<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Warren &#38; Hays LLC</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.warrenhays.com/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.warrenhays.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Sep 2010 14:52:02 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Avoiding workers&#8217; comp claims</title>
		<link>http://www.warrenhays.com/2010/09/avoiding-workers-comp-claims/</link>
		<comments>http://www.warrenhays.com/2010/09/avoiding-workers-comp-claims/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Sep 2010 14:52:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Sindy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Our Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[worker's comp]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.warrenhays.com/?p=1428</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Reaching out to injured employees on a regular basis can mean the difference between getting employees back to work quickly and seamlessly versus dealing with expensive and prolonged workers&#8217; comp litigation.  For many employes, their job is intrinsically linked to their identity.  An injured employee who is off work recovering may feel isolated or depressed. [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Reaching out to injured employees on a regular basis can mean the difference between getting employees back to work quickly and seamlessly versus dealing with expensive and prolonged workers&#8217; comp litigation.  For many employes, their job is intrinsically linked to their identity.  An injured employee who is off work recovering may feel isolated or depressed.  Accordingly, employers should be careful in dealing with such employees, as negative emotions are a fairly predictable precursor to legal action.  Treating employees as if they are easily replaceable can have unintended negative consequences.  Instead, taking the time to call injured workers once a week sends the right message, namely that the employer cares and wants to see the employee back at work.  A simple &#8220;how are you doing?  We can&#8217;t wait to have you back&#8221; may be all that is needed.  It&#8217;s the little things that can make the biggest difference.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.warrenhays.com/2010/09/avoiding-workers-comp-claims/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Tread carefully when it comes to pregnant employees and concerns about their health</title>
		<link>http://www.warrenhays.com/2010/09/tread-carefully-when-it-comes-to-pregnant-employees-and-concerns-about-their-health/</link>
		<comments>http://www.warrenhays.com/2010/09/tread-carefully-when-it-comes-to-pregnant-employees-and-concerns-about-their-health/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Sep 2010 17:35:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Sindy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Our Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[disability discrimination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pregnancy discrimination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[regarded as]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.warrenhays.com/?p=1420</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Earlier this month, the Sixth Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment against a former employee who was transferred during her pregnancy due to concerns the employer had about her health.  In Spees v. James Marine Inc., Heather Spees was a welder who discovered she was pregnant shortly after starting her job.  At her supervisor&#8217;s [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Earlier this month, the Sixth Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment against a former employee who was transferred during her pregnancy due to concerns the employer had about her health.  In <em><a href="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/10a0236p-06.pdf">Spees v. James Marine Inc.</a></em>, Heather Spees was a welder who discovered she was pregnant shortly after starting her job.  At her supervisor&#8217;s request, she saw her physician to ascertain her ability to continue working.  He released her to work with no restrictions.  Nonetheless, her supervisor continued to have concerns about potential health risks to Spees, in part due to the physically demanding nature of the work, and in part due to the fact that two years prior Spees had suffered a miscarriage.  He opined that due to &#8220;common sense,&#8221; Spees should be transferred to a light-duty position.  She was therefore reassigned to work in the tool room, despite her desire to continue to weld.  Spees was then transferred to the night shift, where she worked until she was confined to bed rest due to complications related to the pregnancy.  She quickly exhausted her leave and was thereafter terminated.</p>
<p>Spees sued for pregnancy and disability discrimination, due to her transfer and subsequent termination.  The lower court granted the employer summary judgment on all counts.  While the Sixth Circuit upheld the grant of summary judgment with respect to the termination (based on leave exhaustion), it held Spees had viable claims relating to her transfer.  First, the supervisor&#8217;s statement that &#8220;common sense&#8221; trumped  Spees&#8217;s medical clearance to return to work was impermissible.  Further, it appeared the employer may have &#8220;regarded Spees as&#8221; disabled, due to her prior pregnancy complications.     </p>
