Throughout the past two years, LaBovick Law Group has taken on more and more matters involving workplace bullying. There are a number of problems involving this type of bullying:

There is no real legal designation for the act of “bullying.” The definition of bullying sounds obvious on its face: generally, bullying is one person’s aggressive behavior pattern focused on another person or smaller minority group. The aggression can be physical, verbal, nonverbal, psychological, and can include humiliation and denigration.

The big problem is that in a school yard, kids have no authority to bully each other. Each child is directed by their teachers to “play nice” with the other children. So, there is no component of higher authority supporting the act of bullying. But that is not the case in the workplace. Bullying can easily and often does operate within the actual mandate of authority and direction given from the higher levels of the corporate body. Workers are hired to do a job. Doing that job will take time, mental energy, physical energy and discipline. There are literally countless books written on the subject of proper management and best practices. But even with all those resources, management often is off the mark and believes that the only way to get workers to do the job is to motivate them with what they might term as “negative attention” and what we will call “workplace bullying.”

So, when does a boss who talks loudly about a worker’s efforts become a bully? When does criticism become caustic and step over the line? If it is true that the sensibilities of one person differ significantly from the sensibilities of another, and that both of those people can act within relatively normal parameters, isn’t it also true that one person can feel terribly bullied by a tough boss, while the other is completely fine with that boss’s behavior?

That leads us back to the definition of bullying. It appears we need to understand that bullying relies not on the victim’s perception but rather on the intent of the person doing the negative action. There are experts who define workplace bullying as an action taken with mal-intent toward a singular employee. In other words, the bullying moniker is reliant on the bully saying that they were trying to be bullies or within facts that do not allow us to imagine any other reasonable motivation beyond wanting to bully.

Since we are only concerned about employment-related bullying, can workplace bullying happen between coworkers or only supervisors to subordinates? Isn’t it often the case that one coworkers does not appreciate another and is a bully in the lunchroom? While that is considered “bullying at the workplace”, a legal definition, “workplace bullying” is only used when the bullying is between a supervisor and a subordinate. Workplace bullying is a new legal term of art used by employees who have had a legal violation of their rights.

I recently worked with bullying expert Gary Namie. He feels that workplace bullying should be limited to repeated behavior patterns that tend to cause harm to the mental or physical health of an employee. The negative behavior would be verbal abuse, threats, humiliation, intimidation or even behavior that intentionally sabotages the employee's work product or social network. The interesting thing about Gary’s analysis, as well as other workplace bullying experts, is that behavior can’t be a single episode of anger. It must be a repeated or persistent behavior that creates a work environment that undermines the culture of harmony in the workplace. Within some definitions, there is no requirement of supervisor to employee. Many simply indicate there must be a power disparity between the bully and the bullied.

Can you believe that:
- More than 13% of all workers in the United States are currently being bullied.
- 24% of US workers have been bullied in the past.
- Shockingly, almost half (49%) of all workers believe they have been impacted in some way by bullying.

There have even been studies on how aggressive management and workplace bullying harms job satisfaction and productivity. Those studies state that almost 75% of the American workforce is affected by behavior. That is tantamount to our definition of workplace bullying. It is obvious that the workforce of America feels that workplace bullying is a problem.

But what do bullies actually do in the workplace? Certainly there is not much physical bullying. Is there a lot of name calling? What about other things that we define as legal violations, like sexual harassment and sexual discrimination, or discrimination at any level? Is that also a form of bullying? Certainly it is like workplace bullying because it allows the person in power to harm the subordinate. But workplace bullying is more “professional” in nature. Generally, workplace bullying attacks the foundation of a person’s job, including things like separation or isolation of an employee from other employees, disrespecting the individual employee by using verbal abuse or disrespectful language, overworking an individual and devaluing their personal life, micromanaging and denigrating the work product of an individual, stealing credit when another individual does the work, preventing an individual to have access to an opportunity, and downgrading the individual’s ability to accomplish a task.

Workplace bullying is real. It can cause significant damages to workers as well as workplace morale. Don’t allow yourself to be bullied. Stand up for your rights.

The housing meltdown has sent shock waves throughout the United States, with foreclosures reaching over 4 million. In an effort to help current homeowners that are on the brink of losing their home, the government initiated a program whereby homeowners can receive a free fraud review of their foreclosure to make sure there are no issues.

