Tag: The Practical Employer

Posted on

Frivolous Litigation Has a Price … Sometimes a Big Price

employment law, labor law, overtime records

In 2005, Monika Starke filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC alleging that her employer, CRST Van Expedited, Inc., subjected her to sexual harassment.

The EEOC expanded that initial charge into a federal-court lawsuit over whether CRST engaged in sexual harassment against myriad of its female driver trainees.

What followed was 14 years of litigation, several trips to the court of appeals, one trip to the U.S. Supreme Court, and an attorney-fee award of over $3.3 million against the EEOC for frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless conduct in the filing and prosecution of the underlying claims.

The issue that lead to the large fee award was the EEOC’s heavy-handed prosecution of a pattern-or-practice harassment claim, even though it did not plead such a claim in its complaint.

Late last year, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the fee award (which had previously been reduced on appeal from an initial award of $4.5 million).

As the master of its own complaint, it was frivolous, unreasonable and/or groundless for the EEOC to fail to allege a pattern-or-practice violation and then proceed to premise the theory of its case on such a claim. Claims necessarily premised on the inclusion of this claim are likewise frivolous, unreasonable and/or groundless.

As attorneys, we are responsible for our conduct in litigation. When that conduct gets out of hand or crosses the line, there are often consequences. Sometimes, those consequences are harsh, even if warranted. In this case, the EEOC learned a tough lesson, hopefully one that will end one of the longest running discrimination cases in history.

Posted on

DOL Provides Employers Much Needed Clarity on Joint Employment

employment law, labor law, overtime records

Joint employment is a legal theory in which the operations of two employers are so intertwined that each is legally responsible for the misdeeds (and the liabilities that flow from those misdeeds) of the other. It’s also a legal theory with which federal agencies and courts have struggled over the past several years.

The struggle started at the NLRB’s broad expansion of the definition of “joint employment,” continued with OSHA, and ended with the Department of Labor, in early 2016, announcing a similar broadening of the definition for wage and hour claims.

More recently, however, more measured and business-friendly federal agencies have ratcheted back these expansions. In December 2017, the NLRB announced that it would require “actual … joint control over essential employment terms” for a finding of joint employment. A few months earlier, the DOL pulled its joint employment rules, leaving the issue in limbo in wage and hour claims.

Earlier this week the DOL announced a final rule to update the regulations interpreting the definition of joint employment under the FLSA.

In the final rule, the department provides a four-factor balancing test for determining FLSA joint employer status in situations where an employee performs work for one employer that simultaneously benefits another entity or individual. The balancing test examines whether the potential joint employer:

  • Hires or fires the employee;
  • Supervises and controls the employee’s work schedule or conditions of employment to a substantial degree;
  • Determines the employee’s rate and method of payment; and
  • Maintains the employee’s employment records.
The DOL adds that this rule “will add certainty regarding what business practices may result in joint employer status,” promote “uniformity among court decisions by providing a clearer interpretation of joint employer status,” and “improve employers’ ability to remain in compliance with the FLSA.” I cannot agree more.
This rule (available here) becomes effective on March 16, 2020.
Posted on

The 1st Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2020 Is … the Repeat, Repeat Offender

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

If there’s a better way of starting 2020 than with the first nominee for the year’s worst employer, I’m not sure what it is.

Meet Dru DiSilvestro, the manager at an electrical contractor in Elmer, NJ, accused of sexually harassing Kimberly North, a 23-year-old employee, while in the midst of litigation brought by another employee accusing DiSilvestro of flashing his penis and leaving a dildo on her desk. And that wasn’t even the first lawsuit accusing DiSilvestro of harassment. His employer settled another even earlier suit accusing him of sexually crude language.

According to the New York Post, “North says DiSilvestro for years made comments about her ‘hot body,’ grabbed his crotch while making lewd faces at her and asked her about her sexual preferences.” Further, when she broke up with her boyfriend, “DiSilvestro allegedly sent her a text … of a porno video and a GIF of a woman performing a sex act on a man.” Her lawsuit includes screenshots of the alleged text messages.

