Welcome Pennsylvania and New Jersey employers.

Settle in and read on for easy-to-navigate, clear and concise summaries of the employment-law landscape in PA and NJ. Plus, we highlight the latest legal trends and changes in the law. You can even improve the way you and your employees conduct business with our featured guest commentary and insights from other management-side employment lawyers and human resources professionals.

This isn't your average blog; this is The Employer Handbook. Read it cover to cover.

April 30, 2014

Apparently, selling "Wake The [expletive] Up" coffee raises the "for cause" termination bar

Let this be a lesson to those who are thinking about selling "Wake The F*&k Up" Coffee, "The Hottest F*&king Nuts," or "The Hottest F*&king Sauce."

Recently, I read this article from Clark Kauffman in the Des Moines Register about a cashier at the Last Chance Market in Iowa, who was allegedly fired after she and a customer began discussing various sexual activities in front of other customers. These customers then complained to management about the sexual banter, hence the pink slip.

Not that the employer need a reason to fire the crude cashier. Presumably, she was an at-will employee. But, the stakes are raised when an employee files for unemployment compensation benefits. That is, generally speaking, a terminated employee will receive u/c, unless the termination is for some sort of willful misconduct.

So, you'd think open sexual banter in front of customers would satisfy that requirement.

Yeah, you'd think that.

Well, the cashier had an ace up her sleeve; namely, the aforementioned f*&king products. 

Would you like to read how these products contributed to what the former employee described as an all-around profane and off-color working environment? Sure you would.

From Mr. Kauffman's article:

"There's jelly beans, salsa, hot sauces and all kinds of different things about women's (bodies)," she testified. "There's a whole shelf referring to -- well, excuse me -- but there's one can called 'The Hottest ----ing Nuts.' "
She said the store also sells a brand of coffee named "Wake The ---- Up," the label of which reads: "This coffee makes a seriously strong cup of Joe. It will put some stride in your step and some lead in your pencil -- not to mention that you will probably reorganize the garage and finally get to the lawn. Wake the F up and live!"
State records indicate the store also sells a brand of hot sauce called "The Hottest ----ing Sauce," which is labeled as having an "ass-burning" quality that will inspire the consumer to "scream '(expletive)' at the top of your lungs."

Yep, the former employee got her u/c benefits.

And since I can't beat it, to end this post, I'll quote further from Mr. Kauffman's article:

Shafer said she's still looking for work, adding that Braaksma has banned her from shopping at the Last Chance Market. "And you know, he still has this big sign right where you go in, a metal sign, that says, 'Shirts and shoes are required, but bras and panties are optional,' " she said.
Braaksma would not comment on the case, telling The Des Moines Register, "I don't want my store's name in no (expletive) news story."
April 29, 2014

Teacher can't return to work two weeks after maternity leave ends, but may have an ADA claim

Recently, I gave a webinar about the interplay between the Family and Medical Leave Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. One of the takeaways there was that, when an employee's 12 weeks of FMLA leave expire, you need to be thinking about ADA implications rather than processing a pink slip at 12 weeks and a day. This is because additional leave may be a reasonable accommodation.

The same issues can arise if you have a pregnant employee. That is, you need to consider the interplay between the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and the ADA.

A recent case shows how the ADA may apply to pregnant employees.

Trevis Reed was a Special Education Teacher in Louisiana, until she was fired from her position. Ms. Reed was pregnant and used all of her allotted leave time from August 2011 from February 2012.

Ms. Reed was scheduled to return to work on February 15, 2011, however her psychiatrist would not clear her to return until two weeks later, on February 28, 2011. The school refused to grant the extra two weeks of leave, and fired Ms. Reed when she failed to return to work on the 15th.

Ms. Reed then sued for violation of the ADA.

Two weeks of additional leave may be a reasonable accommodation.

The school did not challenge that Ms. Reed was disabled. (Note: Pregnancy is not a disability. However, postpartum depression could be). Rather, the school argued that, when it fired Ms. Reed, she was not a qualified individual within the definition of the ADA. That is, she could not perform the essential functions of her job with or without a reasonable accommodation.

