halloweenface.jpgHere’s a little HR Pro Tip from your old pal, Eric.

If, around Halloween time, an employee requests permission to hand out bags of candy containing “gospel tracts,” which depict Muslims and Catholics and state that they should all go to hell, you just go ahead reject that religious-accommodation request.

(More on religious accommodations here)

Cuz even though that employee may sue and have her case make it one step below the United State Supreme Court, she will lose.

While this is definitely an extreme example, employers should be careful not to favor one religion over another. However, they are not required to permit proselytizing in the workplace, especially when the message includes bashing other religions.

mrsandman.jpgLet’s assume that you run a factory in which employees are scheduled on one of two shifts: (1) 6:00 AM – 6:00 PM; or (2) 6:00 PM to 6:00 AM.

One of your employees comes to you with a doctor’s note which states that working the graveyard shift will cause the employee to suffer migraine headaches and insomnia.

The Americans with Disabilities Act requires that employers accommodate employees with disabilities if doing so will allow the employee to perform the essential functions of her job without creating undue hardship for the employer. One way in which an employer can reasonably accommodate an employee is through schedule adjustment or shift change.

So, if the employee who is susceptible to migraines and insomnia at night asks to stay on the day shift, must you oblige?

This recent federal court opinion describes a situation in which the answer is yes:

Construed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff, the evidence shows that Plaintiff notified Defendants of her extreme insomnia and migraine headaches through a doctor’s note, a letter, and verbally alerting them to her conditions. Defendants also were aware that her conditions were triggered if she worked a graveyard shift past 12:00 a.m. Aware of Plaintiff’s conditions, Defendant Lopez scheduled Plaintiff for standby, including the possibility that Plaintiff would be called to cover graveyard shifts.

* * *

Defendants do not present evidence that allowing Plaintiff to be excused from working the graveyard shift on April 6, 2011, would have caused them an undue hardship.

Indeed, the employer admitted that it scheduled Plaintiff to work the graveyard shift because of other employees’ concerns that Plaintiff was working only day shifts. Thus, working the graveyard shift, in this particular setting, was not an essential job function. Plus, any alleged hit to employee morale caused by allowing the Plaintiff to continue to work the day shift could hardly be construed as undue hardship to the employer.

Now, there may be situations in which the economics or the overall impact in readjusting schedules could present undue hardship for an employer. But, remember that the burden is on the employer to show undue hardship and a court is not just going to accept the employer’s say-so if it raises that defense. So, be prepared to back up that undue-hardship defense with numbers and facts.

Otherwise, make the accommodation for your disabled employee.

teeth.pngJust a reminder that some managers still engage in really stupid behavior.

I was reading this case about an HR Manager of a dentistry practice.

Following an interview between a dentist in her practice and an African-American woman, the dentist allegedly commented to the HR Manager that the person would not be hired, as there were already too many blacks in Lewisville. The HR Manager then supposedly responded that “race is irrelevant.” 

And, after the HR Manager told another member of management what had transpired, the manager stated that there were too many blacks in Lewisville and that they were ugly.

Shortly thereafter, the company sacked the HR Manager, to which she responded that her termination was retaliatory; i.e., for complaining about her former employer’s discriminatory actions.

In defending the lawsuit, the defendants first contended that the plaintiff had failed to establish that she had complained about discrimination.

Since, all that is required to demonstrate a complaint about discrimination is an understanding that the plaintiff is protesting discriminatory conduct, the plaintiff responded to the defendants’ argument, “Like, duh.” that her discussion with management was to advise the company of the wrongness of the hiring dentist’s conduct and cause him to change his course of action.

Not surprisingly, the court accepted this argument.

Like, duh.

Undeterred, the defendants argued that the plaintiff could not connect her comment to her termination. The plaintiff responded that the proximity in time between her comment and her termination would suffice. Further, she argued that the defendants’ reasons for firing her were pretextual, especially in light of Defendants’ chief financial officer’s statement that the plaintiff had been terminated because “she hired too many blacks.”

