Search This Blog

Friday, January 18, 2019

EEOC & DOJ Tag Teaming Employers on Harassment – Especially State and Local Governments


On December 21, 2018, the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) and DOJ (U.S. Department of Justice) exchanged Christmas gifts early. The EEOC is now in a renewed partnership with the DOJ allowing for quicker referral action on harassment allegations against state and local government employers, putting those public employers more squarely in the EEOC's crosshairs and signaling to private businesses that harassment will remain a top enforcement priority.

Under the Memorandum of Understanding, or MOU, these the agencies will share information and enables them to better coordinate their activities when charges alleging Title VII violations are brought against public employers at the state and local level. This enhanced coordination will allow the agencies to move more briskly in instances where the EEOC finds in the initial phases of its investigation that immediate action is needed to protect workers. In those cases, the EEOC will give the DOJ the information it needs to seek an injunction from a federal judge while a charge is still being investigated.

This is an outgrowth of the commission's sharpening focus on #MeToo legal issues under Title VII, the EEOC and DOJ split enforcement authority for Title VII claims levied against state and local employers. The EEOC has touted the partnership as a way to "ensure the efficient use of resources and a consistent enforcement strategy" against state and local government employers. "Harassment at work can have a devastating impact on people," Chairman Victoria Lipnic said in her statement. "The employees in the public sector deserve as much of our attention on this issue as those in the private sector." Like when an employee is fired while an investigation into their allegation is pending, you can expect that the DOJ will vigorously insert itself in those instances to assist the EEOC in obtaining temporary restraining orders or injunctive relief during the investigation phase of a case. 

Common Sense Counsel: In light of the MOU take the following proactive steps: 1) state and local government employers should think proactively about nipping discrimination and harassment in the bud before it occurs, as well as systemic ways to defend against charges when they are filed; 2) Make sure your existing policies are in tune with relevant anti-discrimination and anti-harassment laws, and the 2018 EEOC Harassment Guidance ; 3) Train managers and HR staff on those policies and make sure workers know both that the policies exist and what the internal procedures are if they want to pursue an allegation; 4) Actually deal with issues internally when they arise and to properly investigate them and make sure that appropriate measured action is taken; 5) To the extent that those protocols and policies need to be more robust and in writing, or training is needed, now is a really good time to turn attention to those issues; 6) In the EEOC 75 page harassment report the agency took a deep dive into the issue of workplace harassment and offered employers a series of practical recommendations for curtailing it – better read it now or you will see it in the TRO petition; and 7) realize if you are not handling these kinds of matters appropriately, the EEOC and DOJ will have you on their radar locked and loaded to fire in federal court!

Tommy Eden is a partner working out of the Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP office in Opelika, AL and can be contacted at teden@constangy.com or 205-222-8030. Blog at www.alabamaatwork.com with links.

Friday, January 4, 2019

How People are Dying at Work

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported on December 18, 2018: a total of 5,147 fatal work injuries were recorded in the United States in 2017. Fatal falls as the cause of death were at their highest level in the 26-year history of the Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries, accounting for 887 (17%) of worker deaths, up over 30% since 2011. This coincides with the Marijuana Greening of America which also produced a crop of safety-sensitive impaired workers. Transportation incidents remained the most frequent fatal event in 2017 with 2,077 (40%) occupational fatalities.

Unintentional overdoses due to non-medical use of drugs or alcohol while at work increased 25% to 272 in 2017. This was the fifth consecutive year in which unintentional workplace drug overdose deaths have increased, and increased by 120% from 2011 to 2017. This appears to be directly linked to the ever-increasing consequences of an opioid addicted America. Other trends show that certain employer safety guards and safety programs are having a major impact:


  • Contact with objects and equipment incidents were down 9% (695 in 2017 from 761 in 2016) 
  • Fatalities caused by being caught in running equipment or machinery were down 26% (76 in 2017 from 103 in 2016)
  • Crane-related workplace fatalities fell to their lowest level ever recorded, 33 deaths in 2017
The transportation and material moving occupational group, and the construction and extraction occupational group accounted for 47% of worker deaths in 2017. Within the occupational subgroup of driver/sales workers and truck drivers, heavy and tractor-trailer truck drivers had the largest number of fatal occupational injuries with 840. This represented the highest value for heavy and tractor-trailer truck drivers since the occupational series began in 2003. Fishers and related fishing workers and logging workers had the highest published rates of fatal injury in 2017.


  • Grounds maintenance workers (including first-line supervisors) incurred 244 fatalities in 2017. This was the second-highest total since 2003. Of these numbers, a total of 36 deaths were due to falls from trees, and another 35 were due to being struck by a falling tree or branch.
  • There were 258 fatalities among farmers, ranchers, and other agricultural managers in 2017. Approximately 63% of these farmers were age 65 and over (162) with 48 being age 80 or over. Of the 258 deaths, 103 involved a farm tractor.
  • Police and sheriff’s patrol officers incurred 95 fatal occupational injuries in 2017, fewer than the 108 fatalities in 2016.
  • The Top 5 states where employees died during 2017 while at work were: Texas (534), California (376), New York (313), Florida (299) and North Carolina (183). In 2017 in Alabama 83 employees died at work, down from 100 in 2016.

Common Sense Counsel: The type of work you do, the State you work in, your employer’s commitment to safety, whether you are impaired at work on Marijuana, Opioids or any other legal or illegal substance, all can cause a fatally bad day. Time for employers to ramp up their drug free workplace programs, get OSHA safety training completed, double check all your safety equipment/guards and get your safety incentives ready to encourage safer behavior. Remember, be safe and send them home Alive!


Tommy Eden is a partner working out of the Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP offices in Opelika, AL. He can be contacted at teden@constangy.com or 334-246-2901. 

Friday, December 21, 2018

CBD Oil Creating Employer Dilemma Part 2


Earlier this year the FDA approved the drug Epidiolex cannabidiol (CBD) to treat seizures in people with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome and Dravet syndrome. On December 20, 2018 President Trump signed the Farm Bill; his signing of the Bill legalized hemp — a variety of cannabis that is claimed not produce the psychoactive component of marijuana — paving the way to legitimacy for an agricultural sector that has been operating on the fringe of the law.

You ask what in the world do these two events have to do with CBD Oil or workplace drug testing? First, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has subsequently rescheduled Epidiolex as a Schedule V chemical on the Federal Controlled Substances Act. Keep in mind that CBD oil (which appears to be broadly used) is still a Schedule I illegal drug. The only FDA approved use of Epidiolex is in children with serious seizures. However, like all other drugs it can be prescribed and used off-label. Buried in the 1000-page Farm Bill is a provision allowing the cultivation of industrial hemp, a close cousin of marijuana, from which CBD Oil may be extracted. More later about both highly significant developments.

The Employer Dilemma

The Employer Dilemma is that claimed CBD Oil use is beginning to crop up as an employee excuse for a positive marijuana/THC test. This naturally occurring compound is extracted from the marijuana plant, or its close relative hemp, both of which will test positive for THC above cutoff levels if taken in significantly high dosage. Some report that CBD appears to act as an anti—inflammatory, which means it could relieve pain from arthritis, but it also has an effect on brain chemistry, as do all cannabinoids, including marijuana.

Thousands of CBD products, oils, tinctures, pills, liquids used in vaping devices, are now widely available in retail stores and online. The CBD market is exploding and expected to multiply sevenfold by 2021 to $2.15 billion, but there are currently no uniform standards or widely accepted testing certifications. States are approving CBD oil to treat disabling conditions based on anecdotal reports and not hard science. Much the same has occurred in states passing medical marijuana laws. To become a medical marijuana card holder, a person must be suffering from one of a multitude of impairments or disabling conditions that allow for a medical professional to recommend the use of medical marijuana. Of course, all such conditions would in all also likelihood fall under the state and federal Americans with Disabilities protections. Therefore, presentation of a medical marijuana card, issued to a disabled medical marijuana card holder, becomes the presentation of a disability card. For which the employer may have the duty to at the very least engage in an interactive process. It all becomes very complicated.

Is CBD Oil Still Illegal?

While, as of the date of this article, CBD remains on the DEA Schedule I list, it has been decriminalized in 47 states. It is reported that a number of lawsuits have been filed against manufactures of CBD oil from customers who relied on the labeling that the product contained only trace amounts of THC, or none at all, but they still tested positive for THC. What has further exasperated the confusion is the passing of the Farm Bill by both houses of Congress last Tuesday, and President Trump signing it into law on December 20, 2018.

