Offensive Music Lyrics as Title VII Violation, Quirky Question # 73

Quirky Question # 73:
 
We have a work environment where employees have cubicles that are approximately shoulder height.  Some employees have radios or CD players in their cubicles.  We generally don’t interfere with their musical selections, recognizing that people have different musical tastes.  (We do ask our employees to keep the volume down so they don’t bother their co-workers.)  We recently received a complaint from one of our African American employees.  He was upset that some of the workers occupying nearby cubicles play rap music with lyrics he finds offensive.  Is this something we need to worry about?  We don’t want to become the thought police.
 
Roy’s Analysis:
 
You do have something to worry about, but it is not whether your company risks assuming the role of the “thought police.”  Your company has a legitimate right to regulate the content of the information your employees bring into the workplace, regardless of the method by which this information is introduced.  For example, you undoubtedly prohibit your employees from bringing pornographic magazines into your company’s work environment.  Similarly, I assume that your company prohibits your employees from introducing pornographic or otherwise offensive material into the work environment via your computer system.  Most businesses also regulate the information brought into the workplace and disseminated further via the company’s email system.  Likewise, companies legitimately prohibit the type of DVDs that employees may bring into the work environment, either for their own use or to be shown to others. 
 
The analysis that applies to these other media should not be markedly different when the offensive material is brought into the workplace via the radio.  Several days ago, for example, I was driving with my 16-year old son, listening to a music CD he had made from various I-Tunes songs he had downloaded.  As a particular song came on, he demonstrated his sensitivity to our differing musical and language sensibilities by observing, “Dad, you might want to skip this next one.”  The reason for his observation was the language used in the next song and his concern that I might be offended by the lyrics. 
 
The fact is that music lyrics today, particularly in certain musical genres, are very explicit.  Many songs include profanity.  Many others involve words that are sexist, racist, or ethnically offensive.  Other songs include graphic references to certain parts of human anatomy and/or descriptions of various types of sexual conduct.  Given these facts, it is not surprising that one or more of your employees might be offended by the music being played in a co-workers’ cubicle.  It is important for your company to be attuned to these issues and make clear that certain types of lyrics are inconsistent with your company’s policies regarding discrimination and/or harassment and will not be allowed in the workplace.
  
In my view, this should not be an overly difficult calculus.  Songs that involve pejorative, slang terms for members of certain genders or races or religions are problematic.  Songs that make graphic sexual references are problematic.    

 

I recognize, however, that most songs are far from explicit and may involve questions of nuance, inference, double-entendre, or subtlety.  I have no doubt that many readers could send me examples of lyrics that would be difficult for companies to evaluate in terms of potential offensiveness.  As for songs involving these kinds of lyrics, I’d simply reference the standard observation articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court with regard to harassment cases – each case must be evaluated on a “totality of the circumstances” analysis.  Moreover, companies do not have to base their policies or practices on the hypersensitivities of the idiosyncratic employee.    
 
I am aware of one relatively recent case that implicated many of these issues.  In EEOC v. Novellus Systems, Inc., No. 07-4787 (N.D. Cal. June 23, 2008), the EEOC sued the defendant corporation in relation to the experience of an African American employee who was offended by a co-worker who repeated offensive rap lyrics.  The Vietnamese co-worker allegedly played rap songs and repeatedly sang the songs’ derogatory lyrics, including the “N-word” in the presence of his co-worker.  The EEOC contended that the company both failed to respond to the African American employee’s complaints and retaliated against him for complaining.    

 Although Novellus did not admit liability, the company entered into a two-year consent decree that required the company to modify its anti-discrimination policy to include a zero-tolerance statement for music that included “racially derogatory terms and names.”  One last note – it is not just music lyrics that you should monitor.  Some radio talk shows are careless in terms of how they refer to different racial and ethnic groups.  Some are blatantly sexist.  If your workers listen to these types of programs and their co-workers can easily overhear these broadcasts, the same issues addressed above may be implicated. 

Finally, as noted above, I don’t think you need be overly concerned about your company’s role as the “thought police.”  You are not attempting to regulate how your employees think; you are merely regulating their conduct in the workplace.  Your employees, of course, can listen to any music they enjoy regardless of its content, or any talk-show radio programs they find informative or amusing, outside of the workplace.  You are merely establishing a minimum set of standards regulating how your employees behave in the workplace.  Your company has the right to do so.

