Skip to content

Workforce

Category: Legal

Posted on March 17, 2010August 28, 2018

Use of Temporary Workers Also Invites Exposures to Lawsuits

As the use of temporary workers increases, employers need to guard against the potential liabilities and other pitfalls of bringing in such workers, experts say.


Even though a staffing agency may cut a temporary worker’s check, experts say employers remain obligated to comply with state and federal employment laws, including discrimination statutes. There also are situations in which an employer could be required to provide benefits, experts say.


After several months of declines in the number of temporary help services employees in the U.S. workforce, the figure hit a yearly low in July 2009 at 1.7 million. Since then, the number has risen, hitting an estimated 1.9 million in December on a seasonally adjusted basis, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The BLS does not track temporary workers or independent contractors hired directly by employers, a much smaller number than temp workers hired through agencies.


Observers say the recent temp hiring upswing could reflect an improving economy.


“I’m hopeful this is a sign that employers are dipping their toe back into the water,” says Lorie E. Almon, a partner with Seyfarth Shaw in New York, who has seen increased client interest in hiring temporary workers.


Attorneys say temporary workers hired through staffing agencies generally are considered to be employed by both the agency and company, even though the agency pays the salary.


“Some employers don’t realize when they hire temporary employees through temp agencies they’re potentially exposing themselves to most, if not all, the same risks that are involved in directly hiring employees,” says Enzo Der Boghossian, an associate with law firm Proskauer Rose in Los Angeles.


“As long as you control those employees and you require them to adhere to your policies” and they are directly supervised by the firm, “they can be found to essentially be your employee under various employment laws,” says Mark M. Schorr, a partner with law firm Erickson & Sederstrom in Lincoln, Nebraska.


“There are elaborate agreements that dictate that the individual remains the legal employee of the temporary agency, and the temporary agency is legally bound to pay their wages and their workers’ compensation insurance and all of that,” Schorr says. But when it comes to employment, discrimination and sexual harassment claims, “a myriad of laws” protect workers even though “they’re not technically employed by that employer,” he says.


Whether workers are brought in by a staffing agency or directly, observers say employers need to be concerned about employment laws and benefits.


A major decision in this area was the 1999 federal appeals court ruling in Donna Vizcaino et al. v. Microsoft Corp., which cost the Redmond, Washington-based software giant more than $100 million in stock options when the court held that temporary workers were entitled to the same benefits accorded full-time Microsoft employees.


“Most employers have since [Microsoft] tried to address that issue by being more specific” in their employee benefit plan and employee handbook language, says Jeff Starling III, a partner with law firm Balch & Bingham in Birmingham, Alabama.


Failing to clearly define what is considered temporary employment “runs a real risk that one of those contingent workers could claim they were entitled to benefits under that plan. That’s probably the biggest source of potential liability, and one that’s generally best addressed through careful analysis of the benefit plans and the definitions used in those benefits plans,” Starling says.


Using an agency to hire temporary workers mitigates some of the potential risk of someone seeking reclassification as an employee, Almon says.


If an employer hires temp workers directly, it should be clear “that these are temporary assignments and to define in contracts or employment polices what benefits apply to the temp employee versus the full-time employees,” including clearly stating they are not entitled to health care, 401(k) plans and vacations, Der Boghossian says.


Observers say the degree to which the employer controls the job performance of the directly hired temp is important in determining his or her employment status. As result, employers should avoid situations where an independent contractor is told what hours to work and treated much the same as a regular employee, which Starling says could obligate the firm to pay benefits.


Employers also should comply with employment laws, observers say.


“Just because they aren’t on your payroll directly doesn’t mean you still don’t have to comply with most employment laws related to them,” says Benjamin P. Roach, a shareholder with law firm Nyemaster, Goode, West, Hansell & O’Brien in Des Moines, Iowa.


Employers “need to ensure that their temp employees are aware of, and following, the workplace harassment and discrimination policies that they have,” Der Boghossian says. “There is also the possibility of negligent hiring and negligent retention” liability if the temp agency is not conducting thorough background checks, he said.


Employers should seek indemnity agreements in the contracts they sign with temporary staffing agencies, “so that the temp agency retains liability for any employment-related claims and agrees to indemnify the employer for any losses they might suffer” if any claims are brought against it by a temp employee, Der Boghossian said.


Employers also must determine who at the temp agency is responsible for making accommodations for workers covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act, says Carolyn Rashby, an associate with Miller Law Group in San Francisco.


“Oftentimes it’s both, and you have to work out with the temp agency as to who’s responsible for what,” she says.


Small employers should be aware that bringing in temporary workers could inadvertently increase their employee count to subject them to laws imposed on firms with 50 or more workers, such as the Family and Medical Leave Act, Rashby says.


