Study Shows Tattoos in the Workplace Becoming a Non-Issue but Can Still Pose Employment Law Issues for Employers

Traditionally, tattoos once identified their owners as rough characters.  This bodily artwork was generally and stereotypically associated with sailors, bikers, members of the military, or the result of an alcohol-assisted impulse purchase.  However, a glance around the average coffee shop or suburban mall clearly demonstrates that is no longer the case.  According to the Pew Research Center, nearly 40% of people born after 1980 have one or more tattoos, and 25% have a piercing someplace other than an earlobe.  According to tattoo industry estimates, 60 % of all tattoos are being done on women.  Surveys of millennials show that 70% will hide their tattoos in the workplace so as not to negatively impact their employment prospects.

However, a new study by researchers from the University of Miami and University of Australia shows that with changing societal norms, such concerns may have little to no basis.  In the study, entitled “Are Tattoos Associated with Employment and Wage Discrimination? Analyzing the Relationships between Body art and Labor Market Outcomes”, the researchers surveyed more than 2000 people in all 50 states, and found the  salaries and wages of tattooed employees were  “statistically indistinguishable” from those of their non-tattooed counterparts.  The study suggests that employers recognize that by treating tattoos as a negative factor in hiring and employment decisions, they run the risk of missing out on well-qualified job candidates.

From an employment law standpoint, employers generally retain broad discretion in making employment decisions based on tattoos, and whether having an “inked” employee is suitable to their particular company.  However, under certain scenarios, restrictions on tattoos in the workplace could run afoul of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) and possibly constitute religious discrimination.  A good example of this is the lawsuit that was brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”)  against the Red Robin Gourmet Burgers chain of restaurants.  In EEOC v. Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc., the EEOC alleged that the company religiously discriminated when they fired an employee for not covering up his tattoos and refusing to accommodate a religious practice.  Red Robin ultimately settled the lawsuit prior to trial for $150,000 and entered into a consent decree with the EEOC.

The case began when Edward Rangel was hired as a server at Red Robin’s Bellevue, Washington restaurant.  In the lawsuit, Rangel asserted he was an adherent of the Kemetic religion, an ancient Egyptian faith.  As part of his religious practice, Rangel went through a rite of passage where he received religious inscriptions in the form of tattoos. The inscriptions, less than a quarter-inch wide and encircling his wrists, are liturgical verses from an Egyptian scripture.  According to the lawsuit, the inscriptions symbolized Rangel’s religious dedication and his religious practices made it a sin to intentionally conceal the religious inscriptions.

Rangel had the tattoos on his wrists when he was hired, and at that time, Red Robin has a dress code that prohibited employees from having visible tattoos.  The EEOC said that although Rangel worked at Red Robin for approximately six months without a complaint from customers, co-workers or his immediate supervisors, a new manager saw the tattoos and fired Rangel for not concealing them.

Rangel claimed he had repeatedly talked with management, giving detailed explanations of his faith and the need for an accommodation. He sought an exemption from the dress code, but Red Robin refused to provide it or any alternatives.  Title VII requires employers to make reasonable accommodations to sincerely held religious beliefs unless it would cause undue hardship to the business.  Throughout the suit Red Robin maintained that allowing any exceptions to its dress code policy would undermine its “wholesome image.”  Before the parties settled, Red Robin’s argument was rejected by the District Court, which held that Red Robin was required to support its undue hardship claim with more than hypothetical hardships based on unproven assumptions.

The lesson to be learned from that case is that Title VII and the EEOC take a very broad view of religion and generally, courts do not want to be placed in the position of deciding what is or is not a bona fide religion or religious practice.  To that extent, tattoos that are part of a religious practice may need to be accommodated.  Accommodations are not required if the employer would suffer undue hardship – that is, “more than de minimis “ or a minimal cost. Whether an accommodation would be an undue hardship is determined on a case-by-case basis, and considers the potential burden on an employer’s business in addition to any monetary costs. 

Purely decorative secular tattoos do not impose a duty of accommodation, and employees are free to make employment decisions on that basis or require employees to cover them up at work.  However, as indicated by the recent study, it appears that tattoos in the workplace are rapidly approaching the point of becoming a non-issue.  





FIFTH CIRCUIT RULES THAT THREAT OF WORKPLACE VIOLENCE TRUMPS FMLA RETALIATION CLAIM

             

An alleged threat by a former Southwest Airlines employee “that he wished he could order a black trench coat so that he could bring his shotgun to work” was enough to derail his claim that his employer terminated him in retaliation for taking intermittent leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”). 