<p>Make sure supervisors understand the rules when it comes to working with pregnant employees.  Even the benevolent employer who is trying to keep its employees safe can run afoul of the law.</p>
<p><a rel="attachment wp-att-1424" href="http://www.warrenhays.com/2010/09/tread-carefully-when-it-comes-to-pregnant-employees-and-concerns-about-their-health/pregnant-women-holding-a-cigarette/"><img class="aligncenter size-thumbnail wp-image-1424" title="Pregnant women holding a cigarette" src="http://blog.warrenhays.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/pregnant-150x150.jpg" alt="" width="150" height="150" /></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.warrenhays.com/2010/09/tread-carefully-when-it-comes-to-pregnant-employees-and-concerns-about-their-health/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A looming issue under the FLSA: overtime and technology</title>
		<link>http://www.warrenhays.com/2010/08/a-looming-issue-under-the-flsa-overtime-and-technology/</link>
		<comments>http://www.warrenhays.com/2010/08/a-looming-issue-under-the-flsa-overtime-and-technology/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Aug 2010 15:44:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Sindy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Our Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FLSA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[overtime]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[PDAs]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.warrenhays.com/?p=1414</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[We all know that non-exempt employees are entitled to overtime pay for hours worked in excess of forty per week.  What about time spent, outside of traditional working hours, responding to work-related issues via email, voicemail, blackberries, iphones, and other PDAs?  This is the issue the Northern District of Illinois will decide in a case [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We all know that non-exempt employees are entitled to overtime pay for hours worked in excess of forty per week.  What about time spent, outside of traditional working hours, responding to work-related issues via email, voicemail, blackberries, iphones, and other PDAs?  This is the issue the Northern District of Illinois will decide in a case filed earlier this year.  In <em><a href="http://www.wage-hour.net/file.axd?file=2010%2f8%2fChicago+PDA+Lawsuit.pdf">Allen v. City of Chicago</a></em>, a police officer alleges he is owed overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act for exactly this.  </p>
<p>The court will almost certainly hold that such time constitutes &#8220;hours worked&#8221; and thus needs to be compensated.  A more interesting question, though, is what the proactive employer should do now.  Under the statute, if an employee claims he worked X hours worth of overtime, it is incumbent upon the employer to disprove the claim or be stuck with the employee&#8217;s estimate.  Accordingly, employers should consider ways to accurately track time their employees spend on PDAs and the like.  One simple solution would be to create a form for employees to track their time and have supervisors review and approve it.  In any event, the issue is one employers should be giving some thought to.</p>
<p><a rel="attachment wp-att-1417" href="http://www.warrenhays.com/2010/08/a-looming-issue-under-the-flsa-overtime-and-technology/iphone/"><img class="aligncenter size-thumbnail wp-image-1417" title="iphone" src="http://blog.warrenhays.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/iphone-150x150.gif" alt="" width="150" height="150" /></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.warrenhays.com/2010/08/a-looming-issue-under-the-flsa-overtime-and-technology/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Insufficient notice of need for FMLA leave proves fatal for insubordinate employee</title>
		<link>http://www.warrenhays.com/2010/08/insufficient-notice-of-need-for-fmla-leave-proves-fatal-for-insubordinate-employee/</link>
		<comments>http://www.warrenhays.com/2010/08/insufficient-notice-of-need-for-fmla-leave-proves-fatal-for-insubordinate-employee/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Aug 2010 13:11:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Sindy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Our Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FMLA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[insubordination]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.warrenhays.com/?p=1404</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Last month, the Sixth Circuit denied the FMLA claim of a fired employee who suffered from a heart condition.  In Gipson v. Vought Aircraft Industries, plant maintenance worker Howard Gipson refused his supervisor&#8217;s order that he remove his personal effects from the union office.  His supervisor asked him three times to move his belongings, but [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Last month, the Sixth Circuit denied the FMLA claim of a fired employee who suffered from a heart condition.  