Using Internet for Background Check, Quirky Question # 72

Quirky Question # 72:

I am the HR Manager for a Minnesota-based defense contractor.  A few weeks ago, I received a general e-mail inquiry regarding employment opportunities with our company, along with an attached resume, from a person I will call Joe Hunter.  Normally, I would simply delete such an e-mail, as my company does not accept or respond to employment inquiries made outside of our job posting system.  However, 25 years ago I graduated high school with someone named Joe Hunter and I was curious whether this might be the same person.

I also happened to have a couple of open positions at the moment, so I figured there was a business reason, beyond just my personal curiosity, to open the attached resume.  Unfortunately, the resume did not list high school, but it did suggest that Mr. Hunter might actually be qualified for one of our job openings.  I was still curious, though, whether this was my former high school classmate.  So, I decided to run “Joe Hunter” through a popular Internet search engine.

The search results lead me to a personal page on a popular social networking site for Joe Hunter, including personal data, pictures, and extensive blog entries.  I discovered that Joe Hunter was a younger-looking, African-American man, not the same Joe Hunter I knew in high school.  I also noticed that one of Mr. Hunter’s blog entries described how he was detained by police following a recent anti-war protest.

Since this was not the Joe Hunter I knew from high school and since our company policy does not accept unsolicited resumes anyway, I simply deleted the e-mail I had received from Joe Hunter.  It also occurred to me that we run background checks on all candidates after they receive a contingent offer of employment as part of our normal hiring process.  It is unlikely that Mr. Hunter would be able to pass such a check given his arrest record, and, in any event, I questioned why someone who participates in anti-war protests would be interested in a position with our company.

I know from various surveys I’ve seen that as many as 25-50 percent of companies use the Internet as a source of information in the hiring process.  But I recently attended a conference on the Fair Credit Reporting Act and am concerned that I should have gotten some sort of release from Mr. Hunter before I reviewed information about him from an external source.  What are your thoughts?

[Readers: Last week's Quirky Question was submitted to and has been analyzed by my partner, Mike Iwan. Mike is a 1992 graduate of Stanford University and a 1998 graduate from the University of Minnesota Law School. Mike can be reached at 612.340.5613 or by email at Iwan.Michael@dorsey.com. If you have any questions or comments about Mike's analysis, don't hesitate to contact him. Regards, Roy]

Mike’s Analysis:

The good news is that you have not implicated the employment background checking provisions of the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act by conducting your own Internet search. The bad news is that you have implicated a number of other practical and legal issues by deviating from your normal procedure for handling employment inquiries. Many of these, in and of themselves, do not automatically create legal liability, but they do highlight a set of facts that could be difficult to explain if this candidate felt he was unlawfully passed over for employment and sought to take further action.

One perhaps less obvious issue has to do with your company’s federal contractor status. While typically you would be entitled to disregard an unsolicited e-mail inquiry that goes outside of your normal job posting process, if you undertake any qualitative assessment of the unsolicited candidate, you most likely have converted Mr. Hunter into an applicant for employment under the OFCCP’s traditional definition of an applicant or more recent definition of an “Internet applicant.” If so, you must record this individual in your applicant flow data and include him in any statistical analysis you might be required to do in support of an affirmative action program.

Several other issues relate to the inherent unreliability of information, with the possible exception of public records, accessible via the Internet. While it is true that (depending on the survey) as many as 60 percent of companies utilize Internet searching at some point in the hiring process and with respect to at least some positions, your situation demonstrates precisely why such information must be viewed with caution, particularly as it relates to social networking sites, personal blogs, and the like. First of all, there is no way to verify whether the “Joe Hunter” whose blog you stumbled upon happens to be the same “Joe Hunter” who e-mailed you the employment inquiry, or, if he is, whether any of the information he reported about himself is true. In short, while running an Internet search may yield some possible additional information about a candidate for employment, I would only engage in such a search pursuant to an established policy that applies equally to all candidates who reach a certain stage of the hiring process and/or with respect to certain positions. Moreover, you are much better off spending your time contacting employment references and, when the time is right and according to your established process, conducting formal background checks. Internet searches should never be a substitute for these procedures.

As suggested above, the most significant legal concern I would have about your situation, is that by deviating from your established procedure, you have, almost by definition, engaged in differential treatment with respect to this applicant for employment. And to further complicate matters, you have discovered (or at least think you have discovered) attributes about this individual that you typically would not have in your possession at this stage of your process with respect to other candidates. For example, you believe that Hunter is “younger” (which could be a protected class under Minn. Stat. § 181.81) and African-American (which is a protected class under Title VII and virtually every state’s human rights statute). While it is not per se unlawful to possess or (with the exception of pre-employment medical inquiries) even ask for such information in your hiring process, you run the risk of later having to demonstrate that such information did not factor into your decision-making process (i.e., proving the negative), or that, even if it did, the individual still was not the most qualified applicant (potentially leading to a mixed-motives analysis).

