Missouri Employers and Workers Compensation Retaliation

After a somewhat lengthy delay, I've returned to the world of blogging.  As time allows!

For Missouri employers, a note of warning.  The Missouri Supreme Court has lowered the Standard of Proof for Workers Compensation retaliation claims.  On April 15, 2014, in Templemire v W & M Welding, Inc., the Missouri Supreme Court continued its pro employee interpretation of the employment at-law doctrine by significantly reducing the casualty standard for a workers compensation retaliation claims.  Prior to this ruling Missouri law had long required an employee to prove that the alleged retaliatory motive was the "exclusive factor" for the adverse action.   Such as  a termination.

DOMA Decision

Lower courts have begun to issue rulings based on the Supreme Court's June 26, 2013, Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) decision, with two district courts recently extending the ruling's application.  In addition, the Department of Labor revised a fact sheet on qualifying reasons for leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), in response to the Supreme Court's historic decision this summer striking down Section 3 of DOMA.

DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act)

First the history lesson.  The Defense of Marriage Act was enacted September 21, 1996, allowing states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages granted under the laws of other states. 

Section 3 of the Act was ruled unconstitutional in June, 2013 thereby allowing same-sex married couples to be recognized as "spouses" for purposes of federal laws, and allowing them to receive federal protections such as Social Security, health insurance and retirement savings.  Essentially, same-sex couples who are legally married deserve equal rights to the benefits under Federal law that go to all other married couples. 

If you have followed the DOMA case, you know by now that the ruling will have far-reaching implications.  The recent ruling which mandates that all officially recognized marriages be treated equally under the law, has immediate legal ramifications for the 12 states that already allow same-sex marriages.  Opponents of same-sex marriage are bracing themselves for a wave of legal challenges in the states that do not recognize marriages of gay and lesbian couples. 

What does all of this mean for Human Resources and Texas employers?  Well, here in Texas marriage is defined as the "relationship between a man and a woman."   While the Supreme Court removed the federal definition of marriage, it left it to the states to decide whether to honor other states' laws on the matter.  This does not mean that Texas is required to legalize same-sex marriage.  Texas Family Code 6.204 states same-sex marriages performed in other states are void in Texas.  For Texas, there isn't a huge impact immediately.  However, employers should revisit the definition of "spouse" in their benefit plans to ensure that the definition is consistent with the employer's intent, in light of the Windsor decision.  With regard to qualified pensions, plan language and procedures will need to be considered because same-sex spouses have additional rights to federally protected benefits. 

Working Families Flexibility Act (H.R.1406)

(Not to be confused with the Flexibility For Working Families Act)

Over heavy opposition by the Democrats, a hotly debated bill was passed May 8th by House Republicans that will potentially loosen federal overtime laws.  The bill would amend long-standing labor laws (the 75 year old FLSA) by allowing private-sector employers to offer compensatory time off in lieu of time-and-a-half pay for overtime.  (The protections under FLSA were put in place to prevent employers from abusing the system and avoiding paying overtime to workers who put in more than 40 hours per week.)

The supporters of the bill have pitched it as an update to federal law, with the obligatory fluff that "it's about helping working moms and dads, providing the ability to commit time at home," per Rep. Martha Roby (R-Ala). 

Under the bill, employees may use their comp time only at the employer's convenience.     If a business is necessarily inflexible when it comes to scheduling time off as the business may relay on a small number of employees for an entire function, then comp time may not be a viable alternative.  For the small employer, the concern may be the potential lost productivity and the additional paperwork for tracking comp time accrued and used.

Yes, the bill has put in provisions to protect against abuse, and only offers the workers a chance to opt for the extra time off if that's what they want.  But I side with the Democrats that such an option is ripe for abuse by unscrupulous employers.  The bill is a potential way for extra work to be imposed on workers with no additional cost to the employer. 

Vicki Shabo is the Director of Work and Family Programs of the non-partisan National Partnership for Women and Families.  Her organization is staunchly opposed to H.R. 1406 and sees it as a wolf dressed in sheep's clothing.  "This is a dangerous proposal that pretends to be something that will help working families.  It will take money out of worker's pockets for overtime pay that they otherwise would have received in wages and instead replace it with possibly an empty promise or a mirage of time that's out in front of them that they may never be able to take."

