No Gambling At Work Policy
Even though workplace gambling is unlikely to result in criminal investigation or prosecution, employers should not turn a blind eye or otherwise appear to condone any illegal conduct occurring in the workplace. In order to help minimize potential exposure to liability, employers should make it clear what is and is not permitted in the workplace. The gambling clauses set out that ads for gambling products should not portray gambling as indispensable or as taking priority in life, for example over family, friends or professional or educational commitments (Rule 16.3.5) and should not condone or feature gambling in a working environment (Rule 16.3.6). A grooming policy should reflect the needs of the employer while not unnecessarily restricting employee individual expression. The more formal or professional the culture, and the more employees interact with individuals outside of the workplace, the greater the need for employers to have a policy governing employee grooming and hygiene.
By Celeste Blackburn
Are your employees gambling at work? With the Super Bowl and NCAA basketball tournaments coming up, it’s almost a sure bet that at least some employees are gambling on sports during company time, using company equipment. Sometimes, employees don’t wait for major sporting event to gamble, instead betting on the Oscars, American Idol, and coworkers’ pregnancy due-date pools. While employees see betting pools as harmless fun, employers can be the big losers due to the drain on productivity and resources as well as the legal issues that go with employees gambling at work.
HR Guide to Employment Law: A Practical Compliance Reference
Productivity takes a time out
In a 2011 Vault survey, 56% of respondents said they spent 30 minutes or less discussing, researching, or making picks for an office betting pool. A few admit to spending considerably more time on office gambling — 4% spent 1-2 hours, 2% spent 2-4 hours, and 1% spent more than 6 hours. Only 63% of survey participants who admitted to gambling at work were willing to reveal how much time they actually spend on it — even in an anonymous survey. A few quotes from survey participants suggest that those in the unaccounted for 37% are spending more time than they want to admit on office pools:
- “I have seen coworkers not do ANY work at all, ALL day long.”
- “Almost no work gets done in the office during March.”
- “Zero office time — that’s stealing.”
Now consider this: In 2007, consulting firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas crunched the numbers (mainly figures about the national employment rate and average pay) and estimated that American employers lose up to $16 million for every minute their employees spend focused on the Super Bowl.
Gambling with team spirit
Some employees, employers, and company leaders see office betting pools as a way to foster camaraderie by giving employees a fun outlet to socialize and interact with one another. In the Vault survey, 78% of participants said it was appropriate to have office betting pools and only 22% disagreed. Elaborating, one survey respondent said, “March Madness is a great team builder, engaging folks from the office, plant floor, shipping/warehouse, remote sales offices, and even a few customers and vendors.”
On the other hand, there are those employees who might agree with the survey participant who complained, “My office is awash in sinners. Some day a real rain will come and these cubicles shall be cleansed.” While all workplace-gambling dissidents may not take such a hard line, it is a safe bet that the time wasted on these betting pools irks employees who don’t participate and instead keep their nose to the grindstone.
Illegal moves
In many states, gambling at work is illegal. For instance, in Kansas it can be a class B misdemeanor. Also, many states have gaming commissions that closely regulate gambling events. In other states, gambling at work resides in very gray legal area. For instance, in Colorado most gambling is illegal but betting pools in the office are an exception to the definition of illegal gambling so long as the pool is “incidental to a bona fide social relationship.”
While it’s true that local law enforcement probably isn’t concerned with an office betting pool, there have been instances to the contrary. Notably, in 2002, a middle manager at AT&T was arrested for allegedly taking a 10 % cut — about $3,000 — from a football office pool in New Jersey. The pool at issue was advertised in office e-mails, and a coworker allegedly turned the employee in to the police. The worker was charged with promoting gambling and faced up to five years in prison. While participants in small office pools with low stakes are unlikely to be arrested, it’s never a good idea for a company to condone criminal activity of any kind in the workplace.
Also, there have been several cases in which an employee sued an employer, trying to hold it liable for financial losses. Basically, the employees claimed that employer-approved office betting pools were unavoidable and triggered them to relapse in their gambling addictions, which caused them to lose money.
