June/July 2003 Issue Number 48
 Is
a monthly electronic newsletter which links current events and issues
to the daily challenges faced by fire and emergency services managers.
Current topics in the areas of leadership development, workplace diversity,
change management, and conflict resolution will be discussed.
We
hope that you find the information here useful and provocative.
Let us know what you think! If you'd like to subscribe to the newsletter,
please enter your email address in the box below.
enter your email
address
The following networking opportunities will be available
at the Fire-Rescue International Conference in Dallas on
August 22, 2003:
Women
Chief Officers Luncheon 1130-1300
Native American Chief Officers Breakfast 0700-0830
Hispanic Chief Officers Luncheon 1130-1300
Advance purchase of tickets is required for these events.
Fire-Rescue
International
, August 22-25, 2003, Dallas, Texas. Linda Willing will be presenting
a workshop entitled "Stop "Putting Out Fires": A Prevention
Approach to Workplace Conflict Management."
Supreme Court Upholds FMLA
A
recent challenge to the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) as a violation
of states' rights has been denied by the U.S. Supreme Court. The decision,
written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, strongly states that the
intention and effect of the FMLA is to provide a workplace that is
free of gender-based discrimination, and upholds the right of state
employees to seek monetary relief if their access to FMLA rights is
denied by their employers.
The
case concerned a State of Nevada social worker, William Hibbs, who
was granted FMLA leave to care for his wife, who had been injured
in car accident. Later, his employer told him that the leave was revoked,
and that he would have to return to work. When he refused to do so,
he was fired. The State of Nevada claimed subsequent immunity from
damages sought, because they said the 11 th Amendment upheld states'
rights to opt out of federal entitlement programs. Mr. Hibbs' attorneys
argued that the FMLA is not an entitlement program, but rather a program
with the primary purpose of preventing and remediating workplace discrimination
toward women. The Supreme Court majority agreed with the latter argument.
In
his opinion, Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote:
"By
creating an across-the-board, routine employment benefit for all eligible
employees, Congress sought to ensure that family-care leave would
no longer be stigmatized as an inordinate drain on the workplace caused
by female employees, and that employers could not evade leave obligations
simply by hiring men."
In fact,
since the passage of the FMLA, 42% of all leave has been granted to
men.
Chief Justice
Rehnquist continued:
"Because
employers continued to regard the family as the woman's domain, they
often denied men similar accommodations or discouraged them from taking
leave. These mutually reinforcing stereotypes created a self-fulfilling
cycle of discrimination that forced women to continue to assume the
role of primary family care giver, and fostered employers' stereotypical
views about women's commitment to work and their value as employees."
This decision
strongly upholds the intention of the FMLA to provide equal access to
work and family life for all employees. The majority opinion was joined
by Justices O'Connor, Souter, Ginsburg, Stevens, and Breyer.
Source:
Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs, US Supreme Court, No.
01-1368.
Ethical conduct in the workplace is improving, according to a recent
survey of 1500 American workers from across the nation. Compared with
comparable surveys done in 1994 and 2000, the recent study found a
significant drop in observed misconduct (22% in the recent survey
vs. 31% in previous surveys) and an increase in employee reporting
of misconduct (65% up from 57% and 48% in previous surveys). In addition,
the perception that top management keeps promises and commitments
improved from 77% in 2000 to 82% in 2003.
Source: Ethics Resource Center.
Take
Action to Limit Liability for Sexual Harassment
When
a co-worker grabbed Collette Meriweather in a sexual way, and later
made a joke about it and blocked her path at work, she filed a complaint
against him with her supervisor. Later, she also filed sexual harassment
charges against her employer as being responsible for the behavior
of the offending employee.
Her lawsuit
against her employer failed in lower court and again on appeal. Why?
Primarily because her employer took prompt remedial action against
the offending employee, and thus prevented a recurrence of the problem.
Following
the receipt of Ms. Meriweather's complaint, her employer investigated
the incident. Initially, they suspended the perpetrator for two days,
but later added five days of suspension when all the facts were known.
Further, they required that he attend training and informed him that
any further complaints of harassment would result in termination.
No further incidents occurred.
Employer
liability for non-supervisory co-workers is based on five factors,
all of which must be met to establish liability. These factors are:
1) the plaintiff is a member of a protected group;
2) unwelcome harassment actually occurred;
3) there was a causal nexus between the harassment and membership
in the protected group; 4) the harassment affected
a term, condition or privilege of employment; and 5)
the employer knew or should have known of the harassment and failed
to take prompt remedial action. In this case, the nature of the event
was not considered severe enough to alter terms and conditions of
employment. But more importantly, the employer took action which solved
the problem.
The lesson
here is clear. When harassment is reported, you must act. There is
potential indemnity for employers for co-worker harassment (the standard
is much more stringent for harassment by supervisors) but employers
can still be held liable if they knew of inappropriate behavior and
did not act appropriately. Promptly and fairly investigate complaints,
and act (not overreact) accordingly so that the problem is solved.
Source:
Collette Meriweather v. Caraustar Packaging Company, Eight Circuit
Court of Appeals, No. 02-3138
|