To back up for a minute, the federal government classifies marijuana as an illegal drug, while Hemp has a separate and complicated legal status based on the fact that it can be a crop raised for various farming applications. The DEA currently classifies anything from the marijuana plant, including both THC and CBD, a Schedule 1 substances, meaning that the agency says they have no new known medical use and are addictive. 

Back to the Farm Bill, or now law, in its rambling 1000+ pages, is a provision that would make it easier for farmers to legally grow hemp. The final version of the bill places industrial hemp — which is defined as a cannabis plant with under 0.3% of tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC — under the supervision of the Agriculture Department and removes CBD from the purview of the Controlled Substances Act, which covers marijuana. The law also “explicitly” preserved the Food and Drug Administration’s authority to regulate products containing cannabis, or cannabis-derived compounds.

One goal of the Farm Bill was to loosen restrictions to enable companies to sell products made with hemp – soaps and cosmetics from hemp oil, as well as rope and fabric from its fibers. This will also allow hemp farmers and CBD manufacturers to use banks, get insurance, and raise capital investment without getting spooked. The summary of the Bill states that it will: “legalize industrial hemp and make hemp producers eligible for the federal crop insurance program.”

Even though the president has now signed the Farm Bill into law, it could be some time before the legal dust settles. The next action will in all likelihood be action by the DEA. But clearly, the take away message is: employers need to be preparing now for how to deal with the CBD oil dilemma!

What about Federally Mandated Drug Testing?

With regards to Federally Mandated Drug Testing, Medical Review Officers (MROs) must follow the current DOT rules and HHS Mandatory guidelines which mandate that medical marijuana and CBD products that cause a donor to test above the DOT urine cut-off for THC, must be reported as a positive drug test. Expect some new regulatory guidance from the DOT on CBD oil.

What about non-regulated workplace drug testing and CBD oil?
In respect to non-regulated workplace drug testing and CBD oil, most employers do not address the issue in their drug testing policy. Over a dozen states have authorized various formulas of CBD for a variety of medical conditions. The latest guidance on this issue came from the American Association of Medical Review Officers (AAMRO), a medical review officer training and certification organization. Their November 26, 2018 guidance to MROs nationwide on CBD was as follows: “In a private employer drug-testing environment, an MRO with a positive THC and a donor's claim of using CBD oil, the MRO should consult with the employer. CBD oil is still a Schedule I compound, but state law and the employer should be considered. In the absence of any employer policy or guidance, the "AS IS" approach outlined above is recommended.”

The “AS IS” approach mentioned is for the MRO to forward the positive laboratory report for THC and let the employer figure it out.

This is what an MRO interview might sound like as recounted off the Quest Diagnostic Website
u  “So… will I pass a drug test?  Maybe.” CBD itself would not report positive for marijuana or marijuana metabolite. If the CBD product contains THC at a sufficiently high concentration, it is possible, depending on usage patterns, that the use of these products could cause a positive urine drug test result for marijuana metabolites. For example, in some states, CBD may contain up to 5% THC
u  Drug testing- set cutoff level for a positive test at > 50 ng/mL. When a test is positive, it gets screened again with a confirmatory GC/MS or LC/MS test, which have cutoff levels of 15 ng/mL and is specific only to the THC metabolite
u  In order for CBD, or cannabinoid-rich hemp oil products to test positive on a drug test, an individual would have to be using unusually large amounts (above 1000-2000 mg) of the product
u  Due to the fact that it remains an unregulated drug, some CBD oils have as much as 1/10th the THC concentration as marijuana. Therefore, consuming high quantities of CBD oil will leave enough THC in your system to trigger a positive test result and cause impairment
u  Employers need to ensure their company’s substance abuse policy language clearly reflects their position on marijuana and the use of CBD products

Common Sense Counsel: So how does an employer form its compliant legal strategy to effectively stand firm when dealing with medical marijuana anti-discrimination claims, CBD oil, prescription opiates and impairing substances in the workplace – while at the same time, reducing the risk of administrative claims and/or litigation? Following these six tips will help reduce your legal risks:

1.      Update Job Descriptions to include “safety sensitive position” and the ability to work in a constant state of alertness and safe manner as an essential job function;
2.      Update drug free workplace policies to bring them into compliance with state laws and to include a pre-duty impairing effects disclose safety policy for safety sensitive employees and notice of how medical marijuana cardholders may make a reasonable accommodation request;
3.      Treat all impairing effect prescription medications and substance equally as a safety risk to reduce the risk of medical marijuana anti-discrimination claims;
4.      Notify employees in your policy that the claimed use of CBD oil shall not be considered a medical excuse for a positive marijuana test;
5.      Train hiring personnel, and supervisors, to engage in the interactive process when dealing with cardholders in the 15 medical marijuana anti-discrimination states;
6.      Obtain a written fitness for duty opinion from an Occupational/MRO Physician before you take adverse employment action against a medical marijuana cardholder in one of the 15 medical marijuana anti-discrimination states.

Tommy Eden is a partner working out of the Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP office in Opelika, AL and West Point, GA can be contacted at teden@constangy.com or 334-246-2901.

Tommy Eden's law practice is principally in the areas of Management Labor and Employment Law; he concentrates in Drug Testing Law (DOT Regulated and Non-Regulated) throughout the United States; Preparation of  Drug Free Workplace Policies in all 50 states  which specifically deal with medical and recreational marijuana issues, recent cardholder protection cases and opioids in the workplace; Tommy is a frequent speaker and trainer on these subjects and heads up Constangy’s Workplace Drug & Alcohol Testing Group.

"No representation is made that the quality of legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers."

The Benefits of Gratitude


“I consider my ability to arouse enthusiasm among my people the greatest asset I possess, and the way to develop the best that is in a person is by appreciation and encouragement.” – Charles Schwab

Around this time of year, it’s easy to become swept up in the endless to-do lists that come with the holidays.  The presents, the parties, the school events – it can all get a bit overwhelming at times. One thing that always helps me keep some perspective, however, is to take some advice from Bing Crosby in White Christmas. In the movie, Bing Crosby sings to Rosemary Clooney,

“When I'm worried and I can't sleep
I count my blessings instead of sheep
And I fall asleep counting my blessings.”


It’s a simple enough task, but taking the time to think about all the things I am grateful for always helps me center myself again. As it turns out, Bing (or composer Irving Berlin) was onto something here. Psychologists have found that exercising and focusing on gratitude has a number of scientifically proven benefits, including these:
  • Relationship building
  • Improving physical health
  • Improving psychological health
  • Enhancing empathy
  • Improving sleep quality
  • Improving self-esteem
  • Increasing mental strength and resilience
And did you know that gratitude also has tremendous benefits in the workplace? Studies have shown that workplaces where employees feel appreciated have higher job satisfaction and less negativity, absence, and burnout. Gratitude is also a powerful motivating force. According to one study, 80 percent of employees report being motivated to work harder when their boss shows appreciation for their work. In contrast, only 38 percent of employees reported that they would feel motivated to work harder when their boss was simply demanding. In another study, individuals making fundraising calls made 50 percent more calls when they started their shift by hearing a speech expressing gratitude for their efforts.

There are many ways to express gratitude at work. Personal notes, lunches, gift certificates, verbal recognition during a meeting, recognition in a company bulletin or on a board posted in the office, or even a simple heartfelt "thank you" are all effective ways to improve employee morale and performance and create a positive workplace culture. You don’t have to limit this practice to the holidays, either. Practice gratitude all year if you want to reap the most benefits for yourself and your workplace.

As for me and my house, we are grateful for a Heavenly Father that loved us some much that He gave His only son Jesus Christ that all who call upon His name will be saved. John 3:16. God Bless you and Merry Christmas.

Tommy Eden is a partner working out of the Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP office in Opelika, AL and can be contacted at teden@constangy.com or 334-246-2901. He gratefully used parts of Heidi Wilbur’s Constangy Focus posting for women leaders in our firm. See Blog at www.alabamaatwork.com with links to studies.

Friday, December 14, 2018

CBD Oil Creating Employer Dilemma


Earlier this year the FDA approved the drug Epidiolex Cannabidiol (CBD) to treat seizures in people with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome and Dravet syndrome. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has subsequently rescheduled Epidiolex as a Schedule V chemical on the Federal Controlled Substances Act. Keep in mind that CBD oil (which appears to be broadly used) is still a Schedule I illegal drug. The only FDA approved use of Epidiolex is in children with serious seizures. However, like all other drugs it can be prescribed and used off-label. 