One advantage of staffing agencies is they generally pay workers’ compensation premiums for the worker, which provides the employer with liability protection if the worker is injured.


But employers still should adequately train temporary workers, because a staffing agency’s increased workers’ comp costs ultimately will be passed on to the employer, says Bruce Hockman, Philadelphia-based workers’ compensation practice leader for Towers Watson & Co.


Workforce Management Online, March 2010 — Register Now!

Posted on March 11, 2010August 10, 2018

Goldman Sachs Faces Union-Plan Lawsuit Over Executive Pay

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 98 Pension Fund in Philadelphia filed suit against Goldman Sachs Group, accusing it of overpaying its executives while underpaying its shareholders and damaging its stock price.


The suit, filed Monday, March 8 in Delaware Court of the Chancery in Wilmington by the $562 million pension fund, seeks to stop Goldman Sachs from allocating 47 percent of its 2009 net revenue to compensation. The pension fund is a Goldman Sachs shareholder; the number of shares it owns wasn’t available.


Also, the suit seeks to require that Goldman Sachs management bear the cost of the $500 million the firm pledged in November for philanthropic and lending support for small business as an “apology for taking enormous bonuses.” It also wants management to be responsible for paying any fees imposed by the government on banks in reaction to their excessive compensation practices.


Also named as defendants are Lloyd C. Blankfein, chairman and CEO; the other 11 Goldman Sachs directors; and two non-director executives, David A. Viniar, executive vice president and CFO, and J. Michael Evans, vice chairman.


“Goldman’s employees are unreasonably overpaid for the management functions they undertake, and shareholders are vastly underpaid for the risk taken with their equity,” the suit states.


“We believe this lawsuit is completely without merit,” said Ed Canaday, a Goldman Sachs spokesman.


Filed by Barry B. Burr of Pensions & Investments, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.


Stay informed and connected. Get human resources news and HR features via Workforce Management’s Twitter feed or RSS feeds for mobile devices and news readers.

Posted on March 10, 2010August 10, 2018

Senate Passes COBRA Premium Subsidy Extension

The U.S. Senate approved tax legislation on a 62-36 vote Wednesday, March 10, that would further extend COBRA health insurance premium subsidies.


Under H.R. 4213, the 65 percent, 15-month federal premium subsidy would be extended to employees involuntarily terminated through December 31.


The vote followed a stopgap extension for employees terminated involuntarily from March 1-31 that President Barack Obama signed into law last week.


The Senate measure, which was introduced as a substitute amendment to H.R. 4213 already passed by the House, also would allow employees who first lost group coverage due to a reduction in hours and then were terminated to receive the COBRA premium subsidy, so long as certain conditions were met.


Other provisions would give employers more time to make required contributions to their pension plans and extend other expiring U.S. Tax Code sections.


The bill now moves back to the House. 


Filed by Jerry Geisel of Business Insurance, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.


 


Stay informed and connected. Get human resources news and HR features via Workforce Management’s Twitter feed or RSS feeds for mobile devices and news readers.

Posted on March 4, 2010August 31, 2018

Four New York Reps Sue LPL Financial Corp. for Discrimination

LPL Financial Corp. has once again wound up in court over a firm it snapped up during its buying binge a few years ago.


On Monday, March 1, a group of New York brokers who worked for Independent Financial Marketing Group Inc., which was acquired by LPL in 2008, sued their old firm and LPL, alleging discrimination and harassment based on religion, national origin and race. The four brokers, who filed the suit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York in Brooklyn, are of the Greek Orthodox religion and are of Greek ancestry, ethnicity and heritage, according to the lawsuit.


At the center of the lawsuit is a series of stinging remarks allegedly made by a sales manager, Matt Baval, who worked for IFMG and is currently registered with LPL. According to the lawsuit, Baval said that he wanted to “get those Greenpoint Greeks,” referring to the brokers, who had previously worked for Greenpoint Financial Advisors.


This is the second time in recent months that LPL has been drawn into legal wrangling by one of the five broker-dealers it acquired in 2007 and 2008. In November, LPL Investment Holdings Inc., LPL Financial’s parent company, sued Pacific Life Insurance Co., from which it acquired three broker-dealers.


That suit claimed Pacific Life was in breach of contract and attempting to duck paying what could be millions of dollars in settlements and awards stemming from the actions of rogue brokers at the three firms, which Pacific Life sold to LPL in 2007 for about $100 million in cash and stock.


In the suit filed this week against LPL, brokers Tasso Koumoulis, Christos Hatzis, Dominic Milito and Peter Dafniotis are also suing Astoria Federal Savings and Loan Association. While affiliated with IFMG and LPL, each broker worked out of a different bank branch of Astoria Federal Savings.


