce colleague Andie Burjek (aburjek@humancapitalmedia.com). In the email subject line please use: Game Changer blog post: (your name) and a 4-6 word descriptor of the content (i.e., mentoring can be beneficial to recruiting). Andie or I will edit and post as quickly as we can.

Oh, and please include tagline similar to this: Jennifer Benz leads Segal Benz, a national leader in HR and employee benefits communications. She was honored as one of Workforce’s Game Changers in 2013. Contact her at jbenz@segalbenz.com or follow her on Twitter at @jenbenz. Yes indeed, our esteemed “Benefits Beat” columnist is a member of the Class of 2013.

And by all means, we ask that you please share it on all of your social media channels once it posts.

We are planning to launch the blog the week of Aug. 10. Feel free to contribute in the next couple of weeks so we have a well of content going into the launch.

Any questions, comments or thoughts just drop a note to Andie and me.

Thanks, good luck and happy blogging!

— Rick Bell and Andie Burjek

Posted on

Do Workplace Bullies Violate OSHA?

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

According to a study recently published in the Journal of Applied Psychology, bullying bosses make workplaces less safe.

Poor treatment from a boss can make employees feel that they’re not valued by a group. As a result, they can become more self-centered, leading them to occasionally forget to comply with safety rules or overlook opportunities to promote a safer work environment.

The headline made me think that if bullying contributes to an unsafe workplace, can it also violate OSHA? The answer is quite possibly yes.

While OSHA does not have a specific standard on workplace bullying, it does have a General Duty Clause. It requires that employers provide a workplace free from conditions that cause, or are likely to cause, death or serious physical harm to employees. It’s not a stretch to imagine bullying, or permitting the continued employment of a bully, to violate this duty.

Moreover, if bullying violates OSHA, then failing to have a policy against it, and properly training employees on that policy, also violates OSHA. It’s a potential triple whammy.

Arguing that OSHA covers bullying is not novel. At last year’s American Bar Association’s Labor and Employment Law Section annual conference, for example, one panel argued for OSHA coverage for sexual harassment. OSHA already covers workplace violence and the hazards that cause it, potentially including intimidation and verbal abuse. And, in 2011 OSHA adopted an anti-bullying policy for its own employees.

I’m not saying this is a clear-cut issue. In fact, I think it’s more likely than not that OSHA does not cover workplace bullying. But the fact that we’re having this conversation shows that this is an ongoing problem that employers need to address.

What can employers do? The Journal of Applied Psychology study offers three suggestions.

  1. Implement training programs that can improve leaders’ skills in interacting with their employees, so as to provide feedback and discipline in ways that are neither offensive nor threatening.
  2. Promote a more civil and engaged work environment that strengthens social bonds between employees and creates a buffer against the negative consequences of their boss’ bad behaviors
  3. Implement transparent performance evaluation processes so employees have less uncertainty about their social status in the workplace.
Or, you can just adopt my four-word workplace civility policy. Either way, tolerating and condoning abuse in the workplace, or worse yet, perpetrating it, cannot and should not continue, OSHA violation or no OSHA violation.
Posted on

Pack Mentality: How Dog-Friendly Policies Might Improve Company Culture and Engagement

Imagine it’s a typical, hurried, tired Monday morning.

You rush out the door, coffee in hand, and by the grace of green traffic lights, make it to the office just in time. The ride up the elevator is a familiar feeling — to-do lists and meeting agendas already running through your mind.

Upon opening the office doors, you’re greeted by your coworkers and their smiling, tail-wagging dogs.

This is a reality in a steadily increasing amount of workplaces across the country. According to a 2019 benefits survey by Society for Human Resource Management, 11 percent of workplaces allow dogs, a 3 percent increase from 2015.

In June, Rover, an in-home dog-walking and pet care company, released a list of the 100 Best Dog-Friendly Offices in the United States, which was topped by the likes of widely known organizations such as Amazon, Airbnb and Uber. In forming the list, Rover considered dog-related benefits such as dogs being allowed in the office, pet stipends, paid time-off for pet bereavement and other pet-related amenities, such as green spaces to walk your dog and treats.

