Category: Commentary & Opinion

Posted on

Disrupting Alzheimer’s Inside and Outside the Workplace

alzheimer’s at workplace

It should come as no surprise that Alzheimer’s disease has a big impact on the workforce.

alzheimer’s workplace
The Atlantic held the event “The State of Care: Disrupting Alzheimer’s” on September 12 in Chicago.

After all, as one speaker at a recent Alzheimer’s-focused event pointed out it’s a devastating disease both for patients and for caregivers.

The event, themed “The State of Care: Disrupting Alzheimer’s” on Sept. 12 in Chicago, covered many facets of the issue: the current state of affairs with Alzheimer’s; why it’s important to confront this public health crisis now; the quest for early detection and a cure; and a view form Capitol Hill.

Start with caregivers: 16.1 million people provide $232.1 billion in uncompensated care a year and tens of thousands of Alzheimer’s caregivers are teenagers, according to speakers at the event. A different source states there are “250,000 children and young adults between the ages of 8 and 18 who are child caregivers to those with Alzheimer’s disease or dementia.”

Whatever the correct number, the takeaway for employers is there is a large number of young people — perhaps not yet graduated from high school and still trying to get an education — whose careers could be impacted early on by their caregiver status. What happens when these children enter the workforce? Is a college education as attainable for these people compared to those who don’t have caregiving responsibilities yet?

Employment issues are commonplace for these people, according to panelists. Caregivers worry if they can afford to send a sick relative to out-of-home care or if their need to work fewer hours will impact their employment.

There are programs and benefits that can help caregivers in the workplace. Workforce’s benefits columnist Jennifer Benz wrote on the importance of these programs, which include referral resources, backup child care, eldercare, extended leave, flexible schedules, work from home options and more. Further, Benz argued, organizations can’t simply have these programs in place; they also should “have cultures of trust and compassion, so employees can be transparent about the burdens they manage outside of work and so their work can flex around those needs. “

The caregiver lifestyle isn’t easy, even going past the uncompensated care consideration. For one, caregiving is a big time commitment; 36 percent of caregivers spend 31-40 hours a week caregiving and 19 percent spend 40+ hours per week, according to the “Generational Considerations for America’s Workforce,” a June 2018 report from Unum. The report also found that caregiving may have unwanted physiological and personal problems, with 61 percent of caregivers experiencing stress, anxiety and/or depression, 27 percent reporting marital or relationship stress and 25 percent missing their own medical appointments.

And what about when an employee gets Alzheimer’s?

Let’s start looking at this from a broader perspective. Alzheimer’s accounts for $277 billion a year in direct medical costs. According to speakers at the event, two-thirds of the victims are women (just like 67 percent of the caregivers for this disease are women). Even though there is no cure and the most we can do is on the preventive front, there’s still not enough being done early on. “Our nation is not a prevention-focused nation,” said one speaker.

One medical necessity they recommended: “the checkup from the neck up”. This type of checkup, in which doctors test for cognitive health, isn’t as common as it should be.

Here are a couple resources for employers who find out one of their employees has been diagnosed. This Workplace Strategies for Mental Health webpage includes a case study of an employer who found out an employee had dementia, the steps they took to offer accommodations and eventually the steps they had to take to ultimately terminate the employee. And this guide from the Alzheimer’s and Dementia Alliance of Wisconsin tells employers how to identify, approach and assist employees with early onset dementia.

The major takeaway I got from these sources was that when an employee develops Alzheimer’s, they can continue working with accommodations for a good amount of time in many cases. They may have to quit eventually or an employer may have to let them go, but that shouldn’t be the immediate response.

Some questions I have for employers: How do you plan on dealing with dementia/ Alzheimer’s as your workforce ages? What are you doing to address the caregiving concerns of your employees? Do you have any unique resources that encourage employees to focus on their brain health or get that “check-up from the neck up”?

I want to mention one other moment from the State of Care event. At one point, a panelist asked everyone in the audience how many people have been personally touched by Alzheimer’s or some other form of dementia. I didn’t raise my hand, as so far none of my relatives have developed one of these diseases yet, and I was in the very small minority. It was a strong reminder that this has impact either directly or indirectly on a lot of people, and that’s not going to change any time soon, both publicly and in the workplace.

Also Read:

Posted on

Sexual Harassment Allegations Unjustifiably Ruin People’s Lives Only if They Are False

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

Donald J. Trump

✔@realDonaldTrump

Peoples lives are being shattered and destroyed by a mere allegation. Some are true and some are false. Some are old and some are new. There is no recovery for someone falsely accused – life and career are gone. Is there no such thing any longer as Due Process?