According to the lawsuit, Baval repeatedly belittled the brokers’ ethnic Greek backgrounds. In 2006, during Greek holy week, he allegedly said to Dafniotis, “He’s not even a real Greek anyway, he’s just married to one,” referring to Milito. Baval also allegedly said that Milito was using the Greek religion as an excuse for taking time off from work.


In March 2007, Baval allegedly asked Hatzis: “Is your girlfriend Greek, because she has such a big mouth?”


According to the lawsuit, on multiple occasions Baval said, “You hairy Greeks don’t shave.”


In 2008, the four reps filed discrimination charges with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which issued a notice in December giving the brokers the right to sue. Dafniotis is the only broker still employed with LPL. The other three were “unlawfully discharged” between 2007 and 2009, the suit states.


The brokers are suing for unspecified damages, including back pay and damages.


“LPL does not comment on pending litigation,” said LPL spokesman Joseph Kuo. “We emphasize that the company has longstanding practices in place that support diversity and inclusiveness in the workplace.”


Astoria Federal Savings is “probably reviewing [the lawsuit] at this time, and it’s our policy not to comment on ongoing suits or investigations,” said Peter Cunningham, a spokesman for the bank.


Baval directed questions about the suit to LPL. 


Filed by Bruce Kelly of InvestmentNews, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.


Stay informed and connected. Get human resources news and HR features via Workforce Management’s Twitter feed or RSS feeds for mobile devices and news readers.

Posted on February 26, 2010August 31, 2018

House Approves Stopgap COBRA Subsidy Extension

The House of Representatives has approved legislation to provide a stopgap 31-day extension of federal subsidies of COBRA health care premiums.


The measure, H.R. 4681, would extend the 65 percent, 15-month federal premium subsidy to employees involuntarily terminated from March 1 through March 31.Without the extension, employees laid off after February 28 would be ineligible for the subsidy.


The measure approved Thursday, February 25, also would allow employees who first lost group coverage due to a reduction in hours and then were terminated to receive the COBRA premium subsidy, so long as certain conditions were met.


The House action comes as the Senate is considering legislation, H.R. 1586, to extend the subsidy through March 28. It is possible, though, that the Senate instead will take up the House COBRA measure, which also includes provisions to extend temporarily other expiring laws.


In addition, the Senate next week is expected to consider a proposal to extend the subsidy by 10 months, so employees who lose their jobs through year-end also would be entitled to the subsidy.


 


Filed by Jerry Geisel of Business Insurance, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.


Stay informed and connected. Get human resources news and HR features via Workforce Management’s Twitter feed or RSS feeds for mobile devices and news readers.

Posted on February 25, 2010August 28, 2018

Ledbetter Fair-Pay Law Has Yet to Flood Courts

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 has kept lawsuits alive that otherwise would have been dismissed and revived others, but it has not generated the significant increase in litigation that some observers had feared.


Furthermore, federal courts generally have been conservative in interpreting the law, observers say.


However, the legislation has generated concern about the adequacy of employers’ document retention policies.


President Barack Obama signed the law on January 27, 2009, with great fanfare, as one of his first acts in office. The law says that every paycheck resulting from a previous discriminatory pay decision constitutes a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.


The fair-pay law reversed the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2007 ruling in Lilly Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. Inc. Concerns that the law would result in a flood of litigation have proved to be unfounded, observers say.


“The sky hasn’t fallen,” says Martha J. Zackin, of counsel with law firm Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky & Popeo in Boston.


“Some people got more excited” than the situation justified, says Thomas H. Christopher, a partner with Kilpatrick Stockton in Atlanta. The legislation, he says, applies only to a very limited situation and those kinds of situations come up sometimes in the courts, “but not as much as I think some people would think.”


C.R. Wright, a partner with Fisher & Phillips in Atlanta, says the provision that plaintiffs can recover only two years of back pay if they prevail may have had a dampening effect.


“I think that the limited remedy, in terms of damages, has been one reason there hasn’t been a flood of new cases,” he says. “While a person can go back more years than that to point to what they allege to have been the discriminatory conduct, they still can only recover back pay for a two-year period under the statute.”


The law, however, has kept some cases alive and revived others.


“The courts are following correctly the language of the statute for the most part, but that is opening the door for a lot of plaintiffs who would not have been allowed to go forward because their claims are time-barred,” says Christina L. Lewis, an associate with Hinckley, Allen & Snyder in Boston.


The Supreme Court’s ruling in Ledbetter limited plaintiffs to filing a complaint within 180 days of an alleged discriminatory act. The Ledbetter law gives plaintiffs up to 300 days to file a complaint, depending on their state, from the time each paycheck that is based on a discriminatory decision is issued.


Since the law’s enactment, subsequent rulings on the issue have included the September 2009 ruling in Mary Lou Mikula v. Allegheny County of Pennsylvania, in which the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia reversed its own decision and held that the plaintiff could proceed with her claim on the basis of the Ledbetter law.