For many, the idea of having a furry friend tag along from nine to five is ideal. However, creating a space that is both dog-friendly and people-friendly takes time and thoughtful planning, said Jovana Teodorovic, head of people and culture at Rover, where people can bring their dogs to work every day.

dogs in the workplace
Jovana Teodorovic, head of people and culture at Rover, and Riley.

“That doesn’t work in every environment. It depends on what building you’re in, how dog-friendly they are and how much space you have,” she said. “We have been very proactive in how we design our spaces, and that allows a large number of dogs in the office every day.”

Teodorovic said that allowing dogs in the office has positively impacted company culture at Rover as well as the productivity and happiness of individual employees. Dogs often serve as a point of conversation and connection between employees.

“Taking a break during the day to play with your dog is a great way to feel better throughout the day and to feel more engaged with the work you’re doing,” she said.

However, introducing dogs into the office requires proactive planning and open communication between all levels of an organization’s structure.

“The first thing is to have employee buy-in regarding these policies,” Teodorovic said. “[Make] sure that the majority is comfortable with being pet-friendly and then having mechanisms in place around the folks who have allergies or have a fear of dogs.”

Rover also has thought out policies regarding all the “what ifs” that come with being a pet-friendly office, from potential altercations between dogs to the inevitable need for “doggy bags.”

“We offer free dog-walking for our employees so that the dogs are walked and quiet and satisfied,” Teodorovic said. “The dogs are in a safe space every day and we have dog gates as well.”

Creating a safe, regulated and familiar environment for dogs also helps reduce any incidents.

“Of course our employees being very dog-oriented and great dog owners and training their dogs from the beginning creates a really great workplace,” Teodorovic said. “But it’s different for any company and it really should be an evolving process.”

Ultimately, Teodorovic said, an organization may determine that dogs-in-the-office policies simply aren’t for them, whether that’s due to allergies, building policies or the wants of employees.

There are other ways for employers to be dog-friendly without actually having dogs in the office. Many of the companies on Rover’s list as well as Rover have benefits that support pet-owners. These benefits range from “pawternity” leave (an extra week of paid time off after getting a new dog), providing $500-$1,000 toward adoption fees, and free dog-sitting services.

Teodorovic said that dog-friendly policies and benefits can not only be a tool in increasing retention and recruiting, but improving employee’s everyday experience at work.

“If a company is struggling to create their culture or having a positive culture, it’s a really great way — without having a ton of policies and meetings and work — to accelerate the quality of their interactions and the quality of their company culture,” she said.

Posted on

#MeToo Hasn’t Killed the Office Romance, Just the Inappropriate Ones

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

According to the National Review, #MeToo killed the office romance.

It must be a brave soul who dares to strike up a flirtatious conversation at the workplace microwave these days. Only ten percent of Americans report having met their mate at the office, a level that is half what it was in the 1990s.

The article goes on to quote Ella Whalen, writing for Spiked.

But in the post-#MeToo office, unless you send a memo to the guy you fancy, signed with your consent at the bottom, it is understandable that he wouldn’t want to make the first move for fear of being hauled before human resources. While most normal guys are able to tell whether a woman likes them or not, the erasure of any ‘grey area’ in workplace interactions means more and more people are feeling nervous about taking the first step.

At Spiked, Ella adds

Companies are responding to the sexual-harassment panic by banning alcohol from office parties and instituting policies on how long and how close personal interactions should be. Bosses who hug their employees are even making headline news. …

It’s time to rebel against these attacks on workplace romance. So wear your lowest top to your next board meeting and linger too long by your colleague’s desk. We need to make the workplace a humane environment where sparks can once again fly.

Clickbait headlines aside, #MeToo hasn’t killed the office romance; it’s just killed the inappropriate office romance. The boss dating his (or her) subordinate. The co-worker that won’t take “no” for an answer. The improper or otherwise improper texter or emailer.

There’s nothing inherently illegal about co-workers dating each other. In fact, according to a recent survey, 31 percent of people who met and started dating while working together ended up getting married (to each other).

