Can I Secretly Record A Conversation At Work?

I thought I'd discuss a question today that I'm asked all the time in my law practice: Can I record a conversation with my employer?

Unfortunately, there's no easy answer to this question, and a mistake can land you in jail. Illegal tape recording can have both criminal and civil penalties. My advice is almost always: When in doubt, don't.

Still, many employees want to record a boss or HR at work, and there are good reasons to do so. If you have a sexual harasser, it's handy to catch them red-handed. It's hard to deny something a judge or jury can hear in the harasser's own voice. Some employees want to record meetings with HR to make sure they get all the important information or to have evidence of the reason given for termination or discipline. Other employees want to get evidence of discrimination or other illegal practices of the employer. Sadly, while you can go to jail if you illegally record a conversation, even of a bigot, there is no law making workplace discrimination a crime in the U.S.

Here's what you need to know about recording conversations at work:

All-party consent: Eleven states, California, Connecticut, Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Washington, require all parties to the conversation to consent to being taped. Illinois' all-party consent law was found to be unconstitutional. Hawaii, a one-party consent state, requires all-party consent if the device is installed in a private place. Massachusetts bans "secret" recordings. These laws are sometimes referred to as "two-party consent" laws, but if there are three people in the conversation, all three must consent. The Digital Media Law Project has a handy state-by-state resource here. The Reporter's Committee for Freedom of the Press has another detailed state-by-state guide here.

Expectation of privacy: You can almost always record conversations in public areas, because the courts say there's no "expectation of privacy" in those places. Whether or not you are a party to the conversation, if it's out there in public, you may be allowed to tape it. Here's where it gets tricky. Many courts have held that there's little or no expectation of privacy in the workplace. There are cases saying, for instance, that a party to a conference call has no expectation of privacy. If you're in a group meeting at work, is there an expectation of privacy? Possibly not.

As an example, cases in my home state of Florida on the expectation of privacy at work say things like: "Society does not recognize an absolute right of privacy in a party's office or place of business." "[A]lthough defendant may have had reasonable expectation of privacy in his private office, that expectation was not one which society was willing to accept as reasonable or willing to protect." "Society is willing to recognize a reasonable expectation of privacy in conversations conducted in a private home. However, this recognition does not necessarily extend to conversations conducted in a business office."

The problem I have with relying on cases like these to tape at work is the use of weasel-words like "necessarily" and "absolute" and "reasonable." These cases are very fact-specific and that means a court could still find that your boss or coworker had an expectation of privacy. If you get it wrong, you can end up in jail. 

If a meeting is held with a large group of employees, doors open so others can hear or wander in, then I feel pretty comfortable that there's no expectation of privacy. Otherwise, I suggest talking to an employment lawyer in your state about making such a recording.

Unfair Labor Practices: The National Labor Relations Board has waffled on whether employers can ban all recordings at work. In 2015, they said no, such recordings can't be banned. Then in 2021 they said sure, employers can ban recordings. This current board would probably say recordings can't be banned. But since the case law changes depending on who appointed board members, I wouldn't risk criminal prosecution based on this.

Retaliation: If you record a conversation to document illegal discrimination or illegal harassment (we're talking harassment or discrimination based on race, age, sex, religion, national origin, disability, pregnancy, or other protected category, not bullying), then you may or may not be protected against retaliation by your employer. The courts have split on this issue. Depending on your state, your employer may be allowed to fire you for recording a conversation at work.

One-Party Consent: If your state is a one-party consent, you still have to be a party to the conversation in order for a recording to be legal. If you aren't, you can't just place a recording device somewhere at work to record secretly. That's illegal in every state.

Phone Calls: The all-party consent states all make recording phone calls without consent of all parties illegal. There's no expectation of privacy exception for phone calls. Fifteen states require all-party consent of phone calls. The one-party consent states that ban such recordings are Delaware, Illinois, Oregon, and Vermont. A state-by-state guide is here.

To summarize, you can probably tape a conversation at work that you're part of as long as you live in one of the 39 one-party consent states. You can also possibly tape a conversation that's in a public area (lobby, office or conference room with doors open, stairwell). You can maybe tape a conversation in the office behind closed doors. Only 35 states allow recording of phone calls with one-party consent. If you get it wrong, you're in big trouble, so be careful.

My best recommendation in all-party consent states continues to be, when in doubt, pull out your recorder and turn it on. Say, on the recording, "You don't mind if I tape this do you?" If the other person or people say they don't mind, keep recording. If anyone objects, turn it off. Pull out a pad of paper and a pen and take good notes instead. No potential case against your employer is worth risking jail time.

How Do I Prove Sexual Harassment?

In my 36 years of experience representing employees I’ve found that retaliation seems to be the norm rather than the exception when it comes to sexual harassment. Women (and men) are justifiably afraid to report sexual harassment. Still, sexual harassment is not about sex. It’s about power. If you don’t speak up about a sexual harasser, he or she will keep doing it and accelerate their behavior, as we've seen in some of the big celebrity cases that have come out during Me Too.

Usually, a single incident doesn’t equal a lawsuit unless it's really severe. For it to be sexual harassment under the law, the harassment must be so severe or so pervasive* that it alters the terms and conditions of your employment. Still, you aren’t helpless when it comes to sexual harassment. You can fight a sexual harasser and win. No doubt, proving sexual harassment can be difficult, because it is usually your word against the harasser’s. Still, you shouldn’t just continue to be sexually harassed without taking action. Here are some steps you can take if you’re the victim of sexual harassment at work:

Document any quid pro quo: One type of harassment is called quid pro quo sexual harassment. That’s where you are offered a job, promotion or favors if you submit to the harasser, or are threatened that you’ll be demoted, fired or disciplined if you don’t submit. If any offers or threats are being made, write down the date, time, place and any witnesses. Don’t worry if there are no witnesses. Harassers are usually too smart to do it in front of others. Your testimony is evidence. Your notes are evidence.

Document any comments and different treatment: The other type of sexual harassment is called hostile environment. That’s where you’re being harassed due to your gender. This could be comments about your gender being inferior, sexual comments, or treating people of your gender differently than the opposite sex. If the harasser is making comments or treating you differently, they may also be targeting others of your sex. Watch carefully and take good notes. Again, include date, time, place and any witnesses. If it’s just you, then still document it.

Keep your notes in a safe place: Don’t put your notes on your work computer, in a desk drawer or somewhere where the employer can take them. Keep them in your jacket pocket, purse or briefcase, or write them on your home computer. If you’re fired, they’ll prevent you from taking your notes and they may be conveniently “lost.”

Gather evidence: If the harasser is texting, emailing or sending cards or notes, keep copies. Don’t delete them. Make sure you take a screen shot of any texts and print them so you don’t lose them if your device crashes or you buy a new one. Print emails and keep them in a safe place.

Report it: You should report the sexual harassment. Make sure you’ve followed the company sexual harassment policy and reported it to the correct person. They should have alternate people to report it to in case one of them is your harasser. I suggest reporting it in writing. If you’ve only reported it verbally, follow up in writing. Something like, “This will confirm our conversation on April 15, 2023 in which I reported sexual harassment by my supervisor John Doe. I reported the following instances of sexual harassment to you: [list them]. Please take prompt action to investigate this matter and address this situation."

File with EEOC: If you’ve already reported it and they won’t take action, and your employer has at least 15 employees, then filing with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is the next step. Filing with them is a prerequisite to filing a lawsuit for sexual harassment. Depending on your state, you have 180 or 300 days from the date of discrimination to file. You are protected from retaliation if you file a charge of discrimination with EEOC. That isn’t so say they won’t still retaliate, but if they do you can report the retaliation to EEOC and possibly sue. If your employer is too small for EEOC, some states and local governments cover smaller employers. Here in Florida, Miami-Dade, Broward, Orange, Lee, Pinellas, Hillsborough, and Palm Beach counties cover employers with 5 or more employees. You would file with the agency that covers the smaller employer in that case.

 Contact a lawyer: Contact an employment lawyer in your state who understands sexual harassment and that it is frequently your word against the harasser’s.

Get the heck out: In the meantime, if the company won’t do anything and you don’t feel safe, start looking for another job. Don’t let the harasser bully you out of a job before you’re ready, but don’t feel trapped either. Sometimes a sexual harasser will work on your head and make you feel like nobody else would want you. Don’t believe them.

Remember, sexual harassers are like rapists. It isn’t about sex – it’s about power. If nobody stops them, their behavior accelerates. If you don’t report it, there will be other victims, and the behavior will get worse. Stand up for your right to a safe workplace. Your employer has a duty to keep your workplace free of sexual harassment. It’s the law.

*Yes management side - that's an "or" not an "and" so stop saying "and" because that's just stupid. "And" would mean that the victim had to, for instance, be sexually assaulted on the reception desk by their supervisor in front of coworkers multiple times in order for it to be sexual harassment, and surely you aren't going to try to argue that one. One severe incident is enough. Multiple less severe incidents count too.

Try Guys: Who The Heck They Are and Why They Were Right

 Lots of folks (like me) saw the Saturday Night Live sketch about the Try Guys and said, "Huh?" I had no idea they were a thing. I assumed that they were made up. I was wrong. So I did some research. Turns out I wasn't the only one going WTH. 

I'll start out with who they are. They're YouTube sensations who try things. Yep. They try stuff and post videos of them trying the stuff. Women's underwear, jousting, cooking. Miscellaneous stuff. That's it. Apparently they make money doing it. About $6 million a year. Which makes me question all my life decisions.

Now the sketch. SNL made fun of the Try Guys for firing the one known as the "wife guy". He is so known as the married persona that he has published a cookbook with his wife, and did an Architectural Digest home tour with said spouse. He was caught making out with a woman who works on a Try Guys spinoff called Food Babies. 

SNL made fun of the firing, but I think, based on what I've read on this, that the Try Guys were probably right in firing him, looking at the employment law issues involved.

Sexual harassment: Since Food Babies is a spinoff, I'm guessing the original four Try Guys had some supervisory authority and decisionmaking power over the Food Babies. But it was consensual! some will cry. But is it really? If someone has supervisory authority, there's an imbalance of power and there's always an issue of pressure. Think Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky. Think about The Morning Show, which dealt with this kind of pressure pretty well in the first year's plotline. If it crossed the line (and I obviously don't know for sure whether or not it did), and if they investigated and determined that there was some wrongdoing, they are now on notice of his propensity to enter into such relationships with subordinates. They could be liable in the future for punitive damages if they do nothing and he does it again.

Damage to employer: I bet he has an employment contract. And it's not unusual for entertainers to have a morals clause saying they can be fired if they do something to damage the show or the brand, they can be fired. And since his brand was "wife guy" and he has potentially damaged the $6 million click-dependent show, they likely had the right to fire him.

So, yeah. He kissed a girl and it seems like that shouldn't get you fired. But sometimes, it's exactly what could and should get you fired.

Could he have some defenses? Sure. It depends on how his contract is written. But SNL got this wrong. It was not a laughing matter.

No Forced Arbitration For Sexual Harassment Is A Good Start

The House and Senate have passed the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021. It will go into effect once signed by President Biden. This law will ban forced arbitration and class action waivers  for all claims regarding sexual assault and sexual harassment. This was the House version, which is much better than the original Senate version that limited what was defined as sexual harassment. The version passed covers all sexual harassment cases as we know them.

 

Here's what it says:

§ 401. Definitions

“In this chapter:

“(1) PREDISPUTE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT.—The term ‘predispute arbitration agreement’ means any agreement to arbitrate a dispute that had not yet arisen at the time of the making of the agreement.

“(2) PREDISPUTE JOINT-ACTION WAIVER.—The term ‘predispute joint-action waiver’ means an agreement, whether or not part of a predispute arbitration agreement, that would prohibit, or waive the right of, one of the parties to the agreement to participate in a joint, class, or collective action in a judicial, arbitral, administrative, or other forum, concerning a dispute that has not yet arisen at the time of the making of the agreement.

“(3) SEXUAL ASSAULT DISPUTE.—The term ‘sexual assault dispute’ means a dispute involving a nonconsensual sexual act or sexual contact, as such terms are defined in section 2246 of title 18 or similar applicable Tribal or State law, including when the victim lacks capacity to consent.

“(4) SEXUAL HARASSMENT DISPUTE.—The term ‘sexual harassment dispute’ means a dispute relating to conduct that is alleged to constitute sexual harassment under applicable Federal, Tribal, or State law.

Ҥ 402. No validity or enforceability

“(a) In General.—Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, at the election of the person alleging conduct constituting a sexual harassment dispute or sexual assault dispute, or the named representative of a class or in a collective action alleging such conduct, no predispute arbitration agreement or predispute joint-action waiver shall be valid or enforceable with respect to a case which is filed under Federal, Tribal, or State law and relates to the sexual assault dispute or the sexual harassment dispute.

“(b) Determination Of Applicability.—An issue as to whether this chapter applies with respect to a dispute shall be determined under Federal law. The applicability of this chapter to an agreement to arbitrate and the validity and enforceability of an agreement to which this chapter applies shall be determined by a court, rather than an arbitrator, irrespective of whether the party resisting arbitration challenges the arbitration agreement specifically or in conjunction with other terms of the contract containing such agreement, and irrespective of whether the agreement purports to delegate such determinations to an arbitrator.”.

While this doesn't apply to sex discrimination that isn't harassment (such as a termination, suspension without pay, denial of promotion or failure to hire where sexual favors aren't requested), it does apply to harassment due to gender, and to harassment due to sexual orientation, as well as to harassment when sexual favors are requested. If you are singled out for harassment due to either gender or sexual orientation, that is sexual harassment under Title VII and under some state law, such as the Florida Civil Rights Act.

There is a move afoot to ban forced arbitration in other types of discrimination and harassment cases. This is a good start, but it isn't the end.

Why does it matter? Because arbitration is a secret tribunal, which is bad enough. Arbitration started as a good thing, where both parties chose it as a quicker way to resolve cases. The arbitrators were experts in complicated matters like construction. But it's come a long way from that.

The way forced arbitration works now is the big arbitration companies contract with corporations to be the arbitration forum they use for employment disputes. While the parties can pick from panel members and veto others, the panels tend to be skewed to pro-employer arbitrators. After all, if Arbitrator A rules against Company B, Arbitrator A is then forever vetoed as a panelist for Company B. And Company B spreads the word. Arbitrator A gets fewer and fewer cases. Goodbye income as an arbitrator.

So it's in arbitrators' interests, especially full-time arbitrators, to rule for employers. They don't care if employees, who will be in front of them once, are upset. They do care if a company that will be in front of them 200 times will be upset and veto them.

I'm not saying all arbitrators think like this. Many are still true neutrals. Heck, I'm an arbitrator. Because of my background representing employees, I'm rarely picked in employment cases because employers think I won't be neutral (untrue, by the way). Management-side lawyers and HR folks get picked a lot, and can make a nice income from them. 

Under many agreements, employees must pay half the arbitration expenses. Arbitrators are paid by the hour, and filing fees in high dollar cases can be huge. Employees can be forced to shell out thousands of dollars, if not tens of thousands of dollars, just to pay for the arbitrator and filing fee. Court costs a moderate filing fee of a few hundred dollars. Judges are paid by tax dollars, so the parties pay nothing.

I've seen too many situations where employment arbitration was basically an expensive kangaroo court. And there's almost no remedy. No appeal. No ability to challenge most rulings. And because it's secret, sexual harassment and sexual assault can be kept secret. Court is public. Anyone can attend a trial or hearing. Employers hate that.

Employers love the arbitration system. Love, love, love it. Employees should fight forced arbitration wherever they can. Now is a good time to call your representatives and tell them it's time to end forced arbitration.

What To Expect In #Employment Law In 2022

 If you are a regular reader, you've probably noticed that I haven't done any predictions in the past few years. Because how could anything have possibly been predicted? But employment law is becoming more predictable now, and I think it's time to take a deep breath and do my Cassandra bit. Here are my predictions for 2022:

1.    More pro-employee NLRB: We've already seen this with some very pro-employee, pro-union decisions coming down regarding Amazon, Starbucks, and other unionization attempts. As the year progresses, we'll see NLRB cracking down on employer retaliation and union busting efforts. We'll also be back to seeing more pro-employee decisions on non-union "concerted activity" retaliation.

2.    EEOC will re-energize: They were cut to the bone in budget and staffing under the last administration, so it's taking a bit for them to bounce back. They'll also focus on issues like sexual orientation that got pushed aside under the last administration. I hope they'll fully staff the mediation divisions, because those folks are really terrific at settling cases.

3.    Supremes go anti-employee: Unfortunately, while the agencies will be more pro-employee, the courts are going to take a sharp anti-employee turn. Look for really pro-management decisions on the federal level.

4.    Paralysis on noncompetes: Even though President Biden issued an executive order asking the federal agencies to focus on noncompetes, there's little the agencies can do without legislation. Congress won't do anything. Neither will the Florida legislature. Maybe some pro-employee states will limit or ban noncompetes. Some have done it already. Will more follow?

5.    Sexual harassment crackdown: With President Biden's order criminalizing sexual harassment in the military, the issue will get more attention. Where the military goes, usually goes the rest of the nation, so we should see some more crackdown on sexual harassers.

6.    COVID, COVID, COVID: The virus will continue to be an issue. OSHA will continue to try to get employers to maintain safe workplaces. The Supremes and the right wing will continue to fight. Florida will continue to be the Wild West. 

7.    More unions: As NLRB becomes more employee-friendly, we'll see more unionization attempts. Once Amazon is forced to allow a union (and it will happen this year), employees of other workplaces previously thought impossible will begin efforts to unionize. Some will succeed. The Great Resignation has made employees more conscious of working conditions. They'll continue to fight to be treated fairly. Union busters will make a fortune this year as employers try to fight back.

8.    Disability discrimination: Now that employees realize that it's easy to work remotely, and now that employers want employees back in the office, we'll see more disability discrimination cases. Employees who seek remote work as a reasonable accommodation will face resistance, but employers will lose the argument that granting the accommodation is a hardship. After all, they had a year or more of remote work very successfully. 

9.    Zoom: I don't know about you, but I love Zoom. Having to do a 2 - 3 hour round trip for a 5 minute hearing is a huge waste of resources. Judges like it because they have more control. For non-evidentiary hearings, Zoom will remain in many courtrooms. We'll also continue to see more Zoom depositions and mediations, which work very well on that platform. This will make attendance by employees much less onerous. They won't miss as much work, for one. In employment law, it will be a huge benefit. I find that employees are way more likely to settle in a Zoom mediation where they feel comfortable and more relaxed. Employers will also continue to utlize Zoom or similar platforms for meetings rather than having employees commute from remote locations. 

10.    Anti-employee laws: We'll see some extreme anti-employee laws in red states as the right wing pushes to be more and more extreme. Expect some laws attacking LGBT folks, abortion, marijuana, protests, and free speech. Some of these laws will give employers extra protection against lawsuits for terminating employees for their activities outside of work.

Well, that's about all I think I can predict for now. Let's see how I do. It's still crazy out there, but hopefully things will get a bit more normal as 2022 progresses.

What @MikeBloomberg Should Have Said About His Inappropriate Comments

When asked about the sexual harassment complaints against him, Mike Bloomberg said, "“None of them accuse me of doing anything other than, maybe, they didn't like a joke I told." Groan. Why wasn't he prepared for this?

It's a pickle for his handlers, because there's a whole book out of his inappropriate comments at work. If I were prepping him, I'd have told him to get out in front of it before it turned into the debacle that it has become.

I'd have told him to say something like this:

Yeah, I've said some inappropriate things at work. I thought they were funny at the time but I realize now that people found them offensive. That's the problem with being the billionaire owner of  a business: nobody calls you on your sh**. I take responsiblity for that, and I'm glad my colleagues up here are calling me on it now. I pledge that, as your President, I will surround myself with people who will tell me if I'm screwing up, unlike the current President, who surrounds himself with yes-men and sycophants.
I agree with Liz that we need stronger laws against sexual harassment. For instance, there is no federal law prohibiting sexual harassment of interns. That needs to change. There's no federal law requiring sexual harassment training. That needs to change. The laws are so complicated now that many sexual harassment victims have to have law degrees to jump through all the legal hoops required to get relief. That needs to change. I would propose comprehensive overhaul of our sexual harassment laws to provide more protection to vulnerable employees. As a start, I'd support the “BE HEARD in the Workplace” Act. As your President, I would listen to sexual harassment victims and their advocates and work hard to make sure the laws protect all employees.

But that's just me. I'm sorry he didn't have a better answer. Now he'll have to backpedal and deal with this better during the campaign.

Dear Mike Bloomberg: Here's How You Should Have Answered the NDA Question

Without a doubt, Elizabeth Warren eviscerated Mike Bloomberg this week regarding the sexual harassment settlements his company has that contain non-disclosure agreements (NDAs). I don't know why he wasn't prepared for this question, as the issue has been all over social media. But here's what he should have said:

As a matter of fact, I have with me my signed modification of an NDA. As you know, non-disclosure provisions are part of a larger settlement or severance package, and they provide confidentiality of the agreement. They also provide that they can only be modified in writing signed by both parties. Here is my signed modification. Anyone who has an NDA with my company regarding any sexual harassment claim is free to sign this and then we're both authorized to speak freely about the matter. I agree with you Senator Warren. I think anyone who wants to be released from an NDA with my company regarding any sexual harassment claim should be able to speak freely if they want. 

You should also be aware that my state, New York, has enacted legislation to make sure that sexual harassment victims aren't forced to sign NDAs. In New York, starting in 2018, NDAs are not allowed if there are sexual harassment allegations unless the complainant is the one who requests it. I think that's a good law and I would support a similar law nationwide.

Here's why that would have been a great response: most complainants also don't want settlement agreements to be made public for a number of reasons, including:

• Future employment: Most settlement agreements provide what the former employer can say about them to potential employers, usually limited to dates of employment and job title. What you don't want is for the employer to say something cute like, "I need to look at the agreement to see what I'm allowed to say," which is why I always negotiate for mutual confidentiality. If a potential employer finds out the applicant raised sexual harassment issues against a former employer, they may think the employee is going to be a troublemaker and not hire them.
• Privacy: Look at what happened to Monica Lewinsky and Christine Blasi Ford. Would anyone really want their name dragged through the mud in a presidential race? Ms. Lewinsky's career path was damaged for a long time, and she faced threats and mudslinging. Ms. Ford had to move due to threats, whereas her harasser became a Supreme Court Justice. 
• Envy: If coworkers think a victim got some "easy money," they may be subjected to retaliation and harassment at work. 
• Retaliation: People who know the harasser may well retaliate against the victim.
• Ability to negotiate: Many employers are willing to negotiate because they don't want the allegations to become public. That's the ugly side of NDAs, but it also gives employees leverage to negotiate a quicker settlement than had they filed a public lawsuit. Taking this ability away from them means that sexual harassment victims alone would be unable to use this leverage that every other potential litigant has before filing suit.
• Keeping the ugliness away: Part of confidentiality is that the former employer won't be able to talk about what a terrible employee the victim was, which is what happens when a lawsuit is filed. the defense is almost always that the employee was fired due to poor performance, and not due to complaining about sexual harassment, along with a denial that any sexual harassment occurred. If the employer is free to slam the victim publicly, their reputation can be destroyed. I'm guessing a billionaire can do quite a bit of damage to a former employee if he were so inclined. Releasing confidentiality means the parties can speak about anything, including any allegations, the person's job performance, and any other relevant issue

In short, there can be all kinds of  reasons why a sexual harassment victim might want an NDA. Mike Bloomberg should have been ready for the question, and prepared to free anyone who wants to be freed. But they get freedom at their own peril. I wouldn't recommend it.

Court Says Boss Asking Questions About Oral Sex, Other Sexual Comments Not Sexual Harassment, Employee Can Be Fired For Reporting #MeToo

We had a brief respite from ridiculous rulings on sexual harassment during the past several years, but with Trump appointees now constituting 25% of the federal bench it was certain to change. The 11th Circuit had been pretty good on sexual harassment for awhile, but this new case tells me things are changing back to the bad old "four gropes rule" days.

In Allen v. Ambu-Stat, LLC, the 11th Circuit found that the boss/owner doing all of this over the course of 3 months wasn't either severe or pervasive enough to be sexual harassment:

•  "[A] song came on the radio containing the lyrics “eating booty like groceries.” Santos asked Allen, “[D]oes your boyfriend eat that thang?” Allen replied that her boyfriend did not and did not know how to do so. Santos answered, “I could teach him.”"
• "Allen recommended chocolate milk to help Santos with muscle soreness. A few hours later, Santos texted Allen that he loved chocolate milk, along with images of “tongue” emojis."
• "Santos pointed out Allen’s groin area, which was wet with sweat, and commented, “Damn, that thing get wet like that!”"
• Getting his son to slap her on the buttocks.
• Multiple comments about her appearance and butt.

The Court said: "Plainly, Santos engaged in unsavory and unpleasant conduct. However, as we have emphasized, this type of boorish behavior, with this kind of frequency, is insufficient to constitute pervasiveness for a sexual harassment action under Title VII."

The wife/co-owner wrote the victim up for an "inappropriate conversation," namely the one about oral sex. When the employee/victim reported the boss/owner's comments, she was fired. The Court says that wasn't illegal retaliation, because what she reported wasn't sexual harassment, and she couldn't have had a good faith belief that it was.

So we're back to the bad old days of allowing employers to fire employees for reporting sexual comments. The Supremes say you have to report sexual harassment if you want to sue over it and give the employer a chance to fix it. But if you report it and you don't have a law degree and get it wrong, and it just isn't rapey enough to be sexual harassment in the Court's mind, then the employer can fire you for reporting it.

The opinion cites some cases that are also very bad for sexual harassment victims, so it's worth reading to see just how bad the law is on sexual harassment and how far we have to go.

And this is easy to fix. Compare this ridiculousness to New York's sexual harassment law. First of all, it applies to all employers, not just those with 15 or more employees. And instead of the "severe or pervasive" standard that has been used to doubly punish victims, as of October 11, 2019, this has been changed so that harassment is unlawful if it anything than "petty slights or trivial inconveniences." And isn't that how it should be?

How To Survive The Office Holiday Party Without Getting Fired

It's time for me to remind you that your office holiday party is a minefield. Lots of people get fired for having too much fun or other party-related misbehavior. So I'm reposting the top 8 ways to get yourself fired, and how to avoid them:

1. Drinking: The number one way to get fired is to drink too much. Most of the office party firings I see are alcohol-related in some way. First of all, if you are an alcoholic and can't be sure you won't drink if you attend, then don't go. If your boss insists, ask for a reasonable accommodation under the Americans With Disabilities Act to be excused from attendance. If you can and do drink, limit yourself to two drinks tops, then switch to soda. I'm serious here. 

2. Dancing: Some folks get fired or disciplined for "inappropriate" dancing. What's inappropriate? It's in the eye of the beholder, and the boss, customers, vendors and your coworkers are the beholders. When in doubt, sit it out. Any moves that imitate sexual conduct (grinding, gyrating, rubbing) are dangerous if colleagues are present. If you're dancing with a colleague, then be very careful. You don't need a sexual harassment complaint in the new year. If the colleague gets too wild, walk away. If it crosses the line into sexual harassment, report it.

3. Driving: A DUI can get you fired. Plus, you'll have a conviction and will never pass another background check, so you'll have trouble getting a new job. If you don't believe me, check out my article 9 Ways A DUI Can Destroy Your Career. If a colleague or friend tells you to hand over your keys because you've had too much, do it and don't question them. There's always Uber or a taxi. It's way cheaper than defending against a DUI/DWI charge and losing your job.

4. Mistletoe: Kiss your spouse or date under the mistletoe, but not a coworker, customer, vendor or, god forbid, your boss. Seriously. And any company that still has mistletoe up at holiday parties is too stupid to work for. Think about polishing your resume if you see some hanging.

5. Romance: After a few drinks, colleagues start to look pretty attractive. Office romances are dangerous. If you have a one-night-stand or party makeout session with a coworker, vendor, customer (or worse, the boss), expect repercussions at work. Sure, many couples meet at work. My parents did. But tread carefully. No means no. If you break up, stay away and don't retaliate. Persistence does not pay in an office relationship. You can get fired for sexual harassment if you pester a coworker for a date. Don't accept the invitation to the colleague's room. If there's a real romance, take it slow and be sure before you take it between the sheets. If you do pursue an office romance, check the company's policies. You might have to fill out a disclosure form, and you'll likely be separated so you no longer work together.

6. Pressure: Don't pressure anyone to attend an office party. They may have religious objections to attending. Maybe their disability prevents them from coming, or they have a spouse with a disability. You don't want to get charged with religious or disability harassment. And don't start the Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays debate. December is for Hanukkah, Christmas, Kwanzaa, Festivus, Winter Solstice, Hogmanay, and National Ding-A-Ling Day, to name a few. All holidays matter, especially in a workplace subject to religious discrimination laws. Don't end up accused of religious harassment for the holidays.

7. Games: Some offices have party games. You may be tempted to be lewd or bawdy. Sure, many folks will laugh and call you the life of the party. But you may ruin the party for someone you offend, like the boss. Avoid making sexual innuendos, telling off-color jokes, or making other comments that may be deemed inappropriate or offensive.

8. Singing: If the office loves karaoke, have fun. Go ahead and let your inner rock star shine. Just avoid songs with curse words, inappropriate lyrics, or offensive undertones. If you're singing with a colleague, avoid anything overtly sexual. Also avoid any sexual gestures while singing.

Sure, I'm a bit of a party pooper. But if you follow my advice you'll have happier holidays because you'll survive them employed.

“BE HEARD in the Workplace” Act Attempts To Fix Sexual Harassment/Discrimination Laws

Don't get too excited. It will probably pass in the House, fail in the Senate, and be vetoed even if it does pass. But still, the “BE HEARD in the Workplace” Act (short for “Bringing an End to Harassment by Enhancing Accountability and Rejecting Discrimination in the Workplace Act”) just introduced would be a major step in the right direction on sexual harassment law.

The bill would fix some major issues with existing sexual harassment laws that I've been complaining about for years:

Intern sexual harassment would be illegal: Right now, there is not a single federal law making sexual harassment of unpaid interns illegal. They aren't employees, so Title VII doesn't protect them. New York City, along with Washington, D.C., Delaware, and Oregon, have laws against sexually harassing unpaid interns. Otherwise, interns are currently sitting ducks in the workplace. The law also extends protections to  independent contractors, interns, fellows, volunteers, and trainees, regardless of remuneration or academic credit, and employees of smaller companies (right now it's 15 or more employees, so small employers get a free pass unless there's a state or local law saying otherwise).

Protection for LGBTQ employees: This law would add gender identity and sexual orientation to Title VII protections, clearing up any doubts about whether Title VII currently protects these employees (which I think it already does based on Obergefell).

Damages fixed: While age discrimination cases are currently subject to different damages and all damages are capped, this would eliminate damage caps and eliminate the ageist bias in the current law.

Fixes sexual harassment standard: The law would eliminate the ridiculously difficult-to-prove "severe or pervasive" standard (which management-side lawyers and some courts say is severe AND pervasive), clarify that sexual harassment is a form of workplace harassment, define workplace harassment as a practice that unreasonably alters an individual’s terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, including by creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment, and identify factors to be used to determine whether a practice constitutes workplace harassment, but also clarify that no single factor alone can determine whether a practice constitutes workplace harassment.

Fixes standard of proof: The law clarifies that employees must only prove that discrimination or retaliation was a motiving factor under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Genetic Nondiscrimination Act (right now courts have said that age must be the sole factor in age discrimination cases, and for all it must be both a substantial and a motivating factor).

Statute of limitations: Changes the statute from 180/300 days (depending on the state, which is silly) to file with EEOC to 4 years.

No mandatory arbitration: The law prohibits pre-dispute mandatory arbitration agreements, and creates guardrails for post-dispute arbitration agreements.

Contractor discrimination prohibited: The law reinstates the Obama ExecutiveOrder reversed by Trump that ensures federal contractor compliance with workers’ rights laws, including maintaining workplaces free from harassment and discrimination. 

These are just a few of the key provisions. It's basically my wish list for fixing employment law, so thanks to the bill's sponsors Senator Patty Murray, Congresswoman Katherine Clark, and Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley.

Now, if only it had a chance in he** . . .

Companies Fold As Employees Push Back On Forced Arbitration

First Google had a bunch of employees walk out to protest sexual harassment arbitration, and it rescinded its arbitration policy. Now other companies are following as employees push back. Facebook, Microsoft, Uber, Square, Airbnb and eBay have all rescinded or said they will rescind their forced arbitration agreements for sexual harassment claims.

It isn't just tech firms that are getting pressure from employees. When Harvard law students threatened to boycott law firm Kirkland and Ellis because of mandatory arbitration agreements, the firm quickly did a 180.

Now students at other law schools are joining the fight, and have vowed not to work for law firms that require arbitration of employment law claims. The student statement includes these strong statements against employee arbitration agreements:

Mandatory arbitration agreements prevent employees from seeking justice in court and limit the enforcement of substantive employment rights. Mandatory arbitration forces employees to submit any dispute with their employer to binding, private, and often confidential arbitration—a process which advantages sophisticated, repeat players at the expense of individual claimants.
. . .

Finally, we recognize that mandatory arbitration is a policy that negatively impacts all workers, legal and non-legal, and not merely associates and summer associates. We are committed to including questions about employment practices for all employees in future surveys.

I think it's about time employees push back. Still, I have to wonder how many of these law students will end up going into management-side law practice and forcing employees of their clients to arbitrate, despite their clear knowledge that such agreements are about oppressing workers. 

Now that employees have demonstrated that resistance to arbitration agreements is not futile, I hope unions and other employee groups will take up this fight. And I hope (but seriously doubt) that this new generation of lawyers might actually push their clients to drop forced arbitration of employees.

Harvey Weinstein's Contract Is An Admission Of His Propensity To Sexually Harass

In the land of what-the-heck-were they thinking, I give you page 10 of Harvey Weinstein's contract, Paragraph i, which is basically an admission that the company's board and management were aware of his propensity to sexually harass. I can't believe they put this in, and I'll be shocked if a judge and/or jury doesn't slap them hard with punitive damages and some personal liability.

necessary to fulfill the Board's fiduciary duties. Failure to provide the Board within a reasonableperiod with such information regarding the business, operations, financial results, prospects andaffairs

of

the Company, including, without limitation, information relating to acquisitions,divestitures and any other potential or actual corporate transaction, that is (a) reasonablyrequested in writing to you by the Board and (b) accessible to you, will be considered a materialbreach

of

this Agreement.

h

Settlements. You acknowledge and agree that (i) the settlement

of

anypending or threatened litigation by the Company that would result in a liability to the Company

of

$1,000,000 or more may only be entered into with the prior written approval

of

a majority

of

the Board, and (ii) you will inform the Board promptly once you become aware that theCompany or any

of

its executives or employees are in discussions to enter into any suchsettlement. You further acknowledge and agree that you will report to the Board (at leastquarterly) the settlement

of

any pending or threatened litigation by the Company that wouldresult in a liability to the Company

ofless

than $1,000,000.

1

Code

of

Conduct. You shall abide by the Company's Code

of

Conduct

as

in effect on the date hereof (andany amended Code

of

Conduct, provided that you approve theamendment), which shall apply to all

of

the Company's employees and directors.

1

In the event that you violate the Company's Code

of

Conduct,other than a violation relating to business expenses, you shall, in addition to any consequencesset forth herein, be subject to the following.(a)

f

the Company is obligated to make a payment to satisfy aclaim that you have treated someone improperly in violation

of

the Company's Code

of

Conduct(an Obligated Payment ), you will be required to reimburse the Company for the entire amount

of

the Obligated Payment and the costs and expenses incurred by the Company in connectionwith such claim. For purposes

of

this provision, an Obligated Payment is either where thepayment is required by a fully litigated award or where the payment is made in settlement

of

theclaim and either the Company and you agree that it was a reasonable settlement, or, in theabsence

of

such agreement, the payment is determined to be a reasonable settlement in expeditedJAMS arbitration.

10

 

CONFIDENTIAL

 WEINCO_BK-001676

(b) You and the Company recognize that, in addition to beingindemnified for the amount

of

payments the Company is obligated to make

as

a result

of

yourmisconduct, such misconduct can cause significant damage to the Company which is difficult orimpossible to measure. Accordingly,

if

your misconduct results in the Company making anObligated Payment to a person damaged by such misconduct, in addition to the indemnificationset forth in subparagraph i.(a) above, you will pay the Company liquidated damages

of

250,000for the first such instance, 500,000, for the second such instance, 750,000 for the third suchinstance, and 1,000,000 for each such additional instance.

11.

As promptly as possible at the end

of

each calendar year, allexpenses paid by, on behalf of, and/or at your request shall be audited by the Company.

f

theaudit shows that you have personally paid more business expenses than the Company has paidyour personal expenses, the Company shall promptlyreimburseyou for the difference. To theextent the audit shows that the Company has paid more personal expenses than you have paidbusiness expenses, you shall promptly reimburse the Company the difference. You and theCompany recognize that

if

Company funds are used to pay for your personal expenses, theCompany can be damaged in an amount that is difficult or impossible to determine beyondreceiving the reimbursement provided for above. Accordingly,

if

the audit provided for aboveshows that the Net Personal Expenses then owed by you to the Company for personal expenses

i

.e., the excess

of

personal expenses paid by the Company over business expenses paid by you)is greater than the amount the Company owes you for any reason, including for amounts loaned,advanced, or deposited, then in addition to reimbursing the company for the Net PersonalExpenses paid by the company, you will pay

as

liquidated damages the amount by which suchNet Personal Expenses exceeds the amount the company then owes to you.

12.

Incapacity

a.

In the event you suffer total mental or physical disability and cannotsubstantially perform your duties at any time during the Employment Term, the Board

of

Representatives may at any time after such disability has continued for ninety (90) consecutivedaysrequirethe Company

to

give you written notice that it intends, subject to applicable stateand federal law, to suspend this Agreement. Upon receipt

of

such notice, prior to any suspension