In affirming the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Southwest, the April 18, 2018 opinion by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit agreed the airline had established a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for discharging Tate Clark, and that Clark had failed to prove that the reason was pretextual, or false.

 Clark began working for Southwest in 2001 as a customer service agent, and in 2011, he applied for and was approved for intermittent leave under the FMLA for his migraine headaches. Clark’s intermittent leave continued until his discharge, and he was never denied FMLA leave during his tenure with Southwest.

The incident that resulted in his termination took place on February 25, 2015, while he worked an early morning shift alone with a female co-worker.  On February 27, 2015, the co-worker sent the following note to her supervisors:

Hi guys, I wasn’t sure if I should share this but the more I thought about it, the more it bothered me. On Wednesday night, When Tate & I were working together, he was looking at the Lands End uniform web site. There was a picture of the trench coat and I asked him if he was going to order it. He said no, but I wish they made it in black. I asked him why and he said so he could bring in his shotgun. I told him not to joke about something like that and he just sat there chuckling. I’m not necessarily afraid, but it wasn’t the first time he referred to his guns in that manner.

 After a brief investigation, Clark was suspended on March 1, 2015, and on March 9, he was terminated for violating Southwest’s Zero Tolerance Workplace Violence Policy that prohibited threatening workplace violence.  Clark subsequently filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, alleging that the true reason for his termination was retaliation for taking FMLA leave.

In support of his claim, Clark argued that his taking of FMLA leave on February 27, 2015 established a connection with his March 9, 2015, termination, and he cited other incidents, including a negative workplace review, that had occurred more than a year before his termination. 

In dismissing Clark’s lawsuit, the District Court indicated that while the evidence of a causal connection between Clark’s taking of FMLA leave and his termination was weak, his claim failed because Southwest had established a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for discharging him, and Clark could not show the airline’s reason was false.  In his deposition, Clark had testified that he had been aware of Southwest’s workplace violence policy and had received training on it. He also said he had understood that it was a “zero tolerance” policy, conceding that there was “no room” “to have any sort of excuse for that.” Clark also agreed that, if he had made it, his comment about bringing in a shotgun would have violated the policy and would have been grounds for termination.





A GOOD EXAMPLE OF HOW “NOT” TO REASONABLY ACCOMMODATE UNDER THE ADA

 

           The settlement of a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) aptly demonstrates the adage that sometimes the best example is a really bad example. 

 

          The EEOC filed the suit in 2017, alleging that Hester Foods, which operated a Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant in Dublin, Georgia, had violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) by firing its restaurant manager when the company’s owner found out that the woman was taking medication prescribed by her doctor to treat her bipolar disorder.

 

          According to the EEOC lawsuit, when the owner discovered the woman was receiving the treatment, he referred to the manager’s medications in obscene terms, and made her destroy her medications by flushing them down a toilet at the restaurant. When the woman later told the owner that she planned to continue taking the medications per her doctor’s orders, the owner told her not to return to work and fired her.  The EEOC filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its conciliation process.

          In addition to paying a $30,000.00 settlement, the consent decree settling the ADA lawsuit requires the restaurant operator to create and disseminate a handbook containing policies that prohibit discrimina­tion. The decree also requires that the company provide annual equal employment opportunity training to its managers, supervisors, and employees. The two-year decree further requires the company to post a notice to its employees about the lawsuit and to provide periodic reporting to EEOC about disability discrimination complaints.  In commenting on the settlement, Antonette Sewell, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Atlanta District Office stated “Employers are not allowed to force workers with disabilities to choose between their jobs and their health. Reasonable accommodation includes allowing workers to rely on their physicians, not on the opinions of the company managers.”
 

          The ADA prohibits private employers, state and local governments, employment agencies and labor unions from discriminating against qualified individuals with disabilities in job application procedures, hiring, firing, advancement, compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. The ADA covers employers with 15 or more employees, including state and local governments. It also applies to employment agencies and to labor organizations. 

          An employer is required to make a reasonable accommodation to the known disability of a qualified applicant or employee if it would not impose an "undue hardship" on the operation of the employer's business. Reasonable accommodations are adjustments or modifications provided by an employer to enable people with disabilities to enjoy equal employment opportunities. Accommodations vary depending upon the needs of the individual applicant or employee, and must be judged on a case-by-case basis. 

