Tag: HR

Managing Workplace Conflict: 3 Lessons to Learn from the Super Bowl Game Kelce-Reid Incident

During the recent Super Bowl game, millions of viewers witnessed a tense moment that quickly became a talking point far beyond the realm of sports. Kansas City Chiefs’ star tight end, Travis Kelce, was seen apparently pushing and yelling at Head Coach Andy Reid. The incident seemed to stem from the player’s frustration over being sidelined during a crucial part of the game, leading to an outburst that suggested he was demanding more playing time.

This high-profile episode serves as a powerful example for managers and supervisors across all industries, illustrating the challenges of dealing with insubordinate (and possibly disruptive) behavior in the workplace. If not for Coach Reid’s calm and collected response, this incident could have escalated into a far more unpleasant exchange.

Drawing lessons from the incident, here are three key actions that leaders can take when faced with threatening or insubordinate employees:

1. Exercise Professional Restraint and Demonstrate Leadership

The first lesson is the importance of maintaining composure and professionalism. In any situation where tensions may rise, it’s crucial for managers to exercise restraint and avoid escalating the situation further. This approach not only helps in diffusing immediate tension, but also sets a positive example for the rest of the team. It’s essential that managers not misuse their position of power; rather, as Coach Reid exemplified, demonstrating calm and decisive leadership can often de-escalate a potentially volatile situation.

2. Refer to Company Policies and Engage HR

When dealing with insubordination or an outburst by an employee, it’s important to follow established corporate protocols. Managers should consult the company’s employee handbook for procedures to handle complaints and investigations. Filing a formal complaint with Human Resources can initiate a process that is both fair and impartial. Ideally, the HR department should be properly trained to address a tense situation. This step ensures that all parties are heard, and that the incident is addressed thoroughly, respecting the rights and dignity of everyone involved, and setting an example for the rest of the company.

3. Support the Investigative Process

Once a complaint is filed, cooperating fully with the ensuing investigation is paramount. An effective investigation can uncover the root causes of the conflict, offering insights into not just what happened, but why. By supporting this process, managers can help ensure that resolutions are just, and that similar incidents can be prevented in the future. It’s also an opportunity for organizations to reinforce their commitment to a respectful and safe working environment for all employees.

Conclusion

The incident at the Super Bowl game, while unfortunate, provides valuable lessons for leaders in any field. Managing workplace conflict requires a balanced approach that prioritizes restraint, adherence to company policies, and support for the investigative process. By applying these principles, managers and supervisors can navigate complex interpersonal challenges, fostering a workplace culture that is both respectful and productive.

Recognizing principles of good leadership remains constant and essential, whether on the football field or in the office.

 
©2024 Norris McLaughlin P.A., All Rights Reserved
For more on Workplace Conflict, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.

Between the Legal Lines — Jessica Pfisterer [PODCAST]

With big dreams of helping people, Jessica Pfisterer began her career in public interest law, though she soon realized she wasn’t going to see the change she hoped for at the pace she wanted. Where Jessica truly found her passion was in People Operations and HR, thanks to her GC at the time. In this episode of Between the Legal Lines, Jessica shares with Andrea Bricca the story of how that pivotal role shaped the future of her career and what she has learned as a human resources leader who is also a trained lawyer.

Jessica Pfisterer is an HR leader and dancer, with a background in civil rights law and social justice work. She currently heads the People team at Lively, and dances with Duniya Dance and Drum Company. She is also on the board of TurnOut, a nonprofit that supports LGBTQ+ organizations, support for LGBTQ+ organizations, ensuring they are positioned to succeed and to continue serving the community. She is a Bay Area local and spends her free time traveling and exploring the great outdoors.

Between the Legal Lines · An Interview with Jessica Pfisterer
©2022 Major, Lindsey & Africa, an Allegis Group Company. All rights reserved.

Love at Work: 5 Things for Employers to Know

Workplace romances are inevitable. According to a recent survey by the Society for Human Resource Management, one out of every three American adults is or has previously been in a workplace romance. Given this reality, coupled with the #MeToo movement and the resulting renewed emphasis on preventing workplace sexual harassment, it is important to have a basic understanding of the key practical and legal issues surrounding workplace relationships. Below are answers to five common questions.

1. Is workplace romance unlawful?

No. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is the primary federal law governing sexual harassment in the workplace. Two coworkers having a consensual romantic relationship does not, by itself, violate Title VII. Legal and/or employee relations issues can arise, for example, when romantic relationships involve supervisors and subordinates, when a romance “goes bad,” when there are concerns with favoritism, or when two coworkers bring their romance into the workplace in a way that makes others uncomfortable.

2. When does a workplace romance cross the line?

It is impossible to identify all behaviors that may violate Title VII. Fundamentally, the statute prevents harassment because of a person’s sex. According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), “[u]nwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when this conduct explicitly or implicitly affects an individual’s employment, unreasonably interferes with an individual’s work performance, or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment.”

Harassment can include offensive remarks or physical behavior. While Title VII does not generally prevent teasing, offhand comments, or other isolated incidents, such behavior can rise to the level of harassment if it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile work environment. The harasser can be a supervisor, an agent of an employer, a coworker, or even a nonemployee. The victim of sexual harassment can be anyone affected by the offensive conduct.

3. Aren’t some workplace relationships beneficial?

Yes. Research has shown that, generally, employees who form genuine relationships with their coworkers and supervisors are happier and more engaged at work, and less likely to leave for another company. Many employers encourage connections between supervisors and subordinates to improve workplace culture. The concept of a “work spouse,” referring to a coworker with whom an employee has a close personal relationship, is increasingly common given the amount of time many employees spend in the workplace. Studies suggest that this kind of tight bond can increase employee motivation, productivity, and retention. Workplace relationships can, however, become the source of legal or practical woes if boundaries are crossed.

4. What can employers do?

Most employers have sexual harassment policies outlining their expectations regarding behavior in the workplace. Employers may also want to provide regular training relating to those policies—in some states, such as California, Connecticut, Illinois, and New York, such training is required. In addition, given the risks relating to workplace romance, employers may also want to consider implementing policies outlining employee conduct expectations related to romantic relationships with coworkers or even third parties, such as vendor employees. There are a variety of permutations to such policies, and some employers prohibit romantic relationships altogether. Others prohibit only romantic relationships between employees and their supervisors. Sometimes, such policies identify the situations in which romantic relationships are permitted (e.g., employees working in different departments) or the potential consequences of romantic relationships (e.g., an employee’s being transferred or having his or her employment terminated).

5. What is a “love contract”?

With a workplace romance, particularly one involving a supervisor and subordinate, there is some risk that an employee may allege that a relationship was involuntary. To mitigate that risk, some employers require employees to disclose any workplace romance and enter into a consensual relationship agreement, commonly called a “love contract.” A love contract is a written acknowledgment signed by both employees involved in a relationship confirming the voluntary and mutual nature of the relationship. Generally, a love contract states that both employees have received, read, and understood the company’s anti-harassment policy and that the relationship does not violate the policy. Love contracts can be perceived negatively by employees, so it is prudent to carefully consider their pros and cons.

© 2020, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.

For more on HR-related concerns, see the National Law Review Labor & Employment law section.

Dear Former Employee, Here Are a Few Things I Want You to Know

Do you provide terminated employees with information regarding their employee benefits upon termination? If not, consider doing so now—especially if you typically provide a lot of your benefits information on your intranet site, which employees will lose access to upon termination. Even though there is generally no legal requirement to do so, providing departing employees with a letter that includes important reminders and deadlines related to their benefits is beneficial for two reasons: (1) it will save your HR department time by reducing the number of benefits-related inquiries they receive from former employees, allowing them to focus their time on more valuable tasks, and (2) the letter can help defend against a claim by a former employee who loses benefits because they missed a deadline.

Here is a non-exhaustive list of items we recommend including in your letter to exiting employees regarding their benefits:

Remind them of important dates and deadlines, and provide them with other relevant information regarding their benefits, including:

  • The date their medical and other insurance coverages will stop
  • Whether their accrued vacation will be paid out
  • When they can expect to receive their last paycheck
  • If applicable, the deadline to exercise their outstanding stock options
  • Their right to convert their group life insurance coverage to an individual policy
  • The deadline to use their Flexible Spending Account (FSA) balances

    **Note that California recently passed a law that actually requires employers to notify employees starting January 1, 2020 of any deadline to withdraw funds from their FSAs before the end of the plan year, such as when an employee terminates employment.By drafting this letter now, you can get ahead of this requirement!

