Cases to try an employer’s
patience
Labor lawyers have to keep up on
developments in the law for several reasons. First,
legislatures are always meddling into the affairs of employers.
For example, New Jersey wants to prevent
hospitals from forcing nurses to work overtime. Other states
are constantly figuring out ways to make employers more
miserable.
 | ||
Third, these cases can be a source of
amusement, amazement, and/or disgust. Every day, some employee
cooks up a new way to torture his employer. If he makes it to
court, I want to know how the judge handled it.
Today, I ran across several cases that
fall into the last category. I thought I would share them with
you as my belated holiday gift.
A federal appeals court in California has
reinstated a jury verdict against Toshiba America Electronics
for $93,000, based on verbal and physical harassment by a
co-worker and her supervisor. The employee complained that she
was being harassed by a co-worker who called her a lesbian and
a virgin in front of other co-workers, messed up her hair,
kicked her regularly, and made fun of her accent.
The jury had found Toshiba liable for
discrimination in laying her off after complaining about the
incidents, but the trial judge felt otherwise.
Unfortunately, the appeals court felt the
jury’s verdict should stand and sent the case back to
decide the issue of punitive damages.
A member of the Electrical Workers Union
(IBEW) was fined $100,000 when he became a supervisor in a
non-union company. The National Labor Relations Board, when
asked to determine whether the fine violated the
individual’s rights under the National Labor Relations
Act, had no problem with the fine because there was no evidence
that the IBEW was trying to unionize the other company. The
federal appeals court for the District of Columbia had to step
in to rule the fine illegal. The Court called the NLRB flatly
unreasonable.
Another woman was awarded $537,851 in
compensatory and punitive damages for verbal sexual harassment
and unwelcome physical contact by her co-workers and her
supervisor. The court was confronted with evidence that the
woman had allowed one supervisor to put his hand under her
shirt and bra. Later, he put his hand down her pants, and that
seemed to be where she drew the line.
The language of the workplace sounded like
an adult web site. The woman complained under the
company’s sexual harassment policy, but the company took
no action.
The court was especially concerned that
the employer, rather than trying to get to the facts, tried to
disprove the claims of the employee. Most of the damages
awarded were for mental distress, and over half the award
represented punitive damages.
A federal appeals court in New York has
found that employers who swap salary and benefit data may be
violating the Sherman Antitrust Act. An employee of an oil
company alleged that several oil companies routinely shared
such information on managers, professionals, and technical
employees to keep wages and benefits down.
The trial court had dismissed the claim,
but the appeals court found that the exchange of information
could have an anti-competitive effect. For one thing, the jobs
involved were considered easily exchanged from company to
company with no training, and there was a labor shortage. The
lawsuit was reinstated.
Last but not least, two Princeton
University professors have attributed the defective Bridgestone
and Firestone tires to labor strife.
Terrific, now when I buy tires, I need to
know if the shop steward back at the plant is happy about labor
relations. The company and the union dispute the findings, of
course.
Some good news
On the other hand, 2002 did start off with
a Supreme Court case limiting the definition of disability
under the Americans With Disabilities Act. You may not need to
recognize and accommodate all your employees’ medical
conditions under the ADA, especially if the condition does not
prevent them from doing things outside the plant.
Employees who cannot do certain repetitive
motion tasks must now demonstrate that their lives have been
affected, not just their ability to work a particular piece of
equipment.
There is some good news for employers now
and again.
Frank Kollman is a partner in the law firm
of Kollman & Saucier, PA, in Baltimore, MD. He can be
reached by phone at (410) 727-4300 or fax (410) 727-4391. His
firm’s web site at www.kollman-law.com has articles, sample policies, news and other
information on employee/employer relations.
