Your Employee Matters

In NLRB v. White Oak Manor, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals enforced a decision by the National Labor Relations Board finding that an employer violated the National Labor Relations Act when it discharged an employee for allegedly photographing employees at work without permission. The Court agreed with the Board’s findings that the employee was actually discharged because of protected concerted activity and that the employer had not enforced its photography and dress code policies consistently.

Nichole Wright-Gore worked as a supply clerk for White Oak Manor. White Oak’s policies prohibited employees from wearing hats and taking photographs inside the long-term care facility. Wright-Gore was embarrassed about a bad haircut and started to wear a hat to work, without comment from any supervisor. After a week, however, when supervisors told her to remove the hat, she refused and was sent home. The next day, White Oak employees dressed up in costumes for Halloween. Wright-Gore’s costume included a hat, but her supervisor made her remove the hat pursuant to company policy. Wright-Gore complained that White Oak was enforcing the hat policy unequally, but her supervisor told her to worry only about herself and gave her a written warning for insubordination because she had refused to remove her hat the day before.

During the next few weeks, Wright-Gore photographed several employees wearing hats to work and violating other White Oak dress policies, such as failing to cover up their tattoos. She photographed some employees with their consent, but also took photographs of employees without their consent. She also shared the photographs with other employees and discussed the unequal treatment with them in an attempt to build support for her argument. White Oak eventually discharged Wright-Gore for violating the photography policy.

She then filed an unfair labor practice charge alleging that White Oak interfered with her right to engage in protective concerted activity. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that Wright-Gore’s complaints became protected concerted activity when they evolved into an effort to have White Oak enforce its dress code policies fairly. Another important issue was whether she lost protection of the Act by taking pictures of other employees without permission, in violation of White Oak policy. The ALJ held that she did not, in part, because there was evidence that other employees took pictures of each other without permission, and even displayed the pictures around the facility, without repercussion. The Board affirmed the ALJ findings.

On appeal, White Oak argued that Wright-Gore could not have engaged in protected concerted activity because she initially acted out of pure self- interest, and did not intend to act on behalf of a broader group. The Fourth Circuit rejected this argument and enforced the Board’s decision. As the court noted, “[t]hat an employee’s self-interest catalyzed her decision to complain about working conditions does not inexorably bar a determination that her actions were protected and concerted.” Thus, the fact that Wright initially acted out of her own self- interest did not remove her actions from the protections of the Act. Moreover, the court’s decision emphasized the fact that White Oak had not enforced its photography or dress code policies consistently.

This case reinforces the importance of employers enforcing workplace policies consistently and the reality that seemingly individualized complaints can lead to employer decisions which conflict with the National Labor Relations Act.

Courtesy Franczek Radelet

One of the more vexing issues facing both employers and employees involves leave time related to a medical condition, especially when the period of leave exceeds an employer’s permitted leave allowance or otherwise violates an established attendance policy. Although such situations might be challenging and confusing, employers must confront them directly because using leave necessitated by an employee’s disability constitutes a “reasonable accommodation” under the ADA.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) Reasonable Accommodation Guidance provides examples of some of the reasons an employee with a disability might require leave:

• Obtaining medical treatment or rehabilitation services related to the disability.
• Recuperating from an illness or an episodic manifestation of the disability.
• Obtaining repairs on prosthetic device or other equipment such as a wheelchair.
• Avoiding temporary adverse conditions in the work environment (for example, an air-conditioning breakdown causing unusually warm temperatures that could seriously harm an employee with multiple sclerosis).
• Training in the use of a service animal or assistive device.
• Training in the use of Braille or sign language.

Here’s a discussion of some frequent and confusing leave-related issues that employers and employee have presented to JAN.

How Much Leave Is Reasonable? The ADA does not set a specific amount of time relative to the use of leave as a reasonable accommodation. As with any accommodation situation, you should consider a period of leave for an employee with a disability on a case-by-case analysis. If an employee needs a leave of absence that exceeds his or her accrued paid leave, the employer should permit the employee to exhaust the paid leave and then allow the use of unpaid leave absent undue hardship.

Although there’s no limit on the amount of leave used as a reasonable accommodation under the ADA, the EEOC has held that employers need not grant indefinite leave as a reasonable accommodation (see the EEOC Guidance on Applying Performance and Conduct Standards, Question 21). However, the employee need not provide a specific, fixed date of return. A request for leave is acceptable with an approximate date of return (e.g., around the end of August) or a range of dates for a return to work (e.g., sometime between August 24 and September 23).

ADA and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). An employee’s rights under the ADA and the FMLA are separate and distinct. The EEOC has ruled that when an employee is entitled to leave under both laws, the employer should allow leave under the law providing the employee with the greater rights (see the EEOC Fact Sheet on the FMLA, ADA, and Title VII). Additionally, employers should note that the ADA might require them to grant leave beyond the 12 weeks allowed under the FMLA as a reasonable accommodation. In this case, an employer can consider the FMLA leave taken in determining whether the requested leave time poses an undue hardship.

Erratic or Unreliable Attendance. The ADA can require employers to modify attendance policies as a reasonable accommodation in the absence of undue hardship. This does not mean that employers must exempt an employee from time and attendance requirements completely or accept irregular and unreliable attendance unquestionably. Frequent occurrences of tardiness or absenteeism, particularly during an extended period and without adequate notice, could certainly impose an undue hardship in many situations. See the Commission’s Guidance on Applying Performance and Conduct Standards for a detailed discussion with examples of specific scenarios.

Alternative Accommodations. Although it makes sense for employers to give an employee’s choice of accommodation primary consideration when more than one reasonable accommodation is possible, they can ultimately choose the accommodation to be implemented, assuming that it’s equally effective. Accordingly, under the ADA an employer can offer a reasonable accommodation that requires an employee to remain on the job, as long as it’s effective and doesn’t interfere with the employee’s medical needs.

Holding the Employee’s Position. The ADA requires an employer to consider returning the employee to his or her same position in the absence of undue hardship. If undue hardship applies, the employer must consider reassignment to a vacant, equivalent position for which the employee is qualified.

Undue Hardship. As with any other reasonable accommodations, whether an employer should allow the use of leave as an accommodation will sometimes come down to an undue hardship analysis. In the case of leave, undue hardship will generally relate to a possible disruption in operations of the entity. For instance, the absence of an employee who performs highly specialized duties might create legitimate undue hardship issues, as might leave that occurs in a frequent and unpredictable manner. Generalized assessments are not adequate, because undue hardship must be determined based on individual and specific circumstances. Additionally, the EEOC has ruled that an employer cannot base an undue hardship claim on the argument that a reasonable accommodation might affect the morale of other employees negatively or that other employees might have to cover for the employee who is on leave.

What to Remember. Ultimately, much of the confusion involving leave as an accommodation occurs when there are no clear and open lines of communication. Lack of communication is usually the major obstacle to executing an effective accommodation solution. All parties need to be aware of any relevant updates or concerns, and everyone should make an effort to keep the information flowing. If you need ideas on how to encourage ongoing communication during the accommodation process, contact JAN.

Bill McCollum, MPA, Consultant

In our experience at JAN, there seems to be a great deal of confusion about medical documentation under the ADA. Employers aren’t sure what they can ask for, when they can ask for it, or whether the ADA Amendments Act has changed the rules for medical documentation. Employees aren’t sure what medical information they have to provide or how much to disclose. Medical professionals aren’t sure what documentation will be most helpful in getting their patients the workplace accommodations they need. Most of these questions come up when an employee requests an accommodation.

The good news: The medical inquiry rules that apply when an employee requests an accommodation are less complicated when they might seem. The general rule is that when the disability or need for accommodation is not obvious, an employer may require an employee to provide documentation that can substantiate that s/he has an ADA disability and needs the reasonable accommodation requested, but can’t ask for unrelated documentation. So when thinking about what medical information to request or to provide, think about what is needed and stop there!

Let’s start with the documentation needed to substantiate that the employee has a disability. The definition of disability for accommodation purposes is “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity or a record of such an impairment.” To determine whether an employee has a disability, the employer can ask whether the employee has (or had) an impairment. If yes, you can ask whether the impairment affects (or affected) a major life activity. You can also ask whether the impairment substantially limits (or limited) the major life activity.

