HR Strategy

9

July, 2018

Moving Forward After #MeToo – Consider Your Policies

Recent changes to New York State law regarding prevention of sexual harassment will require employers to revisit existing policies to comply with newly-mandated provisions, as summarized in our lead story from Takeaways, Spring 2018.  But looking beyond the state law, one key lesson to be derived from the #MeToo movement is that workplace policies prohibiting harassment must also emphasize power disparities.  The common thread in so many of the #MeToo-type incidents reported in the media is the use of, or perceived threat to use, power to objectify or demean someone.   This power-based focus is not just limited to gender; it plays out in interactions between individuals of different races, national origin, religions, sexual orientation and other protected classes, and thus it should be emphasized in any policy prohibiting harassment, not just those pertaining to sexual harassment.

Power disparities also are not limited to supervisor-subordinate relationships.  Consider a new hire being shown the ropes by an employee with five or ten years of experience.  Those individuals may be peers on an organization chart, but there still is a power disparity that can cause the new hire to feel uncomfortable objecting to offensive behavior.

Other times, the behavior at issue may not fall into the category of actionable harassment based on a protected characteristic.  Sometimes the behavior is just demeaning and abusive on an individual or group level.

Regardless of whether the behavior would give rise to a legal claim, the nature of such conduct can be corrosive in the work environment.  It can undermine morale, loyalty and productivity.  One step in addressing that is to add a clear, express statement in your anti-harassment policy that you will not tolerate the use of, or perceived threat to use, power to objectify or demean someone based on a protected class.  Employers that want to go further than the law can build on that with an anti-bullying or workplace conduct policy emphasizing that actual or perceived misuse of power, including abusive behavior, is not acceptable and grounds for disciplinary action.

Employment policies need to comply with legal requirements, but employers have the option of holding employees to a higher standard of behavior.  Updating policies to incorporate lessons learned from #MeToo is an important step in that process.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
15

May, 2018

What’s Different About New York’s Harassment Prevention Training Mandate

Beginning this fall, employers in New York State will be required to provide interactive harassment prevention training to employees.  This is not a new concept – such training has been mandated for years in California, Connecticut and Maine – but the scope, nature and frequency of the training are quite different from what other states have legally required.  Consider:

  • All private employers are covered – other states only mandate employers of a certain size to provide such training; New York’s law applies to every private sector employer;
  • All employees are covered – other states only mandate training for those at a supervisor level or above; New York’s law covers employees at every level of the organization;
  • It must be done annually – other states require biannual training;
  • It needs to cover legal rights and remedies with regard to sexual harassment – other states take a more holistic approach to discussing all forms of unlawful harassment, discrimination and retaliation; a prudent New York State employer would do the same and look beyond just sexual harassment;
  • There is no minimum duration – other states mandate two hours of training; New York sets no time limit, but mandates interactivity and a list of subjects to be covered.

The Department of Labor and the Division of Human Rights are currently working to develop a model of the type of training program they expect employers to implement.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
28

November, 2016

NY Employers Still Must Consider Classification of Exempt Employees

For New York employers, the recent federal hold on the FLSA regulatory changes is not the final word. New York State law changes have been proposed, which are far more likely to move forward, that will similarly increase the base salary thresholds for employers in the state, albeit not quite to the level of the proposed FLSA regulations (that level will be reached within the next two to four years, and ultimately surpassed for employers in New York City and the surrounding suburbs). Read More

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
8

September, 2016

Restrictive Covenants: One Size Should Not Fit All

As employers strive for that little edge to stay ahead of their competitors, restrictive covenants – clauses that limit an employee’s ability to work for a competitor, solicit and/or service their employer’s customers, contract with their employer’s vendors, and/or entice away their employer’s staff – have become increasingly common in all types of work environments and for all levels of employees.  From my business clients I know that these clauses are valued for their deterrent effect, even if the employer does not intend to actively enforce them in most situations.  But from my representation of departing and departed employees, I have also seen the dark side of such covenants, with employers who threaten departed employees and imperil their status with their new employer by claiming a breach of covenants that are of questionable enforceability. Read More

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
24

July, 2015

Three Major Wage Law Changes Require Reassessing Pay Practices

The legal landscape with regard to who must be paid for their work, and what and how they must be paid is collectively shifting as a result of recent developments from the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) and the federal courts.  A recent decision by the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals has cleared the way for employers to hire more students as unpaid interns by rejecting a rigid six-factor DOL test that had precluded virtually all unpaid internships.  At the same time, though, the DOL has tightened other standards to push many more workers into the classification of employees (not freelancers or independent contractors) and the DOL projects its new proposed regulations on overtime eligibility will annually entitle millions of more employees to overtime pay. Read More

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Back to Top