The Wisconsin Court of Appeals issued a decision involving the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act (WFEA) decision,which is good for WI employees alleging retaliatory discharge under WFEA discrimination law.

The decision was in favor of an employee-complainant who complained of “discrimination” generally to a manager (without specifically referencing the type/protected class basis) shortly before being fired.

http://www.wisbar.org/res/capp/2011/2010ap001902.htm , Town of Rome v. LIRC, 2010AP001902 09-08-11

According to the decision, the employee’s complaint about discrimination, while not specific, was sufficient to protect her under WFEA’s anti-retaliation law.

The case also supports WFEA’s in-part standard, that the employer is liable for mixed motive termination if it would not have fired the employee in the absence of its (partial) motivation to retaliate against the employee for her opposing discrimination.

In some situations, a request for a personnel file is a mundane, harmless and bureaucratic event.  Maybe you’ve worked for an employer for ten years, and every January you ask the HR person for a copy of your personnel file for your own record-keeping purposes.  If this is the case, there will be no eyebrows raised with your token request.

However, if you’re an employee in a dispute with your employer/manager, and you’re thinking of requesting a copy of your personnel file, that is a different matter.

If you’re in that situation, you may be thinking thoughts like this:

• “I want to see my write-ups and all the other notes that management has been keeping on me.”
• “I want to see the case the employer is building on me, so I know what I’m dealing with, and maybe I can build my own case.  Heck, maybe I will take legal action.”

Before you request the file, however, have you thought about how your request will be interpreted by the employer?

Know this: your request is not just a request, it is also a message that you send.  A personnel file request, to an employer, is a signal.  That signal may or may not raise the employer’s eyebrows, but the signal will be examined for its meaning.

It is not rare for an employer to get a personnel file request, but it is also not common.  I’d bet that, when most employers do get personnel file requests, a sizable portion of those requests are by employees who have a dispute with the employers, and who want to look for dirt, so to speak.

Whatever the reason, I can tell you that when an employee requests his or her personnel file– especially, in the midst of a dispute — an employer will often interpret that request to be a shot across the bow.  That is, an employer will often assume you have thoughts like those above, and assume you may be preparing for a legal action, whether or not that’s the case.

If you’re having trouble at work, before you request your personnel file, you should consider these things:

(1) Who will hear my request? Will they tell any person(s) I’m having a dispute with?  Really?

(2) How will my personnel file request likely be interpreted by the people who learn of the request?

(3) How are those people likely to react based on their interpretations?  Will they get even angrier with me?  Will they get to work on cover-your-b#tt activities, and be careful to hide evidence or intentions going forward?

(4) How helpful to me are the documents in the personnel file likely to be?  Do I know what documents should be in there?  Do I think the employer will actually provide them?  And if the employer actually provides helpful documents as I anticipate, how helpful will they be? Will they help me negotiate better terms or work conditions with my employer?  Will they help me to start a lawsuit?  Did a lawyer tell me that?

(5) In weighing the potential advantages of getting personnel file documents versus the potential disadvantages of the employer’s reaction, is it better to request the personnel file or not?  If yes, when is the best timing and manner to do so?

These are some important factors that all too often go unexamined by a dispute-immersed employee who is about to make a personnel file request.  Considering these things will help you better understand what message the personnel file request may send, what effects the request may have, and ultimately, whether it’s a good idea to make the request at this time.

This Wisconsin State Bar article describes a recent WI Supreme Court case, US Bank, the outcome of which I think is very helpful for diverse employee benefits situations.  The WI SC was split (the even # was due to Justice Annette Ziegler not participating), and the appellate decision in favor of the employee thus stands.

The upheld appellate holding: “an at will employee does not forfeit benefits [in this case, a vested sales-related bonus per a bonus plan] that have accrued during his or her employment even though the agreement governing those benefits conditions their receipt on the employee’s continued employment if the employer fires the employee solely to prevent the employee from getting the accrued benefits.”

