HR Morning News, Page 36 Category

Too many of us live our lives trying to shoehorn our many activities and responsibilities into too few time slots available. Increasingly for business people, fathers and mothers, even kids, (ineffectively) managing the myriad of activities has become an all-consuming chore. And we’re so stressed that our relationships and job performance suffer. But we can solve these problems. These tried and tested ideas work! And now they are available to you. Select those that fit your particular circumstance and try them out!

Click here to learn more!  

For more HR News, please visit: 151 Quick Ideas to Manage Your Time (a .99 value) FREE for a limited time!

Source: News from HR Morning

It’s getting harder to fire workers — at least legally — these days. Here’s the latest example: 

A driver for Old Dominion Freight Line Inc. reported to the company under its “Open Door Policy” that he was an alcoholic. He was looking for assistance with his alcoholism.

Naturally, DOT regulations state the man shouldn’t have been driving a truck. So Old Dominion took him off the road. And in what it called an act of “accommodation,” it offered him a part-time dock position at half his previous pay. Under this new position, the driver also lost his health benefits.

Unhappy with this new arraignment, the man took his case to the EEOC, which sued Old Dominion on his behalf. It claimed the company failed to fulfill its obligations to provide him with a reasonable accommodation under the ADA.

Devil’s advocate

Let’s take a step back for a moment for us to play devil’s advocate. While, there’s no real way to tell from the court documents or the EEOC’s press release on the lawsuit what the company’s intentions were, it’s possible the company had the employees best interest in mind.

Looking at it in a light most favorable to the employer, here’s what potentially happened: It hired a guy to drive a truck. That driver then had to be stripped of his license because of his alcoholism (clearly the right call, no matter how you look at it). But rather than leaving the guy out in the cold and firing him, it decided to keep him on board in what was, admittedly, a much lower position.

If the company was hell-bent on punishing the guy for being an alcoholic, it stands to reason it would’ve just fired him outright. But it didn’t. It moved him to a job he wasn’t hired to perform in the first place.

Still — and here’s the tough pill for employer to swallow — even showing some compassion for the guy (again, it’s hard to say what the company’s true intentions were) wasn’t good enough to satisfy the ADA, and it certainly wasn’t good enough to satisfy the EEOC.

What the law says

Old Dominion, according to the ADA, was technically required to do more. The ADA says employers have to at least explore reasonable accommodations that allow workers to perform the essential functions of their jobs — or that help them get back to performing those functions.

Permanently stripping the driver of his license violated this part of the ADA, according to the EEOC. A jury later agreed and awarded the driver $119,612.

According to the EEOC, here’s what Old Dominion could’ve done to avoid this costly mess:

“… the ADA requires that Old Dominion make an individualized determination as to whether the driver could return to driving and provide a reasonable accommodation of leave to its drivers for them to obtain treatment.”

In other words, it appears the EEOC would’ve been cool with Old Dominion granting the driver a leave of absence to seek treatment for his alcoholism. Then, assuming he overcame this disability, the EEOC would’ve liked to have seen Old Dominion consider giving him his license back.

It’s pretty complicated

While you can certainly understand the EEOC’s line of thinking in this case, it can’t sit well with employers tasked with complying with the ADA.

Sure, you want to be compassionate, but verdicts like this make it awfully complicated to figure out what to do with employees who develop disabilities that may make them dangerous on the job.

The bottom line: Before taking any action against an employee for problems that may be brought on because of a disability, explore any and all accommodations that could reasonably be made — up to and including leave for medical treatment — that could help the employee go back to performing the essential functions of his or her job. That’s the only sure-fire way to steer clear of ADA issues and the EEOC cops that are out there watching.

For more HR News, please visit: You can fire a driver if he’s an alcoholic, right? You won’t like the answer

Source: News from HR Morning

Bullying — both inside the workplace and out — is an issue that’s been getting greater attention over the past several years. So what role should HR be playing in the effort to stamp out this kind of behavior?

A recent poll from Workplace Options and the Tyler Clementi Foundation showed:

• 50% of respondents have experienced or witnessed bullying in their workplace.
• More minority respondents (75% of Hispanics; 74% of African-Americans) than white respondents (60%) believed that bullying is a more serious problem for youth today than in the past.
• Bullying is largely seen as a “not in my backyard” issue – 64% of respondents believe bullying is more of a problem today than in the past, but just 12% believe it is a serious problem for youth in their own county.

