EEOC Reports Record Number of Claims/Monetary Recovery for Fiscal Year 2011

The EEOC recently released FY 2011 statistics.  According to the EEOC press release, 99,947 charges were filed during fiscal year 2011, which ended on September 30, 2011.  This is the most charges filed in the 46 year history of the EEOC.  The EEOC also recovered $365 million on behalf of those who filed charges, also a record number.  FY 2011 ended with 78,136 pending charges, a decrease of 8,202 charges from FY 2010.  The EEOC filed 261 lawsuits in FY 2011, including 23 alleging systemic allegations affecting large numbers of employees, 61 alleged multiple victims, and 177 individual lawsuits.  The EEOC's private sector mediation program recovered more than $170 million in monetary benefits for complainants, also an historic high.  The number of mediations that were resolved totaled 9,831, another record.  In the federal sector, the EEOC resolved 7,672 requests for hearings, recovering more than $58 million for the complainants.  For a comprehensive 86 page report, you can view the FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report issued by the EEOC.

Practice pointer.  I believe that the bad economy is driving the increase in numbers of charges filed with the EEOC.  Employers need to be aware that if the economy does not significantly improve in 2012, the number of charges may go even higher.  As you have often seen me write, train, train, train and document, document, document. 

Tags:

What do Penn State and an Alabama Law Firm have in common?

By now, we have all heard about the sex scandal at Penn State.  An assistant coach, who retired a number of years ago, has been indicted on multiple counts for having inappropriate relations with a number of children.  The President has been fired.  Joe Paterno, one of the legends of college football, has been fired.  A Vice President has been fired.  An athletics director has been fired.  A riot in the streets of State College.  Death threats.  Embarrassment.  Humiliation.  Loss of reputation as one of the school's that "did things the right way".  And the gift that keeps on giving this holiday season:  continuous coverage of a bad situation that seems to make it worse.  And the negative coverage will continue for the foreseeable future.  On a legal note, the indicted ex-coach is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

The investigations will continue, and we may never know the true story of what happened, who know about it, and when they found out.  So, what can we learn from what is happening at Penn State?  First, it is important to have the appropriate policies and procedures in place.  Second, follow the policies and procedures.  Third, train everyone, from the President (who has been fired) to the janitor (who may not have reported what he saw in a locker room at Penn State for fear of losing his job).  Fourth, take all reports of inappropriate conduct seriously, and the more severe the alleged conduct, the more serious the treatment.  Fifth, have a public relations plan in place to deal with a crisis such as this.  The President "unconditionally supporting" the vice president and athletics director was probably one of the main reasons he was fired.  Sixth, document what actions are taken once a report is made, who is interviewed, what they said, the disciplinary action taken, if any, and more training to make sure it doesn't happen again. 

In Alabama, a named partner at one of Montgomery's oldest law firms, pleaded guilty to distributing child pornography in one of the largest such cases in Alabama.  Investigators found over 200,000 images and 8,000 videos of child pornography on the lawyer's home computer.  He admitted to sharing images over 600 times.  He was also on the Board of Trustees of a religious school, and worked with youth at a local church.  There was no indication that any of the students at the school or youth at the church were part of the child pornography. 

Practice pointer.  Although these are extreme examples of abhorrent conduct, the lesson to be learned is that anyone can engage in or be accused of engaging in inappropriate and illegal conduct.  Both these cases involve well respected, hard working, pillars of their communities.  Yet many victims have been harmed, and many others have lost their jobs, been embarrassed and humiliated, and will live the rest of their lives with a soiled reputation.  Employers should have the appropriate policies and procedures, they must be followed, everyone must be trained and there must be a crisis management plan in place should the worst happen. 

 

Tags:

Wage and Hour Violations, E-Verify and Something to Laugh At

Before I get started, I would like to thank all of our Veterans and active service members, and their family members,  for their service to our country and the sacrifices they have made to make our country a better and safer place. 

You can now follow me on Twitter  @DanielBurnick.

 

FLSA Issues continue to plague employers.  Over the years, I have written about the problems associated with employers not properly paying their employees.  (October 18, 2011, May 10, 2011August 17, 2010, July 2, 2010, June 3, 2010 and February 21, 2010).  Recently, the Mobile Press Register ran a story pointing out that wage and hour litigation was up 18% in 2010, and the upward trend is expected to continue during 2011 and into 2012.  The problems include misclassification of employees as exempt when they should be non-exempt, the misclassification of employees as independent contractors, and failure to pay overtime for any work performed in excess of 40 hours a week.  As pointed out in the Mobile Press Register's article, "review your compensation practices", "verify your record keeping", make sure your records are accurate, and make sure overtime is paid properly. 

