Here’s the scenario:

David Letterman took to his late night talk show in early October to reveal that he had sexual affairs with Late Show staffers and that he was the alleged victim of an extortion plan. He explained that someone threatened to go public with his sexual encounters with staff members if he didn’t pay him over $2 million. Letterman reported the extortion threat to the special prosecution bureau of the Manhattan District Attorney’s office, which conducted an investigation and arrested CBS’s 48 Hours Producer Robert “Joe” Halderman. This saga, filled with lust, betrayal and revenge, continues to unfold as we witnessed Letterman’s public apology to his wife in an attempt soothe the turmoil in this marriage and friends and co-workers of Halderman publicly speculate that he blackmailed Letterman because he was in debt and because Letterman upset him by sleeping with his girlfriend, Stephanie Birkitt.

Our thoughts*:

Although David Letterman is the star of the Late Show, we can’t assume that he clearly abused the power of his position and celebrity to have sexual relations with Late Show staff members. Stephanie Birkitt, Letterman’s former assistant, is the only one staffer whose name has gone public. Although employers may frown upon relationships in the workplace, the truth is that they sometimes happen. If Letterman and Birkitt met at a bar and pursued a sexual relationship as two consenting adults, then this story wouldn’t be as salacious as it is now. The controversy lies in the fact that Letterman had sexual encounters with staff members. Does the nature of a sexual relationship between two consenting adults apply to the workplace?

CBS has not addressed any questions about whether or not Letterman will face any disciplinary actions for his relations with subordinates. One major loophole that could work in Letterman’s favor is that he is an employee of Worldwide Pants Production Company and not CBS. Outside of opting to let Letterman go, CBS may not have the contractual power to reprimand Letterman. Ratings for the Late Show have spiked since David Letterman’s confession about the sexual affairs and the extortion case; moreover, knowing how the world of entertainment can work, CBS may decide to milk the controversy for as much as its worth.

What do you think?

Letterman is able to “skirt” conventional corporate – and in this instance, CBS guidelines – relating to office policies about romances and relationships between managers and employees because there was no extraordinary consideration, influence, or promise that was given to Ms. Birkitt in exchange for the sexual liaisons. Do you think Letterman deserves any repercussions for his indiscretions in the workplace?

Posted by Adrienne on October 16, 2009 at 12:00 pm.

* Our in house attorneys helped us formulate this opinion. Although this is advice from lawyer(s), this is not legal advice. Always consult a lawyer for legal matters.

Subscribe to LegalCast: E-NewsLetter from LegalFish

Here’s the scenario:

In 2004, an employee at a discount department store reached out about the possibility of suing his employer due to religious persecution. As an employee for over eight years at the department store, he requested Friday nights off for religious reasons. The store denied the time off request, and his hours were then cut to below 20 hours a week.

As a separate issue, he noted that his store manager received a fax from his doctor noting that due to his diabetes he should have a set work schedule to help regulate his meals, medication and blood sugar. He complained that the store manager forced him to work for a month knowing that his health would be at risk. He claims that he was hospitalized twice before because of a strenuous work schedule in unsafe work conditions.

Oddly enough, at the end of his note he mentions a series of unrelated, random facts about: being in a wheelchair, not able to use the phone, owning a dog that bites, and his wife being available on Wednesday to speak by phone.

Our thoughts*:

This gentleman’s letter touched upon a variety of workplace issues, but we’ll try to address them all.

He initially wrote in for advice about filing a lawsuit against his workplace because of religious persecution. Religious persecution is generally viewed as the systematic mistreatment of an individual or a group of individuals in response to their religious beliefs, so that may not be the correct terminology to explain his case. However, federal and state laws prohibit employers to discriminate on the basis of religious orientation. Employers are required to reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious practices, but are not required to accept all of the employee’s requests. His employer cutting his hours to 20 a week may have been an attempt to accommodate for his need to take off Friday evenings. Either way, the general rule of thumb when requesting time off for personal or religious reasons is to plan well enough in advance to give notice and mainly have your responsibilities completed in advance or taken over by a trusted colleague.

His illness of diabetes appears to flag his issue of regulating his meals, medication and blood sugar around his work schedule. The doctor’s note he gave to his manager states that a set work schedule would help him with this issue. Given that most department stores organize multiple employees around set schedules, it’s a possibility that the manager believed that the schedule worked for his needs. An open line of communication between himself and his manager may have helped the manager understand his challenge.

Employees today can consult the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 to determine if their rights in the workplace are being violated. Employees can protect their rights to work in a safe environment by: 1) Calling Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s emergency telephone line at 800-321-OSHA (6742) if there’s a hazard in the workplace that causes an imminent threat; 2) Filing a claim for workers’ compensation benefits for any related medical bills incurred; 3) Informing the employer of the hazardous condition(s); and 4) If the problem still exists, then filing a complaint with OSHA.

What do you think?

With the facts this gentleman presented, would he have had a legitimate cause to complain about his hours being cut and his manager not adhering to his doctor’s orders? Or was he trying to work the system and looking for a way to get rich quick by suing the company for grievances?

Posted by Adrienne on October 14, 2009 at 5:51 pm.

* Our in house attorneys helped us formulate this opinion. Although this is advice from lawyer(s), this is not legal advice. Always consult a lawyer for legal matters.

Subscribe to LegalCast: E-NewsLetter from LegalFish