Hold the Scissors – Telling Employee to Cut Hair Can Lead to Your Company Suffering a Haircut

We have all seen hairstyles that made us ask the question, “What were they thinking?” But when employees show up with such hairstyles in our place of business, do we have the right to restrict hairstyles? Does it make a difference if the hairstyle – or even a head covering – is due to the employee’s religious beliefs?

Recent federal court decisions have made it clear that an employer must tread carefully when addressing an employee’s choice of hairstyle or head dress. Otherwise, it could be the employer being subject to a “haircut,” rather than the employee.

Accommodating Religious Beliefs

Of particular concern are cases where an employee’s choice of hairstyle or head dress may have a religious basis. In such cases, an employer has a duty under Title VII of the federal civil rights act (and in most states under state law, as well) to reasonably accommodate the employee’s religious beliefs. Failure to do so could result in the employer being found liable for religious discrimination, and being required to pay actual and punitive damages, as well as the employee’s legal fees.

In one recent case, reported in an EEOC press release issued April 27, 2012, the owner of a chain of Taco Bell restaurants agreed to pay $27,000 to resolve a religious discrimination lawsuit filed by the EEOC because the owner had fired an employee who refused to cut his hair. The employee was a practicing Nazirite, who, in accordance with his religious beliefs, had not cut his hair in 15 years. After being employed at one of the owner’s restaurants for six years, the employee was told he would have to cut his hair if he wanted to retain his job. Even though he explained that his religion forbade him from cutting his hair, the employer insisted he had to do so if he wanted to keep his job. As the EEOC attorney handling the case, Lynette Barnes, explained in the press release, “No person should be forced to choose between his religion and his job when the company can provide an accommodation without suffering an undue hardship.” In addition to paying the $27,000, the employer agreed to institute a formal religious accommodation policy.

Continue reading »

Social Media: Six Ways to Protect Today’s You and Tomorrow’s You

Thanks to an exponential growth rate in technology, the Internet has changed the world and how we communicate with each other.  In 1995, 16 million people used the Internet.  Last year, 2 billion people used the Internet and in 2020 it is predicted that the number will be over 5 billion.

Google, a 12-year-old company, has certainly fueled this growth.  Social media platforms have also supercharged Internet usage.  Facebook claims to have over 800 million active subscribers, LinkedIn claims 85 million subscribers and YouTube has over 100 million videos online.

However, the way we relate to and judge each other, whether it is for employment, relationships, or credit history, has not changed.  We are all trying to predict each other’s future behavior for the relationship(s) and transactions we seek.

Facebook purports to be worth $104 billion with its purchase of Instagram.  Why is it worth so much?  Because companies are spending over $2 billion per year to collect information from social media outlets about what we as consumers want.  Our behavior and our opinions can be measured in fine detail as we post and that behavior can be monetized.  For example, it is estimated that your personal/buying information is worth $50 to $500 to Google, depending upon how much you spend.  On Twitter, each of your followers, assuming you have a large following, could be worth as much as $2.50 each per month.  In short, personal data greases the Internet.  The data we share (names, addresses, pictures, precise locations, and links) helps companies target advertising based not only on demographic but also on personal opinion and desires.

What does all of this information mean to you as an individual? Technology rules will continue to change, so you need to be vigilant. It is important for you to keep up with the positives and negatives of the rapidly changing technology. Right now, social media is at its height but it is designed for websites. That is predicted to change as the world moves to smartphones.  Nearly $1 million worth of features come with any smartphone and there are a billion smartphones in the world.  Within the next decade, 6 billion people will have a constant connection to the Internet.  This explains why Facebook recently bought Instagram, a mobile app company, for $1 billion. Facebook wants to conquer the smartphone market and not be left behind.  Continue reading »

The Facebook Folly: Why Browsing an Applicant’s Facebook Profile Could Present Problems for Missouri Employers

Within the past few months more and more news outlets have reported stories of employers asking job applicants for their Facebook login information. While many applicants understandably feel uncomfortable with the idea of their potential employer delving through their private lives, applicants are typically not in the position to decline.

This new trend has sparked an inevitable inquiry: is it legal? At this time, the answer is uncertain. Like many issues arising from the fast-paced and ever-changing world of the Internet and social media, the law has not caught up with the question. There does not appear to be a statute, regulation or court decision directly on point – either at the federal or state level. Consequently, experts on both sides of the issue have begun considering and arguing whether any statutes, regulations, or court decisions indirectly apply to the issue.

Missouri statute does not appear to directly prohibit such a practice; however, this does not mean it is wise for employers to engage in it. The reason has little to do with the actual practice of asking for the login information, but rather concerns what may be potentially discovered by such practice. No, I am not referring to finding rants about past employers or photos of bad decisions and misdemeanors. Employers should be concerned about finding family or pregnancy photos, photos of the applicant in the hospital, and/or religious views.

Continue reading »

10 Best Practices for Protecting Your Company’s Trade Secrets, Internet Access and Good Will

The exponential growth of technology has created amazing efficiencies in how businesses operate. Such cost savings come with a cost and companies need to continuously adapt to the ever changing opportunities and vulnerabilities. In 2020, it is predicted that over 5 billion people will be using the Internet, and within the next decade 6 billion people will have a constant connection to the Internet. The growth of your business is inextricably combined with the growth of the Internet.

