More States Pass Domestic Violence Victim Workplace Protection

Domestic violence victims have enough problems without also having to deal with coworkers stigmatizing them and possibly getting fired. The trend is for states to protect sexual violence from workplace discrimination.

Most recently, five states enacted paid sick leave laws that include requiring paid leave for domestic violence victims. Those states are Vermont, California, Connecticut, and Massachusetts and Oregon. These are overall paid sick leave laws that protect both domestic violence victims and employees who need time off to care for victims of domestic violence. The paid leave accrues depending on each state’s law.

I frequently raunch on Florida for being so anti-employee, but I have to give my home state props for being one of nineteen states that have laws protecting employees who become domestic violence victims. Here is a brief summary of the state and local laws protecting domestic violence victims from employment discrimination:

• Indiana prohibits discrimination for either filing a petition for a protective order or for actions taken by the abuser. It also provides that employer and employee may mutually agree to accommodations.
• Delaware’s law makes it illegal to discriminate against domestic violence victims and requires employers to make reasonable accommodations such as schedule changes or changes in job duties.
• North Dakota allows state employees up to 40 hours of sick leave for domestic violence victims and their family members.
• Massachusetts' law requires employers with 50 or more employees to give up to 15 days off for medical attention, securing new housing, court proceedings and other needs related to the domestic violence.
• New Jersey's law says an employee/victim is entitled to time off for treatment or counseling, and also says they have to be allowed to attend legal proceedings, civil or criminal, relating to the incident.  
• California law says an employer can't fire an employee for being a domestic violence victim, and it also requires employers to make reasonable accommodations to secure the workplace for the victim's safety. Employers with 25 employees or more must grant victims reasonable leave to deal with court dates and other issues relating to the domestic violence.
• Florida law grants domestic violence victims up to 3 days of protected leave. Employers cannot discharge, demote, suspend, retaliate or otherwise discriminate against an employee for exercising their rights to domestic violence leave. To our legislature's credit, this law has been in place since 2007, so we were a whopping 7 years ahead of pro-employee Massachusetts for a change. Miami-Dade County has an ordinance providing for up to 30 days of protected leave.
• Colorado provides up to 3 days of leave if the employer has 50 or more employees.
• Connecticut provides for up to 12 days of leave and bans discrimination against domestic violence victims.
• Washington DC has a sliding scale for leave depending on how large the employer is.
• Hawaii also has a protected leave, the amount of which depends on the size of the employer. Employers can't discriminate against victims and also must provide reasonable accommodations.
• Illinois law requires reasonable accommodations, prohibits discrimination and 8 - 12 weeks of protected leave, depending on the size of the employer
• Kansas law says employers can't discriminate against domestic violence victims who need time off.
• Maine law grants reasonable protected domestic violence leave.
• New Mexico provides up to 14 days of protected leave.
• New York state prohibits discrimination against domestic violence victims. New York City and Westchester County require reasonable accommodations for domestic violence victims.
• North Carolina prohibits discrimination against victims for taking reasonable domestic violence leave.
• Oregon requires employers with 6 or more employees to grant reasonable leave and prohibits discrimination. Portland also requires protected domestic violence leave.
• Rhode Island prohibits discrimination.
• Washington provides reasonable leave. Seattle has its own leave ordinance and also bars discrimination.
• Philadelphia provides leave depending on the size of the employer.

A proposed federal law to protect domestic violence victims from discrimination at work went nowhere. Wouldn't it be good to have some uniform protections? Who the heck is against protecting domestic violence victims? Do we really think that getting beaten up should be grounds for termination? 

A pretty good summary of state laws up through September 2015 is here. It should also be noted that many states have laws protecting crime victims from being punished for missing time from work to testify in criminal proceedings.

Many states have laws protecting crime victims, allowing them time off from work to testify and/or recover. If the domestic violence causes a serious medical condition, then the employee may also be entitled to Family and Medical Leave if they qualify.

If you think domestic violence victims have enough problems without also having to worry about being fired, talk to your state legislators and members of Congress and ask them to pass more legal protections for this vulnerable group of employees.

Dear HR: Stop Telling Employees They Can't Apply For FMLA Until They Use Their Vacation

For about the dozenth time this year, I heard another sob story about an employee who absolutely qualified for FMLA leave, yet was told by HR that they couldn't apply until they used up their vacation or PTO time. This is wrong on so many levels, and it screws both the employee and the employer. So stop it.

Seriously. Stop it.

It screws up the employee because their boss assumes they're taking unprotected leave and so those sick and vacation days used for hospital stays, doctor visits and caregiving responsibilities are held against the employee in reviews, consideration for promotions, and discipline.

It screws up the employer because once the employer knows leave should be covered by FMLA, the employer's legal duties under FMLA kick in:

When an employee requests FMLA leave or the employer acquires knowledge that leave may be for a FMLA purpose, the employer must notify the employee of his or her eligibility to take leave, and inform the employee of his or her rights and responsibilities under the FMLA. When the employer has enough information to determine that leave is being taken for a FMLA-qualifying reason, the employer must notify the employee that the leave is designated and will be counted as FMLA leave.

 FMLA is mostly about unpaid leave, but employees do NOT have to use all their paid leave before applying:.

Employees may choose to use, or employers may require the employee to use, accrued paid leave to cover some or all of the FMLA leave taken. Employees may choose, or employers may require, the substitution of accrued paid vacation or personal leave for any of the situations covered by FMLA. The substitution of accrued sick or family leave is limited by the employer's policies governing the use of such leave.

The consequence to employers can be severe. First of all, the employee may be entitled to more leave than you're legally required to give if you mess this up. Second, if the employee's leave should have been designated as FMLA and wasn't, and you hold that time off against them, you're talking FMLA lawsuits plus disability discrimination lawsuits.

Employees, if you qualify for FMLA (you've been there at least a year AND worked 1250 hours or more in the past 12 months AND there are 50 or more employees of the employer within 75 miles of your work location) then don't believe HR when they say you can't apply. As soon as you know you have a serious medical condition and will need doctor's appointments or medical treatment, apply for intermittent leave. Employers frequently forget about intermittent leave, and it's a good thing. Here's more from the Department of Labor on intermittent leave:

(Q) Does an employee have to take leave all at once or can it be taken periodically or to reduce the employee’s schedule?
When it is medically necessary, employees may take FMLA leave intermittently – taking leave in separate blocks of time for a single qualifying reason – or on a reduced leave schedule – reducing the employee’s usual weekly or daily work schedule. When leave is needed for planned medical treatment, the employee must make a reasonable effort to schedule treatment so as not to unduly disrupt the employer’s operation.
Leave to care for or bond with a newborn child or for a newly placed adopted or foster child may only be taken intermittently with the employer’s approval and must conclude within 12 months after the birth or placement. 

(Q) Can an employer change an employee’s job when the employee takes intermittent or reduced schedule leave?
Employees needing intermittent/reduced schedule leave for foreseeable medical treatments must work with their employers to schedule the leave so as not disrupt the employer’s operations, subject to the approval of the employee’s health care provider. In such cases, the employer may transfer the employee temporarily to an alternative job with equivalent pay and benefits that accommodate recurring periods of leave better than the employee’s regular job.

So, HR folks, can we agree that you'll stop telling employees they can't apply for FMLA until they use their vacation? And employees, feel free to show them this post if they say that.

Follow Trump's Advice, Lose Your Sexual Harassment Case

By now you've probably heard Donald Trump's advice to sexual harassment victims: just quit your job. The problem with this (besides the fact that not everyone is a billionaire who can quit without having a job lined up) is that if you do quit, you may well give up your right to sue for sexual harassment.

You see, the Supreme Court, in its infinite wisdom, says that if your employer has a published sexual harassment policy, you have to report sexual harassment according to the policy and give them a chance to fix it. Only if they don't fix it, or if retaliation occurs, can you then sue.

Quitting makes things even more difficult. In order to sue for lost wages, you have to show that you were forced to quit. In legal terms, that you were constructively discharged. If you quit, you have to prove that the workplace was so awful due to retaliation or sexual harassment that no reasonable person would stay. When you have a jury of unemployed folks and people working minimum wage jobs with abusive bully bosses, that's going to be a tough thing to convince them.

Also, if you just quit then the harasser will continue their harassment. They'll just pick another victim. So if you don't report it, don't file with EEOC, and say nothing, you guarantee another employee will be sexually harassed.

Here's what you have to do if you want to stop a sexual harasser:

a. Read your handbook: There should be a sexual harassment policy. If it isn't there, the employer is also supposed to have a poster in the break room or other prominent area saying how to report it.

b. Report it in writing: If there's an 800 number, forget that. Report it in writing to HR or someone in management. Otherwise, HR will deny you reported sexual harassment. They'll claim you reported "unfair treatment" or something else not legally protected against retaliation (if they admit you reported anything at all).

c. Tell a coworker: If you don't tell others who work with the harasser what is happening to you and that you've reported it, then the harasser may well move on to an easier victim. The NLRB says your employer can't prohibit you from discussing sexual harassment with coworkers (assuming you aren't a supervisor or in management).

d. Keep notes: Write down each instance, with dates, what happened and names of witnesses. Keep copies of texts and emails. Keep your notes and evidence at home so they can't take it away and conveniently lose it if you're fired.

e. Don't wait: You have either 180 days or 300 days from the sexual harassment to file with EEOC if they don't fix the situation. Don't delay.

f. Talk to a lawyer: If you think you have a sexual harassment or retaliation claim, talk to an employment lawyer in your state.

Don't follow Trump's advice. Don't let a sexual harasser drive you out of a job unless you have another job lined up.

Massachusetts Legislators Fail To Protect Citizens Against Abusive Noncompetes. Again

For a second year in a row, Massachusetts legislators introduced legislation to ban or severely limit the use of noncompete agreements in their state. And for the second year in a row, those efforts failed. Things looked hopeful for awhile, as both houses passed legislation, but then legislators couldn't agree on a compromise. So for the time being the citizens of Massachusetts will have to put up with being limited in their ability to leave their jobs.

This is not a small inconvenience. The White House estimates that 18% of American workers are now covered by noncompete agreements, many of them low wage workers. Jimmy John's has faced two antitrust investigations of its sandwich maker noncompetes. Dog groomers, fast food workers, data entry clerks and other low-level workers are prohibited from working for competitors of their employer for a year or two after they leave, whether they leave voluntarily or are fired because their boss didn't like their shirt or was in a bad mood.

Noncompete agreements are bad for business, bad for innovation, and are certainly bad for workers. Employers can use noncompetes to suppress wages, force employees to stay in abusive jobs, and blackmail employees into feeling trapped in their jobs. So it's a shame the Massachusetts legislature adjourned without a fix.

At least Massachusetts is trying to help their citizens, unlike my home state of Florida, one of the worst states in the nation for employees who want to escape noncompete restrictions. Other states have passed restrictions on noncompetes. Delaware and Colorado ban noncompetes for physicians. Some employees are fighting them through unions. Hawaii banned noncompetes for technology workers and New Mexico banned them for health care workers. Some states ban "sign or be fired" agreements presented after employees start working. Others require pre-hire notice to potential employees that a noncompete will be required. Some allow employees to claim that enforcing a noncompete agreement will cause them undue hardship.

An attempt by Democratic members of Congress to ban them for low wage workers has failed. Now the White House is investigating noncompete agreements and is seeking input from people who have been subjected to unreasonable restrictions.

Bottom line is that it takes real citizens raising holy hell with state and federal legislators and regulators to get the law changed. While there have been efforts to change or limit abusive noncompete agreements, nothing will change unless you speak out. Had the citizens of Massachusetts bombarded legislators with emails and phone calls asking for reform, this year's efforts wouldn't have stalled. So if you think employers shouldn't be able to prevent employees from working for competitors, then call your state legislators and members of Congress and tell them so.