Skip to content

Workforce

Category: Legal

Posted on January 8, 2018June 29, 2023

Harassment by Emojis

Appearing in text messages, emails, on T-shirts and even their own movie, emojis — cartoon representations of emotions and common objects — are a ubiquitous presence in people’s lives and daily communications with one another. 

Seventy-one percent of Americans use visual expressions such as emojis, stickers or GIFs when texting or using mobile messaging apps, according to a 2017 survey conducted by Harris Poll on behalf of Tenor, a mobile GIF sharing platform.

But there are potentially sinister motives in the workplace behind an innocent emoji martini glass or kissing cat. Given their widespread use, employment attorneys recommend employers review their employee handbooks and consider whether there should be rules governing emojis in office communications. A smiley face or shruggie may be acceptable in a text or Facebook post outside of work, but they could cause problems for HR leaders in the workplace.

“We’re not only looking at words anymore; we now have symbols,” said Kelly Hughes, shareholder at law firm Ogletree Deakins. “It’s not a legal requirement, but it would be a good idea to review electronic communication policies and make sure it includes the use of symbols. I think it’s become prevalent enough that it would be a good business practice to do so.”

The Problem With Emojis in the Workplace 

emoji harassment
‘I think it’s absolutely correct that emoji use … has really exacerbated the sexual harassment issues we see.’ — Kelly Hughes, Ogletree Deakins

It seems far-fetched that tiny cartoons inserted into a text message or employee Slack channel could end up as evidence in an employment lawsuit for a company. But according to legal experts, emojis have appeared in cases more frequently in recent years.

“There have been numerous cases that involve the use of emojis as well as ‘likes’ on social media that involve claims of harassment. Such communications have been cited by employers as evidence of a hostile environment,” Scott McIntyre, partner at law firm BakerHostetler, wrote in an email. “Likewise, employers sometimes rely on such symbols used by employees in a positive fashion as evidence that a claimed hostile environment did not rise to a level required to constitute actionable harassment.”

Employment law experts agree that it’s the subjective nature of emojis that can create issues in the workplace. Simply put, emojis are a form of slang and will mean different things to different people.

“One issue I read about was the use of the hands-up emoji,” said Jay Holland, shareholder and chair of the labor employment and whistleblower group at law firm Joseph, Greenwald and Laake. “In our culture it means praise. But in China, if you’re doing business there, it’s offensive. It means stay away from me. If you were to use that in a work-related occasion in China, you’re accomplishing the exact opposite of your goals.”

The appearance of professionalism is perhaps the most basic concern for employers when it comes to emoji use in employee communications.

A recent survey conducted by Robert Half found that 39 percent of senior managers said it’s unprofessional to include emojis or emoticons in work communications, but 61 percent stated it’s fine in certain situations. When researchers from the California-based human resources consulting firm asked office workers how they feel about these symbols, 59 percent replied they never or only sparingly use them, while 41 percent send them at least sometimes.

Using emojis could imply “a lack of seriousness. It takes away from your message. It’s different from social media, which has a social purpose,” said Holland. “If you put an emoji in an email to your boss, I think the boss may not think you’re that serious of a person. It of course differs between cultures and person to person.”

Further, researchers at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Israel found that using emojis can increase the perception of incompetence. The 2017 study shows that contrary to actual smiles, smileys decrease perceptions of competence. “Perceptions of low competence in turn undermined information sharing. The adverse effects of smiley use are moderated by the formality of the social context and mediated by perceptions of message appropriateness.”

emoji harassment
‘I wouldn’t suggest that every employer overhaul the handbook.’ — Susan Wilson, Constangy Brooks, Smith & Prophete

Although it’s possible the use of emojis can be interpreted as unprofessional, that doesn’t mean companies need to ban their use outright. Every company should have their own approach to how employees communicate with one another, according to legal experts. For example, law firms may have more formal expectations for their employees, while a tech startup may consider emoji use integral to their company culture.

“I wouldn’t suggest that every employer overhaul the handbook to make sure emojis are contained in their policies,” said Susan Wilson, attorney and co-lead of the e-law practice group at law firm Constangy Brooks, Smith & Prophete.