Reviving a case does not necessarily mean the plaintiff will prevail, “but it means [plaintiffs] now have a shot at it, which certainly adds a cost both financial and managerial to the employer who now has to go back and try to figure out what happened” many years earlier, Mintz Levin’s Zackin says.


Allegations of Ledbetter law violations have been added to ongoing cases, and so defense attorneys are “suddenly faced with a supplementary brief to address the [Ledbetter] Fair Pay Act,” says Philip K. Miles III, an associate with McQuaide Blasko, a law firm in State College, Pennsylvania.


“It’s one more defense that falls by the wayside for defendants’ counsel and one more issue that has to be dealt with in a lot of these cases,” says Mark W. Batten, a partner with law firm Proskauer Rose in Boston. Batten has studied the 47 federal court rulings interpreting the law.


“The pattern that we’re seeing is that the courts are applying the act as it was written, but no more broadly; so where there is a compensation claim or a claim that is closely tied to a compensation claim, like denial of tenure, or a denial for promotion, the courts are holding that the passage of time is not a bar to those cases,” Batten says. “But the fears of some that the act might be applied more broadly, either to statutes other than those listed in the act or, more importantly … might be applied to discrimination claims that are not closely connected with compensation, has not materialized.”


Zackin agreed that the act’s applicability “has been somewhat limited by the courts in the last year.”


For instance, “It’s been clear that the act doesn’t apply to pension benefits.” If a worker has retired, he cannot claim he is receiving a lower pension because of a promotion denied during his active career, Zackin says.


Still, she warned, there is always the possibility of “outlier” decisions that expand employers’ potential liabilities. “You never now what the courts are going to do, unfortunately for employers.”


The legislation remains a source of concern for employers, says Miles. It is difficult to “support your side of the story when you may not have the people or the documentation to support your side of the argument,” he says.


“I would definitely say it’s still an issue for employers and it’s really going to be an ongoing issue. … It’s something they’re really going to have to continuously prepare for by creating and maintaining documentation,” Miles says.


Workforce Management Online, February 2010 — Register Now!

Posted on February 24, 2010June 29, 2023

Making the Most of Government-Sponsored Training Initiatives

Businesses, corporations and manufacturers across the country do not have to weather the current economic storm alone. State governments want to help them succeed and have tools in place to make this goal possible.


One of the most significant ways that government can help businesses is through workforce development. Although companies may not currently be hiring, they do need to prepare for future expansions or provide additional training to existing staff to increase productivity and keep workers working even in a difficult economy. Workforce development programs are one way for government agencies to provide assistance in these efforts.


Several states have created employment-related programs, with the help of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009, to increase the number of viable candidates among the unemployed and to ensure companies have the talent they need to remain competitive now and build a skilled workforce in the future.


As an example of how this funding can be used, let me describe to what’s happening here in Georgia, where Gov. Sonny Perdue created the Be Work Ready campaign to build upon the success of the Georgia Work Ready initiative. The Be Work Ready campaign encourages job seekers to not only earn a Work Ready certificate, based on the score of the WorkKeys job skills assessment, which is similar to the ACT National Career Readiness Certificate, but also to improve their skills through gap training.


Georgia’s Work Ready initiative is based on skills assessment, certification and skills-gap training for job seekers, as well as a job-profiling system for businesses. All of these services are provided free of charge. Job seekers may also complete a work habits assessment to help them identify soft-skills strengths and weaknesses. Individuals may improve by accessing skills-gap training software that is available at no cost.


States that want to strengthen their workforces look for services they can provide to businesses at no cost to them, beyond their time. Recipient businesses may be required to complete grant applications or meet other specific qualifications.


To make the most of government support, companies should:


• Contact their state or local workforce investment boards to find out about initiatives or grants that may be applicable to them.


• Contact the economic development offices at area technical colleges to discuss training opportunities, job profiling capabilities and recruitment programs.


• Reach out to area high school and college students for employment opportunities, mentoring and performance coaching.


• Seek out opportunities to partner with other companies in related industries to create joint training programs with assistance from state or local government agencies.


Government-sponsored initiatives save companies money in training costs, but more important, they increase revenue through increased productivity, increased employee morale and decreased employee turnover.


Workforce investments

The federal Workforce Investment Act of 1998 offers a comprehensive range of workforce development activities through state and local organizations. The goal of any government workforce development program is to train the emerging and current workforces to drive economic development, increased career advancement opportunities and improved quality of life. Companies, meanwhile, realize reduced employee turnover and better productivity and profitability.


