FMLA Servicemember Leave. “Military-Caregiver” Leave”

Posted by William W. BowserOn May 5, 2008In: Family Medical Leave, National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)

Email This Post | Print this Post

This FMLA Update briefly reviews the second new type of FMLA leave offered to servicemembers and their families, Military-Caregiver Leave.

The two new FMLA leave types are designed to protect members of the Armed Forces and their families. Both types of leave enable a family member of a servicemember to take protected leave in two circumstances. The first, Active Duty Leave, was discussed in an earlier post. The second, is known as Military-Caregiver Leave. This new protection grants time off to the family member to care for a related servicemember who is ill or injured due to active duty.

• Employees may take an unprecedented 26 weeks of FMLA leave when a spouse, parent, child, or other blood relative for whom they are "next of kin" incurs a serious injury or illness on active duty in the Armed Forces.

• This 26 week total includes regular FMLA leave.

• Leave may be taken intermittently, but must be completed in a 12-month period.

• This is a one-time leave entitlement.

• "Next of kin" is an entirely new category of family member; it applies only to this specific type of leave.

• "Serious injury or illness" is much broader than the typical serious health condition; it applies only to this specific type of leave. Your speaker will provide a detailed definition.

• As with other FMLA leave, employers may require employees to take this type of leave concurrently with paid leave such as vacation, personal, or sick leave.

• Employers may require certification of servicemember’s health condition.

Office Politics or Politics at the Office: Delaware Employers, Pick Your Poison

Posted by Adria B. MartinelliOn May 5, 2008In: Employee Engagement

Email This Post | Print this Post

This year’s hot democratic primary has plunged politics into the workplace more than ever. Today’s News Journal ran an article on the subject, “Talking politics at the office: Employers, managers must walk fine line on what to allow”

Our own Sheldon Sandler was quoted on the issue of whether it is advisable to prohibit political discussion in the workplace altogether. Although these discussions poses some risks, Sheldon suggested that banning such discussion outright is not a good idea.

From Obama’s stirring speech on race, to whether or not he wore a flag pin, this year’s election has raised some hot topics for watercooler debate – not likely to slow anytime soon at Delaware workplaces.

Upcoming Seminar Gives Delaware Employers Up-to-the-Minute Update on FMLA

Posted by William W. BowserOn May 5, 2008In: Seminars, Past

Email This Post | Print this Post

Human Resource professionals see the Family & Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") as a major compliance challenge. And it just never seems to get easier. Lately, the FMLA is back in the news. The Act has seen more legislative and regulatory action in the past few months than it has during the previous ten years.


On January 28, 2007, Congress expanded the scope of the Act to include two new types of military leave for families of servicemembers. Next, on February 11, 2008, the U.S. Department of Labor released its long-awaited proposed revisions to the FMLA regulations.

William W. Bowser and Scott Holt will be addressing these important changes at the May 13 meeting of the Delaware Society of Human Resource Management (SHRM). The meeting will begin at 5:30 p.m. at the Cavalier Country Club. Our presentation will focus on what you need to do now in response to these changes.

Online Registration for the meeting is available here. Directions to the event are available here.

FMLA Servicemember Leave--"Active-Duty" Leave

Posted by William W. BowserOn May 5, 2008In: Family Medical Leave, National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)

Email This Post | Print this Post

The FMLA now provides two completely new categories of leave for employees who are related to a servicemember who is called to active duty or injured in the military.


The first type of leave is triggered when the employee's relative is called to active duty. It is designed to enable servicemembers' family to get FMLA time off to make the arrangements necessary for the servicemember's departure. Below is a short summary of the need-to-know points for this first type of new FMLA leave.

Active-Duty Leave:

• Covers employees who have a spouse, parent, or child who is on or has been called to active duty in the Armed Forces. These workers may take up to 12 weeks of FMLA leave when they experience "any qualifying exigency." While “qualifying exigency" is yet to be defined by DOL, but it probably will include -- at a minimum -- covering necessary family and childcare responsibilities of the servicemember when that family member is called to active duty.

