Tag Archives: Mark Wiletsky

July 13, 2015

EEOC’s Conciliation Efforts Must Be Real, Not “For Appearances Only,” After Mach Mining Decision

An unsupported demand letter cannot constitute an actual attempt by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to engage in the required pre-lawsuit conciliation process, according to a federal judge in Ohio. EEOC v. OhioHealth Corp. (S.D.Ohio June 29, 2015). In one of the first cases to review the sufficiency of EEOC conciliation efforts after that review was authorized by the U.S. Supreme Court in its April Mach Mining decision, it is clear that courts are not willing to rubber stamp the EEOC’s purported conciliation efforts and will delay the lawsuit until actual conciliation takes place.

Insufficient Conciliation Efforts Often Frustrate Employers

If the EEOC finds reasonable cause to believe that employment discrimination occurred, it is required to try to eliminate the alleged discrimination through informal conference and conciliation with the employer. The goal is to get the employer to voluntarily comply with federal discrimination laws and resolve the alleged discrimination privately. In fact, the conciliation process is a necessary precondition to the EEOC filing a discrimination lawsuit against the employer. The EEOC is prohibited from suing the employer until after its conciliation efforts have failed.

At times, employers have been frustrated by a lack of real conciliation efforts, particularly in cases where the EEOC seems to prefer going to court rather than settling with the employer. The Mach Mining decision was a win for employers as it allows an employer to ask a judge to conduct a limited review of the EEOC’s conciliation efforts before a lawsuit goes forward.

EEOC’s Affidavit on Its Conciliation Efforts

The Supreme Court had explained in Mach Mining that a sworn affidavit from the EEOC describing its conciliation efforts would usually suffice to show that it had met its obligations. Many who analyzed that statement feared that an EEOC affidavit would effectively end the employer’s challenge to the sufficiency of the EEOC’s conciliation efforts, resulting in an empty judicial review. But Judge Frost’s decision out of the federal court in the Southern District of Ohio shows that is not the case.

In this case, the EEOC submitted an affidavit that stated that the EEOC had issued a reasonable cause determination letter that invited the parties to join “in reaching a just resolution of this matter” and stating that “conciliation of this matter has now begun.” The affidavit further states that over one month, the EEOC communicated with the employer, OhioHealth, including sending a conciliation proposal which was rejected. The EEOC then sent OhioHealth a final letter stating that conciliation efforts had not been successful.

OhioHealth countered the EEOC’s affidavit by providing its own declaration which stated that the EEOC had made a take-it-or-leave-it demand and failed to provide any information to back up its demand. Even though the EEOC’s determination letter had indicated that a commission representative would prepare a dollar amount that included lost wages and benefits, applicable interest and any appropriate attorney fees and costs, no such calculation was ever provided by the EEOC to OhioHealth. OhioHealth stated that it remained ready and willing to negotiate but that the EEOC instead declared that conciliation efforts had failed.

Judge Frost ruled that the EEOC’s “bookend” letters – first declaring the conciliation process open and then closed — did not constitute an actual attempt at conciliation. He wrote that without the EEOC providing the calculation of the charging party’s damages to OhioHealth, the parties could not shape their positions and the “conciliation process could have been nothing but a sham.” The judge ordered that the EEOC’s lawsuit against OhioHealth be stayed for 60 days while the EEOC engaged in good faith conciliation.

Judge Frost went on to offer a cautionary note to the EEOC. He was disturbed by the EEOC’s statements that it simply would not reach a private resolution of this matter via conciliation and that only a public resolution would be possible. He admonished the EEOC, stating that its position was “ridiculous” and defied the statutory scheme, binding case law, the court and common sense. He wrote that if the EEOC failed to engage in good faith efforts at conciliation as ordered, the court would impose all available consequences, including contempt and dismissal of the lawsuit. Pretty strong words indeed!

Lessons for Employers

Although this is only one court’s review of one conciliation process, employers should be pleased that the Mach Mining decision may have teeth, with courts taking a serious look at the actual conciliation efforts being made. If faced with a reasonable cause determination from the EEOC (and assuming you do not want to go to court), make certain to engage in conciliation by responding to the EEOC’s communications. If the EEOC makes a settlement demand, ask for the calculation of damages that supports the demand. Remain ready and willing to negotiate and document that willingness in writing. And if the EEOC files a lawsuit against you without first making real conciliation efforts, consider seeking a stay of the case by asserting that the EEOC failed to meet a condition precedent to filing the lawsuit.

Click here to print/email/pdf this article.

April 14, 2015

EEOC Fails to Show Telecommuting Would Be A Reasonable Accommodation

By Mark Wiletsky

The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) “does not endow all disabled persons with a job—or job schedule—of their choosing,” according to the majority of judges on the full Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. In an 8 to 5 decision, the Sixth Circuit Court ruled en banc that Ford Motor Company did not violate the ADA when it denied an employee’s request to telecommute up to four days per week in order to accommodate her irritable bowel syndrome. EEOC v. Ford Motor Co., No. 12-2484 (6th Cir. Apr. 10, 2015).

“Good, Old-Fashioned Interpersonal Skills” Made In-Person Attendance Essential

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) argued that a resale buyer for Ford, Jane Harris, who had irritable bowel syndrome that made it difficult for her to be far from a restroom, should be allowed to work from home up to four days per week. The agency cited Ford’s telecommuting policy that allowed other workers, including some resale buyers, to telecommute as evidence that Harris’ telecommuting request was a reasonable accommodation under the ADA.

The Court disagreed. It ruled that regular and predictable on-site attendance was an essential function of the resale-buyer position at Ford. Resale buyers needed to purchase raw steel from steel suppliers and then resell it to parts manufacturers to make parts used in Ford vehicles. Although some interactions could be done by email and telephone, the Court found that many required “good, old-fashioned interpersonal skills,” and resale buyers needed to be able to meet face to face with suppliers, parts manufacturers and Ford employees during core business hours.

Importantly, the Court reiterated the general rule is that regular attendance at work is essential to most jobs, especially interactive ones. It pointed to past court opinions as well as to EEOC regulations that support the premise that regular and predictable on-site attendance is an essential job function. The Court even relied on that “sometimes-forgotten guide” – common sense, stating that non-lawyers (as well as judges in other appellate circuits) recognize that regular in-person attendance is an essential function, and a prerequisite to other essential functions, of most jobs.

Other Buyers Telecommuted on a Predictable, Limited Basis

But what about the fact that Ford had a telecommuting policy that allowed other employees, including resale buyers like Harris, to work from home? Wouldn’t that make telecommuting a reasonable accommodation for Harris?

The Court said no, because she proposed to telecommute four days per week on a schedule of her choosing. The other resale buyers who telecommuted did so only one established day per week and they agreed in advance that they would come into work that day, if needed. They were also able to perform well and maintain productivity. Harris, on the other hand, wanted to be able to pick and choose which days she would telecommute, up to four days per week, without agreeing to come in those days, if necessary. The Court found that none of these other employees’ more predictable and more limited telecommuting schedules removed regular on-site attendance from the resale buyer’s job.

As a result, the Court ruled that Harris’ proposed telecommuting accommodation unreasonable.

In addition, Ford had allowed Harris to telecommute on an as-needed basis on three separate occasions and her performance suffered. Other attempts to improve Harris’ attendance also failed. The Court found that Harris could not perform the essential functions of her job and was unable to establish regular and consistent work hours. Therefore, it ruled that she was not a “qualified individual” under the ADA.

Technology Did Not Carry the Day

The EEOC argued that advances in technology make on-site attendance less essential. The Court disagreed in this case, stating that there was no evidence presented that specific technology made personal interactions unnecessary for resale buyers.

No Blind Deference to Employer’s Judgment

The Court made a point of stating that its opinion did not open the door for courts to blindly accept as essential whatever an employer says is essential for a particular job. It emphasized that an employer’s words, policies and practices were all important in deciding whether a particular task or requirement is an essential job function.

In Ford’s case, the evidence supported Ford’s judgment that regular and predictable in-person attendance was essential for resale buyers. The Court affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Ford.

No Retaliation For Termination

The Court also ruled that Ford did not retaliate against Harris when it fired her for poor performance just four months after she had filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC. Key was Ford’s good documentation of Harris’ performance and interpersonal issues. She had been ranked in the bottom 10% of her peer group before she filed her charge. Documentation showed that she failed to update spreadsheets, complete her paperwork, schedule training sessions, price items correctly and finish her work on time. Despite the closeness in time of the firing to her charge filing, the Court ruled that the EEOC failed to present evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that the real reason that Ford terminated Harris was unlawful retaliation instead of poor performance.

Dissent: Either Physical Presence is Not Essential or Telecommuting is A Reasonable Accommodation

Five judges on the Sixth Circuit dissented, believing that the EEOC had presented enough evidence to send the EEOC’s claims to a jury. Specifically, the dissent stated that the evidence was sufficient to show that there remained genuine disputes over whether Harris was a qualified individual, either because in-person attendance was not an essential function of her job, or because telecommuting would be a reasonable accommodation for her. It pointed to Ford’s telecommuting policy which allowed for “one to four days” of telework each week. It noted that Harris proposed that she be able to work from home up to four days each week, as was arguably allowed under the policy, not that she be permitted to telecommute four days each and every week.

The dissent also asserted that Harris’ past attendance issues that were a result of her disability should not be used against her in deciding whether a telecommuting arrangement during core business hours would be a reasonable accommodation under the ADA. Moreover, the dissent found that Ford should have engaged in a more interactive process to clarify Harris’ telecommuting accommodation request. Finally, the dissent believed that there was a genuine dispute over whether Ford retaliated against Harris for filing her discrimination charge.

Lessons for Employers Facing ADA Telecommuting Accommodation Requests

The majority’s decision finding that regular and predictable in-person attendance is an essential function of most jobs, especially interactive ones, is favorable for employers. But it does not mean that telecommuting can never be a reasonable accommodation. In fact, the dissent in this case demonstrates that telecommuting requests for disabled employees is likely to continue to be an issue with which employers will grapple in coming years.

If face-to-face interactions and in-person attendance at meetings or other work-related functions is essential for certain jobs at your workplace, be certain to include those tasks in your job descriptions. If you generally allow telecommuting, be sure to have a written policy and apply it consistently. If presented with a request to telecommute in order to accommodate a disability, engage in an interactive process to discuss whether telecommuting would be appropriate for that particular position and employee, whether it would constitute an undue hardship for your organization and if alternative accommodations would allow the employee to perform his or her essential functions. And by all means, make sure you have concrete documentation of an employee’s poor performance or policy infractions before taking adverse action against anyone who has filed a discrimination charge.

Click here to print/email/pdf this article.

November 17, 2014

When Key Employees Go To A Competitor

By Mark Wiletsky

Your executives and top salespeople have access to your most valuable business strategies, sales contacts, growth plans and innovations. What do you do when one (or more) of your key employees leaves to work for a competitor? Without the correct agreements in place to protect your proprietary information, you may have little recourse.

Don’t Rely on a Court to Protect Your Business Information

When a key employee leaves to go to a competitor, the former employer often scrambles to seek a court injunction to prevent the employee from working for the competitor and to stop the employee from disclosing or using trade secrets and confidential information. But courts are not always willing to prevent an employee from moving on, especially if the company does not have a reasonable and otherwise enforceable non-compete agreement in place.

In a recent case in Colorado, a high level executive used his company-issued laptop to send an email containing his business contacts to his personal email address as he began negotiating to work for a competitor. He also downloaded some business information onto a personal external hard drive and thumb drive and kept physical copies of certain business documents in a box in his car. About three weeks later, the competitor hired the executive.

There was no evidence that the competitor requested or obtained from the executive any confidential information, the executive had signed only a nondisclosure agreement with his former employer, and the executive agreed to an injunction preventing him from using his former employers confidential information or trade secrets. Nevertheless, the former employer asked the federal court in Colorado to prevent the executive from working as the competitor’s President for one year, arguing that he had threatened or would inevitably disclose its trade secrets in his new job. Despite the executive’s decision to transfer information to his personal devices just before leaving the company, the court denied the company’s request, citing a lack of evidence that the executive had or would use his former company’s trade secrets to its competitive disadvantage. Cargill Inc. v. Kuan, No. 14-cv-2325 (D.Colo. Oct. 20, 2014). The judge noted that enjoining the executive from working for the competitor would, in effect, afford his former employer something it could have obtained or bargained for: a covenant not-to-compete.

Employment-Related Agreements to Consider

Keeping proprietary information confidential can be key to the future prosperity and competitiveness of your business. You can help protect that information from walking out the door by having key employees sign one or more of the following agreements:

Non-compete agreement: the restriction on working for a competitor must be reasonable in time and geographic scope, and comply with other applicable state law requirements;
Confidentiality agreement: requires employees to keep secret your company’s trade secrets and other proprietary information;
Non-solicitation agreement: restricts an employee from soliciting customers (who must be defined in the agreement) or from soliciting other employees to go to work elsewhere; and
Assignment of inventions: any products, inventions, innovations and other developments created during the worker’s employment are assigned to and owned by the company.

Depending on the circumstances, you may want to incorporate some or all of these provisions into a single agreement, and you may need to address varying state law requirements (or choice of law and venue issues) depending on where your employees are located. However, be careful to tailor your agreements to each type of key employee. For example, the non-compete for your CEO or general manager may need different restrictions than a similar agreement for your Regional Sales Manager. And be sure not to use a non-compete with all employees—including lower level ones who have no need for such post-employment restrictions—because it will diminish your justification for asking a higher-level employee to sign the same or similar agreement.

The bottom line is that you need to be proactive in protecting your vital assets, including your confidential information and your key employees. Taking steps now to implement proper agreements will go a long way in protecting your business down the road when key employees decide to depart.

Click here to print/email/pdf this article.

October 21, 2014

EEOC’s Failure to Engage in Conciliation Dooms Its Separation Agreement Lawsuit Against CVS Pharmacy

By Mark Wiletsky

Chalk up a loss for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in its lawsuit against CVS Pharmacy’s separation agreements. As we reported earlier, the EEOC sued CVS alleging that CVS’s separation agreements deterred employees from filing charges and communicating with the EEOC about discrimination and retaliation. Dismissing the case, a federal judge recently ruled that the EEOC failed to engage in the required procedural steps, including conciliation, before filing its lawsuit.

EEOC Dismissed Employee’s Charge, Then Went After Employer

This lawsuit is an example of the aggressive, proactive nature of the EEOC in extending the protections of Title VII to new and novel claims. The case arose after CVS terminated Tonia Ramos, a pharmacy manager. Ms. Ramos signed CVS’s standard separation agreement, which included a release of claims and a covenant not to sue. She then proceeded to file a charge with the EEOC claiming that her discharge was based on sex and race in violation of Title VII. Almost two years later, the EEOC dismissed Ms. Ramos’s charge.

The EEOC then contacted CVS asserting that based on the separation agreement, CVS was engaging in a pattern or practice of resistance to their employees’ full enjoyment of rights under Title VII. In other words, the EEOC concluded that even though the individual employee did not have a valid discrimination claim against CVS, it would bring a pattern or practice case against CVS based on the language in its standard separation agreement used with potentially hundreds of former employees.

No Conciliation, No Lawsuit

Under Title VII enforcement procedures, the EEOC has the authority to investigate and act on a charge of a pattern or practice of discrimination, whether filed on behalf of an allegedly harmed employee or by the EEOC itself. The procedures require that the EEOC try to resolve any alleged unlawful employment practices through informal means before filing a lawsuit. Such means include conferences, conciliation and persuasion. Although the EEOC and CVS discussed potential settlement by telephone twice before the EEOC filed suit, the EEOC failed to engage in conciliation, which proved fatal to its case. Because an attempt at reaching a conciliation agreement is a prerequisite to the EEOC filing suit and it was undisputed that the EEOC did not engage in any conciliation process, the federal court dismissed the EEOC’s case against CVS.

Judge’s Guidance is in the Footnotes

The case was dismissed on procedural grounds, but the judge took the opportunity to offer his view on the merits of the EEOC’s arguments in several footnotes in the opinion. First, the EEOC argued that the term “resistance” as used in Title VII should be interpreted broadly to extend to the language in CVS’s separation agreement even if that language did not amount to discrimination or retaliation under the Act. The judge rejected that argument, stating that the term “resistance” requires some retaliatory or discriminatory act.

Second, the judge discussed the “covenant not to sue” provision in CVS’s separation agreement. Even though the provision stated that an employee could not “initiate or file . . . a complaint or proceeding asserting any of the Released Claims,” the release of claims (in another paragraph of the separation agreement) stated that it did not limit “any rights that the Employee cannot lawfully waive.” In addition, the agreement contained two carve out provisions specifying an employee’s “right to participate in a proceeding with any appropriate federal, state or local government agency enforcing discrimination laws” and that the agreement did not prohibit the employee from cooperating with any such agency in its investigation. The judge wrote that these provisions would allow an employee to file an EEOC charge. He went on to write that even if the separation agreement explicitly banned filing charges, those provisions would be unenforceable and could not constitute “resistance” under Title VII.

One Case Down; One Still Pending

The dismissal of the CVS lawsuit is good news for employers who use separation agreements, especially in light of the judge’s comments signaling that the EEOC’s arguments were without merit. However, a similar case filed by the EEOC against College America is still proceeding through the federal court in the District of Colorado. (We wrote about the College America case here.) Like CVS, College America has asked the court to dismiss the EEOC’s case. We will let you know when the court rules on that motion. In the meantime, employers should review their separation agreements to ensure they include a provision that the agreement does not prohibit employees from filing a charge, participating in an investigation or otherwise cooperating with an appropriate federal, state or local government agency that enforces discrimination laws.

Click here to print/email/pdf this article.

May 6, 2014

Separation Agreements Targeted By EEOC Again

By Mark Wiletsky

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently filed a lawsuit seeking to stop a Colorado employer from using its form separation and release agreement and to allow employees who have signed the form agreement to file charges of discrimination and participate in EEOC and state agency fair employment investigations. In its federal court complaint, the EEOC alleges that CollegeAmerica Denver violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) by conditioning employees’ receipt of severance benefits on signing a separation and release agreement which, according to the EEOC, chills and interferes with the employees’ rights to file charges and/or cooperate with the EEOC and state fair employment practice agencies.

As we wrote on this blog earlier, the EEOC has been scrutinizing employers’ separation agreements. This is the second such lawsuit challenging language in the separation agreements that does not permit the filing of discrimination or retaliation charges with the EEOC or other government agencies. As in the EEOC’s earlier complaint against a national pharmacy, the recent complaint against CollegeAmerica Denver targets numerous provisions in the separation agreement, including the release of claims, a non-disparagement clause and provisions in which the employee represents that he/she has not filed any claims, has disclosed to the company all matters of non-compliance and will continue to cooperate with and assist the company with any investigation or litigation.

Many of the targeted provisions are standard clauses in form separation agreements. Although it remains to be seen whether the courts will agree with the EEOC’s claims, it is always a good idea for organizations to review their agreements and ensure they do not raise any red flags for the EEOC while still protecting the company from future payouts for employment-related claims. We will continue to provide updates as new developments arise.

Click here to print/email/pdf this article.

March 23, 2012

Hiring and Social Media: Beware

By Mark Wiletsky

Should you require prospective employees to provide you with access to their Facebook page and other social media accounts, as a condition of being considered for the job? Some public agencies apparently are doing so. But Richard Blumenthal, a Democratic senator from Connecticut, is writing a bill to prohibit the practice. (Not surprisingly, you can find more information about his proposed bill by visiting his Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/dickblumenthal). Relying on social media for hiring decisions can be risky, but it happens. People Google a candidate’s name, check LinkedIn profiles, browse a Facebook page, or surf the web to see if they can learn some information about the candidate. It’s so easy to do, and there is so much information about people on the web that it is hard to resist. The problem is that the information on the Internet may or may not be relevant to the job. The information also might disclose protected characteristics that you would not otherwise know from simply reviewing a job application (e.g., a person’s race, a disability, etc.). My own thought is that for most private employers, it is not a good idea to require candidates to turn over passwords to their social media accounts. Regardless of whether the candidate agrees to do so, it is clearly not a voluntary decision, and it raises a host of potential problems for private employers, beyond even the typical problem of not hiring someone due to a protected characteristic, e.g., what happens if someone at the company loses the password, abuses it, or protects it but is later accused of being responsible for hacking into the account? The law in this area continues to evolve, but I would avoid becoming a “test case” for having gone too far.