Pennsylvania Labor and Employment Lawyer & Attorney : McNees Wallace & Nurick Law Firm : Human Resources, Workplace and Business Law : Harrisburg, Lancaster, Allentown, Lehigh

Let’s take a moment to honor this cinematic legend while examining the dynamics of leadership that exist in all organizations whether it's corporate America or in this case the Hole in the Wall Gang.

In this classic flick, Butch is an absentee leader with no succession plan. He is challenged by one of his subordinates for leadership of the gang.  Butch leads the gang through his dominant intellect and control over the gang’s star member -  the Sundance Kid a.k.a. Robert Redford. Here are some of Butch’s leadership shortcomings:

 

Assuming his Leadership won’t be Challenged

Butch is surprised when his leadership is challenged, but reminded by a gang member that “you always said that any one of us could challenge you Butch.”  Butch responds, “That’s cause I figured no one would do it."  The challenger responds, ”You figured wrong Butch.”

 

Losing Touch with his Team and then making Excuses 

There is support for the challenge when one gang member says “ Well at least [the leadership challenger] is with us… you have been spending a lot of time gone.” Butch makes his excuse in that “everything is different now… it’s harder now…you have to plan more....”

 

No Succession Plan

Butch has no succession plan creating a leadership vacuum where the rules are unclear. The ensuing battle is won only by Butch’s quick thinking and fancy footwork.  Ultimately, he must profess to the gang that there are no rules.

 

Retailating against those who Oppose him

Butch tells Sundance Kid that he doen't mean to be a sore loser, but it the fight is done, and he's dead, kill his successor.

 

Here is the full scene. Your comments on leadership are welcome.

 

Transcript below:

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

The New York Times article Tattoos Gain Even More Visibility discusses the rising popularity of body art and challenges facing employers in regulating employee dress. The article focuses on tattoos but raises the larger issue of employer dress code standards and their challenges in terms of both employee retention and legal compliance.

Jon Hyman at the Ohio Employers Law Blog notes that Employment decisions based on tattoos are not discriminatory and I would add “per se”. In fact, most courts defer to an employer’s evaluation of dress standards focusing on whether the policy is discriminatory or fails to reasonably accommodate religious practices. For example, in Coulter v. Costco Wholesale Corp., a court determined that “Costco has made a determination that facial piercings, aside from earrings, detract from the "neat, clean and professional image" that it aims to cultivate. Such a business determination is within its discretion. As another court has explained, ‘Even assuming that the defendants' justification for the grooming standards amounted to nothing more than an appeal to customer preference, . . . it is not the law that customer preference is an insufficient justification as a matter of law.’"

Courts may not question the business reason for the dress code standard, but the application of the standard across the pool of applicants and employees is clearly, where discrimination can occur. Discrimination is more likely to occur where managers are called upon to subjectively evaluate compliance. As noted in the NYTimes article, “Defining what the courts in the Cloutier case called a “neat, clean and professional” workplace image becomes more challenging when you consider that in 2006, a Pew Research Center survey found that 36 percent of people age 18 to 25, and 40 percent of those age 26 to 40, have at least one tattoo.” The difficulty arises from both the prevalence of tattoos and the excessive subjectivity of the standard.

Human Resource Professionals and managers loathe their role as fashion policy, but the subjectivity of some dress code standards invites claims of discrimination. For example, an employer requires all applicants to have a “neat, clean and professional appearance”. If hiring managers are called upon to describe this qualification standard, it is likely that all will have different measures.  If the subjective dress standard disproportionately disqualifies applicants in a protected class, it may be challenged as discriminatory.

Kris Dunn at the HR Capitalist gives a great perspective on customer preference in his post  Your Employee's Tattoo Is Causing a Consumer Confidence Issue....John Phillips at The Word on Employment Law also comments on the subject in his post  Coming to Your Workplace: Visible Tattoos.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As the economic meltdown cascades through the financial, banking and related sectors, many employers are planning staff cuts.  Selecting employees for lay off must be collaboration between managers and human resources. HR must be able to influence the process to reduce legal risks and assuage the anxiety of remaining employees:

Establishing Business Justification and Layoff Selection Criteria:

The business justification for the reduction in force or layoff must be established. The justification for layoff typically gives rise to the selection criteria. For example, if a large contract was lost, the production and support functions related to the lost contract will be the focus or the layoff.

Layoff decisions may be challenged under discrimination laws, so it is advisable to develop selection criteria that support the business reasons for selecting one employee over another. Unless dictated by union contract, employers have discretion in developing the selection criteria which can include factors like, seniority, relative skills, performance, and/or disciplinary record.  More than one factor may be used.

Forced Ranking Systems are sometimes utilized to rank employees against one another from the top down based on performance criteria. The subjectivity in forced ranking can be challenged as discriminatory unless uniformly and rationally applied.

Evaluating Impact of Selection Criteria including Bumping, Transfer and Recall Rights:

Once employees are identified for layoff, the results of the section criteria must be assessed in terms of disparate impact and other special circumstances. A disparate impact analysis should be conducted to assess whether the selection criteria have resulted in the disproportionate layoff of members of a protected class. Likewise, special circumstances should be evaluated such as employees with recent employment complaints, union activity, FMLA leaves, etc.  Consider documenting the final layoff decisions, but not the deliberations leading up to them.

Thought must be given to collateral job rights employees may have under employment policies and practices. Typical areas involve shift or department transfers, supervisor demotion in lieu of layoff, and voluntary layoffs. Likewise, the parameters of recall, if any, should be described.

WARNA Obligations:

Federal and state plant closing/mass layoff laws must be considered. Although Pennsylvania has no state law equivalent to WARNA, employers with multi-state operations must assess the application of such laws. Coverage under WARNA can be complex as it has look back rules which aggregate layoffs for determining triggering events. WARNA coverage will trigger the sixty-day notice period which has a tremendous impact on layoff planning raising issues of pay in lieu of notice, retention, and publicity.

Severance Benefits and Releases:

Careful consideration must be given to describing the benefit package, if any, offered to employees. If an employer is offering benefits that exceed those already provided by policy or mandated by law, it should consider obtaining a release. The federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) contains special rules for waivers of rights of claims of age discrimination including a 45-day consideration and seven-day revocation period for such releases. Furthermore, the ADEA contains informational requirements that mandate publication of summary of employee demographic information in connection with the release.

Communications Plan:

Effective communication is paramount in reducing employee legal claims and assuaging the anxiety of remaining employees. Everything that is said about the reasons for the layoff will be scrutinized in litigation. Consider scripting communications for group meetings and avoid individual discussions of the reason for selection. Large layoffs may generate news media interest for which a press release is a helpful way to influence the message.

 

UPDATE:

Jerry Kalish at the Retirement Plan Blog made a great observation about layoffs in his post Does a reduction in force or layoff beget a partial termination of a retirement plan?.  He refers to the IRS rules on partial termination of a retirement plan based on the significant reduction in plan participation resulting from the layoff.  IRS Guidance entitled 401(k) Resource Guide - Plan Participants - Plan Termination includes the following summary:

Although a 401(k) plan must be established with the intention of being continued indefinitely, an employer may (fully) terminate its 401(k) plan at its discretion. In certain cases, a partial plan termination is deemed to occur. Whether a partial termination occurs depends on the individual facts and circumstances of a given case. In general, a partial termination is deemed to occur when an employer-initiated action results in a significant decrease in plan participation. As an example, a partial termination may be deemed to occur when an employer reduces its workforce (and plan participation) by 20%.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On September 23, 2008, the EEOC filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York against Sterling Jewelers Inc., the largest specialty retail jeweler in the United States. The EEOC's Complaint alleges that Sterling "pays its female retail sales employees less than male employees performing substantially equal work and denies female employees promotional opportunities for which they are qualified." The lawsuit seeks relief on behalf of a class of potentially thousands of current and former female employees of Sterling throughout the U.S. Sterling owns and operates the Kay Jewelers and Jared The Galleria of Jewelry stores and various regional retail jewelry establishments.

In both the Complaint and press release issued by the EEOC on September 24, 2008 to announce the lawsuit, the EEOC claims that Sterling's system for making promotion and compensation decisions is "excessively subjective" and has resulted in both disparate treatment and disparate impact sex discrimination. The "excessive subjectivity" claim is the primary allegation of unlawful discrimination in the complaint.

 

The use of subjective criteria in employment decisions often is unavoidable. Simply put, purely objective criteria is not always available or appropriate for hiring, compensation, promotion, and discharge decisions. "Excessive" subjectivity, however, can give rise to allegations of discriminatory treatment and systematic bias. Employers and their counsel often struggle to balance the desire to use all appropriate criteria when making employment decisions, including both objective and subjective criteria, with the knowledge that "excessive subjectivity" in the decision-making can create perceptions of bias and increase the potential for discrimination claims. 

 

Of course, determining what is "excessive subjectivity," as opposed to typical subjectivity common in many employment decisions, can be difficult. This problem is more significant for larger employers that lack a centralized structure for employment decision-making. An employer with more independent decision-makers has a greater chance for "excessive subjectivity," especially if the employer has not promulgated clear guidelines or requirements for the decision-making process.

 

The EEOC has made clear that it views "excessive subjectivity" in compensation and promotion systems as a high priority enforcement issue for the agency. The Sterling case, with its nationwide scope and focus on this issue, emphasizes the EEOC's commitment. Employers and their counsel should be aware of this issue and review their hiring, compensation, and promotion procedures to determine whether changes could produce a better structured, less subjective system.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

One big frustration for union organizers is access to employees for the purpose of soliciting union authorization cards and peddling the union message. Sophisticated employers have no solicitation policies, which force union organizers out of the workplace and into the parking lots and homes of employees.

The primary barrier to union home visits is determining where employees live. Until a union files a petition for election, an employer isn’t obligated to hand over employee names and address. To file a petition for election under the current law, a union must obtain signed authorization cards from 30% of the employees in an appropriate unit. Home visits are a very effective way of putting pressure on employees to sign cards, because most people view the visit as an intrusion and just want the “visitor” to leave. Therefore, they sign the card without much thought to its significance.

Unions use a variety of methods to get employee addresses such as company directories and just asking employees. Unions will go to great lengths to obtain employee addresses even employing a controversial method called “tagging.” Tagging involves Union members writing down the license plate number of employee vehicles in an employer’s parking lot and running the license plates to obtain the name and address of the person who owns the vehicle. Addresses are then used for home visits. The practice of tagging was recently struck down, in Pichler, et al. v. UNITE, decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. 

The Employee Free Choice Act will fundamentally alter the role of authorization cards and increase the importance of house calls. Under the EFCA, a union can be recognized as the bargaining representative for a company’s employees if it obtains signed authorization cards from more than 50% of the employees in an appropriate unit. Pressuring employees at home will likely become even more frequently employed tactic.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

In Pichler, et al. v. UNITE, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has weighed in on the controversial union organizing tactic known as "tagging." In its effort to organize employees of Cintas Corporation, the largest domestic employer in the industrial laundry industry, UNITE (Union of Needletrades, Industrial & Textile Employees) engaged in "house calls," i.e., knocking on doors at the homes of Cintas' employees in an effort to convince them to support the Union. In order to locate the home addresses of these employees, the Union would record the license plate numbers of cars found in Cintas' parking lots to access information contained in state motor vehicle records relating to those license plates. This process was known as "tagging."

Unfortunately for the Union, a group of Cintas employees, objecting to what they perceived to be a violation of their privacy rights, sued the Union under the Driver's Privacy Protection Act. That federal statute provides that a "person who knowingly obtains, discloses or uses personal information, from a motor vehicle record, for a purpose not permitted under this chapter shall be liable to the individual to whom the information pertains, who may bring a civil action …" While the statute enumerates 14 exceptions to the general prohibition, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's conclusion that union organizing was not listed among the 14 "permissible uses." 

The Court's majority rejected the Union's assertion that there were two exceptions which made its tagging permissible: the "litigation" exception and the "acting on behalf of the government" exception. The Court's majority reasoned that it did not matter whether the Union may have used the confidential information for either of these permissible purposes because it clearly admitted using the information for an impermissible purpose, union organizing. It was on this point that Judge Sloviter dissented. She asserted that summary judgment should not have been granted, so that a jury could determine whether the Union's "primary purpose" in obtaining and using the confidential information was to monitor potential legal violations by Cintas, a permissible use under the statute.

The Court also reversed the lower court's finding on punitive damages, holding that the plaintiff employees were entitled to a jury trial on their punitive damages claim. However, the most substantial impact of the Third Circuit's decision may be in its clear message to union organizers: tag at your own risk. And employers may be heartened to know that if, as many expect, the Employee Free Choice Act is soon enacted, unions will be far less likely to use tagging in their quest to obtain those valuable authorization cards.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

President Bush will sign legislation amending the Americans with Disabilities Act, which overwhelmingly passed through Congress. The ADA Amendments Act is designed to convey Congressional intent that “the primary object of attention in cases brought under the ADA should be whether entities covered under the ADA have complied with their obligations, and to convey that the question of whether an individual’s impairment is a disability under the ADA should not demand extensive analysis.”

The goal of expanding the coverage of the ADA is achieved by changing the definition of “disability” to:

• Prohibit the consideration of measures that reduce or mitigate the impact of impairment—such as medication, prosthetics and assistive technology—in determining whether an individual has a disability under the law.
• Cover workers whose employers discriminate against them based on a perception that the worker is impaired, regardless of whether the worker has a disability.
• Clarify that the law provides broad coverage to protect anyone who faces discrimination on the basis of a disability.

Congress expressly reversed several Supreme Court decisions that restricted the scope of the ADA. Congress rejected the standard that ameliorative effects of mitigating measures must be considered in determining whether a person is disabled found in Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc. Congress also rebuked the Court in its restrictive interpretation of “disability” by rejecting the terms “substantially limits ” and “significantly restricted” because the terms as outlined in Toyota Motor Mfg, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams are too narrow.

 

The ADA amendments will  refocus disability discrimination lawsuits downplaying the examination of whether an employee meets the definition of disability.  Daniel Schwartz of the Connecticut Employment Law Blog discusses the practical impacts.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The specter of business failure and personal financial setbacks wreak havoc on employee morale challenging Human Resources with dual management problems. First, HR needs to formulate a communication strategy to address the concerns of employees surrounding job security and compensation. Employee jitters surround the viability of their employer and the security of their jobs. Retirement savings evaporate as the stock market plummets leading some to forego matching 401k contributions. Compensation packages and incentives tied to stock continue their downward spiral. Wordsmith the message that the CFO might send out: “They are lucky to have a job.”

