An employer received a report of a manager harassing his subordinates. The employer appears to take all the right steps: 1) conducting an investigation; 2) involving several higher-level managers in the decision-making process; and 3) even hiring an outside law firm to assist it in deciding what discipline to impose.

BUT, months later, after the manager had been suspended and had his pay docked (a “fine”), the employer has fired the manager (yet he still qualified for a large bonus), the manager’s assistant has resigned, the manager’s supervisor has resigned, another high ranking official with the employer has resigned and the employer is in the midst of a public relations nightmare.

Continue Reading Seemingly “Right” Process Cannot Save “Wrong Result”

The Seventh Circuit recently held that a purchaser in an “asset deal” of a business in receivership was found to be a successor employer for the purposes of a $500,000 wage/hour settlement. The liability was imposed on the purchaser even though the contract formalizing the asset deal expressly excluded that liability. Teed v. Thomas & Betts Power Solutions, LLC. Found here.

Continue Reading Successor Liability in “Asset Deal” Extends to Wage/Hour Liability

The Department of Labor recently issued new FMLA regulations. The new regulations will take effect March 8, 2013. The regulations will have limited impact on most employers. However, the new regulations will require employers to obtain and post a new poster with the revised language contained in the regulations.

The other, more substantive impact is limited. The new regulations relate primarily to employees who are active military or retired. For a qualifying exigency leave, the definition of “active duty” is now “covered active duty” and will somewhat narrow coverage for eligible employees – the coverage will now extend only to those whose related service members are being deployed to a foreign country. On the other hand, military caregiver leave has been expanded. That leave – which provides for as much as 26 weeks of leave in 12 months – now includes eligible employees who are caring for covered veterans as well as covered service members. Covered veterans are those with a “serious injury or illness” who were discharged or released under conditions other than dishonorable within five years of an eligible employee’s initial request for leave (subject to certain exclusions extending the time for requesting leave). These and other new provisions are included on the revised FMLA Employee Rights and Responsibilities Poster (WH 1420). Employers should obtain new posters now for posting by March 8.

If you have questions about the new regulations and how they will affect your leave policies or would like assistance obtaining the revised poster, contact any of our Labor and Employment attorneys.

The EEOC recently announced two multi-million dollar settlements relating to the targeted employers leave of absence practices. In November, the EEOC announced a $4.5m settlement with Interstate Distributor Company, based on claims that the trucking company did not provide reasonable accommodation to scores of employees who were terminated upon exhausting available leave time. The EEOC claimed that the company’s practice of automatically terminating employees after exhausting a set amount of leave without any interactive discussions with the employee, along with an alleged “no restrictions” policy violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Similarly, on December 18 (the same day that the EEOC announced its strategic plan), the EEOC announced a $2m settlement with Dillard’s Inc. based on similar allegations. There, Dillard’s was accused not only of having a practice of terminating employees after a specific period of leave but also of having a practice of seeking specific medical information from an employee seeking sick leave. According to the EEOC, these practices violated the ADA.

Continue Reading EEOC Continues Aggressive Look at Employer Leave Policies

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has approved its strategic plan for fiscal years 2013 to 2016 to set the agency’s national enforcement priorities. The Plan identifies the following six national priorities: eliminating barriers in recruitment and hiring; protecting immigrant, migrant, and other vulnerable workers; addressing emerging and developing employment discrimination issues; enforcing equal pay laws; preserving access to the legal system; and preventing harassment through systemic enforcement and outreach.

So what does this mean for employers? A few observations:

  • Look for the focus on “emerging and developing” issues to include continued emphasis by the EEOC on employers’ leave of absence policies. See companion blog entry on these developments here; employers would be wise to re-evaluate their leave policies in light of these developments, especially in eliminating any “automatic termination” language upon expiration of available leave;
  • Look for the focus on “equal pay” – which was an added enforcement strategy from the draft plan – to develop into an EEOC enforcement response to the Supreme Court’s decision in decertifying class claims in the Wal-Mart pay and promotion case;
  • Look for the EEOC to continue its strategy of attempting to convert individual charges into larger scale investigations of possible systemic violations.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits a covered employer from requiring an employee to undergo a “medical examination,” unless the examination is shown to be job-related and consistent with business necessity. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held that an employer’s demand that an employee seek psychological counseling as a condition of continued employment may constitute a violation of the ADA.