This is where the ADA Amendments Act has made some changes. Although the definition of “disability” remained unchanged, the threshold for showing substantial limitation is much lower than before. This means that the documentation needed to show that an employee has a disability should be far less extensive.

What about the documentation needed to substantiate the need for an accommodation? The ADA Amendments Act did not change the reasonable accommodation provisions of the ADA, so the rules for medical documentation likewise remained unchanged. An employer may verify that the accommodation is needed, ask questions about the employee’s limitations that are causing the problem, and get other relevant information about the request to help determine effective accommodations.

For more information, see recently updated JAN publications related to medical documentation, including:

• How to Determine Whether a Person Has a Disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (ADAAA)
• Medical Inquiry in Response to an Accommodation Request
• Sample Medical Inquiry Form
• Practical Guidance for Medical Professionals: Providing Sufficient Medical Documentation in Support of a Patient’s Accommodation Request and Sample Accommodation Support Letter

– Linda Carter Batiste, J.D., Principal Consultant

The Institute on Disability at the University of New Hampshire has just issued its Annual Disability Statistics Compendium. Here are some of the stats related to employment in 2010. Click here to see the entire report.

Among the 19,048,426 individuals with disabilities ages 18 to 64 years living in the community, 6,368,644 were employed — an employment rate of 33.4%. In contrast, among the 172,089,634 individuals without disabilities ages 18 to 64 years living in the community, 125,358,735 were employed — an employment rate of 72.8%. The employment rate for people with disabilities was highest in North Dakota (54%) and lowest in Kentucky (25.7%).

The employment rate for individuals with disabilities ages 18 to 64 years living in the community was 33.4% while the rate for individuals without disabilities ages 18 to 64 years living in the community was 72.8% — an “employment gap” of 39.4%. The employment gap was greatest in Maine (48.9%) and smallest in Wyoming (27.7%).

The employment gap between individuals with and without disabilities ages 18 to 64 years living in the community was 39.4%, compared with 39.1% in 2009.

Among the 19,048,426 individuals with disabilities ages 16 to 64 years living in the community, 3,834,727 were employed fulltime, year-round — a full-time, year-round employment rate of 20.1%. In contrast, of the 172,089,634 individuals without disabilities ages 16 to 64 years living in the community, 88,683,091 were employed full-time, year-round — a full-time, year-round employment rate of 51.5%. The full-time, year-round employment rate for people with disabilities was highest in North Dakota (32.1%) and lowest in Maine (15.2%).

Finally, the full-time, year-round employment rate for individuals with disabilities ages 18 to 64 years living in the community was 20.1%, while the full-time, year-round employment rate for individuals without disabilities ages 18 to 64 years living in the community was 51.5% — a full-time, year-round employment gap of 31.4. The full-time, year-round employment gap was greatest in Maine (38.8%) and smallest in Utah (24.1%).

What can an employer take away from this?

• Obtaining gainful employment can be a real struggle for people with disabilities.
• Some communities are more “open” to employing the disabled. Some of this difference has to do with the types of jobs available, employment programs, and incentives.
• As “good people” we can rise above any perceived limitations and employ those with disabilities based on the results they are capable of producing.

To help with accommodation ideas go to http://askjan.org/.

Many employers are doing everything they can to reduce benefit costs. One of our HR That Works Members posed this question to Alan Levy, a benefits law expert in our network.

“Q: If an employee is eligible for Medicare, can we state/insist that they must leave our company plan and accept Medicare?

“A: We had this question for a client recently. There are serious penalties for forcing an active employee to give up the employer’s plan and go to Medicare, and offering a personal incentive might pose a problem. However, an employee can change to Medicare voluntarily, without restrictions or charges for pre-existing conditions, etc. This also applies to Medicare supplements and advantage problems. Some employees make the change voluntarily to use the current rule’s automatic unqualified acceptance, as well as to assure any “grandfathered” rights if Congress reduces or alters the program in the future. (Every “reform” proposal seems to exempt anyone already on Medicare.) A bigger problem is what happens to an employee’s spouse who isn’t old enough for Medicare if the employee leaves the company plan and goes to Medicare. Although COBRA works for a while, extension of this period is problematic.