The appellate court (full decision here) relatedly found:

While it is true, as U.S. Bank argues, that in the at-will-employee context there is no “duty to terminate in good faith,” Brockmeyer v. Dun & Bradstreet, 113 Wis. 2d 561, 564, 569, 335 N.W.2d 834, 836, 838 (1983) (at-will employee) (emphasis added), the requirement that parties act in “good faith” inheres in every contract and, therefore, an employer must comply in good faith with its “contractual obligations,” Hale v. Stoughton Hosp. Ass’n, Inc., 126 Wis. 2d 267, 274, 376 N.W.2d 89, 93 (Ct. App. 1985) (“Brockmeyer does not relieve an employer of contractual obligations it has undertaken.”).

If you are an individual thinking about pursuing a legal matter– and you are like most people– you probably haven’t given thorough thought to the investments required for that type of legal matter.

Investments are not just money, but also time and emotion.

Sometimes, people proceed without an attorney, and are surprised to learn later than an attorney would have represented them on a contingency (pay-only-if-you-win) basis, or at a fee far less than what was envisioned.

Some people proceed without an attorney, and are surprised to learn there are investments of time and money (aside from attorney fees) that they did not anticipate or estimate accurately.

Sometimes the investments that play out for a legal matter turn out to be far more, or far less, than what an individual had expected.

For example, individuals who pursue a discrimination complaint without a lawyer are often surprised to learn the process can take years, and that significant fees (other than attorney fees) can come up, like deposition fees, as the matter progresses.

If you start a lengthy legal process before talking to a lawyer– e.g. say you file a discrimination complaint, and don’t talk to a lawyer until a year into the legal process– you may learn that you made significant investments that were not appropriate. For example, when an attorney works for an employee on a discrimination complaint, it is common for the attorney to exceed 100-200 hours on that matter until the point of a legal determination. If the employee proceeded on her own and did, say, 150 hours of work, then the value of that work– if paid at only the minimum wage of $7.25 per hour– would be $1,087.50. Even if it seems proceeding on a matter without an attorney will not be costly, the value of unanticipated work, and the value of real out-of-pocket expenses, can make the real-world investments greater than what you may have envisioned.

One way an attorney can provide a great deal of value– often for a few hundred dollars or less, and sometimes for free– is at initial consultation. That is, when an attorney evaluates your potential legal matter before you begin it. If you cannot consult with an affordable attorney, then you should try to seek out another knowledgeable source– say, a representative within the legal system (e.g. a discrimination agency representative)– to ask basic questions such as how long a matter like yours takes on average, what statistics exist about how cases are resolved, and for any required investments that that person may know of.

In many instances, the investments are worth it. But you have no way of knowing that in advance, unless you get comprehensive information about what your likely investments will be, with and without a lawyer.

Has your employer deducted money from your paycheck for hours that you worked?

Some employers will make mandatory deductions from hourly workers’ paychecks, without regard to time actually worked.  For example, some employers will automatically deduct one half-hour per day for a “required” lunch period, and will make this deduction without checking whether the employee was actually OFF work, and actually took a break, during that time.

Moreover, the employee’s work circumstances may have given him or her no choice but to work through lunch.  It is one thing for an employer to say an employee is free to take a lunch break, or “must” take a lunch break every day.  But that expectation of the employer does little good if there are competing expectations (e.g. busy schedules, complaining customers, limited time available, etc.) that demand an employee perform work during the designated lunch time.

Please know that if you actually WORK during the deducted periods of time (e.g. you worked during the deducted “lunch” breaks), it is NOT acceptable for the employer to reap the benefits of your work without paying you.

It is not enough for the employer to claim they told you that you were prohibited from working.

The Fair Labor Standard Act (FLSA) at 29 C.F.R. § 785.13 (Duty of management) provides the following:

“[I]t is the duty of the management to exercise its control and see that the work is not performed if it does not want it to be performed. It cannot sit back and accept the benefits without compensating for them. The mere promulgation of a rule against such work is not enough. Management has the power to enforce the rule and must make every effort to do so.”

If you are not being paid for work that you performed, you should consider having an employee rights attorney review your circumstances to see whether you should be receiving wages for the deducted periods, and whether the employer is violating wage law.  You may have good legal options to claim wages, and/or take back your free lunch.