"For the record, there are many ways for Congress to improve both worker pay and work life balance, including raising the minimum wage, instituting paid sick leave, ending discriminatory pay practices, easing the formation of unions and promoting advance notice for worker scheduling,  The House bill ignores what is helpful and embraces what is harmful."  The New York Times, May 10, 2013.

I highly doubt that this bill will go much further. The White House stated in early May that the president would be advised to veto such legislation on the grounds that it would weaken protections in the Fair Labor Standards Act.

FMLA Abuse and Employee Surveillance

An increasingly prevalent area of surveillance that the courts seem to be upholding is the hiring of private investigators to conduct surveillance on employees that are suspected of taking leave dishonestly under the Family Medical Leave Act.  While still a relatively new development, this is one in which the courts are, so far, siding with employers.  With that said, however, this is a very delicate topic as it deals with surveilling employees when they are not at work.  In most cases, there are heavy suspicions of the employee abusing their FMLA leave before any surveillance is conducted, and it is highly encouraged that employers seek legal counsel before considering this option.  (Virginia Business Law Blog)

The FMLA prohibits an employer from interfering with, restraining, or denying the exercise of or the attempt to exercise any right given under FMLA.   And, it is one of the largest employee abuse areas for employers.   One of the bases upon which an employer can defeat an FMLA "interference" claim is obtaining supporting documentation/evidence by the employer that an employee did not, in fact, take leave for a purpose authorized under the FMLA. 

I personally had a case 4 years ago in which an employee was placed on FMLA.  A week later we found out that the employee was moonlighting for another company.  After careful investigation, I found that the employee was performing the same tasks for the second company that the employee was restricted (medical requirements) from performing for us, his primary employer.

Employer surveillance of employees outside the workplace is an extremely touchy subject.  And, there are confusing legal issues to tackle.

In the Seventh Circuit Court decision, Vail v. Raybestos, "employers are allowed to spy on their employees not only when they are suspicious the employee is taking fraudulent leave under the FMLA, but also in any situation where the information gained by surveillance may be used as evidence to support the employer's honest belief the employee is taking fraudulent leave."    Diana Vail received more than 33 days of approved leave for chronic migraines.  The company noticed a pattern in regards to her leave and engaged the services of an off-duty police sergeant to monitor her activities.  The employee was found working for her husbands business during peak times.  The court dismissed her claim for interference stating that the plaintiff must show she took leave "for the intended purpose of the leave."

In Colburn v. Parker Hannifin (1st Cir., 2005), the employee claimed to be too dizzy to drive to work, but was caught working out at the gym while on leave.  The court found that the employer's surveillance did not violate the employees FMLA leave.

Tillman v. Ohio Bell Telephone, (6th Cir., 2011).  This case is note-worthy in that the employer sent the surveillance footage to an outside medical consultant for analysis before it made its employment decision. The consultant issued a report of her findings in which she concluded that, in her professional opinion, Tillman's activities on his days off were inconsistent with the medical restrictions.

When presented with evidence of suspected FMLA abuse, you must first independently investigate the issue before taking any action.  Avoid any conduct that interferes with FMLA.  Validate the accuracy of your suspicion before taking an adverse action against the employee.  Secondly be sure that any surveillance does not go too far and invades the privacy of the employee or the employee family members.

Legal Mistakes by HR (Part 4)

Here's my last, and no less important, potential area of litigation for you.  The performance appraisal conversation.  Managers dread it, employees fear it.  Sometimes the talk is effective, sometimes it isn't.  Unfortunately during the performance evaluation process supervisors may tell little white lies to protect an employees feelings or to avoid a confrontation.   Like our mother's taught us, honesty is always the best policy. 
 
4.  Misleading performance evaluations. Ensure you always document employee performance / behavior problems.   If under-performing employees are not properly rated, you won't have a legal leg to stand on if termination becomes a necessity. You'll be in a courtroom explaining why you gave a positive evaluation to an employee that you later terminated.

If you want to shape behavior, you have to give honest feedback.   If an employee doesn't know that something is wrong, the behavior becomes acceptable.

