Massachusetts is considering becoming the second state to ban it (Ken Maguire, AP/Chicago Sun-Times, May 18).
Posts Tagged ‘workplace’
Got a “mean” boss? See ’em in court
We’ve reported before (here and here) on the campaign by activists to establish a cause of action arising from “workplace bullying”. Efforts to get the courts to create such a right have not fared well, but the National Law Journal reports growing interest around the state legislatures:
Connecticut, for example, wants to outlaw “threatening, intimidating or humiliating” conduct by a boss or co-worker and would ban repeated insults and epithets. The proposal doesn’t specify a penalty, but would only give workers the grounds to sue.
New York’s anti-bullying legislation targets malicious conduct by supervisors that hurts employees either physically or psychologically. Mental health harm could include humiliation, stress, loss of sleep, severe anxiety and depression. The bill also would punish retaliation of the complainant or anyone who helps the complainant.
As management lawyers warn, enactments of this sort could result in a large new volume of litigation; the ample scope for differences of opinion about what constitutes hurtful sarcasm or a humiliating memo style could turn the courts into ongoing “superpersonnel departments” dispensing financial balm for injured feelings in the workplace. (cross-posted from Point of Law).
Salvation Army “speak-English-at-work” policy
It’s gotten the religious group sued, again, by the EEOC. I’ve gathered some links on the story at Point of Law.
Imus in the courtroom?
Fortune is reporting that Don Imus has hired a lawyer and is planning to sue CBS for the 40 million left on his contract. The argument would apparently be that Imus was only doing what CBS hired him to do, and therefore it was a breach of contract to fire him for his statements. He may well have a plausible case.
But Imus has hired one of the nation’s premiere First Amendment attorneys, and the two sides are gearing up for a legal showdown that could turn on how language in his contract that encouraged the radio host to be irreverent and engage in character attacks is interpreted, according to one person who has read the contract.
The language, according to this source, was part of a five-year contract that went into effect in 2006 and that paid Imus close to $10 million a year. It stipulates that Imus be given a warning before being fired for doing what he made a career out of – making off-color jokes. The source described it as a “dog has one- bite clause.” A lawsuit could be filed within a month, this person predicted.
If he does proceed, it won’t be the first Imus-related suit filed since his firing; that honor goes to CBS itself, which sued a Southern California radio station for copyright infringement for rebroadcasting Imus shows after it was pulled from the air. The case settled a week later, with the station agreeing to stop and CBS agreeing not to seek damages.
New Jersey Turnpike Authority v. Local 196
Tim Sandefur has an amusing account of an arbitrator’s appalling decision to reinstate a tollbooth collector fired for shooting paintball guns in moving highway traffic. The arbitrator’s decision is wrong, but I’ll disagree with Tim and agree with the New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision that it’s not the court’s place to substitute their judgment for that of the arbitrator’s. The benefit of having arbitration is the lower cost of ensuring finality in decisions and avoiding litigation, and permitting appeals destroys that benefit if matters are simply going to be relitigated in court. If an arbitrator is consistently more wildly wrong than a litigation system (a questionable proposition) such that those lower costs are not justified by the higher error rate the remedy is to negotiate for different dispute resolution procedures in future union contracts. And that goes even when the arbitrator mistakenly rules in favor of the plaintiff.
Attention: inventors of new religions
If you believe you are called to don unique garb and headgear to reflect your evolving spiritual quest, you may find it harder to keep your job at the nation’s best-known mass-market retailer. “Wal-Mart’s attorney declined comment, but in legal pleadings the company said the Universal Belief System isn’t a bona fide religion and that it fired [Daniel A.] Lorenz because of provocations he initiated under the guise of protected religious expression. … Lorenz was seen outside work in secular clothing, Wal-Mart’s pleadings said.” A federal district judge granted the store a summary judgment, which Lorenz is appealing. (Zeke MacCormack, “Plaintiff in headdress doesn’t win over judge”, San Antonio Express-News, Apr. 9; “Wal-Mart employee’s attire gets him fired”, Mar. 8, 2004).
Ready, aim, fire… get sued
Given Walter’s mention of the EEOC’s new attempt to solve America’s chronic shortage of employment litigation, this covery story from Business Week is timely. It surveys the state of employment litigation in the U.S., describing how risky it is for companies to fire employees, and the six figure price tag associated with the lawsuits that often result. The article discusses the growing trend in suing over “retaliation” claims:
As it happens, the judge in Mody’s case tossed out his discrimination claims. But the retaliation allegation did go to the jury—a development that is increasingly blindsiding businesses. Plaintiffs are winning large sums not because a company discriminated against them, but because the company retaliated when they complained about the unproven mistreatment.
The rules surrounding retaliation may sound crazy, but they are one of the big reasons why the fear of firing is so prevalent. Retaliation suits are a hot growth area in employment law. In 2005 and 2006, retaliation claims represented 30% of all charges individuals filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a required first step before most discrimination cases can go to federal court. That’s up from about 20% just 10 years ago. “Even if there isn’t a good discrimination claim, the employee has a second bite at the apple,” notes Martin W. Aron of defense firm Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge in Short Hills, N.J.
EEOC launches hiring crackdown
Per the NLJ, it’s employers’ lucky day:
The federal government has launched an initiative aimed at cracking down on discriminatory hiring practices in the workplace — a program that could land unsuspecting employers in court, employment attorneys are warning….
Specifically, the EEOC will focus on hiring decisions that are based on names, arrest and conviction records, employment and personality tests and credit scores — all of which may disparately impact people of color….
Many states have laws that restrict employers from asking about or considering criminal records when hiring. The EEOC holds that if an employer denies a job to an applicant because he or she has a criminal record, it could be considered discrimination if the person is a minority.
For more on efforts to keep employers from taking applicants’ criminal records into account, see Feb. 13 and links from there (cross-posted from Point of Law).
Age before wisdom
Let’s suppose that a company is losing buckets of money, and needs to cut costs to stay afloat. It might start cutting back on various perks — a company jet, health club memberships for employees, whatever. And it might make the business judgment that cutting more expensive perks first is the smartest decision. But under California law, applying the same logic to employees — that the more expensive ones ought to be replaced first — can get an employer sued. Ask Circuit City, which laid off more than 3,000 employees last week, only to be hit with a lawsuit seeking class action status:
“The workers terminated were those with greater seniority and length of service — mostly likely the older members of the work force,” the lawsuit said. It cites California law, which states that “the use of salary as the basis for differentiating between employees when terminating employment may … constitute age discrimination.”
The wisdom of the California legislature never ceases to astound. The law does not require evidence of discriminatory intent on the part of the employer; the mere fact that older workers were disproportionately affected by the layoffs may be sufficient.
“NYPD’s fault my cop wife shot me”
“The ‘Casanova’ cop who was allegedly shot by his wife, a fellow officer, as payback for his wandering eye is suing the NYPD for $3 million, claiming they should have known she was too nuts to carry a gun. … Alison [Spicer-Jamison] is charged with shooting Todd [Jamison], 44, in a jealous rage last April 10 when she learned he’d strayed from their marital bed less than a year after they married. … Todd Jamison’s suit also names the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association, the City of New York, the NYPD, and his wife, who’s currently incarcerated at Rikers Island, awaiting a trial date.” (Stefanie Cohen, New York Post, Mar. 31).