The Employer Handbook Blog

Court orders re-hiring a teacher who wished her students a watery death

May 14, 2013 | by Eric B. Meyer

By now, the whole teacher blasting her job on Facebook is like death and taxes to me. I can’t a go a week or so without reading about a teacher posting photos of duct-taped students or a teacher wishing that her “devils spawn” students would drown in the ocean.

Well, here’s a new one.

Last week, a court ordered the NY school to re-hire the teacher it had fired for wanting to send her hellish kids to their watery graves.

Horniest boss ever? His employee still can’t prove sexual harassment.

May 13, 2013 | by Eric B. Meyer

I’ve been searching for gold recently. So, I knew I was on to something good when I started reading this opinion last week, and wasn’t sure whether what I was reading was a sexual harassment case or a porno script.

~~What can I say? I like the plots.~~

Folks, if you click through, I promise you a great read after the jump…

* * *

House passes bill permitting employees to swap OT for comp time

May 10, 2013 | by Eric B. Meyer

On Wednesday, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 223-204 to pass the Working Families Flexibility Act of 2013, which would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act to permit employers to provide compensatory time off in lieu of monetary compensation for overtime hours worked. Presently, through the Federal Employees Flexible and Compressed Work Schedules Act, only state and federal employees may receive comp time in lieu of OT.

Specifically, the Working Families Flexibility Act authorizes compensatory time off at a rate of no less than one and one half hours for each hour of overtime worked. Under the FLSA, employers must pay OT at a rate of no less than one and one half the employee’s regular rate of pay. Republicans contended the measure would allow parents to spend more time with their children. House Democratic Whip, Steny Hoyer [D-MD] has hyperbolized that the Working Families Flexibility Act “would eliminate the 40-hour workweek as we know it.”

It should come as no shock, then, that House passage was basically along party lines. And, even if it somehow passes the Senate, the President would likely veto the bill.

Appeals Court: NLRB union-rights poster violates free-speech rights

May 9, 2013 | by Eric B. Meyer

Thumbnail image for rights poster.png

On Tuesday, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled here that the National Labor Relations Board cannot require private employers — union and non-union — to hang this poster in a conspicuous location in the workplace. Billed by the Board as a notice advising employees of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act, many employer groups viewed the “mandatory” poster as more of an encouragement to unionize than as a neutral informational poster.

Previously, the lower court in DC had upheld the poster rule. Meanwhile, a South Carolina federal court had shot it down.

The appellate court determined that the poster rule would violate employers’ free speech under Section 8(c) of the National Labor Relations Act. The appellate court also ruled that the poster rule unlawfully expanded the Board’s enforcement powers.

NJ Gov. Christie vetoes proposed workplace social media law

May 8, 2013 | by Eric B. Meyer

You see, employment-law dorks like me use tools like these to monitor the status of pending employment-law-related bills. And, yesterday, I got a hit informing me that, on Monday, Governor Christie conditionally vetoed this proposed NJ bill, which would prohibit employers from requiring employees and candidates for disclosing online usernames and passwords.

Savador Rizzo at The Star-Ledger summarized Gov. Christie’s reasons for vetoing the bill here:

Christie said that he supports safeguarding “the privacy of job candidates and employees from overly aggressive invasions by employers” but that he wants to see stronger protections for businesses. For example, the governor said aggrieved workers should go to the state labor commissioner with their complaints instead of being able to file lawsuits in state court.

Fact or Fiction: It’s ok to fire an employee for pro-union Facebook posts to NON-employees

May 7, 2013 | by Eric B. Meyer

That’s right folks. It’s time for another edition of “Fact or Fiction” a/k/a “Quick Answers to Quick Questions” a/k/a QATQQ f/k/a “I don’t feel like writing a long blog post.”

I’ll set it up for you:

You run a non-union company called RH Chili Peppers. However, one of your employees, Disgruntled Donny, has been trying to get his co-workers to help unionize the workplace. Thus far, he has been unsuccessful. So, DD takes to Facebook and posts a message bashing the wages and benefits at RH Chili Peppers on a Facebook page called, “Peter Picked a Peck,” a Facebook page that DD “likes.” PPaP is frequented by employees, like DD, who work in the chili pepper industry, albeit at other chili pepper companies in the city.

“At your age, David, you hadn’t even thought about retiring?”

May 6, 2013 | by Eric B. Meyer

What could go wrong when the boss’s son asks that question of, David, a nearly-40-year employee? Oh, right, David got laid off a week later.

Age discrimination? Well, let’s see…

We know that when an employer inquires about an employee’s retirement plans — without bringing up age — it should be able to avoid liability. But, repeated inquiries about a plaintiff’s intention to retire could suggest an age-related impetus for his eventual firing.

A record-setting EEOC verdict, and a judge puns about strip clubs

May 3, 2013 | by Eric B. Meyer

You’re thinking I should have led with the strip club, eh?

On Wednesday, an Iowa jury awarded $240,000,000 to a group of 32 men with intellectual disabilities, whom it found had been discriminated against in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to this EEOC press release, the verdict works out to $2 million in punitive damages and $5.5 million in compensatory damages for each plaintiff, and follows a September 2012 order from the district court judge awading the men $1.3 million for unlawful disability-based wage discrimination, thus making the total judgment $241.3 million.

And then there’s “THE CASE OF THE ITSY BITSY TEENY WEENY BIKINI TOP V. THE (MORE) ITSY BITSY TEENY WEENY PASTIE.” More First Amendment than employment law. But, nonetheless, right in my wheelhouse.

Wooooo pig sooie! Arkansas gets a workplace social media privacy law

May 2, 2013 | by Eric B. Meyer

I don’t know much about Arkansas. My knowledge consists of Gennifer Flowers, Wal-Mart, and this handy-dandy iPhone app for harvesting deer. I also hear that the official state beverage is milk.

How about that?

But now I know one more thing: Arkansas has a new social media privacy law, which prohibits an employer from requiring or requesting that a current or prospective employee do any of the following:

Third Circuit says VIPs cannot sue for Title VII discrimination

May 1, 2013 | by Eric B. Meyer

Robert Mariotti was the vice-president and secretary of the company his father founded. Not only was he a corporate officer, but Mariotti also served as a member of the board of directors, and was a shareholder who could only be fired for cause.

In 1995, Mariotti had a spiritual awakening, which he claims resulted in a resulted in “a systematic pattern of antagonism” toward him in the form of “negative, hostile and/or humiliating statements” about him and his religious affiliation. Mariotti claimed that this behavior ramped up for over a decade and, ultimately, resulted in his termination. Thereafter, he sued his former employer for religious discrimination. The company moved to dismiss the claim on the basis that a shareholder-director-officer is not an “employee” under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and, thus, has no standing to assert a claim for religious discrimination.

What happened you say? Well, even if you read the lede, click through for full analysis…

* * *