In Kroll v White Lake Ambulance Authority, Case No. 10-2348 (6th Cir. 2012), the plaintiff, Emily Kroll, was an Emergency Medical Technician for White Lake Ambulance Authority (WLAA). She had an affair with a married co-worker and began to exhibit stress and anger at work. Several co-workers expressed to management concern for her well-being. On one occasion, while transporting a patient in emergency status, she was screaming at someone on her telephone. WLAA questioned whether Kroll could perform her job safely and told her that she must attend counseling in order to continue working. There was a dispute whether WLAA required that the counseling be psychological in nature. Kroll refused to seek counseling and did not return to work at WLAA. Continue Reading Requiring Employee to Seek Counseling May Violate ADA

The EEOC recently issued guidance on how an employer’s stereotypical responses to victims of domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking could run afoul of the discrimination laws. The guidance gives some examples which, to the savvy employer, may appear obvious examples of inappropriate (and unlawful) stereotyping. However, the guidance is worth the read. Why? A few reasons:

  1. So often, the characteristics that cause us the most challenge are those that we are blind to in ourselves but can so easily see in others. We employment lawyers and HR professionals are no exception. Thus, being reminded of (and challenged to rid) inappropriate stereotypes in our workplaces is never a wasted exercise.
  2. Some of the examples provided in the EEOC guidance can assist the next round of training. An employer would be wise to add some of the examples used in the guidance. This ‘ever-seeking-to-improve’ approach to training serves the important dual purpose of not merely providing more thorough training for legal defense, but most importantly, more thorough training for creating the kind of workplace that is responsive to the ever-changing needs of all employees – in essence, helping to create the kind of workplace where we all would want to work.
  3. Some may claim that this guidance serves as another example of the EEOC’s reaching for greater enforcement and “stretching” Title VII and other discrimination laws. An unbiased read, however, more likely will disclose that the examples do reflect inappropriate stereotypes that employers would be wise to rid from their workplaces.

Under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), employers face significant challenges in understanding how much information from an employee is considered sufficient to trigger the employer’s duty to follow up. Courts have routinely found that minimal information will trigger an employer’s duty to ask if the employee needs leave and the corresponding duty to seek more information to determine if the FMLA applies. Knowledgeable employers know that an employee does not have to use any “magic language” and does not have to even mention the FMLA or even a need for “leave.” Rather, the employee must provide sufficient information “for an employer to reasonably determine whether the FMLA may apply.”

Some recent decisions address this important issue. In a recent case decided in Michigan, Byron v. St. Mary’s Medical Center, U.S. District Court – Eastern District Michigan, Sept 11, 2012, an employee’s telling her supervisor that she was “too sick to work” and was “going to the emergency room” were sufficient comments to put the employer on notice that the FMLA may be in play. Interestingly, the employer noted that although the employee had pancreatitis, her absences were never more than three consecutive days, meaning that the absences did not qualify anyway. However, the Court noted that given the condition, and the employer’s duty to gather more information, the employer would have learned that the condition was such that her not obtaining treatment would have led to absences in excess of the three-days requirement.

Continue Reading FMLA – What Information is Sufficient to Trigger Employer’s Duty to Follow Up

Some recent court rulings have referred to the “cat’s paw theory” of liability for discrimination. Employers should be aware of these recent decisions because:

  • Employers can be held liable under this theory, even if there is no evidence that the ultimate decision-maker acted in a discriminatory manner;
  • Supervisors who wrongly influence a termination decision can be personally liable in a race case under Section 1981; and
  • This is a terminated employee’s answer to the employer-friendly “honest belief” rule.

Continue Reading Cat’s Paw Theory: What Is It? Why Should I Care?

A Tennessee federal judge recently ruled that a termination notice referring to an employee’s “long-term disability” was direct evidence of discrimination and retaliation.  The Court granted the employee judgment as a matter of law under the ADA.

The employee, Coffman, had been off work on an extended medical leave.  She had exhausted her FMLA leave and remained off work due to restrictions.  Coffman refused a job offer of a sedentary job.  Notes from Coffman’s physician indicated that the refusal was unreasonable, but the employer did not obtain those notes until after it had fired Coffman.  At the time, the Company accepted her refusal of the sedentary job and kept her on leave.  Continue Reading Termination Notice Referring to Disability Considered Direct Evidence of Discrimination

From the Bass, Berry & Sims Blog Network
From the Bass, Berry & Sims Blog Network

Thought Leadership by our Attorneys.