In <em><a href="http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/10a0420n-06.pdf">Gipson v. Vought Aircraft Industries</a></em>, plant maintenance worker Howard Gipson refused his supervisor&#8217;s order that he remove his personal effects from the union office.  His supervisor asked him three times to move his belongings, but Gipson stated he would not do so unless given a written request.  Frustrated, his supervisor raised his voice, stated he was giving a direct order, and threatened to fire Gipson if he did not comply.  Still, Gipson just walked away.  He claimed that his supervisor&#8217;s behavior made him feel unwell, triggering an underlying heart condition.  He then went to the company nurse, complaining of a headache.  He never mentioned his belief that his heart condition was flaring up.  Shortly thereafter, Gipson was terminated for insubordination.  Upon leaving work, Gipson drove himself to his doctor, where he made an appointment for three weeks hence.  </p>
<p>Gipson subsequently sued for interference with his FMLA rights.  At issue was whether Gipson provided his employer with sufficient notice of his need for FMLA leave.  The lower court held, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed, that he did not.  Gipson underwent triple bypass surgery two years prior to his termination.  He was afforded FMLA leave at that time.  However, at the time of his firing, he never mentioned that his heart was acting up, or that he needed leave related to his condition.  Complaining of a headache was insufficient, as a matter of law.</p>
<p>So what constitutes adequate notice under the FMLA?  Employees do not specifically have to mention the FMLA when requesting leave, to trigger their rights under the statute.  But they must provide enough information to put a reasonable supervisor on notice that they are suffering from a serious health condition.  Simply complaining of not feeling well or having a headache will not be enough.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.warrenhays.com/2010/08/insufficient-notice-of-need-for-fmla-leave-proves-fatal-for-insubordinate-employee/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>An unusual case where no religious accommodation was required</title>
		<link>http://www.warrenhays.com/2010/08/an-unusual-case-where-no-religious-accommodation-was-required/</link>
		<comments>http://www.warrenhays.com/2010/08/an-unusual-case-where-no-religious-accommodation-was-required/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Aug 2010 12:00:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Sindy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Our Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[discrimination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[duty to accommodate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EEOC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[religious accommodation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.warrenhays.com/?p=1395</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Earlier this month, the Third Circuit upheld a prison&#8217;s refusal to accommodate three female employees who wanted to wear khimars, Islamic religious head scarfs.  In EEOC v. GEO Group Inc., the defendant employer was a private company that contracted to operate a prison facility in Pennsylvania.  In 2005, the prison adopted a strict dress code [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Earlier this month, the Third Circuit upheld a prison&#8217;s refusal to accommodate three female employees who wanted to wear khimars, Islamic religious head scarfs.  In <em><a href="http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/093093p.pdf">EEOC v. GEO Group Inc.</a></em>, the defendant employer was a private company that contracted to operate a prison facility in Pennsylvania.  In 2005, the prison adopted a strict dress code that prohibited any types of hats, scarfs, or other head coverings, unless part of the issued uniform.  The policy was strictly enforced, and the prison warden refused to permit three Muslim employees wear their khimars, despite their protests that they needed to do so for religious reasons.  Acting on behalf of the employees, the EEOC sued under Title VII&#8217;s prohibition against religious discrimination.   The court was persuaded by the defendant&#8217;s claimed safety concerns, namely that the khimars could be used to strangle a prison guard or to smuggle contraband into the prison.   </p>
<p>The duty to accommodate religious beliefs is a serious one, and often carries the day in religious discrimination lawsuits.  This case highlights the major exception employers can rely on: safety.</p>
<p><a rel="attachment wp-att-1400" href="http://www.warrenhays.com/2010/08/an-unusual-case-where-no-religious-accommodation-was-required/khimar/"><img class="aligncenter size-thumbnail wp-image-1400" title="khimar" src="http://blog.warrenhays.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/khimar-150x150.jpg" alt="" width="150" height="150" /></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.warrenhays.com/2010/08/an-unusual-case-where-no-religious-accommodation-was-required/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Whatever happened to the plaintiff in the &#8220;boy&#8221; case?</title>