Below are 10 best practices for your businesses to consider as you move forward:

Continue reading »

Is This by Consent? Changes to Missouri Supreme Court Rule Affect Use of Non-party Subpoenas

Part of a series on issues related to Manufacturers, Distributors and International Trade

A major change involving subpoenas to non-parties has hit the business world in the state of Missouri.

A new amendment to the Missouri Supreme Court Rules now requires non-party record custodians to physically appear at deposition to produce subpoenaed items, unless all parties to the litigation have agreed that the subpoenaed party may produce the items without appearing.

The amendment changes the prevailing practice where parties send out subpoenas to third parties with a letter explaining that they will be excused from appearing at deposition if they produce the requested items along with what is known as a business records affidavit.

Rule 57.09, as amended, now requires parties to first obtain consent from all other parties to the litigation before a subpoenaed witness may produce documents without attending the deposition. This agreement must be communicated to the witness in writing. Absent this agreement, a witness must appear to produce subpoenaed items at deposition.

What does this mean to you? If you receive a subpoena, you may only produce the documents to the party serving the subpoena without appearing at deposition if that party represents to you in writing (e.g., in a letter) that all other parties have consented to production of the docume

nts without need for you to appear at the deposition. Such a letter should protect you from allegations that you improperly produced records by mail, instead of bringing the documents to the deposition. You do not need to see the actual agreement. If you have any questions as to whether you can simply mail the documents, instead of appearing at deposition, you should either call your attorney for advice or simply wait and bring the documents at the time and place designated in the subpoena.

Continue reading »

Manufacturing Showing Signs of Improvement in St. Louis

Part of a series on issues related to Manufacturers, Distributors and International Trade

Historically, St. Louis has been known as a manufacturing region. But over the past few decades, manufacturing jobs have dropped significantly. St. Louis has lost nearly half of its factory jobs since 1990 and now only 1 in 10 working St. Louisans work in manufacturing.

2011 saw a slightly positive sign of recovery in manufacturing. 3,400 jobs were added to the manufacturing sector in this region. Boeing’s deal to build 85 F-15s for Saudi Arabia should continue fighter jet production in the region through 2020. General Motors recently decided to make a huge investment in its Wentzville plant, adding over 1,200 new jobs.

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics recently announced that total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 243,000 in January and the unemployment rate decreased to 8.3 percent. The BLS also recently announced that nonfarm business sector productivity increased at a 0.7 percent annual rate during the fourth quarter in 2011. This reflects of 3.6 percent in output and 2.9 percent in hours worked.

There are positive signs that St. Louis manufacturing jobs are increasing.

Posted by Attorney Ruth Binger. Binger serves both emerging and mature businesses concentrating in corporate law, intellectual property and technology law, and labor and employment law. Her commitment to the success of small to medium-sized businesses, and her understanding of multi-faceted issues inherent in operations, are what distinguish Binger’s practice.

A Long Road to HIPAA Compliance: Privacy and Security Audits

Since the Health Information Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) was implemented in 2003, the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has not conducted a formalized plan for auditing health care providers, insurance plans and other covered entities … until now.

OCR recently announced its pilot program to audit covered entities for privacy and security compliance and says in 2012 it will conduct up to 150 audits in their effort to ensure that covered entities and their business associates are complying with the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules and the Breach Notification Standards. The OCR website provides useful information about this program and its objectives.

Previously, there was no mandated auditing process as a part of HIPAA, but rather reviews of covered entities typically would occur as complaints were raised by patients or consumers. With the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Section 13411 of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH) amended portions of HIPAA and requires HHS to develop procedures for auditing covered entities to verify compliance with the Privacy Rules and breach notification.

Covered entities need to ensure that their policies and procedures are updated for privacy and security compliance efforts. The entity must be prepared to provide documentation of its procedures, including with regard to breach notification, and documentation that its key personnel have been trained. Training does not include simply having a notebook containing policies and procedures that no one knows how to use.

According to the OCR website, the timeline is fairly quick, so individuals within the covered entity should be prepared to know what to do upon receiving a written notification that an audit is coming. If a “serious compliance issue” is found, OCR may initiate a compliance review to address the problem.

Of course, OCR will continue to accept complaints from individuals and covered entities through their privacy officers must continue to accept complaints from individuals. The goal of the pilot audit program appears to be to identify best practices and discover risks and vulnerabilities that otherwise have not come to light through the complaint process.

Covered entities that are prepared will shine, while those that are not prepared will have some explaining to do.

Supreme Court Ruling Protects Religious Organizations from Employment Discrimination Claims

On Wednesday, January 11, 2012, the United States Supreme Court granted victory to religious organizations across the nation by confirming that their First Amendment freedoms insulate churches and schools from certain employment discrimination claims. Some will consider this a landmark decision, and it may be the Court’s most significant church-state ruling in decades. The decision in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC confirmed churches’ and schools’ autonomy to make decisions about whom to hire and fire, when those employees have job duties related to the ministry of the organization.