It was recently reported by the Palm Beach Post that few homeowners have taken advantage of the free foreclosure fraud review. Specifically, less than 3% of the total eligible for the fraud review have taken advantage.

It was reported that representatives have sent out over 4.3 million notices to those that qualify for the review, with only 121,725 people responding thus far. The initial deadline of April 30, 2012 has been pushed back to July 31, 2012, due to the low response.
Some of the main concerns with the program include:

1. A homeowner must have been in some process of foreclosure in 2009 and 2010 to be eligible. But it's only for a two-year period and a lot of the subprime loans went into foreclosure before that.
2. Concerns about whether homeowners would have to sign away rights to future claims if they accept an award for financial harm found during the foreclosure review.

One of the main reasons there has been such a low response is that many homeowners treat the mailing as another piece of junk mail. Homeowners receive several mailers regarding foreclosure assistance and it is believed by many that this correspondence blends in with the rest. Others believe homeowners think it is a scam.

I tell my clients to apply for the review, but only a handful have alerted me to the letters.

They get a lot of advertisements and there are so many scams out there that they might think it's just a scam. It's a bit of a hazy program.

Have you received a free foreclosure review mailer? Have you gone through the process? Leave a comment below discussing you experience.

On January 24, 2012, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in favor of Mr. Thompson after he was terminated after his fiancé filed a sex discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The employer knowing that he could not retaliate against the man for filing an EEOC charge decided to retaliate against her by terminating him, Mr. Thompson. The Court based its decision on what Title VII was originally created for and that is to protect an employee from an action taken by an employer to discourage an employee from making or supporting a discrimination claim. The Court went on to conclude that it was “obvious” that a reasonable employee might be dissuaded from filing a discrimination charge if the employee knew he would be terminated as a result of her EEOC charge. This should be very comforting to employees that work with their spouses or family members since everyone would now be protected under Title VII’s anti-retaliation provisions.

If this has happened to you or a person near and dear to your heart, please call the florida employment law department at LaBovick Law Group for a free consultation.

Age discrimination is one of those things that is often difficult to prove decisively. As employees age, many feel that they aren't valued as highly by their employers. In some cases, those feelings are brought about by subtle shifts in attitude; in other cases, however, more obvious evidence exists.

In the recent firing of Sandra Rawline, an escrow officer and branch manager for Capital Title of Texas, Rawline alleges that after refusing to dye her gray hair and make other changes to achieve a younger appearance, she was replaced by a woman who is ten years younger than her.

Continue reading "Was Age Discrimination to blame in the firing of Woman with Gray Hair?" »

Disabled workers have a new sense of hope for improved workplace conditions. As of May 24, 2011, legislation was passed, establishing a new set of ADA laws on the books. The new ADA regulations have the power to protect your employment in uncertain times. Brought by the

EEOC, these updated laws revise the Americans with Disabilities Act and prevent loopholes and discrimination against disabled individuals.

Have you noticed anything different at work? If not, the failure of your employer to make acceptable workplace accommodations may be in violation of the new law. A significant aspect of this new and improved Americans with Disabilities Act is the mandate to construe the ADA broadly and to do away with any questioning of claimed disabilities.

Under the prior law. the EEOC did not protect workers whose employers questioned them outright about the validity of their disabilities. It was up to the worker to submit proof of their conditions. Mental illnesses including temporary and long-term conditions are addressed; in addition, impairments that are considered to be in remission still qualify as protected disabilities.

Continue reading "New ADA Laws and EEOC" »

The term “employment at-will” can be somewhat deceptive. Under this heading, it is understood that either the employee or the employer may terminate their relationship at any time and for any reason.

However, state and federal laws place limits on the seemingly free-wheeling nature of at-will employment, most of which benefit employees. Employers cannot wrongfully terminate employees for discriminatory reasons relating to their sex, race, ethnicity, or religion. Similarly, employers are barred from firing an employee as retaliation against whistle-blowing or for taking family and medical leave.

Employers are also not allowed to discriminate against active or reserve military personnel who must fulfill the requirements of their service in the armed forces. This particular question, and the wrongful termination of an employee as the result of his employer’s bias against his military service, is at the heart of a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that strengthens the rights of employees against discriminatory practices by employers.