Wilson however, recommends that any policies regarding emoji use be consistent with company social media and code of conduct policies, meaning employees should be reminded that communication should not reflect poorly on themselves or the company.

Hughes corroborated Wilson’s position.

“Whether we’re talking about Facebook, Twitter or even LinkedIn, it’s important for these policies to link to the company’s code of conduct, including sexual harassment,” said Hughes.

Emojis and Sexual Harassment 

If emojis provide employees with another avenue for unprofessionalism, then they also provide them with another avenue for sexual harassment.

Using a smiley face or a winky face at the end of an email to lighten the tone or emphasize a joke does not necessarily qualify as sexual harassment. However, if communications between the harasser and the victim contain emojis, the pervasiveness or severity of the emoji use could be evidence of a hostile work environment.

“It could be evidence of intent to harass, to start a relationship outside of the normal workplace relationship,” said Holland. “One element of a hostile work environment claim is pervasiveness. If a harasser is regularly using emojis and upping their game, so to speak, from smileys to hearts to kissy faces, that’s evidence of workplace hostility. It’s happening. I see it happening.”

Sexual harassment is prohibited under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which protects against employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin. Although the law doesn’t prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments or isolated incidents that are not very serious, harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision, according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

In light of numerous sexual harassment and assault allegations against Harvey Weinstein and other Hollywood executives, NBC News and The Wall Street Journal conducted a poll that found 48 percent of women currently employed in the United States say that they have personally experienced an unwelcome sexual advance or verbal or physical harassment at work. Furthermore, the October 2017 poll found that 67 percent of Americans believe sexual harassment happens in most or almost all workplaces.

Holland said emojis in employee communications represents the highest risk as evidence in a lawsuit like a workplace sexual harassment case.

“These are issues that wouldn’t have been thought of only a few years ago. But they are,” said Holland. “Employers should get on the curve here, they’re not ahead. Well behind, in fact. They need to understand these issues and create policies to prevent these issues.”

Ogletree Deakins’ Hughes agrees. In recent years, she has seen an increase in sex harassment stemming from email and text messages. And now that emoji use has proliferated, she has also seen the symbols being used to convey inappropriate thoughts from one employee to another.

emoji harassment
‘I think these are all subsets of the same policies that companies have had in place for years.’ — David Morrison, Goldberg Kohn

“I think it’s absolutely correct that emoji use — and social media in general — has really exacerbated the sexual harassment issues we see. It’s not just in sexual harassment cases, but that is where I’m seeing most of it,” said Hughes.

David Morrison, a principal of the litigation and labor & employment groups at law firm Goldberg Kohn, disagrees with the prevalence of emojis in workplace sexual harassment cases. And although they still possess a novel quality in the personal lives of many, he doesn’t view emojis as particularly disruptive to the employment law field. From his perspective, the message may now contain cartoon faces, but the behavior is still harassment.

“I think these are all subsets of the same policies that companies have had in place for years,” said Morrison. “Those policies tend to say, ‘Don’t download vulgar things from the internet,’ ‘Don’t circulate vulgar jokes.’ The internet probably created a need to make sure companies were making policies about content we weren’t accessing at work previously. Before the internet you had the classic example of a calendar in a locker room or something like that. When the internet allowed all that content to come into the office, companies had to deal with those problems.”

Preventing Liability With Training and Compliance

It was estimated that emojis were used by 92 percent of the world’s online population in 2.3 trillion mobile messages in 2016, according to a report published by Emogi Technologies Inc., a New York-based mobile messaging company. The report also argues that emojis are the fastest-growing language worldwide.

Love them or hate them, emojis are here to stay, which may present challenges to HR departments trying to prevent sexual harassment if their senior executives are not familiar with the latest double meanings of some emojis. It’s inevitable that there will be some employers who are still confused by emojis, according to experts.

“Sometimes it’s obvious, sometimes it’s not,” Hughes said. “In sex harassment, we often see fruit representing different body parts. It may be innocuous to people who don’t understand. It can expose companies to liabilities if they’re being used inappropriately.”

