"This & That" Tuesday: Pregnancy Discrimination, Free Speech, Extortion

July 14, 2015

 

Here is the latest issue of “This & That” Tuesday. I hope you find it to be informative and useful.

 

Announcements

You can always check out my website for upcoming speaking engagements that are guaranteed to be of value to business owners or for a list of topics that I can speak on at Chambers, Clubs, Business Associations, etc. More details about the events, topics and Human Resources 4U, in general, can be found on my website.

 

Upcoming Events

July 15, 2015

West Inland Empire Employer Advisory Council

Coaching to Improve Performance

Information can be found on my website.

 

July 22 2015

Industry Manufacturers Council

HR4U 101 Full-day Workshop

Information can be found on my website.

 

September 15, 2015

Irwindale Chamber of Commerce

Hiring Talent for Consistent Performance

Information can be found on my website.

 

Greystar Management Services Pays $25,000 to Settle Pregnancy Discrimination

Greystar Management Services of Maryland will pay $25,000 and furnish significant remedial relief to settle a federal pregnancy discrimination lawsuit filed by the EEOC.

According to the EEOC's suit, employee Amada Lucero informed company management that she was pregnant and requested that she be excused from working with certain cleaning products. A company manager demanded that she provide medical documentation confirming that she was pregnant and clearing her to work with cleaning chemicals. Lucero's doctor would not provide her with the required documentation, but Lucero nonetheless determined that she would continue working and perform her normal duties. Greystar Management Services disregarded Lucero's choice to work and fired her.

In addition to the $25,000 in monetary relief to Lucero, the 30-month consent decree resolving the lawsuit enjoins Greystar Management Services from discriminating against any person based on sex or pregnancy. The company will implement and disseminate to all employees a policy prohibiting pregnancy discrimination and will provide training to all officers and managers at its Maryland facilities. The company will also post a remedial notice about the settlement.

 

Protected Speech Does Not Include Extortion, California Appellate Court Rules

An employee’s e-mail threatening to report his employer to the U.S. Attorney and file an action under the federal False Claims Act unless the employer agreed to settle his defamation claim constituted extortion the California Court of Appeal has ruled. Thus, the e-mail was not protected speech under California’s anti-SLAPP statute.

 

Jerome Stenehjem was terminated in January 2011 from employment with Akon, Inc. Thereafter, he sued Akon for defamation and wrongful termination, among other things. Shortly after Stenehjem’s termination, his attorney spoke with Akon’s counsel and made a “pre-litigation” settlement demand of $675,000. Akron rejected the demand, describing Stenehjem’s case as “meritless.”

 

In August 2011, Stenehjem sent an e-mail to Akron requesting a meeting to resolve his claims and threatening to report the company to the U.S. Attorney, Department of Justice and Department of Defense for allegedly directing Stenehjem to create false accounting reports. Stenehjem also threatened to file an action under the federal False Claims Act claim against Akron to obtain “the biggest payout they can get with the least effort and expense.” 

 

“SLAPP” is an acronym for “strategic lawsuit against public participation.” Under California law, a SLAPP suit can be brought against a plaintiff whose claim “seeks to chill or punish a party’s exercise of constitutional rights to free speech and to petition the government for redress of grievances.” The anti-SLAPP statute allows courts to decide SLAPP suits using a special motion to strike, similar to a summary judgment motion. If the “assertedly protected speech or petitioning activity is illegal as a matter of law,” a defendant cannot use the anti-SLAPP statute to strike the plaintiff’s complaint.

 

Based on the parties’ history of settlement discussions, the Court found meritless Stenehjem’s assertion that his e-mail reflected “merely a benign desire” to discuss his claims. The Court noted the e-mail accused Sareen of ordering Stenehjem to create false accounting documents, and then threatened to expose Sareen to federal authorities for alleged violations of the False Claims Act unless he negotiated a settlement of Stenehjem’s claims.

 

Factoids

• 30% of millennials expect their standard of living to increase during retirement while only 8% of boomers do
• 20% of millennials expect their standard of living to decrease during retirement while 41% of boomers do.
• The current estimated, total  retirement savings for millennials is $32,000 and for boomers it is $127,000.
• 95% of companies use temp workers at any given time.

 

Quote of the Blog

“Destiny is no matter of chance. It is a matter of choice.”

~William Jennings Bryan~