The governors can use Workforce Investment Act funding for projects contained in their comprehensive workforce plans, which are approved by the U.S. Department of Labor. For example, the Georgia Work Ready initiative was created by Gov. Perdue to identify both the needs of businesses and the available skills of Georgia’s workforce, making it possible to achieve a more effective match of the right talent to the right jobs. The initiative is a part of the state’s approved Workforce Investment Act plan.


Employers that have implemented workforce assessment tools that measure core skills and work habits find they need to interview fewer candidates to find the right person for a job. According to a 2008 survey sponsored by the Governor’s Office of Workforce Development here in Georgia, businesses participating in the Georgia Work Ready initiative overwhelmingly said they would recommend Work Ready to their peers. Nearly eight in 10 leaders of participating businesses responded that Work Ready helped them find higher-quality employees. About half the companies said it saved them money in training costs.


Businesses of any size can take advantage of initiatives like Georgia Work Ready to improve their hiring processes. Larger companies should have a completed job profile—an outline of the skills needed for success and the required skill level for a position— before listing a certificate level as a part of its hiring criteria. But smaller companies can use occupational profiles and note that they prefer job candidates complete the assessment as part of the job application process. Georgia, for example, has more than 38 job profilers authorized by ACT, an independent, not-for-profit organization that provides assessment, research, information and program management solutions in the areas of education and workforce development. These profilers, who are employees of technical colleges throughout the state, provide a comprehensive and confidential job profile report that meets EEOC requirements.


Educational outreach

Businesses can start reaching out to students as early as high school, so teens can start their journey down a career pathway. In many states, high school students can participate in dual-enrollment programs to earn postsecondary credits or certificates so they will be better prepared when they enter the working world.


Businesses that partner with educational institutions have the opportunity to guide development of career pathways so they align with current and future occupational opportunities. Reaching out to high school students is especially important for emerging industries such as bioscience and energy, since students might not know these opportunities exist in the area.


Educational outreach is not limited to high school and college students. Engaging unemployed and transitioning workers who seek new skills is a goal for both educators and workforce development organizations. In addition, technical colleges can become strategic partners with local businesses for most training-related issues for existing employees.


New, existing or expanding businesses that meet certain qualifications can take advantage of no-cost customizable training for employees. For example, Georgia’s Quick Start job training program helped reinforce quality control at Engineered Fabrics Corp. in the city of Rockmart. The education program stresses bolt-threading quality checks on the fabric fuel tanks that the company manufactures for Boeing KC-135 Stratotankers, the $40 million aerial tanker that refuels military aircrafts in midair.


Many businesses can also receive tax credits that fund basic skills education for employees to enhance reading, writing or mathematical skills, up to and including the 12th-grade level.


As part of Georgia Work Ready, technical colleges provide participating businesses with job profiles. These profiles give companies a thorough understanding of the skills needed for each position, a roadmap for developing training programs and airtight hiring criteria to ensure they find the best talent for their specific needs.


Traditionally, companies that meet minimum hiring criteria or use Work Ready Certificates as a part of their training program qualified for no-cost job profiles. In the down economy, however, more businesses can profile their positions to develop the current workforce, improve productivity and keep Georgians employed.


Industry partnerships

State government assistance can take another form: creating and supporting alliances among businesses in the same or similar industries to create shared workforce development opportunities.


Companies in related business lines or industry clusters tend to have locations near one another and need employees with similar skills. The network of Korean automotive suppliers surrounding the newest Kia Motor Corp. plant in rural West Point, Georgia, is the perfect example of this trend.


In order to sustain, grow and attract these industry clusters, state governments can foster cooperation among businesses, educational providers, local governments, chambers of commerce and civic groups.


As part of Georgia Work Ready, the state created Work Ready Regions, a collaborative development team in a multicounty area headed by an industry leader and guided by the region’s existing industry to align education, workforce development and training to meet the needs of the businesses operating in the shared industry. The state has 16 regions in bioscience, energy, advanced manufacturing, aerospace and logistics, with more to come in the future through a competitive grant process.


The Chattahoochee Valley Aerospace Work Ready Region, for example, targets both future and existing workers to prepare them for careers in the emerging aerospace industry in western Georgia. As the home of Precision Component International, Cessna Aircraft Co., Pratt & Whitney and Fort Benning, a U.S. Army base with a population of more than 100,000, the region needs a highly skilled labor force to support its aerospace parts manufacturing and maintenance companies.


The region encourages high school, technical college and university students to pursue educational opportunities and career paths in the aerospace industry. It offers specialized advanced manufacturing, dual enrollment and co-op programs for students, thanks to the sustained partnerships among the region’s manufacturers and school districts.


The region also works with existing workers in transition—unemployed individuals, military veterans entering the workforce and employees whose previous employers have moved offshore and are looking for a career change—to help them leverage their current skills and gain the additional training to meet the evolving technology needs of the aerospace industry. Training efforts include utilizing best practices in advanced manufacturing, programs in corporate readiness for transitioning military personnel, mentoring and performance coaching.