Even though the plaintiff's counsel failed to address the school's argument that Ms. Reed was not qualified, the Court, on its own examination, still denied the School's motion for summary judgment. That is, it determined in this opinion that a reasonable jury could conclude that an additional two weeks of leave was a reasonable accommodation for Ms. Reed:

"The Court does not find on this record that Reed's request for the additional leave was improper, or that it fell beyond the bounds of the general rule that a reasonable accommodation may include "providing additional unpaid leave for necessary treatment." Nor does the Court find on the existing record that after February 28, 2011 Reed was inhibited from fulfilling the necessary requirements of the job."

Takeaways for employers

Unfortunately for employers, there is no magic formula to determine how much additional leave, beyond that which an employee has already been allotted, is reasonable. Each case -- and each leave scenario -- stands on its own set of facts. That said, consider these takeways:

  1. The more leave you initially provide, the tougher it will be to argue that a brief period of subsequent leave is unreasonable.

  2. Denying two weeks of additional leave to a new mom who is suffering from doctor-certified postpartum issues is cold as ice. That's a great way to earn yourself a jury trial.

  3. Many of PDA/FMLA leaves of absence will involve ADA issues and, thus, foreshadow an interactive dialogue to discuss reasonable accommodations. Don't wait until leave is about to end to broach this subject. Plan ahead. Communicate with that employee early and often.

* * *

If you're on LinkedIn, consider joining the discussion of news, trends and insights in employment law, HR, and the workplace, by becoming a member of The Employer Handbook LinkedIn Group. Tell 'em Meyer sent you.

April 28, 2014

Plaintiff demands that a court order her alleged sexual harasser to photograph his penis for inspection

As an employment lawyer, part of my practice involves training employees and supervisors on employee handbooks. Most often, my training focuses on respect in the workplace.

During these sessions, I employ many techniques to discourage the workforce from engaging in behavior that could create a hostile work environment. Usually, I'll put it like this:

"If you would feel uncomfortable sitting in a witness box while having to explain your behavior to a federal jury, then it's not something that you should do in the workplace."

But, now, thanks to this recent decision from a federal judge in Washington, DC, I have a new one.

Think twice before sexting.

Laverne Battle alleged that Sergeant Kevin Pope, her direct supervisor at the Metropolitan Police Department, sexually harassed her. Specifically, Ms. Battle alleged that Sergeant Pope texted her a picture of his left hand holding his penis.

[Editor's Note: Bad. But, could've been worse]

Ms. Battle produced a grainy color copy of the photograph for the court's inspection, and sought to compel Sergeant Pope to produce a photograph of his left hand and penis for the purpose of comparison.

The defendant won't have to produce a penis pic...yet.

As to the left hand, the court granted Ms. Battle's motion and ordered Sergeant Pope to produce to Ms. Battle and allow the court to review a photograph of his left hand (including thumb and forefinger) held in a similar position as that in the photograph at issue.

As to Sergeant Pope's penis, the Court made him SnapChat it to Ms. Battle denied Ms. Battle's request that Sergeant Pope "pose" for "photo-documenting" by plaintiff's counsel. Ewww!

And the Court otherwise held off on requiring him to photo his penis. Something about "the requested photograph is alone dehumanizing and embarrassing, notwithstanding whether the photograph is ever presented to a jury."

However, the Court did not dismiss altogether the possibility of another penis photograph. It deferred ruling on Ms. Battle's motion to compel Sergeant Pope to produce a photograph of his penis until the Court was satisfied that there is no less intrusive alternative to requiring Sergeant Pope to produce a photograph of his penis.

So, what can we learn from this?

Well, I suppose that I'll have to modify my anti-harassment training deterrent to address both testifying from the witness stand and possibly having to produce a picture of your penis.

Or vagina.

We don't discriminate here.

* * *

If you're on LinkedIn, consider joining the discussion of news, trends and insights in employment law, HR, and the workplace, by becoming a member of The Employer Handbook LinkedIn Group. Tell 'em Meyer sent you.

April 25, 2014

I ran my mouth for an hour and six minutes about the FMLA/ADA interplay

tlnt.pngOnly the dorkiest of HR/Lawyers dorks could appreciate this webinar.

Here is the recording.

Here are the slides.

Happy dork day!

* * *

Want to dork-out even further? If you're on LinkedIn, consider joining the discussion of news, trends and insights in employment law, HR, and the workplace, by becoming a member of The Employer Handbook LinkedIn Group. Tell 'em Meyer sent you.

April 24, 2014

ALJ strikes social media policy disclaimer for work-related speech

policyhighlight.jpgHow many of you have social media policies, which contain a provision that reads something like this...