8:33 AM – Feb 10, 2018
On Sunday, The Washington Post published Christine Blasey Ford’s decades old allegations of sexual abuse she claims to have suffered at the hand of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, Supreme Court nominee. You can read the full letter here.
Let’s be clear. All we have right now are allegations of misconduct, buried for decades. But now, those allegations are public. They are serious. And they must be taken seriously.
And they also have the potential to ruin Judge Kavanaugh’s life.
If he did what Ms. Ford accuses him of doing, I have zero sympathy for how this impacts his Supreme Court nomination. We are not only giving someone a job for life, we are giving someone a job for life who will rule on issues that go to the core of women’s rights: abortion, equal pay, and discrimination, to name a few.
How he treats, or has treated, women is germane to this process. As is whether he sexually assaulted someone while in high school.
A week ago, I would have told you that Judge Kavanaugh deserved to be confirmed. I do not agree with many of his positions on issues, but that should not disqualify anyone from Supreme Court service. If it did, no one would ever get confirmed. Donald Trump won the White House, and to his victory goes the spoils of judicial nominations. The remedy is not the imposition of an ideological litmus test to court appointees, but to vote.
Now, however, I am not sure. If these allegations are true, he should not serve, period. If they are unfounded, then he should serve, period.
The issue of whether Kavanaugh did it, or didn’t do it, is critical. More importantly, as President Trump suggested when discussing the issue of allegations of harassment, Judge Kavanaugh deserves due process. Luckily for him, there exists a body, already convened, equipped to provide it — the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Anything other than a full and fair hearing of these allegations will cause Judge Kavanaugh to be judged in the court of public opinion. Isn’t that what we are trying to avoid “for someone falsely accused?”
Anyone accused of harassment deserves to have the allegations vetted. As an employee, your employer should fully and fairly investigate, and, if it determines the allegations to be false, it should fire the accuser, period.
To do anything other than to pause this confirmation to determine just how much fire lurks behind Ms. Ford’s smoke, to provide Judge Kavanaugh the due process to which he is entitled, is reckless and dangerous. The American people, the rights of whom Judge Kavanaugh will vote for decades and impact for decades more, deserve this much.
Jon Hyman is a partner at Meyers, Roman, Friedberg & Lewis in Cleveland. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com. Follow Hyman’s blog at Workforce.com/PracticalEmployer.
Posted on

The 15th Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2018 Is … the Threatening Torturer

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

Was this a car dealership or the set of Hostel 4?

Jason Cox worked as a car salesman for Marietta Motors. According to Cox’s lawsuit, for the entirety of his 10 months of employment, the company’s owner, Travis Westfall, engaged in a continuous and unrelenting campaign of verbal and physical abuse and harassment.

Cox claims that Westfall:

  • Repeatedly demeaned him based on his large size, with names such as “Tiny,” “Fat Ass,” and “handicapped.”
  • On numerous occasions, pointed at Cox the red laser-sight of the handgun he kept at work.
  • Placed the handgun to Cox’s chest while telling him not to make any sudden moves.
  • More than once held knives or other sharp objects to Cox’s throat while demanding that he not make any sudden movements.
  • Told Cox that he could “slit [his] throat and sleep just fine at night.”
  • Struck Cox with a soda bottle on his surgically repaired leg.
  • Punched Cox repeatedly.
  • Lit fires near Cox.
  • Duck taped Cox’s phone to his hand and head while he was talking.
  • Repeatedly shocked Cox with a taser, to the point that his co-workers attempted to hide the weapon from Westfall.

Cox also claims that Westfall captured the abuse on video and shared it on social media.

Ultimately, claims Cox, he quit and fled the workplace, but not before he claims to have suffered severe and permanent mental and physical injuries.

If even a portion of this stuff happened, not only will it qualify Marietta Motors and Travis Westfall for a well-deserved nomination for the Worst Employer of 2018, but it will also result in a very large and warranted payday for Jason Cox.

Jon Hyman is a partner at Meyers, Roman, Friedberg & Lewis in Cleveland. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com. Follow Hyman’s blog at Workforce.com/PracticalEmployer.

Posted on

Everything You Want to Know About Employee Polygraph Tests

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

Lie detector tests, have been all over the news lately. Reports suggest that Donald Trump wants to administer these examinations to the entire White House staff to identify the author of the anonymous New York Times op-ed.

