In honor of the Blawg’s one-year anniversary, we thought we’d pause a moment to gather the collective wisdom of our audience.  We asked a simple question:  What should we do next?  Here are your responses, in order of popularity . . .

1.  Online Employment Law Quiz and Certification (34%)
2.  Weekly review of NBC’s The Office from an employment law perspective (32%)
3.  Training Video #2:  “Now NOT to Investigate” (16%)
4.  Caffeinated Conversation #2:  “Interview of the World’s Greatest Employment 
     Lawyer” (11%)
5.  Monthly Employment Law News Podcast (6%)

Because we care so much, we will immediately start working on ALL FIVE of these, starting with #1.  Stay tuned.

As always, thanks for your input and participation!

Last week’s question was based on a true story.  Here it is, along with your responses . . .

Let’s say you’re head of HR for a prominent fast food restaurant chain.

Late one Friday, you get a call from an area manager informing you that an employee apparently thought it would be a good idea to get naked and take a bath in one of the restaurant’s sinks.  Not only that, but another employee captured the entire event on video and posted it on MySpace and YouTube, where it’s already been seen by several thousand people.

The area manager forwards you a link to the video.  You watch it and are horrified.  Basically, it’s three-and-a-half minutes of a mohawked and heavily tattooed employee who calls himself “Mr. Unstable” taking a bubble bath in the very sink where the restaurant’s cooking equipment and utensils are cleaned.  Various employees can be seen milling about, including a manager who is specifically asked to check out the incident but declines to do so.  You then get a call from the health department, notifying you that they’re on the way to the restaurant to make an inspection.

What should you do first to reduce legal risk?

a.  Fire the bather, his cinematographer and the apparently negligent manager immediately (14%)
b.  Take immediate steps to address all employee/customer health and safety concerns (32%)
c.  Engage in the ADA-required interactive process with ”Mr. Unstable” to determine if he’s disabled under the law (1%)
d.  Investigate and take appropriate corrective action (44%)
e.  Call your attorney because you may face a breach of privacy suit for accessing MySpace and the YouTube video without the employee’s permission (5%)
f.  Quit your job and pursue a profession other than HR (5%)

The correct answer is “b.”  Employee and customer safety and health always come first.  That’s especially true when you know that the Health Department is on its way for an inspection.

Potential legal liability (and PR backlash) could be massive if immediate steps aren’t taken to address health and safety.  Imagine the class action plaintiffs that would line up if they found out they ate burgers prepared using equipment washed in the same sink as “Mr. Unstable” without some kind of super-intense sterilization process.

Your top choice — investigate and take appropriate corrective action — is the next-best answer (in my humble opinion).  It’s critical to do that as well.  The employer in this case did so and fired Mr. Unstable and just about everyone else involved.

If you’d like the real facts on this rather unsavory tale, the news story is here and the video is here.  Proceed at your own risk — it ain’t pretty.

Our visitors are now batting a robust .485 (16 right, 17 wrong) on our Questions of the Week.  The next one will be coming your way soon.

As always, thanks for your participation!

Each week, we post a thought-provoking question for your consideration.  Here’s last week’s question, along with your responses.

Which type of discrimination lawsuit is mot likely to result in a big-$$$ verdict?

a.  Age (16%)
b.  Disability (21%)
c.  Gender (19%)
d.  Race (39%)
e.  Religion (4%)

The correct answer is “a.”

According to the latest jury verdict research, age discrimination tops the list for biggest awards in discrimination cases.  The median age discrimination award is more than $250,000.

#2 is disability discrimination at more than $214,000, #3 is gender discrimination at $200,000 and a distant #4 is race discrimination at $167,000.  For more, check out the official Jury Verdict Research site.

Our visitors are now batting a respectable .469 (15 right, 17 wrong) on our weekly questions.  The next one will be coming your way soon.

Thanks for your participation!

Each week, we post a though-provoking question for your consideration.  Last week’s question was designed to see how well you’ve been paying attention.  Here’s the question, along with your answers.

Which of the following is NOT true?

a.  Congress is close to overhauling the ADA (12%)
b.  The Supreme Court upheld a case in which attorneys got 33 times more than the plaintiff (29%)
c.  The government recently issued a new I-9 form, ordered everyone to start using it and then a few days later changed back to the old form and ordered everyone to start using that one instead (17%)
d.  President Bush signed an executive order requiring all companies with 500 or more employees to start using the E-Verify System by January 1, 2009 (36%)
e.  A federal court ruled that a woman who missed work due to an abortion may be protected from discrimination under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (6%)

Congratulations — the correct answer is indeed “d.”  President Bush did sign an executive order regarding E-Verify, but it only requires certain government contractors to utilize the system — not private employers. 