Still, there’s a lot that can (and sometimes does) go wrong when employees get romantically involved.

  • Conflicts of interest.
  • Extortion and blackmail attempts.
  • Uncomfortable conversations with HR and company attorneys explaining your love life.
  • Have to describing your employee’s private affairs in a deposition or, worse, to a jury.
  • Office gossip.
  • Love contracts.
  • The loss of respect from co-workers and management.
  • Facing termination for not disclosing a romance.
  • Harassment and retaliation lawsuits when someone other than an employee’s paramour gets passed over for a promotion, fired, or otherwise thinks you are playing favorites.
  • Harassment or retaliation lawsuits by a jilted partner when the relationship goes south.

Which doesn’t mean that employees shouldn’t date; it just means that employers need to understand that permitting office romances amplifies the risk of claims of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, especially when the parties involved are a manager or supervisor and his or her subordinate.

The question, then, isn’t whether these relationship are illegal (they’re not), but how much risk you, as an employer, want to assume in the event a relationships sours, or other employees feels shunned or mistreated as a result.

  • Ban them outright?
  • Ban them only between a manager/supervisor and his/her subordinate?
  • Permit them with a signed agreement (the “love contract”)?
  • Do nothing and permit them across-the-board?
I recommend avoiding the first option and not banning them outright because of a knee-jerk reaction to #MeToo. That’s just lazy employee management. Not all workplace relationships are toxic or unlawful, and if you’re diligent in your anti-harassment training and other efforts, you’ll be able to spot, catch, and handle the ones that are.
Posted on

Which Mental Health Service Does the FMLA Not Cover?

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

Recently I discussed our national mental health crisis, and the important role employers play in removing barriers to employees receiving the help they need.

Then, I came across this post on LinkedIn, discussing a massive barrier that the FMLA institutionally imposes.

An individual suffering with a mental health issue has various treatment and therapy options available to them. For medication, one can see a psychiatrist, a primary care physician or a nurse practitioner. For assessment and therapy, one can see a psychologist, a clinical social worker or a licensed professional counselor.

Amazingly, however, the FMLA does not recognize one of these licensed mental health professionals as a “health care provider.”

I won’t leave you in suspense. The answer is licensed professional counselors (unless an employer’s group health plan covers licensed professional counselors). The FMLA’s regulations specifically itemize all of the other categories of mental health professionals as “health care providers,” and specifically omits licensed professional counselors from its list. This omission is important, because an employee’s mental condition cannot qualify for FMLA leave as a “serious health condition” if, for outpatient treatment, the employee is not under “continuing treatment by a health care provider.”

As a matter of policy, however, the FMLA absolutely should cover licensed professional counselors as health care providers. According to a recent study by the National Council for Behavioral Health, the leading cause of our country’s mental health crisis is a lack of access to mental health services. We should not be erecting any barriers to mental health services, let alone one ingrained in the federal law that protects employees’ jobs when they take time off for health reasons, including their mental health. By refusing to recognize licensed professional counselors as FMLA-covered health care providers, the FMLA is deterring employees from seeking critical mental health treatment, or at least forcing them to choose between treatment and their jobs if a licensed professional counselor is the only available help. Many who can’t afford to live without their jobs will choose their paycheck over their health, exacerbating their mental health issues.

Gene Scalia has been nominated to replace Alex Acosta as Secretary of Labor. I implore him to close this dangerous loophole by amending the FMLA’s regulations to make it clear and explicit that licensed professional counselors qualify as health care providers in all cases, and not just those in which an employer has made the choice that its group health plan covers their services.

Posted on

The Benefits of a Productive Relationship Between the CEO and CHRO

Jack Welch leadership

The relationship between a CEO and chief human resources officer is arguably the most unique in the corporate world.

When fostered strategically, the dynamic between the person at the helm of the company and the head of human resources can drive a business to greater heights. However, when that dynamic is one of misalignment or blurred responsibilities, it can singlehandedly take an organization down unproductive paths.

Many key executives report directly to the CEO — for example, the chief financial officer. This is typically someone with a highly specialized background in finance who has grown through the management ranks into the executive level.

When CEOs and CFOs interact, the dynamic is one where the CEO relies heavily on a CFO’s extensive knowledge of financial best practices. The CEO sees a clear line between responsibilities for their role and the CFO’s role, and understands they must rely on the CFO to ensure financial processes and decisions support the overall strategy.

Oftentimes a CEO’s leadership team is viewed as a three-legged stool between the CEO, CFO and CHRO. Unfortunately, the relationship between the CEO and CHRO is not as clear-cut, causing confusion and frustration.

One study found that only 11 percent of CEOs view their HR chiefs as anticipators, able to forecast talent needs and provide the insights that support business planning. When HR is viewed as reactive and not strategic, CHROs are not given opportunity to demonstrate how their expertise can add value. Too often, this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy relegating HR to an administrative, rather than strategic, function.

Trusted Adviser

Why are CEO-CFO relationships generally more productive than CEO-CHRO relationships? Many CEOs have spent meaningful time in P&L roles where they’ve gained a strong foundation in sales, marketing, finance and operations. Some have even held significant staff roles in those functions.

Very few have ever rotated through HR. Ironically, many CEOs fancy themselves as HR experts with an innate ability to identify, select and develop talent. Some do excel at this, but many do not. It’s a delicate situation for CHROs to address. It takes courage, finesse and credibility to become a trusted adviser.

Mary Barra, chairman and CEO of General Motors, is a rare example of a CEO who spent meaningful time in HR. From 2009 through 2011, Barra served as vice president, global human resources. Her earlier experience included stints in engineering, manufacturing and product development. Shortly after becoming CEO, Barra took a page out of her HR playbook when she decided to change GM’s archaic 10-page dress code policy to two words: “Dress Appropriately.”

On the surface, this might appear to be a mundane issue for a CEO to focus on. In reality, it was a brilliant move to send a clear message on empowering people to lead. Ironically, the HR department posed the biggest hurdle.

In a recent article in Entrepreneur, CEOs are said to want four things out of HR: match talent resources with company strategy; help attract the best and brightest; deliver excellence in the onboarding process; and foster employee engagement.

It’s interesting to note that, in Entrepreneur’s above four points, there is no mention of compliance, policies, cost-per-hire or other baseline tactical issues. Over the years, CFOs have earned a “seat at the table” by focusing on the more strategic issues while delegating day-to-day tasks such as accounting, controls and financial reporting. The truly exceptional CHROs have been able to do the same, however, their numbers are few. Many CHROs are still considered by the CEO to be administratively minded, and that’s why they are unable to attain or keep their seat at the table.

Moving Forward Collaboratively

There is another interesting phenomenon in the CEO-CHRO relationship. While most CEOs express a desire to have a strategic CHRO on his or her team, few really understand what that truly means. In some cases, they have had limited interaction with a strategic HR leader and can’t comprehend how that function will impact business. These CEOs often have a difficult time assessing CHRO abilities and actual performance. In other cases, the CEO understands the value of a strategic HR partner, but the organization is not ready for that type of transformational leader.

Naturally, every company has its own unique dynamics that shape the relationships within it, especially between the CEO and the CHRO. Jack Welch, former CEO of GE, is often credited with embracing the value of HR and changing the way the function is viewed. During his tenure as CEO, GE’s CHRO was Bill Conaty who had a great deal of business and financial acumen. As a result, Welch involved Conaty in most major business decisions.

Not every CEO will utilize the HR function to its fullest potential. For those who do, however, the results will be significant assuming the CHRO is up to the task.

