As NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell can tell you, it isn't easy for an employer to handle off-duty domestic violence situations.
Sometimes your employee is the victim. If so, you may have someone who is distracted, scared, upset, or frequently absent because of physical injury or psychological trauma, or court appearances. She (or he - men can be victims, too) might be spending too much time commiserating with coworkers and not working. And you always have to worry about the possibility that the abuser will show up, causing this "private matter" to spill over into your workplace. Because of these risks, it isn't unheard of for an employer to terminate the victim because her abuser's presence is creating too much disruption in the workplace, or putting customers or students at risk.
Sometimes your employee is the perpetrator. But maybe he (or she) behaves like a choirboy at work, and is great at his (or her) job. If you fire for off-duty conduct that has no noticeable impact on your workplace, could the employee assert a claim against you for discrimination or some other type of wrongful termination?
In this legal environment? Do I really have to ask?
In short, there are no easy answers for employers in these situations. But here are a few ideas.
IF YOUR EMPLOYEE IS THE VICTIM . . .
*Adopt a policy on domestic violence (if you don't already have one), and encourage victims to get help. If your company is big enough and you have the means, you might even want to offer optional evening classes or support groups for victims and their children. The Human Resources department is a great place to house information about community resources for domestic violence victims, such as shelters, individual or family counseling, and social and legal services. You can also post the information on your company intranet, and on bulletin boards. If you have an employee assistance program, you can offer that, as well.
*Get familiar with your state laws on workplace rights of domestic violence victims. In my home state of North Carolina, it's illegal to take action against an employee who misses work because she (or he) is seeking a domestic violence restraining order. Many states have similar laws, and many - like California - offer much more extensive workplace protection to victims.
*In addition to the time off that you are legally required to provide, be as liberal as you can in voluntarily allowing victims of domestic violence to take time off for court appearances, medical treatment, counseling, help for kids who may have been hurt or traumatized, moving out of the house, and all of the other things that domestic violence victims have to worry about. (Some of this time off may be covered by the Family and Medical Leave Act.)
*Be supportive and encouraging, but understand that the decision to leave an abusive relationship is that of the victim. Yes, you may disagree -- and, in fact, you probably will -- but the decision is not yours to make. You may need to periodically remind the victim's co-workers about this, too.
*Again, men as well as women can be victims of domestic violence. And women as well as men can be perpetrators. This CDC publication has excellent statistical information about domestic violence, including breakdowns by type of violence, and by sex, race, and ethnic background.
It's not too late to sign up for the webinar that everyone's talking about: "Your Handbook Is Probably Illegal! How to Deal With an Activist Labor Board." The webinar will be from 1 to 2:30 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 24. Don't be left out!
*Make sure that your facility has effective security measures that will keep abusers - as well as other violent individuals - out of your workplace.
*Cooperate as needed with law enforcement and with the judicial process.
IF YOUR EMPLOYEE IS THE PERPETRATOR . . .
*Don't automatically assume you can just fire someone for being involved in a domestic dispute while off duty. First, the alleged perpetrator may not be guilty. Divorce attorneys say that domestic abuse allegations are sometimes used as leverage to get a more favorable result in a divorce, alimony, or child custody proceeding. Second, even assuming guilt, as an employer you can get sued if you fire an employee on questionable grounds because you believe the employee is an abuser -- unless you can show that the abuse has a clear connection to your work environment. If both the perpetrator and the victim work for you, it should be easier to establish that connection and act accordingly.
*Communicate and enforce your existing policies against threatening, abusive, or violent behavior. (I hope this goes without saying.) If the perpetrator violates these policies, you should be able to act.
*If your workplace violence policy doesn't already cover it, amend the policy to provide for termination in these circumstances: (1) criminal conviction of or plea to any violent crime (defined to include actual violence, as well as threats and stalking) while employed; and (2) with or without a conviction or plea, any violent, threatening, or abusive behavior that, in the sole opinion of the employer, endangers employees, the public, or the people whom the employer serves. In other words, make it as tough as you can in light of the restrictions the EEOC and the NLRB have imposed on employers.
*Offer your EAP. If you have an employee assistance program, you can offer it to the abuser. Many EAPs have anger management therapy.
*Don't forget about how the feds got Al Capone. They couldn't prove that Capone was a murderer, but they were able to prove he wasn't paying his taxes. Good enough - income tax evasion got him an 11-year sentence "in a federal penitentiary," and by the time he got out he wasn't capable of committing crimes any more. Keep this in mind with domestic violence perpetrators. They may give you grounds to fire them for other legitimate reasons -- for example, if they're arrested and jailed, you may be able to fire them for attendance. I have seen this happen a number of times - it works.
*Cooperate with law enforcement and the judicial process.
- Partner
Robin has more than 30 years' experience counseling employers and representing them before government agencies and in employment litigation involving Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with ...
Robin Shea has 30 years' experience in employment litigation, including Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (including the Amendments Act).
Continue Reading
Subscribe
Contributors
- William A. "Zan" Blue, Jr.
- Obasi Bryant
- Kenneth P. Carlson, Jr.
- James M. Coleman
- Cara Yates Crotty
- Lara C. de Leon
- Christopher R. Deubert
- Joyce M. Dos Santos
- Colin Finnegan
- Steven B. Katz
- Ellen C. Kearns
- F. Damon Kitchen
- David C. Kurtz
- Angelique Groza Lyons
- John E. MacDonald
- Kelly McGrath
- Alyssa K. Peters
- Sarah M. Phaff
- David P. Phippen
- William K. Principe
- Sabrina M. Punia-Ly
- Angela L. Rapko
- Rachael Rustmann
- Paul Ryan
- Piyumi M. Samaratunga
- Robin E. Shea
- Kristine Marie Sims
- David L. Smith
- Jill S. Stricklin
- Jack R. Wallace
Archives
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010