"If you identify yourself as an associate of the Company and publish any work-related information online, you must use this disclaimer: 'The postings on this site are my own and don't necessarily represent the positions, strategies or opinions of the Company.'"

Yeah, I write these disclaimers all the time for clients. Apparently, they're unlawful. 

Or so says, an administrative law judge in this recent opinion.

In what the ALJ considered to be a matter of first impression, he found that the provision above was overly broad and discouraged the rights of employees to discuss the terms and conditions of employment:

"The requirement that a disclaimer be posted by the employee every time he or she speaks on work related issues and is identifiable as an employee of the employer, is unduly burdensome, well beyond any legitimate interest of the employer, and will have a tendency to chill legitimate Section 7 speech by the burden it brings to it. The Respondent's rule impinges on Section 7 activity beyond any reasonable accommodation with any legitimate concern."

A matter of first impression, huh? 

I seem to recall the NLRB's own General Counsel blessing a social media -- heck, it was Wal-Mart's social media policy -- which had the same darn disclaimer language! You can view Wal-Mart's policy here (p. 23, last bullet).

But, the ALJ found this General Counsel guidance to be unpersuasive.

[In your face, Lafe Solomon!]

The ALJ reasoned that requiring this disclaimer for every online communication by an employee which concerns work-related information and as to which the employee is identifiable as an employee for the employer would be burdensome and overreaching.

Oh, I beg to differ. This doesn't seem overly broad or burdensome to me.

On many social media sites (e.g., Instagram, Pinterest, Twitter), an individual is unlikely to identify his/her employer. So, it's a non-issue. And, on other social networking platforms like Facebook or a work-related blog, where the individual may identify himself as an employee, is it so hard to put the required disclaimer somewhere on the site?

Even if this particular disclaimer is overreaching, surely, one could appreciate how a company wants to ensure that individuals reading online employee-speech about the company, don't mistake those words for the position of the company.

We'll see what happens if this case goes to the full Board on appeal.

* * *

If you're on LinkedIn, consider joining the discussion of news, trends and insights in employment law, HR, and the workplace, by becoming a member of The Employer Handbook LinkedIn Group. Tell 'em Meyer sent you.

April 23, 2014

Sixth Circuit redefines the "workplace" when considering attendance as an ADA essential job function

Thumbnail image for telecommute.jpgThese blogging fingers have had much to say about telecommuting as a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Now, if you'll excuse me, these blogging fingers are going to dunk broccoli into spinach dip.

Ok, I'm back.

Whether telecommuting is a reasonable accommodation was a business decision.

Most notably, last September, in this post, I addressed a case in Michigan in which the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission argued that Ford Motor Company should be required to accommodate an employee with irritable bowel syndrome (an ADA disability) by allowing her to telecommute several days per week.

Ford's managers concluded that the plaintiff could not work from home on a regular basis for up to four days a week. Choosing not to second-guess Ford's business judgment, federal court hearing the case granted summary judgment to Ford.

Now, the modern workplace is more than just the office.

Yesterday, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed (opinion here).

Once again, Ford argued that attendance at work was an essential job function and, by telecommuting several days per week, the plaintiff could not meet that requirement.

The appellate court agreed that attendance may be an essential job function. However, the Sixth Circuit recognized that technology has extended the workplace beyond the office's brick and mortar, such that "attendance" may include telecommuting:

"When we first developed the principle that attendance is an essential requirement of most jobs, technology was such that the workplace and an employer's brick-and-mortar location were synonymous. However, as technology has advanced in the intervening decades, and an ever-greater number of employers and employees utilize remote work arrangements, attendance at the workplace can no longer be assumed to mean attendance at the employer's physical location. Instead, the law must respond to the advance of technology in the employment context, as it has in other areas of modern life, and recognize that the 'workplace' is anywhere that an employee can perform her job duties."

But, whether "physical" attendance at work is an essential job function is a "highly fact specific" question. It depends on factors such as the need for face-to-face interaction with customers and clients. And while the company's business judgment on these issues is important, it is not dispositive. Rather, if in reality, an employee can demonstrate that he/she can effectively perform her job while telecommuting, a court will give that assessment some weight.

So, what is an employer to do with this decision?

  1. Even though it only controls in the Sixth Circuit, the court's 21st century analysis of the workplace should appeal to other courts throughout the country. Therefore, I would expect that this commonsense view of how technology impacts the workplace will soon become the rule, rather than the exception. So, says the blogger.

