The Employer Handbook Blog

I've been searching for gold recently. So, I knew I was on to something good when I started reading this opinion last week, and wasn't sure whether what I was reading was a sexual harassment case or a porno script.

What can I say? I like the plots.

Folks, if you click through, I promise you a great read after the jump...

Continue reading "Horniest boss ever? His employee still can't prove sexual harassment." »

photo © 2010 Paul Newtron | more info (via: Wylio)

Just another Friday here at the ole Handbook. Oh, get your head out of the gutter! This is a family blog.

(Y'all have families, right?)

For serious, today's lede isn't just gratuitous, there is an employment-law connection here.

*** searching ... searching ... searching ***

Ok, got it!

1. Back in 2012, the Iowa Supreme Court held that it's legal to fire a female employee because of her "irresistible attraction". Leave it to Staci Zaretsky at Above the Law to track down the plaintiff. She filmed a hilarious segment on Tosh.0. More from Above The Law here.


2. Take one supervisor, add in a consensual relationship (complete with texting, sexting, and you know, I don't know the exact pronunciation, but I believe its ménage à trois) gone bad, a sexual harassment complaint, and what do you have? Why a race-discrimination complaint, of course! Guh?!?!


3. And last, we have this month's edition of the Employment Law Blog Carnival: Tips for HR Spring Cleaning. Make sure to check it out. Lorene Schafer at Win-Win HR did a fantastic job with it!

This blog is nearly 2 1/2 years old and we have our first Equal Pay Act post. The Equal Pay Act requires equal pay for equal work on jobs the performance of which require equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions. Any wage discrimination on the basis of sex violates the Act.

The EEOC celebrated "Equal Pay Day" last week. So, now is as good a time as any to address the Act through this recent case from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

In Puchakjian v. Township of Winslow, Deborah Puchakjian filled a Municipal Clerk vacancy within the Township of Winslow which came about a result of the retirement of the male incumbent. His salary at retirement was $85,515; Ms. Puchakijan's salary to replace him was $55,000.

She sued.

She lost.

You see, there are four exceptions to the Act's general rule of equal pay for equal work:

1. a bona fide seniority system,
2. a merit system,
3. a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production, or
4. any factor other than gender

The Third Circuit agreed with the lower court that the retired Municipal Clerk's yearly salary increases over his 29-year tenure in the position "both explained and motivated the wage disparity." Consequently, the wage disparity was based on a factor other than gender.

Given these four Equal Pay Act exceptions, claims under the Act are tough to prove. That said, a priority in the EEOC's Strategic Enforcement Plan (FY 2013-2016), is the enforcement of equal pay laws. Indeed, in 2012, the EEOC received over 4,100 charges of gender-based wage discrimination, and obtained over $24 million in relief for victims of gender-based wage discrimination through administrative enforcement efforts and litigation.

So, now is as good a time as any to conduct a wage audit and make sure that any disparity in pay for equal work is attributable to one of the Act's exceptions.

Many states and localities have laws forbidding discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (LGBT). 

But Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, one of the federal laws barring discrimination in the workplace, law does not prohibit it.

What Title VII does make unlawful, however, is stereotyping based on a person's gender non-conforming behavior (i.e., a man who appears effeminate, or a "manly" woman). As a Virginia federal court (here) re-emphasized last week, sex stereotyping is central to all discrimination:

Discrimination involves generalizing from the characteristics of a group to those of an individual, making assumptions about an individual because of that person's gender, assumptions that may or may not be true.

Recognizing that the line between unlawful sex stereotyping and lawful (yet despicable) discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation can be tough to draw, the Virginia court denied a defendant's motion to dismiss a pro se plaintiff's sex stereotyping claims because he alleged that he was given crappy assignments based on the company's position that his failure to conform to gender norms reflected poorly upon the company and would displease its clients. This was enough, at the pleading the stage, to spell out plausible claims for sex stereotyping. Whether the plaintiff can ultimately prevail is another story.

