Can you terminate an employee for participating in an internal investigation at your company that is not connected with a formal EEOC proceeding?

Recently, in Townsend v. Benjamin Enterprises, Inc., the Second Circuit joined five other federal appellate courts in answering this question with a “yes.”  The Court held that participation in an internal employer investigation not connected with a formal EEOC proceeding is not protected activity under the participation clause contained in Title VII.  So, an employee participating in an internal investigation is not protected from being terminated in retaliation for such participation.  However, even if such a termination is not unlawful, it is still not a wise or productive decision for any company.

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).

Using a cell phone while driving is dangerous – we all know that.  Texting while driving is (or will soon be) illegal in 39 states and the District of Columbia.  But are your company’s employees using their cell phones to call or text while driving?  Are they doing it in a company car, with a company phone?  Even if your employees are only handling company business on a personal phone in a personal vehicle, you may still be at risk for a distracted driving lawsuit should they be involved in an accident. 

Last week, the National Labor Relations Board  (“NLRB”) issued its latest guidance on employer social media policies.  Over the past few years, the NLRB has taken the position that “overbroad” social media policies unreasonably and unlawfully prohibit employees from engaging in protected activities under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act  (“NLRA”).  Importantly, Section 7 applies to both unionized and non-unionized workplaces.  So, if you are a non-unionized employer, read on — this applies to you, too!

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.

You may be familiar with the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) – a federal law that was intended to target hackers seeking access to protected computers (i.e., governmental or financial services industry computers) in order to access confidential information or to distribute worms or viruses.  Since its enactment, however, the CFAA has been repeatedly amended to add greater protection for privately-maintained computers, a private right of action for civil remedies, and to adapt the statute to the Internet age.  As it reads today, the CFAA provides that “[a]ny person who suffers damage or loss by reason of a violation of this section may maintain a civil action against the violator to obtain compensatory damages and injunctive relief or other equitable relief.”

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.