There is no black and white solution to emojis as they relate to sexual harassment in the workplace. However, in order to guard against liability, it would benefit companies to conduct regular sexual harassment training, provide clear methods of reporting for sexual misconduct in the workplace and develop communication policies that they can enforce.

As with most everything, there is a rule of reason and proportionality, according to employment law experts. When it comes to updates to the employee handbook concerning emoji use in company communications, people ought to be informed of any new policy, and be given the chance to get used to it.

“An isolated use of emojis or violations of any kind, if they’re minor they should be treated as such. Any punishment should depend on the seriousness of the offense,” said Holland. “If there’s an individual using graphic or offensive emojis, that’s pervasive and that’s a hostile work environment. Something like that needs to be treated with the seriousness it deserves.”

Max Mihelich is a writer in the Chicago area. Comment below or email editors@workforce.com.

Posted on January 3, 2018June 29, 2023

NBC’s New Anti-Harassment Policy Enters the Overreaction Phase

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

When one of your biggest stars loses his high-profile job in one the year’s biggest sexual harassment scandals, how to you react?

With a brand new, and painfully detailed, anti-harassment policy.

Page Six [h/t Kris Dunn] details NBC’s new “Matt Lauer” harassment policy:

NBC has issued strict new anti-sexual harassment rules to employees — including that staffers must snitch on any misbehaving colleagues.

NBC employees have been ordered to report any inappropriate relationships in the workplace — and if they fail to do so, they could be fired for covering up for colleagues.

Detailed rules also have been issued about conduct in the office, including how to socialize and even how to hug colleagues.

If you wish to hug a colleague, you have to do a quick hug, then an immediate release, and step away to avoid body contact.

The snitching part, I’m more than OK with. In fact, it mirrors what the EEOC, and I, have been recommending for months — that moving forward, any anti-harassment program worth its salt must place a serious onus on all employees to report any workplace harassment. As I noted a few months ago, if you’re not taking an active role to stop harassment, you’re complicit in it; and that must stop.
The workplace hugging dance-step chart … is a bit much. This is where common sense has to kick in. If you are comfortable giving a co-worker a hug (really close friends, for example), and you know that co-worker is comfortable receiving the hug, then hug away. If you have any doubts, then don’t hug. It’s really that simple.
To me, this part of NBC’s policy seems like an over-reach. In fact, it seems a bit silly. The one reaction you do not want your employees to have to your anti-harassment policy is laughter. If they reject one part of the policy, you risk them rejecting all of it, which is very dangerous.
I fear that given the revelations of the past few months, we will see more and more employers overreact with policies that try to regulate every aspect of employees’ inter-personal relationships. Until the anti-harassment pendulum swings back to a more reasoned middle ground, we must remain vigilant in rooting out and stopping all workplace harassment, while at the same time not overreaching with policies and regulations that turn employees off from the very real and valuable message we are trying to communicate.
Posted on January 2, 2018June 29, 2023

The First Nominee for the Worst Employer of 2018 Is … the Holy Harasser

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer
The inaugural nominee for the Worst Employer of 2018 is a doozy.

I bring you (courtesy of the New York Post) the holy harasser.

A 68-year-old Manhattan accountant lured his 23-year-old clerk to his home office by saying he wanted to teach her about income-tax returns — then claimed God wanted her to be his sexual plaything, according to a new lawsuit.

Eileen Kim claims in the new Manhattan Supreme Court suit that married boss Young Tai Choi’s creepy behavior started weeks after she went to work for him in January at his East 30th Street home office.

“Choi began telling her that she needed to come in after hours for ‘alone sessions’ with him on Sundays to teach her about personal income-tax returns and accounting,” according to court papers.

During the session, he told the churchgoing New Jersey resident that “she was an angel sent to him for sex and compared himself and her to Adam and Eve,” according to court papers.

When Choi yanked her onto his lap and tried to kiss her, she screamed and pushed him away, the suit says.

Kim is suing for unspecified damages.

Choi told The Post that Kim was the seductress and denied her allegations.

