Yes, I am a lawyer. And every so often I read a case that explains to me why it is that people hate lawyers so much. Today I read just such a case.
The plaintiff in Harrington v. Payroll Entertainment Services, Inc. had a $44.63 claim against his former employer for unpaid overtime. Yes, you read that right, $44.63. And, of course, he found an attorney to file a lawsuit in order to get that money. In fact, he believed there were others who also were owed overtime, and he filed a class action alleging various violations of California's Labor Code. There were a total of 16 people affected by the violations. Calculations done by the employer revealed that the total amount of overtime owed was $714.08. Because of various penalties, etc. that had accrued, the case ultimately settled for $10,500. As part of the settlement, the parties agreed that Harrington would be considered the "prevailing party" for purposes of an attorney fee award. So far, so good.
Harrington's attorney then submitted a motion for fees, seeking $46, 277, more than 1000 times the amount of the value of Harrington's claim, and more than four times the amount of the settlement. The documentation supporting the award noted that there were five lawyers and one paralegal working on the case, with one lawyer billing 55.6 hours at $525 per hour! On a case that arose from a $44.63 claim. The trial court judge denied the motion outright, and the Court of Appeal reversed, awarding $500. Maybe that wasn't enough, maybe it was. But it certainly sent a message.
Yes, labor code violations can be costly, both in terms of liability and the attorneys fees that must be paid if an employer is found to violate the labor code. For some useful information about how to avoid violating the labor code, check out my podcasts at http://employerhelpcast.blip.tv/file/224221/ and http://employerhelpcast.blip.tv/file/224199/.
But the fact that the lawyers spent so much time (and money) and thought it was reasonable to recover that amount of money (which was so many times the amount of recovery their clients received), is what gives many people a bad feeling about lawyers.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Happy Valentine's Day!
A word for all employers on Valentine's Day:
Does Cupid have Your Employees in his Sights?
It is that time of year again. Flowers and hearts, chocolates and cards. But, what is an employer to do if the objects of his or her employees’ affections are their co-workers, supervisors, or the people they supervise? What’s more, what happens if the affections are not reciprocated? Or, what if they are?
Valentines’ Day seems to give many employees a “free pass” to be playful and romantic at work. Heart-shaped candies that say “Be Mine” are left on people’s desks. Chocolate roses are presented. Jovial cards reminiscent of grade school days are given. E-cards are sent (using office computers, of course.) Harmless, right?
Maybe yes, maybe no. Not to criticize harmless fun, but where is the line to be drawn at the workplace? While most people don’t view cupid as being a sexual being, there is no mistaking the message of many of the provocative gifts, cards and e-cards sent at work on Valentine’s Day. People often consider Valentine’s Day as being exempt from company rules and regulations about inappropriate workplace conduct. It is Valentine’s Day, remember romance?
When affections are directed at someone who does not share the feeling, the object of the affection could feel put upon, uncomfortable, or even worse, sexually harassed! And if the person presenting the “friendly valentine” is a supervisor, then the unwilling recipient could feel obligated to reciprocate in order not to offend the person who evaluates her work and determines her raises.
What about the co-workers of the person who receives that special box of chocolates or roses? Those people see their supervisor showing valentine’s favoritism towards their co-worker, may suddenly believe he is treating her better than he is treating them. She will get the better assignments, the “plum” positions, and a higher raise. She is the manager’s “love interest,” his paramour, which makes the other employees feel uncomfortable and mistreated. Claims can be filed by both the unreceptive “love interest,” as well as the uncomfortable co-workers. It is a “lose-lose” situation for the employer and the Romeo supervisor.
What can be equally as uncomfortable is a situation where there is reciprocity of affection. Whether amongst co-workers or managers, outward displays of affection in the workplace, on Valentines Day or not, can make others in the workforce feel uncomfortable. Employees may not like watching people hugging at work, awkward that they may be next to be hugged (or that they need to allow themselves to be hugged to be accepted.) Employees may draw the conclusion that the way one “gets ahead” in the company is by becoming romantically involved with a supervisor. Employees may get nauseous hearing too many “honey, baby, sweetie” remarks at work.
Then, what happens if the once-consensual relationship sours? What was once welcome behavior by both people suddenly becomes unwelcome by one of them. The affectionate remarks, cards, gifts, and “love taps” suddenly is offensive, and considered to be harassing by the former love interest. Many companies have even sought legal counsel to create “love contracts,” where the participants in the consensual relationship acknowledge that the relationship exists, that it is consensual, and that nothing that happens between the two love birds can be considered harassment. That is, of course, until one of the love birds flies from the relationship and lets their employer know that the “love contract” is no longer in effect. Not only can this disrupt the relationship between the individuals involved, it can also disrupt operations. From office gossip to arranging for quickie job transfers, the “break up” can dominate a once-productive workplace.