  2. Reassess your job descriptions and determine whether a physical presence in the office is an essential job function. And, if you update the job description accordingly, make sure that it accurately reflects how job duties are actually best discharged. Get feedback your managers and employees.

  3. If you are going to allow some employees to telecommute, courts may assume that telecommuting would be a reasonable accommodation for other disabled employees. just be prepared for that.

I'll lay 2-1 that Jon Hyman will have a post on this case today at his blog. So, be sure to check that out.

* * *

P.S. - You know what you should also do? If you're on LinkedIn, consider joining the discussion of news, trends and insights in employment law, HR, and workplace, by becoming a member of The Employer Handbook LinkedIn Group. Tell 'em Meyer sent you.

April 22, 2014

As of Sunday, Philadelphia businesses without this workplace poster are breaking the law

pregnancyposter.pngBack in February, I reported here about the new pregnancy-accommodation law that went into effect in Philadelphia.

The law requires local business to provide reasonable workplace accommodations for employees who have needs related to pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition.

The law also requires Philly employers to post notice of the new law in the workplace.

Here is that poster.

And here is some random music that has nothing to do with pregnancy, but has been burning a hole in my Spotify queue.

* * *

P.S. - If you're on LinkedIn, consider joining the discussion of news, trends and insights in employment law, HR, and workplace, by becoming a member of The Employer Handbook LinkedIn Group

April 21, 2014

There is no right to be completely left alone while on FMLA leave

Thumbnail image for fmla.jpegOne of the questions I hear a lot from employers is: Can we communicate with employees on Family and Medical Leave Act leave and, if so, how much?

I'll get to that in a second.

#HelpShaneFightCancer

For the folks who missed my blog post on Friday, we're trying to raise some money for an eight-month-old baby with cancer. Please take a few minutes, read the post, donate if you can, and spread the word (hashtag #HelpShaneFightCancer). Thank you!

Now, back to the FMLA.

Over the weekend, I read this recent opinion from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which is right in my back yard. The case involved an employee who was informed that her job was being eliminated. However, her employer offered her another position within the company. The only catch was that she sign a non-competition agreement. The employee was given specific deadline in which to accept and sign. The alternative was termination with a severance.

Before the deadline, the employee suffered panic attacks, and the employer afforded her FMLA leave. But, after the employee commenced leave, the employer contacted the employee to reiterate the deadline to accept and sign.

This deadline came and went without the employee signing the non-compete. So, she was fired.

And then she sued for FMLA interference.

And she lost because I basically took the lede right from the Third Circuit's opinion:

"Passport imposed the requirement that O'Donnell sign the offer letter and the non-compete agreement before she took FMLA leave...Thus, O'Donnell knew that she needed to sign the forms well before she invoked her FMLA rights....As this Court has previously explained, 'there is no right in the FMLA to be left alone,' and be completely absolved of responding to the employer's discrete inquiries....There is no evidence showing that Passport in any way hampered or discouraged O'Donnell's exercise of her right to medical leave, or attempted to persuade her to return from her leave early.

Generally, you should be communicating with employees on FMLA leave. 

This is especially true where the employee is taking leave for his/her own serious health condition and that serious health condition could also be construed under the Americans with Disabilities Act as a disability.

Because once the ADA comes into the equation, an employer should have an interactive dialogue with the disabled employee. This open communication helps determine what reasonable accommodations(s) will allow the employee to perform the essential functions of his/her job. This could be additional leave after FMLA expires, or something else, such as light duty.

But, the only way you'll ascertain that is by communicating with your employee.

* * *

P.S. - And speaking of communicating, if you're on LinkedIn, consider joining the discussion of news, trends and insights in employment law, HR, and workplace, by becoming a member of The Employer Handbook LinkedIn Group

April 18, 2014

#HelpShaneFightCancer

BabyShane.png

This is going to be a tough one, folks.

Today, I'm setting aside workplace issues to focus on a little boy named Shane.

Shane was born on July 11, 2013. The youngest of three, by all accounts, Shane was a happy and healthy newborn. His parents are truly blessed and his siblings adore him. Now, Shane is eight months old. And, as you can tell from the picture, he's got a toothy grin that lights up a room. 

But, then came the news that no parent ever wants to hear: Shane has cancer.