E-Verify was in the news again this morning here on the Blawg.  The House approved a bill that would extend the program another five years and to keep it voluntary for private employers.

All the other answers are true.  Click here for info about the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, here for the Supreme Court attorneys’ fees decision, here for the government’s I-9 switcheroo, here for the E-Verify executive order and here for the abortion/in vitro rulings.

Our readers are now batting a healthy .484 (15 right, 16 wrong) on our Questions of the Week.  As always, thanks for your participation.  The next question will be coming your way soon.

Here’s last week’s question, along with your responses . . .

HOW STRESSED ARE WE?  How much money is spent per U.S. employee per year on stress-related claims?

a.  $7,500 per employee (22%)
b.  $3,650 per employee (59%)
c.  $749 per employee (17%)
d.  $0 per employee — there is no stress in the U.S. workplace (2%)

Looks like we may be more stressed than we think.  The correct answer is “a” — a whopping $7,500 per employee.

According to the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. companies spend more than $300 billion each year on stress-related claims, which equates to approximately $7,500 for every employee.  Legal expenses, medical expenses, health insurance costs, absenteeism, lost productivity — it all adds up.

Based on an informal survey of some of my employment lawyer peers, there appears to be a direct correlation between high stress in the workplace and high legal fees.  The equation is pretty simple.  The more stress managers feel, the less likely they are to treat their employees well.  The less well that employees are treated, the more likely they are to sue.

Don’t let this happen to you.  Here’s another handy equation:  the better you treat your employees, the less you’ll have to talk to lawyers.  Look for ways to maintain work/life balance in the workplace, especially in tough times.  Flexible schedules and telecommuting can be a great way to help employees reduce stress.  Employee assistance programs can also be a wonderful tool.  Watch for early warning signs of any adverse treatment of employees by managers and take quick action before you wind up in court.

Our readers are now batting a fairly respectable .467 (14 right, 16 wrong) on our weekly questions.  The next one will be coming your way soon.

Thanks for your participation!

Many employment disputes arise out of claims that employees are over-stressed and over-worked.  With that in mind, here was last week’s question, along with your responses . . .

Just how hard do we work?  How much time does the average full-time employee spend at work and commuting each day and is the trend going up or down?

a.  7.8 hours; up (7%)
b.  8.7 hours; down (13%)
c.  8.9 hours; up (35%)
d.  9.6 hours; up (43%)
e.  24 hours; same as last year (2%)

Somewhat surprsingly, the correct answer is “b.”  According to the latest BLS American Time Use Survey, the average full-time employee spends 8.7 hours at work and commuting each day.  Contrary to popular opinion, that number is actually down 0.1 hours compared to the prior year.  So, the next time your employees tell you that they’re over-worked and over-stressed, you can tell them that they’re actually working .01% less this year.

I’m shocked that I’m the the only person who selected “e.”  I must be in the wrong profession.

Some other fascinating stats from the survey:

Despite missing this one, our readers are now batting a respectable .483 (14 right, 15 wrong) on our Questions of the Week.  The next one will be coming your way soon.

Thanks for your participation!

Each week, we post a thought-provoking question for your consideration.  Here’s last week’s question, along with your responses:

Frustrated by a continuing lack of diversity in your company, you create metrics to hold managers accountable, including requirements that a certain % of new hires be diverse candidates.  Your new policy is most likely:

a.  Lawful (24%)
b.  Unlawful (76%)

Congratulations — you are correct.  As the case we discussed here yesterday demonstrates, employers need to be careful not to discriminate against non-minority applicants in their zeal to promote diversity.  The best policy is to cast the widest net possible during the recruiting process but then to make all hiring and promotion decisions on purely non-discriminatory job-related criteria.  All race-based discrimination (including so-called “reverse discrimination”) is unlawful.

Our readers are now back to an even .500 (14 right, 14 wrong) on our Questions of the Week.  Thanks for your participation — the next one will be coming your way soon.

Each week, we post a thought-provoking question for your consideration.  Here’s last week’s question, along with your responses . . .

I’m allergic to work.  Is that a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act?

a.  Yes (6%)
b.  No (29%)
c.  Perhaps, if it limits one or more major activities of everyday life (45%)
d.  Only if it is a “serious health condition” as defined under the law (20%)

Congratulations — the correct answer is indeed “c.”