The best way for employers to protect themselves and their employees from uncomfortable and unwelcome activity, both on Valentine’s Day and throughout the year, is by making sure that all employees are trained about sexual harassment, how to respond, and how to complain. In some places (like California), this training is mandated by law for many employers. Even though employers cannot control how their employees interact, training ensures that they have done what they can to educate their employees.
Maybe employers should pick Valentine’s Day to do sexual harassment training? Long-stemmed chocolate roses for everyone!
If you would like to find out more about sexual harassment issues, check out my podcast at http://employerhelpcast.blip.tv/file/270431/. Also, all employers should (and all employers with 50 or more employees MUST) conduct sexual harassment training. To find out more about employers' sexual harassment training obligations, check out http://employerhelpcast.blip.tv/file/337812/
Happy Valentine's Day
Helene
Does Cupid have Your Employees in his Sights?
It is that time of year again. Flowers and hearts, chocolates and cards. But, what is an employer to do if the objects of his or her employees’ affections are their co-workers, supervisors, or the people they supervise? What’s more, what happens if the affections are not reciprocated? Or, what if they are?
Valentines’ Day seems to give many employees a “free pass” to be playful and romantic at work. Heart-shaped candies that say “Be Mine” are left on people’s desks. Chocolate roses are presented. Jovial cards reminiscent of grade school days are given. E-cards are sent (using office computers, of course.) Harmless, right?
Maybe yes, maybe no. Not to criticize harmless fun, but where is the line to be drawn at the workplace? While most people don’t view cupid as being a sexual being, there is no mistaking the message of many of the provocative gifts, cards and e-cards sent at work on Valentine’s Day. People often consider Valentine’s Day as being exempt from company rules and regulations about inappropriate workplace conduct. It is Valentine’s Day, remember romance?
When affections are directed at someone who does not share the feeling, the object of the affection could feel put upon, uncomfortable, or even worse, sexually harassed! And if the person presenting the “friendly valentine” is a supervisor, then the unwilling recipient could feel obligated to reciprocate in order not to offend the person who evaluates her work and determines her raises.
What about the co-workers of the person who receives that special box of chocolates or roses? Those people see their supervisor showing valentine’s favoritism towards their co-worker, may suddenly believe he is treating her better than he is treating them. She will get the better assignments, the “plum” positions, and a higher raise. She is the manager’s “love interest,” his paramour, which makes the other employees feel uncomfortable and mistreated. Claims can be filed by both the unreceptive “love interest,” as well as the uncomfortable co-workers. It is a “lose-lose” situation for the employer and the Romeo supervisor.
What can be equally as uncomfortable is a situation where there is reciprocity of affection. Whether amongst co-workers or managers, outward displays of affection in the workplace, on Valentines Day or not, can make others in the workforce feel uncomfortable. Employees may not like watching people hugging at work, awkward that they may be next to be hugged (or that they need to allow themselves to be hugged to be accepted.) Employees may draw the conclusion that the way one “gets ahead” in the company is by becoming romantically involved with a supervisor. Employees may get nauseous hearing too many “honey, baby, sweetie” remarks at work.
Then, what happens if the once-consensual relationship sours? What was once welcome behavior by both people suddenly becomes unwelcome by one of them. The affectionate remarks, cards, gifts, and “love taps” suddenly is offensive, and considered to be harassing by the former love interest. Many companies have even sought legal counsel to create “love contracts,” where the participants in the consensual relationship acknowledge that the relationship exists, that it is consensual, and that nothing that happens between the two love birds can be considered harassment. That is, of course, until one of the love birds flies from the relationship and lets their employer know that the “love contract” is no longer in effect. Not only can this disrupt the relationship between the individuals involved, it can also disrupt operations. From office gossip to arranging for quickie job transfers, the “break up” can dominate a once-productive workplace.
The best way for employers to protect themselves and their employees from uncomfortable and unwelcome activity, both on Valentine’s Day and throughout the year, is by making sure that all employees are trained about sexual harassment, how to respond, and how to complain. In some places (like California), this training is mandated by law for many employers. Even though employers cannot control how their employees interact, training ensures that they have done what they can to educate their employees.
Maybe employers should pick Valentine’s Day to do sexual harassment training? Long-stemmed chocolate roses for everyone!
If you would like to find out more about sexual harassment issues, check out my podcast at http://employerhelpcast.blip.tv/file/270431/. Also, all employers should (and all employers with 50 or more employees MUST) conduct sexual harassment training. To find out more about employers' sexual harassment training obligations, check out http://employerhelpcast.blip.tv/file/337812/
Happy Valentine's Day
Helene
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)