Legal Mistakes by HR (Part 3)

Employers often mandate pay secrecy restricting employees from discussing wages with their coworkers.  The school of thought being that salary discussions would affect morale and company productivity.   Here's the potential legal mistake:

3.  Mandating confidentiality of wage information.  Remember the National Labor Relations Act?  Under Section 7 of the NLRA, employees may now legally discuss wages in the workplace with limited exceptions.     By maintaining a policy or practice that restricts employee freedom in this regard, an employer violates Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.

Now, here's where the "limited exceptions" comes into play.  Employees are legally allowed to have such discussions, but the law does not require that employers allow employees to do so during assigned work hours.  Caution:  If you prohibit employees from discussing pay during assigned work hours, ensure that you are placing the same prohibition on other conversations that are unrelated to work.  Other limits pertain to the content of discussions (protected information) as well as how the employee came into possession of the information (unauthorized access to employee information), etc.

Review your policies and practices to ensure you're not in violation. 
 

Legal Mistakes by HR (Part 1)

Yes, it happens.  We have a host of responsibilities and every once in awhile, HR can make a mistake.  Oftentimes multi-tasking results in our missing a step in a sequence or forgetting something.  We simply allow something to fall through the cracks.  Over the next couple of days I am going to focus on a handful of mistakes that I see as real landmines.   

1.  Failure to train supervisors.  Unintentional or not, supervisors say or do things that put the entire company on the hook.    A seemingly harmless question during the interview process such as "what church do you attend" or "how old are you" can spark a discrimination lawsuit.   Ignorance may be bliss, but it's not an excuse (or defensible in a court of law).

Ensure supervisors learn how to listen for leave requests that may fall under the FMLA umbrella and trigger FMLA protections. Remember, employees don't have to specifically ask for FMLA.  It is extremely important to train your management staff and front line supervisors on what constitutes notice of FMLA.  Further, the supervisors have an obligation to take action if they suspect an employee has provided notice. 

Why is training so important?  Let's take a look at the discount chain Target for just a moment.   Multi-cultural tips (via a controversial document) recently distributed at one Target location has sparked claims of discrimination by three employees.  The document which Target claims is not part of it's company-wide training program, called “Organization Effectiveness, Employee and Labor Relations Multi-Cultural Tips," was distributed to managers.  The document included subtitled sections like "intercultural differences."  What were the intentions of the managers?  You can only guess.  Here's an excerpt from the document:

1. Food: not everyone eats tacos and burritos
2. Music: not everyone dances to salsa
3. Dress: not everyone wears a sombrero
4. Mexicans (lower education levels, some may be undocumented)
5. Cubans (Political refugees, legal status, higher education level)
6. They may say “OK, OK” and pretend to understand, when they do not, just to save face.

Recognize the potential areas for training within your organization.  One size doesn't fit all so tailor your training needs to your organization. 

NLRA

Let's talk NLRA for a moment.  There appears to be some lingering confusion.

The federal National Labor Relations Act governs the rights and responsibilities of unions and private employers.  Excluded, with some exceptions, are public employees, independent contractors, employees of Federal, state or local government, etc. 

An employee doesn't have to be a member of a union to be protected under the NLRA as it protects the rights of employees to engage in "concerted activity."   "Concerted activity" takes place when two or more employees take action for their "mutual aid or protection regarding terms and conditions of employment."  This protection can extend to work-related conversations conducted on social media such as Facebook and Twitter.

Many employers prohibit employees discussing compensation or wage levels in the workplace, often communicating that such information is confidential.  These same employers would be surprised to learn that this policy or practice would violate federal labor law.    The National Labor Relations Act contains a provision, Section 7 (29 U.S.C. § 157), that gives all employees the right to "engage in concerted activities", including the right to discuss their terms and conditions of employment with each other. Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA (29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1)) makes it an unfair labor practice for an employer to deny or limit the Section 7 rights of employees. Based upon those two provisions, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has taken the position for decades now that employers may not prohibit employees from discussing their pay and benefits, and that any attempts to do so actually violate the NLRA.

A couple of tips:

1. You can't prohibit employees from discussing compensation or benefits, but you can prohibit them from holding such discussions during assigned work hours.
2. Clearly communicate that employees are protected in discussing their own pay as well as pay and benefits of secondary employees if information was obtained through ordinary conversation with the second party. 
3. If information was accessed in a manner that was restricted, such as access to confidential files or other off-limit information, the company can take steps to uphold confidentiality.

Exel and EEOC

An Atlanta jury awarded $500,000 ($25,000 in compensatory damages and $475,000 in punitive damages) in a sex discrimination suit against Exel, Inc., a Westerville, Ohio-based warehouse and distribution company.

According to the EEOC's suit filed in U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Georgia, Excel, Inc. violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by refusing to promote a female, Contrice Travis, to an inventory supervisor position in 2008.

During the course of the trial, the EEOC presented evidence that:

1. Male employees were routinely promoted after verbally requesting consideration from open positions while Travis, who was indisputably recognized as the most knowledgeable in inventory control, was denied the inventory supervisor position.
2. Travis's former supervisor testified that when he recommended Travis for the position, the general manager informed him that he would never put a woman in that position.
3. Travis was told that the inventory supervisor position would not be filled.
4. The male selected for the position was told by management and a human resources official that the position would be filled, but that he would be selected only if he kept it a secret.
5. The selectee, Michel Pooler, required training by Travis because he had no inventory experience.

This isn't the first, or last,  potential violation by Exel.

On April 9th of this year, The Columbus chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations filed a federal employment discrimination lawsuit.  The plaintiff, Yusuf Sufi, was fired by Exel in May, 2012.   The federal complaint states that Sufi repeatedly asked Exel to provide him with an accommodation under which he could attend his Friday afternoon prayer services.   His employment was ultimately terminated by Exel in May 2012 when he asked for the accommodation a second time.  (It appears that Exel missed the memo.  Both state and federal law requires employers to accommodate the religious practices of their employees unless it creates an undue burden on the company.)

"This is not the first time Exel has discriminated against employees when they have asked for religious accommodation. Our office filed 18 charges of discrimination with the EEOC last month relating to the denial of religious accommodation for Muslim employees who worked at the same facility at which Mr. Sufi worked," said CAIR-Ohio Legal Director Jennifer Nimer. "This pattern of discriminatory behavior continues to be a problem at Exel." 

A massive review and overhaul of Exel's practices, policies, training and personnel needs to occur.   Both management and human resources have failed on a massive level.  Human resources is there to protect employee rights and employer rights.   In the case of Ms. Travis, HR took the side of the wrongdoer and supported a discriminatory selection process.  Human Resources didn't take steps to eliminate discrimination or reduce company liability in either case.

Pending Legislation in Texas

Below is a small sampling of employment-related legislation filed in the Texas Legislature.   If passed and signed into law, these will have a tremendous impact on Texas employers.

HB238/SB237
Prohibition of employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity or expression.

HB321
Deferred adjudication may not be used as a factor in employment decisions, housing or issuance of state licenses.

HB667
Puts leave for foster children on same basis as leave for biological or adopted children.

HB950
Incorporates federal law in the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009.

HB1829
Relating to safe patient handling and movement practices at hospitals and nursing homes.  No retaliation or discrimination toward staff members who refuse to participate in unsafe handling of patients.

HB1188
Relating to limiting the liability of persons who employ persons with criminal convictions.  Tightens up on standards for proving negligent hiring and supervision of employees with prior convictions.

HB494/SB741
Extends to two years the time limit for filing a wage claim with Texas Workforce Commission.

SB340
If TWC finds bad faith on employer's part for failure to pay wages, it "shall" impose a penalty (instead of "may").

Happy Birthday to the Equal Pay Act

50 years ago today the Equal Pay Act was signed by President John F. Kennedy.  While equal pay is the law, the nation still faces gender wage disparities.  In 2012, women generally earned 77 percent of men's wages.  For African-American and Latina women, the number is even lower.    We have made progress, but it's not enough.

The Equal Pay Act requires that men and women in the same workplace be given equal pay for equal work.  The jobs need not be identical, but they must be substantially equal.  Remember that job descriptions and titles are irrelevant. 