		<link>http://www.warrenhays.com/2010/08/whatever-happened-to-the-plaintiff-in-the-boy-case/</link>
		<comments>http://www.warrenhays.com/2010/08/whatever-happened-to-the-plaintiff-in-the-boy-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Aug 2010 13:57:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Sindy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Our Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA["boy"]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[race discrimination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stray remarks]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.warrenhays.com/?p=1387</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In the 2006 Supreme Court case Ash v. Tyson, the Court held the term &#8220;boy,&#8221; which was directed at an African-American employee, could be probative of race discrimination, depending on tone, inflection and context.  The Court sent the case back to the Eleventh Circuit, which had upheld the trial court&#8217;s decision to vacate a jury [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In the 2006 Supreme Court case <em><a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6114313006012544451&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=2&amp;as_vis=1&amp;oi=scholarr">Ash v. Tyson</a></em>, the Court held the term &#8220;boy,&#8221; which was directed at an African-American employee, could be probative of race discrimination, depending on tone, inflection and context.  The Court sent the case back to the Eleventh Circuit, which had upheld the trial court&#8217;s decision to vacate a jury verdict of over $1 million.  Just last week, after approximately fourteen years of litigation, the Eleventh Circuit once again ruled against the plaintiff, holding that the term &#8220;boy&#8221; in this case was insufficient to support the jury&#8217;s finding of race discrimination.  </p>
<p>The case arose out of a failure to promote two African-American employees at a Tyson chicken plant in Alabama.  Two whites were promoted instead, and there was evidence that the decision-maker referred to the plaintiffs by stating &#8220;boy&#8221; during the promotional process.  Regardless of the plaintiffs&#8217; loss, it is still the case that racially charged terms such as &#8220;boy&#8221; &#8212; particularly given certain historical and geographical contexts &#8212; can evince discrimination.  </p>
<p><a rel="attachment wp-att-1390" href="http://www.warrenhays.com/2010/08/whatever-happened-to-the-plaintiff-in-the-boy-case/tyson/"><img class="aligncenter size-thumbnail wp-image-1390" title="tyson" src="http://blog.warrenhays.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/tyson-150x150.jpg" alt="" width="150" height="150" /></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.warrenhays.com/2010/08/whatever-happened-to-the-plaintiff-in-the-boy-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Religious prejudice and your workplace</title>
		<link>http://www.warrenhays.com/2010/08/religious-prejudice-and-your-workplace/</link>
		<comments>http://www.warrenhays.com/2010/08/religious-prejudice-and-your-workplace/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Aug 2010 12:47:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Sindy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Our Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[discrimination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prejudice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[religion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[training]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.warrenhays.com/?p=1378</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I saw a headline yesterday that really upset me.  It referred to a recent poll showing that one in five Americans think President Obama is Muslim.  In response, a White House spokesman insisted the President is a Christian who prays daily.  The brouhaha seems to have stemmed from the ongoing public debate about whether Muslims [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I saw a headline yesterday that really upset me.  It referred to a recent poll showing that one in five Americans think President Obama is Muslim.  In response, a White House spokesman insisted the President is a Christian who prays daily.  The brouhaha seems to have stemmed from the ongoing public debate about whether Muslims should be permitted to build a mosque/community center in the vicinity of the World Trade Center site.   </p>
<p>Why did the article upset me?  And, more importantly, what does this have to do with you?  It is beyond dispute that President Obama is Christian, always has been, and always will be.  The fact that so many still do not know this, or are so easily misled by false information, is alarming. Even more striking to me, though, is that people care about his religion.  &#8221;Muslim&#8221; has become almost a dirty word, and this should concern every employer, regardless of your political or religious leanings.  When prejudice becomes socially acceptable, it is all the more likely to spill into the workplace.  However, it is just as illegal as any other type of prejudice, such as stereotypes based on race or gender.</p>