Posted on

Employee Suicide Is the Next Big Workplace Safety Crisis

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

A recent headline at businessinsurance.com caught my eye:

Suicide seen as “next frontier” in workplace safety risks. It’s a pretty dramatic headline, but when you drill down into the statistics, it has a lot of weight.
  • Suicide is the 10th leading cause of death in the U.S.
  • Between the ages of 10 and 34, however, suicide is the second leading cause of death, and the fourth leading cause of death between the ages of 35 and 54.
  • In 2017, 47,173 Americans died from suicide (more than double the number of homicide victims), and another 1.4 million attempted suicide.
  • Between 2000 and 2016, the U.S. suicide rate among adults ages 16 to 64 rose 34 percent, from 12.9 deaths for every 100,000 people to 17.3 per 100,000.
  • In 2016, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics hit a record in its 25-year tally of workplace suicides at 291, with the number gradually climbing over the prior decade.
  • The highest suicide rate among men was for workers in construction and mining jobs, with 53.2 deaths per 100,000 in 2015, up from 43.6 in 2012.
  • The highest suicide rate among women was for workers in arts, design, entertainment, sports and media, with 15.6 deaths per 100,000 in 2015, up from 11.7 in 2012.
The numbers are stark and scary and show a nation in the midst of a mental health crisis. What can employers do to recognize and mitigate this risk, and provide a safe workplace for employees in crisis?
For starters, educate yourself. There are a lot of free resources available online.

Next, employers need to increase awareness and reduce the stigma that surround mental health issues. Stigma and silence are the two biggest reasons why those that need help don’t receive it. What can employers do to recognize and help an at-risk employee?

1. Be aware of individual risk factors for suicide. You cannot always prevent suicide, but you can understand some of the risk factors so that can recognize when an employee might be in crisis and in need of help.

  • Mental disorders, particularly mood disorders, schizophrenia, anxiety disorders, and certain personality disorders.
  • Alcohol and other substance use disorders.
  • Hopelessness.
  • Impulsive and/or aggressive tendencies.
  • History of trauma or abuse.
  • Major physical illnesses.
  • Previous suicide attempt(s).
  • Family history of suicide.
  • Job or financial loss.
  • Loss of relationship(s).
  • Easy access to lethal means.
  • Local clusters of suicide.
  • Lack of social support and sense of isolation.
  • Being victimized by discrimination, harassment, or bullying.
  • Stigma associated with asking for help.
  • Lack of healthcare, especially mental health and substance abuse treatment.
  • Cultural and religious beliefs, such as the belief that suicide is a noble resolution of a personal dilemma.
  • Exposure to others who have died by suicide (in real life or via the media and Internet).

2. Provide mental-health awareness training to managers and supervisors. They spend the most time observing their employees, and are often in the best position to observe behavioral changes and risk factors, and hear from co-workers that someone might be in danger. Some of the warning signs for everyone to look for include:

  • Talking about wanting to die or to kill themselves.
  • Looking for a way to kill themselves, like searching online or buying a gun.
  • Talking about feeling hopeless or having no reason to live.
  • Talking about feeling trapped or in unbearable pain.
  • Talking about being a burden to others.
  • Increasing the use of alcohol or drugs.
  • Acting anxious or agitated; behaving recklessly.
  • Sleeping too little or too much.
  • Withdrawing or isolating themselves.
  • Showing rage or talking about seeking revenge.
  • Extreme mood swings.

3. Consider implementing a comprehensive psychological health and safety management program to help improve overall workplace culture and resolve issues more effectively. This program would include eliminating stigma related to mental health issues; developing an inclusive working environment for all; and ensuring that you have a confidential Employee and Family Assistance Program (EAP) that offers support and counseling services and that your employees are aware of it.

4. Educate all employees and support those are struggling. This effort includes mental-health awareness and suicide prevention education to employees; reducing stigmas relating to protected classes, mental illness, substance use disorder, and suicide; expanding awareness of mental illness and addiction; encouraging help-seeking for those at-risk; creating a caring and supporting work environment, including the promotion of listening and interpersonal skills to help all employees.

If you or someone you know is having suicidal thoughts or exhibiting suicidal behavior, help is just a phone call away via the National Suicide Prevention Hotline, 800-273-8255. One phone call can save a life.
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.

Posted on

A Handy FAQ for Service Animals in the Workplace

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

A local Subway recently earned itself some bad publicity when an employee denied access to a customer with a service dog.

While this story involved a customer and not an employee, it did get me thinking about employee service dogs at work.

I created this handy FAQ on service dogs at work for your reference.

Q1:     What does the ADA say about service animals?

