Back in March, we warned you that for-profit businesses using the services of unpaid interns were at risk due to the increased scrutiny being given to whether such unpaid internships violate federal and state wage and hour law.

Since then, there have been several developments (two by a serial plaintiff) that have only increased the risks faced by for-profit businesses using the services of unpaid interns, including, but not limited to, the fact that:

  • Plaintiffs in a lawsuit in federal court in New York (Eric Glatt, et al. v. Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc.) have expressed their intention to add claims on behalf of unpaid interns who worked for News Corp.’s Fox Entertainment Group unit;

I love the Little League World Series.  Classic Americana.  Teams from all over the U.S. and the world play, and proud parents watch them.

Billie Ann Tomei’s son Cole and his team from California (which was coached by her husband Trevor) were good enough to play in the Little League World Series.  But when Billie Ann, an office manager for a CPA, asked for time off to travel to see Cole play, her boss said “No.”  According to Billie Ann, he told her, “If you go, write yourself your last [pay]check.”

Well, Billie Ann wrote herself that check and went to see her son play.  Do you think she regrets her decision?

Employers in the Atlanta area may have heard about this story of a school teacher seeking additional paid time off to care for his wife, who is suffering from a rare bacterial infection that required the amputation of her hands and feet.  His co-workers have tried to come to his aid:  other teachers at the school have offered to “donate” some of their accrued paid time off (“PTO”) to the teacher, who has already exhausted all of his PTO caring for his wife.  However, the school board rejected those offers, citing a policy that prohibits employees from transferring PTO.  Here is how a school board spokesperson explained the situation to a local newspaper:

Last week a California Appeals court ruled that a decision not to renew an expiring employment contract cannot form the basis of a wrongful termination case. Nicollette Sheridan, former co-star of the one-time hit television drama “Desperate Housewives,” lost her wrongful termination claim against the show, the network, and its creators when the court ruled that she was not “fired, discharged or terminated.” Instead, the network exercised its option not to renew her employment contract.

As my colleague considered several months ago, organizations like the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance (NAAFA) have been fighting for decades to counter the prejudices many have against obese individuals.  As part of its efforts, NAAFA is working to establish federal and state laws making obesity a protected class.  To date, however, these efforts have only resulted in one state (Michigan) and a handful of cities passing laws making weight-based discrimination illegal.

While efforts to make obesity a protected class have not been especially successful, there has, however, been more movement towards the greater recognition of obesity as a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).   My colleague previously noted that a federal district court in Louisiana had found that an employee who weighed 527 pounds at the time of her termination was “an individual with a disability” as defined under the ADA.

You are the HR manager and have just received an FMLA leave request from an employee.  At almost exactly the same time, the employee’s supervisor comes to you wanting to terminate the employee because of performance issues.  You know that FMLA leave does not prohibit an employer from taking action based on an unrelated, legitimate business reason, so you review the supervisor’s information (which supports termination) and sign off on the decision.

Of course, the employee then sues the company for violating the FMLA, claiming the termination was retaliation for her leave request.  Later, you learn that the supervisor’s information that justified termination was not true or not supported by the facts.  You (and others) were duped by the supervisor to permit the termination!  It may be cold comfort for the company that, at least, this isn’t a willful violation of the FMLA, rendering the company liable for double damages, also known as liquidated damages.

Or is it?

Wage and hour lawsuits are difficult for many reasons – not the least of which is because the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”)  is different than most other employment laws.  For instance, the FLSA puts the burden on employers – not the employee – to prove important aspects of a violation.  Specifically, the FLSA puts the burden on employers to prove that employees are correctly classified as “exempt” from the FLSA’s overtime standards.  Likewise, if an employee is found to have been misclassified, then employers also have the burden to show how many overtime hours the employee really worked (if the employer disputes the employee’s calculation of overtime hours demanded).  

The National Labor Relations Board is taking an increasingly hard look at the language in employer handbooks, as shown by two recent cases from the NLRB’s Arizona Region.  Recently, Hyatt Hotels Corporation agreed to settle an unfair labor practice charge that claimed a provision in the company’s employee handbook acknowledgment form was too broad.  The provision stated that Hyatt’s at-will employment policy could not be changed except by a written agreement signed by the employee and particular executives.  Similarly, earlier this year an administrative law judge decided that a disclaimer in the handbook of an American Red Cross unit stating that the at-will employment relationship “cannot be amended, modified or altered in any way,” could be interpreted to interfere with employees’ rights to engage in group activity to try to change the policy.

So, why the sudden attention by the NLRB to employee handbook policies on employment “at-will”? 

HR professionals generally want to give wayward employees opportunities to do better. So, situations commonly arise where an employee who consistently violates work rules and demonstrates less than professional behavior is given multiple chances to improve. Inevitably, most of the time such an employee fails to fully improve and the time comes to let the employee go. And just as inevitably, when he is terminated the employee contends that he should not have been terminated and 1) seeks unemployment compensation, 2) files an EEOC charge, and/or 3) sues for discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and whatever else he can conjure up. Suddenly all of your good intentions are thrown back in your face, leaving you wishing you would have just fired the employee without giving him all those additional chances to try to improve.

In a recent case out of New Jersey, the employer learned a very tough lesson on the pitfalls of second chances.

The number of retaliation claims filed with the EEOC has been steadily rising.  Is there more retaliation in the working world?  More likely some of the rise is due to better knowledge of various employment laws’ anti-retaliation provisions and greater enforcement of those provisions, including more lawyers bringing retaliation claims that end in sizable verdicts.