Yesterday, the EEOC issued its FY 2014 Performance Report. Here is a link to the press release.

Now, I’ll admit it. I didn’t read the whole report. Blogging has got me all messed up. I can’t read anything that’s more than 250 words. So, I just stopped at the part in the report where it said that total charges dropped by 5,000 in FY14. So, I didn’t get to the part of the report that credits this blog, in particular, for the drop in charges. But, I assume it’s in there somewhere.

I also wanted to give a nice shout-out to the EEOC’s national mediation program, in which I participate as a pro-bono mediator. Of the 10,221 mediations conducted in FY14, 7,846 of ‘em settled. Based on the math I just did in my head, that’s a success rate of 97%. Ok, 77%. But, that’s still pretty darn good. Shaq’s free throw percentage is jealous.

Overall, the EEOC set 14 targets for itself, of which 7 were met and 7 were exceeded. So, kudos — kids still say kudos, right? — to the EEOC.

Finally, here are the results from Monday’s WWHRD (What Would HR Do?) where I asked the following question: If your employee posted a racist, angry racist Ferguson tweet, how would you recommend that the company respond?

  • Termination 37%
  • Suspension 31%
  • Warning 17%
  • Nothing 6%
  • Other 8%

And, I’m pleased to report that 100% of you loved the poll! 

Last night, Mikhail Gorbachev and Ronald Reagan came to me in a dream.

You see, we were at a video arcade, the two of them playing the classic, Street Fighter. I had next. Mr. Gorbachev was playing as Zangief and President Reagan was Guile. Because, of course.

So, just as the Premier was about to close it out, the President dropped the controls, put Mr. Gorbachev in a headlock and gave him a noogie. I’m talking right on that spot! I mean, the more he noogied, well, the spot started to change colors. From red to silver to pure gold. At which point, Mr. Gorbachev turned to me and said,

“Meyer, start a series on your blog called What Would HR Do. Perestroika!”

Alrighty then. So, it begins. WWHRD coming up after the jump…

* * *

Continue reading

What else is there to blog about after reading a federal court opinion about Yolo (You Only Live Once) and sexual harassment?

Geez. Last night, I could have peed plutonium while flaming monkeys sprang forth from my word hole, and I still would have blogged Yolo.

More on Yolo after the jump…

* * *

Continue reading

Maybe you’ve heard about it. I’m giving a little spiel today on social media in the workplace with a few friends at an event in Philadelphia. If I play my cards right, I’ll do as little speaking as possible on the dais.

Which means I’ll get my two cents in after the jump and discuss on a hockey coach who was recently fired for posting pictures of Nazi propaganda on Facebook.

* * *

Continue reading

In honor of Veterans Day…

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xteDjaNKY0

To prove sexual harassment, a plaintiff must have been subjected to pervasive or severe behavior based on the plaintiff’s sex. Further, not only would an objective person have to find the behavior offensive, but the plaintiff must be offended as well.

Usually, when a plaintiff claims sexual harassment, a court takes for granted that conduct at issue offended the plaintiff.

But, I just read about a case that bucked the trend. 

More on this wacky case, and some workplace lessons for you guys…after the jump…

* * *

Continue reading

The Americans with Disabilities Act requires that companies provide a reasonable accommodation to an employee with a disability, if doing so will allow the employee to perform the essential functions of the job.

The ADA contemplates a number of different types of reasonable accommodations. One such accommodation is a transfer into an open position for which the disabled employee is qualified. But what happens when there is no vacancy. Must an employer bump another non-disabled employee to accommodate the one with the disability?

As an Ohio federal court reminds us in this recent opinion that the answer is no, unless special circumstances exist:

Arthur claims that special circumstances exist here, and that ASI should have given him another employee’s job, and transferred that employee to the machining job Arthur was offered. …But Arthur has not shown that ASI permitted employees whose jobs were eliminated [like Arthur’s] to “bump” other regular employees out of their jobs. The only evidence in the record shows that ASI’s internal transfers were to open positions, or to positions that were filled with temporary employees. And Arthur has not identified any open positions or positions occupied by temporary employees, in any of the departments that he contends he should have been transferred to, such as operating a forklift or working in the rackroom.

What are the special circumstances that may arise? A pattern and practice of bumping employees could suffice. An established seniority system is another example. But absent special circumstances, disabled employees enjoy the same rights as other employees, no more; no less.

Even without a federal law that specifically bans discrimination in the workplace based on sexual orientation or gender identify, it’s no secret that one of the EEOC’s top priorities is to protect LGBT workers from discrimination.

And the EEOC is being quite transparent about it, with a new guide for employers and employees.

I’ve got that for you after the jump…

* * *

Continue reading