Skip to content

Workforce

Category: Legal

Posted on December 18, 2016June 29, 2023

Dropbox Learns — Painfully — One Twitter Snafu and You Are Toast

Media can be tricky. Especially social media. One poorly written sentence, ill-timed tweet or poor photo choice, and you’ll end up with your corporate image in a sling.

Ask cloud storage company Dropbox. They know.

Poor Dropbox. When they released their diversity numbers earlier this week, they meant well, really they did. If only the trolls would stop trolling, and the eyes would stop rolling long enough to realize, the picture in their unfortunate Dec. 14th tweet was not connected — in a perfectly straight line — to the associated content’s message.

I get it. Tweet, “Diversity at Dropbox: http://bit.ly/2hFEqlS” and then show a picture of five white people and an Asian woman — who you might confuse for a sixth white person if you’re not looking closely — and it’s bound to cause a bit of confusion. But I sincerely believe the company and the unfortunate media/marketing person who created the tweet and is now locked in a dark room with an ice pack over his/her eyes was referring to the information, not the picture. It was just poorly done; a mistake.

According to an Inc. article: “About five hours after Dropbox sent out its report, the company clarified that the picture includes Dropbox co-founder Arash Ferdowsi who is Iranian, Head of People Arden Hoffman who is lesbian and Lin-Hua Wu, a vice president of communications, who is Asian.

“This photo was meant to highlight the increase of women in senior leadership roles,” the company said in a statement. “We realize it doesn’t fully represent the diverse workforce we strive for at Dropbox. Improving our diversity continues to be one of our top priorities in 2017 and beyond.”

OK, Dropbox. We’re here for that. We know perfection does not exist. People make mistakes. Companies do too. The thing is, it’s absolutely terrible to make them on social media. Really. It’s terrible.

For instance, I’m starting a YouTube channel — no, there will be no makeup tutorials; I’m not that skilled — and my sister, trying to help me get the 100 subscribers I need to get a custom URL and not the hodgepodge of numbers and letters that currently represent me, posted a notice on Facebook. But she spelled my name wrong, and she didn’t have a call to action: Please click here to subscribe to Kellye’s channel. So, essentially, she was misrepresenting me, and there is no point to it. I was not pleased.

You know me. You do not see my work full of errors. My picture choices may not always be fabulous, and they may occasionally veer over the controversial line, but they’re usually appropriate, my links work, and the basics are there. You get the message whether you agree with it or not.

But when I tried to correct her, she acted like I’d just kicked her brand new, shiny black fur, gold-eyed puppy across a field. Image is important! Especially when you’re trying to get a new project off the ground in a visual platform — or in Dropbox’s case, when a company is trying to convey valuable information, set a tone and position its brand a certain way.

The venom that followed Dropbox’s mistake — the tweeted photo of a row of different mayonnaise jars seemed especially painful — the heat? It was telling. It was also excessive and unnecessary, but people are tired of companies soft soaping them when it comes to diversity and inclusion.

Potential customers, clients and employees want vendors/employers to do better. In, many cases, they demand it. Just last week I blogged that organizational diversity is a key motivator for Millennial job seekers. Image is everything.

“It’s important that marketing material make people feel welcome,” said Deldelp Medina, director of the residency program at nonprofit organization Code2040, in the aforementioned Inc. article.

Diversity and inclusion in the workplace is not something one can be careless about. Not today. Not with what’s going on in the world. And certainly not with the shortages of skilled talent that so many industries — like tech — are currently suffering from. Companies cannot afford to needlessly alienate anyone.

The sad part is Dropbox’s new diversity report actually had promising data to share: It’s representation of women in leadership increased 6 percentage points, and its number of black employees rose from 2 to 3 percent in 2016. The number of Hispanics also increased from 5 to 6 percent.

“We’ve made modest strides,” Dropbox said in its report, “but we still have work to do.” The company called them modest strides. I’d probably say baby steps, but I’ve been known to quibble over word choice. Whatever progress they’ve made, now no one cares. All because of one photo.

Sure, it would have been kinder to say: “Um, guys? You might wanna send another tweet clarifying that you were actually announcing your diversity numbers. Also, a new photo would be great, as diversity amidst white-ish people — and one Asian — isn’t as visually compelling as a more colorful array of employees.”