Please also read: The Worst Employer of 2017
You can read the full complaint [pdf] here.
Happy new year, indeed.
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 December 21, 2017July 30, 2018

The 12 Days of Employment Law Christmas (2017 edition)

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

For the past five Noels, I’ve concluded my posting year with “The 12 Days of Employment Law Christmas.” As this has become a year-end tradition at the blog, I’m sharing it again with updated verses and links. If you’re feeling brave, post a video of yourself singing along.

(Some musical accompaniment)

On the first day of Christmas,
my employment lawyer gave to me
Harvey Weinstein in a pear tree.On the second day of Christmas,
my employment lawyer gave to me
2 labor changes,
and Harvey Weinstein in a pear tree.

On the third day of Christmas,
my employment lawyer gave to me
3 data breaches,
2 labor changes,
and Harvey Weinstein in a pear tree.

On the fourth day of Christmas,
my employment lawyer gave to me
4 collective actions,
3 data breaches
2 labor changes,
and Harvey Weinstein in a pear tree.

On the fifth day of Christmas,
my employment lawyer gave to me
5 harassment claims,
4 collective actions,
3 data breaches
2 labor changes,
and Harvey Weinstein in a pear tree.

On the sixth day of Christmas,
my employment lawyer gave to me
6 Facebook firings,
5 harassment claims,
4 collective actions,
3 data breaches
2 labor changes,
and Harvey Weinstein in a pear tree.

On the seventh day of Christmas,
my employment lawyer gave to me
7 workplace posters,
6 Facebook firings,
5 harassment claims,
4 collective actions,
3 data breaches
2 labor changes,
and Harvey Weinstein in a pear tree.

On the eighth day of Christmas,
my employment lawyer gave to me
8 LGBT discriminators,
7 workplace posters,
6 Facebook firings,
5 harassment claims,
4 collective actions,
3 data breaches
2 labor changes,
and Harvey Weinstein in a pear tree.

On the ninth day of Christmas,
my employment lawyer gave to me
9 OSHA penalties,
8 LGBT discriminators,
7 workplace posters,
6 Facebook firings,
5 harassment claims,
4 collective actions,
3 data breaches
2 labor changes,
and Harvey Weinstein in a pear tree.

On the tenth day of Christmas,
my employment lawyer gave to me
10 FMLA notices,
9 OSHA penalties,
8 LGBT discriminators,
7 workplace posters,
6 Facebook firings,
5 harassment claims,
4 collective actions,
3 data breaches
2 labor changes,
and Harvey Weinstein in a pear tree.

On the eleventh day of Christmas,
my employment lawyer gave to me
11 employee handbooks,
10 FMLA notices,
9 OSHA penalties,
8 LGBT discriminators,
7 workplace posters,
6 Facebook firings,
5 harassment claims,
4 collective actions,
3 data breaches
2 labor changes,
and Harvey Weinstein in a pear tree.

On the twelfth day of Christmas,
my employment lawyer gave to me
12 accommodations,
11 employee handbooks,
10 FMLA notices,
9 OSHA penalties,
8 LGBT discriminators,
7 workplace posters,
6 Facebook firings,
5 harassment claims,
4 collective actions,
3 data breaches
2 labor changes,
and Harvey Weinstein in a pear tree.

Merry Christmas and happy holidays!
I’ll be back on Jan. 3 to kick off 2018 with the first Worst Employer nominee of the new year.

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 December 20, 2017June 29, 2023

Announcing the Worst Employer of 2017

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer
The day has finally arrived. It’s time to announce the Worst Employer of 2017.

To remind you, we had three finalists in contention for this … honor:

  • The Cancerous Boss — An employee was diagnosed with kidney cancer and required immediate surgery to remove the tumor. His employer denied the request for a 10-day leave of absence, while telling him she doesn’t “need people with cancer working in her office … this is America and in America you have to work even if you’re sick.” She finished by informing him that “with your illness, people die and I cannot keep you as a worker not knowing what is going to happen to you.”
  • The Horny Head of HR — A male HR employee complained that the female head of HR nibbled on his ear while romantically whispering, “I hope you’re not going to sue me.” The nibble followed on the heels of her repeatedly telling him about her and her husband’s swinging lifestyle, hugging him against his will, peppering him with questions about his sexual orientation, and sending various inappropriate text messages, including a picture of a man reading the book, “A** Eating Made Simple,” a video of a masturbating monkey, and a picture of a man with an erection going through airport security.
  • The Racist Boss — An African-American employee complains to her boss about his repeated racist comments in the workplace (“We’ll just make the Mexicans do it,” and telling his African-America employees, “Y’all are my b******.”). Thereafter, he Christmas gifts her a rhinestone-studded purse of the Confederate flag and several photos of him posing with said flag.
The final vote wasn’t close. The winner tallied an astounding 66% of all first place votes.
The Worst Employer of 2017 is…
The Cancerous Boss
At the end of the day, I think people’s choices came down an issue to which they could best relate — needing time off to deal with a serious medical issue.
As for me, I awarded my first place vote to The Horny Head of HR. While the misconduct may not be the most egregious among the contenders, if this is how your HR department functions, you have zero chance of success as a employer. The Horny Head of HR had the second most first place votes (18%), but finished third overall in the weighted score.
Which leaves The Racist Boss and his rhinestone studded Stars-and-Bars purse as the runner up, to assume the title in the event The Cancerous Boss cannot fulfill its duties.
This brings 2017’s contest to a close. I hope everyone had fun reading during the course of the year, and learned something along the way.
The contest will resume on Jan. 2 with the first nominee for the Worst Employer of 2018 — The Holy Harasser.
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 December 6, 2017June 29, 2023

New Year’s Resolutions, NLRB-Style

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

Have you started thinking about your New Year’s resolutions for 2018?

The NLRB’s newly minted general counsel Peter Robb  has, and employers will be very happy.

According to NLRB General Counsel Memo 18-02 [pdf], issued Dec. 1, Robb will be examining all NLRB precedents changed during President Barack Obama’s administration. The memo specifically directs regional board officials to consult Robb’s office on all cases involving precedent established on workers’ rights in “the last eight years,” and any others involving “significant legal issues.”

He also rescinded seven agency guidance memos that were issued by his Democratic-appointed predecessors (most significantly including the rescission of the NLRB’s controversial 2015 memo on employee handbook policies).

What other targets are on Robb’s radar?
  • Precedent that exposes businesses to “joint employer” liability for workplaces they do not control and workers they do not employ.
  • Prohibitions on class action waivers in employment arbitration agreements, which are intended to speed the resolution of workplace disputes and discourage costly class action litigation.
  • The erosion of confidential of workplace investigations.
  • The provision of workplace “ambush” elections over whether to form a union in as few as 10 days
  • Expanded picketing rights at the expense of employers’ private property rights
  • The opening of employer-owned email systems to union organizing activities
  • The authorization of small groups of employees—or “micro unions”—to organize
  • The restriction of unions and employers from voluntarily agreeing to resolve unforeseen bargaining issues via “management rights” clauses
Happy New Year, indeed.
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 December 5, 2017July 30, 2018

Is This the Worst Harassment Training Video of All Time or Is It the Best?

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

Much of the news lately has focused on how we, as employers, can do a better job training and otherwise educating our employees about workplace harassment.

So, I ask — is this parody the worst harassment training video of all time, or, is it so bad, that it’s actually the best training video?


I think I’m leaning toward the latter — that this video is so brilliant in its awfulness that it might just make a really good training tool, or least part of great compliance and education program.

What do you think?

Share your thoughts in the comments below.

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 December 4, 2017June 29, 2023

Our Harassment Laws Are Not the Reason for Our Sex Harassment Problem

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

Last week, the New York Times ran an Op-Ed titled, Boss Grab Your Breasts? That’s Not (Legally) Harassment.

It argues that our lax sexual harassment laws, and the courts that apply them, are responsible for our current workplace harassment problems.

In a case that went to federal court in the early 1990s, a woman presented evidence that her supervisor tried to kiss her on multiple occasions, placed “I love you” signs on her desk, called her a dumb blonde, put his hands on her shoulders and asked her out on dates. The trial court judge dismissed her suit, declaring that this conduct did not meet the threshold for sexual harassment, and the appeals court affirmed the dismissal.

Since then, courts have cited this case and others like it hundreds of times in rejecting sexual harassment claims. Such conduct, these courts have declared, is not serious enough to be harassment.

