Alabama Employment Law Report : Alabama Employment Lawyer & Attorney : Daniel J. Burnick : Sirote & Permutt Law Firm

Americans With Disabilities Act Turns 20

This week marks the 20^th anniversary of the passage of the Americans With Disabilities Act. According to the Washington Post, the EEOC released a report indicating that “workers with targeted disabilities – including deafness, blindness, missing extremities, mental retardation, and partial and complete paralysis – represent less than 1% of the federal work force.” Based, in part, upon this report, President Obama issued an executive order requiring federal agencies to increase their efforts to hire 100,000 disabled employees over the next five years. “The order directs the office of Personnel Management, in consultation with the Labor Department, the EEOC and the Office of Management and Budget, to design strategies within 60 days for recruiting and hiring disabled workers. Personnel Managers at government agencies must be trained in employing the disabled. Agencies will then be required to development plans for recruiting and keeping the workers.” Also, this week, the House of Representatives passed legislation making the Internet and television more accessible to the disabled. The Bill, which now goes to the Senate, would require the telecommunications industry to caption on-line television programs and that telecommunications equipment that is used over the Internet be compatible with hearing aids. 

Practice pointer.  There has been quite a lot of recent activity concerning the accessibility of web sites for visually and hearing impaired individuals.  As with many laws, technology moves faster then the law can.  Businesses with web sites should be prepared to address these issues in the near future.

Update on Nursing Mothers

The U.S. Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division, issuedFact Sheet No. 73 providing general information on the breakdown requirement for nursing mothers in the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act which became effective on March 23, 2010. The DOL states that “employers are required to provide a reasonable amount of break time to express milk as frequently as needed by the nursing mother. The frequency of breaks needed to express milk as well as the duration of each break will likely vary.” The DOL further points out that a bathroom is not a permissible location even if private. The location provided must be functional as a space for expressing breast milk. The DOL believes that “a space temporarily created or converted into a space for expressing milk or made available when needed by the nursing mother is sufficient provided that the space is shielded from view, and free from any intrusion from co-workers and the public.” The break time only applies to employees who are not exempt from the FLSA’s overtime pay requirements. Employers with fewer than 50 employees are not subject to the FLSA break time requirements if compliance with the provision would impose an undue hardship. An undue hardship “is determined by looking at the difficulty or expense of compliance for specific employers in comparison with the size, financial resources, nature, and structure of the employer’s business.” The DOL further finds that “employers are not required under the FLSA to compensate nursing mothers for breaks taken for the purpose of expressing milk. However, where employers already provide compensated breaks, an employee who uses that break time to express milk must be compensated the same way that other employees are compensated for break time.”

Home Depot Male-on-Male Sexual Harassment Case Settles

I recently reported on the Home Depot case involving  store manager David Corbitt.  While on appeal before the 11^th Circuit in a rare en banc session, the case settled and the appeal was dismissed before the court could enter a ruling. In light of the fact that the 11^th Circuit decided to hear the case en banc, the December panel opinion was vacated.

Practice pointer.  In light of the 11th Circuit's granting of an en banc hearing, the issues raised in this case peaked the interest of the judges.  Since the case was settled before a decision was released, the 11th Circuit will need to find another case with similar issues in order to address the issues raised in this case. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The EEOC announced another large settlement involving a large Alabama company.  The EEOC issued a press release on July 1 announcing a $100,000 settlement with McGriff Industries, a Cullman company, to settle a racial harassment and retaliation lawsuit filed by the EEOC.  According to the EEOC, "certain employees and managers in the Cullman facility routinely  used racially derogatory comments, slurs, and insults directed at or about African-Americans. The racial  misconduct escalated to threats and intimidation, including a derogatory threat  to cut one of the black employees. White  and black employees were offended by the racial misconduct, but were rebuffed  and retaliated against -- one employee was terminated and another had  his work assignments changed -- when they complained."

Practice pointer.  Training.  Training.  Training.  Supervision.  Supervision.  Supervision.  I don't need to say any more. 