DISCLAIMER: The information in this blog is not legal advice, nor does it establish an attorney-client relationship between you and Employee Rights Attorney Michael Brown or the law firm of Peterson, Berk & Cross. Legal advice often varies between situations. If you want legal advice for your specific circumstances, you must consult with an attorney (and an employment attorney for employment matters).

For more information about Wisconsin employment lawyer Michael F. Brown and Peterson, Berk & Cross, S.C., please visit here.

Technorati Profile

Dogs and Cats Living Together!

Recently I was at a legal hearing.  It was the same old drill in most respects.  Two parties opposed each other.  A boss had fired an employee.  The boss’s testimony opposed the employee’s testimony, and vice versa.  Neither side changed any beliefs when the hearing was over.

But after the hearing, a great thing happened.

After the hearing, I saw my client, the employee, approach the boss that had fired him and now testified against him.  The two men proceeded to shake hands.  Then they stood and talked for awhile.  From the two persons’ body language, I could tell that they liked and respected each other.  I also knew that neither person had changed his mind about the hearing, or about feeling right about his position on the job termination.

These two dynamics– having a big dispute with an opponent, yet liking that opponent– are not contradictory.  Not if disputes are recognized for what they are: a conflict between two views, not a conflict between two persons.

As is often written, it’s important to recognize there’s a distinction between a person and his views.  Between a person and his conduct, or a person and his misconduct, e.g. “hate the sin, love the sinner.”

It’s easy to note these distinctions, and their surface logic that it’s best to be polite and not personalize matters.  But these oft-spoken standards usually go out the window after a legal dispute starts.  More often than not, legal proceedings are made personal and taken personally.

But not this time.  Which is more than good.

Legal Services- WI Unemployment

Employee Rights attorney (and blog author) Michael Brown provides legal representation for Wisconsin workers in unemployment hearings.  No legal fees are owed unless you win your unemployment benefits.  To learn more, contact Employee Rights assistant Joy Sisler at 920-831-0300 or jsisler@pbclaw.com, or click this picture link .

And sometimes, resignation is in fact the better option for a worker.

But here’s the issue: do you really want to rely on your employer’s advice about what’s in your best interest at the point the employer is asking you to leave?

Often, for Wisconsin workers, it is a worse decision to agree to a forced resignation than to be fired.

Here are some potential disadvantages of resigning (as opposed to being fired):

- It Can Hurt Unemployment.

A resignation can make it more difficult for a worker to get unemployment benefits.

- It Can Hurt Potential Legal Claims.

A discrimination claim or other termination-based legal claim can lose value if the worker resigns as opposed to being fired.  An employee who is fired can assert the employer (the termination decision-maker) is clearly responsible for the job termination and the lost monies that result from that decision clearly made by the employer.  An employee who resigns leaves himself more open to argument that he (rather than the employer) was the person who caused his lost monies, thus the employer argues it should not be responsible for legal damages.

- It Can Hurt Potential Severance or Settlement Negotiations.

If an employer has a signed resignation document from you– particularly if it’s also accompanied by a signed statement “admitting” wrongdoing that you didn’t really agree with but signed anyway because you felt pressured, etc.– then the employer knows that you have weakened the potential value of your legal claims.  Lesser legal claims = lesser leverage for you to negotiate severance or settlement terms with the employer.

This post is NOT saying that agreeing to resign may not have potential benefits, or may potentially help a worker, in some situations.

There are some situations where on the scale of pros and cons, it makes sense to accept a forced resignation rather than be terminated.

But in my observation, many workers do not consider and weigh all the pros and cons, and too readily accept the employer’s assertion that resignation “is in your best interest.”

If  an employer is asking you (or telling you) to leave, your best interest is not the employer’s first priority.  Consider talking to an employment attorney, or at least someone who is independent of the employer and who can speak to you about what is in your best interests without having to serve the employer’s interests as well.

DISCLAIMER: The information in this blog is not legal advice, nor does it establish an attorney-client relationship between you and Employee Rights Attorney Michael Brown or the law firm of Peterson, Berk & Cross. Legal advice often varies between situations. If you want legal advice for your specific circumstances, you must consult with an attorney (and an employment attorney for employment matters).