There are no laws prohibiting the White House from using polygraph tests in this manner. The federal law that regulates their use in the workplace — the Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988 — does not apply to the government.

For private-sector employers, however, the EPPA imposes strict prohibitions on the use of any device to render a diagnostic opinion as to the honesty or dishonesty of an individual.

It prohibits employers from:

  • Requiring, requesting, suggesting, or causing an employee or prospective employee to take or submit to any lie detector test.
  • Using, accepting, referring to, or inquiring about the results of any lie detector test of an employee or prospective employee.
  • Discharging, disciplining, discriminating against, denying employment or promotion, or threatening to take any such action against an employee or prospective employee for refusing to take a test, on the basis of the results of a test, for filing a complaint, for testifying in any proceeding, or for exercising any rights afforded by the EPPA.

Despite these strict prohibitions, there are limited exceptions when an employer can administer polygraph tests (but not other forms of lie detector tests).

One exception covers prospective employees of armored car and other similar security companies. Another covers prospective employees of companies that manufacture controlled substances.

Of more general application to most employers, the third exception covers employees who are reasonably suspected of involvement in a workplace incident that results in economic loss to the employer and who had access to the property that is the subject of an investigation. Thus, an employer who reasonably believes that an employee has stolen is able to administer a polygraph test to confirm the employee’s culpability.

Even if this exception applies, employers cannot use polygraph tests carte blanche. There are certain key limits on their administration:

  • Prior to the polygraph examination, the employer must provide to the to-be-examined employee a written notice
    • explaining the employee’s rights and the limitations imposed, including the prohibited areas of questioning, restrictions on the use of test results, and the employee’s right to file a complaint with the Department of Labor alleging violations of EPPA;
    • explaining the specific incident or activity being investigated and the basis for the employer’s reasonable suspicion of the employee’s involvement;
    • reasonably describing the date, time, and place of the examination and the employee’s right to consult with legal counsel or an employee representative before each phase of the test; and
    • describing the nature and characteristics of the polygraph instrument and examination.
  • The employee can refuse to take a test, terminate a test at any time, or decline to take a test because of a medical condition.
  • The results of a test alone cannot be disclosed to anyone other than the employer or employee without their consent.
  • The polygraph examiner must be licensed, and bonded or insured. Also, the examination is subject to strict conduct standards.

Employers that violate the EPPA are subject to a civil money penalty of $20,521 per violation, in addition to legal and equitable relief such as lost wages and reinstatement, and, in the case of a private civil lawsuit, reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees.

Polygraph tests provide employers a powerful tool to confirm and confront employee certain limited employee issues. Employers must carefully follow the EPPA’s requirements so that a slam-dunk termination does not turn into a sure-fire lawsuit for the employee.

Jon Hyman is a partner at Meyers, Roman, Friedberg & Lewis in Cleveland. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com. Follow Hyman’s blog at Workforce.com/PracticalEmployer.

Posted on

Behaviors, Not People, Are Cost Drivers

cost drivers
Everyone has a health-related vice. It’s more respectful to refer to them as a person and not by their unhealthy habits.

The language you use is important. People are people. Call them what they are.

I say this because of a common phrase I’ve come across occasionally in my health care research. I attended a webinar in which the speaker consistently referred to people as “cost-drivers.” Obese employees were referred to as “cost-drivers;” so were employees with diabetes. What does someone who is obese cost you compared to someone who is not obese, the moderator posed. This is a major pet peeve of mine in health care reporting — both the language used and the idea that a person’s health status could potentially influence a candidate’s perceived hireability for a company.

We’re all in the HR space here. I wouldn’t be surprised if you, too, have come across handfuls of headlines and articles about “putting the ‘human’ back in human resources.” I’d like to argue that when we’re talking about health care and health problems that need medical attention, let’s be careful to keep the “human” in mind, too.

There’s a person behind that health care cost, and you don’t know how much physical, mental or financial stress that health problem is putting on them. Stop acting like people’s health problems are more inconveniences for you than inconveniences for them.

Most people have some sort of cost-driving behavior, whether that’s smoking, not eating healthy enough, not sleeping enough or drinking too much coffee. Even people who work out, do yoga, practice mindfulness and eat healthy participate in some behavior that one might consider unhealthy. Most everyone has a health-related vice.

People should take responsibility for their own health, but adopting the perfect heath behaviors in every aspect of our lives is impossible. Every person, regardless of their health status, drives health care costs.