The takeaway here is this: there are certain incendiary words that, when used in workplaces -- especially blue-collar workplaces -- may create immediate animosity and, ultimately, lead to lawsuits from male or female employees. Take, for example, the word "bitch." Courts recognize that calling a woman a bitch is intentional discrimination based on gender. But, calling a man a "bitch" (or "faggot" or "woman") can also give rise to a sex stereotyping claim based on a failure to conform to gender norms.

So, when conducting respect-in-the-workplace training, don't give same-sex harassment short shrift. Instead, explain it, give examples, and remind employees that they don't have to endure that kind of crap at work. Encourage anyone who experiences or witnesses sex stereotyping to complain about it so that it may be addressed and dealt with immediately.

Also, if you're one of the few employers that hasn't progressed beyond the confines of Title VII to preclude discrimination based on sexual orientation, get out of the stone ages and join us here in the 21st century.

For much of the week, I've blogged about Adria Richards, the employee who got fired for tweeting complaints about discrimination. On Monday, I offered my legal analysis (here).

On Tuesday, I followed that up with this simple poll that purported to remove the law from the equation: Was the decision of Ms. Richards's employer, SendGrid, to fire her "fair" or "unfair"? "Fair" and "unfair" were the only two answers and they were randomized such that either one could have appeared as the top choice when taking the poll.

Now the results are in. 129 of you responded and 70 of you (54%) said that the firing was fair. 59 respondents indicated that the firing was unfair (46%). 

I'm assuming that most of my readers and, therefore, most of the respondents have an HR or legal background. Therefore, I will further assume that, while the results here are quite balanced, had I asked the question whether the firing was "lawful" or "unlawful," the results would not have been nearly as close.

Thank you to everyone who participated.

Whew!

Got a little carried away with yesterday's post about the employee who got fired for tweeting complaints about discrimination, didn't I?

Then again, I'm not the one who came up with the hashtag #donglegate.

Yesterday, I offered my legal analysis. Today, I want your non-legal opinion:

Is this Retaliation 2.0?

Two weeks ago, Adria Richards attended an industry conference at which she overheard sexual jokes from two attendees sitting behind her during a session. So, she complained...on Twitter:

And then she blogged about it here. The social-media complaints resulted in one of the joke tellers getting fired. And, last Wednesday, Ms. Richards tweeted that her employer supported her.

That same day, SendGrid, Ms. Richards's employer, fired her.

(Jon Brodkin at arstechnica.com has the full story here).

We can argue about the propriety of using social media to publicize a harassment complaint, especially when a private complaint could have sufficed. Still, the SendGrid response certainly seems harsh and unfair.

But did SendGrid go so far as to retaliate (as a matter of law) against Ms. Richards?

Find out, after the jump...

Continue reading "Employee gets fired for tweeting complaints about discrimination" »

So captivating that, at 35 pages long, it held my attention for 24 of them. Winning! 

I'll whet your whistle with the opening paragraph of EEOC v. The McPherson Cos., Inc.:

This Title VII case revolves around repeated churlish, childish, gross, sordid, vulgar, foul, disgusting, profane utterances in the workplace. The question in the case, however, is not how vile and obnoxious this workplace language was. It was vile and obnoxious enough to score nine on a scale of ten. This will become apparent as the story unfolds. The question for the court is rather whether this verbal mayhem morphed from a competition to see who could beat whom in the foul-mouth game into a cause of action under Title VII by an offended employee for same-sex sexual harassment.

After jump, I'll keep my babbling to a minimum and, instead, highlight the matter-of-fact prose of Judge William M. Acker, Jr. from the Northern District of Alabama. And we'll answer the question: Does the reach of Title VII preclude same-sex sexual harassment where offensive workplace language is not directed at a man because he's a man?

Continue reading "The most blunt same-sex sexual harassment judicial opinion...evah!" »

A federal court described Charles "Chuck" Wolfe, a crew superintendent in of an all-male construction crew, as a "world-class trash talker" and a "master of vulgarity." One of the members of Wolfe's crew was Kerry Woods, a straight male. Woods claimed that his supervisor, Wolfe another straight man, had engaged in unlawful "same sex" harassment, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, by referring to him in "raw homophobic epithets and lewd gestures."

