Mid Summer Madness in the Employment World

Lessons to be learned from Penn State.  As we live through the dog days of summer, there have been a number of stories and developments that caught my eye over the past several weeks.  Initially, I want to talk about Penn State and child abuse.  We all know that Jerry Sandusky was convicted on numerous counts of child abuse.  The Freeh report came out, finding that the very top levels of management acted improperly in the handling of the matter, including the ex-President of the University and Joe Paterno, the head football coach.  The NCAA leveled severe sanctions against Penn State, including a $60 million fine, loss of scholarships and a lengthy post season ban.  If the Freeh report, which was commissioned by Penn State, is correct, the response to the reports over the years by Penn State was inadequate, and it is paying for it's inability to conduct a prompt, thorough and complete investigation.  I have been saying for many years that inappropriate conduct can be engaged in by the very top of any organization, including presidents, CEO's and even beloved football coaches who had an impeccable reputation until this story came to light.  Any reports of inappropriate conduct, whether harassment, discrimination, or violation of company policies must be taken seriously, the appropriate investigation must take place, and the appropriate disciplinary action must be imposed on the wrongdoers.  In addition to the terminations, the $60 million fine, and the impact on the football program, Penn State has reached a new low with the negative public perception, students are divided, and Bloomberg reports that Penn State may have its credit rating reduced.  Bloomberg reports that "Moody's is reviewing the university's "management and governance,"  which it said in a press release today appear to be weak based on recent reports and investigations." 

Practice pointer.  Although Penn State is an extreme example, these same results can and do happen to smaller companies and businesses.  Penn State will survive this tragic situation:  many smaller companies and businesses cannot.  There is no place at work for sexual abuse, harassment, discrimination, or other unlawful conduct.  The culture and ethics of a company starts at the top, and works it way down.  Leaders need to set the right example for the workforce.

Alabama Anti-Texting Ban Effective August 1.  Effective August 1, it will be illegal in Alabama to manually send or receive text messages while driving.  The statute defines a Wireless Communication Device as a "handheld cellular telephone, a text-messaging device, ...a stand alone computer, or any other similar wireless device that is readily removable from a vehicle and is used to write, send or read text or data through manual input."  The term "wireless telecommunication device" does not include a device which is voice-operated and which allows the user to send or receive a text-based communication without the use of either hand except to activate or deactivate a feature or function."   The statute includes a ban on text messages, instant messages and electronic mail.  The statute specifically excludes "reading, selecting, or entering a telephone number or name in a cell or wireless telephone or communication device for the purpose of making a telephone call".  In addition to small fines, a conviction under this law will result in 2 points being placed on the person's driving record.

Practice pointer.  Employers have been named as defendants in other states when their employees were involved in accidents, on company business, while texting.  The exposure is huge if someone is seriously injured or killed as a result of an accident that occurs when the driver is texting on company time and business.  Employers should consider adding a policy that prohibits texting while driving in a company car or for company business.

Under Title VII, Illegal Aliens are not a Protected Class.  Kristi Cortezano was employed by Salin Bank and Trust Co in Indiana.  Her husband, Javier, was a Mexican citizen whose presence in the United States was unauthorized. Kristi was hired as a manager in training, and was promoted to the position of bank sales manager and then transferred to a more profitable branch.  She had a joint account with Javier. Javier opened a car detailing and repair business, and lacking a social security number, he obtained an individual tax identification number (ITIN).  With some help from Kristi, Javier opened 2 accounts of his own: a personal account and a business account using his ITIN.  Unfortunately, the business failed, and Javier returned to Mexico to sort out his citizenship status.  Around the same time, Kristi requested from her supervisor a 2 week vacation so she could travel to Mexico to help Javier.  At the same time, she disclosed to her supervisor that Javier was in the US without authorization.  The supervisor notified security, and Mr. Hubbs confirmed the existence of the bank accounts and raised concerns that various laws against bank fraud may be implicated.  Upon her return from Mexico, at a meeting with her supervisor and Hubbs, she admitted that Javier had entered the US illegally. Hubbs yelled at Kristi, called Javier a "piece of shit" and harped on his illegal status.  HR circulated a draft "Termination Notice", identifying Kristi's complicit behavior in Javier's alleged fraud scheme as the reason for her firing.  The bank scheduled a meeting with Kristi, and she appeared with her attorney.  The bank refused to allow the attorney to attend, and she walked away.  The bank sent her a letter terminating her employment for refusing to participate in the meeting.  Hubbs reported her activity to ICE, and attended a meeting of the Fraud Financial Network, a consortium of banks in Indiana with the mission of rooting out fraud.  Hubbs warned the other banks the Kristi was fired for opening fraudulent accounts for Javier, "an illegal immigrant who was now back in Mexico."  Kristi sued the bank alleging that she was blacklisted by the bank, the bank defamed her, the bank intentionally caused her emotional distress and the bank discriminated against her in violation of Title VII.  The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the bank, and on appeal, the 7th Circuit found that Javier's alienage was not protected by Title VII.  Title VII encompasses discrimination based on ones ancestry, but not discrimination based on citizenship or immigration status. 