Health Care Reform amends FLSA to require breastfeeding breaks.  Nursing mothers are now allowed to take a reasonable break when they need to express breast milk, and employers are required to provide a private location, other than a bathroom.  This applies for up to one year after the child's birth.  Employers with less than 50 employees are exempt if "an undue hardship" would be imposed by causing the employer significant difficulty or expense. 

Practice pointer.  As the Obama administration continues to put it's mark on the workplace with new laws and regulations, this is just another one that is now in place and imposes new obligations on employers.

FMLA claim for depression rejected.  The 8th Circuit, in the case of Kobus v. The College of St. Scholastica, Inc. found that  an employer has no obligation to reasonably accommodate an employee under the ADA when the employee did not inform the employer that he needed an accommodation.  Kobus was a painter for the college, and due to personal and family issues, was diagnosed with depression and prescribed Paxil.  He told his supervisor that he was suffering from stress and anxiety, but did not mention the diagnosis of depression.  When he told his supervisor that he needed time off work to deal with his stress, the supervisor placed a FMLA from Kobus's mailbox.  Kobus responded that he did not need leave.  Shortly after, Kobus was written up for excessive absenteeism.  Kobus then asked for "mental health leave" and his supervisor again asked if he wanted FMLA leave, and Kobus advised him that he did not have a doctor to fill out the FMLA form.  Kobus submitted a letter of resignation and received 2 weeks severance.  Kobus never mentioned depression or his medications and did not mention his condition or FMLA leave during his exit interview.  Kobus then sued the College claiming he was forced to resign and he was denied his FMLA rights and was discriminated against under the ADA.  The trial court dismissed these claims on summary judgment, finding that Kobus did not pursue FMLA leave and  "in fact, expressly rejected it", and that the ADA claim was due to be dismissed since he never informed the College that he needed a reasonable accommodation due to a disability. 

Practice pointer.  This decision demonstrated the need to train supervisors on various laws that apply in the workplace, including FMLA and ADA.  The supervisor, even though no mention was made by Kobus for FMLA leave, offered to treat it as such, and Kobus refused.  The Court further found that the ADA was not violated since Kobus never informed the College that an accommodation was needed. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The EEOC continues to file suits and reach settlements around the country on a regular basis.  Most recently, the EEOC announced a settlement with a Starbucks store in Arkansas as the result of disability discrimination.  According to KATV, Chuck Hannay was not hired because he has multiple sclerosis.  The EEOC said that Hannay applied for one of six barista positions, but he was never contacted and individuals with less experience and ability were hired instead.  The Starbucks store agreed to pay $80,000, and was enjoined from discriminating on the basis of disability and retaliation.  According to EEOC Regional Attorney Faye Williams, "People with disabilities should have equal opportunities for employment....This case demonstrates the EEOC's commitment to combat discrimination that prevents individuals with disabilities from taking their rightful place in the work force.

In Houston, the EEOC announced that two Sonic Drive-In franchises, with common ownership and management will pay $55,000 to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by the EEOC.  According to the EEOC, the primary owner of the franchises "promoted a young, unqualified family member to consecutively higher management positions within the restaurants and allowed him to use his position of power to sexually harass the teens starting in 2006".  The EEOC also contended that this manager permitted and encouraged other male employees and managers to join in the harassing conduct.  When a 17year old female rejected the sexual advance of the manager, he became abusive to her and threatened her with a knife.  In addition to the monetary settlement, the defendants were required to develop and implement new policies and procedures for addressing illegal discrimination in the workplace, and they must be approved by the EEOC prior to implementation.  Jim Sacher, the EEOC's regional attorney, was quoted as saying:  "This lawsuit was filed in order to protect some of our nation's most vulnerable and impressionable workers-teenagers who. often are newcomers to the workplace...."

Practice pointers.  The EEOC continues to be extremely active in pursuing lawsuits and settlements  around the country.  Press releases usually accompany the filing of lawsuits and the settlement of cases, resulting in negative publicity for the companies named.  It is important to implement proper policies and procedures, and train the entire workforce on a regular basis.  This includes family members. 

