PPB October 2018

Since all the cited cases were FLSA wage-and-hour cases, this decision does not necessarily affect employees’ rights to file class or collective actions for discrimination complaints as, by definition, disparate impact claims require proof of groupwide discrimination to show a pattern. It should also be noted that the Supreme Court has granted a certification to review a Ninth Circuit decision ( Varela v. Lamp Plus, Inc. ) regarding workers’ rights to arbitrate as a class action when it is not specifically referenced in the arbitration agreement. Additionally, this decision should not affect current or future state laws prohibiting certain arbitration provisions or the use of arbitration agreements in certain circumstances such as those in California and New York. What This Ruling Means For Your Business First, this decision does not change the fact that arbitration agreements are not right for all employers or for all employment claims. Every situation is different, and arbitration is not always the best course of action for every company. Requiring arbitration for all claims may not be beneficial for either party. This decision will not protect companies from action taken under a poorly written arbitration agreement. Among some of the requirements to be valid, an arbitration program and/or agreement cannot be one-sided in favor of the employer, and arbitrators must be neutral. Therefore, the agreement should be drafted to specify the benefits an employee gets frommandated arbitration, usually confidentiality and a quicker resolution. Given the Supreme Court’s decision and interest in other arbitration cases, as well as the recent passage of laws in certain states, you should consider consulting your employment attorney if you have or are considering an arbitration agreement for your employees. Paige McAllister, SPHR, is a contributor for Affinity HR Group, Inc., PPAI’s affiliated human resources partner. Affinity HR Group specializes in providing human resources assistance to associations such as PPAI and their member companies. www. affinityHRgroup.com. Q We’ve just learned that a supervisor and his subordinate are involved in a personal, romantic relationship. In light of the #MeToo movement, should we be requiring anything or taking any action? A Finding love at work is a pretty common phenomenon. In fact, data shows that 15 percent of married couples met at work. So, the likelihood that most employers will face this situation is high. But despite the prevalence of consensual relationships at work, consider preparing and having employees read and sign a Consensual Relationship Policy that requires employees agree to the following conditions: • The relationship is truly consensual. • All parties to the relationship are aware of the company’s code of ethics, sexual harassment and non-discrimination policies. • All parties will conform to the company’s code of conduct policy and will maintain a strict professional demeanor while at work or at work functions. • Employees in a supervisor/subordinate relationship will be reassigned so that no formal line of authority exists within the relationship. • The repercussion of not complying with the Consensual Relationship Policy includes discipline up to and including termination, and that the burden of adherence to the policy falls largely and squarely on the highest- ranking employee in the relationship. While the popularity of consensual relationship policies is increasing due to the notoriety of the #MeToo movement, these are sound and solid policies that should be considered by any employer looking to maintain a safe and healthy workplace environment. 86 | OCTOBER 2018 | THINK