I still have trouble reading those words: Shane has cancer. I remember reading them for the first time a few weeks ago when Shane's dad emailed me with the news. As a father of four young children, my heart immediately broke. I know what it's like to have a young child who is suffering through illness. But, one of my children with cancer would be unimaginable.

Just associating the word "cancer" -- even the most treatable forms -- with a son or daughter is nightmarish. So, you can imagine how Shane's mom and dad are living through hell; Baby Shane has been diagnosed with alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma. He now faces over 40 arduous weeks of chemotherapy to battle a form of cancer which kills 9 out of 10 children afflicted. 

With the deck clearly stacked against this little eight-month-old baby, Shane's family is grounded in hope and resilience:

"He's an 8 month old baby fighting stage 4 cancer. How does this happen? There are things in life that will never be explained. We have no idea why we were chosen, but we were. So, we must move forward and fight for baby Shane."

This kid is a fighter too. I'm told he crushed the 1st two chemo treatments. 

My money is on the cutie-pie underdog. 

 I don't know about you guys, but I like to back a winner. Sure, it's easy to bet on the favorite, but --- Shane, can you earmuff it for me? --- Fuck cancer! This horrific disease is no one's favorite.

And even though cancer may have the upper hand right now, none of us are focused on 90% mortality odds. All of us know that Shane is going to get through his chemotherapy like a champ. And we remain positive that he's going to beat this disease.

Indeed, I can't imagine a more satisfying payoff and sweeter ending.

Please help Shane fight cancer.

Yes, there is hope for Shane. And you can help. If you too would like to back a winner, consider making a donation for Shane, which you can do here

Your donations will cover any out-of-pocket expenses that insurance does not cover. Any leftover funds will go to the Children's Hospital of Pennsylvania's Oncology Department and to THON, Penn State University's childhood cancer fundraiser.

And, if you can't donate, please show your support by going to Shane's page and sharing his story on social media with the hashtag #HelpShaneFightCancer.

One day, we'll change that hashtag to #ShaneBeatCancer.

Thank you.

April 17, 2014

Employment Law Blog Carnival - Pick Your Holiday Edition

The third week of April ushers in several holidays: Passover, Good Friday, Easter.

But no matter what your religion or god -- even a sacrilicious ceiling waffle -- we can all agree that the Employment Law Blog Carnival, which you can find this month at Tim Eavenson's blog: Current Employment, is the workplace glory. 

This month, Tim has more posts about HR-compliance than you can count on your ten fingers. So raise your hands up to the sky and shout Hosanna! The power of the #ELBC compels you! 

Or, just forget my blasphemy and enjoy the carnival.

Whatever.

* * *

P.S. - If you're on LinkedIn, consider joining the discussion of news, trends and insights in employment law, HR, and workplace, by becoming a member of The Employer Handbook LinkedIn Group. Almost as fun as a carnival. I'm still working on getting a Tilt-A-Whirl*

(*By Tilt-A-Whirl, I mean life.)

April 16, 2014

The ADA may require companies to accommodate employee theft. Yep, stealing.

Back in 2011, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued Walgreens from disability discrimination. Specifically, the EEOC claimed that Josefina Hernandez, a cashier at Walgreens' South San Francisco store, who suffered from diabetes, was on duty when she opened a $1.39 bag of chips because she was suffering from an attack of hypoglycemia (low blood sugar).

The EEOC further alleged that Walgreens knew of Ms. Hernandez's disability and fired Ms. Hernandez after being informed that Hernandez had eaten the chips because her blood sugar was low, even though she paid for the chips when she came off cashier duty.

It's all here in the EEOC's September 2011 press release.

Now, fast forward to 2014, and a California federal court has just ruled in this opinion that the EEOC may be right. That is, Ms. Hernandez claim's of disability discrimination just survived summary judgment and is headed for trial.

In its defense, citing the EEOC's own guidance for employers, Walgreens claimed that it can never be a reasonable accommodation to require an employer to accommodate employee theft.

However, the Court refashioned the issue as whether an employer under the ADA is required to make a reasonable accommodation with respect to an employee whose disability caused that employee to violate a company's workplace rule. To which Walgreen said, well, yeah, other guidance from the EEOC supports our position too.