• Employees who request this type of leave are subject to most of the same requirements as other forms of FMLA leave, including employee eligibility and notice requirements, maintenance of benefits, and job reinstatement.

• Employers may require certification that the employee’s family member is on active military duty in accordance with guidance to be provided by the Secretary of Labor.

• Employers should grant these leave requests liberally until DOL defines the term "qualifying exigency".

Bowser Featured in the Philadelphia Inquirer’s Coverage of Delaware Cancer Treatment Program

Posted by E-LawOn May 4, 2008In: Locally Speaking, YCST

Email This Post | Print this Post

William W. Bowser, a partner in our Employment Law Department, is featured in the Philadelphia Inquirer’s coverage (March 31, 2008; Health & Science) of Delaware’s cancer treatment program. Pictured in the article with Delaware Governor Ruth Ann Minner and state Health & Social Services Secretary Vincent Meconi. Bowser is chairman of the 15-member advisory council formed to develop a cancer-care battle plan for residents of the state.

The article highlights Delaware’s high cancer death rate, and the state’s unique program that provides uninsured residents with free cancer treatment for up to two years. “We wanted to do the things that would make a difference and were possible,” panel chairman Bowser is quoted in the article. He received the National Governor’s Association Award for Distinguished Service to State Government in 2007 for his work as chair of the nationally-recognized Delaware Cancer Consortium.

What's the Opposite of Engaged Employees? Passionate Slackers.

Posted by Molly DiBiancaOn May 4, 2008In: Employee Engagement, Just for Fun

Email This Post | Print this Post

Engaged employee. Engaged workforce. Management and leadership gurus love these words. Employers don't care what you call it--they just want to achieve it. If you're discouraged about your attempts to motivate employees, here's a story to lift your spirits. Hopefully, you have had more success than this young woman's managers.

Employers at the top of the game know the value of a workforce full of engaged employees.--employees who take ownership of their work. Well, if there ever was a story to demonstrate what an engaged employee is not, this is it.

An Iowa Administrative Judge denied unemployment benefits to Emmalee Bauer, 25. Bauer was formerly employed by Sheraton as a sales coordinator. Apparently, she did not do much coordinating, though. Instead, she spent her time at work scribing heart-felt journal entries she hopes may someday be published. But this is not the journal you might picture.

Her journal was devoted entirely to her work-avoidance strategies.

That's right. Every day, throughout her shift, she journaled away. And, by the time the Sheraton gig was over, she'd created a 300-page, single-spaced Manifesto of a Slacker.

I'm only here for the money, and, lately, for the printer access. I haven't really accomplished anything in a long while . . . and I am still getting paid more than at any job I ever had before.

I am going to sit right here and play Elf Bowling or some other nonsense. Once lunch is over, I will come right back to writing to piddle away the rest of the afternoon.

The judge who denied Bauer's unemployment appeal, said that the journal demonstrated Bauer's refusal to work as well as her "amusement of getting away with it."

If there was ever a case where an employer should be able to sue an employee to recoup the money it lost by employing her, this sure seems to be the one. Can you say "refund"?

[Hat tip to the Manpower Employment Blawg]

Employer Quits Its Smoking-Penalty Policy

Posted by Molly DiBiancaOn May 4, 2008In: Newsworthy, Off-Duty Conduct

Email This Post | Print this Post

Off-duty conduct, especially smoking and tobacco use, are often regulated by employers who complain of increasing health-care costs. But not every employer believes that workplace regulations on employee's off-duty conduct is an appropriate solution.

Health Care Premiums for Smokers

The Tribune Company, which owns the Chicago Tribune, came under new ownership in December. Sam Zell, the new chairman and chief executive, recently revoked the company's $100-per-month smoker's penalty. The penalty, says the new owner, "is inconsistent with the new culture."

The CAO and Executive VP, Gerry Spector, told employees in an e-mail, "We'd rather you use your own judgment when it comes to tobacco use, not impose ours upon you."

The company will continue to offer smoking-cessation programs to employees at no cost but will reimburse those employees who had been subject to the penalty.