  • If applicable, the date that their non-qualified deferred compensation payments will begin

Provide them with a list of important documents they should be watching for in the mail to prevent employees from inadvertently throwing these important documents away, including:

  • 401(k) or pension distribution packets
  • COBRA election packets

Remind them to update you and your plan administrators if their address changes (both residential and email addresses), and provide them contact information for whom to send updated information, since you will need this information to send out their final Form W-2 and your plan administrators will need it to be able to provide plan information and notices.

As mentioned above, this is a non-exhaustive list. Consider gathering your HR and benefits professional staff together for a 15-minute brainstorming session about other topics to include. We’re sure you’ll come up with other helpful items.

© 2019 Foley & Lardner LLP

Can You Prohibit Employees From Using Cell Phones At Work?

With the prevalence of cell phones in today’s society, many companies struggle with how to manage employee time spent on personal mobile devices. But there are legal limits on what employers can do on this front. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has taken the position that employees have a presumptive right, in most instances, under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to use personal phones during breaks and other non-working times.

A recent advice memo issued by the agency has reaffirmed its stance – even since the NLRB generally has taken a more lax view of employer personnel policies over the last year. At issue, in this case, was a company policy that limited employees’ use of personal cell phones in the workplace. The relevant analysis in the NLRB memo states:

“This [company’s] rule states that, because cell phones can present a ‘distraction in the workplace,’ resulting in ‘lost time and productivity,’ personal cell phones may be used for ‘work-related or critical, quality of life activities only.’ It defines ‘quality of life activities’ as including ‘communicating with service or health professionals who cannot be reached during a break or after business hours.’ The rule further states that ‘[o]ther cellular functions, such as text messaging and digital photography, are not to be used during working hours.’ This rule is unlawful because employees have a [NLRA] Section 7 right to communicate with each other through non-Employer monitored channels during lunch or break periods. Because the rule prohibits use of personal phones at all times, except for work-related or critical quality of life activities, it prohibits their use on those non-working times. The phrase regarding text messaging and digital photography is more limited, but still refers to ‘working hours,’ which the Board, in other contexts, has held includes non-work time during breaks. Although the employer has a legitimate interest in preventing distractions, lost time, and lost productivity, that interest is only relevant when employees are on work time. It, therefore, does not outweigh the employees’ Section 7 interest in communicating privately via their cell phones, during non-work time, about their terms and conditions of employment.” (emphasis added)

In other words, while an employer may be able to limit employee use of personal mobile devices during working time in order to minimize distractions, having a policy in place that is worded in a way that limits that activity during non-working time may run afoul of the NLRA.

This is another reminder for employers to ensure their policies are drafted in a way that conforms to applicable NLRB standards. A poorly drafted rule – even with the best intentions – can result in legal headaches for a company.

 

© 2019 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
This post was written by David J. Pryzbylski of Barnes & Thornburg LLP.
Read more employer HR policies on the labor and employment type of law page.

Bomb Squad Officer with Hand Tremors Can Be Temporarily Transferred Pending a Medical Exam

In a common sense ruling, an Arizona federal court has determined that a city was within its rights to temporarily transfer a bomb squad technician pending a medical exam. According to the court’s opinion, the transfer occurred after a fellow employee observed the plaintiff was having hand tremors and reported that the plaintiff had dropped some chemicals with which he had been working. The plaintiff, who argued that the spill was a common occurrence and that any hand tremors were not the cause of him dropping the chemical, sued the city after a neurologist cleared him to return to duty. The plaintiff alleged that the city perceived him as disabled and violated the ADA by forcing him to undergo a medical exam. Finding that the requested medical exam was related to the job the officer performed and was consistent with business necessity, the court rejected plaintiff’s claims and entered summary judgment in favor of the city.

