Employment Law Attorneys
Podcast: You Have the Right To…NOT Remain Silent…Dealing With Bullies In The Workplace

Podcast: You Have the Right To…NOT Remain Silent…Dealing With Bullies In The Workplace

According to the Workplace Bullying Institute (“WBI”) (https://workplacebullying.org/) nineteen percent (19%) of adult Americans experience workplace bullying. That means that some sixty point three (60.3) million workers are affected by this type of misconduct. Sixty-five percent (65%) of the people bullied at work are women and seventy percent (70%) of the perpetrators are men. Approximately sixty one percent (61%) of bullying is committed by a supervisor or boss.   In 2019 a Monster.com survey revealed that nearly ninety-four percent (94%) of responding employees reported being bullied in the workplace. These statistics are shocking when one considers that there is no federal law and few state laws prohibiting or even acknowledging bullying in the American workplace.

A study by the WBI found that thirty-seven percent (37%) of bullying targets were terminated, while thirty-three percent (33%) quit their jobs and seventeen percent (17%) were transferred from their positions or departments. The bullies were punished only four percent (4%) of the time, and only transferred in nine percent (9%) of cases.

For more information about this topic, please contact our employment attorneys at Carey & Associates, PC at 203-255-4150 or email to info@capclaw.com. Thank you for listening.

Podcast: Thinking Outside the “Black Box”: The Interactive Process of Disability Accommodations During Covid-19

Podcast: Thinking Outside the “Black Box”: The Interactive Process of Disability Accommodations During Covid-19

When it comes to the world of requests for disability accommodations under the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Rehabilitation Act, the “black box” or the “unseen internal mechanism,” is the ever elusive “interactive process”. This is the process of information gathering and discussion between the employee requesting the disability accommodation and the employer who is obligated to determine whether the accommodation requested will be granted.  I analogize this process to a “black box” because it is inherently opaque. Why? While the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act require that both employers and employees engage in this interactive process, neither statute precisely defines what it is or when it starts or ends. It is not clear what precisely the employer must do in this process or what the employee can and should expect. How long should the process take? How does anyone know if they are doing it correctly? How do we know the proper accommodations were considered?

Now factor in the public health, work place safety, and personal medical complexities of the Covid-19 pandemic and the concomitant work-from home revolution and the box becomes even blacker. Do employers have to offer the same accommodations to teleworkers that they offered to workers when they were on site? Are accommodations automatically available for those with health conditions that put them at greater risk for Covid-19? If a disabled employee was able to do her job during temporary telework periods due to Covid-19, is she entitled to continue telework after the employer resumes regular operations?  More importantly, what is the specific “interactive process” that will be used to decide these issues?

For more information about this topic, please contact our employment attorneys at Carey & Associates, PC at 203-255-4150 or email to info@capclaw.com. Thank you for listening.

“Employed or Not Employed…That Is The Question!”

“Employed or Not Employed…That Is The Question!”

By Chris Avcollie

“To be, or not to be, that is the question: Whether ‘tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, Or to take Arms against a sea of troubles, And by opposing end them…”

From Hamlet by William Shakespeare  Act 3, Sc.1 (Spoken by Hamlet)

During the recent economic “sea of troubles” which followed in the wake of the Coronavirus pandemic, American workers became all too familiar with an employment term which had been rarely used in the past: the employee “furlough.” Companies have furloughed thousands of workers during the past year. With the nation and its workforce now facing a second wave of viral infections, this term is likely to remain in our lexicon during the foreseeable future. So what exactly is a “furlough” and how does it differ from a “layoff” or a “reduction in force?” More importantly, what should employees do when they find themselves “furloughed”? This article attempts to answer some of the more common questions workers have regarding this newly fashionable employment status.

What exactly is a “furlough”? In the employment context a “furlough” (from the Dutch term for “leave of absence”) is an involuntary suspension of employment by an employer. This form of suspension is often undertaken when an employer cannot afford to continue paying some or all of its workers but has reason to expect that circumstance to change in the near future. This form of suspension is almost always without pay and may last as long as the employer’s economic circumstances dictate.

Why do employers use the “furlough” instead of simple “layoffs”? A furlough is a useful cost-saving measure because it allows employers to temporarily cut payroll costs in response to unforeseen economic conditions (think global pandemic) without risking the total loss of its workforce and without incurring the expense of mass terminations and re-hiring. While some industries were able to keep workers employed during the pandemic by allowing them work from home options, others simply had no way to operate other than in person. When those industries were forced to shut down temporarily, the “furlough” allowed employers to cut payroll costs while keeping their workforce on board and ready to resume work upon re-opening.

How exactly does the “furlough” differ from a “layoff” or a “reduction in force?” First, the “furlough” is a temporary suspension in work activity and pay not a permanent change in the employee’s status. The furloughed employees remain “employed” in the sense that they remain in a legal relationship with their employer. Both a “layoff” and a “reduction in force” are generally permanent separations from the employer. A “layoff” is a permanent or semi-permanent separation of employment, usually for economic reasons rather than for cause. A “reduction in force” is a permanent separation of some number of employees as part of an effort to re-structure or to “downsize” the employer’s permanent workforce.  While an employer may always re-hire a laid-off or downsized worker, these terms denote a permanent or semi-permanent change in the employee’s status.

So is a furloughed employee guaranteed a right to resume work when the company re-opens? Not exactly. Typically, an employer will give furloughed employees either a specific date of return or set out specific conditions under which their jobs would resume. While furloughed employees have an expectation that they will return to work, there is no guarantee. The employees retain the same right to their positions that they had while actively working.  For public sector employees this expectation of return means, for example, that the employee may not be laid-off or otherwise terminated without due process because that right existed during employment. A private sector employee who is an at-will employee has no such right to due process.  In other words, a furlough could become a layoff in the private sector with the stroke of a pen.

Do furloughed workers keep their benefits? Usually to some extent. Another unique feature of the “furlough” status is that while wages are suspended along with the employee’s obligation to work, employee benefits are often continued during the furlough period. Employees often retain their health insurance, for example. There are a number of ways this may be handled by employers. Some employers will treat furloughed employees as if they were on unpaid leave and maintain health insurance benefits coverage while continuing to make the employer contributions and requiring the employee to continue premium payments.

Some employers will continue employee benefits through COBRA. COBRA is a federal law that allows employees to continue health insurance after separation from employment. If no continuing health insurance is provided, the employer must provide a COBRA notice in writing to its workers upon being furloughed. Employers could choose to fully or partially subsidize COBRA premium payments or require the employees to pay the premiums themselves. Further, under the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”), covered employers need to be aware of the potential ACA penalties when furloughing their employees. By offering health insurance to furloughed employees, employers may be able to avoid ACA penalties. Furloughed employees should discuss the options for benefit continuation as soon as possible with their managers or HR department.