Yes, of course organizations have the responsibility to try to stay financially healthy, and a continuing, rising cost in many companies are health care expenses. It’s not surprising that businesses want to focus on decreasing health care costs, and it’s not negative that they want to do so.

Referring to employees as rusting machines that require constant maintenance rather than humans whose health problems are realistically more complex than a simple fix rubs me the wrong way. Ultimately, it’s an objectifying way to describe people. It comes across as a way to disregard the human behind the heath behavior.

Also read: Some Constructive Criticism on Workplace Wellness

Not long ago, a pre-existing condition was a valid reason for insurance companies to deny people coverage. And, with the future of health care legislation in the U.S. so uncertain, who knows what the future of this practice will be? Might employers possibly take a similar route and choose the healthiest candidates first, regardless of if they’re the best person for the job, to avoid those pesky, sick “cost drivers”?

That situation isn’t entirely ridiculous. For example, a few stories this past year have focused on the “potential nuances of a culture of health.” CNBC posted a story this past March about a health startup criticized online for being “cultish” and “fit supremacist.”

Corporate Wellness Magazine has published a feature about how companywide health goals and human needs can clash when things like weight-loss competitions and employees with eating disorders combine. Employees of a water company in Sweden risk lower wages if they don’t participate in a mandatory workout every week.

There has to be a way to mix financial responsibility and human understanding — at least if you truly do want to “put the ‘human’ back in human resources.”

My take on this: when you refer to a “cost driver,” make sure it’s a something and not a someone. And don’t let their status as a “cost driver” impact the value you place on them as an employee or as human beings.

Andie Burjek is a Workforce associate editor. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com.

Posted on

The FLSA’s Exemptions Are Becoming More ‘Fair’ for Employers

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

In Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, the Supreme Court ruled that overtime exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards Act “are to be given a ‘fair reading,’ meaning they are not to be construed too narrowly” (as had historically been the case).

The court applied this “fair reading” standard to conclude that automobile service advisors are exempt under the FLSA’s automobile-service exemption.

Since Encino, federal courts have applied the “fair reading” standard to find that various classes of employee are non-exempt (or likely non-exempt) under various of the FLSA’s categories of exemptions:

Recently, the Department of Labor itself applied this “fair reading” standard to conclude, in an Opinion Letter [pdf], that the FLSA’s “retail or service establishment” exemption applies to sales representatives who sell credit-card-payment platforms to merchants.

Courts and the DOL are more willing than ever to conclude that employees are exempt under the FLSA. Yet, employers should not read this “fair” construction test as a license to reclassify all of their non-exempt employees as exempt. However, it should give employers some comfort that in closer cases, courts should not be so quick to conclude that they misclassified an employee.

Jon Hyman is a partner at Meyers, Roman, Friedberg & Lewis in Cleveland. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com. Follow Hyman’s blog at Workforce.com/PracticalEmployer.

Posted on

Training Won’t Fix Stupid in a Hostile Work Environment

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

A fast-food restaurant fired a recently hired employee after its manager learned she was pregnant.

How do we know this was the manager’s reason for the termination? Because he texted it to the employee (which she later posted on Facebook).

 

Hello, I’m sorry to inform you but it’s not going to workout with Jersey Mikes. It’s not a good time for us to have someone who is leaving for maternity leave in several months anyways. You also failed to tell me this during our interview. Good luck to [sic]

According to KIRO, the franchise owner offered the employee her job back (she refused), and the offending manager has since resigned.

A spokesperson a Jersey Mike’s corporate told Inc. that this termination “does not reflect our history or values,” and that “additional training is being provided.”

Excuse me, but how will training help ignorant managers avoid discrimination or mend a hostile work environment? Sex discrimination has been illegal since 1964, and pregnancy discrimination expressly since 1978. If a manager does not know that you can’t fire a woman because she’s pregnant, no amount of training in the world is going to help that manager not discriminate.

“We are going to institute more training” is the stock corporate answer to any workplace discrimination crisis. Don’t get me wrong, training is important and necessary. But training would not have resulted in this employee keeping her job. Lack of training of the manager was not the failing here. The failing was that the employee did not have a clear path to complain, other than taking her grievance pubic via Facebook.

Manager training may stop some discrimination, but it’s not a magic pill. Instead, train your employees on how to complain if they feel they are victims of discrimination, and train yourself to be open and receptive to such complaints, to fully investigate them, and to take appropriate corrective action. That’s how we root out discrimination.

Jon Hyman is a partner at Meyers, Roman, Friedberg & Lewis in Cleveland. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com. Follow Hyman’s blog at Workforce.com/PracticalEmployer.

Posted on

Does the FMLA Protect Organ Donation Surgery as a ‘Serious Health Condition?’

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

Organ donors are living saints. If you are in need of an organ to save your life, and someone is willing to sacrifice a kidney, or a liver segment, or bone marrow, and selflessly accept the pain and inconvenience, you are very, very fortunate.

Sacrificing one’s organ to save another’s life should not also result in sacrificing one’s job.

Earlier this week, the U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division published Opinion Letter FMLA2018-2-A [pdf], which answers the question, “Does organ-donation surgery can qualify as a ‘serious health condition’ under the FMLA?” (Thanks to Eric Meyer for bringing this to my attention.)

The answer is yes.

The FMLA defines a “serious health condition,” in part, as an “illness, injury, impairment, or physical or mental condition that involves … inpatient care in a hospital, hospice, or residential medical care facility.” “Inpatient care” means as “an overnight stay in a hospital, hospice, or residential medical care facility, including any period of incapacity … or any subsequent treatment in connection with such inpatient care.”

According to the United Network for Organ Sharing, donors usually remain in the hospital four to seven days after the harvesting surgery. Thus, because organ donation commonly requires overnight hospitalization, it qualifies as a serious health condition covered by the FMLA.

Thus, covered employers (those with 50 or more employees on the payroll during 20 or more calendar workweeks in either the current or the preceding calendar year) must provide FMLA leave to an eligible employee-donor (someone employed for at least 12 non-consecutive months, who worked 1,250 hours during the 12-month period preceding the start of the requested leave, and who works at a location with 50 or more employees within a 75-mile radius).

What if, however, you are not an FMLA-covered employer? Or the employee-donor is not FMLA eligible? Or they already used up their 12 weeks of FMLA leave? Think twice before you deny requested time off for organ donation.

  • The ADA may require that you grant the time off with, or without, the FMLA or state-specific law. The ADA does not require an employer to provide a reasonable accommodation to a person without a disability due to that person’s association with someone with a disability. Nevertheless, the ADA mandates that an employer avoid treating an employee differently than other employees because of an association with a person with a disability. Thus, if an employer grants time off to employees for their own surgeries, the ADA will require similar treatment to employees taking time off to donate an organ to one’s association or relation.

Is it inconvenient for an employer to provide time off to any employee? Absolutely. Do you want to be in a position of defending your decision to fire that employee in the face of a leave request for the selfless act donating an organ to save another’s life? Absolutely not. While such a decision is likely illegal, it’s also undoubtedly inhuman. And it’s that inhumanity that will cost your company dearly in front of a judge or a jury.

Jon Hyman is a partner at Meyers, Roman, Friedberg & Lewis in Cleveland. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com. Follow Hyman’s blog at Workforce.com/PracticalEmployer.

Posted on

ComPsych Survey Emphasizes In-Person Counseling Over Mental Health Apps

There’s an app for that — that meaning almost everything. I covered mental health apps for Workforce a couple years ago, exploring how technology solutions can benefit employees with mental health issues, which is why I was intrigued to find a ComPsych survey in my inbox the other morning. The findings? If employers want to help depressed workers, apps may not be the answer.mental health apps

Workforce covered technology in our latest HR tech-themed issue, including a few stories on the negative and positive impacts of technology. While this information was also valuable, I found the survey by ComPsych, a Chicago-based employee assistance program provider, to be especially noteworthy because of the specific population it addressed: depressed workers. We can argue pointedly on both sides about how technology has both positive and negative effects on people’s lives and well-being. But when we’re talking about mentally ill people getting help, I think it’s better to be a bit more careful.

Also read: Is Technology the Answer to Your Employees’ Mental Health Problems?

I can’t speak for this hypothesis, but I can share some of the findings from the ComPsych research. The EAP, considering the loneliness epidemic and the need for more face-to-face interaction, advocates for in-person counseling. The role of apps in getting mental help? “Using them as means to draw people in to receive more in-depth help.”

Also read: Loneliness Creeps into Workplace Wellness World

“There’s a human function and a human interaction component — you can call it empathy, you can call it connectedness, you can all it a lot of things — that you miss regardless of what you employ in the technological realm that an in-person experience with another human being provides for a person seeking care,” said Richard Chaifetz, founder, chairman and CEO of ComPsych.

He added that any way we can improve, increase and expand people’s ability to access care is positive and that technology has a lot of value in mental health. Take, for example, a different technology in health care: telemedicine. This solves some issues related to access and availability of care, but for serious illnesses or comprehensive medical problems, in-person care is preferable. The same could be said about mental health.

Take this instance. Years ago, people would took paper surveys about their mental well-being. Am I depressed? Am I stressed?

“Those moved to internet-based questions, and now they’ve moved to online cognitive help for people to walk through different scenarios in their lives and provide resources and counseling online,” Chaifetz said. “It’s a way to stimulate thought, [and] it’s a way to bring people under the tent to explore issues related to mental health or mental well-being.”

He also added that at ComPsych, when people are online, they constantly are reminded that in-person care in available. Here’s the number you call, here’s how you get something scheduled, here’s what you need to know. It’s a way to make sure people know their options.

Most employers understand that technology is not the answer to everything in medical care, and more employees than in the past are open to getting care for mental health needs, thanks to the stigma disappearing over time, Chaifetz said.

Still, I find this important to bring up because understanding something and taking action are two different things. For example, quality and access in mental health care are still current issues, even if people understand the importance. Chaifetz mentioned that most large and medium sized companies have mental health services beyond basic counseling mandated in their health plans, but that leaves me curious about the state of health plans for small employers, where many employees work and get health insurance.

Looking at this from a broader perspective, this pitch reminded me of something that it couldn’t hurt to remind employers. Wanting to help your overall workforce with their general mental health and wanting to help your mentally ill employees with specific mental health issues are two different beasts.

Both are important, and both require different considerations. It’s the difference between someone needing to take a mental health day to sleep in and do something relaxing and someone needing to take a mental health day to see a counselor for an emergency session. Or the difference between someone wanting to use HSA dollars to help pay for an exercise class and someone wanting to use HSA dollars for medication.

The amount of mental-health pitches I get a day is great and I believe a good sign that employers genuinely want to know what they can do so as not to negatively impact their employees’ mental health.

In other benefits-related news this week:

  • Can This New Employee Benefit Help You Hack Death?: A blockchain startup has adopted a stem cell storage benefit, saying that these young, healthy cells can potentially be used in the future for “health maintenance.” However, experts in stem cell research say there’s not yet any scientific evidence that stem cells could be used to reverse illnesses (be in heart-related illnesses, brain-related illnesses or blood cancer) when people age. Is this benefit promising more than it can deliver? (Bloomberg)
  • IRS Clears Way for Student Loan Benefit Tied to 401(k): This company has introduced a new benefit in which debt-straddled employee with student loan benefits can begin to save for retirement by paying off student loans. When they make a loan payment, their company puts money in their 401(k). My benefits sources say this is not yet a trend, for a variety of reasons, but it’s definitely something to have your eye on moving forward. (Employee Benefit News)
Posted on

Temporary Employees Have Permanent Legal Rights

Temporary employees do not leave their legal rights at your door. In fact, they enjoy the same rights as your permanent employees.

Consider, for example, EEOC v. Massimo Zanetti Beverage USA, in which an employer recently agreed to pay $65,000 to settle claims brought by a temporary employee that she was subjected to a sexually hostile work environment and fired after repeatedly complaining about it.

The allegations are not pretty.

LaToya Young began working as a temp at Massimo Zanetti in late January 2015. Within 10 days of starting her placement, a male co-worker began making sexually harassing comments to her:

  • Telling Young that he had “blue balls” and asking her “Why don’t you help me out with that?”
  • Telling Young that he wanted to “suck [her] bottom lip.”
  • Telling Young that he wanted to have sex with her, often using lewd language.
  • Telling Young that he imagined himself engaging in sexual relations with her.
  • Telling Young that he would “ball [her] up like a pretzel” and would “have [her] screaming.”
  • Grabbing his groin area while looking directly at her.
  • Blowing kisses at her.
  • Licking his lips and biting his bottom lip while looking at her.

Young complained three times to her supervisor. The harassment continued unabated after the first complaint. After the second complaint, Young alleges that her supervisor warned her that going to HR “would jeopardize her employment.” After the third complaint, she was fired.

According to EEOC Regional Attorney Kara Haden, “Employers must take appropriate action to stop harassment of all employees, including temporary workers.” She adds, “We hope that this case sends a clear message that the EEOC will hold accountable employers who fail to protect all employees from workplace harassment.”

Take heed of this lesson. Your temporary employees have the same civil rights as your permanent employees.

Jon Hyman is a partner at Meyers, Roman, Friedberg & Lewis in Cleveland. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com. Follow Hyman’s blog at Workforce.com/PracticalEmployer.