This certainly a different approach to the way most employers are treating smokers these days. Is this an indication that employers may move towards positive reinforcement instead of penalties to reduce the cost of health insurance?

The relationship between smoking and employability is a familiar topic on this blog. To visit some of our previous posts on the issue, click here.

More on the story can be found at the Chicago Tribune's website.

What do News Anchors, Sports Figures, and Corporate Executives Have in Common? Employment Agreements and Risk-Avoidance Clauses.

Posted by Molly DiBiancaOn May 4, 2008In: Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), Off-Duty Conduct

Email This Post | Print this Post

Risk-Avoidance provisions in employee contracts are more common than you might think. Think of it as insurance on an investment. Employers pay huge sums to retain these "ultimate performers." The employment contract is one way to try to ensure that your precious and irreplaceable commodity (i.e., the all-star employee), doesn't voluntarily put your investment in harm's way.

Waterfall Rafters


The activities subject to risk-avoidance provisions vary greatly. From driving motorcycles to skydiving, the sky's the limit on what types of "dangerous" engagements can be prohibited.

The Human Capitalist has a short post on Why Professional Athletes Have Provisions in their Employee Contracts. We've posted about this topic before in the context of Philly's own ex-newsreporter, Alycia Lane, and the morals clause in her employment agreement that permitted CBS to fire her after being making headlines herself one too many times.

Human Capitalist also posts a great YouTube video demonstrating just why sports figures should have "risk avoidance" provisions in their contracts.

For more on this topic, see our earlier post, Bad Boys, Bad Boys, Whatcha' Gonna Do When They Work for You?, which discusses morals clauses in employment contracts.

Lawyer Who Won’t Play Nice Gets Homework Assignment from Judge

Posted by Molly DiBiancaOn May 4, 2008In: Jerks at Work

Email This Post | Print this Post

Delaware attorneys are not strangers to civility. In 2003, the Delaware Supreme Court and the Delaware Bar Association promulgated the “Principles of Professionalism for Delaware Lawyers.” The Principles provide insight into the practice of law in the First State. “Civility” is defined in the Principles and is taken seriously by the courts and bar as a whole.

The Principles demonstrate that civility in the workplace is not limited to the cubicles of corporate America. Jerks at Work are not welcome in any workplace, including the lawyer’s workplace—the courtroom. Here's a story about a judge outside of Delaware who is an advocate of civility:

U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange sanctioned lawyer Gerard Pignato for his extraordinarily jerky conduct. Pignato was reprimanded for comments he made in letters to his opposing counsel. As penance, the judge ordered the sharp-tongued Pignato to write an article on civility. He must include why he is writing the article and direct it to new attorneys, so they might avoid a similar embarrassment.

Here are some examples of his noxious and debasing comments:

Your self-serving comments are putting me to sleep. Can you not say anything in a page or less? You're just a broker who refers difficult cases to experienced attorneys. Be like a potted plant and sit quietly in the corner.


{The court's full Opinion can be read here.}

You don’t have to be a lawyer to experience this type of attack from a colleague, vendor, or customer, even. This conduct is very effective—no matter how illogical, it is difficult to jut brush off degrading comments.

I think Judge Miles-LaGrange should be applauded for taking action when she saw what can be described only as unbecoming conduct. And her response is commendable, as well. Unlike a monetary fine, Mr. Pignato is forced to sit down, pen in hand, and mull over his behavior and put into words just how dishonorable his actions were and how embarrassing this type of attitude is for other members of the bar. Plus, if his article deters even a single junior lawyer from scribing a seething note to opposing counsel, he’ll have made a real contribution to the profession.

The Preamble to the Principles of Professionalism states:

The purpose of adopting the Principles is to promote and foster the ideals of professional courtesy, conduct and cooperation. These Principles are fundamental to the functioning of our system of justice and public confidence in that system.

Maybe Mr. Pignato can use the Delaware Principles as a reference as he writes his article for the Oklahoma Bar Journal.

[Hat tip to the Legal Profession Blog]

John Phillips at The Word on Employment Law noted the ABA Journal's post on this story, as well.