Your question suggests that at least some of the additional information you discovered did, in fact, influence your decision to pass over this individual as a candidate for employment – most notably, your suspicion that Hunter has an arrest record. Even if true, the EEOC and most courts view consideration of arrest records as leading to disparate impact in the hiring process, due to the disproportionately higher rates at which certain racial or ethnic groups are arrested. Conviction records are viewed less skeptically (although the EEOC continues to maintain that the conviction must be recent, serious, and job related for it to be a valid criteria in the hiring process), and while certain conviction records are available through public records sites, many of these sites ask you to agree to certain limitations on use that you should review carefully before running any queries.

Separate from the arrest record issue, if you were able to confirm through your normal interviewing and hiring process that Hunter was an outspoken anti-war protestor, you could consider that factor when evaluating whether he was the most-qualified candidate for a position with your company. As a private employer, you are not precluded from factoring in Mr. Hunter’s self-avowed public policy views under some sort of “free speech” argument. Nor is there any argument that information posted by Hunter on a personal blog is protected by any right to privacy. In fact, even if Hunter only expected the blog to be viewed by family and friends, the information could not be any more public than by posting it on a site accessible through a general Internet search engine. Accordingly, should you have questions about information you discovered via a legitimately conducted Internet search, you should feel free to present such information to the candidate, even if just to confirm whether the person referenced is the same.

In sum, decide first whether an Internet search would be a useful addition to your company’s hiring process. If you conclude that it would be a valuable addition to your hiring process, develop a policy to insure that such searches are run for all candidates at a specified point in the hiring process and/or for certain positions. This would suggest reserving Internet searching for a later stage of the hiring process, after you have winnowed down the candidates through traditional criteria. Your policy should include a standard set of searches to be run for each candidate and a requirement to document the results of such searches. Finally, you should approach such results with a healthy dose of skepticism, at the very least giving candidates a chance to respond to Internet search results if they are likely to influence the hiring decision. Do not use Internet search results as a substitute for verifying employment references and running a formal background check. Employers have been found liable for a “bad hire” when they failed to check references or run a traditional background check. No employer has (yet) been found liable for failing to run an Internet search prior to hiring.

Downsizing Alternatives ? Quirky Question # 71

Quirky Question # 71:

The country is in a recession.  The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that U.S. employers reduced the size of their workforces by more than 500,000 employees in November alone, with an eleven-month total of more than 1.5 million.

Like every company, we’re considering whether to reduce the size of our workforce sometime during 2009, assuming the economy remains flat.  I’d like to present our management with some reasonable alternatives to laying off significant numbers of our employees.  Do you have any recommendations?

Roy’s Analysis:
Your question is not particularly quirky, but it certainly is timely.  There are a number of pragmatic ideas every company should consider as alternatives to substantial layoffs.  Set forth below are ten approaches your firm could consider.  They are organized from the least to the most disruptive, for both the company and the employees alike.  Of course, some of these options may not be appropriate in your particular situation.  Moreover, regardless of the economic impact of these alternatives, there may other factors, unique to your firm’s circumstances, that make the option inapplicable to your situation.

Stop Hiring.  One of the first steps that a company should consider is a hiring freeze.  This has several potential benefits.  It demonstrates to the existing employees that you are committed to them and making an effort to preserve their jobs.  In the event that layoffs are later necessary, and these layoffs result in litigation, this simple step also will enhance your arguments that your workforce reduction was driven by economic necessity.  At times, employers engage in layoffs while simultaneously hiring other employees.  This not only is damaging to employee morale, it raises the question of whether the layoff truly was an economic necessity, or merely a pretext for the company to rid itself of certain employees.

Notwithstanding the legitimacy and uniform applicability of a hiring freeze, there may be circumstances where you make an exception.  For example, assume that you have been trying to recruit a key employee from your competition for some time without success.  If that individual lost her job and approached you about potential employment, you may want to make an exception to your general hiring freeze.  Similarly, if you had a chance to hire an individual whom you felt would significantly expand your business (a great engineer, a terrific salesman, a physician with a unique specialty), disregarding the opportunity to hire this individual may be foolish and short-sighted.  But, if you elect to make an exception to the “freeze,” document your reasons for doing so.  At a later date, you may need to explain your actions to a judge or jury and you will want to have an accurate record of the reasons for your decision.