In the case Staub vs. Proctor Hospital, Staub, a hospital employee, contended that he was terminated as a direct result of his supervisor’s bias against his military service, which required that he report to the military base on various weekends and for two or three weeks per year. His supervisor contended that such absences put a strain on the hospital’s resources and she collaborated with her supervisor to terminate Staub. The firing decision eventually came under the purview of a third supervisor who performed the actual termination.

Staub sued for wrongful termination and won the initial case. The hospital appealed the decision, and this time the court decided in their favor. Staub appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in his favor and ultimately strengthened the rights of the American worker. The court’s decision, as delivered by Justice Antonin Scalia, read in part that: “the employer is at fault [when the] ‘discriminatory animus’ [of a supervisor] was intended to cause, or did in fact cause, an adverse employment decision.”

Continue reading "U.S. Supreme Court ruling extends federal job discrimination laws" »

Recently, Verizon Communications Inc. agreed to settle a class-action employment lawsuit involving the Family Medical Leave Act that could cost them over $6 million in FMLA damages. The employment lawsuit revolved around Verizon's violations of various leave acts, especially the federal Family Medical Leave Act and and the California Family Rights Act, or CFRA. According to the lawsuit, Verizon engaged in many violations of leave acts between 2007 and 2010. The settlement is still subject to court approval; once it goes through, it will be the largest Family Medical Leave Act settlement in the history of the Department of Fair Employment and Housing.

How Verizon Violated the Family Medical Leave Act

The FMLA allows up to 12 weeks of unpaid protected leave for employees to care for newborn or newly adopted children, to recover from serious medical conditions or to care for loved ones with serious medical conditions. These laws change frequently, though; employers who don't stay on top of them, as Verizon apparently did not, could subject themselves to their own hefty class-action lawsuits.

According to the suit, Verizon failed to approve requests for leave - or flat-out denied those requests - several times over the three-year period. Furthermore, class members allege in the suit that Verizon fired some of them for violating the company's attendance policy - even when their absences fell under the scope of the FMLA.

It is important to mention that Verizon cooperated fully with the two-year investigation. In addition to the $6 million settlement, Verizon has agreed to do things like revise and review its leave policies; train all of its California managers, officers, HR personnel and others in current Family Medical Leave Act laws; provide an internal review process that employees can use to appeal denials of leave and to provide regular updates to the Department of Fair Employment and Housing.

What This Means for Employers

The steps that Verizon has promised to undertake as a part of its FMLA settlement are ones that employers everywhere should engage in at all times. The specifics of the federal act change all the time. Waiting until the first lawsuit is filed is a risky proposition. These matters are usually handled as class-action lawsuits that could bankrupt smaller, less powerful companies. It is always in an employer's best interests to stay on top of current laws to avoid these issues.

The Genetic Information Non Discrimination Act Prohibits Using Genetic Information to Make Employment Decisions

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission published its final rule implementing the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act.

Under GINA, it is illegal to discriminate against employees or applicants because of genetic information. The GINA prohibits the use of genetic information in making employment decisions, restricts employers and other entities covered by Title II (employment agencies, labor organizations and joint labor-management training and apprenticeship programs - referred to as "covered entities") from requesting, requiring or purchasing genetic information, and strictly limits the disclosure of genetic information.

The EEOC enforces Title II of GINA (dealing with genetic discrimination in employment). The Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and the Treasury have responsibility for issuing regulations for Title I of GINA, which addresses the use of genetic information in health insurance.

Click on the following link to read the Final GINA Rule - Regulations Under the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008

Bullying amongst teens has been in the news of late. However, Bullying on the job, can cost companies good workers. Business Writer Marcia Pounds takes a look at bullying in the workplace in a recent article on the workplace.

Although some may think that bullying can be a good management strategy, it is hardly motivatioinal. Many fear that they will be retaliated against if they raise a fuss.

Research on the subjuect matter, show that Thirty-five percent of adult Americans say they have experienced bullying in the workplace, first hand. Workplace bullying was defined as "repeated, health harming abusive conduct committed by bosses and co-workers" and "repeated mistreatment, including sabotage by others, verbal abuse, threatening conduct, intimidation and humiliation.

