What happened

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) went after Sears, Roebuck & Co., when the company terminated 235 former workers immediately following their return to work after being out on workers’ compensation leave.

Sears violated the ADA when it refused to provide reasonable accommodations to employees who were returning from workers’ comp leave, the EEOC said.

Result: Sears agreed to settle for $6.2 million, and each employee in the suit will receive around $26,300. That’s the largest total settlement in the history of the EEOC.

In addition, Sears improved its workers’ compensation leave process and posted notices regarding the decree, according to EEOC officials.

Do you think this settlement is fair? Let us know in the Comments Box below.

Many older employees now plan to work years past the traditional retirement age to recoup lost savings. And as the age of your workforce increases, so do workers’ health problems. Two ways to keep costs under control:

1. Plan for their future

As employees age, health factors can become an ever-increasing barrier to productivity.

So the sooner you introduce your employees to wellness programs, the more productive they’ll be in their later years.

Employers with well-established wellness programs are seeing lower rates of diabetes and heart disease among their older workers than other comparable organizations’ 40-and-over employees.

2. Tell them to speak up

Older workers are less likely to suffer workplace injury (usually because they are taken off the front line and given safer jobs). But when they do get hurt, they recover slower, create costlier claims and are less likely to return to work.

That means employers must place a heavy emphasis on early identification and intervention. Encourage employees to seek treatment as soon as any symptoms of injury or illness are discovered.

The key to getting workers to take action: Assure them they won’t be discriminated against when they become ill.

One thing to be aware of: Shortly after getting this message of prevention out to workers, odds are the level of reported injuries and illnesses will increase. But don’t worry, this trend will reverse itself in time.

Yes — if the employer sponsors the activity, said a New York appellate court in a recent workers’ comp case.

What happened

Frank Torre worked for Logic Technology, a company that performed on-site contracting work for General Electric.

Torre suffered a spinal cord injury while participating in an exercise class at the General Electric fitness center during work hours. He claimed workers’ comp should pay for it.

The court agreed. Although it found that Torre’s employer didn’t require him to participate or compensate him for taking the class, it did pay a portion of his membership fee.

Also, Torre’s job required him to develop contacts with current and prospective clients. And Logic Technology’s president stated that participating in the class would help him develop those contacts.

Result: The court ruled that his injury arose out of, and in the course of, his employment.

What the law says

New York follows this general rule: Employees cannot collect workers’ comp benefits for injuries that result from their “voluntary participation in an off-duty athletic activity not constituting part of the employee’s work-related duties.”

However, there are exceptions to this rule — like if the employer sponsors the activity or requires workers to participate in it.

While this particular ruling only applies in New York, it’s something other employers should keep in mind when designing wellness programs.

Cite: Torre v. Logic Technology.

Most of your company’s employees probably are honest people who wouldn’t fake an injury to collect workers compensation. Keep in mind, however, that it just takes one cheat to cause your comp bills to go up and – not incidentally – hurt the morale and productivity of good people.

The best way to stop the problem? Call it the “fear factor.” Warnings,
when they come from the right source, really do help, according to
the National Insurance Crime Bureau.

Strongest ally
Your strongest ally in this fight – if you’re not self-insured – is your insurer. It can educate and warn employees that they’re playing with fire when they fake an injury.

Consider asking a rep to come in and talk to employees about:

• how adjusters and reps get trained to pick up on red flags that are the trademarks of fraudulent claims – no need to get specific; just telling employees about the system can be enough to discourage a crook
• what happens when cheaters are caught - firing, criminal charges, restitution – and how the insurer aggressively goes after cheaters  “to keep the premiums down for honest companies and their hard-working employees like you”
• actual cases of fraud that have been uncovered – and the penalties meted out to the cheats.

The facts: 
During a workplace dispute, an employee struck and injured a co-worker. After the employer reported the incident to the police, a subsequent investigation showed that the attacker had been involved similar incidents. The injured employee received workers compensation for the injury but also sued the employer for damages, saying that HR and the employer hadn’t dug deeply enough into the attacker’s past and as a result, had hired someone who was a danger to other employees. 

The employer said:
HR had done the typical and reasonable background checks on the attacker and had run the usual reference checks, too. None of that had produced any record of a violent past or a likelihood that the employee would harm a co-worker.

Who won the case? 

Answer: The employer. 

Why:
An appeals court ruled workers compensation was a suitable remedy for the injury the employee suffered during the attack.

Two factors led to the decision:

• In many states, employees who receive workers comp for an on-the-job injury can’t turn around and sue the employer for circumstances surrounding the injury unless the employer was totally negligent in hiring or failing to protect the victim.
• HR had done the usual background checks before hiring the attacker, and nothing fishy turned up. Had his violent history become known – and ignored – during the checks, the outcome of the case might have been different.

Not Sherlock Holmes, but …
You know you can only go so far when it comes to doing a background check on job candidates. But the ruling shows if you do uncover something suspicious, you better take action and either determine there’s nothing to the suspicions or there’s enough to deny employment.

Courts don’t necessarily expect HR managers to be Sherlock Holmes and uncover every hidden detail about a candidate’s background. They, however, do expect companies to do reasonable checks and act on anything – such as a history of harassment or violence – that might disqualify the candidate.

Cite: Peterson v. Arlington Hospitality Staffing, Inc.