The Court ruled against an elementary school teacher in her employment discrimination claim against Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School, of Redford, Michigan, holding that the First Amendment protects the school from the reach of anti-discrimination laws, when the claims involve certain employees. The ruling was in line with many lower federal court rulings, but the issue had not previously been presented to the United States Supreme Court.

In the decision, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court confirmed the “ministerial exception” to certain anti-discrimination laws, concluding that the courts could not force the school to reinstate the teacher, Cheryl Perich. Perich claimed she was fired because she pursued a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act, alleging she suffered from narcolepsy.

While the Supreme Court confirmed the ministerial exception for religious organizations, such as churches and schools, it did not provide a strict test for determining exactly who was considered a “minister” for purposes of the exception. However, the Court’s ruling is clear that the exception applies to a class of employees broader than merely clergy. Perich was an educator, and was responsible for teaching secular courses, in addition to religion class, and she attended chapel with students. However, she had formal religious training and had recently been designated as a “called” teacher of the school, as opposed to a lay or contract employee. Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion is clear that her duties with respect to religious instruction at the school were sufficient for her to fall under the umbrella of the ministerial exception. The Court was further not persuaded that the small amount of time spent by the teacher teaching religion class during her work day was a significant factor, stating “the issue before us, however, is not one that can be resolved with a stopwatch.”

Continue reading »

Beware: It’s Risky to Misclassify an Overseas Consultant

Substantial Risks Exist for Misclassifying an Overseas Consultant as an Independent Contractor

Part of a series on issues related to Manufacturers, Distributors and International Trade

With both the IRS and the Department of Labor targeting the misclassification of U.S. employees as independent contractors, many companies are re-examining their worker classifications. While most U.S. companies are aware of the costly consequences of such misclassification, they may not be cognizant of the considerable dangers of misclassifying foreign workers as independent contractors.

Frequently, U.S. companies choose to engage local representatives in their overseas markets as independent contractors rather than employees in order to avoid compliance with foreign employment laws, withholding tax requirements and social welfare/insurance contributions. In many countries, these obligations may be considerably more onerous than they are in the United States.

However, the consequences of misclassifying a foreign worker as an independent contractor are frequently more costly as well.

For example, in Germany an employer is obligated to remit social security type payments for its employees that are equal to about twenty percent of the employee’s compensation to German social welfare and insurance agencies. The employer is also required to withhold from the employee’s compensation the employee’s social security obligations which are also equal to about twenty percent of his/her compensation.

If an employer fails to withhold the requisite amount from the employee’s wages, the employer becomes liable for the employee’s social security obligations. The employer many not seek reimbursement for this amount from the employee, regardless of any contractual agreement that provides for such reimbursement. The look back period for collection of these social security payments is thirty years in some cases.

Continue reading »

Terminate an Employee Returning from FMLA Leave and You Could Be Sued in Your “Individual Capacity”

To add to the woes and stress of business owners, supervisors and managers, public and private decision makers who act directly or indirectly in the interest of the employer can be sued in their individual capacity under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”).

Most of us forget it, but the same rules that apply to actions under the Fair Labor Standards Act also apply to actions brought under the FMLA (29 C.F.R. Section 825.104(d) (2009)). A July 11, 2011 decision by the Eastern District of Virginia Court, Eastern Division, titled Weth v. O’Leary (U.S. District Court of E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division) provides important lessons regarding this issue with respect to terminating employees returning from Family Medical and Leave Act, especially if the decision makers are public officials and have sovereign immunity. 

In Weth, the Court refused to grant summary judgment and allowed a FMLA case to proceed to trial because of a highly suspicious timeline, prior raises and highly positive reviews, and the lack of write ups or written documentation bolstering the performance reason defense. 

Plaintiff Weth initially sued O’Leary, both individually and in his official capacity as Arlington County Treasurer. The Court granted Summary Judgment in favor of O’Leary with respect to the official capacity claim because as a state constitutional officer, O’Leary was entitled to sovereign immunity. The Court refused to dismiss the individual claim because sovereign immunity does not apply to individuals sued in their purely personal and individual capacity. The Court cited favorable decisions from various Circuit Courts (Darby v. Bratch, 287 F.3d 673, 681 (8^th Cir. 2002)) where courts found that there was no reason to distinguish liability between individual corporate officers and individual public officials.

Weth was employed as a Deputy Treasurer for Litigation for the Arlington County Treasurer for six years. As late as 2009, Weth had received highly positive reviews regarding her job performance and approved salary increases. 

Weth was diagnosed with cancer in September of 2009 and advised O’Leary. In December, Weth initially sent emails to O’Leary advising him that she would need surgery in January, but then advised that the surgery would be in December. Weth worked until the 21^st of December, underwent surgery on the 22^nd of December and returned to work on the 16^th of February.

On her return date O’Leary advised her that she needed to begin looking for a new job immediately, that she was being demoted and almost all of her job duties were being removed and that her sole responsibility was to find a job. One month later, O’Leary suspended her, sent her home with the directive that she was being relieved of all of her job duties and her sole responsibility was to find other employment. 

Continue reading »