While CBD remains on the Schedule I list, it has been decriminalized in 47 states and approved in others for treatment of a spectrum of medical disorders. A number of lawsuits have been filed against manufactures of CBD oil from customers who relied on the labeling that the product contained only trace amounts of THC or none at all, but they still tested positive for THC.

With regards to Federally Mandated Drug Testing, MROs must follow the current DOT rules and HHS Mandatory guidelines which mandates that medical marijuana and CBD products which cause a donor to testing above DOT urine cut-off for THC must be reported as a positive drug test.

In respect to non-regulated workplace drug testing and CBD oil, most employers do not address the issue in their drug testing policy. Over a dozen states have authorized a variety of formulas of CBD for a variety of medical conditions. The latest guidance on this issue came from the American Association of Medical Review Officers (AAMRO), a medical review officer training and certification organization. Their November 26, 2018 guidance to MROs nationwide on CBD was as follows: “In a private employer drug-testing environment, an MRO with a positive THC and a donor's claim of using CBD oil, the MRO should consult with the employer. CBD oil is still a Schedule I compound, but state law and the employer should be considered. In the absence of any employer policy or guidance, the "AS IS" approach outlined above is recommended.” The “AS IS” approach mentioned is for the MRO to forward the positive laboratory report for THC and let the employer figure it out.

Common Sense Counsel: So how does an employer form its compliant legal strategy to effectively stand firm when dealing with medical marijuana anti-discrimination claims, CBD oil, prescription opiates and impairing substances in the workplace? Following these six tips will help reduce your legal risks:

  1. Update Job Descriptions to include “safety sensitive position” and the ability to work in a constant state of alertness and safe manner as an essential job function;
  2. Update drug free workplace policies to bring them into compliance with state laws and to include a pre-duty impairing effects disclose safety policy for safety sensitive employees and notice of how medical marijuana cardholders may make a reasonable accommodation request;
  3. Treat all impairing effect prescription medications and substance equally as a safety risk to reduce the risk of medical marijuana anti-discrimination claims;
  4. Notify employees in your policy that the claimed use of CBD oil shall not be considered a medical excuse for a positive marijuana test;
  5. Train hiring personnel, and supervisors, to engage in the interactive process when dealing with cardholders in the 15 medical marijuana anti-discrimination states;
  6. Obtain a written fitness for duty opinion from an Occupational/MRO Physician before you take adverse employment action against a medical marijuana cardholder in one of the 15 medical marijuana anti-discrimination states.


Tommy Eden is a partner working out of the Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP office in Opelika, AL and West Point, GA can be contacted at teden@constangy.com or 334-246-2901.

Friday, December 7, 2018

Men’s #MeToo Claims Avoidance Rules


An article this week in Bloomberg said that men on Wall Street were getting the message about #MeToo. But the message wasn't quite what you might expect. Rather than "Avoid harassment at work," it was "Avoid women at work.” According to the article, "No more dinners with female colleagues. Don’t sit next to them on flights. Book hotel rooms on different floors. Avoid one-on-one meetings." As an employment attorney quoted in the article says, "[T]hose men are going to back out of a sexual harassment complaint and right into a sex discrimination complaint."


Give these Wall Street guys the benefit of the doubt - that they're not sexual harassers, but just terrified of the current legal climate. Since #MeToo really got going a little over a year ago, we have seen some "opportunistic" claims of sexual harassment that have not been supported by the evidence, and I'm sure those -- as well as valid claims -- will continue to increase. These 6 rules may seem extreme for those of us that don't have a seven-figure income, yet they do provide some potential risk-reduction guidelines for men who are concerned about possible "opportunistic claims."  

The following is an attempt to take into account the concerns of the Wall Street guys, while still being EEO respectful:

Rule 1: Don't have one-on-one dinners with colleagues unless you're on a business trip together. Group dinners are fine. That will give you plenty of witnesses. Or of course, there is the Mike Pence rule – "I go nowhere without my Karen." Take your wife along when in doubt.

Rule 2: If you are on the road with a colleague and are having dinner together, do it in a well-lit restaurant with attentive wait staff. Don't go any place dark and "romantic." Don't go any place with a "sexual" theme. Limit your conversation to talk about work and your family (But not about how your spouse doesn't understand you). The attentive and clean-cut wait staff can be your witnesses.