Second, HR must manage the collateral effects of an employee’s personal financial problems, which can lead to bankruptcy, foreclosure and even divorce, any of which may influence his or her job and job performance. Businesses must be prepared to respond to employee performance issues created by financial problems. Employers should be aware of legal limitations placed on their actions with regard to an employee’s financial problems. In addition, human resource professionals should appreciate the relationship between their performance management program and other resources to address employee issues created by financial distress.

 

Pennsylvania and federal laws limit actions employers may take against employees that file for bankruptcy or are subject to wage attachments. Many employers, particularly those in the financial sector, face customer relation problems when one of their employees does not pay his or her bills or files for bankruptcy. Legal limitations on employer responses are as follows:

• Garnishment/Attachment of Wages. Pennsylvania prohibits garnishment/attachment of wages for the repayment of personal debts, except in limited circumstances for child support, alimony or student loans.   Employees may not be disciplined, discriminated against or discharged because of wage garnishments.
• Employee Bankruptcy. Section 575 of the Bankruptcy Act protects employees and applicants from discrimination if an individual:(1) is or has been a debtor under this title or a debtor or bankrupt under the Act; (2) has been insolvent before the commencement of a case under the Act or during the case but before the grant or denial of a discharge; or (3) has not paid a debt that is dischargeable in a case under this title or that was discharged under the Act. Courts have limited the reach of this provision by requiring that the discrimination be "solely because" of the individual's bankruptcy participation.
• Worries about Temptation for Theft. Businesses may become concerned that an employee in financial distress may be more likely to embezzle and react by trying to find out the scope of an employee’s credit problems. The Fair Credit Reporting Act limits an employer’s use of employee credit information. A business’ usual financial controls should be uniformly applied, but, if inadequate, should be revised for all employees.

Employees experience financial distress are subject to performance problems including declining productivity, absenteeism and depression.  The usual performance management tools can be used: however, special attention should be paid to other resources like the EAP and Debt/Credit counseling.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

On September 3, 2008, the EEOC issued "a comprehensive question-and-answer guide addressing how the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) applies to a wide variety of performance and conduct issues."  The guidance contains a brief introductory section that includes some general legal requirements and definitions and then sets forth 30 questions and answers on various ADA-related subjects, including performance, conduct, and attendance issues, dress codes, drug and alcohol use, and confidentiality. Included within the EEOC's answers are numerous points of generally applicable "practical guidance."

The EEOC's new guide does not have the legal effect of federal regulations or change the ADA's existing accommodation and discrimination requirements. It does, however, contain a useful resource on an often difficult and complicated issue, namely what to do when an employee's performance or conduct problems may be, or are, caused by a disability. Among the guidance provided by the EEOC are the following:

 

Job Performance

 

• An employee with a disability may be required to meet the same production standards, whether quantitative or qualitative, as a non-disabled employee in the same job. Lowering or changing a production standard because an employee cannot meet it due to a disability is not considered a reasonable accommodation.  However, a reasonable accommodation may be required to assist an employee in meeting a specific production standard.

• An employer should evaluate the job performance of an employee with a disability the same way it evaluates any other employee’s performance.

• If an employer gives a lower performance rating to an employee, and the employee responds by revealing she has a disability that is causing the performance problem, the employer still may give the lower rating. If the employee states that her disability is the cause of the performance problem, the employer should follow up by making clear what level of performance is required and asking why the employee believes the disability is affecting performance. If the employee does not ask for an accommodation, the employer may ask whether there is an accommodation that may help raise the employee’s performance level.

• Ideally, employees will request reasonable accommodation before performance problems arise, or at least before they become too serious. Although the ADA does not require employees to ask for an accommodation at a specific time, the timing of a request for reasonable accommodation is important, because an employer does not have to rescind discipline (including a termination) or an evaluation warranted by poor performance.

Conduct Problems

 

• If an employee’s disability does not cause the misconduct, an employer may hold the individual to the same conduct standards that it applies to all other employees. In most instances, an employee’s disability will not be relevant to any conduct violations.

• If an employee’s disability causes a violation of a conduct rule, the employer may discipline the individual, if the conduct rule is job-related and consistent with business necessity and other employees are held to the same standard. The ADA does not protect employees from the consequences of violating conduct requirements, even where the conduct is caused by the disability.

Attendance

• An employer may have to modify its attendance policies for employees with a disability as a reasonable accommodation, absent undue hardship.
• Although employers may have to grant extended medical leave as a reasonaable accommodiation, they have no obligation to provide leave of indefinite duration.  Granting indefinite leave, like frequent and unpredictable request for leave, can impose an undue hardship on an employer's operations.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The effective date of Pennsylvania’s Clean Indoor Air Act is fast approaching leaving many employers with questions about what they should be doing to comply with the new law. Here are some steps that employers may wish to consider in fostering good employee relations and avoiding the civil and criminal penalties associated with violations of the CIAA:

Get Familiar with the Requirements of the Law. An Employer Toolkit is available from the Department of Health setting out the basic requirements of the law. We have posted on the CIAA as follows:

Pennsylvania enacts Clean Indoor Air Act Prohibiting Smoking in most Public Places including Workplaces

Department of Health Issues Guidance for Employer Compliance with the Pennsylvania Clean Indoor Air Act

 

Post Required Signage Designating Nonsmoking Areas. Employers must post signs prohibiting smoking in the workplace and designating outdoor smoking areas that are not too close to entrances or exits. Downloadable signs for both “No Smoking” and “Smoking Permitted” in English and Spanish are available from DOH.