It may seem obvious that a person who is assigned to diffuse bombs and has hand tremors can be temporarily reassigned and asked to undergo a medical exam. Still it’s important to note that the employer in this case benefitted from carefully following protocol. Too often, employers react to a report that an employer may have a physical impairment affecting his work by immediately discharging the worker, transferring him to another job, or asking for a fitness-for-duty examination. The ADA, however, requires the employer to be more thoughtful on how it approaches such a situation.

Carefully following protocol often involves an employer first asking whether the employee at issue showed objective signs of impairment, and then determining whether that impairment poses a danger to the employee or others or affects the employee’s ability to perform essential functions of the job. Based on those preliminary steps, the next step often requires the employer to assess whether a request for a medical exam makes sense in light of the report of impairment and the job the employee is performing. If the answer to those questions are yes, then the employer can temporarily transfer the employee (or place him or her off work) and direct the employee to undergo a targeted fitness-for-duty exam.

The conscientious employer will not make any permanent job decisions, however, until the results of the fitness-for-duty exam are returned and any follow up questions are asked. Moreover, because the very act of asking an employee to undergo a fitness-for-duty exam violates the ADA if it is not job related and consistent with business necessity, employers may choose to consult with their employment counsel before requesting an exam or otherwise taking an adverse employment action against an employee who exhibits a physical impairment at work.

 

© 2019 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
This post was written by Richard P. Winegardner of Barnes & Thornburg LLP.
Read more from the Ninth Circuit.

Compliance with the New Proposed DOL Salary Threshold May Create Challenges for Many Employers

As we wrote in this space just last week, the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) has proposed a new salary threshold for most “white collar” exemptions.  The new rule would increase the minimum salary to $35,308 per year ($679 per week) – nearly the exact midpoint between the longtime $23,600 salary threshold and the $47,476 threshold that had been proposed by the Obama Administration.  The threshold for “highly compensated” employees would also increase — from $100,000 to $147,414 per year.

Should the proposed rule go into effect – and there is every reason to believe it will – it would be effective on January 1, 2020.  That gives employers plenty of time to consider their options and make necessary changes.

On first glance, dealing with the increase in the minimum salaries for white-collar exemptions would not appear to create much of a challenge for employers—they must decide whether to increase employees’ salaries or convert them to non-exempt status. Many employers that reviewed the issue and its repercussions back in 2016, when it was expected that the Obama Administration’s rules would go into effect, would likely disagree with the assessment that this is a simple task. The decisions not only impact the affected employees, but they also affect the employers’ budgets and compensation structures, potentially creating unwanted salary compressions or forcing employers to adjust the salaries of other employees.

In addition, converting employees to non-exempt status requires an employer to set new hourly rates for the employees. If that is not done carefully, it could result in employees receiving unanticipated increases in compensation—perhaps huge ones— or unexpected decreases in annual compensation.

The Impact on Compensation Structures

For otherwise exempt employees whose compensation already satisfies the new minimum salaries, nothing would need be done to comply with the new DOL rule. But that does not mean that those employees will not be affected by the new rule. Employers that raise the salaries of other employees to comply with the new thresholds could create operational or morale issues for those whose salaries are not being adjusted. It is not difficult to conceive of situations where complying with the rule by only addressing the compensation of those who fall below the threshold would result in a lower-level employee leapfrogging over a higher-level employee in terms of compensation, or where it results in unwanted salary compression.

Salary shifts could also affect any analysis of whether the new compensation structure adversely affects individuals in protected categories. A female senior manager who is now being paid only several hundred dollars per year more than the lower-level male manager might well raise a concern about gender discrimination if her salary is not also adjusted.

The Impact of Increasing Salaries

For otherwise exempt employees who currently do not earn enough to satisfy the new minimum salary thresholds, employers would have two choices: increase the salary to satisfy the new threshold or convert the employee to non-exempt status. Converting employees to non-exempt status can create challenges in attempting to set their hourly rates (addressed separately below).

If, for example, an otherwise exempt employee currently earns a salary of $35,000 per year, the employer may have an easy decision to give the employee a raise of at least $308 to satisfy the new threshold. But many decisions would not be so simple, particularly once they are viewed outside of a vacuum. What about the employee who is earning $30,000 per year? Should that employee be given a raise of more than $5,000 or should she be converted to non-exempt status? It is not difficult to see how one employer would choose to give an employee a $5,000 raise while another would choose to convert that employee to non-exempt status.