So what should companies be doing about it?

What does bullying look like?

One of the major issues with workplace bullying: It’s not always easy to recognize.

A lot of bullying involves teasing and banter, but it’s a stretch to say that all teasing and banter qualify as bullying.

Dennis A. Davis, national director of client training at Ogletree Deakins, says managers and HR pros should look out for three subtle signs of bullying:

• the teasing isn’t reciprocal – i.e. the person receiving it doesn’t return the banter
• the behavior is targeted – certain employees are always the ones on the receiving end, and
• it’s personal – the teasing is about a staffer’s weakness, deficiency or inferiority.

How to deal with an offender

Spotting workplace bullying can be difficult. Getting it to stop might be even harder.

Christine Comaford, writing for Forbes, has outlined a six-step plan for a conversation managers must have with workplace bullies:

• Set the stage. Managers should explain why the meeting’s been called and the outcome they want to achieve
• Lay out the observable behavior. It’s crucial that managers describe specific instances where the bully acted out or said something inappropriate
• Describe the impact. Bullies likely don’t understand the damage their behaviors are doing to both their co-workers and the company
• See if the bully agrees with you. Does the bully now see the problem and acknowledge it needs to stop?
• Create a plan. Work out a set period of time (maybe 30 to 60 days) where the manager will meet with the worker once a week to check on progress. The key here: Be specific. Managers should be clear on which behaviors need to stop. Also, supervisors must state the consequences if a turnaround doesn’t occur.
• Make sure you’re on the same page. Does the bully understand everything? Also, managers should make it clear they want the bully to succeed and continue the working relationship.

What to do moving forward

Congratulations: You’ve stopped one workplace bully.

But is there something HR can do to try to prevent workplace bullying before it even starts?

Jon Hyman, writing for the Ohio Employer’s Law Blog, suggests one thing: Treat bullying like it’s illegal.

What does that look like?

• Add bullying to anti-harassment and workplace conduct policies
• Tell staffers you don’t allow bullying, and train them on how they can report incidents of bullying.
• Immediately investigate reports of workplace bullying, and
• After an investigation, take corrective action to ensure the bullying doesn’t happen again.

The ‘bystander dilemma’

The Workplace Options/Tyler Clementi poll also found that bullying is more of a problem for young Americans today than ever before – and that parents are seriously conflicted when it comes to teaching kids how to appropriately respond.

Respondents were split on how to teach kids to best handle bullying situations that involved either online or in-person threats. The results:

• 53% of respondents said children should be taught to notify an authority figure when faced with bullying.
• 24% said direct confrontation was the best response.
• Males (31%) were much more likely to recommend direct confrontation than females (13%).
• And eight percent said ignoring the problem was the best way to handle bullying.

Handling bullying, whether in the workplace or on the playground, isn’t easy. In a youth bullying scenario, the poll says when family is not involved, most adults are keen to turn a blind eye — thus, the “bystander dilemma”:

• 69% of respondents said they would intervene if a bullying situation involved a family member or someone they personally know.
• But just 44% said they would intervene if they saw a scenario that did not involve a personal acquaintance.

We’re afraid a similar response is likely in the workplace setting — if a witness to bullying behavior doesn’t have a personal stake in changing the dynamic, they probably will be reticent about bringing a complaint to management.

For more HR News, please visit: How does your organization deal with issue of employee bullying?

Source: News from HR Morning

HR pros often have to rely on physicians’ opinions to make difficult FMLA administration decisions. But what happens when a physician changes his story?  

That question was at the center of Kossowski v. City of Naples. In this case, Kossowski went to see a doctor after having “respiratory problems.” During the visit, Kossowski was diagnosed with bronchitis and prescribed a Z-Pak of antibiotics and some cough syrup.

Following the appointment, Kossowski called in sick and requested FMLA leave. At this point, the company followed standard procedure and asked Kossowski to fill out a certification about his serious health condition.

After not going to work for several days, Kossowski went to his doctor’s to get his FMLA documents filled out. His doctor filled out the certification, noting that he’d treated Kossowski once for his condition.

Based on that certification, the company determined that Kossowski’s bronchitis wasn’t actually a “serious medical condition” for FMLA purposes and eventually terminated him.

Kossowski responded with an FMLA interference lawsuit.

What the court said

Based on the wording of the actual FMLA regs, the company probably thought it was justified in its decision.

To be considered a serious medical condition for FMLA purposes, the condition must either require “inpatient care” or “continuing treatment by a health care provider.”

Because Kossowski’s condition didn’t require inpatient care, he needed to prove that his bronchitis required continued treatment, which the FMLA defines as:

Treatment two or more times, within 30 days of the first day of incapacity, unless extenuating circumstances exist, by a health care provider, by a nurse under direct supervision of a health care provider, or by a provider of health care services (e.g., physical therapist) under orders of, or on referral by, a health care provider.

Since his doctor stated that he only treated Kossowski once, he clearly wasn’t eligible for FMLA … or so the company thought.

Conflicting statements

But here’s where things got tricky. In court, Kossowski’s doctor contradicted what he wrote on the certification form and stated that he’d actually treated the patient twice: Once when Kossowski was first diagnosed and given a Z-Pack and some cough syrup — and again when he filled out the certification.

And that was all it took for the court to deny summary judgment for the company. Because of the conflicting evidence about how many times Kossowski was actually treated, the court said “that the inference arising from these facts may differ” for FMLA eligibility purposes.

Now the company is facing a drawn out lawsuit or an expensive settlement.

Letter of law vs. common sense

On the surface, this ruling is extremely troubling for employers. After all, this company was simply responding to the details a healthcare provider filled out in an official FMLA certification. Should this firm really be punished for the doctor’s inconsistent statements?

But there’s another way of looking at this. The company didn’t have to terminate the employee — an employee who clearly had an illness that required a few days off — even though he wasn’t eligible for FMLA leave.

Had Kossowski’s employer been a bit more lenient, it likely would’ve avoided this whole mess altogether.

For more HR News, please visit: FMLA: This company relied on the doctor’s cert, and still lost in court

Source: News from HR Morning

Corporate and individual resistance to new ways of working are often imbedded within a company’s culture, and can stifle change and hinder productivity. Cindy Froggatt suggests workplace options that can help balance work and personal life, and helps managers address the needs of the many knowledge workers who require a greater degree of autonomy to perform, create, and innovate. She presents numerous examples of companies of different sizes and types that have instituted telework or alternative programs, and clearly explains the benefits and pitfalls of implementing them.

Click here to learn more!  

For more HR News, please visit: Work Naked: 8 Essential Principles for Peak Performance in the Virtual Workplace

Source: News from HR Morning

What’s scarier, these discrimination claims or the number of zeros in the award? 

California-based trucking outfit Matheson Trucking and Matheson Flight Extenders Inc. is paying dearly for racial discrimination claims levied against the company by seven former employees.

A lawsuit filed by the men — six of whom are black — claims Matheson let some pretty horrific stuff go on in its warehouse, according to a report by The Denver Post.

Some of the lawsuit’s claims, according to The Post:

• White workers called black workers “lazy stupid Africans.”
• White employees and black employees worked on separate sides of the warehouse.
• White supervisors and workers often used the N-word around black workers.
• In one instance, a white worker yelled that all blacks should be shot (and that worker was later promoted).
• Calling a white worker, the seventh plaintiff, who stood up for his black co-workers, “the tribe’s assistant.”
• That same white worker was fired after he challenged the company’s racist practices.
• Black workers were passed over for desirable, double-pay holiday shifts, which were given to white workers with less seniority.

The lawsuit went on to say that the plaintiffs were discriminated against in all phases of employment — including hiring, promotion, vacation pay, discipline, wages, benefits and much more.

A federal jury awarded them nearly $15 million, and here’s how that broke down, according to The Post:

• $14 million in punitive damages
• $650,000 in emotional distress, and
• $318,000 in back pay.

And as if that wasn’t bad enough for the employer, it’s likely on the hook for the plaintiff’s attorney fees, too.

For more HR News, please visit: Yikes: Horrific discrimination claims cost company M

Source: News from HR Morning

There’s good news and there’s bad news regarding wellness programs. The good news: Workers do seem to have a keen interest in wellness. The bad: What they want could put employers in the feds’ crosshairs.  

These are some of the key findings from a recent study by HealthMine.

The study found that three-quarters of employees would engage more fully in a wellness plan that included incentive levels and rewards for achieving goals such as maintaining ideal weight, sticking to a drug regimen that addresses chronic diseases and not smoking.

Key measurements

Specifically, employees said that:

• Colleagues who are in a healthy weight range should be rewarded with a discount on their health insurance (67%)
• Colleagues who smoke tobacco should pay more for their health care (63%), and
• Colleagues who adhere to medication for chronic disease should be rewarded for it (52%).

The study also found that 71% of employees would like more health-management guidance from their employers.

Dangerous territory

Here’s the problem: The EEOC might well view these “goal-based incentives” as discriminating against particular groups of workers. (And that’s made a lot of employers skittish about using those tough benchmarks — in fact, less than a quarter of company wellness programs include incentives tied to measurable results, according to a recent Mercer study.

Of course, employers have every reason to be skeptical about relying too heavily on these results-based wellness incentives.

After all, as HR Benefits Alert has covered extensively, the EEOC has filed a number of high-profile lawsuits against employers because of their wellness programs.

And these lawsuits have drawn widespread criticism from both employers and benefit industry insiders because, even though the EEOC won’t spell out what types of wellness initiatives will get firms in trouble, it has no problem coming after firms when it sees something it doesn’t like.

So until we see some concrete guidance from the EEOC, many firms are likely to keep playing it safe and only offer basic wellness initiatives that offer rewards for simply participating.

For more HR News, please visit: Be careful of what employees wish for in your wellness programs

Source: News from HR Morning

At the end of the year, this is sure to be a leading candidate for Most Absurd Lawsuit of 2015. 

Maria Waltherr-Willard was a schoolteacher at Mariemont High School in Cincinnati. She primarily taught French, but she also taught an introductory Spanish class.

Back in 1997, Mariemont asked her to teach at the elementary school, but she didn’t accept the position because she suffered from pedophobia — a fear of children. She provided her school with a letter from her psychologist, which stated her “mental state … would disable her from teaching [children under 12].”

As a result, Mariemont allowed her to remain at the high school.

Fast forward more than a decade … Mariemont decided to move its French courses online, which meant the high school no longer needed a French teacher.

And since the majority of the Spanish classes already belonged to a fellow teacher, the school district’s superintendent — having taken Willard’s pedophobia into account — decided to transfer Willard to the middle school.

According to court documents:

“Willard did not object to the new assignment, and later expressed ‘enthusiasm’ for teaching middle schoolers.”

But six months into her new job, Willard began to have problems with the position. She said her talents were being “underutilized” and that another year would have “further detrimental impact on [her] health.”

(Note: Two years ago — when she first filed suit against the school district — she claimed dealing with seventh- and eighth-graders triggered her phobia and caused her blood pressure to soar.)

She requested a transfer back to the high school where she sought a position teaching Spanish. Citing that there were no openings she could fill at the high school, the district denied her transfer request and said her request would be kept on file.

Willard then retired, and sued under the ADA. She claimed the school district should’ve accommodated her disability by letting her go back to teaching at the high school.

Grasping at straws

By all accounts, it appears Willard was grasping at straws.

The school district tried to get her case tossed on summary judgment, and it was successful.

The court actually threw her ADA claims out without addressing the elephant in the room — the head-scratching notion that a teacher should receive an accommodation because she’s afraid of children (After all, isn’t being around children an essential part of the profession? But we digress).

In about 100 words, the court shot a big hole in her ADA claim:

The ADA requires an employer to accommodate a disabled employee, but it does not require unreasonable accommodations. … For example, an employer need not “create new jobs [or] displace existing employees.” … Here, Willard asked Mariemont to accommodate her pedophobia by employing her at the high school as a full-time Spanish teacher. But the high school already had one of those and did not need another. Thus, to accommodate Willard, Mariemont would have to create a new job at the high school or else displace the existing Spanish teacher… Willard’s claim therefore fails.”

That says it all: Since there wasn’t a position available for Willard at the high school, the district would have to create a new one to fulfill her transfer request, which qualifies as an undue hardship under the ADA.

Case closed.

Cite: Waltherr-Willard v. Mariemont City Schools

For more HR News, please visit: Teacher wants ADA accommodation … because she fears children

Source: News from HR Morning