Delaware Labor & Employment Attorney Bill Bowser Featured in the Philadelphia Inquirer’s Coverage of Delaware Cancer Treatment Program

Posted by Molly DiBiancaOn May 4, 2008In: Delaware Specific

Email This Post | Print this Post

William W. Bowser, a partner in our Employment Law Department, is featured in the Philadelphia Inquirer’s coverage (March 31, 2008; Health & Science) of Delaware’s cancer treatment program. Pictured in the article with Delaware Governor Ruth Ann Minner and state Health & Social Services Secretary Vincent Meconi. Bowser is chairman of the 15-member advisory council formed to develop a cancer-care battle plan for residents of the state.

The article highlights Delaware’s high cancer death rate, and the state’s unique program that provides uninsured residents with free cancer treatment for up to two years. “We wanted to do the things that would make a difference and were possible,” panel chairman Bowser is quoted in the article. He received the National Governor’s Association Award for Distinguished Service to State Government in 2007 for his work as chair of the nationally-recognized Delaware Cancer Consortium.

Fraudulent Sexual Harassment Claim Prompts Law Firm to File Preemptive Suit Against Sordid Secretary

Posted by Molly DiBiancaOn April 30, 2008In: Delaware Specific, Newsworthy

Email This Post | Print this Post

An employer sues an employee before the employee sues first. To some employers who have endured the bitter pill of meritless litigation filed by an ex-employee, this sounds like a dream come true. To most employment law attorneys, this sounds like a dream world.
huh.jpg

The New York Law Journal published a fascinating, if sordid, story last week titled, NY Law Firm Preemptively Sues Secretary Who Threatened Rape Suit Against Partner. The story involves a complaint filed by a law firm, Bivona & Cohen, against a secretary, Windy Richards. According to the complaint, Ms. Richards had performance problems and decided to try to hang onto her job in an, well, an unusual way.

Allegedly, she targeted a partner who she knew had a drinking problem. The opportune moment arrived. While the partner was impaired by alcohol, Richards performed a lap dance for him. Next, she obtained "evidence" on a towel, demonstrating at least some kind of sexual encounter (think Monica). Then she hired a lawyer, who demanded $9 million to settle her claim that the partner in question had sexually harassed and ultimately raped her.

But the law firm beat her to the courthouse, filing a preemptive suit againt the sordid secretary. The suit asserts claims of defamation, tortious interference and intentional infliction of emotional distress. In addition, the suit seeks a declaratory judgment that the secretary was not harassed or harmed by the partner. Additionally, the firm seeks a judgment declaring that the firm may lawfully fire her for providing a false social security number to conceal a 1991 drug-related criminal conviction.

The partner has been disciplined in a manner not disclosed in the lawsuit (although the filing of the lawsuit publicizing the alleged drinking problem and lap dance incident may be viewed as significant disciplinary action all by itself). The secretary is on paid leave. No doubt the secretary's answer to the complaint will include counterclaims for sexual harassment and retaliation.

The law firm's strategy is highly unusual, but not unprecedented. A few years ago, Fox News host Bill O'Reilly did the same thing, and was represented by the same attorney, Ronald Green of Epstein, Becker & Green. In that case, O'Reilly accused his accuser, who had been trying to negotiate a settlement of a sexual harassment claim, of attempted extortion. Trouble is, as pointed out by The National Law Journal, currently, attempted extortion is a crime, not a basis for a civil lawsuit.

The Link Between Race & Obesity: Disparate Impact Waiting to Happen?

Posted by Molly DiBiancaOn April 29, 2008In: Off-Duty Conduct, Race (Title VII)

Email This Post | Print this Post

Employers face another obesity obstacle.


As everyone knows, Americans have been gaining more and more weight over the past forty years or so, as confirmed by the National Institute of Health’s website. Reading the recent post in this blog about obesity policies made me wonder whether the Americans with Disabilities Act is the only law that such a policy might conflict with. What about Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

One of the lesser-known ways of getting into trouble under Title VII is through unintentional discrimination, also known as “disparate impact.” That’s where an employer adopts what appears to be a race-neutral, gender-neutral rule for making selection decisions such as hiring, promoting or terminating employees.

If the policy adversely affects one race or gender more than another, the employer will have to show that the rule is “job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity.” If the employer can make this showing, the plaintiff is must point to an available alternative practice that does not have a discriminatory effect.

So my question is, would an anti-obesity policy have an adverse impact on any protected group? Here’s what the NIH website says:

Q: What is the prevalence of overweight or obesity in minorities?
A: Among women, the age-adjusted prevalence of overweight or obesity (BMI > 25) in racial and ethnic minorities is higher among non-Hispanic Black and Mexican-American women than among non-Hispanic White women. Among men, there is little difference in prevalence among these three groups [6]. Sufficient data for other racial and ethnic minorities has not yet been collected.

    Non-Hispanic Black Women: 79.6 percent Mexican-American Women: 73 percent Non-Hispanic White Women: 57.6 percent

    Non-Hispanic Black Men: 67 percent
    Mexican-American Men: 74.6 percent
    Non-Hispanic White Men: 71 percent

(Statistics are for populations age 20 and older.)

Studies using this definition of overweight and obesity provide ethnicity-specific data only for these three racial and ethnic groups. Studies using different BMI cutoff points derived from NHANES II data to define overweight and obesity have reported a high prevalence of overweight and obesity among Hispanics and American Indians. The prevalence of overweight and obesity in Asian Americans is lower than in the population as a whole.

A study published in the Epidemiologic Review similarly reports that “[m]inority and low-socioeconomic-status groups are disproportionately affected at all ages” by obesity. The prevalence of obesity also increases with age, according to the same study.


It’s food for thought, and perhaps more fodder for creative plaintiffs’ attorneys or the EEOC.

U.S. Businesses Recognize the High Cost of Obesity--Should Delaware Employers Do the Same?

Posted by Molly DiBiancaOn April 29, 2008In: Off-Duty Conduct

Email This Post | Print this Post

Delaware businesses, if you worry about obesity and its effects on your workforce, you are not alone. Across the country, there has been a sharp turn in focus by major businesses and commercial organizations. The focus shift has been towards obesity as a costly characteristic of our modern workforce.
Obesity & Employers

As discussed in earlier posts, many observers worry that the current trend in refusing to hire smokers will spill over to other areas of employees' health. Obesity is commonly cited as the next likely target.

There is, certainly, some logic behind the argument. One place to find support for the idea of regulating employee's waistlines can be found in the report by The Conference Board, Weights and Measures: What Employers Should Know about Obesity. In its report, the Conference Board examines the financial and ethical questions surrounding whether, and how, U.S. companies should address the obesity epidemic. The report was featured on April 9th's episode of Marketplace, public radio's popular business program.

Some of the findings from the study include:

      ~Obesity is associated with a 36-percent increase in spending on healthcare services, more than smoking or problem drinking.

      ~More than 40 percent of U.S. companies have implemented obesity-reduction programs, and 24 percent more said they plan to do so in 2008.

      ~Estimates of ROI for wellness programs range from zero to $5 per $1 invested.

      ~ROI aside, these programs may give companies an edge in recruiting and retaining desirable employees.

      ~Meanwhile, some say it may be more effective just to award employees cash and prizes for weight loss rather than devote resources to long-term wellness programs.

      ~Employers need to weigh the risks of being too intrusive in managing obese employees against the risks of not managing them


But NPR isn't the only organization tuned in to the obesity debate. Bloomberg.com also featured the Conference Board's findings this month, as did Forbes.com. Human Resources professionals are also turning towards the issue, as demonstrated by the articles at Society for Human Resource Management ("SHRM"), The Salary Reporter, and this article by Larry J. Rector from the West Virginia Employment Law Letter, which can be found through the H.R. Hero website.

If these big-name players have turned their focus to the "obesity crisis," should Delaware employers do the same?

For previous posts about the increasingly close involvement employers have in the private health matters of their employees:

Off-Duty Conduct in the News

There's No Hiding From Your Own Bad Habits

Are Today's Wellness Programs Running Out of Steam?