 

 

         Making a reasonable accommodation can sometimes be difficult but more often, can be addressed through common sense and engaging in an interactive process with the employee.  As illustrated by this case, failure to do so can be costly.



 

DOL Reduces the Risk of Employers Offering Unpaid Internships

Employers interviewing for their upcoming summer internship programs now have more flexibility and less risk of wage and hour litigation due to a significant policy turnaround by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL).

 

Traditionally, unpaid internships offered college students the opportunity to gain real-life business experience in their chosen career, while for-profit employers received the benefit of additional assistance in the workplace, as well as an opportunity to assess potential new employees.

 

However, in 2010, this symbiotic relationship was complicated by the DOL’s institution of a strict six-factor test to determine if the individual was properly classified as an unpaid intern or an employee entitled to wages and overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

 

Under the former DOL test, all of the following criteria must have been met to be considered an intern by the FLSA: (1) the internship is similar to training that would be given in an educational environment, (2) the internship experience is for the benefit of the intern, (3) the intern does not displace regular employees and works under close supervision of existing staff, (4) the employer does not gain an immediate advantage from the intern's activities (and the employer’s operations may actually be impeded or hindered by the intern’s activities), (5) the intern is not guaranteed a job at the end of the program, and (6) the employer and the intern each understand that the internship is unpaid.

The 2010 test resulted in current and former interns bringing class action lawsuits against companies such as Viacom, 21st Century Fox, and fashion giant Gucci, resulting in large dollar settlements. While some companies reacted by creating internships that paid at least the minimum wage, many other companies simply eliminated internship programs out of fear of litigation.

 

In January 2018, the DOL released Fact Sheet #71: Internship Programs Under The Fair Labor Standards Act, which scrapped the old test, in favor of the court-favored “primary beneficiary test” to determine if an individual is an intern or an employee under the FLSA. The new seven-factor test is as follows:

 

1.         The extent to which the intern and the employer clearly understand that there is no expectation of compensation. Any promise of compensation, expressed or implied, suggests that the intern is an employee—and vice versa.

2.         The extent to which the internship provides training that would be similar to that which would be given in an educational environment, including the clinical and other hands-on training provided by educational institutions.

3.         The extent to which the internship is tied to the intern’s formal education program by integrated coursework or the receipt of academic credit.

4.         The extent to which the internship accommodates the intern’s academic commitments by corresponding to the academic calendar.

5.         The extent to which the internship’s duration is limited to the period in which the internship provides the intern with beneficial learning.

6.         The extent to which the intern’s work complements, rather than displaces, the work of paid employees while providing significant educational benefits to the intern.

7.         The extent to which the intern and the employer understand that the internship is conducted without entitlement to a paid job at the conclusion of the internship.

Courts have described the “primary beneficiary test” as a flexible test, and no single factor is determinative. Accordingly, whether an intern or student is an employee under the FLSA depends on the circumstances of each case.

If analysis of these circumstances reveals that an intern or student is actually an employee, he or she is entitled to both minimum wage and overtime pay under the FLSA. On the other hand, if the analysis confirms that the intern or student is not an employee, then he or she is not entitled to either minimum wage or overtime pay under the FLSA.

 

Employers should carefully assess their internship programs under the new criteria, and if needed, seek advice of counsel in regard to any use of unpaid interns.



 

 



Social Media Complications in the Enforcement of Non-Solicitation Agreements

Determining whether a former employee has breached a non-solicitation agreement has become a more complicated issue in the social media age. Courts are wrestling with the question of when a former employee’s social media interaction crosses the line into contractually prohibited solicitation.

At the start of employment, many businesses require employees to sign non-solicitation agreements, which restrict the employee from contacting the company’s customers or employees for a set period after the employee leaves the company. The goal of such agreements is to prevent the poaching of customers and/or co-workers by the departing employee, who often is headed to work for a business competitor.

Companies commonly use social media, such as Facebook or LinkedIn to market, advertise and communicate with customers. A company’s employees also frequently will add these same customers to their own personal social media accounts as Facebook "friends" or LinkedIn "connections." A common scenario involves a company’s customers or employees continuing to receive status alerts from the company’s former employee, either in the form of automatic updates, usually regarding their new employment, or more direct communications. While these type of cases are often very fact-specific, courts have held that a key consideration in determining whether a social media post is an improper solicitation is the content and substance of the post, and whether the social media activity is passive or active.