Worse yet, when North complained to DiSilvestro’s bosses they did nothing, even though they were already in the middle of defending the penis-and-dildo lawsuit. Eventually, North took a leave of absence because of the anxiety of working with DiSilvestro, and quit a month later. Her lawsuit soon followed.

If you ignore complaints of egregious sexual harassment brought by an employee while already litigating similarly awful claims of sexual harassment brought by another employee against the same supervisor, you might be the worst employer of 2020.

Posted on

NLRB Rolls Back 2 Key Obama Era Anti-management Decisions

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

This week, the National Labor Relations Board decided two cases that rolled back key Obama era anti-management NLRB decisions.

Apogee Retail is a much bigger deal than Caesars Entertainment. Purple Communications required employers to allow employees to use their email systems for union-related communications if they otherwise allowed employees to use the email systems for any other purpose. Because it’s still the employer’s system, however, the employer still has access to the communications. I question why any employee would want to use an employer’s email system to talk union business, as they should assume the employer is reading all of their union-related emails.

Apogee Retail, however, reverses the biggest tragedy of the Obama-era NLRB. As I wrote all the way back in 2012 criticizing Banner Estrella Medical Center:

Workplace interviews are high-stakes affairs that carry serious liability repercussions for the employer. Moreover, it is often difficult to determine who is telling the truth and who is lying. This difficulty is exacerbated by the fact that those conducting these investigations are not trained detectives, but often HR personnel. …

By prohibiting employers from requiring that workplace investigations remain confidential, your decision in Banner Estrella neuters the ability of employers to make key credibility determinations. Limiting confidentiality in this manner will severely constrain the ability of employers to conduct thorough and accurate workplace investigations, which, in turn, limits the ability of employers to stop the workplace evils they are investigating (discrimination, harassment, theft, etc.).

The Board concluded that determined that a confidentiality rule limited to the duration of an internal investigation is generally lawful.

Bravo NLRB (for now). Still, it’s best to save your policies that complied with Purple Communications and Banner Estrella Medical Center. All bets are off if a Democrat takes back the White House in 2020, and you just might need to dig them out.
Posted on

Court Finds That the ADA Does Not Protect Employee’s Dormant Genetic Condition

Genomic Medicine EmployersSherryl Darby has the BRCA1 gene, otherwise known as the breast cancer gene, the best known gene associated with breast-cancer risk. Approximately two months after she started working as an administrative assistant at Childvine, an early childcare provider, Darby opted to have a double mastectomy to decrease her risk of developing breast cancer in the future. Two weeks later, Childvine fired her.

Despite the close-in-time link between Darby’s surgery and her termination, the district court dismissed her ADA lawsuit.

While “normal cell growth” is a major life activity the ADA protects, the court could not find that the BRCA1 gene is a physical impairment that substantially limits normal cell growth.

Although mindful that the ADA is to be broadly construed, the Court concludes that Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiff has offered no statutory, regulatory, or caselaw support for her “legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation” that the BRCA1 gene, like cancer itself, is a physical impairment that substantially limits normal cell growth. And the Court’s own research has found none.

It is true that the Sixth Circuit has held that some conditions, even when dormant, may constitute a physical impairment.… But this is not a circumstance akin to remission of cancer. Rather, it is, presently, the absence of cancer.

The Court’s decision should not be read to trivialize Plaintiff’s legitimate fear of developing breast cancer or minimize the transformative measures she took to avoid it. It merely recognizes that this Court’s role is to interpret, not legislate. To expand the definition of physical impairment to include a condition that might lead to a disability in the future effectively puts every employee under ADAAA protection.

Whatever issues I have issues with this decision (and I have some big ones) could have been cured by pleading this case differently. I question why Darby pleaded her protected disability as an actual disability instead of a regarded as disability. I think she would have a had a much better chance at surviving dismissal if she framed her claim as one in which her employer terminated her based in its perception of her having a disability (which does not require any proof of any actual disability) instead of any actual disability itself.