Can a furloughed worker look for another job? Yes. One of the primary risks of the furlough status for the employer is that top talent might get jobs elsewhere. However, workers who are thinking of taking a temporary position just until they are recalled should consult their primary employer’s policies regarding outside employment or second jobs. An employer is still able to enforce these rules during a furlough because the employee remains, technically, “employed.” Public sector employees, for example, or employees under contract or part of a collective bargaining unit often have strict outside employment prohibitions which must be addressed before working during the furlough.

Can a furloughed worker perform some minor tasks voluntarily during the furlough just to address urgent matters or to keep the in box from overflowing? Absolutely not. Furloughs include a strict no work policy. Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), employers who allow even minimal work during a furlough incur significant liability. If a salaried employee performs even a few minutes of work during furlough, the employer must pay them the equivalent of their salary for the entire week in which work is performed. If an hourly employee works while on furlough the employer must pay them for the time worked. For this reason, furloughed employees often have access to work accounts and devices revoked to prevent accidental or occasional work during the furlough.

Are furloughed workers eligible to collect unemployment benefits? Usually. A furloughed employee may receive unemployment benefits for their time without pay. Unemployment compensation rules are set by the state not the federal government so rules vary from state to state. Some states impose waiting periods or require the employee to conduct job searches in order to collect. If a furloughed worker receives back pay from the employer for the furlough period, he or she might be required to pay back the unemployment benefits received.

When the company resumes operations do they have to bring back all of the furloughed workers? No. Based on the economic circumstances, the employer may return some or all of its workforce following a furlough. What employers cannot do is select those workers they want to return based on age, race, gender, sexual orientation or other protected class. For example, an employer cannot return the youngest and least experienced and therefore least expensive workers and layoff the older and more experienced workers.  Employees should be aware of whether more men are rehired than women, or more white employees are rehired than Asian or African American employees.

When I am on furlough can I use my accrued paid vacation or Paid Time Off (PTO)? Yes. While employers do not have to pay out an employee’s vacation or PTO in a lump sum as if it were a layoff, employees are generally eligible to use their accrued vacation or PTO during the furlough. In fact, if an employer has a written policy in effect at the time of the furlough, it can require workers to use PTO during furloughs. Usually however, these policies are voluntary and not compulsory.

If my furlough becomes a layoff, am I entitled to some type of severance pay? Not usually. Employees are generally entitled to the same severance benefits after a furlough that they otherwise would have been if they had been laid off initially. In most cases employees are not entitled to any severance. If however, an employer offers severance benefits under an ERISA based severance plan, workers will be entitled to that severance if they are laid off following a furlough. Again, employers may not select which employees are laid off based on protected classes or illegal retaliation. Like all adverse employment actions, laying off employees after a furlough must be done without regard to race, gender, age, disability, or other protected characteristics.

Conclusion: While the employee furlough provides a seamless and cost-effective way for organizations to reduce payroll expenses while maintaining a ready and engaged workforce during uncertain economic times, this arrangement creates an ambiguous status for the employee. While it may be better to be furloughed than laid off, employees need to be certain they understand the parameters of this unusual employment status in order to protect their rights. If the Coronavirus economy is going to subject you to the “…slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,” be sure to arm yourself with information before you wade into the “sea of troubles…”

As always, the employment attorneys at Carey & Associates, P.C. are ready to help.  Please call (203) 255-4150 or email to info@capclaw.com.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Carey Quoted in Wall Street Journal Article: What Rights Do Furloughed Employees Have?

Carey Quoted in Wall Street Journal Article: What Rights Do Furloughed Employees Have?

Here’s what to know about health insurance benefits, freelance work, unemployment and more

Furloughed workers face uncertainty in a pandemic-stricken economy.

PHOTO: NAM Y. HUH/ASSOCIATED PRESS

By Anne Steele
Link to Orginal article.

What rights do furloughed employees have?

The bottom line

A furlough generally means workers’ hours have been cut or eliminated temporarily, or requires that they take a certain amount of unpaid time off. Furloughed workers are still considered active employees and eligible for some benefits. While furlough doesn’t have a technical legal meaning, employers—especially since the onset of the pandemic—are using the term to signal that it’s a status where employees can expect to maintain their health care benefits and eventually be called back to work. Still, a furlough can lead to termination.

The details

A furlough does not offer job security, though employers choosing to put employees on such leave typically intend to bring them back.

“Employers are operating in a lot of uncertainty right now, where they truly believed what would be two to three months then became eight months, and they’re now having to forecast business needs in a different environment,” says Stephanie Lewis, an attorney with employment law firm Jackson Lewis in Greenville, S.C. “We are seeing companies that are having to convert furloughs into layoffs.”

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Have you or someone you know been furloughed during the pandemic? Share your experience below.

Furloughed workers, while still considered active employees, aren’t paid for time they don’t work. If, however, employers ask employees to work at any point during a furlough, workers must be paid in accordance with their regular salary or hourly rate, says attorney Mark Carey of Carey & Associates, an employment law firm in Southport, Conn.

In the meantime, furloughed employees can and should apply for unemployment benefits. All state unemployment systems were modified to make such workers eligible to collect unemployment.

“You should apply for every week you’re off. Even if you’re off one week and on the next,” says Ms. Lewis.

And while the employer can dictate the length and span of furlough, many are offering flexibility where they can, allowing workers to choose which weeks or months to take off.

If employers furlough employees without terminating their employment, they should make sure those workers are continually offered health care coverage to avoid penalties under the Affordable Care Act.

In fact, says Ms. Lewis, “most employers have worked hard for permission to keep employees covered by benefits.” Many furloughed workers are now crossing into a period where they would be ineligible for coverage—typically after 60 or 90 days on most benefit plans if they’re not actively at work—and would have to move to Cobra, which is more expensive for many people. Employers have requested approval to retain coverage, and benefits providers have allowed that, says Ms. Lewis.

An employer can’t restrict furloughed employees from taking other work outside the company—and employees who find other work may choose to remain in that job even if they’re called back by their original employer.

Companies bringing employees back to work must also treat furloughed employees equally or discrimination issues may arise. “These have to be equal-employment opportunity scenarios with furloughing and bringing employees back to work. People could raise issues of gender, race and age,” says Mr. Carey. Age tends to be the largest problem in rehiring after furlough, he says, as workers who are older tend to be paid more because they’ve been employed longer.

Write to Anne Steele at Anne.Steele@wsj.com

****

For more information about this topic, please contact our employment attorneys at Carey & Associates, PC at 203-255-4150 or email to info@capclaw.com. Thank you.

Podcast: Thinking Outside the “Black Box”: The Interactive Process of Disability Accommodations During Covid-19

Thinking Outside the “Black Box”: The Interactive Process of Disability Accommodations During Covid-19

By Chris Avcollie

“In science, computing, and engineering, a ‘black box’ is a device, system or object which can be viewed in terms of its inputs and outputs…without any knowledge of its internal workings. Its implementation is ‘opaque’ ([i.e.] black). Almost anything might be referred to as a black box: a transistor, an engine, an algorithm, the human brain, an institution or government.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_box).

When it comes to the world of requests for disability accommodations under the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Rehabilitation Act, the “black box” or the “unseen internal mechanism,” is the ever elusive “interactive process”. This is the process of information gathering and discussion between the employee requesting the disability accommodation and the employer who is obligated to determine whether the accommodation requested will be granted.  I analogize this process to a “black box” because it is inherently opaque. Why? While the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act require that both employers and employees engage in this interactive process, neither statute precisely defines what it is or when it starts or ends. It is not clear what precisely the employer must do in this process or what the employee can and should expect. How long should the process take? How does anyone know if they are doing it correctly? How do we know the proper accommodations were considered?

Now factor in the public health, work place safety, and personal medical complexities of the Covid-19 pandemic and the concomitant work-from home revolution and the box becomes even blacker. Do employers have to offer the same accommodations to teleworkers that they offered to workers when they were on site? Are accommodations automatically available for those with health conditions that put them at greater risk for Covid-19? If a disabled employee was able to do her job during temporary telework periods due to Covid-19, is she entitled to continue telework after the employer resumes regular operations?  More importantly, what is the specific “interactive process” that will be used to decide these issues?

Let’s see if we can figure out what is going on inside the black box. As with all black box analysis we are going to examine the “inputs” and “outputs” to determine what unseen principle or byzantine process is going on inside the box itself.  The “inputs” will be specific request for accommodation scenarios and the “outputs” will be the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (“EEOC”) guidelines and recommendations for ADA requests for accommodation during Coivid-19.[1]

First, let’s look at the box itself.  The EEO laws, including the ADA and Rehabilitation Act, continue to apply during the time of the COVID-19 pandemic. Under the ADA, “reasonable accommodations” are adjustments or modifications in the facilities, operations, or equipment provided by an employer to enable people with disabilities to enjoy equal employment opportunities. If a reasonable accommodation is needed and requested by an individual with a disability to apply for a job, perform a job, or enjoy benefits and privileges of employment, the employer must provide it unless it would pose an “undue hardship,” on the employer. “Undue hardship” means “significant difficulty or expense.” That is the basic reasonable accommodation rule under the ADA.

An employer has the discretion to choose among effective accommodations. Where a requested accommodation would result in undue hardship, the employer must offer an alternative accommodation if one is available that will not impose an undue hardship. But how is that determination made by the employer? The not so simple answer is: “Through the ‘interactive process.’” We have now entered the black box.

The “interactive process”, as described above, is the information gathering and discussion process between the employee requesting the disability accommodation and the employer. It begins when a request for accommodation is made by an employee and the employer responds. Where it ends is more difficult to pinpoint. This process may continue or stop and resume again when circumstances change. It should really be thought of as an on-going process. Let’s look at some “inputs” and “outputs” to see how the “interactive process” works:

›           If my job requires me to be on-site and I have a preexisting medical condition that makes me especially vulnerable to Covid-19, am I entitled to reasonable accommodations under the ADA?

Possibly. The threshold question is whether your condition is a disability as defined by the ADA. If the condition is not a disability under the ADA you might not be entitled to accommodation even if you are at higher risk. The ADA defines a “disability” as “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity, or a history of a substantially limiting impairment.” When requesting an accommodation, the employee should ask his or her physician whether the condition in question meets that definition. Some physical and mental conditions which meet the definition include but are not limited to: heart disease, diabetes, lung disease, compromised immunity, anxiety disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, or post-traumatic stress disorder. In this example, the employer would begin the interactive process by asking questions and/or requesting medical documentation from the employee to determine whether the condition for which the employee is requesting an accommodation is an ADA disability. If it is not, then the process will likely end with a denial. If the condition is in fact an ADA disability then the interactive process continues with an exploration of the accommodations possible and available.

          If my job is on-site and I have a preexisting medical condition (which is an ADA disability) that makes me especially vulnerable to Covid-19, how do I know what accommodations I can get?

The type of accommodations needed are usually proposed initially by the employee or her physician. The interactive process continues here as the employer then asks questions such as: (1) how the disability creates a limitation, (2) how the requested accommodation will effectively address the limitation, (3) whether another form of accommodation could effectively address the issue, and (4) how a proposed accommodation will enable the employee to continue performing the “essential functions” of her position (that is, the fundamental job duties). Some recommended Covid-19 accommodations to reduce exposure include without limitation: changes to the work environment such as designating one-way aisles; using plexiglass, tables, or other barriers to ensure minimum distances between customers and coworkers; providing personal protective equipment (PPE); temporary job restructuring of marginal job duties; temporary transfers to a different position; or modifying a work schedule or shift assignment may also permit an individual with a disability to perform safely the essential functions of the job while reducing exposure. Flexibility by employers and employees is important in determining if some accommodation is possible in the circumstances.

         Can my employer just say that my requested accommodations pose an “undue hardship,” and not engage in any sort of process?

The employer may not simply deny a requested accommodation without engaging in the interactive process. The employer is required to actually “discuss” the accommodations with the employee. If a particular requested accommodation would result in undue hardship, the employer must offer an alternative accommodation if one is available that does not involve undue hardship.( In discussing accommodation requests, the EEOC recommends that employers and employees consult the Job Accommodation Network (JAN) website for types of accommodations, www.askjan.org. JAN’s materials specific to COVID-19 are at https://askjan.org/topics/COVID-19.cfm.) The discussion of proposed accommodations and the proposal of alternatives is part of the required process. Further, a general denial by an employer is insufficient. Undue hardship must be based on an individualized assessment of current circumstances that show that a specific reasonable accommodation would cause significant difficulty or expense. The employer must consider certain factors such as:

  • the nature and cost of the accommodation needed;
  • the overall financial resources of the facility making the reasonable accommodation; the number of persons employed at this facility; the effect on expenses and resources of the facility;
  • the overall financial resources, size, number of employees, and type and location of facilities of the employer (if the facility involved in the reasonable accommodation is part of a larger entity);
  • the type of operation of the employer, including the structure and functions of the workforce, the geographic separateness, and the administrative or fiscal relationship of the facility involved in making the accommodation to the employer; and
  • the impact of the accommodation on the operation of the facility.

If the employer cannot answer questions regarding these topics, it is likely that the interactive process was not properly conducted.

          When is an accommodation too costly? How can my employer decide? Won’t employers just say anything that costs money is too costly?

“Undue hardship” is determined based on the net cost to the employer. Employers are required to actually calculate costs and to consider all possible sources of outside funding when assessing whether a particular accommodation would be too costly. Thus, an employer is not only required to assess the cost-impact of a requested accommodation on the organization but must also determine whether funding is available from an outside source, such as a state rehabilitation agency, to pay for all or part of the accommodation. In addition, the employer should determine whether it is eligible for certain tax credits or deductions to offset the cost of the accommodation. If only a portion of the cost of an accommodation causes undue hardship, the employer should ask the individual with a disability if she or he will pay the difference. If an employer determines that one particular reasonable accommodation will cause undue hardship, but a second type of reasonable accommodation will be effective and will not cause an undue hardship, then the employer must provide the second accommodation. Again, if the employer is engaging in the interactive process in good faith, these points will be considered and discussed with the employee.

          Besides providing many new reasons for needing accommodations, how does Covid-19 affect the interactive process with my employer, if at all?

The interactive process is largely about assessing the relative burden of a particular accommodation on the employer’s operation. Therefore it makes sense that the financial, economic, and situational conditions affecting the workplace due to Covid-19 will factor into that calculus. In some cases, an accommodation that would not have posed an undue hardship prior to the pandemic may pose one in the new conditions imposed by Covid-19. Further, an employer may consider whether current circumstances create “significant difficulty” in acquiring or providing certain accommodations considering the facts of the particular workplace. For example, it may be more difficult now to conduct a needs assessment or to acquire certain PPE items. Covid-19 could cause “excusable delays” in the interactive process. The loss of some or all of an employer’s income stream because of the pandemic may affect the calculation of whether an accommodation is too costly. The physical layout of the facility may have changed due to Covid-19 safety measures, and a particular accommodation might not be feasible. Temporary accommodations might be granted and later changed or withdrawn as circumstances change. It might be easier to accommodate a request for telework or more difficult to obtain a temporary worker to take on marginal job duties. These complex factors make the interactive process more important than ever. Flexibility, creativity, and effort are needed to come up with workable accommodations in this challenging environment. The EEOC advises that there are many no-cost or very low-cost accommodations that can be found to assist those struggling to work during Covid-19.

          If I have a family member who has a medical condition (which is an ADA disability) that makes him/her especially vulnerable to Covid-19, does the ADA provide accommodations for me to reduce the risk of indirectly exposing my family member?

No. While the ADA does prohibit discrimination based on one’s association with an individual with a disability, that protection is limited to disparate treatment or actual harassment. The ADA does not require employers to accommodate an employee without a disability based on the disability-related needs of a family member or other person with whom she is associated. Of course, an employer is free to provide such an accommodation if it chooses. While caregivers and family members of individuals with disabilities are not entitled to accommodations under the ADA, they may be entitled to leave under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) or the federal Families First Coronavirus Response Act. If an employee’s close family member has Covid-19, the FMLA could provide leave to care for that family member.

          If I have a medical condition (which is an ADA disability) that makes me especially vulnerable to Covid-19 and my employer allowed me (and others) to work remotely for a period of time, does my employer automatically have to grant me telework as a reasonable accommodation when the company returns to on-site work?

Not necessarily. Whenever an accommodation is requested the employer can engage in the interactive process and determine whether there is a disability related reason for it and whether there is an undue hardship under the circumstances. This is a fact-specific inquiry that can be made at the time the accommodation is requested. If the employee’s disability does not cause a limitation that will be relieved by telework, then it need not be granted. Further, if the employee’s disability related limitation can be addressed with another accommodation then that accommodation may be provided instead of telework. Additionally, if the telework arrangement requires the employer to excuse the employee from certain essential functions of the job, the employer need not excuse that function even if it did so voluntarily for a period of time out of necessity.  The ADA does not require an employer to eliminate an essential function of a position as an accommodation. However, if the disability related limitation would be removed by telework and all essential functions of the employee’s job were performed satisfactorily during the telework period, then the period of telework could be seen as an experiment that demonstrates that the accommodation was effective and satisfies all job requirements.  The interactive process must be flexible, cooperative, and truly interactive to determine what accommodations will work for employer and employee.

Based on our “black box” analysis here, it seems that the “unseen mechanism” that makes the interactive process work is some combination of cooperation, communication, and flexibility. While the specific results may vary widely depending on the factors mentioned here, it is clear that in the age of Covid-19, obtaining the right output from the “black box” that is the ADA interactive process requires a lot of input from all involved.

If you or someone you know needs advice or assistance in navigating a request for accommodation, please contact us at info@capclaw.com  or call 203-255-4150 and speak to one of the employment lawyers at Carey & Associates, P.C.

[1] All of the substantive information contained herein is derived from the EEOC website at: https://www.eeoc.gov/wysk/what-you-should-know-about-covid-19-and-ada-rehabilitation-act-and-other-eeo-laws

Christopher S. Avcollie

Carey Quoted in Wall Street Journal Article: What Rights Do Furloughed Employees Have?

WSJ Article: Is Political Speech Protected in the Workplace? Here’s What You Need to Know: Quoting Mark Carey

Podcast Episode: COVID-19 CANCELS ALL NONCOMPETE AGREEMENTS DUE TO IMPOSSIBILITY

Podcast Episode: COVID-19 CANCELS ALL NONCOMPETE AGREEMENTS DUE TO IMPOSSIBILITY

[TRANSCRIPT]

You’re a free agent and your noncompetition agreement is void!  That should make you feel less stressed about getting your next job in the very industry you have spent so many years cultivating, especially during this pandemic.  Yes, I know your employer made you sign a noncompetition agreement when you were hired, but Covid-19 has changed everything.

I did not like noncompetition agreements before Covid-19 and I dislike them even more now seven months into this pandemic.  According to the latest jobs report, click HERE, “the total number of people claiming benefits in all programs for the week ending September 19 was 25,505,499…”  If you are a judge presiding over a complaint brought by an employer attempting to enforce a noncompetition agreement, would you enforce it against the unemployed employee in the face of these jobless numbers? Answer, No!  Regardless of the law related to noncompetition agreements (restrictive covenant), no judge will want to prevent employees terminated without cause from getting a new job. Who is going to pay for the employee’s food?  Who is going to pay for the employee’s mortgage?  How is she going to buy medication or diapers?

The time has now come to confront the idiotic, senseless and self-serving practice followed by 50% of all employers to force noncompetition agreements on vulnerable employees, especially during this pandemic. We need to protect employees and the income they need right now to survive.  We also need to confront employers and demand they stop using noncompetition agreements altogether because they are abusive and unnecessary. Employers are already overprotected by making employees sign Confidentiality and Proprietary Information Agreements, which protect against the disclosure of company trade secrets to third party employers.

NONCOMPETE MUST BE VOIDED DUE TO IMPOSSIBILITY

What does impossibility mean in relation to noncompetition agreements during the Covid-19 pandemic? Courts generally apply the doctrine of impossibility whenever there is an interference in achieving the purpose of the contract between the parties that is beyond their control and it was never foreseen prior to entering into the contract. “A thing is impossible in legal contemplation when it is not practicable; and a thing is impracticable when it can only be done at an excessive and unreasonable cost.” Roy v. Stephen Pontiac-Cadillac, Inc., 15 Conn. App. 101, 103-04 (1988) (internal citations omitted.) When impossibility is raised, “the court is asked to construct a condition of performance based on changed circumstances, a process which involves at least three reasonably definable steps. First, a contingency—something unexpected—must have occurred. Second, the risk of the unexpected occurrence must not have been allocated either by agreement or by custom. Finally, occurrence of the contingency must have rendered performance commercially impracticable.” Id. at 104, quoting J. Calamari & J. Perillo, Contracts (3d Ed.) § 13-1, p. 537; see also Hess v. Dumouchel Paper Co., 154 Conn. 343, 349-52 (1966)

All employers “intentionally” manipulate employees to sign noncompete agreements in order to get the job, i.e. take it or leave it.  Employers typically seek to prevent employees from working for a competitor for a period of twelve months after termination.  Bam! A pandemic hits the U.S. and the world. That’s the impossibility event.  Massive layoffs follow, covering nearly 40 million people. By the way, an estimated 157.76 million people work in the U.S.  Of course we want the economy to return to normal as quickly as possible, and those unemployed workers are part of that economy.  If 50% of all employers use noncompetition agreements, then we have a major economic obstruction caused by self-serving employers who deliberately seek to prevent these unemployed workers from earning a living.  Sounds unfair, because it is.  It is impossible for any employee to comply with the one sided noncompetition agreement because they need to put food on the table and just survive.  That is the argument I am making and will make in every court case my firm becomes involved with.  This is a public policy crisis plain and simple.  There exist no current Covid-19 court decisions on this issue, but there are a few cases now in the pipeline. The public, the politicians and the courts are faced with a major public policy dilemma. Should the courts protect employers for the sake of protection alone or can they help employees by overriding noncompetition agreements entirely.  I believe the scales tilt heavily in favor of employees, employed and unemployed alike.

WHAT IS A NONCOMPETE AGREEMENT IN 2020?

It is a promise the employee allegedly makes, without his/her consent, with their employer that after they are terminated, they need to refrain from accepting employment in a similar line of work, with a competitive company, or establishing a competing business, for a specified period in a certain geographical area. A non-compete clause ancillary to a valid agreement is unreasonable in restraint of trade and void as a matter of law if: (1) the restraint is greater than is needed to protect the business and goodwill of the employer; or (2) the employer’s need is outweighed by the hardship to the employee and the likely injury to the public. In other words, if you are unable to earn a living because you are sitting on the bench during the noncompete period, without pay, solely because of the employer’s self-serving noncompete, then a Court will void the agreement.  The employer is already protected from the employee because the employer forced the vulnerable employee to sign the confidentiality agreement, a.k.a. Confidentiality and Proprietary Information Agreement, which protects against disclosure of company trade secrets to third party employers.

WHAT IS THE BUSINESS INTEREST?

The argument in favor of enforcing noncompete agreements is primarily to protect the company’s trade secrets, client relations, customer goodwill, employee training.  However, restraining competition is not a legitimate and enforceable business interest.  As I have repeatedly stated, the employer is already protected against disclosures of trade secrets through the Confidentiality and Proprietary Information Agreement.  The employer’s argument that a noncompete agreement is necessary to prevent the disclosure of trade secrets to third party employers is simply abusive and overreaching.

NONCOMPETE AGREEMENTS VIOLATE ANTITRUST LAW

I argue that noncompetition agreements violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act because every noncompete agreement is an unlawful contract to restrain trade.   Section 2 of the Sherman Act makes it illegal to “monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, …any part of the trade…”  (The Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.§ 1)

You will never hear an argument in any litigation over the attempted enforcement of an employee noncompete agreement that the enforcing employer was seeking to restrain competition of its competitor businesses. Such a statement and action would constitute an unlawful antitrust action.  But we know in reality, that is exactly what employers are doing.  This conclusion is further supported by the recent statistics that nearly 49% of all employers use  noncompetition agreement for some or all of their employees, a doubling of the amount from 2014.  Noncompetition Agreements are a tool to kill competition, plain and simple.  Do not fall for the argument about protecting the company from rogue employees seeking to damage the employer. This accusation, albeit true in the rarest of circumstances, is specious given the employer made the employee sign an agreement to protect the employer’s trade secrets, the Confidentiality and Proprietary Information Agreement.

For more information about this topic, please contact our employment attorneys at Carey & Associates, PC at 203-255-4150 or email to info@capclaw.com. Thank you for listening.

Podcast Episode: COVID-19 CANCELS ALL NONCOMPETE AGREEMENTS DUE TO IMPOSSIBILITY

COVID-19 CANCELS ALL NONCOMPETE AGREEMENTS DUE TO IMPOSSIBILITY

You’re a free agent and your noncompetition agreement is void!  That should make you feel less stressed about getting your next job in the very industry you have spent so many years cultivating, especially during this pandemic.  Yes, I know your employer made you sign a noncompetition agreement when you were hired, but Covid-19 has changed everything.

I did not like noncompetition agreements before Covid-19 and I dislike them even more now seven months into this pandemic.  According to the latest jobs report, click HERE, “the total number of people claiming benefits in all programs for the week ending September 19 was 25,505,499…”  If you are a judge presiding over a complaint brought by an employer attempting to enforce a noncompetition agreement, would you enforce it against the unemployed employee in the face of these jobless numbers? Answer, No!  Regardless of the law related to noncompetition agreements (restrictive covenant), no judge will want to prevent employees terminated without cause from getting a new job. Who is going to pay for the employee’s food?  Who is going to pay for the employee’s mortgage?  How is she going to buy medication or diapers?

The time has now come to confront the idiotic, senseless and self-serving practice followed by 50% of all employers to force noncompetition agreements on vulnerable employees, especially during this pandemic. We need to protect employees and the income they need right now to survive.  We also need to confront employers and demand they stop using noncompetition agreements altogether because they are abusive and unnecessary. Employers are already overprotected by making employees sign Confidentiality and Proprietary Information Agreements, which protect against the disclosure of company trade secrets to third party employers.

Noncompete Must Be Voided Due to Impossibility

What does impossibility mean in relation to noncompetition agreements during the Covid-19 pandemic? Courts generally apply the doctrine of impossibility whenever there is an interference in achieving the purpose of the contract between the parties that is beyond their control and it was never foreseen prior to entering into the contract. “A thing is impossible in legal contemplation when it is not practicable; and a thing is impracticable when it can only be done at an excessive and unreasonable cost.” Roy v. Stephen Pontiac-Cadillac, Inc., 15 Conn. App. 101, 103-04 (1988) (internal citations omitted.) When impossibility is raised, “the court is asked to construct a condition of performance based on changed circumstances, a process which involves at least three reasonably definable steps. First, a contingency—something unexpected—must have occurred. Second, the risk of the unexpected occurrence must not have been allocated either by agreement or by custom. Finally, occurrence of the contingency must have rendered performance commercially impracticable.” Id. at 104, quoting J. Calamari & J. Perillo, Contracts (3d Ed.) § 13-1, p. 537; see also Hess v. Dumouchel Paper Co., 154 Conn. 343, 349-52 (1966)

All employers “intentionally” manipulate employees to sign noncompete agreements in order to get the job, i.e. take it or leave it.  Employers typically seek to prevent employees from working for a competitor for a period of twelve months after termination.  Bam! A pandemic hits the U.S. and the world. That’s the impossibility event.  Massive layoffs follow, covering nearly 40 million people. By the way, an estimated 157.76 million people work in the U.S.  Of course we want the economy to return to normal as quickly as possible, and those unemployed workers are part of that economy.  If 50% of all employers use noncompetition agreements, then we have a major economic obstruction caused by self-serving employers who deliberately seek to prevent these unemployed workers from earning a living.  Sounds unfair, because it is.  It is impossible for any employee to comply with the one sided noncompetition agreement because they need to put food on the table and just survive.  That is the argument I am making and will make in every court case my firm becomes involved with.  This is a public policy crisis plain and simple.  There exist no current Covid-19 court decisions on this issue, but there are a few cases now in the pipeline. The public, the politicians and the courts are faced with a major public policy dilemma. Should the courts protect employers for the sake of protection alone or can they help employees by overriding noncompetition agreements entirely.  I believe the scales tilt heavily in favor of employees, employed and unemployed alike.

What is a Noncompete Agreement in 2020?

It is a promise the employee allegedly makes, without his/her consent, with their employer that after they are terminated, they need to refrain from accepting employment in a similar line of work, with a competitive company, or establishing a competing business, for a specified period in a certain geographical area. A non-compete clause ancillary to a valid agreement is unreasonable in restraint of trade and void as a matter of law if: (1) the restraint is greater than is needed to protect the business and goodwill of the employer; or (2) the employer’s need is outweighed by the hardship to the employee and the likely injury to the public. In other words, if you are unable to earn a living because you are sitting on the bench during the noncompete period, without pay, solely because of the employer’s self-serving noncompete, then a Court will void the agreement.  The employer is already protected from the employee because the employer forced the vulnerable employee to sign the confidentiality agreement, a.k.a. Confidentiality and Proprietary Information Agreement, which protects against disclosure of company trade secrets to third party employers.

What is the Business Interest?

The argument in favor of enforcing noncompete agreements is primarily to protect the company’s trade secrets, client relations, customer goodwill, employee training.  However, restraining competition is not a legitimate and enforceable business interest.  As I have repeatedly stated, the employer is already protected against disclosures of trade secrets through the Confidentiality and Proprietary Information Agreement.  The employer’s argument that a noncompete agreement is necessary to prevent the disclosure of trade secrets to third party employers is simply abusive and overreaching.

Noncompete Agreements Violate Antitrust Law

I argue that noncompetition agreements violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act because every noncompete agreement is an unlawful contract to restrain trade.   Section 2 of the Sherman Act makes it illegal to “monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, …any part of the trade…”  (The Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.§ 1)

You will never hear an argument in any litigation over the attempted enforcement of an employee noncompete agreement that the enforcing employer was seeking to restrain competition of its competitor businesses. Such a statement and action would constitute an unlawful antitrust action.  But we know in reality, that is exactly what employers are doing.  This conclusion is further supported by the recent statistics that nearly 49% of all employers use  noncompetition agreement for some or all of their employees, a doubling of the amount from 2014.  Noncompetition Agreements are a tool to kill competition, plain and simple.  Do not fall for the argument about protecting the company from rogue employees seeking to damage the employer. This accusation, albeit true in the rarest of circumstances, is specious given the employer made the employee sign an agreement to protect the employer’s trade secrets, the Confidentiality and Proprietary Information Agreement.

If you would like more information about this topic please contact our employment attorneys at Carey & Associates, P.C. at 203-255-4150 or email to info@capclaw.com.

Podcast: You Have the Right To…NOT Remain Silent…Dealing With Bullies In The Workplace

You Have the Right To…NOT Remain Silent…Dealing With Bullies In The Workplace

By: Chris Avcollie

Its Monday morning and you are on your way into work.  Although the traffic is not bad, your stress levels are already through the roof. As you near the exit, you notice you are gripping the steering wheel to the point where your hands are hurting and your teeth are clenched. As the employee parking area comes into view your stomach tightens and your heart begins to race…If this scenario sounds all too familiar, you might be the victim of workplace bullying.

What is workplace bullying? Workplace bullying may be defined as a range of workplace behaviors characterized by repeated mistreatment of an employee by one or more employees including abusive conduct that is: threatening, humiliating, or intimidating, work sabotage, or verbal abuse. Workplace bullying may include directly aggressive actions or insults as well as unwelcome jokes, pranks, or ridicule. Workplace bullies often target particular individuals, seeking to harm or intimidate those whom they perceive as vulnerable in some way.

Workplace bullying can include but is not limited to some or all of the following actions:

› Aggressive communication including yelling, angry emails, and other verbal hostility;

› Aggressive body language or “cornering”;

› Constant criticism – humiliating disparagement that causes you to doubt your abilities;

› Criticizing you for things you did not know or about which had no instructions;

› Tasteless and humiliating jokes or pranks;

› Manipulating and withholding resources i.e. instructions, information, time, or help from others—setting you up to fail;

› Excessive, unwarranted, and aggressive supervision;

› Assigning unreasonable amounts of work which cannot be reasonably completed on-time; and

› Secretly undermining you and disparaging you behind your back.

According to the Workplace Bullying Institute (“WBI”) (https://workplacebullying.org/) nineteen percent (19%) of adult Americans experience workplace bullying. That means that some sixty point three (60.3) million workers are affected by this type of misconduct. Sixty-five percent (65%) of the people bullied at work are women and seventy percent (70%) of the perpetrators are men. Approximately sixty one percent (61%) of bullying is committed by a supervisor or boss.   In 2019 a Monster.com survey revealed that nearly ninety-four percent (94%) of responding employees reported being bullied in the workplace. These statistics are shocking when one considers that there is no federal law and few state laws prohibiting or even acknowledging bullying in the American workplace.

While lawmakers are ignoring the problem, both workers and employers should take notice. Both the economic and emotional costs of workplace bullying are high. For the targets of bullying the impact often includes damage to their physical and emotional health as well as their career. Targets suffer major stress, anxiety, depression, trauma, high blood pressure, gastrointestinal issues, and more. Targets often face job loss, transfer, and demotion as well as other adverse workplace impacts. For employers, workplace bullying results in low morale, increased HR complaints, higher turnover, increased absenteeism, and higher employee health care costs.

A study by the WBI found that thirty-seven percent (37%) of bullying targets were terminated, while thirty-three percent (33%) quit their jobs and seventeen percent (17%) were transferred from their positions or departments. The bullies were punished only four percent (4%) of the time, and only transferred in nine percent (9%) of cases.

Since most states and US territories (with the recent exception of Puerto Rico) have failed to enact anti-workplace-bullying statutes, most workers have few legal options if their workplace becomes unbearable due to the aggressive and intimidating conduct of a boss or co-worker.  Some employers have tried to address the problem by enacting codes of conduct and civility guidelines. These are often included in employee policy manuals. While these policies may be useful in addressing workplace bullying issues, they are only as effective as the people enforcing them. Addressing bullying by employers is especially challenging given that most American workers are “at will” employees facing immediate termination without any just-cause requirement. If the boss is also the bully, how often will those policies be enforced?

How does “Workplace Bullying” differ from “Illegal Harassment”? Harassment, according to American employment law is essentially legal, unless it is motivated by an illegal purpose such as retaliation for protected activity (such as labor organizing or whistleblowing) or discrimination based on a protected class (such as sex, gender identity, race, religion, national origin, etc.) If the harasser targets someone based solely on the bully’s desire for cruelty, almost anything goes short of an actual physical assault.

Many employers as well as business lobbying groups who fight anti-workplace bullying statutes justify abusive bosses as simply an aggressive “management style.” The idea is that psychological violence is justified if its in the service of productivity. Aside from the fact that workplace bullying is costly for employers, this type of “management style” reflects a serious lack of management training and is not an effective substitute for it.

What to do if you think you are being bullied at work? Here are 6 Steps to Address Workplace Bullying:

  1. Assess – First, evaluate your situation to determine whether you are the target of bullying or just an isolated incident or some other form of misconduct. What is the frequency of the behavior? Is it becoming more common over time? What is the nature of it? Does it have a gender or racial component or is it simply aggressive? If it is increasingly frequent you may be a target. Try to spot a pattern of behavior.
  2. Document– Immediately document any incident that may be part of the pattern of behavior you identified. Write down details of incidents or meetings where the aggressive behavior took place. Who was present? When was the meeting? Was the behavior addressed by anyone? File away emails and other communications around the bullying behavior and about your own performance. Often bullies retaliate by making the issue about the target’s performance. Be sure you can show that you were acting appropriately and doing your job. When it comes time to report the behavior you will want to have all of those details at the ready.
  3. Research-While bullying is not currently illegal, your company may have codes of conduct, HR policies or anti-harassment provisions which cover this type of behavior. If you need to report the bully, it is useful to know if he or she has violated company policies.
  4. Report– If the behavior is recurring then report the bully to HR or to your supervisor (providing your supervisor is not the bully!) Document the response and request a formal report and investigation.
  5. Seek Medical Help– If the behavior is emotionally impactful seek psychological help. Psychologists or Counselors who are experienced in trauma are best equipped to help with workplace bullying issues.
  6. Get Legal Advice– Immediately consult with an experienced employment attorney. You may be the target of bullying or even illegal and discriminatory harassment. Let a trained attorney advise you during this difficult ordeal.

For years our Courts have quoted the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia who famously warned against interpreting federal anti-discrimination law under Title VII as a “general civility code for the American workplace.” Id. While Justice Scalia is no doubt correct that Title VII was not intended to serve as a “general civility code,” those who suffer daily under the yoke of an aggressive workplace bully want to know: “When are they going to enact one?”

If you are the target of a workplace bully you need not suffer in silence. While the law has been slow to address the issue a skilled employment lawyer can help you navigate this difficult situation.

If you would like more information about this topic please contact our employment attorneys at Carey & Associates, P.C. at 203-255-4150 or email to info@capclaw.com.

Are We More Racially Tolerant? Racial Discrimination Cases in Employment Has Actually Decreased by 8% in 2019

Are We More Racially Tolerant? Racial Discrimination Cases in Employment Has Actually Decreased by 8% in 2019

Are we a more racially tolerant society today, in terms of how we treat one another at work?  The following statistics demonstrate that we in fact are.  As an employment attorney, I sit watch on the front lines of employment discrimination involving race. Honestly, I believe the number of race cases coming through our offices has decreased since 1997, the year I hung a shingle and began practicing employment law.  Sure, we have handled quite a number of race cases over the past twenty four years, but not as many as you think given todays social and political upheaval.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has published statistics for race cases filed with the agency for the period 1997-2019, pursuant to Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  Click Here for complete statistics. In 1997 the EEOC received 29,199 cases.  By 2019, that number actually decreased to 23,976, a decrease of 5223 or 8%.   The highest number of cases filed was 35,890 in 2010 during the “great recession”.   These numbers do not include the unreported cases that were never filed due to early successful settlement negotiations between the parties.  The numbers above also do not include employment litigation filed directly in federal court pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981, which does not require an employee to administrative exhaust his/her claims before the EEOC.  The above statistics demonstrate an actual decrease in race discrimination cases filed with the EEOC, which is contrary to the current social and political environment we are living through.  To be clear, even one case of racial discrimination is far too many. For what it is worth (“$$”), the total value of reported settlements went from $41.8 million in 1997 to 79.8 million in 2019, an increase of $38 million. However, 2013 recorded the highest value of $112.7 million, evidencing an increase in racial discrimination claims filed during the “great recession” time period.  Whether or not the “great recession” statistics will duplicate themselves during the Covid-19 era will have to wait a few years, as the cases pour in.

On March 23, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Comcast Corp. National Association of African American-Owned Media which made it more difficult for employees claiming race discrimination in employment to demonstrate that their race was the “but for” reason for the adverse employment actions they received at the hands of the employer. This means that employees have to provide more detailed factual evidence, either direct statements by supervisors and managers or strong circumstantial evidence, to get to a jury in Section 1981 cases, but not Title VII cases.  In other words, your evidence better look like an 80% chance or better than you experienced race discrimination or your case will be dismissed.  This is how I have always interpreted the “but for” standard announced by the Court in the above case and in other Supreme Court discrimination cases such as age and retaliation.  By the way, I did conduct a search for statistics for Section 1981 cases on pacer, but could not locate the specifically identified Section 1981 cases filed during 2019.

On the front lines, employees at Facebook recently brought claims for race discrimination to the EEOC.  On July 2, 2020, NPR reported ‘We Have A Black People Problem’: Facebook Worker Claims Racial Discrimination.  According to the NPR story, “In a complaint filed Thursday with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,  Oscar Veneszee Jr. said the social network does not give Black workers equal  opportunities in their careers.  “We have a Black people problem,” Veneszee told NPR. Veneszee is a Navy veteran who recruits other veterans and people of color as part of diversity initiatives at Facebook’s infrastructure division. “We’ve set goals to increase diversity at the company, but we’ve  failed to create a culture at the company that finds, grows and keeps Black people at the company.”     Veneszee, who has worked for Facebook since 2017, filed the employment discrimination charge along with Howard Winns, Jr., and Jazsmin Smith — both of whom Veneszee recruited — who said they applied to work at Facebook but had not been hired, they alleged, because they are Black. The claim, they said, was filed on behalf of “all Black Facebook employees and applicants to Facebook.”

Now that we know the above EEOC data, let’s take a look at what type of facts are being alleged regarding race discrimination at work.  Fortunately for us, Facebook employees have provided internal examples.  On November 7, 2019, a dozen anonymous current and former employees posted a Memo on Medium recounting racial discrimination at Facebook.  I have reprinted the examples in their entirety below in order to provide you with the racial and ethnic experiences employees at Facebook are facing.  After twenty-four years of practicing employment litigation for employees, these examples are common across all companies, not just at Facebook.  It is one thing to conclude about the effects of racial discrimination and make pronouncements, but it is ever more impactful to read the day in the life examples emanating from within a company like Facebook.  The more you see the mechanisms of racial discrimination in the workplace, the sooner you can protect yourself and your colleagues from the abusive and invidious biased behavior of management staff and coworkers. We should all make it a personal goal to learn about the factual patterns of race discrimination in order to attack it internally and stop it from ruining more careers and lives.  So, here are the examples to guide you in your own employment situation:

“The experiences highlighted here invoke how we, the twelve Facebook employees   present and past who are sharing our stories here anonymously, have been made to feel as employees by Facebook managers, HR business partners, and their immediate white colleagues. To avoid positively identifying the individuals involved, we will not name the people or business units involved. However, all of the below incidents are factual, with witnesses corroborating the behaviors, and have been thoroughly documented.

1.Over the half, I have received dozens of anonymous, highly positive peer reviews in the internal performance management tool about my work, my partnership, my collaboration, and my leadership. This feedback was received from people across all levels, from those more junior in their careers, to VPs reporting into senior leadership of the company. My manager chose to ignore this feedback and focused on a single piece of anonymous negative feedback that had no context. The feedback from this person was that I was arrogant, aggressive, and self-serving. When asked about the situation this occurred, she said “this is what someone perceives of you, so you need to change your behavior if you want to stay at Facebook.”

2. While eating breakfast, two white employees asked me to clean up after their mess. I am a program manager. I told my manager about the incident. She told me I need to dress more professionally.

3. My manager approaches other leaders and managers with manipulative comments in an effort to sway opinion against me. Statements such as “wouldn’t you agree that she is only focused on herself” and “many people have said that she is not smart” have been shared with me by those whom my manager has been in contact with. When those statements that were intended to negatively influence did not work, my manager used those statements without attribution in my performance review.

4. My manager has directly asked at least two colleagues to provide me negative feedback on my performance review in order to influence my performance rating, which would negatively impact my total compensation. My colleagues refused and instead referred the incident to HR. HR took no action.

5. I spoke at a regular team meeting and gave my opinion about a topic I am a subject matter expert on. I was told after the meeting by the manager that I was disrespectful for speaking at this meeting, that my opinion was not wanted, that I was being arrogant in sharing that opinion, and not to speak at any future meetings unless called upon.

6.On Blind, the app that allows for Facebook employees to post anonymous experiences, we see our colleagues treating us with an aggression unshackled from the constraints of Workplace.

7. I was accused of being a liar and stealing others’ ideas. I asked for specifics about what I allegedly lied about and what I allegedly stole. The response was the person(s) who accused me of this behavior wished to remain anonymous because they did not feel comfortable around me, and that I should assume good intent of them. I asked why good intent was not assumed of me and how I could possibly respond to anything that has absolutely no substance; my manager’s response was that their intent was pure. When asked why others do not need to assume good intent of me, I was told I need to be quiet, more reserved, and highly respectful towards others. When asked how I should respond to the accusation of theft, she said “only I will give you credit for your work, so don’t self-promote on Workplace.”

8. I asked about career growth. I was told to just do my core job. “There is no growth for your role.” The only way for a promotion was to “do what I say”, to “not speak to others outside the team unless given permission”, to “not post on Workplace unless it is a project update”, and to be subservient to her whims.

9. My manager has stated she does not need to attend manager development trainings beyond Facebook Manager Essentials because she only receives positive feedback from her peers. My manager has also stated she is very inclusive and does not need to attend the Managing Bias or Managing Inclusion classes. To further highlight the lack of personal accountability represented here, a majority of Facebook’s development programs are not mandatory, and no follow up is done from the programs, that allows bad actors to continue their behaviors without question.

10.  Our org, which is incredibly diverse in representation, had very low Pulse results in the last half. Rather than be transparent about the changes we need to make, our leader said it was our fault for low Pulse scores and we need to do self-reflection on how to improve our performance.

11. Much of my manager’s behavior occurs verbally. When asked to reiterate comments via text, either in Quip, on Workplace, or via email, she misstates her comments, carefully avoids confirming everything that was said, and uses statements such as “as we discussed” or “as you confirmed” in an effort to hide her intentions and protect her from potential HR or legal action.

12. I was told by my HRBP, after approaching her about the discrimination on my team, “there is no bias at Facebook.””

If you would like more information about this topic please contact our employment attorneys at Carey & Associates, P.C. at 203-255-4150 or email to info@capclaw.com.

DOWNLOAD YOUR COPY OF OUR
We're here to help with COVID-19 questionsRead More