By seeking out similar initiatives and partnerships with local governments, educational institutions and other organizations, companies throughout the country can actively strengthen their communities’ workforce infrastructure and pro-business environment—just as Georgia is doing.


Workforce Management Online, February 2010 — Register Now!

Posted on February 23, 2010August 31, 2018

Stopgap COBRA Subsidy Extension Bill Expected

Top Senate Democrats are expected to introduce legislation this week that would provide a stopgap 15-day extension of federal COBRA health care premium subsidies, Washington observers say.


The measure, likely to be introduced by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, would extend the federal premium subsidy to employees involuntarily terminated from March 1 through March 15. The subsidy pays 65 percent of an individual’s COBRA premiums for up to 15 months.


Without the extension, employees laid off after February 28 would not be eligible for the subsidy.


The short extension would buy time while Democratic legislators develop a broader bill that would include a longer COBRA subsidy extension.


“The 15-day extension serves a dual purpose. It would allow more time to bring up the larger jobs agenda bill, including a COBRA subsidy extension, while avoiding the expiration of eligibility on February 28,” said Frank McArdle, a consultant with Hewitt Associates in Washington.


An extension of the COBRA premium subsidy through May 31 had been part of a bipartisan jobs bill previously put together by top members of the Senate Finance Committee.


But Reid stripped out the COBRA provision and numerous others in favor of a more narrowly focused jobs bill, which the Senate is expected to approve soon. After that, several additional jobs-related bills are expected to be proposed by Reid, including one that would include a multiple-month COBRA premium extension provision, observers say.


Just more than a year ago, Congress passed a nine-month federal COBRA premium subsidy as part of a massive economic stimulus bill. The subsidy was available to employees laid off from September 1, 2008, through December 31, 2009.


Then, last December, federal legislators, as part of bill appropriating funds for the Department of Defense, extended the subsidy to employees laid off through February 28, while increasing the length of the subsidy to 15 months from nine months.


 


Filed by Jerry Geisel of Business Insurance, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.


Stay informed and connected. Get human resources news and HR features via Workforce Management’s Twitter feed or RSS feeds for mobile devices and news readers.

Posted on February 23, 2010August 31, 2018

Court Considers Time Limits on Employment Discrimination Suits

Supreme Court justices appeared sympathetic to an argument that an employer can be sued for racial discrimination each time it bases hiring decisions on the results of a flawed employment test, during a Monday, February 22, oral argument.


In the case before the court, a group of 6,000 African-American applicants for entry-level firefighter positions filed a suit against the city of Chicago regarding an exam that excluded the vast majority of them from consideration.


In January 1996, the city sent a letter to everyone who participated in the evaluations, saying that only those in the “well qualified” category would be hired. Those who were deemed “qualified” or lower would not get a job offer because so many people scored higher on the exam.


Only 11.5 percent of the African Americans were in the “well qualified” category, even though they represented 37 percent of the test takers. They filed suit on March 31, 1997, or 430 days after the city announced the results.


Chicago’s government does not dispute that the test unfairly excluded African Americans from consideration for the firefighter positions. It maintains, however, that the legal action occurred after the 300-day statute of limitations ran out on the initial announcement.


The plaintiffs argue that the statute should be renewed each time that the city makes hiring decisions. The suit was filed 181 days after the second round of job offers.


A district court ruled in favor of the African-American applicants. The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, however, reversed the decision, holding that the act of discrimination occurred when the city classified the African-American candidates in the “qualified” category.


The attorney representing the job applicants, John Payton, argued before the Supreme Court that Chicago should be held to account each time it applies the exam categories to hiring decisions.


“If you don’t say that a use, in fact, can be challenged … Chicago would then take the message that it’s OK once they are past the first 300 days, and they could just go on using the discriminatory cutoff score over and over and over again,” Payton said. “That is inconsistent with the overall policy of what Title VII [employment discrimination law] is trying to root out of our economy and in our workplace.”


Benna Ruth Solomon, deputy corporation counsel for Chicago, asserted that the initial announcement of the hiring pools was the only discriminatory act for which Chicago should be liable—not subsequent selections from the pool.


“The city did not go back to the test results and it did not create—engage in a new decision or a new practice,” Solomon said.


For the second time in less than a year, the court was hearing an argument involving firefighters in an employment law dispute. It ruled in its last session that the city of New Haven, Connecticut, could not throw out a test that resulted in only white firefighters receiving promotions.  


But the questions in the Chicago case resemble those raised in the pay discrimination suit before the court in 2007 brought by Lilly Ledbetter, a Goodyear Tire & Rubber plant supervisor who alleged that she was paid less than her male counterparts.