Rule 3: "Don't sit next to women on flights"? Ridiculous! If you're really too paranoid to sit next to your colleague, at least get seats across the aisle from each other so you won't be touching but can still talk. That way, the flight attendants and the strangers in the center and window seats on both sides can be your witnesses.

Rule 4: "Avoid one-on-one meetings"? Good luck with that. You can't really avoid one-on-one meetings, of course, but you can hold them in an office with the door open, at a cubicle, or in a glassed-in conference room.

Rule 5: Don't have one-on-one meetings at your home. Too much opportunity for mischief . . . or false accusations!

Rule 6: Watch your alcohol consumption whenever you're with co-workers. It doesn't mix well with work, whether the "work" is actually getting some work done, putting in your appearance at the office holiday party, or unwinding after a hard day on a business trip. One or two drinks may be all right for most people, but if you must drink more than that, excuse yourself, go to your room, check in with your spouse, and continue your drinking alone.

Tommy Eden is a partner working out of the Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP office in Opelika, AL and can be contacted at teden@constangy.com or 334-246-2901. He gratefully used parts of Robin Shea’s Constangy Blog.

Friday, November 30, 2018

Harassment Prevention Training Top Priority in 2019


International Paper Company (IPC) in Spartanburg, SC, which manufactures and distributes packaging boxes, hired Tamika Ray in 2002 to work as a “bundler” in its converting department. Beginning in 2003, Ray’s supervisor started acting inappropriately toward her, according to a court opinion, including asking Ray to engage in sexual activity with him and offering to pay her for those acts. The supervisor also allegedly made several overtly sexual comments to Ray, stating that he wished he could “bend her over his desk,” that he would father a child with her, and that he would engage in sexual activity with Ray’s sister-in-law if Ray did not acquiesce to his demands. The supervisor also asked Ray to show him her “cootie,” “cha-cha,” and “monkey,” comments that Ray construed as requests to see her body parts. The supervisor continued this conduct despite Ray’s repeated refusal of his advances and asking him to stop. 

In 2013, several years after her supervisor’s conduct began, Ray finally reported his behavior to two other IPC supervisors. Ray explained that her supervisor would not leave her alone and was ragging her because she would not have sex with him. Although they offered to say something about Ray’s allegations, she declined out of fear of retaliation. 

Under IPC’s anti-harassment policy, when a supervisor is notified of potential harassment or discrimination, the supervisor is required to report that allegation to his manager, to a human resources representative, or to IPC’s legal department. Neither of the other two supervisors formally reported any of Ray’s complaints. 

In early 2014, her supervisor learned that Ray had complained about his conduct. He confronted Ray and asked if she had reported him for sexual harassment. Ray denied making any complaints, and her supervisor informed her that such a report could get him in a lot of trouble. Around the same time, Ray’s supervisor informed her that she could no longer perform voluntary overtime work. Before imposing this restriction, Ray often had arrived four hours before her scheduled shift to perform overtime work, which represented a significant portion of her income.

IPC investigators conducted interviews and learned that the supervisor had told two other employees that he wanted to have sex with Ray. Although the accused supervisor denied ever saying anything sexual to or about Ray, the IPC investigators concluded that he was lying. Nevertheless, IPC did not discipline the supervisor because Ray’s allegations were not corroborated by the statements from other employees.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission backed Ray in Federal Court, saying in an amicus brief that a reasonable jury might find that IPC supervisors weren't properly trained on compliance with the company's anti-harassment policy and also that the company did not enforce its policy reasonably or promptly with respect to Ray. Both elements are critical to an affirmative employer defense.

This week the 4th U.S Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Ray’s case could go to a jury, finding that IPC’s failure to discipline the supervisor, retaliation by taking away overtime, and lack of adequate and meaningful supervisory harassment training were all highly significant.

Common Sense Counsel: The #MeToo era dictates that employers ramp up harassment prevention policies, training, and investigative compliance to stay out of the EEOC’s crosshairs.

Click here to read the full case: Tamika Ray v International Paper Company 

Tommy Eden is a partner working out of the Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP office in Opelika, AL and can be contacted at teden@constangy.com or 334-246-2901. Link to full case at www.alabamaatwork.com