As mentioned in a previous post, the EEOC is concentrating on harassment of young workers.  As we are still in the summer employment season, now is the prime time for teenagers who have summer jobs to be harassed, discriminated against and otherwise mistreated.  Again, training and monitoring the workforce is a must.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Oftentimes, when I give speeches, I tell the audience that I cannot make up stories that are stranger than what happens in real life.  Over the past several days, I came across two cases where the truth may be stranger than fiction.

In New York, Business Insider reports that Debrahlee Lorenzana filed a lawsuit against Citibank because "she is too hot".  Courtney Comstock, who wrote the article for Business Insider, reports that Ms. Lorenzana is 5'6", 125  pounds, and curvy.  Allegedly, she was told by her bosses that "as a result of the shape of her figure, such clothes were purportedly 'too distracting' for her male colleagues and supervisors to bear...". The Village Voice described her as "J.Lo curves meets Jessica Simpson rack meets Audrey Hepburn elegance-a head-turning beauty".  She complained to HR via phone and emails on a regular basis, and an HR investigation took place.  She alleges that after the investigation, things got worse. Allegedly, her clients were transferred to co-workers, and her performance deteriorated.  She received a letter putting her on probation for allegedly coming in late to work on 2 consecutive days: which apparently were a Saturday and Sunday, when the office was closed.  She was ultimately transferred to another branch, worked as a telemarketer, and was ultimately fired by a female manager, being told that the reasons for termination were her clothes at the previous branch and that she was not fit for the culture of Citibank.  The case will go to arbitration since she signed an arbitration provision when she was hired.

Practice pointer.  I suggest that you read the articles in Business Insider and The Village Voice for more details about the allegations.  Needless to say, they sound like a textbook case of sexual harassment and retaliation.  The comments, the delayed investigation by HR, emails sent to vice presidents that were ignored, the transfer, demotion and the ultimate determination to terminate her all raise questions, if the allegations are true.  Training all employees, including supervisors, as to company policies and procedures is very important, from dress code, to attendance, to anti-harassment/anti-retaliation.  Complaints of harassment must be taken seriously.

 In Georgia, the Atlanta Journal Constitution reported that  the ex-football coach at Savannah State University has filed suit alleging discrimination.  Robert Wells, the first white football coach in the 98 year old history of the  historically black university, alleges that he was fired one month after he accepted a one year contract extension because his fiance is black.  The suit also alleges that the school hurt his reputation saying he violated recruiting rules while recruiting 5 white football players.  In the lawsuit, Wells alleges that he was told that he "would never have the support of the citizens of Savannah because he is white and his fiancee is black" and that he was criticized by university officials for letting his fiancee host a "coach's show" on television, ride on a parade float with him and accompany him to away games.  ESPN's Outside the Lines did a story on the situation and there are many interesting statements made by both sides of this suit. 

Practice Pointer.  Whether the allegations made by Coach Wells are true or not, I want to emphasize that racial discrimination is racial discrimination: whether it is white discriminating against black, or vice versa.  Racial discrimination is illegal, and should not be tolerated in any workplace.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The EEOC released fiscal year 2009 statistics this week: although the number of claims was down 2% from 2008's record level, 2009 had the second highest number of complaints ever filed with the EEOC.  According to the New York Times, disability claims rose by 10% to 21,451.  This is most likely due to the passage of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, which expanded the coverage of the ADA.  The most frequently filed claims were for race, sex and retaliation.  National origin claims rose by about 5%, while religious claims rose by less than 1%.  Stuart Ishimaru, acting chair of the EEOC, was quoted by the New York Times as saying that equal employment opportunity "remains elusive for far too many workers", while urging employers to end discrimination at work. 