 

Adopt a Policy on Workplace Smoking for Employees and Customers. Adopting a policy is not an express requirement of the law but makes good sense for effective employee communications and to establish the employer’s good faith defense to civil and criminal penalties under the law. The DOH (through its partner PACT) has a sample policy, which I do not recommend. At a minimum, a policy should designate the all indoor workplace areas as nonsmoking and, if elected, those outdoor areas where smoking is permitted. Other restrictions on smoking such as time and frequency of breaks should be addressed. The consequences of violating the policy should be set forth along with acknowledgment of the CIAA anti-retaliation provisions for employees who complain about violations.

 

Conduct Training for Supervisors and Employees. Employers should notify employees of the new law and its restrictions either in conjunction with introduction of the policy or otherwise. Avoid pitting the smokers against the nonsmokers. This is a state law, you don’t have a choice. Mention of the criminal fines and consequences of violation of the law is appropriate.

 

Consider a Smoking Cessation Program to help Smokers Adapt to the New Law. As mentioned previously, the CIAA may be a chance to offer a wellness program including a smoking cessation component.

Tobacco Free Workplace Policies may be integrated with Wellness Programs

 

Apply for Necessary Exemptions.  Drinking Establishments, Cigar Bars, and Tobacco Shops should apply for an exemption if they intend to allow smoking under the exemptions provided in the CIAA. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (2)

Businesses face increasing uncertainty over the availability of financing because of the economic downturn and tightening of credit markets.   Financially troubled businesses may need to curtail operations through a plant closing or mass layoff if additional financing is not received. Employers need to manage compliance with the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN) as their negotiations with financial markets unfold.

WARN provides for an exception to the sixty-day notice requirement when a “faltering company” is confronted with a possible plant closing; however, the exception is a narrow one that requires careful employer analysis. An employer claiming the exception must prove: (1) it is actively seeking capital at the time the 60-day notice would have been required; (2) it had a realistic opportunity to obtain the financing sought; (3) the financing would have been sufficient, if obtained, to enable the employer to avoid or postpone the shutdown; and (4) the employer reasonably and in food faith believed that sending the 60-day notice would have precluded it form obtaining the financing.

A recent court decision in In Re: APA Transport Corp. Consolidated Litigation discussed several critical elements of the faltering company exception including the following:

Consolidation of related companies into a “Single Employer”

Related companies may be treated as a “single employer” for determining whether the employer meets the 100-employee coverage threshold for WARN and to assess whether the company is faltering. The faltering company exception is not available if a related has adequate capital to continue operations and it is treated as a single employer. Five factors are used to determine if related companies are liable under WARN on “single employer” grounds:

• Common ownership
• Common directors and/or officers
• De facto exercise of control, i.e., one company was the decision maker for the employment practice that gave rise to the litigation
• Unity of personnel policies emanating from a single source
• Dependency of operations, i.e., interchange of employees or equipment or commingling of finances.

Timing and Proof of “Actively Seeking Additional Financing” 

 

According to the court, WARN requires that steps to “actively seek financing” be taken “at the time that the 60-day notice would have been required.” Therefore, the actions of the company occurring during the period of time, which is sixty days before the plant closing, must demonstrate active pursuit of financing. The court rejected APA’s argument that a company may qualify for the faltering company defense irrespective of whether it was actively seeking capital at the time the notice was required, so long as it did no foresee the shutdown that occurred sixty days later. Employers must demonstrate the timing and steps it took to secure financing.  The court’s view of the exception places a degree of omniscience on employers to predict exactly when the company will shut down.

 

Incidentally, the faltering company exception does not apply to mass layoffs under WARN.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Target Corp. has agreed to pay $6 million in damages to plaintiffs in California unable to use its online site as part of a class action settlement with the National Federation of the Blind. The issue centers on the Americans with Disabilities Act’s requirements that retailers and other public places to make accommodations for people with disabilities. Target had argued that the ADA covered only physical spaces. The California court held that the ADA covers an online retailer’s website. Websites can be made more accessible through screen-reading software that converts text into speech for visually impaired access. The court certified the case as a class action before it settled.

The case has important implications for retailers who may now face class action lawsuits. Employers that rely on a web-based application and recruiting processes should also examine their websites for compliance with the ADA’s employment provisions which require accessibility and accommodation in the hiring process.   A recent OFCCP Directive sets forth the agency's policy on review of employer websites where applications are solicited:

Effective immediately, all compliance evaluations shall include a review of the contractor's online application systems to ensure that the contractor is providing equal opportunity to qualified individuals with disabilities and disabled veterans. The review should include whether the contractor is providing reasonable accommodation, when requested, unless such accommodation would cause an undue hardship. In this directive, the term "online system" shall include, but not be limited to, all electronic or web-based systems that the contractor uses in all of its personnel activities.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

The EEOC released its Annual Report on the Federal Workforce for Fiscal Year 2007 (period October 2006 to September 2007).  For those employers who may be benchmarking against the federal government, it seems to me that the government performs at a level that the EEOC would never accept from other employers. Here is a sampling of report’s findings:

·         The federal government employs almost 2.6 million workers of which 56.8% are men and 43.2% are women.