On the front line of this battle is the EEOC who has made enforcing equal pay laws one of its six priorities as outlined in the Strategic Enforcement Plan.

Insubordination

We have all heard the term "insubordination," an employee's willful disregard for a supervisor's direct orders.  But what does insubordination really mean?  How do you determine whether insubordination has occurred and what should you do about it?  Simply complaining about an assignment does not constitute insubordination. 

Insubordination can be active or passive.  Active insubordination may be the refusal to do something, challenging the directive, confrontational behavior, the use of abusive language or even physical violence.  Passive insubordination may be exhibited by the employee's willing failure to complete a task. 

To prove insubordination you must establish three important elements:

1. It has to be recognized as a direct order. 
2. The employee received and understood the order.
3. The employee refused to obey the order through an explicit statement of refusal or through nonperformance.  

A few words of caution.  Before any claims of insubordination are raised, take a moment to:

1. Assess how the order was issued.  It can't be a suggestion.  Whether verbal or written, did it clearly communicate the who, where, what and when? 
2. To establish insubordination, the order must relate to work being performed.  Always validate that the order was reasonable.
3. Could other factors influence the employee's actions?  Perhaps the employee did not willfully intend to disobey.  Does the employee have a pattern of unacceptable behavior?
4. An employee has the right to refuse an order if they are being asked to do something illegal or dangerous, or in violation of a published safety rule. 
5. The employee must be told that failure to perform the task/assignment is grounds for disciplinary action on the basis of insubordination.
6. Allow employee adequate time to comply with order before discipline is imposed.  You can't ask an employee to complete a 2 hour task in 30 minutes.

Abusive language by employees towards supervisors can also be considered insubordination.  However, you must always consider the context in which the incident occurred.  To confirm that an employee was engaged in insubordination, the abusive language:

1. Was not provoked by the manager.
2. Occurred in the presence of other employees or customers.
3. Was not an example of "shop talk" in the workplace.

While our first reaction to insubordination may be to fire the employee immediately, allow a cooling off period.  Take the time to review your disciplinary policy. Review the employee's past history. Carefully consider all the facts, all the actions, prior to punishing the employee.   On occasion employee insubordination can be attributed to a breakdown in communication.   While termination may still be the correct course of action, you'll have all your facts in place.   
 

Confidential Data at Risk

In May of last year I blogged about data leaving company networks through non-secure mobile devices  ("Data Breach").  A hot topic, companies are increasingly concerned about losing trade secrets and proprietary information to competitors and thereby loosing competitive advantage. 

 

Conducted by Ponemon Institute in October 2012 and just released is Symantec's survey What's Yours is Mine: How Employees are Putting Your Intellectual Property at Risk.    Survey results reflect that half of employees who left or lost jobs in the last 12 months kept confidential data, 40% planning to use that data in their new jobs.    Only 38% of employees surveyed said their manager views data protection as a business priority, and 51% think it is acceptable to take corporate data because their company does not strictly enforce policies.  More and more we see that employees' attitudes and beliefs about intellectual property (IP) theft are at odds with the vast majority of company policies.

Survey highlights: 

1. 62% respondents:  Feel it is acceptable to transfer work documents to personal computers, tablets, smartphones or online file sharing applications.  The majority never delete the data they've moved because they see no harm in retaining the information.
2. 44% respondents:  Feel that a software developer who develops source code for a company has some ownership in his or her work and inventions.  42% respondents do not feel it is a crime to reuse the source code, without permission, for other companies.

As technology continues to evolve, organizations face the growing challenge of protecting stored sensitive data from unauthorized exposure. Surprisingly, most companies do not address the danger of stealing electronic information through the use of smartphones such as iPhone, Android or Blackberry.  Symantec ". . . once mostly forbidden by IT, smartphones are now being used by hundreds of millions of employees throughout the world to access corporation information. . . ." 

 

To protect and prevent against the loss of proprietary information, companies may implement the following:

1. Well communicated and enforced Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure Agreements
2. Data Protection Policies that monitor access and use of confidential data
3. Separation Agreements
4. BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) Policy

Most importantly, educate your managers and employees!