<p>There was a sharp increase in religious/national origin discrimination claims after 9/11.  The EEOC went after them just as hard as any other type of claim.  Make sure to include this type of potential discrimination in your supervisory training, and stay on the lookout for brewing problems.</p>
<p><a rel="attachment wp-att-1382" href="http://www.warrenhays.com/2010/08/religious-prejudice-and-your-workplace/barack_obama/"><img class="aligncenter size-thumbnail wp-image-1382" title="Barack_Obama" src="http://blog.warrenhays.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Barack_Obama-150x150.jpg" alt="" width="150" height="150" /></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.warrenhays.com/2010/08/religious-prejudice-and-your-workplace/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8220;Similarly situated&#8221; can be a high bar</title>
		<link>http://www.warrenhays.com/2010/08/similarly-situated-can-be-a-high-bar/</link>
		<comments>http://www.warrenhays.com/2010/08/similarly-situated-can-be-a-high-bar/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Aug 2010 12:00:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Sindy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Our Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[comparator]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[documentation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prima facie]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sex discrimination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[similarly situated]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.warrenhays.com/?p=1372</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Sixth Circuit recently upheld the dismissal of an employee&#8217;s sex discrimination complaint on the grounds that her alleged comparator was not &#8220;similarly situated.&#8221;  In Corell v. CSX Tansp. Inc., the plaintiff was terminated for violating safety standards that resulted in the derailment of a train and cost her employer approximately $100,000.  In her ensuing [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Sixth Circuit recently upheld the dismissal of an employee&#8217;s sex discrimination complaint on the grounds that her alleged comparator was not &#8220;similarly situated.&#8221;  In <em><a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3206382806600639687&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=2&amp;as_vis=1&amp;oi=scholarr">Corell v. CSX Tansp. Inc.</a></em>, the plaintiff was terminated for violating safety standards that resulted in the derailment of a train and cost her employer approximately $100,000.  In her ensuing sex discrimination lawsuit, she relied on the fact that a male employee who had also derailed a train and cost the employer more than $700,000 was merely suspended.  In assessing the comparison, the Sixth Circuit held that to be similarly situated, employees must have had the same supervisor, been subject to the same standards and engaged in &#8220;the same conduct without such differentiating or mitigating circumstances that would distinguish their conduct or the employer&#8217;s treatment of it.&#8221;  </p>
<p>A number of factors distinguished the male employee from the plaintiff.  First, whereas the plaintiff had been written up for numerous safety violations, the male had only the one.  Second, they had different supervisors and decision-makers.  Finally, the male employee&#8217;s violation resulted, at least in part, from faulty information he had received from another employee.  Accordingly, the court held Corell failed to establish even a <em>prima facie</em> case of sex discrimination.</p>
<p>It is noteworthy that the employer in this case had solid documentation of its termination decision, as well as its decision to treat the male employee more favorably.  Make sure supervisors know how to document, and to do so thoroughly.  Their seemingly mundane jottings could someday be &#8220;Exhibit A.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.warrenhays.com/2010/08/similarly-situated-can-be-a-high-bar/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Helping a subordinate initiate a complaint of harassment is &#8220;protected activity&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.warrenhays.com/2010/08/helping-a-subordinate-initiate-a-complaint-of-harassment-is-protected-activity/</link>
		<comments>http://www.warrenhays.com/2010/08/helping-a-subordinate-initiate-a-complaint-of-harassment-is-protected-activity/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Aug 2010 12:00:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Sindy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Our Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[harassment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[retaliation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[supervisor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[training]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.warrenhays.com/?p=1368</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Earlier in the year we blogged about the United States Supreme Court case of Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, where the Court held that an employee who participates in an internal investigation of a harassment complaint is protected against retaliation.  