Moreover, in many cases its largely irrelevant whether the ADA covers a dormant genetic disorder because another statute already does—GINA, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. GINA prevents employers from using genetic information in employment decisions. GINA likely wouldn’t have helped Sherryl Darby, because it does not appear the issue of her having the BRCA1 gene arose until her lawsuit (and long after her termination).

This case will be often be cited for the proposition that the law does not protect an employee’s dormant genetic condition. While that is true based on how Darby pleaded her claims in this case, employers should not treat Darby as a license to discriminate, as doing so will likely violate both the ADA and GINA in many cases.

Posted on

Vote Now for the Worst Employer of 2019 — Polls Are Open

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

All year long, I’ve been sharing examples of the worst employers in America. My goal? Compile them at the end of the year and then turn it over to you, my readers, to pick the worst of the worst.

Today is your opportunity to help pick the Worst Employer of 2019.

I’ve narrowed this year’s preliminary list down to my choice for the top 10 naughty employers.

Voting will take from today until December 17, at 11 p.m. You will be able to vote for up to 3 choices.

I will then tally the votes, and, announce the highest recipient as the very worthy winner of the Worst Employer of 2019.

Vote, share this post with your friends, colleagues, and social networks, and most importantly, learn something from the mistakes of these 10 very cringe-worthy nominees.

Posted on

Does It Violate the ADA to Work an Employee in Excess of a Work Restriction?

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

Rita Morrissey is a licensed practical nurse who worked for 15 years for The Laurels of Coldwater, a skilled nursing and rehabilitation center.

In 2012, she injured her back outside of work and submitted a note to her employer from her primary care physician limiting her to no more than 12 hours of work per shift. Coldwater refused the accommodation, telling Morrissey that it would not accommodate any medical condition that did not stem from a work-related injury.

Over the next three-plus years, Morrissey worked more than 12 hours eight different times, but it does not appear she was mandated to do so. Indeed, on each occasion, she worked no more than 15 extra minutes.

Morrissey’s situation escalated in January 2016, when Coldwater mandated her to work a 13.5-hour shift. Morrissey testified that she reminded her manager about her 12-hour work restriction, but the manager responded that she had “no control” over the situation. Five days later, Coldwater management again told Morrissey she had to work more than 12 hours, this time a 16-hour shift to cover for another nurse who had called off from work. Morrissey walked off the job and never returned.

In Morrissey v. Laurel Health Care Co. (6th Cir. 12/3/19) [pdf], the 6th Circuit concluded that Morrissey had presented more than sufficient evidence to overcome her ex-employer’s motion for summary judgment on her failure to accommodate claim.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Morrissey, it shows that: (1) Coldwater had a blanket policy of denying accommodations for all non-work related disabilities, (2) Coldwater knew that Morrissey was under a twelve-hour work restriction, (3) Morrissey requested an accommodation, (4) Coldwater forced her to work beyond that restriction on January 31, 2016, and (5) Coldwater attempted to do so again five days later. On these facts, Morrissey’s overages from 2012-2015 are inconsequential. But, Coldwater’s argument improperly ignores the fact that it forced Morrissey, a disabled employee, to stay and work in excess of her physician instituted medical restriction—and attempted to do so again five days later. The record shows that Morrissey asked Coldwater for an accommodation due to her disability, and Coldwater did not accommodate her. She was not required to establish anything more for her claim to ripen.

What can we learn from this decision?

    1. An employer’s obligation to provide reasonable accommodation under the ADA is not limited to work-related injuries. The ADA’s definition of disability extends to work and non-work injuries and illnesses. An employer who refuses to accommodate an employee’s non-work injury because it’s not work-related is asking for a lawsuit.
    2. Blanket policies are risky under the ADA. The ADA calls for flexibility and reasonableness. Applying a blanket, across-the-board policy does not per se violate the ADA, but it should be done with caution and counsel.
    3. An employer violates the ADA when it requires a disabled employee to work outside the bounds of their work restrictions.
Posted on

The 20th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 Is … the Malignant Mogul

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

The 20th (and final) nominee for the Worst Employer of 2019 is Alki David, heir to the Coca-Cola bottling fortune and owner of several media firms.

The evidence?

