It's Always A Mistake to Rush an FMLA Decision

Except in the most exigent situations, I always tell clients not to make precipitous employment decisions. This is especially true in circumstances where the decision is irrevocable, such as a termination. And it's really, especially, true when dealing with an FMLA situation. The statute itself and the associated regulatory framework are simply too complex for most employers to make a snap judgment regarding someone's entitlement to FMLA leave, or, even worse, a termination decision based on a denial of FMLA benefits.

So if I had been on the phone with the employer in this case, I would've told it to hold up before terminating the employee in question, who, as it turned out, was suffering from an undiagnosed case of diabetes.  The employee needed time off from work for a diagnosis, and applied for FMLA leave. Unfortunately, the paperwork that she turned in was not properly filled out. The company apparently sent the employee a denial letter, but when she did not respond, the company terminated her for missing too much work.

Bad move. FMLA regulations specifically require a seven-day waiting period between notification of an insufficient FMLA certification form and any type of employment decision, including denial of FMLA leave.  In this case, the court found that the employer jumped the gun-it should have provided formal notice to the employee of its denial, and then ensured that she had a seven day grace period in which to respond.

The implications here are not particularly surprising-an employer must make certain that it crosses its Ts and dots its Is when moving on a denial of FMLA leave decision. The opinion is a thorough and well-reasoned assessment of why FMLA cases must be treated with particular care.

Bad Boss Stories

In truth, the descriptions of these bosses don't seem that bad, at least compared to some of the cases with which I am familiar. The guy who knocks over furniture and throws things around in the office is pretty bad, and probably should be fired, along with the supervisor who hit whiffle balls at people when she got angry. What I find particularly interesting about most of these stories is that after the affected employees were either fired or quit, their outlook on life improved immeasurably. They became productive and successful, which makes me think that in fact they were being managed by incompetents.

Incompetent, bullying, ego-maniacal managers can wreak havoc in an organization well beyond their area of immediate oversight. Given America’s “bottom line” business culture, it's easy for management to either overlook or simply miss the methods being used by a "productive" supervisor to get results from her people. In fact, my experience is that high level bullying goes virtually unreported or reviewed because of the assumption that everyone at that level knows how to do their job. That’s why I am a big fan of so-called 360 degree job performance reviews, in which a supervisor is rated not only by her supervisors, but by her peers and her subordinates. Companies can learn a lot of information about what’s really going on by listening to co-workers.

They Need Some Serious Management Training in China

The people in charge here sound like junior high vice-principals.  Two minutes for a bathroom break?  Where is the AFL-CIO?

Oh, yeah, I forgot.  The PRC is a dictatorship.  But it won't be for long if it keeps putting the lid (or closing the toilet seat cover) on these types of problems in the economy.

More Penn State Fallout--Former Coach McQueary Files Whistleblower Suit

And so the PSU/Jerry Sandusky/Joe Paterno saga continues.  At some point it will become clear to the people at PSU that they can't win for losing.  Specifically, there are no good choices for the University at this point, only increasingly bad ones.

I suppose this latest lawsuit could be assessed in terms of people and institutions getting what's coming to them--Penn State allowed itself to become a karmic black hole, and so therefore it should expect noxious consequences for some time.  But this is also a very good example of how a bad management culture can create effects that reverberate long after the principal miscreants have left the scene.  

The failure of the University to deal with the former coach's reporting Sandusky abusing a child ten years ago continues to create fallout for the school.  That initial failure led to the school removing the coach when he ultimately was identified as the key witness against Sandusky (and Joe Paterno).  It was clear that McQueary couldn't continue at PSU under the circumstances.  But it was also clear that his termination was fraught with legal difficulties for the school.  

Damned if you do and if you don't--the only way for PSU to avoid a lawsuit was to reach some kind of severance agreement.  Agreement has been in limited supply in State College lately.

Dysfunctional Hiring 101: The Washington Redskins

 A recent Washington Post article reveals in remarkable detail the hiring process by which Redskins owner, Daniel Snyder, hired Mike Shanahan as his head coach for the 2010 season. Snyder has been widely criticized for his ownership decisions with the Redskins, but this particular process shows a bizarre basis for making employment decisions, as well as almost an impetuous executive decision making process that could not help but undermine the management of the team.

Example: Snyder allowed a personal relationship with one of the players, Clinton Portis - a running back - to literally dictate the choice of head coach. Specifically, Snyder got a call from Portis' agent before the last game of the 2008 season telling Snyder that Portis wanted the then head coach, Jim Zorn, fired or else Portis would no longer play for the Redskins. The basis for the agent's demand? The fact that the coach told Portis to take his hands out of his pockets during a drill at practice. Snyder and his executive vice president of personnel literally forced Zorn to apologize to Portis.  Why Zorn didn't quit at that point is something of a mystery. Zorn had to know then, if he didn't already, that he was completely undermined and could not recover.  What a smart way to run a football team. 

Snyder kept Zorn around for the 2009 season because he was afraid it would look bad if he fired another coach (the 6th in 10 years) who finally seemed to be getting some results with the team. But the article makes clear that Snyder was set on firing Zorn and hiring Shanahan from the start of 2009 forward (another great management technique), and continued to recruit him, especially after the 'Skins lost to the then worst team in football, the Detroit Lions, in September 2009.

The machinations and decision-making process described in the article go a long way to explain why the Redskins are frequently viewed as a dysfunctional organization. The article is worth reading to get a picture of how unbusiness-like and idiosyncratic NFL management can be, even with an asset worth a billion dollars in a very public industry generating billions of dollars each year.

UPDATE:  Snyder's goofy process might well have run afoul of the current NFL hiring rule (known as the "Rooney Rule") that mandates at least the consideration of a minority candidate for a head coaching job.  Not much consideration in this process.