“Finally, an employer offering a Medicare supplement or advantage plan to all who could qualify is not considered an improper incentive; the danger comes when the employer offers an individual some extra amount. The only exception I know of in this regard is the Third Circuit rule (applicable only in PA, NJ, and DE), Erie County, which treats certain variations of this scenario as age discrimination under the ADEA. EEOC says it will not apply the Third Circuit rule anywhere else in the nation, which seems to support the idea that employers offering the supplement, etc. is permissible.”

This advice is limited to the facts of the situation. As Alan points out, the EEOC has not drawn a black and white line on permissible supplements. The Social Security Administration provides an excellent publication on the interplay between private insurance and Medicare payments. See pages 13-14

Our understanding of the physical world grows ever deeper. Quantum physicists have taught us that simply observing matter can affect its activity. We know that bits of matter once bonded together remain “entangled” even when separated by great distances. We should remember from Physics 101 that matter likes to settle into its least active state (entropy).

What do these facts have to do with HR? It’s simple: How people think about doing their jobs has implications that might be far broader than realized. If we accept the teachings of quantum physics at face value, then:

• Due to entanglement, how you go through your day will have an invisible, but perceptible impact on how the people you bond with feel every day. If you’re having a bad day, at some point, many of your co-workers and loved ones will feel this fact.
• Much of our existence depends on what we choose it to be. The very concept of “making your day” has scientific backing. As the proverb says, “As you believe, so shall you achieve.”
• Finally, unless you’re excited, it’s natural to use the least amount of energy possible to do a job. If you want to move yourself to a higher frequency, you have to get excited. Although some of us do this naturally, most people need a little motivation to get going. Don’t underestimate the power of this motivation in your business and personal life.

Because any organization is a collection of individuals, these concepts apply to the group as a whole. A positive company culture means that there’s a positive vibration among the workforce.

I see Human Resource Information Systems (HRIS) as the equivalent of “QuickBooks for managing the workforce.” They can handle employee data beginning with payroll right through to COBRA administration. Along the way, HRIS systems offer bells and whistles to help manage this data, including payroll, benefits administration, leave management, learning management, and more.

As a rule, companies with 100 employees or more have dominated the HRIS market, because these systems require a significant investment in time and money – with little short-term return. However, increasing competition in the upscale market means that HRIS providers are beginning to target smaller employers.

Here are some of the trends with these systems:

• Integration with social media platforms, including everything from Facebook to Twitter, et al.
• An improved interface that makes the system easier to use and more inviting for employees.
• Tie-ins to insurance billing (real time Workers Comp billing, benefits billing, etc.)
• Mobile access, including for time-keeping purposes, as well as integration with tablet accessibility (iPads, etc.)
• Greater assistance with online recruiting and link to recruiting portals.
• Increased use of “talent analytics” that help with recruitment, workforce planning, and succession planning, together with improved analysis of workforce facts, trends, etc.
• The “gamification” of these systems.
• Influence of “the cloud” — the storage of data maintained on secure third-party Web sites, rather than your own site (like HR That Works). Of course, you’ll have to make sure that these third-party sites are, in fact, secure.
• Integration of career planning “dashboards.”
• Increased usage of paperless technology for everything from submitting resumes to electronic signatures on documents.
• Integration with employee wellness programs.

The main advantage of an HRIS system, as with a QuickBooks program, is having well managed data. HRIS advertising stresses the time saved in pulling reports on such topics as turnover. However, most smaller companies already know their turnover level.

Second, bear in mind that companies using HRIS are already running at 75 mph. Where will they get more time to use the system? When analyzed properly, do these systems really save time? Are HRIS bells and whistles truly related to corporate strategy or are they nothing more than distracting shiny objects?

The Internal Revenue Service has issued guidelines to clarify the tax treatment of employer-provided cell phones. The guidance relates to a provision in the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which removed cell phones from the definition of listed property, a category under tax law that normally requires additional recordkeeping by taxpayers.

The Notice provides guidance on the treatment of employer-provided cell phones as an excludible fringe benefit. According to the Notice, when an employer provides an employee with a cell phone primarily for non-compensatory business reasons, the business and personal use of the cell phone is generally nontaxable to the employee. The IRS will not require recordkeeping of business use in order to receive this tax-free treatment.