The breakdown is as follows: 62 percent are male and 38 percent are female. It is alarming that nearly 60 percent of the bully targets are women.

If an employee feels that they are being harrassed at work by a bully, they should file a complaint and get it on the record. Employers should have a policy in place to address the issue of harassment and disciplinarian actions. It is not an excuse to say that the person is mean to everyone, therefore, this is not an issue. In the area of employment law, an employer may be liable for a hostile work environment and harassment if the employee can show a pattern.

An employee that is retailiated against for notifying an employer of a hostile environment and harassment from another employee may have a claim against the employer. They should seek legal counsel to discuss their rights.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforces Federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. These laws protect employees and job applicants against employment discrimination when it involves:

• Unfair treatment because of race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information.
• Harassment by managers, co-workers, or others in the workplace, because of race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information.
• Denial of a reasonable workplace accommodation that the employee needs because of religious beliefs or disability.
• Retaliation because the employee complained about job discrimination, or assisted with a job discrimination investigation or lawsuit.

It is important to note that not all employers are covered by the laws we enforce, and not all employees are protected. This can vary depending on the type of employer, the number of employees it has, and the type of discrimination alleged.

Click on the following link to read Bullying On The Job Can Cost Employers Good Workers - The Sun Sentinel

The University of Notre Dame may have violated safety rules when a student worker was killed while videotaping a football practice according to Indiana State regulators. The student worker was on top of a tall hydraulic lift that toppled in high winds, when he fell to his death.

At the heart of the investigation is whether the employee received training before using the scissor lift and whether a federal rule barring workers from using scaffolds during bad weather would have applied to his job.

The federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration issues industry standards and rules regarding employee safety. If winds are gusting up to 50 mph, an operator in a scissor lift at the height as in the Notre Dame fatal accident may be in danger.

In 2007, Notre Dame created a policy regarding lift operators and considering weather before using the machines. However, at this time, it is unclear if this policy is in force at the current time. The 14-page policy also appears to provide conflicting information about what training is required for lift users. Authorities are currently investigating the fatal workplace accident.

As an employment law attorney, daily I fight for the rights of employees and against companies that violate Federal Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Laws. It is unfortunate that most employees do not understand their rights.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) enforces federal laws that prohibit job discrimination. A few federal laws that Prohibit Job Discrimination includes the following:
• Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;
• The Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA), which protects men and women who perform substantially equal work in the same establishment from sex-based wage discrimination;
• The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), which protects individuals who are 40 years of age or older;
• Title I and Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended (ADA), which prohibit employment discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities in the private sector, and in state and local governments

In a recent Palm Beach County trial on employee disability discrimination, a jury awarded $8.1 million to a Delray Beach cancer victim who was fired by national retailer, Michaels Arts & Crafts. Can you believe that a national retailer with over 1000 stores nationwide could do something so outrageous?

According to the Palm Beach Post, the 47-year-old cancer Survivor had a double mastectomy in August 2008. Her boss at the Michaels Arts & Crafts store in Boca Raton repeatedly harassed her. Fearing that she would lose her job, she came back to work sooner than later. Her boss badgered her because of medical requests for time off. Despite complaining to HR and Corporate about her intolerable and insensitive boss, she was fired in October 2008, three months after her surgery.

The Jury cited with the employee that Michael’s Arts & Crafts acted with "malice and reckless indifference," and awarded $8.1 million for pain and suffering. It is great to know that there is hope for employees.

I applaud the Justice system and the efforts the attorneys that handled the case. I am thankful that justice prevailed and Michael’s Corporation was held responsible for their overreaching regional managers and supervisors.

A supervisor, boss, or employer may be in violation of Federal laws for one or more of the following:
• Demanding that an employee returns to work after a serious illness or surgical
procedure
• Threatening to terminate or demote an employee if the employee fails to return to work
• Terminating or demoting an employee that returns to work after recovering from an
illness

If your employer tries to harass or intimidate you prior to or after a major life threatening illness, seek legal counsel of an Employment Law Attorney for a determination of your legal rights.

Click on the following link to read more from the Palm Beach Post on the $8.1 million verdict for the fired cancer victim in Palm Beach County.