·         The federal workforce’s demographic composition is 7.8% Hispanic or Latino; 65.8% White; 18.4% Black or African American; 6% Asian; 0.2% Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander, 1.7% American Indian/Alaskan Native; and 0.2% reported 2 or more races.

·         Hispanic or Latinos, Whites, women and persons of Two or More Races remained below their overall availability in the national civilian labor force, as reported in the 2000 census (CLF).  Black or African Americans, Asians, Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islanders, American Indian/Alaska Natives and men remained above their overall availability in the CLF.

·         Federal employees and applicants filed 16,363 complaints alleging discrimination.

·         Unlawful discrimination was found in 2.8% of the 7,673 cases that were closed on the merits.

·         85% of federal agencies provided their EEO staff with required training.

·         58% of federal agencies have an Anti-Harassment Policy.

The good news is that the government is evaluating its EEO performance and publishing the results.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Employers are unhappily surprised to learn that OSHA citations can include multiple fines for what is seemingly the same violation, particularly when fines are tallied up for each employee exposed to a hazard.   OSHA recently clarified its regulations concerning its longstanding policy of issuing per employee fines for violations of PPE and training obligations:

Under OSHA's longstanding egregious policy first implemented in 1990, OSHA may seek a separate penalty for each discrete violation in cases where an employer has flagrantly disregarded its legal responsibilities for the safety and health of workers. The proposal addresses several recent legal decisions suggesting that differences in wording among OSHA standards may affect OSHA's ability to issue separate penalties for each discrete violation in certain circumstances.

The regulatory clarification became necessary after several administrative and court decisions declined to enforce the imposition of per-employee fines in PPE and training cases based upon the wording of OSHA regulations. The OSHA proposed regulations revise the wording to make clear the agency's intent to impose per-employee fines for such violations. The revisions primarily affect PPE and training related to health hazards, such as asbestos and lead. Specific changes within the proposed rule include the following: (1) new paragraphs in the introductory provisions of OSHA's standards that all PPE and training requirements impose a separate compliance duty to each covered employee, and that each employee not protected or trained may be considered a separate violation; and (2) revisions of the language of some existing respirator and training requirements. The proposed regulations also make clear that training programs must account for differences in individual employees such as language requirements.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Department of Health (DOH) released additional Guidance and an application for an exemption for drinking establishments, cigar bars, and tobacco shops under Pennsylvania’s Clean Indoor Air Act (CIAA). The DOH information tangentially addresses the cross over between the prohibition on smoking in “workplaces” that may also be exempt “drinking establishments”.  For example, the law and guidance prohibit individuals less than 18 years of age in an exempt establishment at any time for any reason and require signage to that effect. Obviously, this creates a whole class of jobs that those under 18 may not perform supplementing existing child labor and liquor laws governing employment of minors.

The CIAA preempts local smoking ordinances except it does not apply to the City of Philadelphia, which has its own grandfathered Ordinance regulating smoking in public places.

 

Other postings on this subject include the following:

 

Pennsylvania enacts Clean Indoor Air Act Prohibiting Smoking in most Public Places including Workplaces

 

Department of Health Issued Guidance for Employer Compliance with Pennsylvania Clean Indoor Air Act

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In Makky v. Chertoff, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals recently addressed the importance of objective job qualifications in evaluating the merits of a discrimination claim. Employers that establish clear baseline standards for position through their job descriptions, advertisements and other records are better able to defend discrimination claims by showing that the applicant or employee does not meet minimum qualifications for the position.

The Makky case involved the termination of employment of Dr. Wagih Makky who was employed by the United States government in the Federal Aviation Administration and Transportation Safety Administration for fifteen years. In his various positions, Dr. Makky was required to obtain security clearance. A descendant of Egypt, Makky was the only Muslim and only person of Arab descent in his division. Makky's security clearance was suspended due to safety concerns, including his dual citizenship with Egypt, foreign relatives and associates, foreign countries visited, and alleged misuse of his government computer. Makky was placed on paid administrative and subsequently terminated when the TSA issued its final denial of security clearance. Although Makky appealed the determination through the government's processes, the determination was upheld.