Practice pointer.  There is often a fine line between discriminatory conduct based on national origin and that based on citizenship or immigration status.  Employers must be careful when they find out that their employee, or a spouse of the employee, is in the US illegally:  the employee can be terminated based on this fact, but they cannot be discriminated based on their national origin.  Likewise, if an employee's spouse is in the US illegally, employers must be careful how they treat the employee.  Kristi's case was very clear:  her conduct as a bank officer in helping her unauthorized alien spouse open bank accounts was against the law.  The facts of most cases are not as clear cut. 

Mid Summer Dumb Social Media Story.  24 year old Steven Carroll, from Mulga, a small town in north Jefferson County, was arrested this weekend and charged with having an open house party, when more than 300 people appeared at his house, including 100 minors.  How did the arrest happen?  Carroll originally posted an invitation on Facebook for a party in an open field, and he would provide beer and Jell-O shots.  The police were tipped off about the party by a concerned parent, and when they arrived at the field, no one was there.  They went back to Facebook, and found that Carrol had changed the location of the party to his house.  That is where they found the 300 people and arrested Carroll.  Another dumb act using social media.

Practice pointer.  Using social media is not private:  without privacy settings, anyone in the world can view it.  With privacy settings, it may be a little more difficult, but it can still be made available to the whole world:  all it takes is one person to re-post, re-tweet, etc. on an unprotected site. 

$401,090.60 Jury Verdict Against Lawrence County Commission for Retaliation

A federal court jury comprised of 8 women and 4 men recently awarded $401,090.60 to a former Lawrence County payroll clerk after a week long trial.  Beronica Warren began working for the county in January, 2007,   Peggy Dawson became the county administrator after Warren was hired, and they had a strained relationship.  Warren filed an EEOC charge alleging that she was harassed and discriminated against by Dawson in March, 2008.  The 4 acts of retaliation presented to the jury were:  1.  The vote by the Commission to investigate the claim filed by Warren and then disciplining her; 2.  The investigation itself; 3.  The hearing the 2 county commissioners appointed to give her based on her charge; and 4.  Her termination.  Testimony included a statement by a former county commissioner who told Warren that "we are going to fire your ass for filing that charge" and taunted her as she was leaving the parking lot after packing her possessions, that the 2 commissioners appointed to investigate the EEOC charge never spoke to Warren, Warren had no documentation in her personnel file indicating that her job performance was poor (one of the reasons given for termination was poor job performance),  that Warren brought a tape recorder to the office to record Dawson, but Dawson found out about it and would come to her office and stare at her, and that newspaper articles about her termination caused her financial hardship and emotional distress.  A fifth count alleged she was not paid overtime.  After asking for $403,000 in closing arguments, the jury awarded her $450.64 in unpaid overtime,  $70,640 in back pay, $73,000 for the retaliation claim concerning the vote to investigate, $90,000 for retaliation concerning the investigation, $83,500 for retaliation for the hearing, and $83,500 for the termination.  Still pending before the court are claims for reinstatement or front pay and attorneys fees which may be as much as $400,000. 

According to the attorney for Warren, the county introduced no exhibits and the 4 commissioners/former commissioners who testified gave 4 separate reasons for the termination. In his opinion, the county could not articulate a legitimate business reason for the adverse employment action taken against Warren. 

Practice pointers.  Whenever an employer makes the decision to take an adverse employment action, including termination,  against an employee who files an EEOC charge, it must be done with caution.  The investigation must be done properly.  Personnel files must be reviewed.  The individual (s) making the decision must be careful about what is said.  During the discovery stage and at trial, if there is more then one decision maker, their testimony should be consistent.  Documentation is also very important.

