Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt, P.A.

Subscribe to Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt, P.A.'s Posts

We are in the final countdown to the 23rd HR Law & Solutions seminar! On March 24, over 250 HR professionals, business owners, and managers will gather to learn about new employment case law and legislation; to analyze thought provoking real-life scenarios involving disability/medical leave, wage/hour, retaliation, and LGBT related matters; and to get answers to common employment questions that plague their workplaces.

One session we’re particularly excited to offer this year is “A View from the C-Suite,” which will bring together several leading CEOs and other C-Suite professionals as they share insight on key HR issues, strategies, and best practices for dealing with tough workplace issues. We are so grateful to our amazing panelists, including Samira Beckwith, President and Chief Executive Officer, Hope Healthcare Services; Peter Dys, President and Chief Executive Officer, Shell Point Retirement Community; Larry Hart, Lee County Tax Collector; Gail Markham, President, Markham Norton Mosteller Wright & Company; and Sara Stensrud, Executive Vice President and Chief Human Resources Officer, Chico’s FAS Inc. (pictured above).Continue Reading HR Law & Solutions 2015: Counting Down, Questions for the C-Suite?

Thanks to Richard Cohen and his Employment Discrimination Report blog and the Washington Post for focusing attention on the recent report by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) about the rapid increase in retaliation claims in the workplace. For years, employment discrimination complaints (i.e., claims by employees that they were discriminated against on the basis of one or more protected factors like race, gender, national origin, age, etc.) were at the top of the EEOC charts as far as number of claims filed. However, as noted back in January 2013, since 2010 there have been more retaliation claims filed with the EEOC than any type of discrimination claim.

The big increase involves claims filed by eligible employees (those who work for employers with at least 15 employees and most public employers) that they were demoted, fired, transferred, denied a raise or a promotion or similar complaints in retaliation for having complained about race, gender, age or other types of discrimination – sometimes even where the alleged discrimination involved someone else. According to the EEOC, a record 38,539 retaliation charges were filed in fiscal year 2013.

The statistics for Florida are similar. In 2013, a total of 3,095 retaliation claims were filed, representing about 41% of the complaints filed with Florida offices of the EEOC. This compares to 2,533 race discrimination complaints, representing 33% of all charges filed.

What accounts for the increase?Continue Reading Employee Retaliation Claims Continue to Rise

Twenty-three states now permit medical or recreational marijuana use, yet the overwhelming number of public and private employers continues to prohibit employees from using the drug. As the number of states allowing private marijuana use grows, businesses are having growing concerns about their rights to enforce workplace drug policies and otherwise operate their businesses in a drug-free environment. A case will soon be heard that will likely examine these competing interests directly.

The ABA Journal and New York Times report that in Colorado, where the drug is now legal for recreational use, an employee fired for using marijuana off-duty has appealed his termination to that state’s highest court. The Colorado Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on September 30, 2014 in a suit filed by a fired customer service representative who uses medical marijuana to control painful spasms he has suffered since he was paralyzed in a car crash.Continue Reading Medical Marijuana and Employers’ Rights

Football fans around the globe may be rejoicing at the official start of the NFL season, but the cheering may be somewhat less than usual this year. That’s because a number of current and former NFL cheerleaders have filed lawsuits in Florida, New Jersey, New York, California and other states for violations of state and federal wage and hour laws, including the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The cheerleaders are claiming they were significantly underpaid—or in some cases not paid at all—for their services, which include performing during games, rehearsing prior to games, and attending community events. Teams that have been sued include the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, New York Jets, Buffalo Bills, Oakland Raiders and Cincinnati Bengals.

In the Florida Complaint, plaintiff Manouchcar Pierre-Val filed a proposed federal class action seeking to represent a class of cheerleaders who worked for the Tampa Bay Bucs within the last three years, and who were allegedly not compensated at the required minimum wages due under the FLSA. The lawsuit claims that the cheerleaders were paid only $100 per game for an average of 8 home games per season, plus limited wages for appearances made at paid corporate events. However, according to the complaint, the cheerleaders actually worked many more hours each week and each year for which they were not properly compensated as required by federal and Florida law. Plaintiff Pierre-Val alleges she received about $2.00 per hour for all of her services.Continue Reading Football Season Off to a Litigious Start

Here’s a novel question for you: What do so-called “autonomous” cars have in common with class action federal employment discrimination lawsuits?

As an admitted car guy, I am often taken to drawing parallels between the automotive world and the legal profession (and just about everything else in life). So when I recently came across a lawsuit filed by the EEOC, my mind wandered from the courtroom to the road. Let me explain.

First, as you may know, an autonomous car is a car that literally drives itself — a “self-driving” car. If you’ve been reading too many car magazines like me, you’ve probably read about ongoing research and development efforts by various car manufacturers to develop a truly self-driving, pilot-less vehicle. Many automotive experts predict that in a relatively short period of time — say 10 years from now, perhaps sooner — such vehicles will be commonplace on roads in the U.S. and elsewhere.

EEOC v. Bass Pro Outdoor WorldContinue Reading Self-Driving Lawsuits?

This month, the EEOC issued its controversial Enforcement Guidance: Pregnancy Discrimination and Related Issues. Of course, we all knew that pregnancy discrimination was unlawful, but did you know that according to the EEOC Guidance:

  • Many short term pregnancy related conditions are considered disabilities under the ADAAA, and thereby implicating a duty to reasonably

…

Consider this scenario:

Eve is employed as a counter person at Cars-R-Us, an auto parts store with twenty employees. Eve recently returned to work after giving birth. She asked Cars-R-Us for periodic breaks to express her breast milk. She also asked the company provide her with a dedicated, private room to use her breast pump.

Which of the following statements is correct?

A.  Cars-R-Us can deny Eve’s request because it has less than 50 employees.

B.  Cars-R-Us can deny Eve’s request unless she has worked for the Company more than 1,250 hours during the consecutive twelve-month period preceding her request.

C.  Cars-R-Us should permit Eve reasonable lactation breaks, but it may require her to use the women’s bathroom to express milk.

D.  Cars-R-Us should permit Eve to take a reasonable lactation break in a private location, unless to do so would pose an undue hardship.


Continue Reading Employment Law IQ: Nursing Mothers in the Workplace

Time to test your Employment Law IQ again! Consider this scenario:

Mike R. Clean hired Tommy as a night-time janitor at Squeak E Clean, Inc. During the first month of his employment, Tommy was a super star, but his performance went downhill quickly after that. Mike tried to coach Tommy, but Tommy just could not get it together. At the end of Tommy’s second month at Squeak E Clean, Mike terminated Tommy’s employment. A couple of weeks later, Mike was shocked when he found out Tommy would not only get unemployment, but it was going to be charged to Squeak E Clean’s account.

Why are Tommy’s unemployment benefits being charged to Squeak E Clean’s account?

A.  Because Tommy was not terminated for gross misconduct.

B.  Because Squeak E. Clean did not notify Tommy of the probationary period within the first 7 days of his employment.

C.  Because Mike did not write Tommy up before he was terminated.

D.  None of the above.


Continue Reading Employment Law IQ: Unemployment Benefits and Handbook Headaches