For more information about Wisconsin employment lawyer Michael F. Brown and Peterson, Berk & Cross, S.C., please visit here.

Technorati Profile

Many folks disagree with this blog’s de-emphasis of “principle.”  And there are some very abusive bad employment situations out there one can point to as examples of “principle” being important, even when financial loss was not a factor.  I have heard from workers whose bosses subjected them to physical assault, to screaming, and to comments and acts that were so insulting they leave me scratching my head as to which direction this world is heading.

Hostile workplace situations– which often do not involve financial loss, or violate the law– are nonetheless harmful and should be addressed.

So, I must note the principle of the matter DOES matter. If your employer is harassing you, that is wrong, and that matters, regardless whether an attorney tells you that you have a good legal claim or not.

The concern this blog has with “principle” is mainly an issue of FORUM: if you address your issue via a civil lawsuit (say, a discrimination claim) this is often not the best forum in which to pursue a principle.  If the “principle” matter is accompanied by an economic loss– for example, if someone is sexually harassed, fired for complaining of sexual harassment, and loses six months of income– then the civil justice system is an appropriate place to try to recover lost money along with the principle.  But the civil system does not make an employer change its heart or apologize, and often winning parties do not even feel a sense of vindication, they just have a financial gain.

A principle– such as correcting an employer’s misconduct, ensuring other employees are not harassed or fired for wrong reasons in the future, etc.– is often better addressed by non-litigation means than by litigation.

A person looking to correct an employer’s conduct can (1) pursue informal, non-costly means to address a problem, like a heart-to-heart discussionwith a representative of the employer (hey, sometimes to your surprise there is a person of influence who will listen to you, you both have open minds, and communication works!); (2) contact your legislator and/or pursue legislation to address the problem/issue of “principle” (for example, Wisconsin could benefit from anti-bullying legislation like some other states have, which prohibit abusive conduct by employers); (3) take your labor and your talents to a better work environment, knowing there are better days ahead.

Image by The Library of Congress via Flickr

Are you an employee in an employment dispute, and considering whether to “drop the L-bomb,” and tell your employer you’re retaining an attorney?

Occasionally, an employee/prospective client who consults with me will tell me that he already dropped the L-bomb, and already told his employer he would be retaining a lawyer.

Often, this news was told to the employer in a huff, e.g. “If you insist on denying my medical leave, Ms. Manager, well then you’ll be hearing from my lawyer!”  Every once in awhile, an employee who I’ve never even met or communicated with will send an email to the manager he or she’s having a dispute with, and will copy my email address (found on the internet) on the email to the manager.  Thus this gives the impression I have been retained to represent someone I’d never been in contact with.  (For anyone considering using a lawyer/email address to do this, please DON’T– it’s not a good idea for many reasons).

Making L-bomb threats may feel good when one is frustrated.  However, what feels good to say or do “in the moment” of an angry employment dispute can often result in bad, long-term consequences.

In most situations, it will NOT help an employee to drop the L-bomb, and tell your employer that you’re retaining a lawyer.

In many situations, the employee’s mere mention of the L-word makes the employer even more upset, makes the employer take more adverse actions, and makes the situation worse.  Most employers are not intimidated by L-threats, because often the threats aren’t carried out.  It may be the employer’s experience that they’ve heard many L-bombs dropped, but usually a lawyer was not hired, there was no lawsuit, etc.  Or perhaps your employer anticipates you will likely get a lawyer, but the employer has planned for the worst-case L-scenarios and risks, and the employer isn’t worried about your particular legal issues.  And sometimes, an employee’s L-bomb threat appears to work, and the employer seems to back off, but only later the employee learns the L-threat just made the employer take more carefully-planned actions, without giving the employee (and her attorney) advance warnings anymore.

In sum, the L-bomb usually turns out to be less intimidating to the employer, and less effective in improving the employee’s situation, than the employee expects.

With all that said, there are certain occasions where the news of hiring a lawyer, when well-delivered, CAN make an abrupt and positive impact on an employee’s matter.  And if you’re hiring an attorney long-term, such as for litigation work, the employer must and will be told you have a lawyer at some point, in fairness to the employer.  But before you rush to deliver that news yourself, especially if you’re in a huff, you should stop to reflect.  Since you’re getting a lawyer involved, then it only makes sense you talk to that lawyer about your plans (including any planned announcement you’ve retained a lawyer) before you put those plans in action.