But kind has no place on the internet. This is the era of Glassdoor and keyboard courage. Pick the wrong pic, and you should expect headlines like this: “Dropbox Roasted for ‘Diversity’ Tweet Featuring Too Many White People” and “Dropbox Photo Fail Shows How Not to Celebrate Diversity.”

Kellye Whitney is associate editorial director for Workforce. Comment below or email editor@workforce.com.

Posted on December 12, 2016June 29, 2023

Common Sense (Sort of) Prevails in Ohio Over Gun-Owner Discrimination Law

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer
Last week,
My Twitter feed absolutely exploded with confusion and outrage.
I am happy to report that the Ohio Senate relented to common sense, and amended the bill to remove any reference to Ohio’s employment discrimination law and any inclusion of gun ownership as a protected class. What remains in Sub. S.B. 199 [pdf], however, is the unabridged right of concealed handgun license holders to store their firearms in their vehicles parked on the property of their employers.

2923.1210. (A) A business entity, property owner, or public or private employer may not establish, maintain, or enforce a policy or rule that prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting a person who has been issued a valid concealed handgun license from transporting or storing a firearm or ammunition when both of the following conditions are met:
(1) Each firearm and all of the ammunition remains inside the person’s privately owned motor vehicle while the person is physically present inside the motor vehicle, or each firearm and all of the ammunition is locked within the trunk, glove box, or other enclosed compartment or container within or on the person’s privately owned motor vehicle;

(2) The vehicle is in a location where it is otherwise permitted to be.

All signals point the House and Senate passing this amended bill, and Gov. John Kasich signing it into law before year’s end.

So, if Ohio law is going to permit your employees to store handguns in their cars on your property, what are you, as a business, to do to protect your business, its employees, customers, vendors and others? One option is to engage in pre-work security screenings, including posting guards, installing metal detectors, and engaging in pat-down searches. The expense, however, is cost-prohibitive for most businesses, and nevertheless it is the epitome of overkill.

A logical and more cost-effective starting point for most businesses is with an Active Shooter / Emergency Action Plan, so that your business knows how to respond in the event this evil enters your workplace.

The Department of Homeland Security published a guide [pdf] on how to respond to an active shooter. The guide instructs:

  • How to respond if an active shooter is in your vicinity (evacuate, hide, or, as a last resort, take action).
  • How to respond when law enforcement arrives.
  • How to train your staff (including implementing an Emergency Action Plan and running training exercises).
  • How HR and management should prepare for, and respond during, an active shooter event.

DHS also suggests that an effective Emergency Action Plan contains each of the following:

  • A preferred method for reporting fires and other emergencies.
  • An evacuation policy and procedure.
  • Emergency escape procedures and route assignments (i.e., floor plans, safe areas).
  • Contact information for, and responsibilities of individuals to be contacted under the EAP.
  • Information concerning local area hospitals (i.e., name, telephone number, and distance from your location).
  • An emergency notification system.

I hope this is an issue your never business never has to confront. If you must, however, never has the proverb “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure” been more apt.

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 7, 2016June 29, 2023

7 Tips to Avoid the Holiday Party Nightmare

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

’Tis the season for workplace holiday parties. It a time to reflect on the past year and celebrate all your organization has accomplished. It is also a time to avoid liability, hopefully. A lot can go wrong at a holiday party.

For example, consider Shiner v. State Univ. of N.Y. (W.D.N.Y. 11/2/12).

Lesley Shiner worked as a clerk at the University at Buffalo Dental School. Dr. Jude Fabiano was the school’s associate dean and Steve Colombo its director of clinical operations. Each year the school holds an annual Christmas party. Shiner attended the 2010 party despite her reservations about sexually inappropriate conduct and sexually explicit comments made by Colombo and Fabiano during the 2008 and 2009 parties.

Shiner should have listened to her inner voice and stayed home. In her lawsuit, she alleged that during the party Fabiano:

  • Fondled her breasts.
  • Inserted his tongue in her ear.
  • Chased her around a table.
  • Grabbed her by her neck and bent her over a table.
  • Pushed her face together with that of another female employee and told them to kiss, stated that he wanted some “girl on girl” action, and asked for the three of them to be together sexually.
  • Pulled her on his lap and asked her to meet him somewhere after the party.
  • Pinched and squeezed her ribs when she resisted his advances.
She also alleged that Colombo encouraged and cheered Fabiano’s behavior, and also grabbed her hand and pulled her onto his lap, stating to Fabiano “you might be the boss, but I have her now.”
All you need to know about Shiner case is that, unsurprisingly, the court denied the school’s motion to dismiss.
How do you avoid your workplace turning into Shiner? Consider the following seven tips:
  1. Normal work rules and standards apply to holiday parties. As a subtle reminder, consider holding an anti-harassment refresher in anticipation of the party.
  2. Review your insurance policies for alcohol-related exclusions.
  3. When scheduling your party, consider that employees are less likely to indulge on a work night than a Friday or Saturday.
  4. Remind employees to drink responsibly and plan ahead for safe transportation. Help employees by limiting consumption via drink tickets, offering plenty of non-alcoholic options, and providing designated drivers, cab vouchers, or hotel rooms for those unfit to drive home.
  5. Have trained and experienced bartenders, and emphasize that they should not over-pour drinks, or serve guests who appear intoxicated or underage.
  6. Designate one or more managers or supervisors to refrain from drinking and monitor the party for over-consumption.
  7. Close the bar an hour or more before the party ends.

At the end of the day, it all comes down to culture. If your company has a culture of condoning Shiner’s misbehavior, no policy or training will render your holiday parties (or any workday, for that matter) safe.

You need to decide what kind of company you want to be, and set the tone year-round. Then, when it comes time for the annual holiday party, you will not have to worry about an employee being bent over a table or asked for a threesome. And, if it happens, your employees will have confidence that your company will address the offending behavior quickly and severely.

Cheers, be safe, and enjoy your holiday celebrations.

Posted on December 4, 2016June 29, 2023

Prescribed Drugs Blur Policies

There is no doubt that America is in the grips of a prescription drug crisis. You cannot turn on the news without seeing a story about the dangers of opioid addiction.

And prescription medications, including dangerous opioids, provide risk for employers. The ADA’s reasonable accommodation obligations for employee medical conditions extends to the medication prescribed to employees to treat those conditions. Thus, an employer can be liable for failing to accommodate an employee’s use of legally prescribed medications.

For example, the EEOC recently sued a Georgia medical center for disability discrimination after it fired a physician for revealing that he was treating chronic neurological and musculoskeletal problems with legally prescribed narcotics. The lawsuit alleged that the employee supplied a doctor’s note explaining that he was being treated for chronic pain with a prescribed narcotic, and further explaining that he was subject to urine tests and monitoring via the Georgia Board of Pharmacy to ensure compliance with his treatment plan.

The employer, however, allegedly assumed that the medication rendered him unable to meet his job requirements and failed to engage in the interactive process with this employee to determine whether he could perform the essential functions of his job with, or without, reasonable accommodation based on the medical certification.

How is an employer supposed to maintain a safe workplace and lawfully test for legally prescribed drugs that could impair an employee’s performance? Consider these four thoughts.

Blanket prohibitions are illegal. The ADA imposes on employers an obligation to make individualized inquiries about implications such as reasonable accommodations and direct threats. A blanket prohibition against on-the-job use of prescription medications violates this obligation.

Drug testing. Drug testing programs can include legally prescribed drugs. An employer cannot, however, have a blanket policy excluding from employment any employee testing positive for a prescribed drug. Instead, following a positive test, the employer should ask if the employee is taking any prescribed drugs that would explain the positive result.

Drug-free workplace policies. It is permissible to include prescription drugs in drug-free workplace policies. These policies can require employees to disclose prescription drugs that may adversely affect judgment, coordination, or the ability to perform job duties. After disclosure, an employer must, on a case-by-case basis determine whether it can make a reasonable accommodation to enable the individual to remain employed.

Post-disclosure handling. After an employer learns that an employee is taking a prescription drug that may affect job performance, it should request a medical certification regarding the effect of the medication on the ability to safely perform essential job functions. That certification will enable the employer to engage the employee in the interactive process and making the individualized determination of whether a reasonable accommodation is even possible.

What about marijuana? Currently, medically prescribed marijuana is lawful in 25 states plus the District of Columbia. Does the ADA treat marijuana like any other legally prescribed drug, limiting an employer’s ability to terminate for marijuana use?

Thankfully for employers, every state and federal court that has examined this issue so far (and, granted, the sample size is small), the answer is no, employers have no duty to accommodate disabled employees’ lawful use of medical marijuana.

Why? Because even though the use might be lawful under state law, federal law still criminalizes it. The ADA does not protect an employee currently using illegal drugs as a qualified individual with a disability.

Moreover, the ADA does not consider testing for illegal drugs to be a protected medical examination. Thus, the ADA does not restrict how or when an employer tests for illegal drugs, or what employer chooses to do with the results.

As a result, every court that has examined the issue so far has concluded that an employer can enforce a drug-free-workplace or zero-tolerance policy against off-duty marijuana use.

The bottom line for legal drugs? The ADA is all about engaging in conversations and avoiding assumptions. When dealing with an employee’s medications, silence on an employer’s part equals liability. When an employee presents for duty with a prescription medication, ask, certify, verify and, if possible, accommodate.

If you cannot make a reasonable accommodation after engaging the employee, then, and only then, are you free to consider termination.

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 29, 2016June 29, 2023

‘Perceived’ National Origin Discrimination May not be Illegal, but …

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

Lost in the maelstrom of the

The guidance, which replaces the EEOC’s older 2002 guidance and covers topic such as citizenship, language issues and English-only policies, and harassment, is recommended reading for all employers, as are the EEOC’s companion Q&A and small business fact sheet.

Let me point out, however, one area of contention—the issue of “perceived” national origin discrimination.

According to the EEOC, “National origin discrimination means discrimination because an individual (or his or her ancestors) is from a certain place or has the physical, cultural, or linguistic characteristics of a particular national origin group,” and “Title VII prohibits employer actions that have the purpose or effect of discriminating against persons because of their real or perceived national origin.”

The federal courts, however, have a different view.

Consider, for example, Longoria v. Autoneum N. Am. (N.D. Ohio 9/13/16), which concerned whether one of American dissent could pursue a Title VII national origin discrimination claim based on his employer’s perception that he was Mexican. The court said no:

Longoria cites no Ohio case law that has validated, or even discussed, this theory of liability. Because Ohio courts generally took to Title VII cases when applying O.R.C. § 4112.02, I conclude that the Ohio courts would not recognize a perceived-national-origin discrimination claim, given its widespread failure in the federal district courts.

Also consider Burrage v. FedEx Freight, Inc. (N.D. Ohio 3/29/12) (about which I’ve previously blogged), which makes it clear that Title VII does not protect one from discrimination based on perceived characteristics, only actual characteristics.

Thus, if an employee sues you based on claim of perceived national origin discrimination, it is highly likely that I will be able to win that case (EEOC guidance notwithstanding).

Legal or illegal, however, the issue of perceived inclusion in a protected class raises a deeper issue. What kind of employer do you want to be? Do you really want to be the employer who condones calling a Mexican employee a wetback, yet wins in court because she’s really American? Or, the employer who win the lawsuit brought by your Indian-American employee who was repeatedly called “ISIS”?

Racism and xenophobia are still racism and xenophobia, and legal technicalities do not justify them having place in your workplace, period.

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 28, 2016June 29, 2023

It’s 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 

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, pulled from CareerBuilder’s 2016 Cyber Monday Survey:

  • 53% of employees use time at work to shop online.
  • 49% use their personal smart phones or tablets to shop at work.
  • Yet, only 11% of employers have fired someone for holiday shopping on the internet.

In other words, more and more companies are allowing employees to shop online from work.

Yet, just because companies allow a practice to occur does not mean it makes good business sense. Should you turn a blind eye towards you 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 (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 the CareerBuilder survey shows more employees are doing anyway). By trying to control employees’ internet habits, employers are fighting a battle they cannot win. The smartphone 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.
As for me, I did most of my online shopping over the weekend. So, it’s back to work for me.
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 22, 2016June 29, 2023

Dropping Some Wage and Hour Wisdom on Turkey Giveaways

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

One law firm for which I used to work provided each staff member an annual Thanksgiving turkey as a holiday thank you to its employees. With the hindsight of two decades of employment-law experience, here’s my question — should the fair market value of that turkey been included in the employees’ regular rate of pay? Because if it was, the company would have to include its value in the calculation of employees’ overtime rates.

Thankfully, the FLSA excludes such gifts from the regular rate of pay. Employers, your Thanksgiving turkeys and supermarket gift cards are safe from the clutches of the DOL’s Wage and Hour Division.

Under the FLSA, “regular rate” does not include “sums paid as gifts; payments in the nature of gifts made at Christmas time or on other special occasions, as a reward for service, the amounts of which are not measured by or dependent on hours worked, production, or efficiency.”

To qualify under this exclusion, “the bonus must be actually a gift or in the nature of a gift. If it is measured by hours worked, production, or efficiency, the payment is geared to wages and hours during the bonus period and is no longer to be considered as in the nature of a gift.”

The DOL gives this example:

If the bonus paid at Christmas or on other special occasion is a gift or in the nature of a gift, it may be excluded from the regular rate under section 7(e)(1) even though it is paid with regularity so that the employees are led to expect it and even though the amounts paid to different employees or groups of employees vary with the amount of the salary or regular hourly rate of such employees or according to their length of service with the firm so long as the amounts are not measured by or directly dependent upon hours worked, production, or efficiency.

So, what does one have to establish such that a turkey or other holiday gift is excluded from the regular rate calculation?

  1. It is a discretionary gift.
  2. Its value is not measured by hours worked, production achieved, or efficiency attained.
  3. It can be provided with sufficient regularity such that employees expect it (i.e., an annual tradition), provided that it remains discretionary and not tied to hours worked, production, or efficiency.

I’m off the rest of the week to enjoy my turkey and fixings with my family. I hope you enjoy yours too. And, I hope you take you at least a few moments to reflect on that which you are thankful. So often we get bogged down in the everyday, which can prove to be both negative and mundane. One of the reasons I love Thanksgiving so much (other than my mother-in-law’s turkey) is because it gives you the chance to stop and reflect on all of the good that you have in your life. And we each have a lot of it.

Cheers.

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 21, 2016June 29, 2023

Some Workplace Haiku to Start Your Week

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer

Lately, the news has been so grim, with

Cleveland’s Fox 8 recently published a list of workplace haiku. Here are some of my favorites:
Office thermostat
Why do you hate me so much?
I’m freakin’ freezing
My biggest weakness
Why would you even ask that?
Nobody’s perfect
Used corporate card
To buy beer and PokĂŠmon
Does that count as fraud?
Tweeted those pictures
Interview begins at 2
Can I delete them?

Reading those inspired me to write a few of my own.

Workplace harassment
HR ignored her for months
We have to pay, big!
Email from PayPal
Time to update my account
What is ransomware?
HR’s big headache?
An hour here, hour there
Intermittent leave
Exempt / non-exempt?
We owe unpaid overtime
Class lawsuit; oh crap!
How about you? Share your own workplace haiku in the comments below, or on Twitter, with the hashtag #haikuatwork.
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 3, 2016June 29, 2023

Employers, Do Not Ignore Obvious Disability Accommodations

Jon Hyman The Practical Employer
All the way back in 2014,

An employee must ask for ADA accommodation to receive it.

That is, an employee must ask for an accommodation unless the employee’s need for an accommodation is so obvious that the employer cannot reasonably turn a blind eye toward it.

Case in point? Kowitz v. Trinity Health (8th Cir. 10/17/16).

Roberta Kowtiz worked for Trinity Health as a respiratory therapist and lead technician in its blood gas laboratory. She also suffered from cervical spinal stenosis, a degenerative spinal disease, for which she took a 12-week FMLA leave. She returned to work with restrictions that included max eight-hour shifts and no lifting more than 10 pounds. In the interim, Trinity updated the training requirements for Kowitz’s department to include renewed CPR training. Kowitz’s work limitations, however, prevented her from completing the training, a failure which resulted in her termination.

In her ensuing ADA lawsuit, the appellate court concluded that Kowitz’s failure to request a reasonable accommodation relative to the CPR training was not fatal to her ADA claim.

Though Kowitz did not ask for a reasonable accommodation of her condition in so many words, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Kowitz, her notification to her supervisor that she would not be able to obtain the required certification until she had completed physical therapy implied that an accommodation would be required until then.

What is the key takeaway for employers? You cannot ignore what you know about an employee’s disability and the potential need for an accommodation. Instead of ignoring the employee, you must engage in the interactive process with that employee to determine the need for, and feasibility of, the accommodation, whether or not the employee actually requests it.
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 October 10, 2016June 29, 2023

5 Ways to Manage the Workplace Immigration Process

WF_1016_LEGAL_ImmigrationImage_302
Employers must follow Form I-9 rules for all employees regardless of national origin, citizenship status or immigration status.