In fact, courts routinely dismiss cases brought by workers who claim their supervisors propositioned them, kissed them or grabbed their breasts. The judges declare that the conduct does not constitute harassment in a legal sense, and refuse to let the cases go to trial. How did we get here?

Courts are not the reason why we have a harassment problem permeating our workplaces; the reason is employers who have, for far too long, tuned a blind eye to these issues.

Our harassment laws are just fine. Are there anomalous results? Sure. A quick search on Lexis for “sexual harassment” reveals nearly 50,000 decisions. It’s impossible to imagine that they all got it right. I’m certain more than few would make you scratch your head.

Nevertheless, the solution is not to rewrite our harassment laws. Title VII is not and never was intended to be a code of workplace civility. It’s prohibitions against sex discrimination, as interpreted, since 1986, to prohibit sexual harassment, prohibit “severe or pervasive” misconduct that is both objectively and subjectively unwelcome.

Severe misconduct exist when one event that is so outside the bounds of decency that it alters one’s terms and conditions of employment. Pervasive misconduct results from the culmination of less egregious repetitive incidents.

These laws work just fine. Most often than not, courts either decide these cases correctly, or they settle.

Moreover, the alternative is to create a standard that is so lax, and so loosey-goosey, that just about any misconduct will rise the level of unlawfulness. This standard, while potentially appealing to some given the the current climate, would gut at-will employment.

So, if amending our workplace harassment laws isn’t the solution, what is? Or, more to the point, what will help create workplaces in which harassment is not only no longer overlooked and condoned, but expressly prohibited with no tolerance?

To this end, I suggest taking at look at the EEOC’s three-point harassment prevention plan:

  • Taking action to prevent harassment starting at the C-suite.
  • Deploying a different type of training.
  • Embracing the idea of “it’s on us”.

This is not a legal issue; it’s a cultural issue. The laws we have are more than sufficient to address this problem, as long as businesses treat it with the seriousness it deserves.

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 November 27, 2017June 29, 2023

Timing is Everything When Defending a Retaliation Claim

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

Miriam Valle worked as a ticket agent for Frank Martz Coach Company, until it fired her on Jan. 27, 2016.

Two weeks prior, she had advised her immediate supervisor, Edward Steltz, that she needed to apply for FMLA leave for breast cancer surgery. Martz approved the leave to begin on Jan. 19, and was scheduled to return to work on Jan. 25 following her surgery. Complications pushed that return dated back by four days. Before she could return, however, Martz fired her following an investigation into complaints by co-workers that she had made violent threats (allegations which Valle denied).

In Valle v. Frank Martz Coach Company (M.D. Pa. 11/16/17), the court denied the employer’s motion for summary judgment and held Valle’s FMLA retaliation claim for trial.

In ruling, the court relied heavily on the close temporal proximity between Valle’s FMLA leave and her termination.

Plaintiff’s allegations establish a close temporal proximity demonstrating a causal link between the protected activity and the adverse employment action. Plaintiff requested FMLA leave on January 14, 2016. Shortly thereafter, defendants approved plaintiff’s FMLA leave. Plaintiff began her FMLA leave sometime around January 19, 2017, and was scheduled to return on January 29, 2016. Defendants terminated plaintiff’s employment on January 27, 2016, two days before she was scheduled to return. Thus, we find that this adverse employment action, which occurred eight days after plaintiff’s FMLA leave period began, is unusually suggestive of discrimination. …

Plaintiff claims that the “most telling” evidence in this case is that Defendant Steltz testified that the first time the alleged threats came to light was when plaintiff was out on approved FMLA leave.

If you are going to terminate an employee on the heels of any protected activity, you best have all of your ducks in a row. Employees who engage in protected activity aren’t bulletproof from termination.

But you better be sure you’re using the right ammo. If there can be any doubt about your motivation, you take a huge risk in firing an employee on a timeline such as that in Valle.

Posted on November 20, 2017June 29, 2023

Employees Who Allegedly Take an Employer’s Stuff Without Authorization Don’t Win Discrimination Cases but Might Win Defamation Cases

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

Jason Shann worked as the Enterprise Desktop Management Team Leader in the IT department of Atlantic Health System.