The Importance of Training Managers

What is the cost to an employer when a manager doesn't recognize s/he is acting in a discriminatory manner?   Some managers don't seem to understand what discrimination means, or oftentimes how to recognize it.  Discrimination, and the cost of discrimination, is a problem that companies just can't ignore.

In an EEOC Press release of 1/23/2013 the Dallas-based Fries Restaurant Management will pay a former employee $25,000 to settle a religious discrimination lawsuit.  The employee, Ashanti McShan, is a member of the Christian Pentecostal Church which requires women to wear either skirts or dresses.  During the interview process with Burger King, Ashanti requested a religious accommodation to wear a black skirt versus the black uniform pants.  She was told by the interviewing manager that her accommodation would be granted.  However, during her orientation the store manager advised her she could not wear a skirt and had to leave the store.  McShan attempted to contact higher management, and was unable to speak with anyone.  She was later discharged as a result of the accommodation denial.   Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits religious discrimination.  It requires employers to make reasonable accommodation as long as such does not pose an undue hardship on the organization.   

Florida Courts:  In Hurley v. Kent of Naples, on or about 2005, Patrick Hurley was diagnosed with depression and related mental health symptoms.  The doctor who provided the diagnosis, and the therapist, both advised that he should take medical leave.   The employee advised the company senior officer that he had been diagnosed with depression and needed time off to deal with it.  Having accumulated several weeks of vacation, the employee requested to take most of the year off on vacation.   His request was denied and he was terminated.  Obviously an FMLA suit, alleging interference with FMLA rights and retaliation, followed and Hurley won.  (FMLA entitles eligible employees to take unpaid, job-protected leave for certain family and medical reasons.)    The estimated judgement:

• $200,000 for actual monetary losses
• $353,901.85 for front pay
• $200,000 liquidated damages
• $233,109.75 for attorneys' fees
• $21,329.36 for "costs."

Texas courts: In an EEOC press release of December 18, 2012, Dillard's will pay $2 million to settle a class action disability discrimination lawsuit. Dillard's Inc, enforced a maximum-leave policy limiting the amount of health-related leave an employee could take. Additionally, since 2005, Dillard's had a national policy and practice that required employees to disclose the exact nature of their medical conditions to be approved for sick leave. Further, Dillard's terminated a class of employees nationwide for taking sick leave beyond the maximum amount of time allowed. This policy violated the ADA which prohibits employers from making inquiries into the disabilities of employee's unless it is job-related and necessary for the conduct of business.  The second violation was that managers/supervisors (or even HR) did not regularly engage in an interactive process with employees to determine if more leave was allowed under the ADA as an accommodation.  (More information is available on the EEOC website.)  While you can't blame the managers for this company-wide form of discrimination, logically HR should have identified the violation and pushed for policy reform.  But, who's to say that they didn't?

When discharging an employee who just revealed the need to take time off for a medical condition, use caution. Make sure the discharge reason is unrelated to the request.  Remember, firing an employee who is pregnant has legal risk.  Firing an employee because she is pregnant is illegal.

Employers can take steps to prevent discrimination claims by ensuring that all managers are properly trained.  Please invest in training your managers. 

"The best way to begin is to begin." 
                        - Benjamin Franklin.

Tortious Interference?

Employee John Doe has been working for XYZ  for two years, being recognized as nothing more than one of the many cogs in the wheel.    As a result of John's role within the company, he frequently comes into contact with a large number of company clients.  Then one day, something extraordinary happens. One client, Acme, realizes that John is a rising star!  After ensuring that no non-solicitation is being violated with XYZ, Acme extends an offer of employment to John.  John is excited about this new opportunity. It's the next logical step in his career and a nice increase in his compensation.  After all of the necessary pre-employment requirements are completed and the hire date is set, John submits his resignation to XYZ.    But this story doesn't stop here and there's no Cinderella ending.

The President of XYZ is astounded.  Why would you quit?  You're one of our rising stars.  Those last six words astound John, he's never heard them.   The President offers him more money to stay.  The office he'd like to have.   But in John's eyes, this recognition comes a bit too late.  After a lengthy discussion, John is more dedicated than ever to begin his new career with Acme.