Whether immigration becomes more restrictive or expansive following the November general election, the next administration will most likely continue to encourage workforce investigations of Forms I-9 and employers’ enrollment in E-Verify.

Federal law requires employers to follow Form I-9 rules consistently for all employees regardless of national origin, citizenship status or immigration status.

Here are some tips to help employers answer questions that might arise during the hiring practice that could otherwise lead to discrimination.

Avoid unlawful pre-screening before an offer of employment is accepted.

Employers are prohibited from using the Form I-9, E-Verify, and/or the Social Security Number Verification Service to pre-screen employment candidates to determine whether they are authorized to work. The Form I-9 should only be completed after an offer of employment has been made and accepted. Employers also are not permitted to use E-Verify until the Form I-9 has been completed.

E-Verify was designed to help employers identify fraudulent documents and establish a lawful workforce, but E-Verify is limited and is not a safe harbor for employers. An E-Verify query against an employee can result in a tentative non-confirmation even if the employee is a U.S. citizen with the right to work in the United States. Employers should never automatically assume that someone is unauthorized solely on the basis of a tentative non-confirmation. Employers should provide an employee with a chance to attempt to correct the issue in E-Verify consistent with E-Verify rules before ever considering whether termination of employment is warranted.

If employers want to determine whether a job applicant requires sponsorship for work authorization, the Department of Justice’s Office of Special Counsel has stated that the following language is appropriate to ask prior to hire: “Are you legally authorized to work in the United States? Do you now or in the future require sponsorship for employment visa status?”

Inquiring about status to determine whether an export license is required.

U.S. citizens and nationals, refugees, asylees (a person who is seeking or has been granted political asylum) and recent lawful permanent residents are protected from citizenship status discrimination. These individuals are also considered “U.S. persons” under the Export Administration Regulations and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, and do not require an export license.

“Non-U.S. persons” who will be exposed to sensitive information may require an export license in accordance with U.S. export controls laws. Employers who sponsor foreign nationals for a work visa must also attest as to whether an export license is required.

The Department of Justice’s Office of Special Counsel indicated that questions about citizenship and immigration status that are asked to all new hires and candidates for positions that are subject to export control laws are not likely discriminatory if the employer’s sole purpose is to determine whether an export license is required because of the position.

If employers ask these questions to influence a hiring decision or to determine whether the scope of work should be limited, they could be deemed discriminatory.

Require all personnel who complete Forms I-9 to undergo ongoing training to prevent discriminatory practices during the I-9 completion process.

The Form I-9 must be completed for every employee hired after Nov. 6, 1986. Officials announced that a new Form I-9 is being introduced this year to include “smart I-9 features,” such as help text and tools to facilitate data entry.

During the I-9 completion process, employers cannot legally request specific documents or too many documents from employees. Employers should present the list of acceptable documents to an employee so that the employee may choose whether to present a List A identity and work authorization document, or a combination of both a List B identity document and List C work authorization document.

Employees are only required to present a valid and original document. Improper rejection of valid documents could be deemed discriminatory.

Establish protocol to address fraud.

Employers should have a written policy with instructions to employers about what to do if an employee admits to previously presenting fraudulent documents to complete the Form I-9. An employer is not required to terminate employment unless it is the employer’s policy to do so where an employee admits to previously committing fraud and then presents an alternative valid document showing work authorization. The employee may continue working so long as alternative documentation is presented that appears genuine and related to the employee. On the other hand, an employer may decide that fraud will not be tolerated under any circumstance. Whatever the employer decides, the critical issue is that the policy be applied consistently.

Compliance audits should be carefully carried out to avoid the appearance of discrimination.

Employers should carefully plan the timing and scope of an audit to ensure that the audit is not perceived as unfairly targeting a specific group of employees. For example, an internal audit should not be limited to employees of one specific national origin. During a compliance audit, employers review historical Forms I-9 and, if attached, copies of documents presented during the I-9 completion process. During this process, if an employer reviews the photocopies of documents and determines that the validity of the documentation is questionable, then an employer must proceed cautiously.

In addition to complying with immigration law, employers must be careful to comply with anti-discrimination laws and export control laws. Due to the complexity of the laws, employers should obtain training and seek immigration counsel when creating their immigration policies.

Avalyn C. Langemeier is a partner with Foster LLP. Kari Blackman is a senior associate with Foster LLP. Both practice employment-based immigration law in Houston.

Posts navigation

Previous page Page 1 … Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 … 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