Our Festivus Present to Oregon Employers: Ten Things You Should Know for 2010

Wow, it's Festivus already, which means that in just a few short days it will be a brand new year!  We have a Festivus present for Oregon employers to help you get ready:  Ten things you need to know for 2010!  (click on each blue hotlink for more information)

  1. All Oregon employers are required to post the SB 519 (Mandatory Meeting Ban) Notice to Employees.
  2. The H1N1 (or "swine:) flu is slowing down, but it's not gone. If you have concerns for you or your employees, Oregon has a great Flu Hotline.
  3. As if we needed another reason to investigate complaints of unlawful harassment, the Oregon Court of Appeals recognized a claim for negligent failure to investigate
  4. Leave for Military Spouses:  Employers with 25 or more employees in Oregon must provide leave to spouses of service members prior to deployment and during leave from active duty. 
  5. In 2010, you might have a greater duty to accommodate employees' religious dress and practices
  6. Domestic Violence Leave and Accommodations:  Employers may not discriminate against victims of actual or threatened stalking, sexual assault or domestic violence, and must  make reasonable accommodations for such employees.
  7. In 2010, you (and your employees!) may no longer talk on the phone while driving (unless it's with a hands-free device).
  8. Oregon's minimum wage will remain $8.40/hour.
  9. Oregon kept its disability discrimination law in tune with the federal Americans with Disabilities Act
  10. Oregon has new rest and meal break regulations.

And on that note, we're off to put up our festivus pole (aluminum, high strength-to-weight ratio), air our grievances, and commit feats of strength.  Happy festivus, and see you in 2010!

"Blonde Jokes" Support Workplace Emotional Distress Claim

Usually when I get an employment lawsuit alleging "negligent infliction of emotional distress," I chuckle to myself and immediately begin drafting a motion to dismiss.  However, a recent case out of the Washington Court of Appeals may indicate that NIED claims are not totally frivolous!

In Strong v. Wright, the plaintiff sued her former supervisor because he told "blonde jokes" (apparently plaintiff was blonde), made fun of her house, ridiculed her husband's job, and referred to her as a "bum mother" because she put her son in therapy.  The plaintiff alleged that this treatment "caused her to vomit and to have anxiety attacks, depression, and heart palpitations."  Really.  Blonde jokes=heart palpitations.

The trial court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, reasoning that the claims were nothing more than a run-of-the-mill workplace dispute.  The Washington Court of Appeals  reversed, holding that  the events went beyond a mere workplace dispute.  One of the facts that helped the court reach this decision:  the defendant stood so close to plaintiff while telling the blonde jokes that his spit would fly and hit her face, constituting an "assault" under Washington law. 

What's the lesson here for employers?  Even though none of the supervisor's conduct violated federal or Washington discrimination or harassment law (although the blonde jokes could be construed as race or national origin discrimination under Title VII), employers still need to watch out for boorish and demeaning workplace behavior.  Courts appear willing to find a way--or even create a way--to continue policing the workforce.  Lastly, whatever you do, DO NOT let your employees visit this website full of blonde jokes

Howard Stern + Work = Hostile Work Environment

The Eleventh Circuit (which covers Alabama, Florida and Georgia) held late last month that a female employee was subjected to an unlawful hostile work environment on the basis of her sex in part because of "vulgar radio programming" that was played daily in her workplace. Reeves v. C.H. Robinson Worldwide Inc., No. 07-10270, April 28, 2008.

Reversing the trial court’s grant of summary judgment, the court reasoned that the offensive language in the program (as well as additional offensive workplace banter) had a discriminatory effect on the female plaintiff  "because of its degrading nature." If you don't mind some seriously offensive language of a degrading nature which may have discriminatory effects, read  the court’s opinion. (Seriously, it pulls no punches; read at your own risk!) 

Employers in all jurisdictions should realize that allowing sexually-charged workplace banter is highly risky.  For us employment lawyers, a certain amount of this is a BFOQ, but for the other 99.999% of the American workplaces, clean it up.