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) protects physical or mental impairments that “substantially limit one or more major life activities.”  Employers should be careful to apply that test rather than jumping to any conclusions about whether a particular condition may or may not be covered.  “Major life activities” has been defined to include breathing, sitting, standing, walking, seeing, hearing, performing manual tasks, caring for oneself, learning and working.

Another tip:  Any time an answer starts with “perhaps,” “maybe” or “it depends,” chances are that’s the correct answer.  Have you ever known a lawyer who didn’t start an answer that way?

Our readers are now batting a respectable .481 (13 right, 14 wrong) on our Questions of the Week.  The next one will be coming your way soon.

Thanks for your participation!

Each week, we post a thought-provoking question for your consideration.  Our theme the past few weeks has been technology and the law.

Here’s last week’s question, along with your responses:

I want to spice up a PowerPoint presentation.  Which of the following are OK legally?

a.  Kicking off the presentation by playing BTO’s Takin’ Care of Business from my iTunes playlist (0%)
b.  Embedding a YouTube video of the SNL “more cowbell” skit to illustrate effective teamwork (0%)
c.  Inserting a photo of Donald Trump into a section about how not to fire employees (6%)
d.  Showing the opening sequence of my Office Space DVD to demonstrate the advantages of telecommuting (0%)
e.  Passing out copies of a Harvard Business Review article on business ethics, including respecting copyright laws (4%)
f.   Linking to one of the deeply inspirational videos on the Blawg (19%)
g.  All of the above (40%)
h.  None of the above (32%)

The correct answer is “f.”  All the other choices could land you in legal hot water.

Copyright is one of the most misunderstood (and frequently violated) areas of the law.  That is especially true as technology continues to morph and the law tries to play catch-up. 

The basic principle is pretty simple:  If you own it, you can use it.  If you don’t, you can’t (unless you pay for it).

While some of the items may be somewhat debatable, the advice we generally get from our technology law gurus is that the only semi-safe choice among the above is linking.  That is particularly true if the site owner clearly owns the rights to the material and encourages linking.  That’s why “f” is the right choice.  (In fact, I’ll go on record right now as saying that you have my permission to link to any of the deeply inspirational and potentially life-changing videos on this site.)

Generally, to use the other items, you’d have to have the copyright owners’ permission.  The problem with that is that (a) it’s a time-consuming pain and (b) expensive.  For example, to get the rights to show an SNL skit, you have to obtain a license from the show’s owners, the individual actors and others.  The cost can be upwards of $5,000.

Some companies opt to obtain general music licenses to allow them to pay music are workplace gatherings.  Click here or here if you’re interested in exploring that option.

The Bottom Line?  Get permission or get creative.

Our readers are now batting a somewhat respectable .462 (12 right, 14 wrong) on our Questions of the Week.  The next one will be coming your way soon.

Thanks for your participation!

Last week, I reported on a pair of topics that have been generating quite a bit of buzz:  babies and guns.

On the baby front, it appears that more and more employers are allowing employees to bring infants into the workplace.  Proponents say that doing so under certain well defined guidelines increases overall productivity and morale.  Time Magazine ran a story on the phenomenon, including this rather pithy quote from a business owner:  “I don’t think a  baby is more distracting than talk about Dancing with the Stars or your weekend.” 

On the gun front, most of the debate centers around a recently enacted Florida statute that will make it unlawful for employers to prohibit employees from bringing guns to work beginning July 1.

We wanted to get your thoughts on the subject, so we asked the following question:

Which should employees be allowed to bring to work?

a.  Babies
b.  Guns
c.  Babies and guns
d.  Neither babies nor guns

The clear winner, with 57% of the votes was “d” — neither babies nor guns.

The runner-up with 31% was “a” — babies.  A somewhat concerning 7% voted for ”c” — babies and guns and 5% voted for ”b” — guns.

I have to say that I echo the sentiments of our voters.  As the father of twins, I hereby heartily applaud employers and employees who can make the “bring the kids to the office” thing workable.  But I can’t even imagine the havoc my two little bundles o’ joy would have wreaked had they been allowed in my workplace on a regular basis.  I once brought them in on a weekend for a total of about 37 seconds and in that time they managed to (a) knock over an entire supply cabinet, (b) spill their juice-filled tippy cups a couple dozen times apiece, (c) get some sort of unidentified gooey/stinky substance all over my keyboard and monitor, (d) make approximately 98 visits to the bathroom and (e) toddle in and out of various cubicles leaving behind creative post-it note displays and a rather impressive wake of destruction everywhere they went.  Just imagine what they could have done had they been heavily armed.

Thanks for your participation!  Our next Question of the Week will be coming your way soon.