Practice pointer.  I anticipate that EEOC claims will remain relatively constant in 2010, and may even increase, based on several factors, including the state of the economy, additional funding for the EEOC, and increased awareness within the workforce of changes in the law and the ability to file claims with the EEOC.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Last week, the Miami Herald published a story written by Diane Stafford entitled "Ready to hire? Don't ask wrong questions".  The story, referring to an article in The HR Specialist newsletter, listed a number of questions that may be asked during an interview that may be viewed as discriminatory.  Some of the questions listed are:

     Are you married?  Divorced?

     Do you have children? Do you plan to start a family?

     Do you rent or own your home?

     What church do you attend?

     Do you have a disability or illness?

As Ms. Stafford points out, "Some of these questions might seem laughable.  Some might seem logically designed to figure out how responsible and worthy the applicant might be.  But the threat of lawsuits prompts employers to tread carefully in personal probing." 

All of the above brings to light the use of the internet to conduct background investigations on potential employees (and even current employees).  Sources for internet background checks include search engines such as Google, social networking sites such as Facebook and Myspace, high school or college web sites, and even corporate web sites where the applicant worked prior to the application for a new job.  Sites that can be checked  also include news sources, such as newspaper or television websites, public records, such as assets, lawsuits, bankruptcy and home ownership, and the websites of religious institutions.

While many HR professionals will not ask questions such as those set out above, many will not hesitate to use the internet to conduct background checks.  They do so without realizing that they may get answers to questions that they otherwise could not or should not ask in the interview process.  One may be able to determine sex, race, age, family status, religious affiliation and even disabilities by performing internet research. 

Practice pointer.  When conducting internet background checks for potential employees, HR professionals need to be careful where they look and what they do with the information they discover if the information can form the basis for a claim of discrimination if the applicant is not hired.  Using the internet to conduct background checks may lead to claims of discrimination when an applicant is not hired.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Congress recently approved funding the EEOC with $23 million to help reduce the backlog of cases currently pending with the agency, some for as long as 3 years.  According to Ethisphere, staff levels at the EEOC have dropped by approximately 25% over the last several years. Last year, the EEOC saw a 35% increase in backlogged cases.  There are currently tens of thousands of backlogged cases pending with the EEOC.  This is consistent with my November 11, 2009 blog entry indicating that the acting director of the EEOC reported at the annual meeting of the Labor and Employment section of the American Bar Association that they were hiring 250 new employees. 

Practice pointer.  As the new employees come on board for the EEOC, expect both an increase in the disposition of backlogged cases, as well as more aggressive enforcement of the various laws that the EEOC is responsible for. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Congress's latest employment law becomes effective on Saturday, November 21, 2009.  The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) is designed to ban the misuse of genetic testing in the workplace.  GINA prohibits employers from requesting genetic testing or considering someone's genetic background in hiring, firing, disciplining or promoting.  Insurance companies will also be prohibited from requiring genetic testing, and cannot use genetic history, such as a history of heart disease or cancer to deny coverage or set the amount of premiums or deductibles.  Genetic information includes not only the individual's medical history, but also that of his/her family.  The law applies to health insurers, but not life insurers.  GINA applies to any employer with 15 or more employees.  The EEOC has released the revised "Equal Employment Opportunity is the Law" poster, which is mandatory for all covered employers. All federal posters need to be replaced to include GINA.

Practice pointer.  GINA is Congress's most recent employment law to take effect.  Like most other laws, the EEOC's interpretation may be different, and much more expansive, than the courts will ultimately interpret GINA to be.  For now, it is important for employers who are covered to replace their EEOC posters, and review and revise all forms/applications, etc. to make sure that the paperwork is in compliance with GINA.   The New York Times published an article addressing GINA on Monday, November 16 discussing the law and it's impact on the workplace. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

It appears as if the EEOC is taking a more active role in filing lawsuits against employers in the name of the EEOC.  Over the last several weeks, the EEOC has filed at least  9 lawsuits in Alabama against various employers.  These lawsuits include alleged violations of the ADA against  two different employers when employees were terminated after the employers learned the employees were HIV positive, allegations that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act was violated when the employer failed to promote a 50 year old employee and hired a younger, less qualified individual, allegations that an employee was terminated because she was pregnant, and allegations that a racially hostile work environment existed because black employees were subjected to the use of the "N" word and the display of a noose in the workplace.  This trend appears to be occurring around the country, with notable cases being filed by the EEOC against Pace Airlines, which operated Hooters Air on behalf of an Asian flight attendant who was fired after complaining that only white workers were being promoted, and a case against a Chicago area automobile dealer alleging that female employees were called obscene epithets and female customers were call "dingbats".