Don’t Replace Departing Employees.  Another step that can be implemented, closely correlated to the hiring freeze, is simply to refrain from replacing employees who are departing from your organization.  Employees voluntarily leave companies for various reasons, including retirement, changed interests, better offers from other companies, personal circumstances (such as a spouse’s relocation), etc.  If possible, don’t replace those individuals.  Instead, simply redistribute the work they are performing to other employees..  Again, this approach is likely to have a positive impact on employee morale.

There will be times, of course, where you have no choice but to replace the employee who has departed.  There may be individuals within your organization who can step into the shoes of the departing employee.  But if not, you will need to fill the vacant position (especially one critical to your company’s long-term success) with a qualified individual from outside your organization.  Again, document the reasons for your decision.

Reduced Workweek.  One concept that could be considered as an alternative to laying off significant numbers of your employees is to reduce the time commitment expected from each of your employees.  Switch, for example, from a five-day to a four-day workweek. 

There are pros and cons to this approach and, to some extent, it is difficult to predict the likely outcome of this business/social experiment.  In a smaller organization, the employees may find this approach far preferable to seeing co-workers and friends lose their jobs.  The risk, however, is that your employees will not be able to afford a reduction in their workweek, with the corresponding reduction in their compensation (a five- to four-day change also represents a 20 percent salary reduction).  Therefore, you may find yourself losing talented employees.  In the current economic climate, that may not be all bad, although as discussed further below, you don’t want to lose the wrong employees (your high performing, highly productive contributors). 

As with each of the other ideas addressed, one of the important themes to keep in mind is to communicate clearly to your employees.  If employees understand that your best estimate of the duration of the reduced workweek is three months, that might be a far more palatable scenario than a reduced workweek lasting twelve months.  But, don’t over-promise.  Make a realistic appraisal of how long you anticipate this situation will last and share that estimate with your employees.  If circumstances change and the economic downturn proves more severe and more consequential for your business than you first expected, keep your employees in the loop.

Salary Freeze.  Another way to weather a tough economic climate is to impose an across-the-board salary freeze.  Calculate how much this approach will save your firm on an annual basis and evaluate whether those savings will be sufficient to prevent your company from the alternative of laying off some of your employees.  Of course, you also will have to make your best prediction of how such a freeze might affect your company.  This highly individualized calculus is likely to have different impacts on different companies.  For example, let’s assume that you operate a high-tech firm that is dependent on a highly educated engineering workforce.  Let’s assume further that your engineers are regularly receiving calls from engineering headhunters, who routinely try to lure them away to your competitors.  If an across-the-board salary freeze would likely result in the loss of a significant number of these employees, you will have to evaluate carefully whether such an approach presents a practical solution to your current financial woes.  You may conclude that while an across-the-board freeze is impractical, a targeted or select freeze focusing on certain categories of your employees would benefit your company.  Conversely, however, you may conclude that your company is not dependent on any particular group of employees and if a freeze incentivized certain employees to depart, that outcome would have the beneficial effect of saving your company additional funds.

Salary Reductions.  If a salary freeze would not provide your company the savings it is seeking and you still hope to avoid layoffs, another option to consider would be a uniform salary reduction.  Perhaps the easiest way to calculate the potential benefits of this approach would be to consider a uniform percentage decrease for all employees.  You could easily determine whether a five percent (or a ten percent, or some other figure) would enable your firm to achieve the savings necessary to retain your workforce.  At some figure (different, depending on the health of the industry), however, you would risk losing employees.  They might simply conclude that they could not afford to remain employed with your firm, even if they wanted to continue working with you.  Of course, it belabors the obvious to point out that if some or all of your workforce is unionized, salary freezes or reductions could not be unilaterally imposed by your company on these collective bargaining employees. 

Benefits Reductions.  A slight variation of the salary freeze and/or reduction ideas addressed above is a modification of the benefits provided to your employees.  This could be done as a stand alone approach (if it would yield the needed cost savings) or in conjunction with a salary freeze or reduction.  Here, too, special attention would have to paid to union employees, or employees whose benefits had fully or partially vested.  Decisions regarding these issues should be carefully assessed by in-house or outside benefits counsel.