This week, a jury awarded over $58 million to a female employee who accused him of thrusting his pelvis into her face, simulating oral sex, moaning and zipping up his pants and walking away saying, “Thanks, M.K.”

It’s the third massive sexual abuse verdict leveled against David just this year.

In April a jury ordered David to pay another employee more than $11 million, fired after she refused to have sex with him. And in October, yet another jury awarded another employee over $5 million for allegations that David put his hands on her throat and pushed her chair into a wall, and for telling her that she needed to get supplies for his “rape room.”

For his part, David does not seem to have learned his lesson. “This trial proves that not only is the system broken. It’s in a state of emergency.”

Quite a worthy nominee to end this year’s list.

Come back one week from today, when voting will open to name this year’s Worst Employer. I have a feeling Alki David will have a very nice showing when the votes are counted.

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

As Sure as Today Is Cyber Monday, Your Employees Are Shopping From Work

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

Today is Cyber Monday, the biggest online shopping day of the holiday season. In fact, it is estimated that today will be the biggest online shopping day ever, with over $9.4 billion in sales.

And, guess what? Given that most of those doing the shopping will be spending the majority of their prime shopping hours at work, from where do you think they will be making most of their Cyber Monday purchases.

Consider these statistics:

  • 68% of employees use time at work to shop online.
  • 81% of millennials shop online at work.
Should you turn a blind eye toward your employees’ online shopping habits, not just today, but across the board? Or, should you permit more open access?

I am big believer in open internet access for employees (within reason). I advocate for fewer restrictions for personal internet use at work (including Cyber Monday shopping) for two reasons: it provides a nice benefit to employees, whom we ask to sacrifice more and more personal time; and it’s almost impossible to police anyway.

We no longer live in a 40 hour a week, 9-to-5 world. Employees sacrifice more and more of their personal time for the sake of their employers. Thus, why not offer some internet flexibility both to recognize this sacrifice and to engage employees as a retention tool?

Moreover, it is becoming increasingly difficult for employers to control what their employees are doing online during the work day. Even if an employer monitors or blocks internet traffic on its network, all an employee has to do to circumnavigate these controls is take out his or her smartphone (which employees are doing anyway). By trying to control employees’ internet habits, employers are fighting a battle they cannot win. The iPhone has irreparably tilted the field in favor of employees. It not worth the time or effort to fight a battle you cannot win.

Instead of fighting a losing battle by policing restrictive policies, I suggest that employers treat this issue not as a technology problem to control, but a performance problem to correct. If an employees is otherwise performing at an acceptable level, there is no harm is letting him or her shop online from work, on Cyber Monday or on regular Wednesday.

But, if an employee is not performing, and you can trace that lack of performance to internet distractions or overuse, then treat the performance problem with counseling, discipline, and, as a last resort, termination. Just like you wouldn’t bring a knife to a gun fight, don’t bring a technology solution to a performance problem.
Posted on

Avoid Political Discussions in the Workplace? Riiiiiiiight …

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

According to a recent survey conducted by SHRM [pdf], American workers cannot hide from politics at work.

  • 42% of U.S. employees say they have personally experienced political disagreements at work
  • 44% say they have witnessed political disagreements at work
  • 34% believe that their workplace is not inclusive of differing political perspectives
  • 12% report they have personally experienced political affiliation bias or discrimination based on their political views
  • 56% state that political discussions at work have become more common over the past four years
Some will tell you that employees should avoid political discussions at work at all costs. I am not one of those people.
It’s simply not realistic to eliminate all political discourse from the workplace. Thanks to CNN, the internet and round-the-clock news cycles, politics has invaded every crevice of our existence (and it’s only going to get worse between now and 11/3/20). How can we expect employees simply to ignore conversing about these issues for the eight-plus hours a day they are at work?

Instead of banning these discussions, remind employees of your expectations regarding all workplace conversations — that they be civil, professional and respectful. And, if a co-worker violates these precepts you have the right to disengage and to go to a supervisor, management or HR to address the problem.

Political discussions need not be nasty, uncivil, or contemptuous, as long as we respect the rights of others to think differently, and hold them accountable when they fall short of this standard.