Behind the scenes, the following happens.  While no non-solicitation exists in their contract, the President of XYZ calls Acme and schedules a meeting with them.  After a heated meeting and threats of pulling business, Acme is forced to rescind the offer of employment to John Doe.  John, somewhat reluctantly, remains in the employ of XYZ. 

Two months later, still at XYZ, John Doe hasn't received that proposed increase and the office has gone to another employee. 

Would you view this as Tortious Interference by XYZ?   Tortious Interference:  n.  Encouraging a breach, infringing on another's agreement, interfering with contract or contractual commitments, wrongful interference with business relationships.  For there to be liability under this tort you must show some improper or illegal actions as an intermeddler. You must evaluate whether actions, or contemplated actions, can be construed to have an appearance of impropriety.

For the laymen, tortious interference occurs when a person damages another person's contractual relationships or other business relationship on purpose.  Liability ensues where proof of economic injury exists.  The wrongful interference with some right or economic opportunity belonging to a person which causes that person some monetary loss.  Interference with prospective economic advantage.

 

What is your call on this?  Tortious Interference or No?

 

Fair competition is always legal.  An employee may leave employment and avail himself of whatever expertise he has acquired from his former employer.  As long as there is no use of former employer's trade secrets.

For "John Doe."

Concerted Activity

When you think of the term "concerted activity" there is often an automatic assumption that a union, or union activity, is involved.  But that's not always the case.  Section 7 of the NLRA states "Employees shall have the right to self-organize, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all such activities. . . " 

 

Protected concerted activity sometimes has nothing to do with unions at all.   Employees who get together and complain to management about their pay or benefits is engaged in concerted activity.   Concerted activity can include internal complaints of discrimination, discriminatory harassment complaints, etc., all of which is protected by Section 7 of the NLRA.  

Gun Control?

This morning I began working on a blog addressing gun control in the workplace.  Little would I know that later today, at 1:30PM, a handful of people would be shot at the Lone Star College here in Houston.    I wasn't aware of the situation immediately, being holed up in my office behind a computer screen at the time.   The situation was brought to my attention by a fellow employee whose girlfriend was on campus that day.  Her safety became our immediate concern.  (I'm glad to say she is fine, having been in the Student Services office at the time.)

For employers:
In September 1, 2011, SB321 went into effect restricting public and private employers from prohibiting employees who are concealed handgun license holders, or otherwise lawfully possessing firearms or ammunition, from transporting or storing firearms or ammunition in the employee's privately-owned, locked car on the employer's premises. (This bill does not apply to an employer owned or leased car; most school districts, chemical manufacturers and oil/gas refineries.)

With employers focusing more and more on the safety of employees, some employers feel that SB321 is an infringement on their property rights. Further, that allowing employees to be in possession of firearms on company property endangers all employees by allowing easy access to weapons by any potentially violent or disgruntled worker.

The gun control debate continues to be waged furiously between those who want tougher gun control laws and those who support the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment.   Adding fuel to the fire are employers and employees squaring off on the subject and the potential threat to safety in the workplace. 

The blog on gun control will have to wait until another day.  The subject hit a bit too close to home today.

Marijuana Legalization and Texas Employers

With both Colorado and Washington passing state laws allowing for the legalization of recreational Marijuana use, Texas employers question the impact to their drug testing and substance abuse policies.   Without going into multiple scenarios or explanations, let's go with a short answer.  These laws have little, if any, effect on your policies/programs. 

 

Remember:

1. Marijuana possession is still unlawful under Texas and federal law. 
2. Texas has no law prohibiting employers from taking adverse action against employees engaged in lawful off-duty conduct.  As such, a Texas employer can take disciplinary action against an employee testing positive for Marijuana usage. 
3. Federal law still criminalizes the possession of Marijuana even in states that have legalized it.

Is Gender Bias Alive And Well?

Gender Bias n. unequal treatment in employment opportunity (such as promotion, pay, benefits and privileges), and the expectations due to attitudes based on the sex of an employee or group of employees.  Gender bias can be a legitimate basis for a lawsuit under anti-discrimination statutes.

 

Gender bias begins at an early age.  From the pink or blue outfits children receive at infancy, the influence of toy selections, to how teachers respond to a child in school, or the books we read them at bedtime. (An April, 2011 study of gender bias in literature examined nearly 6,000 children's books published from 1900 to 2000.  Of those, 57% had a central male character compared with only 31% female protagonists.  Presumably animals of an indeterminate gender led the rest.)  So how do we respond to gender bias in the workplace?

 

First let's understand that gender bias is more subtle than sex discrimination.    Bias occurs because of personal values, perceptions and outdated, traditional views about men and women.  We may encounter gender bias in many forms and degrees.   For example, both men and women tend to view women who express anger more negatively than they view men who express anger.  Even when the members of both sexes use the same words and body language to express that anger.  Gender bias exists where men or women are evaluated or perceived differently depending on whether their actions violate expectations of how they should act or expectations of what behaviors are required for a role they have assumed.  Whether the subject of bias is male or female, the effects of gender bias can be devastating.

 

Beginning in as early as 1982,  state judiciaries began to address gender bias by creating a variety of research committees and task forces.  Since that time, attention around gender bias in the workplace has continued to grow in every industry.

 

Then:

"Gender bias exists in many forms throughout the Massachusetts court system.  Sexist language and behavior are still common, despite an increased understanding that these practices are wrong."  New England Law Review.  Volume 24, Spring 1990.

"The New Mexico Supreme Court is greatly concerned over manifestations of gender bias in the court environment within the State of New Mexico."  "In 1987, the State Bar of New Mexico established The Task Force on Women and the Legal Profession and requested that the Task Force examine the needs of women lawyers, their acceptance by the Bench and Bar in general. . . . . The Final Report, issued November 2, 1990, documented gender bias not only directed toward women lawyers, but affecting female litigants, witnesses, and court employees."

The State of Florida, Gender Bias Study Commission:  Executive Summary, found that "during it's two years of hearing and study, that gender bias -- discrimination based solely on one's sex -- is a reality for far too many people involved in the legal system.  (1990)

In 2011, a team at Yale University asked 127 professors at six U.S. research universities to judge the merits of college graduates.  The graduates were applying for a position as a lab manager before heading to graduate school.  While using identical resumes, of which half were obviously female applicants, the participates were significantly more likely to hire the man, and at a higher salary.  Interestingly enough, the bias was equally strong among both the female and male scientists and did not vary by age, race or discipline. (www.sciencemag.com)

 

Now:

"The Supreme Court's decision on the Walmart case - in which five justices, all male, sided with the company in denying 1.5 million female employees the right to pursue a class-action sex-discrimination lawsuit - showed a truly stunning obliviousness to the way gender bias actually plays out in the workplace."  The Daily Beast.  "The Supreme Court's Cluelessness on Gender Bias."  June 22, 2012.

 

MSLGroup currently has a class action lawsuit pending alleging gender pay discrimination.  The $100 million class action lawsuit was filed in February 2011 and represents women who worked at the agency from 2008 until the date of judgement.  Of the 33 total plaintiffs, two are current MSL employees.  One, Sheila McLean, is currently a SVP and a 12-year veteran of the firm.  The lawsuit alleges that MSL paid female professionals less; did not promote women at the same rate as male counterparts; and conducted discriminatory demotions, terminations and reassignments for female staffers during the agency's 2009 reorganization.

 

After all the steps we have taken, all the studies, polls, research papers, etc., gender bias is still alive and well in the workplace.  As an employer, you need to be aware if gender bias exists in your workforce.  Train your employees to identify it, and to acknowledge it.  Secondly, call attention to the bias.  Make a commitment to eliminating it in your workforce.

 

 Title VII prohibits discrimination "because of" an employee's sex. As an employer we may not take adverse action against an employee because of their sex. Sex can not play a role in any aspect of their employment including hiring, transfers, promotions, pay, disciplinary action, suspensions, and discharges. It's also important to understand that while Title VII was originally understood to apply only to women, that is no longer the case. It also prohibits discrimination against men. For example, when a male employee is denied a promotion in favor of a female employee, and the male can prove that the reason was "because of his sex," there may be claim for sex discrimination.