Practice pointer.  As we head towards the end of another year, now is the time to do an audit of your policies and procedures to verify compliance with the FLSA, and train all your employees on these issues.

E-VERIFY and unintended consequences.  Recently, Bloomberg Businessweek ran an article entitled "A Verification System for New Hires Backfires".  In this article, a number of examples are given where employers who have enrolled in the E-Verify system have had trouble finding enough workers to do the work.  About 5% of the companies, around 300,000, use E-Verify.  This number will go up as states around the country implement the mandatory use of E-Verify for all employers.  In North Carolina, a local flower wholesaler implemented E-Verify, and the owner reports that he could not find enough workers:  "Those who want to work fail to pass E-Verify, and those who pass fail to work."  In Arizona, which made E-Verify mandatory in 2008, worker shortages have been reported in the construction industry and the food service industry.  One way employers are trying to avoid the mandatory use of E-Verify is to misclassify workers as independent contractors.  A Congressional Budget Office report from 2008 estimates that the mandatory use of E-Verify on a national basis would result in the loss of over $17 billion in federal tax revenue. 

Practice pointer.  Employers who attempt to avoid the mandatory use of E-Verify in Alabama are subjecting themselves to potential exposure under many different laws:  Alabama's Immigration law, which may result in the loss of business licenses, claims for overtime under the FLSA, and tax liability under both state and federal laws. 

Unusual excuses to take a sick day.  CBS Moneywatch had an interesting article discussing the most unusual excuses to take a sick day.  Some of them I have actually seen being used.  The article refers to a CareerBuilder survey showing that 29% of employees admitted to calling in sick when they were fine.  I expect the actual number to be higher.  The study also showed that 15% of employers have fired an employee for calling in sick when they were not, and 28% of employers admitted to checking up on employees who they thought may not have been sick.  Checking up included requiring a doctor's note (69%), calling the employee at home (52%), having another employee call (19%), and driving by the employee's house (16%).  Some of the unusual excuses listed included a deer bite during hunting season, the kidnapping of a relative in Mexico, drinking anti-freeze by mistake and going to the hospital, and an employee's 12 year old daughter stealing a car so the employee could not get to work.

 

State Court Dismisses Immigration Lawsuit at Request of Plaintiffs

According to Al.com, on Friday, November 4, 2011, Judge Johnny Hardwick, a Montgomery County Circuit Court Judge, dismissed a lawsuit filed by a number of plaintiffs, including 2 unauthorized aliens and 2 Hispanic U.S. citizens.  The dismissal came at the request of the plaintiffs. This does not impact the current cases that were appealed to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals which I have written on previously. 

11th Circuit Addresses Alabama Age Discrimination In Employment Act

Recently, the 11th Circuit issued an opinion addressing the Alabama Age Discrimination In Employment Act (AADEA) in the case of Ehrhardt v. Haddad Restaurant Group.  Ehrhardt, a General Manager, was demoted due to poor sales and profits at the restaurant and his poor management of employees.  Ehrhardt challenged and rebutted the latter, and the court found that there was little evidence indicating that he had problems with staff.  The Court found that the restaurant did not discriminate against Ehrhardt by demoting him from General Manager to Beverage Director based on declining sales.  Ehrhardt was subsequently terminated as Beverage Director since the restaurant, based on an economic decision, decided there was no reason to continue to employ and pay commissions to a Beverage Director in a restaurant that was losing money. 

Under the AADEA, "no employer...shall discriminate against a worker 40 years of age and over in hiring, job retention, compensation, or other terms or conditions of employment".  The analytical framework of the AADEA is the same as the federal Age Discrimination In Employment Act.  The Court examined this case pursuant to the Supreme Court's Gross decision, holding that in order to establish a disparate treatment claim under the ADEA, "a plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence...that age was the "but-for" cause of the challenged employer decision".  Although the Gross decision did not answer the question of whether the evidentiary framework of the McDonnell Douglas case is appropriate in the ADEA context, the 11th Circuit used both the Gross decision and the McDonnell Douglass decision to review Ehrhardt's claim.  Under McDonnell Douglas, there is a three prong test to analyze discrimination claims:  first, a plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of discrimination; second, the defendant must articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse employment action; and third, the plaintiff must proffer evidence sufficient to permit a reasonable factfinder to conclude that the reasons given by the employer were not the real reasons for the adverse employment action.  Based on the facts above, the 11th Circuit affirmed the granting of summary judgment in favor of the restaurant on Ehrhardt's' AADEA claim.  The restaurant was represented by one of my partners, Kyle Smith.

Practice pointer.  The "but for" test adopted in the Gross decision is a concept favorable for employers.  The 11th Circuits' use of both the Gross and McDonnell Douglas tests lays the groundwork for evaluating claims brought under the AADEA as well as the ADEA.