Below is a review of the posts (on Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter) from the past week. You can check out the full posts by clicking on the links.
In the post on Sunday 8/12/18 we learned that a Boeing employee wins a racial harassment and discrimination lawsuit against the company (which has 5 lawsuits on the way). Is throwing a rope tied into a hangman’s noose at a black man considered harassment? Roderick Marshall thought so – and sued Boeing. The post contains more of the background facts. There were more actions too (as noted in the post); while Boeing did not deny them, see the post for its defense. The jury came back big for Marshall. (I’m sure the 5 other plaintiffs whose trials begin this fall hope for a similar outcome.)
TAKEAWAY: When made aware of a complaint by an employee, an employer should take action and not stick its figurative head in the sand – lest it be on the wrong end of a hefty jury award.
The post on Monday 8/13/18 asked: another employer pays up: did it lay the golden goose? A Golden Corral franchisee will pay $85K to settle a suit brought by the EEOC alleging that it discriminated against an employee when it subjected him to a hostile work environment based on both his disability and his sex. Sean, who has high-functioning autism, which limits his ability to communicate and interact with others, was a dishwasher. The treatment heaped on him by the male assistant manager is detailed in the post – and is not pretty. He made internal complaints but nothing was done. So what did he do? See the post.
TAKEAWAY: As we noted in yesterday’s post, an employer cannot just do nothing when it gets a complaint – it must take appropriate action (or end up paying a lot in damages to the employee).
In the post on Tuesday 8/14/18 we saw that state common-law claims may be preempted by the FLSA. In this federal suit, the plaintiff alleged FLSA, Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law claims, then attempted to add on state common law counts for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The underlying basis for the claims is in the post. The additional state claims were based on the same thing. The rationale the court used in finding the additional state claims were preempted by the FLSA is in the post.
TAKEAWAY: Plaintiffs often look to various laws for recovery since some may have a broader range of remedies available than others; this case is an example of how that might not happen.
The post on Wednesday 8/15/18 asked: Can the association board read its attorney’s email to members at an open meeting? The answer is “it depends”. On whether or not the email relates to litigation or not. And possibly a few other circumstances. The post also notes another basis upon which making the email public would be a problem, but that would already be covered if it was part of litigation.
TAKEAWAY: Even though transparency is a good idea, every single piece of information or data that the Board has is not appropriate for the general membership – an attorney versed in community law should be consulted to ensure no harm results to the association from improper release of something.
In the post on Thursday 8/16/18 we asked: When is a Facebook post NOT an illegal concerted activity? We talked about Boeing in our post this past Sunday. This time, however, the Boeing we discuss is the NLRB’s new standard for assessing employer policies. Wait, don’t turn out after mention of the NLRB – keep reading as this applies to everyone, unionized or not. The issue was whether the NLRA was violated when the employer discharged a pro-union employee who Facebooked a form that was “improperly taken” from a team leader’s desk. Background details are in the post. Under the recent Boeing standard, if the rule at issue (here, a socmedia policy) is not even reasonably interpreted as restricting NLRA rights, the rule is lawful. The Board analyzed the facts using that standard and explained its decision as in the post.
TAKEAWAY: Make sure you know how Section 7 of the NLRA applies to ALL employers and that you consult employment counsel when it comes to application of that statute to an adverse action to be taken against an employee.
The post on Friday 8/17/18 told us that Estee Lauder settled an EEOC new-father leave bias case. Well, we all want equality in the workplace, right? This case is all about getting it. And the company will pay $1.1M to settle the EEOC’s allegations that it discriminated against male employees by giving new fathers less paid leave to bond with a newborn or with a newly adopted or foster child than it provided new mothers. More details of what happened are in the post. This Equal Pay Act case includes payment of money and other items as listed in the post.
TAKEAWAY: Don’t just talk about equal pay and treatment – make it happen in your workplace. It will save you a lot of time and money doing it right from the start.
Finally, in the post yesterday 8/18/18 we noted that an employee won $850K in an age discrimination suit. Ruth Briggs, 63, alleged in the suit that the day before her 57th birthday, her supervisor told her that “in China, they put women out to pasture at your age.” What happened after that over a 2-year period is in the post. Eventually Ruth resigned. What Temple University, the defendant asserted as its defense is also in the post. Needless to say, the jury did not buy it and came back for Ruth big time.
TAKEAWAY: Yep, a stray comment followed by action can doom an employer’s defense. Train your employees on what not to do or say.
York, Pennsylvania 17403