It’s best that the lawyer and employee/client discuss and plan in advance the announcement that the lawyer was hired.  Then that news can be delivered to the employer under carefully-considered timing and circumstances.

DISCLAIMER: The information in this blog is not legal advice, nor does it establish an attorney-client relationship between you and Employee Rights Attorney Michael Brown or the law firm of Peterson, Berk & Cross. Legal advice often varies between situations. If you want legal advice for your specific circumstances, you must consult with an attorney (and an employment attorney for employment matters).

For more information about Wisconsin employment attorney Michael F. Brown and Peterson, Berk & Cross, S.C., please visit here.

Technorati Profile

Commonly, I get calls  from workers who are interested in a defamation action, based on false statements an employer made.  Defamation is a State-law claim, and I have represented persons for defamation claims under Wisconsin law.

If you are contemplating a defamation action against an employer, consider the things below.  (Please note this post does not provide legal advice; if you want legal advice, you must consult about your specific situation with an attorney who is licensed in the State in which the allegedly defamatory statements were made).

• Are you within the legal deadline period (and if in Wisconsin, did the employer make the false statement within the last 2 years)?

Wisconsin has a two-year statute of limitations (deadline period) for a defamation claim.  If you are in another State, that State may have a different statute of limitations period for defamation.

You should talk to an attorney about when the employer’s statements were made, to make sure you have time under applicable statutes of limitations to pursue defamation claims or any other legal claims that may apply.

• Did the employer make a demonstrably false statement?

In order to pursue a defamation action against an employer, you must show the employer made a false statement.

If an employer says you embezzled $100,000 and you didn’t, then that type of accusation is tangible and something that could realistically be investigated and proved false.  However, if the employer said something more subjective (e.g. that you are a “poor worker”), then that sort of intangible comment (e.g. “poor”) is harder to address and prove false.

So, if you are interested in a potential defamation action, the first question you should ask yourself is whether the type of employer statement at issue is subjective, or is objectively quantifiable as true or false.

• Can you prove the employer made the false statement?

Do you have proof — a document, recording, written statement from a witness who heard the statement, etc.– that proves the employer actually made the false statement?  If you are banking on assumptions alone (e.g. “my employer MUST be making false statements about me to other employers, because that’s the kind of people they are, and when I  apply to other employers no one offers me work”), that will probably not be enough to win a defamation claim.

If you do not have proof of a false statement, it is often the case that the employer will deny making the statement or will say they can’t remember.  If you intend on pursuing litigation for a defamation matter, you should have proof in-hand.

• Has the false statement mattered- has it cost you a specific opportunity or wages you can identify?

Can you prove you lost a specific opportunity and/or monies, e.g. you lost a new job because of your old employer’s false statements?  If you lost tangible opportunities and monies due to a false statement, then it becomes more feasible to consider a legal action.

• What was the context in which the statement was made– was it while you were a current or former employee? While you were in a legal proceeding?

If an employer makes a false statement in certain contexts– for example, if the false statement is made during legal proceedings (e.g. during a deposition), or in a public forum– then there are certain legal immunities that may apply and make a defamation action difficult even if you can prove a false statement was made.

As another example, if an employer makes a false statement about a current employee as opposed to a former employee, then a defamation claim could be preempted (blocked) by workers compensation law, depending on the situation.

In short, the context of the statement matters.  Talk to an employee rights attorney licensed in your State about the specific circumstances under which the false statement was made.  (You can search for such an employee rights attorney, by-State, at this website).

DISCLAIMER: The information in this blog is not legal advice, nor does it establish an attorney-client relationship between you and Employee Rights Attorney Michael Brown or the law firm of Peterson, Berk & Cross. Legal advice often varies between situations. If you want legal advice for your specific circumstances, you must consult with an attorney (and an employment attorney for employment matters).

For more information about Wisconsin employment attorney Michael F. Brown and Peterson, Berk & Cross, S.C., please visit here.

Technorati Profile