An example of such passive social media activity is found in Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. American Senior Benefits, LLC, 2017 WL 3393844 (Ill. App. Ct. Aug. 7, 2017). In that case, the court held that a former employee sending invitations to former co-workers to connect via LinkedIn did not constitute solicitation in violation of his non-competition agreement. In ruling against the former employer, the court noted that the invitations to connect were sent through generic e-mails that invited recipients to form professional connections, and that the generic e-mails did not contain any discussion of the former or current employer, did not suggest that recipients view open job positions on the former employee's profile page, and did not solicit recipients to leave their place of employment. The court in Bankers Life & Casualty cited rulings from other jurisdictions as to the difference between permitted "passive, untargeted communications" and prohibited active and direct solicitations.

Another case in which a court found no violation of a non-solicitation agreement, and ruled against the employer is Invidia, LLC v. DiFonzo, 2012 WL 5576406 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2012). In that case, the former employee was a hair stylist, who was under a two year non-solicitation agreement. The former employee had become Facebook friends with at least eight clients of her former employer, and upon leaving her employment with Invidia, a public announcement was posted on her Facebook page announcing her new employment at another hair salon. In ruling that this did not violate her non-solicitation agreement, the court noted:

In the comment section below that post, [Invidia customer] Ms. Kaiser posted a comment which said, "See you tomorrow Maren [DiFonza]. Ms. Kaiser then cancelled her appointment at Invidia for the next day. But it does not constitute "solicitation" of Invidia’s customers to post a notice on Ms. DiFonza’a Facebook page that Ms. DiFonza is joining David Paul Salons. It would be a very different matter if Ms. DiFonza had contacted her that she was moving to David Paul Salons, but there is no evidence of any such contact.

In the Invidia case, it bears mention that the court declined to enforce the non-solicitation agreement based on the purportedly passive social media activity, even though there was evidence that 90 of Invidia’s clients had subsequently canceled or failed to reschedule appointments after the Facebook posting.

In contrast, courts have enforced non-solicitation agreements when confronted with active or aggressive social media activity on the part of the former employee. In Coface Collections North America c. v. Newton, 430 Fed. Appx. 162 (3rd Cir. 2011), the appeals court affirmed an order to enforce a non-solicitation/non-competition agreement where the former employee posted on LinkedIn the date on which his restrictive covenant would expire, encouraged "experienced professionals" to contact him about employment with his new company, and sent Facebook friend requests to a number of his former co-workers, specifically inviting them to view his posted job solicitations.

Employers looking to enforce non-solicitation agreements or other restrictive covenants in the social media age should consider the following:

Many employers are using the same outdated non-solicitation/non-competition agreements they have used for years, which do not reference social media in any manner. Employers should revise and update such agreements to specifically address what types of social media activity will constitute a breach. Courts are more likely to enforce such agreements if the employee was expressly placed on notice.

• A court will require evidence before it issues a temporary restraining order or other injunctive relief against a breaching former employee. However, evidence of a breach of a non-solicitation agreement through social media can be very transitory or can be deleted by a former employee trying to destroy evidence. Any posting by a former employee suspected of violating their agreement should be immediately preserved, either through printed copies of screen shots, or saved digitally.

Another issue companies should be aware of is their own utilization of social media, and more specifically, the employees who have access to these accounts and post content on behalf of the company. In recent years, issues have arisen where a disgruntled departing employee is the only person who knows the passwords and usernames, and essentially locks the company out of its own social media accounts. All such employees should be required to sign agreements to provide access to such account information upon the termination of their employment, and such an agreement could be included in the terms of a non-competition/non-solicitation agreement.

Mark Fijman is licensed to practice in Louisiana and Mississippi, and specializes in the enforcement of non-competition/non-solicitation agreements and trade secret litigation.



EEOC SUES ESTEE LAUDER FOR SEX DISCRIMINATION AGAINST MALE EMPLOYEES

Cosmetics giant Estee Lauder Companies, Inc. is known for its perfumes, but in a lawsuit just filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) alleges something stinks about the company’s parental leave policy as it applies to its male employees. 

In announcing the lawsuit, the EEOC says Estee Lauder violated federal law when it implemented and administered a paid parental leave program that automatically provides male employees who are new fathers lesser parental leave benefits than are provided to female employees who are new mothers.

As alleged in the suit, Estee Lauder adopted a new parental leave program in 2013 to provide employees with paid leave for purposes of bonding with a new child, as well as flexible return-to-work benefits when the child bonding leave expired. Under its parental leave program, in addition to paid leave already provided to new mothers to recover from childbirth, Estee Lauder also provides eligible new mothers an additional six weeks of paid parental leave for child bonding.  However, under the program, Estee Lauder only offers new fathers whose partners have given birth two weeks of paid leave for child bonding.  The suit also alleges that new mothers are provided with flexible return-to-work benefits upon expiration of child bonding leave that are not similarly provided to new fathers. 