The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that Ledbetter had not filed her case before the statute of limitations ran out. Angry Democratic majorities in Congress passed legislation early last year that clarified that suit deadlines are renewed each time a worker receives a paycheck diminished by discrimination.


The Ledbetter case revolved around disparate treatment, meaning that the intent to discriminate has to be demonstrated. The Chicago suit involves disparate impact, which does not require proving intent.


Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., a key vote in the Ledbetter majority, expressed concern that Chicago’s view of the statute of limitations would force job applicants to take legal action before they know for sure whether they’re going to be denied jobs.


“That’s kind of a bad policy, isn’t it?” Roberts said. “You are telling people who may probably not be injured at all, you still have to go to the federal court and sue.”


Conservatives such as Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito Jr. and Antonin Scalia appeared to lean toward the notion that each use of the test scores in a new tranche of hiring could trigger a disparate impact case, according to Katharine Parker, a partner at Proskauer Rose in New York and co-chair of the firm’s employment counseling group.


“There didn’t seem to be any hostility to this cause of action,” Parker said.


If the justices rule in favor of the plaintiffs, it will mean that disgruntled applicants will have more opportunities to file suits over hiring exams.


“If Chicago loses, it’s not going to change the fact that employers should validate tests prior to using them and should continue to scrutinize their policies throughout their use to ensure that they are nondiscriminatory,” Parker said.


The case is Lewis et al v. City of Chicago.


—Mark Schoeff Jr.


Stay informed and connected. Get human resources news and HR features via Workforce Management’s Twitter feed or RSS feeds for mobile devices and news readers.

Posted on February 23, 2010August 31, 2018

Lessons From a California Discrimination and Harassment Case

Workplace discrimination and workplace harassment clearly are different beasts. But can the same evidence of misconduct be used to prove both? Can evidence of a supervisor’s boorish behavior be used to support both an unlawful discrimination claim against the employer as well as an allegation of harassment based on disability against the individual supervisor?


These are questions that divide the interests of employers and employees: Employees would like to draw from a larger pool of misbehavior in order to prove their cases, or at least survive summary judgment, while employers would naturally prefer to limit the evidence that can be used to support one claim or the other.


Recently, the California Supreme Court took up this issue in Roby v. McKesson. It addressed whether an employee, in proving her harassment claim at trial against her individual supervisor, can rely on evidence of her supervisor’s boorish behavior, even though much of that behavior was undertaken in management meetings, and hence was on behalf of the employer.


In addition, the Supreme Court took up the perennial question of punitive damages: How much is too much when it comes to punishing an employer for the misbehavior of a lower-level supervisor?


While this California case has immediate implications for all employers with California-based employees, it may also be a harbinger of how courts in other states may come to regard these cases, and so has potential implications for employers nationwide.


The facts of Roby v. McKesson
Charlene Roby, a former customer service liaison employee for the distribution center of McKesson Corp., sued McKesson, claiming disability-based harassment and discrimination after her former supervisor disciplined and discharged her for excessive absenteeism.


Roby worked for McKesson for 25 years. Approximately two years before her discharge, she began experiencing what she described as panic attacks that required medical treatment and caused her to miss work in violation of McKesson’s attendance policy, which required employees to provide 24 hours’ advance notice for all absences, including medical absences. McKesson imposed a progressive disciplinary procedure based on the number of absences without notice an employee accrued within a 90-day period.


Starting in 1999, Roby accrued several “occasions” of absences without advance notice. These occasions resulted in Roby receiving an oral warning, a written warning, and then a final written warning during 1999. Under McKesson’s attendance policy, two further “occasions” within a 90-day period after a final warning would result in termination of employment.


In early 2000, Roby had two more occasions of absence. McKesson suspended Roby pending an investigation and subsequently terminated her employment. The documentation of illness in Roby’s personnel file was limited to brief medical notes that stated only that Roby “has been diagnosed with panic disorder,” that it is “not contagious” and that the “[p]anic episodes have been stabilized [with medication].” The notes, however, did not describe the panic disorder or connect any of Roby’s absences to the panic disorder.


Also, evidence in the case showed that Roby’s supervisors were aware of her condition. There was also evidence that Roby’s immediate supervisor mistreated Roby as a result of her condition. That supervisor’s behavior included making negative comments about Roby’s body odor in front of other workers; calling Roby “disgusting” because of sores on her arms and her excessive sweating; openly snubbing Roby by refusing to respond to Roby’s greetings and ignoring her at staff meetings; requiring Roby to answer phones during a company holiday party; and reprimanding Roby in front of others. After her termination, Roby filed suit against McKesson and her former supervisor.


The lawsuit
The matter proceeded to trial. The jury awarded Roby $3.5 million compensatory damages and $15 million punitive damages against McKesson. It awarded Roby $3,000 punitive damages and $500,000 compensatory damages against the individual supervisor. The appellate court reduced the compensatory damages to $1.4 million and the punitive damages to $2 million against McKesson and threw out the harassment verdict as to the individual supervisor.