Makky filed a lawsuit including a claim for employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Makky's Title VII claim was premised on a mixed motive theory of discrimination which recognizes that an employment decision can at times be based on both (1) a legitimate non-discriminatory reason and (2) discriminatory animus. Here, Makky argued that while he was suspended without pay and terminated because he did not pass the security clearance, the TSA's actions were also motivated by discriminatory animus based on his national origin because the agency did not offer him other positions or keep him on paid leave. Although the Court recognized that the analysis is factually sensitive , it held that when a plaintiff does not possess the objective baseline qualifications to do his or her job, the discrimination claim will fail on its face because he or she cannot establish a prima facie case of discrimination. Applying the holding to the facts at hand, the Court found that Makky's inability to retain a security clearance rendered him expressly unqualified for the TSA position. Analogizing Makky's situation to a more mainstream occupation, the Court explained, "if the hospital employing a person who has been performing surgery learns that the employee falsified his or her qualifications and never went to medical school, that employee could not establish a prima facie mixed-motive case irrespective of allegations of racial or ethnic discrimination."

So what can an H.R. specialist take away from Makky? When a position requires a baseline objective qualification, like a license or degree, make sure it is expressly stated in all hiring materials including: (1) job advertisements; (2) position descriptions; and (3) application materials. Notably, if the degree or license it is merely the company's "preference" for someone in the position, it is important to consider whether making the "preference" appear as a "qualification" may lead to problems in the future. For example, suppose that Company X states that a sales position requires a Bachelor's Degree. When Company X interviews its two top choices, however, the female candidate who possess a Bachelor's Degree has the personality of dry toast, while the male candidate who has waitered all his life and does not have a Bachelor's Degree has a dynamic sales personality and will surely do well with Company X. If Company X believes that the male applicant is better suited for the position than the female applicant, should the Bachelor's Degree have been a required qualification in the first place? Probably not. Accordingly, it is important to have a process in place to review your company's job advertisements and position descriptions before posting for openings. While certain baseline objective qualifications can often be beneficial in refuting a prima facie discrimination claim, turning a mere "preference" into a "qualification" can have the opposite result because it may be used as evidence of a discriminatory motive.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

The Pennsylvania Department of Health (DOH) has issued Guidance in preparation for the September 11, 2008 effective date of Pennsylvania’s Clean Indoor Air Act (CIAA). The Guidance has the following noteworthy provisions and references collateral documents:

• Owner/Employer Compliance Toolkit:  Additional guidance will be available in a Toolkit which will be available on the DOH website beginning August 20, 2008.
• Signage Requirements:  Signage for entrances and areas where smoking is not permitted is also available on the DOH website beginning August 20, 2008.
• Outdoor Smoking Areas:  DOH recommends that outdoor smoking areas be a minimum distance of 20 feet from any doorway, if possible.
• FAQ Published:  A frequently asked question section is added to the DOH website. The most interesting FAQ answer relates to the establishment of separate smoking facilities, which the DOH indicates, “The CIAA does not permit the construction of separate area with its own ventilation system and entrance for the sole purpose smoking.”
• Exemption Approval Process:  Additional Guidance will be published for obtaining an exemption for tobacco shops, cigar bars, and drinking establishments.
• Workplace Exemptions:  Additional Guidance will be published for obtaining an exemption for organizations, workplaces, facilities, residences, and events.

For additional information on the CIAA, see our prior post Pennsylvania enacts Clean Indoor Air Act Prohibiting Smoking in most Public Places including Workplaces.

UPDATE:  Pennsylvania Workplaces Must be Smoke-free by September 11, 2008

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (3)

On June 17, 2008, President Bush signed into law the Heroes Earnings Assistance and Relief Tax Act of 2008 (the "HEART Act"). The HEART Act extends or modifies several tax and retirement benefits for active-duty and former military service members, and employers and plan administrators should be familiar with its provisions.

Retirement Plans

            Currently, for purposes of retirement plan vesting or accruals, an individual's period of qualified military service is treated as a period of employment, which is credited when the soldier-employee returns to work. As such, if the individual dies during military service, his or her survivors do not receive accelerated vesting, ancillary life or other benefits they may have received if the employee died while actively performing his civilian employment. Under the HEART Act, retirement plans must pay the survivors of a soldier-employee who dies during qualified military service any benefits (other than those that accrued during military service) that the plan would have paid had the employee died during active employment. If a plan fails to follow this provision, it will be disqualified. Of note, this provision is effective for military service related deaths and disabilities occurring on or after January 1, 2007, so some plan sponsors may have to provide this benefit retroactively or risk disqualification.

            In addition to this mandatory provision, the HEART Act provides that retirement plans may elect to provide optional benefits to soldier-employees and their families. Notably, under one of the optional benefits, a plan may treat someone who dies or becomes disabled during qualified military service as if he or she resumed employment the day before the death or disability occurred and then terminated employment because of the death or disability. This optional benefit allows the plan to pay out benefits that would have accrued during the soldier-employee's military service presuming he or she was reemployed. Plan sponsors that elect to make this benefit available must do so for all employees performing qualified military service on a reasonably equivalent basis.

