Agreeing with the district court’s assessment that “résumé misrepresentations by a senior human resources professional represent an infraction so egregious as to defy correction by mere counseling or other lesser discipline,” the 6th Circuit on April 23, 2018, rejected an appeal from a summary judgment order on claims of pregnancy, race, and age discrimination and retaliation in Bailey v. Oakwood Healthcare, Inc..

Michelle Bailey, a 40 year old African-American woman, was fired from her position as a senior staffing professional at Oakwood Healthcare, Inc. (Oakwood) on the day she returned from a three-month maternity leave. During her maternity leave, her supervisor had identified deficiencies in her work performance that prompted the supervisor to go back and review her qualifications. When she checked, she found what Ms. Bailey acknowledged in deposition were “embellishments” on her employment application. In notifying Ms. Bailey of her termination, Oakwood relied on both the deficiencies and the misrepresentations. Ms. Bailey later sued, claiming that she was fired because of her pregnancy, her race and her age as well as in retaliation for concerns she had expressed about the rejection of employment applications of certain African-American candidates for employment at Oakwood prior to her maternity leave. The district court granted summary judgment in Oakwood’s favor on each of these counts.
Continue Reading Sixth Circuit upholds termination of human resources employee for employment application misrepresentations and performance deficiencies

The U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) has announced a new nationwide pilot program, called the Payroll Audit Independent Determination (PAID) program, which is designed to facilitate resolution of potential overtime and minimum wage violations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). According to the WHD’s website describing the program, the program’s primary objectives are to resolve wage and hour claims expeditiously and without litigation, to improve employers’ compliance with overtime and minimum wage obligations and to ensure that more employees promptly receive any owed back wages.

WHD states that it will implement this pilot program nationwide for approximately six months. At the end of the pilot period, WHD will evaluate the effectiveness of the pilot program, as well as potential modifications to the program to determine its next steps.
Continue Reading Wage and Hour Division announces pilot limited “amnesty” program

In response to the nation’s opioid epidemic, the Department of Transportation (DOT) amended its testing program requirements to require inclusion of four semi-synthetic opioids, hydrocodone, oxycodone, hydromorphone and oxymorphone, to the required drug testing panel. DOT also added methylenedioxyamphetamine (MDA) to the panel and removed methylenedioxyethylamphetaime (MDEA) as a confirmatory test analyte as redundant since

Porter Wright is pleased to announce that it is now offering customized audits of the specific HR policies and practices you select at custom, fixed-cost or other fee arrangements that will give you certainty about the expense before the audit even begins. Simply choose from the menu of HR audit services we offer and work

Well known asset management company State Street Corporation will pay $5 million to settle allegations of pay inequity raised by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) in an audit. OFFCP alleged that the company paid female executives less than men and black executives less than whites at its Boston headquarters. The landmark settlement agreement is the largest back pay settlement collected by OFCCP since 2015.

By way of background, OFCCP audits federal contractors and subcontractors for compliance with workplace affirmative action and nondiscrimination requirements. OFCCP conducted a compensation analysis of State Street’s downtown Boston office in December 2012. According to OFFCP, that analysis revealed that, since at least December 2010, there were “statistically significant” disparities in compensation between male and female workers and black and white workers even when “legitimate factors affecting pay” such as performance, experience and education were taken into account.
Continue Reading The OFCCP strikes, puts State Street’s pay inequity problem out on Front Street

In an opinion issued this week, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee) affirmed dismissal of a case alleging same-sex sexual harassment primarily based on the prompt and effective action taken by the employer in response to the plaintiff employee’s complaint.

Plaintiff (Hylko) and the alleged harasser (Hemphill) worked closely together at U.S. Steel. Hemphill trained Hylko and assigned his duties. Both reported to an area manager.

Hylko claimed that Hemphill harassed him as soon as they started working together, that Hemphill regularly asked Hylko about his sex life and that Hemphill grabbed his buttocks and private parts.

Hylko complained to management, who offered him a transfer to a different area of the plant, which he accepted. Management then met with Hemphill, who admitted some of the harassment. They then gave him a verbal warning, one week suspension and demotion to shift manager and made him take a leadership class. No harassment occurred again after that.

The standard for employer liability for hostile work environment harassment that does not result in a tangible adverse employment action depends typically on whether or not the harasser is the victim’s supervisor. An employer is vicariously liable for a hostile work environment created by a supervisor unless it can prove that (a) the employer exercised reasonable care to prevent and correct promptly any harassment; and (b) the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of any preventive or corrective opportunities provided by the employer or to avoid harm otherwise. By contrast, an employer is liable for hostile work environment harassment by employees who are not supervisors only if the alleged victim can prove the employer was “negligent in failing to prevent harassment from taking place.” In assessing such negligence, the court will look to such factors as the nature and degree of authority wielded by the harasser and evidence the employer did not monitor the workplace, failed to respond to complaints, failed to provide a system for registering complaints or effectively discouraged complaints from being filed. In essence, the supervisory status of the alleged results in a shifting of the burden of proof with respect to whether the employer has taken necessary steps to prevent and respond to allegations of harassment.

Continue Reading When can an employer be found liable for ‘supervisor’ harassment?

Many thanks to Arslan Sheikh for his assistance in preparing this post.

Presume your workplace is non-union. You are interviewing an employee about facts that might lead to disciplining her. She tells you she wants a co-worker to sit in on the interview as her representative to advise her. The lawyers that advise the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) are taking the position that you have to allow it.

Last week, the office of the general counsel to the NLRB issued an advice memorandum that has significant implications for all non-union employers. The memo concludes that an employee in a non-union workplace should be entitled to co-worker representation during an investigatory interview by the company. This is contrary to existing NLRB precedent which holds that representation rights like this do not apply where there is no union representative. As explained below, whether the general counsel’s advice becomes law remains to be seen. But in the meantime, employers are wise to be aware of this advice memo because it will likely influence the way NLRB regional offices act in enforcement proceedings at least for now. Refusing an employee’s request for representation in an interview might result in a local NLRB office issuing a complaint and forcing the employer to fight it out in a hearing.
Continue Reading Non-union employers may have to allow employees “representation” in some investigation interviews

Many thanks to Arslan Sheikh for his assistance in preparing this post.

Last week, President Trump nominated Peter Robb, a management-side labor attorney, to serve as general counsel to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). As the top lawyer for the NLRB, the general counsel has a great many responsibilities, which include giving advice to the regional offices of the NLRB concerning enforcement issues. The advice is often communicated in advice memoranda. These advice memos are critical because they advise the regional offices on how to interpret and to enforce labor law. It is the regional offices that process unfair labor practice charges and union representation petitions. As a result, the office of the general counsel can have a significant influence on what employers can expect to face in NLRB enforcement proceedings.

If Robb is confirmed by the Senate, which is likely, he will take over when current General Counsel Richard Griffin’s four-year term expires on Oct. 31, 2017. Based on his professional background and experience, there is reason to expect that Robb will take a more employer-friendly position on many labor law issues than his predecessors did during the Obama administration. For example, Robb has been critical of the NLRB’s efforts to shorten the timeframe in which an employer can react to a union election petition.
Continue Reading President Trump nominates Peter Robb to serve as general counsel to the National Labor Relations Board

United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is again releasing a new and updated version of Form I-9, the Employment Eligibility Verification document. Since November 1986, all U.S. employers have been required to complete and retain the I-9 for new employees. The most recent version of the form went into effect on Jan. 22, 2017, but, for some unknown reason, USCIS is now issuing another version. This new version will be mandatory as of Sept. 18, 2017. The easiest way to identify the new form is by the date (07/17/17) noted in the bottom left corner; the prior version was dated 11/14/2016.

A couple of points to bear in mind:

  1. The new I-9 must be used for any new employees hired on or after Sept. 18, 2017. There is no need to complete the new form for any current employees, and employers should continue to follow existing storage and retention rules for all of their previously completed Forms I-9.
  2. The new form has the same expiration date as the prior version—08/31/2019—so employers should be careful to use the proper version of the form with 07/17/17 noted in the bottom left corner.


Continue Reading Employer alert: Revised I-9 form required beginning Sept. 18, 2017