DOL Offers Compliance Tool for Wellness Programs

Is Obesity the Next Protected Class?

The Link Between Race & Obesity

"No Jerks Allowed". . . Catchy, Isn't It?

Posted by Molly DiBiancaOn April 29, 2008In: Jerks at Work

Email This Post | Print this Post

Robert Sutton's book, The No A**hole Rule, has been an eye-opener to many, myself included. In his book, Sanford Professor Bob Sutton (pictured below) addresses a message sure to resonate with every employee who has ever worked with or for a toxic coworker or boss.

Robert Sutton at Sanford

Michael P. Masklanka, managing partner of Ford & Harrison in Dallas, has written a top-rate article for the April 2008 edition of In-House Texas titled, No Jerks Allowed: How and Why to Stop Angry, Rude and Demeaning Workplace Behavior.

The piece is heavy on the human-touch element that is essential for an effective work environment. But for each antecdote, Maslanka follows up with a hard-hitting statistic, many of which derived from Robert Sutton's book (or, as I like to call it, "The HR Bible"), The No A**hole Rule.

Mike has been kind enough to share the article with our readers up North. Here's an excerpt to whet the appetitie. Mike is discussing the revealing results of a "jerk experiment":

41 employees carried a palm-sized computer for two to three weeks. Researchers prompted the employees at random intervals to answer questions about their interactions with co-workers and then to rate their resulting feelings as positive, negative or neutral. Here's the expected: 30 percent were positive interactions, 10 percent negative, the rest neutral. Here's the unexpected: The negative interactions had a fivefold stronger effect on mood than the positive ones and thus took much longer to get over. Talk about radioactive.


For those of you who, like myself, are strongly "anti-jerk,"this article is a must-read. Thanks, Mike!

For prior posts on Bullying and Jerks in the Workplace, see:

Are Bullies Beating Up Your Employees' Health?

The Cost of Bully Legislation

Bullying in the Workplace is Water Cooler Talk on Good Morning America

Bullying Gets Physical, . . . But Torture?

Is Obesity the Next Protected Class?

Posted by Molly DiBiancaOn April 28, 2008In: Off-Duty Conduct

Email This Post | Print this Post

Employers and smokers have been making headlines. Just last week, Whirlpool made the news when it terminated 39 employees after they were caught smoking, despite having signed statements when they were hired swearing that they were non-smokers.
Girl Scout Cookies

Over the past several years, it has become more and more common for employers to have stopped hiring smokers or to require smokers to pay higher premiums for health insurance. But not everyone agrees with the idea of punishing employees based on health-related factors. Some cite privacy concerns and paternalism as reasons why employers should not become involved in what employees do off the job. And others worry about what will come next. Currently, it is socially acceptable to ostracize smokers. And, in most states, including Delaware, there's nothing unlawful about it.

But what about other health factors, like obesity? Will employers next target overweight and obese employees with higher health care premiums? Will businesses refuse to hire applicants who are over a certain body mass index (BMI)?

Some employers, like Westgate Resorts, a vacation-properties company based in Orlando, Florida, are trying to push employees into healthy lifestyles, which includes reducing obestity. At Westgate, employees aren't penalized to lose weight but those who do are rewarded with a variety of incentives. Michigan is the only state, in addition to the District of Columbia, to prohibit discrimination based on weight. But, in other states like Delaware, where obesity is not a protected class, there would be little legal risk to implementing a weight-reduction policy. Of course, as my mother would say, "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should."

Employers should consider non-legal implications of such a policy. For example, how to define "obese." If BMI is the only determining factor, you might not have many employees--more than two-thirds of Americans qualify under this definition. Or what about the woman who gained 60 lbs during pregnancy and isn't in a real rush to get lose it right away? And how do you handle an employee who states that his obesity is related to another medical condition. This would sound the alarms of both HIPPA and the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). And would gastric bypass or other bariatric surgeries be pushed on employees as a "solution" to weight struggles? How will they regulate weight on a more organic level?

For example, will there be a ban on the sale of Girl Scout cookies?

That announcement would make headlines, for sure.