Simultaneously, an IRS memo to its examiners announced a similar administrative approach that applies to arrangements common to small businesses that provide cash allowances and reimbursements for work-related use of personally owned cell phones. Under this approach, employers that require employees, primarily for non-compensatory business reasons, to use their personal cell phones for business purposes may treat reimbursements of the employees’ expenses for reasonable cell phone coverage as nontaxable. This treatment does not apply to reimbursements of unusual or excessive expenses or to reimbursements made as a substitute for a portion of the employee’s regular wages.

Under the guidelines, when employers provide cell phones to their employees or reimburse employees for business use of their personal cell phones, tax-free treatment is available without burdensome recordkeeping requirements. The guidance does not apply to the provision of cell phones or reimbursement for cell-phone use that is not primarily business related, because such arrangements are generally taxable.

Details are in the memo and in Notice 2011-72, posted on IRS.gov.

In addition to General Liability, Errors and Omissions (E&O), and Directors and Officers (D&O) policies, some employers also buy Employment Practices Liability Insurance (EPLI). An EPLI policy usually covers claims by employees and former employees under federal, state, and local discrimination laws, including Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), etc. EPLI policies usually exclude claims arising under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), and sometimes the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

A recent federal district court ruling, that an EPLI policy did not cover a lawsuit brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), reinforces the need for employers to do a careful review of possible exclusions in their EPLI policies.

In Cracker Barrel Old County Store, Inc. v. Cincinnati Insurance Co., the EEOC sued the employer alleging systemic sexual and racial harassment based on 10 EEOC charges. The employer settled the lawsuit and signed a consent agreement with the EEOC to pay $2 million. The company had an EPLI policy and submitted the claim to its insurer. However, the insurer refused to cover the costs of the settlement, arguing that a suit filed by the EEOC was not a “claim” against the employer under the EPLI policy, which defines “claim” as “a civil, administrative, or arbitration proceeding commenced by the service of a complaint or charge, which is brought by any past, present or prospective employee(s).” The employer sued the insurer for indemnification. The trial court dismissed the company’s suit, holding that because the EEOC, rather than an employee, filed the suit, the EPLI policy did not cover the claim

This case highlights the potential cost when an employer does not understand the scope of insurance coverages. Employers should review their policies to ensure that they have a complete understanding of what their EPLI policies will and will not cover. Although this review should occur when the policy is purchased, at a minimum, the employer should review its coverage with the insurer after a lawsuit so that it has a full understanding of what will be covered.

Provided by the law firm of Shawe Rosenthal.

In August 2011, CNNMoney.com polled more than 8,000 individuals asking whether their retirement plans are on track. More than half (51%) said “Yes,” 29% said “Not quite but we’ve got a plan,” 12% said “Retire? I’ll be working forever,” and 8% said “Haven’t got a clue.” This is consistent with other polls I’ve seen about how people manage their finances. For example, roughly half of Americans have a personal budget and the other half don’t. Chances are that the half with budgets has their retirement plans on track. Many employees will be working much longer than expected, in large part, due to their financial ignorance.

What implication does this have for employers? Consider this:

• More than one in three workers (36%) say they expect to retire after 65, and one in four workers (25%) actually do so. How do you expect to manage this fact? How will it affect any succession planning? What will be its impact on productivity and customer relations? If you’re an HR That Works user, please watch our Webinar, Rehirement vs Retirement! Understanding, Attracting and Retaining the Mature Workforce, presented by Gail Geary.
• Don’t underestimate the importance of financial education. Two years ago, we did a Webinar that remains relevant today with Dave Ramsey’s business coach, George Campbell. This Webinar explained how the financial stress of individual employees compounds to affect a company as a whole. We’ve also brought in the nation’s top teachers of accounting to do a Webinar on The Accounting Game. We’re currently setting up a webinar with the Certified Financial Planner Organization to teach basic financial planning on the home front.

As employers, we have to acknowledge that if we don’t address the two greatest concerns of our employees – how they handle their health and how they handle their money – the impacts of those challenges will fall on our organizations. Please make sure to attend the webinar on Financial Planning.