Good gawd!

The defendants argued that it had a number of non-discriminatory performance-related reasons for terminating the plaintiff’s employment, and those may be true. However, allegations of racist statements attributed to multiple members of management is also a very good reason to settle a case.

And increase the sensitivity training budget.

(But then again, if the allegations in this particular case are true, I don’t know that any amount of training would fix such a systemic problem of prejudice).

mlbstadium.jpgWhen you think of minor league baseball, you may draw on movies like Bull Durham or The Rookie; long bus trips from stadium to stadium where teams play in front of small crowds for small pay.

Well, apparently, the pay may be small enough to trigger a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act

As pitchers and catchers being to report for Spring Training, Craig Calcaterra at NBC Sports HardBall Talk reports here that three minor league baseball players have initiated a putative class action in federal court against Major League Baseball, among others. In the Complaint (copy here), the plaintiffs allege violations of the FLSA stemming from the failure to pay minimum wage and overtime for working more than 40 hours per week.

Over at CNNSI, Attorney Michael McCann, discusses the case here and notes that the defendants are not without defenses:

Baseball will argue that professional athletes are not entitled to overtime pay. The life of a professional athlete commands atypical hours and an arduous work schedule. Some of this work may also be more in line with a player’s own professional development than his employment. Baseball will surely cite case precedent and Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division materials that support an argument that minor leaguers are exempt from wage and overtime benefits. Baseball might stress that under the FLSA, “professional employees” are usually exempt from FLSA benefits and that classification includes those who perform original or unique work.

Indeed, the FLSA has a seasonality test, which could exempt baseball teams from having to abide by the minimum wage and overtime requirements. 

Here is a case in which the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the Cincinnati Reds did not qualify for the exemption. And here is a case where the Eleventh Circuit determined that a minor league baseball team did meet the exemption.

How this one will turn out is anyone’s guess. But, I’ll keep a close eye on this one for you.

Fact or Fiction?That’s right folks. It’s time for another edition of “Fact or Fiction” a/k/a “Quick Answers to Quick Questions” a/k/a QATQQ f/k/a “I don’t feel like writing a long blog post.”

One of your employees is currently using FMLA leave. Today, due to the winter storm, you’ve decided to close the office. 

Do you still count today’s snow-induced office closure towards the 12 workweeks of FMLA to which your employee is entitled?

Answer: It depends.

  • If the employee would have otherwise taken the entire week off on FMLA leave, then today can be charged as an FMLA day just the same.
  • If, however, you employee is using FMLA leave in increments of less than one week, the snow day will not count against the employee’s FMLA entitlement, unless you expect that employee to come to work.

Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for EEOC.jpgWhen your business offers a severance agreement to a departing employee, does it contain:

  • a general release;
  • a non-disparagement obligation;
  • a confidentiality provision;
  • a covenant not to sue; or
  • a cooperation clause

Well, if it contains any one (or more) of these provisions, head over to Jon Hyman’s Ohio Employer’s Law Blog right away to learn about a new lawsuit that the EEOC has filed in which it alleges that each of these common severance-agreement provisions amounts to retaliation.

If the EEOC prevails here and in subsequent similar actions in other jurisdictions, the effects would be game-changing.

So, definitely go to Jon’s blog for more information.

publcienemy.jpgYesterday, I read a post over at Business Management Daily about an employee who sued for involuntary servitude.

Yes, folks. The plaintiff claimed that her former employer had treated her like a slave. 

Specifically, the plaintiff, a trainee of some sort, alleged that she was never provided with a job description or adequately trained.

(Stop me if this sounds familiar)

The plaintiff next alleged that her supervisor specifically told her that normal working hours were Monday through Friday from 9:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

(I don’t know about you, but I just stepped away for five minutes to update my resume to submit to the defendant)

The plaintiff further alleged that she worked in less than ideal working conditions, where she wasn’t compensated for any work performed in excess of forty hours per week, including the work she was required to take home with her and perform on the weekend.