The case began when a male employee working as a stock person in an Estee Lauder store in Maryland sought parental leave benefits after his child was born.  He requested, and was denied, the six weeks of child-bonding leave that biological mothers automatically receive, and was allowed only the two weeks under the company policy. leave to bond with his newborn child.  The EEOC alleges the company’s conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) and the Equal Pay Act of 1963, which prohibit discrimination in pay or benefits based on sex.  The suit seeks relief for the affected employee, and other male employees who were denied equal parental leave benefits because of their sex.  Specifically, the EEOC is seeking back pay and compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of the male class members, as well as injunctive relief. 

Under the EEOC’s Strategic Enforcement Plan, addressing sex-based pay discrimination, including in benefits such as paid leave, is a key priority of the Commission. In bringing such a high-profile lawsuit against such a well-known female-centric company, the EEOC is clearly trying to make a point. According to EEOC Washington Field Office Acting Director Mindy Weinstein, “It is wonderful when employers provide paid parental leave and flexible work arrangements, but federal law requires equal pay, including benefits, for equal work, and that applies to men as well as women.”

While the merits of the EEOC’s lawsuit against Estee Lauder remain to be litigated, the lawsuit is a good reminder for employers, even those in far less glamorous industries, to review their handbooks to see if even the most well-intentioned employment policy needs a makeover.

JURY VERDICT IN “TOP CHEF” UNION EXTORTION TRIAL “TAKES THE CAKE”

"If the law supposes that," said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, "the law is a ass - a idiot".

Oliver Twist – Charles Dickens (1838)

In a surprising turn of events, a federal jury in Boston has found members of the Teamsters Union not guilty on charges of extortion in an ugly case of union hardball tactics against the production crew and cast of the television show “Top Chef” while the show was filming in Boston in 2014.

I first wrote about this case in 2016 following the federal indictment of members of Teamsters Local 25 and one member entering a guilty plea to extortion.  Prior to finding the union members not guilty of extortion in attempting to force the show to hire non-union workers, the jury had been instructed by U.S. District Judge Douglas Woodlock that the prosecution had the burden of proving that the four Teamsters didn’t just want to replace non-union workers with union workers, but were instead trying to force Top Chef to hire Teamsters for truck-driving work the show neither wanted nor needed.  The judge further instructed jurors that replacing non-union workers would be a legal and legitimate labor objective.  Attorneys for the Teamsters had argued to the jury that the union members could not be convicted on federal extortion charges, even if they had made threats, if they had legitimate labor objectives in mind. To put this in perspective, let’s look back at my original post on the case, in which the Teamster Union’s tactics were described:

From the picket line outside the Milton restaurant, the members of Local 25 screamed racist, sexist and homophobic threats and slurs for hours as production crew and cast came and went.  Some of the worst conduct was directed toward the show’s host. When Lakshmi arrived at the scene, one of the union members rushed her car and screamed “We’re gonna bash that pretty face in, you f***ing whore!”  Local 25 members picketed the restaurant, physically roughed up members of the production crew, and slashed the tires of fourteen production workers.   In responding to local media reports of the incident at the time, a Local 25 spokeswoman stated, “As far as we’re concerned, nothing happened.”

U.S. Attorney William Weinreb expressed disappointment in the jury’s verdict. “The government believed, and continues to believe, that the conduct in this case crossed the line and constituted a violation of federal law. The defendants’ conduct was an affront to all of the hard-working and law-abiding members of organized labor. We will continue to aggressively prosecute extortion in all its forms to ensure that Boston remains a safe and welcoming place to do business.”

It bears mention that prior to the trial, an indicted official of Local 25 pled guilty to federal extortion charges in connection with union threats of physical violence and production disruption against the cast and crew of the top-rated culinary reality show.

In light of the egregious and undisputed facts of the union’s conduct, and the apparent strength of the government’s case at the time of the indictment, the not guilty verdict comes as a surprise.  The Northeast is a more union-friendly environment, and it is possible that may have had some influence on the jury.  As noted in my original post, there also was a local political angle.  However, if the existing labor law, as given to the jury in their instructions,  permits the type of thuggish behavior shown in this case, it begs the question of what conduct would be not be permitted?