Temporary Layoffs, with Defined Return Date.  Yet another option that might be worth consideration is a temporary layoff.  This could be done for a plant, a division, or some other non-essential segment of your business.  In all likelihood, the only way this option will be viable is if you can provide your employees some clarity regarding the duration of the “temporary” layoff.  In short, if you are hoping your employees will return to work at your company, the layoff cannot be indefinite.  Note, however, that if you in fact promise to re-employ these individuals at a specified time, you will need to carry through on your promise.  If you later extended the layoff, you may be confronting claims for promissory estoppel (i.e., lawsuits brought by individuals who stated that they relied, to their detriment, on your promise to resume operations at a specific date, only to see you later breach your promise to them). 

Temporary Shutdowns.  A corollary concept to the preceding point is to consider the cost savings associated with a complete, though temporary, shutdown of your business.  There are a variety of difficult business considerations associated with this option, each of which becomes more complicated if the shutdown is protracted.  Will your employees stick with the company through the shutdown, or will they seek alternative employment?  What will your customers conclude about the long-term viability of your business?  What are the costs directly related to the shutdown and subsequent reopening of the business?  Does the shutdown trigger any financial obligations to your employees imposed either by state law or by contract (e.g., providing compensation for accrued, unused vacation)?  But, if these issues are thought through carefully and communicated clearly to your employees, this may prove to be a viable alternative for your company.

Employee Retraining and Reassignment.  Depending on the urgency of your company’s economic needs, you also may want to consider the possibility of retraining or reassigning some of your employees.  As noted in the preceding sentence, this option may not be viable if your company already is confronting an economic crisis.  But, if you merely are anticipating a downturn and have the flexibility to take proactive steps, retraining may be an attractive alternative.  There are a number of benefits associated with this approach.  First, taking this step in lieu of layoffs likely will engender a great deal of appreciation and good will among your employees.  Second, although this is not a cost-free option in the short-run, the long-term impact could be beneficial.  You will end up with a more diversified and talented workforce, employees who can perform in a variety of different capacities, depending on your company’s current and future needs.  Third, the increased knowledge associated with this cross-pollination could enhance the exchange of information within your business and improve efficiencies.  Fourth, if your efforts to retrain your employees are successful, you may find that your recruiting and hiring costs diminish.

Voluntary Layoffs.  If the ideas above are either unappealing to your company or simply impractical given the economic pressures your company is confronting, another option that may provide more immediate relief to your economic woes is a voluntary layoff.  I have written on the subject of voluntary layoffs in the past, expressing considerable criticism.  [PDF Download Article PDF] I won’t repeat the points I made in that article.  Suffice it to state that my principal concerns about voluntary layoffs is that the wrong employees volunteer and the remaining workforce is diminished, not only in numbers but in skill, insight and knowledge. 

If the ideas described above simply won’t work for your company, you always have the option of involuntary layoffs.  As the recent disappointing labor statistics illustrate, this is the option many companies are implementing in the current economic climate. 

Joint Employer Liability, Quirky Question # 70

Quirky Question # 70:

Our company frequently hires workers through employment placement agencies – some on a temporary basis, others for more long-term assignments.  The placement company pays them and withholds employment taxes on their behalf.  We sign contacts saying that the workers are independent contractors and we are not their employer.  We recently terminated one of the workers who was pregnant and she is threatening to sue us as well as the employment agency.  Should we be concerned about potential liability under California law?

[Readers:  Today's first "Wednesday" West Coast question  is analyzed by Karen Wentzel of our Palo Alto office.  Karen, a Stanford Law School graduate who has been practicing employment law for more than 20 years, can be reached at wentzel.karen@dorsey.com, or by phone at 650.843.2708.  If you would like to explore with her issues relating to joint employer liability, do not hesitate to send her an email or give her a call.  Regards, Roy]

Karen’s Analysis:

Your question highlights an issue that is receiving considerable judicial attention in a variety of contexts — joint employer liability.  The bottom line is that you have reason to be concerned. Under California law, your company may be found to be a “joint employer” with the employment agency and therefore could be on the hook for claims of harassment, discrimination or retaliation notwithstanding what your contract may say about the person’s status. 

First, the basics:  California law, like the federal Title VII, prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex.  Under California law, sex is defined to include pregnancy, childbirth, or medical conditions related to pregnancy or childbirth.  What this means is that, as with other protected categories under state and federal law, it is important that an employer not take any adverse employment actions against a worker “because of” her pregnancy.  California law also requires an employer to provide up to four months leave for a woman disabled by pregnancy and to transfer a woman to a less strenuous or hazardous position for the duration of her pregnancy if she so requests, with the advice of her physician, if the transfer can be reasonably accommodated.  Therefore, the decision to take any action adverse to a pregnant employee should always be carefully scrutinized. 

