Evan Pontz

Subscribe to Evan Pontz's Posts

I have recently written about cases where discrimination and retaliation led to large verdicts and huge liability for employers.  These cases remind us that hostility at work, in the form of discrimination and harassment, is wrong and expensive.  An additional example from just this week shows what happens when harassment occurs and is allowed to continue, and ends up out of control.

This past Tuesday, a federal jury in New York awarded $25 million to a steel plant worker on his mind-boggling claims of racial discrimination, harassment and retaliation, as well as some tort claims for emotional distress.  That kind of verdict raises eyebrows for sure.  But what is even more startling is what the employee was subjected to by his co-workers and how his employer responded (or in most cases, failed to respond).

Sometimes employment lawsuits are so “funny” they almost literally make steam come out of your ears.  In one recent case, the “employee’s” claim for unpaid overtime was particularly infuriating because she never worked for her alleged employer.

The Tampa Bay Times ran an article yesterday about a business in Pinellas Park, Florida that was sued for alleged unpaid overtime by two former employees.  The business owner didn’t believe he owed anyone any overtime or that he had violated the FLSA, so he hired an attorney to fight the lawsuit.  He was upset about having to spend money to defend himself, but he was even more concerned because he had never heard of one of the two plaintiffs suing him, even though he knew all of his current and former employees.

A previous post discussed a huge jury verdict for an employee who was harassed and mistreated at work due to her religion.  The lesson:  harassing an employee, subjecting her to a hostile work environment, and retaliating against her for complaining about harassment are all wrong, illegal and expensive.

A decision handed down yesterday by the federal appeals Court covering Georgia, Alabama and Florida has made that point again.  In doing so, it further explained that retaliating by creating a hostile work environment for employees who complain about discrimination also violates Title VII — and is also wrong, illegal and expensive.

We started HRLawMatters.com because we recognized how important the Labor & Employment laws that Human Resources professionals have to understand and contend with every day really are to their businesses’ success.  We think many of you agree, as do your companies.  I noticed recently one company that looks like it really gets that human resources and the law really matter, and what they did that signals that they “get it” is a bit unusual.

Late last week, a jury in Missouri awarded $5 million in punitive damages to a woman who proved she was subjected to a hostile work environment because she converted to Islam.

According to published reports, the woman, who was a network technician for a telephone company, had been in her job for six years when she converted to Islam in 2005.  Soon after converting she was subjected to name-calling (such as “terrorist”) and being told she was “going to hell” by co-workers and managers.  A manager also pressured her to remove the hijab (head scarf) she wore to comply with her religion and even grabbed it off of her head one time.  This behavior went on for 3 years. 

Our Troutman Sanders LLP Labor & Employment Group just sent out an Advisory on the NLRB’s Union Rights Poster Rule.  In a nutshell, the Rule — which requires employers to put up posters informing employees of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act — was supposed to go into effect on April 30, 2012.  However, a federal district court last week found the rule to be invalid.

We often hear that certain employer actions are “illegal.”  Sometimes employees think so, sometimes its supervisors, and occasionally its even HR professionals (or even non-employment lawyers dabbling where they shouldn’t.)  While some employer actions are legally prohibited, below are a few actions often thought to be illegal that are actually legal.  Of course, these actions are often terrible ideas — and easy ways to get sued.

With baseball season underway, minds have turned to “America’s Pastime.”  Major League Baseball, like every employer should, has issued a social media policy.  A quick review raises questions about whether portions of the policy will “strike out” if reviewed by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which has been very active in reviewing employer policies and actions relating to social media use by employees. The NLRB is concerned by social media policies it views as unfairly restricting employees — including those not even working in a unionized workplace — from engaging in “protected concerted activity” as defined by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).  Simply put, restricting employees from freely discussing their “conditions of work” is considered a violation of Section 7.

So, will Major League Baseball’s social media policy be “safe” at home?  Let’s play umpire…

Two weeks ago, we posted on how employers viewing employees’ or job applicants’ Facebook pages could violate the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (“GINA”), which prohibits employers from obtaining or using certain types of genetic information.  We didn’t know the issue of employers viewing applicants’ Facebook pages — and particularly requiring their passwords — was about to BLOW UP.

Since our post, the issue has been the subject of Congressional hearings, proposed legislation, a statement by Facebook, and lots of articles, blogs and tweets.  Many have pointed out that requiring a Facebook password (1) may be illegal, (2) is an invasion of privacy, and (3) gets employers involved in issues they usually seek to avoid.  While these points are true (and are briefly explained below), the real question is:  Does demanding a Facebook password really serve an employer’s best interests?  Put simply, is it a good idea?