A jury heard Woods's claims and awarded him nearly $500,000. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals heard the employer's appeal, threw out the jury award, and dismissed the complaint (in this opinion).

Why? Find out after the jump...

Continue reading "What do Ravishing Rick Rude and sex discrimination have in common?" »

When Harold Wasek signed on to work at an oil rig in Pennsylvania, he had no idea what lay in store for him, especially when one of his co-workers discovered that Wasek would get easily riled with sexually explicit stories, jokes, fantasies, and names.

• "You've got such a pretty mouth."
• "Boy you have pretty lips."
• "You know you like it, sweetheart."

Wasek complained to his supervisor. But the harassment worsened. He was touched in a sexual manner: grabbing his buttocks, poking him in the rear with a hammer handle and something described as a long sucker rod.

So Wasek sued claiming sex discrimination. And he lost. Why? Because his harasser was a straight man.

Seriously.

I'll explain after the jump...

* * *

Continue reading "One roughneck's life: sex jokes, gay innuendo, all legal." »

Yesterday, the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued updated Enforcement Guidance on employer use of arrest and conviction records in employment decisions under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (Title VII is the federal statute that prohibits discrimination in the workplace based on race, color, religion, sex and national origin). You can read a full press release on the updated Enforcement Guidance here.

The press release includes a link to questions and answers about the EEOC's Enforcement Guidance. However, I will summarize the most important points for employers after the jump...

Continue reading "5 takeaways from the EEOC's new guidance on use of criminal records" »

I can pinpoint the exact moment that this blog transcended to the next level of internet excellence.

It was back in late March, when I blogged here about a female bartender/server who had sued her employer, the Wild Beaver Saloon, for pregnancy discrimination. The retweets that day were off the heezy fo sheezy, yo. (The hyperlink is a courtesy to my NPR listeners).

***Wait. Hold on one sec. I have to take this call from "1993". They say they want their dated hip-hop lingo back. OK, I'm back.***

When I first wrote about the Wild Beaver Saloon, the question was whether a business could make an employment decision based on the preferences of co-workers, the employer, clients or customers. I concluded, in this instance, that the Beave could not get away with it.

Well, the case ended last week. So was I right? Click past the jump to find out if I know my stuff...

Continue reading "Final score: Pregnant bartender 45,000 - Wild Beaver Saloon 0" »

I can't make this stuff up if I tried.

The Associated Press reports that the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commissions has ordered a local employer to pay $38,700 in back pay and interest to a female employee it fired for fighting at a cheese-making plant. According to the report, Rosalind Brown prevailed on her gender discrimination claim because she apparently received harsher discipline than male employees who had engaged in more egregious behavior:

The commission agreed with Rosalind Brown who claims it was unfair for her to be fired when two men who fought at the Dairy Farmers of America Inc. plant in West Middlesex received only 3-day suspensions. 1 of the men was injured when the other threw a 20-pound block of cheese.

Commission chairman Stephen Glassman commented, "Employers cannot discipline male and female workers differently based on stereotypical expectations of how men and women should behave."

Congratulations!

Because you are reading this post, you somehow made it past your company's internet firewall. That, or you're a horny perv, Googling some effed-up search terms. But I'm a lawyer; I don't judge.

Either way, continue reading. 

After the jump, it's the female bartender/server who is now suing her employer, the Wild Beaver Saloon, *** borderline-NSFW link *** because she claims they fired her for getting pregnant!

Continue reading "Booze, wild beaver, and a pregnant bartender. What!" »

The New Jersey Supreme Court in Alexander v. Seton Hall University has ruled that three women who sued their employer for pay discrimination may pursue their claims, even though their claims were time-barred under then New Jersey law.

More on this case, after the jump...

Continue reading "New Jersey applies Lilly Ledbetter Act to LAD case" »