What if the amount of an increase seems small, but it would have a large impact because of the number of employees affected? A salary increase of $5,000 for a single employee to meet the new salary threshold may not have a substantial impact upon many employers. But what if the employer would need to give that $5,000 increase to 500 employees across the country to maintain their exempt status? Suddenly, maintaining the exemption would carry a $2,500,000 price tag. And that is not a one-time cost; it is an annual one that would likely increase as those employees received subsequent raises.

The Impact of Reclassifying an Employee as Non-Exempt

If an employer decides to convert an employee to non-exempt status, it faces a new challenge—setting the employee’s hourly rate. Doing that requires much more thought than punching numbers into a calculator.

If the employer “reverse engineers” an hourly rate by just taking the employee’s salary and assuming the employee works 52 weeks a year and 40 hours each week, it will result in the employee earning the same amount as before so long as she does not work any overtime at all during the year. The employee will earn more than she did previously if she works any overtime at all. And if she works a significant amount of overtime, the reclassification to non-exempt status could result in the employee earning significantly more than she earned before as an exempt employee. If she worked 10 hours of overtime a week, she would effectively receive a 37 percent increase in compensation.  And, depending on the hourly rate and the number of overtime hours she actually works, she could end up making more as a non-exempt employee than the $35,308 exemption threshold.

But calculating the employee’s new hourly rate based on an expectation that she will work more overtime than is realistic would result in the employee earning less than she did before. If, for instance, the employer calculated an hourly rate by assuming that the employee would work 10 hours of overtime each week, and if she worked less than that, she would earn less than she did before—perhaps significantly less. That, of course, could lead to a severe morale issue—or to the unwanted departure of a valued employee.

 

©2019 Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights reserved.
This post was written by Michael S. Kun of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. 

Partial Government Shutdown Causes Full-Blown Headache for Employers Using E-Verify

If you are an employer that is obligated to or has chosen to use E-Verify, then you have probably already received this message from the E-Verify website: “NOTICE: Due to the lapse in federal funding, this website will not be actively managed. This website was last updated on December 21, 2018, and will not be updated until after funding is enacted. As such, information on this website may not be up to date. Transactions submitted via this website might not be processed, and we will not be able to respond to inquiries until after appropriations are enacted.”

But what does this notice actually mean for your business? As long as the shutdown remains in effect, you will not be able to:

  • enroll in the program

  • access your E-Verify account

  • create a case in E-Verify

  • take action on a case you previously submitted

  • add, delete, or edit accounts

  • terminate accounts

  • run reports

Also during this time, your employees will not be able to resolve any E-Verify Tentative Nonconfirmations (TNCs) they received prior to the shutdown. Indeed, the number of days E-Verify is not available will not count toward the days employees have to begin the process of resolving their TNCs.

So, what should you do with your new hires given that you cannot create a case in E-Verify within the three business days required?

  • Make sure you are still completing I-9s in a timely manner. The shutdown does not affect the three business days you have to obtain and verify documentation in Section 2 or any other I-9 obligations.

  • Do not take any adverse action against employees who have open cases in E-Verify.

  • Create a list of all employees hired during the time period E-Verify has been inoperable, and make a notation that the reason the employees were not run through E-Verify is due to the government shutdown.

  • Take the time now to establish a system for running these employees through E-Verify once the system becomes available. Absent other instructions from USCIS, you will most likely be choosing the “other” drop-down field when asked why the case was not created within three days and typing in “government shutdown.”

  • If you’re a federal contractor with a Federal Acquisition Regulation E-Verify clause, think about getting confirmation in writing from your contracting officer that the E-Verify deadlines are extended. Or, if the officer is not available, at least create documentation that you have inquired about this.

© 2019 Jones Walker LLP
This post was written by Laurie M. Riley and Mary Ellen Jordan of Jones Walker LLP.

Equal Pay Act Claim Requires Show of Pay Disparity “Based on Sex” as Part of Prima Facie Case, Court Holds

Departing from other federal appeals courts, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held that Equal Pay Act plaintiffs must establish that the pay differential between similarly situated employees is “historically or presently based on sex” to make out a prima facie case.

In Gordon v. U.S., No. 17-1845 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 7, 2018), two female emergency room physicians employed by a Veterans Administration hospital alleged they were underpaid compared to male emergency room physicians. Their pay discrimination claim related primarily to one male physician who was hired at the same time they were hired at the same pay rate in the same position, but he received a pay increase one year after they were hired that the female plaintiffs did not receive.

To state a claim of an EPA violation, an employee must show the employer:

  • Paid employees of opposite sexes different wages;

  • For substantially equal work;

  • In jobs that require substantially equal skill, effort, and responsibility; and

  • That are performed under similar working conditions.

If an employee provides evidence establishing each of these elements, the burden shifts to the employer to prove the pay disparity is justified under one of four affirmative defenses: (1) a seniority system; (2) a merit system; (3) a pay system based on quantity or quality of output; or (4) any factor other than sex.

Here, the employer argued that the plaintiffs had not established a prima facie case and that, even if they had, the pay differential was justified under the “factor other than sex” affirmative defense. The Court, which hears appeals involving federal employee EPA claims, held that the plaintiff doctors must meet an additional requirement to establish their prima facie EPA violation:

To make their prima facie case, however, [the doctors] must also establish that the pay differential between the similarly situated employees is “historically or presently based on sex.”

Id. at 9-10. The Court held that the plaintiffs could not make this showing and that the employer was entitled to summary judgment on this basis alone. Notably, the Court held the employer had not introduced sufficient evidence to establish the “factor other than sex” affirmative defense. Id. at 10 n. 4.

The holding was based on a prior ruling, Yant v. United States, 588 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Judge Reyna wrote the panel decision, but also wrote separately to express the view that Yant should be overturned because the additional requirement improperly shifts the burden of proof in a manner inconsistent with the text of the EPA and Supreme Court precedent. Judge Reyna also notes that no other Circuit Court of Appeals requires this additional showing as part of the prima facie case. Id. at 17.

 

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2018
This post was written by F. Christopher Chrisbens of Jackson Lewis P.C.

Employees Celebrate Chip Party: Embedding RFID Chips – Would You Agree to This?

On 1 August 2017, employees of a Wisconsin-based technology company enjoyed a “Chip Party” – but not the salty kind.  21 of Three Square Market’s 85 employees agreed to allow their employer to embed radio frequency identification chips in their bodies. We are familiar with the Internet of Things, is this the Internet of People?

Three Square Market (known as 32M) highlighted the convenience of microchipping their employees, reporting that they will be able to use the RFID chip to make purchases in the company break room, open doors, access copy machines and log in to their computers.

While the “chipped” employees reported that they felt only a brief sting when the chips were inserted, chipping employees draws deeper cuts through ethical and privacy issues.

One such issue is the potential for the technology to gradually encroach with further applications not contemplated by its original purpose. RFID technology has the potential to be used for surveillance and location-tracking purposes, similar to GPS technology. It also has potential to be used as a password or authentication tool, to store health information, access public transport or even as a passport.

While these potential applications will offer convenience to employers and consumers, the value of the information generated by each transaction is arguably greater for the marketers, data brokers and law enforcement entities that use it for their own purposes. Once data like this exists it can be accessed in all manner of circumstances.  Can you ever provide sufficient advice and counselling to employees to create informed consent free from the power imbalance of the employment relationship?

All keen on tech here at K&L Gates, but no one was putting their hand up for a similar program here, we’ll all just use our pass card to open the door, thanks.  We were left brainstorming films that use implants to see where this technology could take us as it is all too common in Sci-Fi films.  Have a look at The Final Cut, 2004 (warning 37% Rotten Tomato rating), where implants took centre stage by storing people’s experiences.  We are not there yet, but we have taken the first wobbly step on the path.

Read more about 32M’s use of RFID chips here.

See here to find out more about tracking employees with other technologies.

Read more legal analysis on the National Law Review.

Olivia Coburn and Cameron Abbott of K&L Gates contributed this article.