Many times employers are hesitant to take action when an employee has been on an extended leave of absence due to a workers’ compensation claim arising from an injury or illness occurring while in the course of work duties or when the employee is unable to return from a protected leave, such as the federal Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), or a state’s equivalent leave. Employers must look to the mandated leaves, organizational-internal policies, and past practices before taking an adverse employment action, such as disciplinary action or termination. Ensuring compliance with regulatory guidelines, and consistent application of internal policies and practices will generally protect an employer from any discriminatory practices.
- Workers’ Compensation Leaves - Employees who have sustained an on the job injury and are on a workers’ compensation leave of absence are protected under individual state non-discrimination regulations, and may enjoy protection under a state’s mandated leave or the FMLA. Employers must ensure that these employees are treated the same as other employees who are temporarily disabled and follow any internal policies or past practices related to the leaves. Further, employers should consult with the claims manager at their workers’ compensation carrier to discuss any adverse employment action prior to taking the action, to determine that there is agreement in terminating the employment of the individual, and to discuss the effect of such a termination on the claim.
- FMLA or State Equivalent Leaves - Employers must comply with the FMLA or a state equivalent leave if the employee is employed at a work site that has 50 or more employees within a 75-mile radius.· FMLA or the state equivalents often run concurrently with a workers’ compensation claim and/or internal leave of absence policies. The FMLA or the state equivalent provides a period of time of job protected leave.· After the expiration of the mandated leave, employers may rely on internal policies and practices related to the extension of time off if the individual is still unable to return to work. Otherwise, an employer may terminate the individual’s employment if he/she is unable to return after the expiration of the mandated leave.
- Internal Leave of Absence Policies – Many times an employer who does not have to comply with a mandated leave or who wants to provide an extended leave of absence will have an internal temporary disability leave policy that affords employees time away from work for recovery. These internal practices also may be used to extend an employee’s leave if he/she is still unable to return to work following an FMLA or state equivalent leave’s expiration.
The key with all leave of absence administration is that the employer’s policies and practices are consistently applied.· Consistent application of these policies and practices will ensure non-discriminatory practices when it comes to the termination of an individual who is unable to return to work from leave. If you have questions about your leave of absence requirements, or need assistance in the development of a policy in this regard, please reach out to your HR Professional for guidance.
On April 25, 2012, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) released updates to its guidelines on when and how employers may inquire into an applicant’s arrest and conviction history.
The EEOC’s Updated Guidance
No federal law explicitly prohibits employers from so inquiring into an applicant’s past criminal history, however, court decisions and EEOC guidelines have previously recognized that, in some cases, disqualifying an applicant because of an arrest or conviction record could violate the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based upon race, color, religion, sex and national origin.
How could we be found to have violated Title VII?
Why do we only use conviction records to make employment decisions?
According to the EEOC, an employer’s reliance on an arrest record in and of itself is not job related and consistent with business necessity because the fact of an arrest does not establish that criminal conduct has occurred. The EEOC further recognizes that a conviction record in most cases will usually serve as sufficient evidence that an individual engaged in particular conduct, but notes that in certain circumstances there may be reasons why an employer should not rely on a conviction record alone.
EEOC Best Practices
What if there is an investigation?
During an investigation, the EEOC will look to whether the particular employer’s use of criminal history has a statistically significant disparate impact on any protected group. Once a disproportionate impact is shown, the employer may only avoid liability if it can show that the reliance on criminal history is job related and consistent with business necessity.
Example of Disparate Treatment Based on Race
John, who is White, and Robert, who is African American, are both recent graduates of State University. They have similar educational backgrounds, skills, and work experience. They each pled guilty to charges of possessing and distributing marijuana as high school students, and neither of them had any subsequent contact with the criminal justice system.
After college, they both apply for employment with Office Jobs, Inc., which, after short intake interviews, obtains their consent to conduct a background check. Based on the outcome of the background check, which reveals their drug convictions, an Office Jobs, Inc., representative decides not to refer Robert for a follow-up interview. The representative remarked to a co-worker that Office Jobs, Inc., cannot afford to refer “these drug dealer types” to client companies. However, the same representative refers John for an interview, asserting that John’s youth at the time of the conviction and his subsequent lack of contact with the criminal justice system make the conviction unimportant. Office Jobs, Inc., has treated John and Robert differently based on race, in violation of Title VII.
Example of Disparate Treatment Based on National Origin
Tad, who is White, and Nelson, who is Latino, are both recent high school graduates with grade point averages above 4.0 and college plans. While Nelson has successfully worked full-time for a landscaping company during the summers, Tad only held occasional lawn-mowing and camp-counselor jobs. In an interview for a research job with Meaningful and Paid Internships, Inc. (MPII), Tad discloses that he pled guilty to a felony at age 16 for accessing his school’s computer system over the course of several months without authorization and changing his classmates’ grades. Nelson, in an interview with MPII, emphasizes his successful prior work experience, from which he has good references, but also discloses that, at age 16, he pled guilty to breaking and entering into his high school as part of a class prank that caused little damage to school property. Neither Tad nor Nelson had subsequent contact with the criminal justice system.
The hiring manager at MPII invites Tad for a second interview, despite his record of criminal conduct. However, the same hiring manager sends Nelson a rejection notice, saying to a colleague that Nelson is only qualified to do manual labor and, moreover, that he has a criminal record. In light of the evidence showing that Nelson’s and Tad’s educational backgrounds are similar, that Nelson’s work experience is more extensive, and that Tad’s criminal conduct is more indicative of untrustworthiness, MPII has failed to state a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for rejecting Nelson. If Nelson filed a Title VII charge alleging disparate treatment based on national origin and the EEOC’s investigation confirmed these facts, the EEOC would find reasonable cause to believe that discrimination occurred.