Based on the timing of these lawsuits, it is difficult to determine if this will be a long term trend based on a change in EEOC philosophy, or if it was a last minute rush to file the suits before the end of the fiscal year, which ended September 30, 2009.  Is it possible the EEOC has quotas for the number of lawsuits it files?

The EEOC also recently announced a record $6.2 million settlement of a nationwide class action lawsuit against Sears over the firing of disabled workers.  According to Law.com, Sears fired numerous employees who took leave for work related injuries and that Sears "routinely declined to make accommodations to bring back employees who had taken workers' compensation leave or to offer them a brief extension of their leave to make it possible for them to return later". 

In other EEOC news, the Wall Street Journal today reports that there is a large increase in retaliation claims being filed by employees against employers.  For the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, retaliation claims rose 23% to 32,690, more than a third of all claims filed with the EEOC.  Although many of the retaliation claims are filed together with underlying discrimination claims, as I often point out during speeches, an employer can be guilty of retaliation even if cleared of the underlying claim of discrimination. 

Practice Pointer.  As evidenced by the types of claims alleged in the lawsuits filed by the EEOC, it appears as if all types of discrimination may be occurring in the workplace.  It is a good time, as we get to the end of the calender year, for companies to review their policies and procedures, make sure that their work force, including supervisors, receives training on the companie's anti-discrimination policies, and that  HR continues to monitor the workplace to avoid claims of discrimination. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Recently, one of my partners, David Mellon, presented a talk entitled "Background Checks & Title VII: Discriination Lurking in the Shadows".  When a criminal background check is provided to an employer by a consumer reporting agency (CRA), the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C.Section 1681 et seq is applicable.  The FCRA creates obligations for both the CRA preparing criminal background reports and for employers using them.    A CRA may furnish a consumer report to an employer for employment purposes.  A CRA may not report arrests or other adverse information (other than convictions of crimes) that are more than 7 years old.  Before an employer (other than in the trucking industry) obtains a consumer report of criminal records from a CRA for purposes of employment decisions, the employer must do certain things, inlcuding providing the applicant with "clear and conspicuous disclosure" that the report may be obtainted for employment purposes, ensure that the disclosure is written in a document that consists only of the disclosure, and receive the applicant's written authorization to obtain the report. 

Recently, Law.com  reported that Bank of America Corp and Manpower Inc. were accused of discriminatory hiring practices when Manpower Inc. distributed fliers stating that qualified candidates "must be able to pass a background check and have no felonies or misdemeanors".  Although there is no federal law that specifically imposes any limitations on an employers' decision predicated on criminal records (although 4 states do, Hawaii, New York, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin), the EEOC has found that employer policies that reject job applicants with criminal records, even if they are neutral on their face, have a racially disparate impact.  In 1985, the EEOC issued a policy setting forth the business necessity standard for the consideration of convictions: 

     1.  The nature and gravity of the offesne.

      2. The time that has passed since the conviction and/or completion of the sentence.

      3.  The nature of the job.

The EEOC Policy Guidelines on Arrests reaffirms the 3 progned business necessity test set forth in their Policy Guidelines on Convictions.  The arrest guidelines go on to state that with respect to consideration of arrests, "a blanket exclusion of people with arrest records will almost never withstand scrutiny".