He also suffered from tinnitus, a crackling and buzzing noises in his left ear caused by an Eustachian tube dysfunction. His tinnitus would flare up unpredictably, and, as it worsened, it caused him to suffer anxiety and depression.

As a result, he applied for, and was granted, a 21-day FMLA leave, and intermittent leave thereafter upon his return to work. Despite the intermittent FMLA leave, his tinnitus continued to worsen. Ultimately, he decided to take short-term disability leave, which he intended to roll into long-term disability and retirement.

Before leaving Atlantic Health, the company discovered that he had “removed” a plethora of computer assets from his workplace. According to the police report, he took four laptops, one iPad, three hard drives, one portable DVD-R/RW and RAM drive, one mouse and an AC adapter for one of the laptops. The company also discovered that he had used unauthorized third-party software to overwrite more than 27,000 files on the one hard drive he left at his desk.

Needless to say, Atlantic Health cut short Shann’s retirement plans and terminated his employment. It also emailed one of its computer vendors to advise that it had “launched an internal investigation to determine if Atlantic Health employee Jason Shann has been operating a side business performing computer support while on Atlantic Health time clock.”

The court had little difficulty concluding that Shann’s disability played no role in the termination decision:

It should be no surprise that “the removal of [Atlantic Health] equipment and software from the facility without authorization” could precipitate Shann’s termination. Atlantic Health’s employment policies unequivocally state that behavior that warranting immediate termination is “theft, misappropriation, or unauthorized possession of property belonging to Atlantic Health System.” Here, Atlantic Health’s corporate investigator reviewed security video tapes from August 16, 2011. In these videos, Shann is seen “carrying what looked to [be] computer hardware on both occasions.” …

Additionally, Atlantic Health terminated Shann for “the removal of proprietary hard drives from his workstation’s computer without authorization.” At his workstation, Shann had a desktop computer containing three hard drives. On August 16, 2011, Shann removed two hard drives from the desktop computer by “pop[ping] the case off, unplug[ing] it, and tak[ing] [them] out.” Shann did not ask for authorization before removing the hard drives and taking them home. …

Lastly, Atlantic Health also terminated Shann for using an “unauthorized … third-party program” to “overwrit[e] … over 27,000 files from his workstation’s computer.” Notably, the record indicates that the third-party program was run on August 16, 2011.

As a result, Shann lost his disability discrimination, and FMLA interference and retaliation claim.

The employer, however, was not able to convince the court to dismiss Shann’s defamation claim resulting from the post-termination comments made to its computer vendor.

What lessons can we learn from this case?
Employers must tread very carefully when communicating personnel decisions, or the facts underlying them, to third parties. The employer really did not have a compelling need to disclose its beliefs about Shann’s wrongdoing. And I’m not sure it disclosed anything untruthful (at least as the facts are presented in the case). But the court was not necessarily convinced and held that issue over for trial.
In other words, be careful what you communicate about employees and their terminations. Sometimes (most times), less is very much more.
Come back tomorrow for a discussion of the other issue in this case — whether the employer failed to accommodate Shann’s tinnitus.
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.

Posts navigation

Previous page Page 1 … Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 … Page 70 Next page

 

Webinars

 

White Papers

 

 
  • Topics

    • Benefits
    • Compensation
    • HR Administration
    • Legal
    • Recruitment
    • Staffing Management
    • Training
    • Technology
    • Workplace Culture
  • Resources

    • Subscribe
    • Current Issue
    • Email Sign Up
    • Contribute
    • Research
    • Awards
    • White Papers
  • Events

    • Upcoming Events
    • Webinars
    • Spotlight Webinars
    • Speakers Bureau
    • Custom Events
  • Follow Us

    • LinkedIn
    • Twitter
    • Facebook
    • YouTube
    • RSS
  • Advertise

    • Editorial Calendar
    • Media Kit
    • Contact a Strategy Consultant
    • Vendor Directory
  • About Us

    • Our Company
    • Our Team
    • Press
    • Contact Us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms Of Use
Proudly powered by WordPress