I’ve been representing companies regarding employment law matters for almost 13 years now. Based on this experience, I want to share an observation. It’s a relatively obvious, simple, and practical one. Yet, I believe it will help many employers if they take it to heart. So, here it is: happy employees seldom make legal trouble for their employers!

There is a staggering number of laws that regulate the employment relationship and work environment. My job is to help organizations follow those laws as well as possible, but perfect compliance probably isn’t feasible. However, substantial compliance is. And that may be sufficient to stay out of trouble as long as you generally treat your employees well.

Unhappy Employees

Most companies have many happy employees. If nothing else, most of them are grateful to be working there. They are either lucky to have a job in the first place (if they have low skills or the economy is bad) or they had job options and chose your company (e.g., marketable skills, good economy). But various circumstances can sour an employee’s mood.

Of course, employers don’t have complete control over their employees’ happiness. Personal, family, and other outside influences play a role in their overall attitude, demeanor, perspective, etc. But the employees’ feelings about their job go a long way in determining how likely they are to bring a claim against the company.

Employee A

Take the case of Employee A. She is a productive office worker who has been with the company for five years. She has received regular salary bumps each year and likes her co-workers.

Employee A has two young children at home. One day she asks for the afternoon off to go to a school function. Her boss says no without any good reason. Being a good employee, she stays at work and luckily her husband can attend the school event that day. The same situation arises a few more times over the school year. Then, one day, Employee A learns from a co-worker that their company was misclassifying them as exempt, such that Employee A (among others) should have been receiving overtime (in her case since she started working there).

Employee A is a generally happy person, but hasn’t liked missing her children’s events. She is particularly frustrated that she never received an explanation for why she had to work. In her mind, the office would have been fine those few afternoons without her. We wouldn’t be shocked if Employee A now takes out that frustration on her employer by calling the Department of Labor or an attorney to complain about unpaid overtime, would we?

Employee B

Now let’s consider Employee B. He’s a part-time employee in his 60s. He just joined the company last year. He doesn’t talk much, but gets his job (data entry) done accurately.

A new, much younger, female employee asks Employee B to lunch one day. Surprised by the sudden invitation, he declines, but agrees to eat with her another day. She asks again the following week, and he confesses that he’s not sure his wife would like it if he went to lunch with her alone. The woman finds this shocking and complains to management. The next day Employee B’s boss tells him he must eat lunch with the other employee or else he could get in trouble for violating the company’s anti-harassment policy. Employee B explains that it would make him very uncomfortable, but the boss persists.

Employee B relents and goes out to a local restaurant with the younger co-worker. They eat, make small talk about their jobs, and return to work.

The next week, the young woman tells co-workers that Employee B is dull and old school. She says she tried to be nice and get to know him out of pity for “the old man,” but that he’s so miserable, she’s sorry she tried. Hearing about what she was saying, Employee B asked his boss to look into it. The boss just told him he needs to be friendlier and people won’t complain about him.

A month later, Employee B applies for a full-time opening with the company. He doesn’t get the position. His boss tells him that the (younger) person promoted was more qualified because he (unlike Employee B) had graduated college. Under these circumstances, would we expect Employee B to accept that explanation? Even if he really should have been more personable at work, the way his boss treated him probably increases the chance that he would file an age discrimination claim against the company.

Happy Employees

Now let’s change the two scenarios above to show how better managers may have handled them. Subtle shifts in approach could yield substantially different outcomes.

Employee A

Remember the mom who wanted the afternoon off to go to her children’s school? Suppose her boss had allowed her to use vacation time to take a half day the first time she asked, but noted that the company may not always be able to accommodate these requests. The boss perhaps added that more notice would be helpful in the future.

Over time, the employee makes similar requests. Sometimes she is excused from work. Other times her manager explains that it would be a hardship on the company for her to take the time off. And, ideally, the boss gives a logical reason for denying the time off on each occasion.

Now when Employee A learns that the company had made a mistake in treating her as exempt, she doesn’t rush to the Department of Labor or encourage other employees to do so. Instead, she meets with her boss to discuss the matter. She is satisfied to hear that the company will pay her for overtime worked over the past year and will raise her pay going forward so that she properly meets the exemption requirements. Yes, this still costs the company more, but it is less than what the employee might have demanded under applicable laws. Still, Employee A is happy because she has been treated humanely in the past and accepts that the company is trying to balance its needs and hers.

Employee B

Now, what should have happened when Employee B declined his younger co-worker’s lunch invitation? We’ll make some small changes in that scenario in hopes of a better outcome.

Instead of ordering Employee B to have lunch with the female co-worker, his boss could have arranged a team lunch. He could have explained to Employee B that it may be a good idea for him to interact more with co-workers and that this may be a good opportunity to “break the ice.” Employee B agrees that he’s open to being more friendly at work, but didn’t want to be taken the wrong way or to accidentally offend anyone.

The lunch goes off fine. Employee B interacts with the co-worker who originally invited him to lunch among others. Nothing inappropriate or remarkable transpired. Nonetheless, the young woman still complains about Employee B to other employees, including references about his age. When Employee B reports this to his boss, he is asked to ignore it and just try to develop better relationships with other employees for now. The boss adds that he knows she shouldn’t be saying these things, but that she is brilliant in her field and, frankly, just not that good with interpersonal relationships.

Later when Employee B does not get the promotion, the boss again explains that younger person who received the full-time position has better credentials, but that the company will be happy to consider Employee B for openings in the future. Even though Employee B’s boss probably should have taken further action regarding the co-worker’s negative comments, Employee B feels like his manager is listening to him, and they’re more or less on the same page. So he doesn’t gripe about being passed over and keeps working hard so he can pursue the next opportunity that arises.

What’s Different?

What’s fundamentally different about the happy and unhappy employees in these scenarios? The happy employees feel their managers respect them as people. They don’t always see eye-to-eye, but the employees’ feelings are at least weighed before decisions are made.

We can’t actually say which of these employees are “happy” or “unhappy” in the big picture. We’re looking at a relative feeling about their jobs. The point here is not that companies should always do what their employees want in every situation. That wouldn’t work in the long run and would end up alienating many employees (like the ones who are not comfortable asking for what they want). But companies, through management, can and should demonstrate a commitment to respect and a pursuit of fairness. Most employees–at least, good ones–perceive those qualities and thrive off of them.

Don’t Take This Too Far

When I say happy employees don’t sue, it’s not a guarantee. You can treat someone well 100 times and then cross the line once to your peril. People can more easily forgive some transgressions than others (e.g., payroll errors vs. sexual harassment). And some people are just harder to please.

But in my experience representing employers, how employees generally feel about their jobs, co-workers, managers, and the organization is usually relevant in weighing risks of grievances, administrative charges, litigation, etc. It just makes sense that treating people well is better for business overall.

Takeaways

Employment law compliance is a monumental task that grows more complex with larger workplaces. However, it doesn’t take much employment law expertise to try to do the right thing.

Employers who focus solely on the bare minimum they can get away with legally are probably more apt to make compliance mistakes. Or at least to be taken to task for those mistakes.

Conversely, employers who focus on treating employees with respect can probably get away with more technical errors or even complete misapplication (or inapplication) of the laws.

But, not surprisingly, organizations with the strongest commitment to showing respect to their employees often do the best job at legal compliance. And they usually have happy employees.

For more best practices and updates on labor and employment law, please subscribe to the Horton Law email newsletter.