(Ok, maybe not resume worthy, and a possible FLSA violation to boot. But slavery?)

No slavery according to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (opinion here):

In the present case, plaintiff alleges challenging working conditions. Plaintiff’s work environment, however, does not evoke in the court’s mind the burdens endured by the African slaves in the cotton fields or kitchens of the antebellum south. Moreover, the general defense against oppressive hours, pay, working conditions or treatment is the right to change employers. Plaintiff never claimed that the defendants physically restrained her or prevented her from leaving work. Rather, she always maintained the right to walk away from defendants’ employment. In short, plaintiff has not alleged that her employment with defendants rose to the level of involuntary servitude.

What’s the takeaway here? Oh, I dunno. Don’t violate the 13th Amendment.

Thumbnail image for philadelphia.jpgLate last month, Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter signed this bill, which requires reasonable workplace accommodations for employees who have needs related to pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition.

As noted in this prior post about Philadelphia’s new law, reasonable accommodations would include, but are not limited to, restroom breaks, periodic rest for those who stand for long periods of time, assistance with manual labor, leave for a period of disability arising from childbirth, reassignment to a vacant position, and job restructuring.

An employer can avoid having to provide a workplace accommodation, but will have the burden of proving “undue hardship.” The “undue hardship” factors generally mirror those found in the Americans with Disabilities Act and revolve around the cost of the accommodation and the employer’s overall financial resources.

Philadelphia’s new pregnancy accommodation law went into effect when Mayor Nutter signed the bill. Within 90 days, local employers will have to post notice of the new law in the workplace. The City is in the process of preparing that notice.

fmla.jpegHow about cutting the 50-employee requirement for covered employers in half? 

So, if you have 25 or more employees working within 75 miles of one another, they would be eligible to take leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act.

And that’s just part of the Family and Medical Leave Enhancement Act of 2014, which Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY) introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives earlier this week.

Eligible employees would also be able to “participate in or attend an activity that is sponsored by a school or community organization and relates to a program of the school or organization that is attended by a son or daughter or a grandchild of the employee.”

A covered employee could also use FMLA to “meet routine family medical care needs, including for medical and dental appointments of the employee or a son, daughter, spouse, or grandchild of the employee, or to attend to the care needs of elderly individuals who are related to the eligible employee, including visits to nursing homes and group homes.”

We’re talking major FMLA changes here.

For more on the Family and Medical Leave Enhancement Act of 2014, check out this press release from Rep. Maloney.

(h/t Ilyse Wolens Schuman @ D.C. Employment Law Update)

nlrb.jpg

Back in 2011, the National Labor Relations Board tried to pass certain rules that would have changed the union-election process in eight ways:

  1. Allow for electronic filing of election petitions and other documents.
  2. Ensure that employees, employers and unions receive and exchange timely information they need to understand and participate in the representation case process.
  3. Standardize timeframes for parties to resolve or litigate issues before and after elections.
  4. Require parties to identify issues and describe evidence soon after an election petition is filed to facilitate resolution and eliminate unnecessary litigation.
  5. Defer litigation of most voter eligibility issues until after the election.
  6. Require employers to provide a final voter list in electronic form soon after the scheduling of an election, including voters’ telephone numbers and email addresses when available.
  7. Consolidate all election-related appeals to the Board into a single post-election appeals process and thereby eliminate delay in holding elections currently attributable to the possibility of pre-election appeals.
  8. Make Board review of post-election decisions discretionary rather than mandatory.

However, courts later determined that the Board didn’t have the authority to pass any election-rule changes, because it didn’t have enough Board members to have a quorum.

(Gawd, this post got real boring, real fast…)

Fast-forward a few years, the Board is fully-loaded. So, the Board is all like, why not try to get the rules passed again.

So, the Board will officially publish the rules today for public comment. Here is what SHRM said about the same rules back in 2011. And here is what others are saying about the resurfacing rules in 2014:

    The public will have until April 7, 2014 to submit comments.