Differential Wage Payments

            The voluntary payments made by some employers to service members during a qualified military leave to account for the difference between what the soldier-employee makes in the military and what his or her average compensation was while actively employed are commonly referred to as "differential wage payments." Under prior law, the Income Revenue Service (IRS) took the position that these payments were not subject to tax withholding and were not required to be treated as compensation for retirement plan purposes. Under the HEART Act, however, as of January 1, 2009, differential wage payments will be deemed wages subject to income tax withholding and must be treated as compensation of the employee for retirement plan purposes. In the HEART Act, "differential wages" is a term of art that includes: "compensation paid by an employer to an individual who is on active duty in the uniformed services for a period of more than 30 days, that represent all or a portion of the wages the individual would have received from the employer if the individual had remained in active employment with the employer." Any plan amendments relating to differential wages must be made on or before the last day of the first plan year beginning on or after January 1, 2010. 

Flexible Spending Arrangements

            The HEART Act permits health flexible spending arrangements ("FSA") to provide "qualified reservist distributions." A soldier-employee may be eligible for a "qualified reservist distribution" if he or she is called to active military duty for at least 180 days (or for an indefinite period), and the distributions are made during the period beginning with the active-duty call and ending on the last day of the FSA's coverage period that includes the date of the active-duty call. Although this provision will help employees avoid the FSA use-it-or-lose-it rule, a number of important issues remain open for clarification. Specifically, the permissible amount of the distribution, timing of the distribution, and taxation of the distribution are not squarely addressed under the HEART Act. Accordingly, employers may amend their FSAs to include qualified reservist distributions as of June 17, 2008, it is advisable for employers to wait to offer these distributions until after the IRS clarifies some of the foregoing issues.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

John Phillips at The Word on Employment Law posted about the “Electronic Leash” and cites to a Wall Street Journal post by Sue Shellenbarger that conjures up visions of 1850 sweatshops with following description of employer’s exploitive electronic monitoring of home workers:

In a budding trend some employment experts say is invasive, companies are stepping up electronic monitoring and oversight of tens of thousands of home-based independent contractors. They're taking photos of workers' computer screens at random, counting keystrokes and mouse clicks and snapping photos of them at their computers. They're plying sophisticated technology to instantaneously detect anger, raised voices or children crying in the background on workers' home-office calls. Others are using Darwinian routing systems that keep calls coming so fast workers have no time to go to the bathroom.

The Home Shoring business proponents put a different spin on the work environment tauting flexibility for workers and accountability for businesses using their services. Although I have never worked in a call center, my interaction with employers that have them shows me that they are highly structured work environments where productivity is closely monitored. Many employees who do not work at home are subject to some of the same types of electronic monitoring that seems objectionable to home workers. Maybe this begs the question, but why should the home-work environment be any less supervised than the at-work environment?

Employer’s biggest concern for at home workers is the lack of supervision. Many advocates of working at home know it has limitations. Teleworking is not for everyone. As noted by Brittany Maling at HR World, it requires self-disciplined and efficient workers who are most successful if their home office mimicks the traits of the traditional work environment. Perhaps the future of telecommuting has reached its tipping point, but there are still many issues to be worked out including the proper balance between mistrust and obsessive monitoring.

From a legal perspective, the degree of electronic supervision directed toward an independent contractor will likely result in a recharacterization of the relationship to one of employee/employer.   We have previously outlined the other legal issues in Legal issues in Telecommuting: Gas Prices make Businesses Reconsider Policies.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On July 22, 2008, the EEOC issued a new section of its Compliance Manual addressing the subject of religious discrimination. The section "provides guidance and instructions for investigating and analyzing charges alleging discrimination based on religion." The new section does not change a Pennsylvania employer's legal obligations, imposed by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ("Title VII") and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act ("PHRA"), as amended, with respect to religious discrimination and accommodation. It does, however, provide a handy reference tool for many religious discrimination issues and offer some insight into the EEOC's current thinking on this often difficult subject. 

As a protected trait under both Title VII and the PHRA, religion may form the basis of disparate treatment, harassment, retaliation, and failure to accommodate claims by applicants and employees. The EEOC's new section is divided into five sections reflecting the different types of possible religion discrimination claims:

• Coverage issues, including the definition of "religion" and "sincerely held," the religious organization exception, and the ministerial exception.
• Disparate treatment analysis of employment decisions based on religion, including recruitment, hiring, promotion, discipline, and compensation, as well as differential treatment with respect to religious expression; customer preference; security requirements; and bona fide occupational qualifications.
• Harassment analysis, including religious belief or practice as a condition of employment or advancement, hostile work environment, and employer liability issues.
• Reasonable accommodation analysis, including notice of the conflict between religion and work, scope of the accommodation requirement and undue hardship defense, and common methods of accommodation.
• Related forms of discrimination, including discrimination based on national origin, race, or color, as well as retaliation.

In addition to the standard harassment, disparate treatment, and retaliation requirements, the EEOC continues to recognize and enforce the following employer obligations:

• Reasonable Accommodation. Once on notice, an employer must reasonably accommodate an employee whose sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance conflicts with a work requirement, unless providing the accommodation would create an undue hardship. A reasonable religious accommodation can be any adjustment to the work environment or requirement that will allow the employee to practice his religion. Examples of such accommodations may include allowing flexible