McKesson appealed, and what ultimately led to the state Supreme Court’s review of the case was the appellate court’s decision to throw out the harassment verdict as to the individual manager, holding that certain personnel management actions were not evidence of harassment. (In California, supervisors cannot be held personally liable for discrimination; it is considered a “management action” for which the company itself, and not the individual manager, is liable. In contrast, California has held individuals liable for harassment.)


The California Supreme Court reversed and revised the verdict. While the court distinguished between discrimination and harassment, it noted that the proof of each could overlap: The mere fact that personnel actions were relevant to Roby’s discrimination claim did not prevent the same evidence from also being considered as evidence to support the harassment claim. Indeed, the court found that improperly motivated personnel actions contributed to harassment by communicating a hostile message and showing evidence of discriminatory animus on the part of those engaging in offensive behavior.


In contrast to the earlier California Supreme Court decision in Reno v. Baird, in which the court excluded all “personnel management” actions from the harassment evaluation, the Roby opinion allowed a supervisor’s “business and management” actions to be considered in determining whether the message conveyed by those actions constituted an offensively biased one that subjected a plaintiff to hostile workplace harassment.


In the Roby decision, the state Supreme Court then analyzed punitive damages in employment law cases. While acknowledging the relevance of a defendant company’s wealth as a consideration when applying constitutional limits to an award of punitive damages, the court held that the punitive damages award “must not punish the defendant simply for being wealthy.” Ultimately, it decided that a 1-to-1 ratio between actual and punitive damages was the constitutional limit, given the particular facts of this case.


Good, bad and ugly news for employers
The good news is that, at least in California, employers will not be punished with a lofty punitive damages award against them simply for being wealthy, as the court put it. Also, employers will have some support for arguing a 1-to-1 ratio for punitive damages awards, especially if the knowledge of the bad acts does not reach into the upper levels of management and if the verdict represents a high non-economic component compared with the economic damages component. If a liberal court, as some classify today’s California Supreme Court, can reach a decision like this, employers should not be surprised to find this logic picked up outside of California by more conservative courts.


The bad news is that Roby will likely make it harder for employers to remove cases to federal court on jurisdictional grounds for diversity of citizenship. Plaintiffs who add California-based supervisors as individual harassment defendants now have the ammunition to use additional conduct that previously was not considered in the harassment analysis, including “management” and “personnel” actions. This will make it harder for employers to argue that the individual is named by the plaintiff as a “sham defendant” for the purposes of keeping the case in state court. Other states attempting to reconcile the evidence to be used to determine discrimination and harassment in the workplace may potentially use the reasoning found in this California decision to do the same.


The ugly news is that Roby blurs the distinction between workplace discrimination (where only employers are liable) and harassment (where individual supervisors can be held accountable). Roby makes it easier for plaintiffs to establish workplace harassment claims in California, and will likely encourage claims where there is minimal evidence of personal abusive conduct. In addition, this makes it harder to get individual supervisors out of the case on summary judgment. Instead, it will be up to the juries to evaluate whether those “personnel decisions” created a “harassing” environment.


A glimmer of hope remains. In Roby, the managerial actions appear to have been couched in discriminatory animus. The California Supreme Court found Roby’s supervisor’s handling of other co-workers’ complaints about Roby’s body odor unnecessarily demeaning. The supervisor reprimanded Roby in front of co-workers, called her “disgusting” because of her open sores and excessive sweating, made facial expressions of disapproval when Roby took her rest breaks because of her panic attacks, and told her “to take more showers.” The hope is that this is the extreme case, where managerial actions are more than merely personnel decisions, and that the regular managerial actions do not amount to any harassment as a matter of law.


The lesson for employers
While Roby may not have much practical impact on how employers prevent and avoid liability for claims under California’s discrimination and harassment statutes, this case underlines how important it is for all employers to train and monitor their supervisors on how to perform their personnel and management duties—that is, that managers’ actions should be based on legitimate and lawful reasons. Employers should also work to promote and enforce nondiscrimination and anti-harassment policies in the workplace.


It also cannot hurt for employers to take another, closer look generally at their personnel policies and, in particular, their attendance policies. Employers should ensure that these policies not only are applied equally to all employees in the same business unit or group, but that they actually take into consideration some practical issues of employee absenteeism. Not every illness gives 24 hours’ notice, for example. Given the recent outbreaks of swine flu, employers with attendance policies that treat all absences the same may run the risk of lawsuits like Roby.


Workforce Management Online, February 2010 — Register Now!

Posts navigation

Previous page Page 1 … Page 61 Page 62 Page 63 … 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