Better settle the case, right?
Not if you’re Flannery Oaks Guest House. Instead, you move for summary judgment and try to get your former employee’s FMLA retaliation claim dismissed.
Was Andy Reid or Norv Turner calling that play?
How do you think it worked out for ole Flannery Oaks? (Hint: it failed miserably). Find out for sure after the jump…
Yesterday, I spent a fun hour hanging out on Twitter with the folks from SHRM’s We Know Next discussing 2012’s HR victories and, then, what lies ahead for you good folks in 2013.
A big thank you to SHRM and to those who were able to join us and participate. ICYMI, after the jump is a full recap of all the action along with the top song on the Billboard pop charts.
* * *
Translation: Recent HR / employment law developments that Meyer missed a/k/a Meyer needs to clear out his folder of bookmarked employment-law items to make room for his dork dorkier Fantasy Baseball bookmarks. Pitchers and catchers report in just over two months.
- More courts weigh in on social-media discovery issues. “Good news. My doctor says that the itching and redness should subside in a few days.” Recent court decisions (here and here) roadmap how you can access this and other Facebook status updates from your former employee who is now suing you. Have fun with that.
- Other social-media-related litigation. A firefighter, allegedly terminated for critical Facebook comments, has settled his wrongful discharge claim (here). Facebook posts doom another employee’s FMLA claims (here). The National Labor Relations Board crapped all over another employer’s social-media policy (here). Choking back laughter (at least that’s how I envision it), a Massachusetts Court denied
another(the first ever?) hair salon’s claim that a former stylist’s job posting on Facebook violated a non-solicitation agreement agreement (here).
*** Googles “sans,” wipes brow while sighing in relief ***
I’m not aware of any studies or surveys that the Sandbar Mexican Grill conducted on this subject. Instead, I imagine something like this:
Sandbar Customer: “Two please.”
Sandbar Manager: “Sure. But before I seat you, do you see that bartender over there? She’s *gasp* pregnant. That’s why we have her behind the bar, instead of in your face distracting you from watching the Arizona Cardinals, losers of eight in a row. Given that it’s Football Sunday, we even raised the bar an extra foot just in case her fetus is sitting high. And, as an extra precaution, we have a curtain between the bar and the employee bathroom so that you won’t have to avert your eyes should nature call. We used to have a bucket behind the bar for her, but our lawyers frowned on that. Really, what am I saying is, should we just fire her? Uh, fellas?!? Come back! I’ll make the other servers pee on sticks. Don’t run away! I assure you, it’s EPT; not that ClearBlue crap! Come one guys! Half-price Vodka/Rock Stars! Fellas!
Hey Employers!
Want to guarantee yourself a jury trial in an age-discrimination case? Just mention the word “younger” to any employee age forty or above right around the time you fire him.
[Editor’s Note: Calling that employee an “old man,” “old fart,” “pops,” and “grandpa” will also do the trick — except, of course, in Texas]
Image credit: atom.smasher.org, licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
When a male employee texted his female co-worker and former girlfriend that she was a “whore” and later ignored two protective orders that the female co-worker had taken out against him, I wonder if he was thinking, “Maybe, I’ll get fired and parlay that into a winning reverse-gender-discrimination claim.”
Indeed, the guy’s actions violated a number of work rules and, ultimately, resulted in his termination. But a winning reverse-gender-discrimination claim? Not so much according to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (opinion here):
Yep, someone — represented by a licensed, practicing attorney — brought this lawsuit.
***Shakes head // Smiles // Kisses statuette of Blogga-Blogga, the goddess of HR blogging fodder. Love you, boo.***
Bagel party — whoop! whoop! — after the jump…
* * *
Maetta Vance, the only African-American working in her department at Ball State University, claimed that she was subjected to both race discrimination and retaliation. Vance later sued and lost because she could not establish employer liability, which, in turn, depended on whether the alleged harassment was perpetrated by supervisors or coworkers.
Employers have an affirmative defense when the supervisor harassment does not result in a tangible employment action. If, however, the harassing supervisor fires, suspends, or takes some other similar action against the victim, it’s check mate.
In instances of co-worker harassment, where tangible employment actions wouldn’t be at issue (because the harassing co-worker wouldn’t have that power), to prevail on a discrimination claim, the plaintiff must show, among other things, that the employer has “been negligent either in discovering or remedying the harassment.”
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?
The Employer Handbook Blog