Some businesses believe that using an employment agency to supply temporary or even long-term workers will insulate them from discrimination claims so that they need not scrutinize their employment decisions as carefully.  This is not true.  As with federal law, California courts may find both entities to be joint employers depending on the amount of control the contracting business exerts or has the right to exert.  In evaluating whether the contracting business is a joint employer the courts will look at the totality of the circumstances, with specific focus on factors such as the nature and degree of control over employees; the day to day supervision of employees, including discipline; the authority to hire and fire employees and set conditions of employment; and control of employee records and payroll. 

While all of these factors should be taken into consideration, both policy and practical considerations lead to the conclusion that a business cannot afford to parse them too finely.  Courts facing claims of discrimination and harassment have had little difficulty finding that each “employer” bears responsibility for the offending actions.  For example, in Mathieu v. Norrell Corp. (2004) 115 Cal. App. 4th 1174, the court found the temporary agency and its client to be joint employers in a case involving sexual harassment.  In explaining its decision, the court easily found that the purpose of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) is to safeguard an employee’s right to hold employment without discrimination.  That purpose, the court said, is best served by a finding of dual employment.  The employment agency was found to be a joint employer based on the facts that it paid the employee and she was required to report to the agency if she were to miss a day of work.  “To hold otherwise would allow . . . temporary agencies to send their employees into hostile and discriminatory workplaces and to ignore complaints of harassment without fear of liability.”

The same policy arguments that led the courts to safeguard the employee’s right to work without discrimination also apply when courts determine whether the contracting business should be subject to liability.  Even if the temporary agency is issuing the paycheck, where the business has the right to control the work environment, and especially where the business has the right to terminate the worker at any time, the contracting business will likely be found to be a joint employer.  As with the analysis of whether any worker is an employee or independent contractor, the contractual terms by which he or she is employed will not be conclusive.  The key is the right to control. 

As with many legal issues, the legal standard to be applied is a little fuzzy.  There is no bright line test or magic formula as to when both entities have sufficient control to be found liable.  The cases do require that the amount of control exercised be “significant” and that the contracting business have the ability to affect the terms and conditions of the worker’s employment.  If it is undisputed that only the temporary agency has the ability to hire and fire, set compensation, or train the person, there may not be a basis for also suing the contracting business. 

However, as a practical matter, if you are the contracting business, the lack of a bright line standard will work against you.  First, as we have seen, as a matter of policy the courts will protect the individual who is being discriminated against and will not let finger pointing between the two entities result in the employee being left without a remedy.  Second, because the determination of whether or not an entity is a joint employer often involves a detailed factual analysis, it is difficult to have the question decided as a matter of law on a summary judgment motion. Finally, a plaintiff will always look to the bigger and more well-funded entity (usually but not always the contracting entity) as the deep pocket from whom to seek redress.  What this means is that the employee will sue both entities and attempt to leverage a settlement whatever the two entities’ respective involvement. 

Two additional points bear noting:

First, although your question doesn’t directly involve the harassment of a worker, it’s important to note that under FEHA an “employer” can be liable for the harassment of “a person providing services pursuant to a contract.”  Government Code §  12940(j).  This means that the employer may be liable for acts of harassment against a worker even if the person claiming harassment meets all the tests for a classic “independent contractor” (i.e., she has the right to control the performance of the contract and discretion as to the manner of performance; is customarily engaged in an independent business; and, has control over the time and place the work is performed, supplies the tools and instruments used in the work, and performs works that requires a particular skill not ordinarily used in the course of the employer’s work.) 

Second, the concept of “joint employment” is applied beyond just the arena of discrimination and harassment laws.  Although it is beyond the scope of this analysis, contracting businesses should know that courts have considered both temporary agencies and their clients to be “joint employers” in the context of wage and hour laws, the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), workers’ compensation liability, and tax liability. Special rules also apply under California law for determining liability for unemployment insurance and disability contributions. 

The bottom line:  Employer beware.  Make sure that whether an individual is clearly your employee, or falls into the sometimes gray area between employee, independent contractor, and leased employee, you make your decisions as to the terms and conditions of that person’s employment based on legitimate business needs that you can clearly articulate and have documented.