 

HUD to pay over $60 Million to settle discrimination claim.  The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) recently settled a case filed against it in New Orleans alleging that HUD discriminated against African-American homeowners after Katrina as part of the Road Home program.  The suit alleged that the formula used by HUD discriminated against African-Americans.  Road Home program data show that African-Americans were more likely than whites to have their Road Home grants based upon the much lower pre-storm market value of their homes, rather than the estimated cost to repair damage.  The estimated value of the settlement is in excess of $60 million.

Private Employer Can Deny Employment to Applicant Who Filed Bankruptcy

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals recently released its decision in the case of Myers v. TooJay's Management Corporation.  Myers filed for bankruptcy in North Carolina in January, 2008.  The next month, he moved to Florida "looking for a fresh start and found work as a shift supervisor at a Starbucks coffeehouse."  In May, 2008, his debts were discharged by the Bankruptcy Court.  Several months later, Myers interviewed with the regional manager of TooJay's, seeking a managerial position at a local TooJay's restaurant.  He had a successful interview, and was offered a 2 day on the job evaluation, wherein he was paid $100/day.  Myers testified that the on the job evaluation "was just so that we could both get a feel for the restaurant, that I would make sure I was comfortable doing it there, that [the regional manager] was comfortable with me and the other restaurant managers were comfortable with me."  Following the on the job evaluation, TooJay's conducted a consumer background check, determined that he had filed bankruptcy, and withdrew it's job offer since the company had a policy of not hiring individuals who filed bankruptcy.  After a jury trial, the jury determined that Myers was never employed at TooJay's, and found in favor of TooJay's.

On appeal, the 11th Circuit examined 2 provisions of the Bankruptcy Act:

Section 525(a) which reads in pertinent part:  "A governmental unit may not...deny employment to, terminate the employment of, or discriminate with respect to employment against a person that is or has been a debtor under this title or a bankrupt or a debtor under the Bankruptcy Act..." 

Section 525(b) provides in pertinent part:  "No private employer may terminate the employment or, or discriminate with respect to employment against, an individual who is or has been a debtor under this title, a debtor or bankrupt under the Bankruptcy Act..."

Since the language of the Bankruptcy Act is clear and unambiguous that the denial of employment based on bankruptcy applies only to a governmental entity, and TooJay's was a private entity,  the Court found, consistent with the 3rd and 5th Circuits, that private employers are not prohibited from denying employment to applicants if they filed for bankruptcy.

Practice pointer.  Private employers may not discriminate against any current employee if he/she files bankruptcy.  Doing so may result in liability under Section 525(b). 

Birmingham Jury Awards $314,000 in Discrimination Case

Last week, a federal jury in Birmingham returned a $314,000 verdict in favor of Albert Thomas and against Chemical Lime Co. located in Calera.  Mr. Thomas worked for Chemical Lime for 25 years, and was fired after he filed a charge with the EEOC.  The lawsuit contained 8 claims, including racially charged allegations that a supervisor left what appeared to be Klu Klux Klan garb in plain sight for Thomas and that one of his supervisors held up one of the hoods while making inappropriate comments and gestures, including "you won't be working here much longer, you will be with your brothers on the street" and threatening to "fire his black" backside.  This case is of particular interest since the jury found that Chemical Lime was not guilty of the underlying allegations, but only of retaliation for firing Thomas after he filed his charge with the EEOC. 

Practice pointer.  This case demonstrates that  not only can the allegations themselves lead to an adverse judgment, but that the claim of retaliation can result in a large verdict, even without a finding that the alleged underlying wrongful conduct took place. 

 

UNION MEMBERSHIP DOWN IN 2010. 

According to USA Today, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported last Friday that union membership in 2010 declined by 612,000 from 2009.  In 2009, unionized workers represented 12.3% of the workforce, and in 2010, this dropped to 11.9%.  Private sector union membership fell from 7.2% to 6.9% of the workforce, while Public sector union membership dropped 1.2%.  The article points out that Black workers are more likely to be union members than White, Asian or Hispanic workers, that union membership was highest among those 55-65 and lowest among those 16-24, and that New York had the highest union membership rate at 24.2%, while North Carolina, at 3.2%, was the lowest. 

Practice pointer.  Unions will continue to push into non-union business sectors in Alabama and around the country in an effort to grow their numbers.  Employers must be aware of any organizing activity in their workplace, and be very careful how they respond.  Their are very specific rules and regulations on what can and cannot be done in this situation.