Recently, the First Circuit decided a case under Crawford, finding that [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Earlier in the year we <a href="http://www.warrenhays.com/2010/02/whatever-happened-to-the-plaintiff-in-last-years-supreme-court-ruling-on-retaliation/">blogged</a> about the United States Supreme Court case of <em><a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/08pdf/06-1595.pdf">Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee</a><span style="font-style: normal;">, where the Court held that an employee who participates in an internal investigation of a harassment complaint is protected against retaliation.  Recently, the First Circuit decided a case under </span>Crawford<span style="font-style: normal;">, finding that a supervisor who tried to help his subordinate initiate an internal harassment complaint was also protected against retaliation.  In </span><a href="http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/09-1665P-01A.pdf">Collazo v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Mfg. Co</a>.<span style="font-style: normal;">, an employee complained to her supervisor that a co-worker had sexually harassed her.  The supervisor spoke to the alleged harasser, initiated a meeting with HR and the complainant, and followed up with HR on two occasions concerning its lack of responsiveness.  Shortly thereafter, the supervisor was terminated.</span></em></p>
<p><em><span style="font-style: normal;">Reversing summary judgment on the supervisor&#8217;s retaliation claim under Title VII, the court held that a reasonable jury could conclude the supervisor&#8217;s conduct constituted &#8220;opposition&#8221; to harassment.  The case will now proceed to a jury, unless the employer tried to settle the case.</span></em></p>
<p><em><span style="font-style: normal;">The lesson here is clear: employers must tread lightly when it comes to potential retaliation claims.  Know the law and its breadth, and make sure your supervisors do too!</span></em></p>
<p><em><br />
</em></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.warrenhays.com/2010/08/helping-a-subordinate-initiate-a-complaint-of-harassment-is-protected-activity/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Hewlett-Packard CEO steps down amid harassment claims</title>
		<link>http://www.warrenhays.com/2010/08/hewlett-packard-ceo-steps-down-amid-harassment-claims/</link>
		<comments>http://www.warrenhays.com/2010/08/hewlett-packard-ceo-steps-down-amid-harassment-claims/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Aug 2010 12:57:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Sindy</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Our Blog]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hewlett-Packard]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[investigations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sexual harassment]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.warrenhays.com/?p=1360</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Last week, computer giant Hewlett-Packard announced that its CEO Mark Hurd, who has been widely credited with turning the once-troubled company around, was resigning following an internal investigation into claims of sexual harassment.  A former HP contractor made allegations of harassment, apparently arising out of a romantic relationship she had with Mr. Hurd.  The Board [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Last week, computer giant Hewlett-Packard announced that its CEO Mark Hurd, who has been widely credited with turning the once-troubled company around, was resigning following an internal investigation into claims of sexual harassment.  A former HP contractor made allegations of harassment, apparently arising out of a romantic relationship she had with Mr. Hurd.  The Board of Directors launched an investigation, which did not corroborate the harassment allegations, but did reveal other instances of misconduct, including allegedly falsified expense reports.  </p>
<p>The headline raises a couple of interesting issues for employers.  First, it reminds us that allegations of sexual harassment are extremely serious and potentially career-ending.  Those at the highest levels of an organization should never feel they are above the law, so to speak.  Second, it highlights the importance of workplace investigations, which can sometimes take unexpected turns.  The investigator of the allegations against Hurd presumably did not commence the investigation with concerns about expense reports.  But he or she uncovered the issue and pursued it.  Finally, romantic relationships at work, particularly when the parties are in a superior/subordinate relationship, can be fraught with danger.  There are certainly occasions when such relationships work out, but when they don&#8217;t, things can often turn ugly, for everyone involved.</p>
<p><a rel="attachment wp-att-1364" href="http://www.warrenhays.com/2010/08/hewlett-packard-ceo-steps-down-amid-harassment-claims/hurd/"><img class="aligncenter size-thumbnail wp-image-1364" title="Hurd" src="http://blog.warrenhays.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Hurd-150x150.jpg" alt="" width="150" height="150" /></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.warrenhays.com/2010/08/hewlett-packard-ceo-steps-down-amid-harassment-claims/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