But the court wasn't buying it (pun, partially intended), deferring to a jury on whether Walgreens could treat Ms. Hernandez as it did other employees, or accommodate her misconduct:

"Under the Ninth Circuit case law, misconduct resulting from a disability has to be considered as part of Hernandez's disability and creates a question of fact as to whether Hernandez's disability was causally related to her termination. In other words, whether or not Hernandez's disability was, in fact, a cause of her misconduct is a question of fact for the jury. Similarly, whether Walgreens should have been required to 'accommodate' her stealing as a 'reasonable' accommodation is for the jury to determine."

Strangely, although the court concluded that "it is clear that Hernandez was fired because of her 'misconduct' in taking the chips without paying for them," it also underscored that "Walgreens has not established as a matter of law that Hernandez's conduct was 'stealing.'"

So which is it? Did she steal the chips or not? And how can an employer possibly be required to accommodate theft? Frankly, I can't make heads or tails out of this opinion.

What do you guys think? Let me know in the comments below...

* * *

P.S. - If you're on LinkedIn, consider joining the discussion of news, trends and insights in employment law, HR, and workplace, by becoming a member of The Employer Handbook LinkedIn Group. It's all that and a bag of chips.*

(*But, you need to pay for the chips.)

April 15, 2014

What are employers doing about employees who do their taxes -- at work!?!

Today is tax day, or, as I like to call it, sonofa---!

Actually, I get a nice refund this year. I guess that's what happens when you have four kids under five. Which reminds me, I should ask, do any of you babysit? Because I have Verizon Fios and a jar of Marshmallow Fluff to sweeten the offer.

What? Where was I?

Oh yes, did you know that 30% of workers say that it is common to use company resources like the copier or printer to complete their personal income tax paperwork -- which they prepare during business hours.

That's from a survey quoted in this article from Jeff Blumenthal at Philadelphia Business Journal.

So what can employers do about this?

Wait, you're still here? I'll give you a hint. Go read Jeff's article.

(I'm quoted).

* * *

P.S. - If you're on LinkedIn, consider joining the discussion of news, trends and insights in employment law, HR, and workplace, by becoming a member of The Employer Handbook LinkedIn Group. It's got to be better than the US Airways Social Media All-Stars Group, amirite?

April 14, 2014

This is one badass labor and employment law roundtable

Recently, several local lawyers and I participated in a labor and employment law roundtable for The Legal Intelligencer.

Actually, the table was rectangular. But, the coffee and muffins were free, so I didn't complain.

Well, not until I dropped my pants and mooned the employee-rights lawyers on the panel. Trust me, they had it coming. 

Actually, they were quite polite and articulate. So, fortunately, they edited my butt-cheeks out.

I'm a real peach.

What were we talking about again?

Right, the roundtable. We debated several topics:

  • background checks
  • social media in the workplace
  • employee leave issues
  • dating in the workplace
  • BYOD
  • my 28 inch blog pythons

Here is the transcript.

April 11, 2014

A 79-year-old teacher was fired for refusing to unfriend her students on Facebook

Thumbnail image for facebookprivacy.jpgA teacher getting in trouble for something having to do with Facebook?

You don't say...

The full story, plus another state has passed a social media workplace privacy law. I've got it all for you after the jump...

* * *

Continue reading "A 79-year-old teacher was fired for refusing to unfriend her students on Facebook" »

April 10, 2014

What's hot at the EEOC? Plus, a legal roadmap for managing the aging workforce.

Thumbnail image for bagelcreamcheese.jpg

Whatcha doin' two weeks from today?

Want to grab some breakfast with me? Maybe hear about what's hot at the EEOC and get a legal roadmap for managing the aging workforce?

In you're in the Philadelphia area and would like to learn more about these topics, then come on down to our offices on Thursday, April 24 at 8:30 AM for a free presentation with a complimentary continental breakfast. Lawyers can get CLE. HR credits will also be offered.

The only bad news is that you'll have to hear me flap my gums for an hour about best practices to avoid becoming an EEOC target. And since I can't seem to blog my way out of a paper bag, you can imagine how (in)articulate I'll be. Fortunately, my co-presenter from the EEOC, Mary Tiernan, will rock thy world.

Plus, my Dilworth Paxson colleagues will school you on the legal issues of which you should be aware when dealing with your older employees.

If you are interested in attending, click here for more details and to RSVP.

Mention this blog and I'll get you an extra pat of butter to go with your continental breakfast.

After all, I take care of my VIPs.