Practice Pointer.  In the event a company uses a CRA to conduct background investigations, that include criminal history, the company must ensure that all applicable rules and regulations are followed by the CRA, and any history of arrests or convictions be used in compliance with EEOC policies. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Hugh Butler filed his lawsuit against his former employer, Greif, Inc. alleging a violation of the anti-retaliation provision of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).  Butler's attorney filed the charge with the EEOC, which is a pre-requisite to pursuing a claim under the ADA.  However, Butler failed to verify the charge since he did not sign it under oath, and under penalty of perjury.  The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Greif.  On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment, finding that the attorney's signature did not constitute a verification.  The court found that an attorney can verify the charge so long as he swears to the truth of the facts stated in the charge and has personal knowledge of those facts.  The charge could have been verified at any time while the charge was pending, but Butler failed to do so.  It should be noted that Butler failed to cooperate with the EEOC in their investigation, and thus dis-entitled him to any equitable relief, referring to a case from the Third Circuit that held that the "verification requirement should be subject to waiver "when equity so requires", such as when, as in that case, the employer responded to the EEOC charge on the merits, declined to challenge the sufficiency of the charge before the EEOC, and later attempted to move to dismiss the suit for lack of verification."

Practice Pointers.  From an employees' perspective, it is imperative that the EEOC charge be verified.  Employees must also cooperate with the EEOC during the investigation to take advantage of any equitable arguments they may have.  Employers need to remember that failure to  verify the charge can be remedied so long as the charge process is ongoing. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, the passage of which was one of President Obama's main priorities, appears  ready to be signed into law.  President Obama is scheduled to sign the Act tomorrow morning, January 29, 2009.  The Act, which will amend Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Rehabilitation Act, will re-start the applicable statue of limitations each time a pay check or other benefits are paid for claims involving discrimination on compensation.  The law overturns the 2007 Supreme Court decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear, arising out of Alabama.  In my opinion, the most important language of the Act is as follows:

"For purposes of this section, an unlawful employment practice occurs, with respect to discrimination in compensation in violation of this title, when a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice is adopted, when an individual becomes subject to a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, or when an individual is affected by application of a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, including each time wages, benefits, or other compensation is paid, resulting in whole or in part from such a decision or other practice."

The act purports to apply retroactively as set forth by Congress:  "This Act, and the amendments made by this Act, take effect as if enacted on May 28, 2007 and apply to all claims of discrimination in compensation...that are pending on or after that date."

Lily Ledbetter, who campaigned for President Obama, is quoted in the Birmingham News as follows:   "I will be treated like a second-class citizen by that corporation for the rest of my life," she said, noting that her retirement benefits reflect her lower pay. "But I have the satisfaction of getting this law changed back so that other people can still file."

Practice Pointer.  Now is the time for employers to review their pay polices and pay structure to make sure that there is no discrimination in pay under Title VII, ADEA, ADA and the Rehabilitation Act.  Employers should consider reviewing their pay practices from May 28, 2007, the effective date of this new law, forward.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Danny Morton, the Sheriff of Blount County, Alabama, has agreed to resign effective January 15, 2009 due to allegations of sexual misconduct.   According to the Birmingham News, a female deputy sheriff, assigned to the drug task force, filed an EEOC charge on April 11, 2008 alleging that she was forced to drink alcohol while on duty, was fondled, kissed and sexually assualted.  At the time, Sheriff Morton denied the allegations of the complaint. 

A criminal investigation began, and a special proscecutor was appointed by the Attorney General's office.  An agreement was reached allowing Sheriff Morton to resign on January 15, 2009, and no criminal charges will be filed against him.  The article from the Birmingham News, dated December 16, 2008, is availble to read here.  There is no indication on how the EEOC charge is being handled at this time.

Practice Pointers.

1.  All employers must recognize that sexual harassment and other prohibited conduct can be engaged in at all levels: from the top, like a sheriff, to the bottom, of each organization.

2.  Employers should have a mechanism to report harassment, sexual or otherwise, to at least 2 people, in case their supervisor or CEO is the one accused of the wrongful conduct.

3.  Allegations of sexual harassment may give rise to a criminal investigaion and possibly charges for assault, rape, kidnapping or other crimes.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks