9 Lawsuits that are Changing the 2013 Employment Landscape
Employment lawsuits have risen to their highest peak in history, with almost 100,000 claims filed in 2012. Incredibly, that number reflects a 31% increase from just 4 years ago when “only” 75,700 claims were filed! There is a never-ending flow of new court cases and decisions that change the employment landscape, making it extremely difficult for employers to stay ahead of the curve.
Below is a brief outline of the cases, and a short “take away” from each one. For more details, please research the individual cases online.
Case: Holmes v. PetrovichDevel
Summary: An employee was caught using a company computer for personal use, in particular to make contact with an attorney on private matters. The employer found the emails and later used the content against the employee in court. The United States Supreme Court found in favor of the employer, explaining that where an employer has a policy that e-mail can be inspected at any time, employees do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their company email account.
Take Away: Add into your Employee Handbook that you may check emails sent during work time. Tell employees not to expect privacy while on the job.
Case: City of Ontario v. Quon
Summary: An employer (a police department) gave employees pagers on which text messages could be sent. It later reviewed the messages – many of which were personal– to determine why monthly use was so high. The Supreme Court held that, even assuming that the employees had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the messages, review of those messages did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The government employer’s search was motivated by a legitimate work-related purpose and was not excessive in scope, and therefore was reasonable under existing precedent.
Take Away: The US Supreme Court determined that employers are permitted to check emails and text pagers if they were work-related searches.
Case: EEOC v. Prospect Airport
Summary: The E.E.O.C. sued an employer based on a male employee’s allegation that he was sexually harassed by a female co-worker and thus suffered from a hostile work environment. The Ninth Circuit reversed a summary judgment for the employer, emphasizing that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act entitles men, like women, to protection from an abusive work environment. The California Supreme Court eventually found in favor of male plaintiff.
Take away: Never just tell a male employee to “Be a man” or “Get over it”, if he claims of harassment. Take the claim seriously and conduct a proper investigation.
Case: Wills v. Orange County
Summary: A mentally troubled employee made threatening remarks to other employees. She was fired, and sued for disability discrimination. The Appellate Court ruled in favor of the employer, stating that an employer may discipline an employee for engaging in threats or violence against coworkers, even when that behavior is caused by the employee’s disability.
Take away: If an employee is violent, makes threatening statements, or is in clear violation of company policy, the employer should not be afraid to take action out of fear of violating disability discrimination – their obligation to maintain a safe work environment for the other employees takes precedence.
Case: Wal-Mart v. Dukes
Summary: Six female plaintiffs claimed they worked in a culture of gender discrimination. They filed a class action lawsuit against Wal-Mart on behalf of 1.5 million female employees! This case is currently pending a decision by the US Supreme Court.
Take away: Make all efforts to provide equal pay for equal work and to promote a tolerant, gender-neutral work environment.
Case: Reid v. Google
Summary: The Plaintiff was a senior executive at Google and claimed that he was discriminated against because of his age in a notoriously “young” corporate culture. To support his case, he relied on various comments by superiors and coworkers that his ideas were “obsolete” or “too old to matter,” that he was not a “cultural fit” and that he was an “old man” and an “old fuddy-duddy.“ Google argued that none of these remarks were made in connection with any employment decision and should be deemed irrelevant “stray remarks.”
The Supreme Court rejected the notion that “stray remarks” made by non-managerial staff, or by supervisors outside of the disciplinary process, should not be given weight in court. Rather, such “stray remarks” may and should be considered in the context of the evidence and could be used towards reaching a final decision.
Take away: All managers should be aware of what is being said in the workplace, even in casual talk between employees, and to be proactive in eliminating derogatory or discriminatory remarks.
Case: Sullivan v. Oracle Group
Summary: This employer’s corporate location was based in California, but had employees working out-of-state. Due to California’s dissimilar overtime laws, the employer paid the out-of-state employee based on his state of residency, and not according to California’s overtime regulations. The California Supreme Court is currently reviewing the case to determine if the California Labor Code applies to overtime worked in California for a California-based employer, by out-of-state workers.
Take away: While the case is still pending before the Supreme Court, employers should carefully review all state labor code guidelines.
Case: Brinker Restaurant Group v. Superior Court
Summary: The Brinker case, currently pending before the California Supreme Court, is perhaps one of the most important cases currently being decided. The plaintiffs brought a class action alleging that they were denied mandated rest periods and meal breaks. At stake is whether or not an employer is required to enforce meal breaks and rest periods, or only to make them available.
In a parallel case, the Lamps Plus Overtime Cases, the 2nd District Court determined that employers must provide employees with breaks but need not ensure they actually take the breaks.
Take away: To pre-empt meal and rest period claims, pending a final decision on the Brinker case, it is highly recommended to get employee statements that you do in fact provide rest/break periods.
More Cases by State: