Chanukah starts at sundown this Sunday, and Christmas is only three short weeks away. Can you throw a workplace holiday party that won't result in a lawsuit? It has been ages since we've had a quiz. Let's do it!
For more on this topic, please listen to the webinar on holiday parties that I did yesterday with Laura Kerekes and the excellent people at ThinkHR. The replay is available here.
1. Which of the following is NOT an appropriate preventive measure to take before you have an office holiday party?
A. Placing a self-enforcing limit on alcohol consumption, for example by using drink tickets or shutting down the bar at a relatively early pre-designated hour.
B. Reminding employees of your no-harassment policy before the party.
C. Excluding your non-Christian employees as a courtesy to them, since they might find your party to be offensive from a religious standpoint.
D. Choosing a few members of management to act as designated drivers and as "party monitors" so that they can intervene tactfully when they see that employees are looking unsafe to drive, too amorous, or ready to get into a fistfight.
ANSWER: C. You should offer everyone the option of coming to the party. If an employee has a religious objection, he or she can let you know, and you can make appropriate accommodations. Your workplace party should not be so overtly "religious" that employees of other faiths are uncomfortable attending.
2. True or false: Alcohol should never be served at workplace holiday parties.
A. True. The risk of employer liability for alcohol-related accidents and injuries, and even sexual misconduct, is just too great.
B. True. This is a place of business, not a saloon. Employees have plenty of opportunities to drink on their own time.
C. False. If there's no alcohol, morale will suffer, and all of our employees will go on strike.
D. False. It's impossible to have a good time unless you're hammered.
ANSWER: C. (Well, the strike may be an exaggeration . . .) Although it's wise for employers to limit the amount of alcohol consumed at holiday parties, banning it completely may be going overboard. Unless you're the Baptist State Convention.
3. True or false: It may not be a good idea to require employees to attend the holiday party.
A. True. This is a free country. Employees should always be allowed to do whatever they want. If they don't want to come to the party, then that means more food and booze for me.
B. True. If employees are required to come, then non-exempt employees would have to be paid for all the time that they're there (even if the party is after normal work hours), which could include overtime. Also, if attendance is mandatory, the employer may have workers' comp or respondeat superior liability for any accidents that occur. There could also be a problem if, say, a Jehovah's Witness was forced to attend a party that violated her religious beliefs.
C. False. Holiday parties, and other workplace social events, are important for employee bonding and to build rapport between employees and management. If employees don't care enough to come, then they don't deserve to have a job.
D. False. I have to go to this stupid party, and by golly so should everybody else!
ANSWER: B. I couldn't have said it better myself.
4. Under what circumstance might a non-exempt employee be entitled to pay for time spent at a voluntary workplace holiday party that takes place after hours?
A. When the employee has to perform work at the party - for example, by serving punch or setting up and breaking down tables.
B. When the party is really, really a drag.
C. When the employee is paid under the "fluctuating workweek" method, as specified in the regulations duly promulgated by the U.S. Secretary of Labor.
D. When the employee has to sit at the same table as the boss.
ANSWER: A. Non-exempt employees must always be paid whenever they perform work, so if you ask your non-exempt employees to help out at the party, you have to pay them for their time. If the party work puts them over 40 hours for the workweek, you have to pay overtime.
5. If we limit everybody to two drink tickets apiece, and shut down the bar completely at 9 p.m., do we need to worry about liability for accidents (or sexual harassment) caused by intoxicated employees?
A. No, because who would get intoxicated after only two drinks?
B. No, because once you shut down the bar at 9 p.m., all legal responsibility shifts to the establishment or to the individual employees.
C. Yes, because you might know or have reason to know that employees are continuing to drink on their own nickel . . . plus, you never really know how even one drink may affect someone.
D. Yes, because the employer is always legally responsible for whatever its employees do.
ANSWER: C. A two-drink limit and a bar that shuts down at 9 p.m. are great preventive measures, but they don't guarantee that the employer is off the hook for employees' alcohol-related misbehavior. It's not uncommon for employees to "continue the party" after the official party is over. If you as the employer know or should know that's going on and fail to take appropriate preventive steps, then you could be legally responsible for what happens afterward.
6. OK, well, what if we provide designated drivers, free cab rides home, and free hotel rooms for employees who are too intoxicated to get home safely? Surely we are in the clear now?
A. Nope, because employees always think they can drive safely, whether they can or not, and they may not want to stay in a hotel room.
B. Nope, because the employer is always legally responsible for whatever its employees do.
C. Yep, because now you've done your due diligence to prevent drunk driving accidents.
D. Probably, as long as you require intoxicated employees to use designated drivers, cabs, or hotel rooms.
ANSWER: D is the best answer. There is always the risk that an employee will refuse to use whatever you provide to get him home safely. So it's not enough to simply make those things available. You should also use whatever pressure you as an employer can bring to bear to get the employee to use them. Before the party, tell employees, "If you are not safe to drive home, you must use a designated driver or cab, or spend the night in the free hotel room. If you don't, you'll be subject to disciplinary action, up to and including discharge." And mean it. Also, remember those management "chaperones" we were talking about? (See answer 1.D, above.) Ask them to ensure that anyone who looks like she's had too much to drink is poured into escorted to a cab. Tell the chaperones not to take no for an answer.
Also keep in mind that hotel rooms are helpful in preventing drunk driving, but they may provide opportunities for sexual harassment.
DEAR READERS: I did not include discussion in this quiz of Wednesday's murders in San Bernardino, even though they reportedly occurred during a workplace holiday party. Based on what we know now, I do not believe that the employer could have done anything to prevent this horrendous attack. Our prayers go out to the victims and their loved ones, and to their co-workers. Thanks, Robin
- 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
- December 2024
- 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