A1:     Believe it or not, Title I of the ADA (the part of the law that covers employers and employees) is completely silent on the issue of service dogs. Thus, because Title I does not specifically address service animals, an employer should consider a request from an employee to bring a service animal to work just like any other request for a reasonable accommodation. This means that employers must consider the request, but do not have to automatically allow employees to bring their service animals to work.

Q2:     What types of service animals does the ADA cover?

A2:     Only two species can ever qualify as service animals under the ADA—dogs and miniature horses. That’s it. Any other animal, even if trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability, is not an animal for which the ADA requires the consideration of an accommodation.

Q3:     How should employers process requests for service animals by employees?

A3:     Because the ADA is silent on this issue, a request to bring a service animal to work is nothing more than a request by an employee for an employer to modify its no-animals-in-the-workplace policy. If you have such a policy, you must consider modifying the policy on a request-by-request, case-by-case basis. If you don’t have such a policy, and generally allow other employees to bring animals to work, then you should allow employees with disabilities to bring service animals.

Q4:     Must an employer allow service animals upon request, or can it offer other accommodations?

A4:     A disabled employee is entitled to a reasonable accommodation, not his or her preferred accommodation. Thus, if there exists another reasonable accommodation (other than an exception to your no-animals policy) that will enable the employee to perform the essential functions of his or her job, then you can offer that accommodation in lieu of permitting a service animal. That said, because of the personal nature of a service animal, you should be prepared for the possibility that it might be the only reasonable accommodation in many instances.

Q5:     What kind of documentation can an employer seek from an employee in support of the request for a service animal at work?

A5:    When an employee with a disability requests the use of a service animal at work, the ADA grants the right to an employer to request medical documentation to support the need for the accommodation (if the need is not otherwise obvious; a blind employee should not need to prove the need for a seeing eye dog). Also, an employer has the right to request proof that the service animal is appropriately trained and will not disrupt the workplace.

Q6:     Can you require proof of certifications, vaccinations, or insurance coverage?

A6:     I would. Before being permitted to bring animals to work, owners (even those with disabilities and service animals) should verify that vaccinations are up to date, that the animal licensed and free of parasites and insects, and on regularly scheduled flea and tick preventatives. An employee should verify, in writing, sufficient homeowners’ or renters’ insurance to cover any damage to person or property caused by the animal. You could also consider indemnification in case your business gets sued, and a written paycheck deduction authorization for any damage caused (but I wonder if this could creep into the realm of discrimination or retaliation if you don’t require the same of other employees in similar circumstances.)

Q7:     Can I hold the animal to certain workplace standards?

A7:     Absolutely. I have no issues with requiring that all service animals be “office broken.” Animals with any bite history should not be permitted. Moreover, any aggressive behavior, such as growling, barking, chasing, or biting, should result in the animal’s expulsion on the first complaint. Animals should also be house broken, friendly towards people and other animals, and not protective of their owners or their owners’ spaces. Finally, you should define when animals must be leashed or otherwise restrained.

Q8:     Can an employer deny a request if certain areas are off limits, or to accommodation other employees with certain animal allergies or phobias?

A8:     No. If certain areas are off limits, for example, because of safety or other reasons, you just set rules and limits keeping the animal out of those areas. It’s not a reason to deny a request outright. Similarly, when you have When you have two people with disabilities, you don’t treat one as more important than the other. Instead, you work out a balance between each’s needs and accommodations.

Q9:     How you handle a service animal’s bathroom needs?

A9:     Designate a specific area outside for animals to go to the bathroom (preferably away from the entrances), and make sure pet owners understand that it is their responsibility (and only their responsibility) to clean up messes outside and accidents inside. You may, however, have to considering altering an employee’s break time(s), or providing additional breaks, to permit the disabled employee to care for the needs of his or her service animal.

Q10:     What about emotional support animals, and other animals not classified as “service” animals?

A10:     Emotional support animals, comfort animals, and therapy dogs are not service animals under the ADA. Thus, you have no duty to accommodate these requests.

These are not easy issues to work through. My recommendation is that you work with your employment counsel if you receive an accommodation request for a service animal from an employee.