Could March Madness be a disability?
The National Council on Problem Gambling estimates that two million American adults are pathological gamblers and another four million to eight million qualify as “problem gamblers.” Given the expanded definition of “disability” under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), those numbers should give employers a reason to pause and wonder if gambling addiction could be considered a disability.
The short answer is “no.” Congress expressly excluded compulsive gambling, along with kleptomania, pyromania, and various psychological disorders resulting from current drug use, from the ADA’s definition of “disability.” However, there is still room for concern. Employees who are addicted to gambling are more likely to borrow money from coworkers, be distracted from their work, and have attendance problems.
ADA Compliance : Practical Solutions for HR
Best offense is a good policy (defense)
Depending on the laws of the state, an organization that chooses to allow gambling at work should specifically define what is and isn’t acceptable in a policy. An organization that chooses to prohibit gambling at work should adopt a strong policy and stick to it. Here are several points to consider when writing a gambling policy:
- Define gambling or the type of behavior that is restricted.
- If gambling is illegal in the state, emphasize that point.
- Communicate that gambling can be a problem for employee productivity and morale.
Once the policy is in place, it should be distributed to all employees and included in the company handbook. Only 10% of the Vault survey respondents said their employers had a policy on betting pools; 43% said there was no policy; 47% weren’t sure.
One participant’s response shows that even when employees know about the policy, gambling often still goes on, “It is not tolerated . . . so you have to do it secretly.” In that case, employers should be prepared to discipline all violators (at least one case taken to the federal level hinged on an employee’s claim that he was disciplined for gambling while others of different races were not). The gambling policy also should be coordinated with the organization’s discipline program, carving out specific behaviors that are subject to discipline and termination.
Game over
Allowing gambling at work — by virtue of not having a policy, not enforcing the policy, promoting gambling, or just ignoring it — leaves an organization open to hits from all sides. Therefore, if gambling at work isn’t banned altogether, it should be approached cautiously and thoughtfully.
Author: Jessica Sussman
When to Use
Employees are often the face of the employer's organization, projecting a public image to customers, clients and colleagues. As a result, employers often require certain grooming standards for employees, especially those with significant customer or client contact. A grooming policy should reflect the needs of the employer while not unnecessarily restricting employee individual expression. The more formal or professional the culture, and the more employees interact with individuals outside of the workplace, the greater the need for employers to have a policy governing employee grooming and hygiene. Additionally, some organizations, especially those that require employees to operate heavy and dangerous machinery, may require grooming standards to satisfy safety hazards.
Customizable Policy
Grooming Policy
- Purpose - This policy has been developed to ensure that all employees understand the importance of appropriate grooming and hygiene in the workplace or when otherwise representing [Enter Employer Name]. The standards of grooming and hygiene outlined below set forth the minimum requirements to which all employees, contract workers, and temporary staff are required to adhere.
- Statement of Policy - [Enter Employer Name] recognizes that the presentation of its employees in the workplace contributes to a professional environment and the public image that has contributed to the success of the [Enter Employer Name]. Therefore [Enter Employer Name] expects employees to be well-groomed and professional in appearance when coming to work or engaged in work-related tasks with customers, clients, and colleagues.
- Hygiene - Every employee is expected to practice daily hygiene and good grooming habits as set forth in further detail below.
- Hair - Hair should be clean, combed, and neatly trimmed or arranged. Unkempt hair is not permitted. Sideburns, mustaches, and beards should be neatly trimmed. Non-traditional hair colors are not permitted.
- Make-Up - Make-up must be professional and conservative.
- Fragrance - Recognizing that employees and visitors to the workplace may have sensitivities or allergies to fragrant products, including but not limited to perfumes, colognes, fragrant body lotions or hair products, [Enter Employer Name] is a fragrance free workplace. Fragrant products that may be offensive to others should be used in moderation out of concern for others in the workplace.
- Nails - Hands and nails should be clean and conservatively manicured.
- Jewelry - Employees may wear tasteful jewelry in moderation. The size and/or number of earrings, rings, necklaces, and bracelets may be determined at the department level based on specific job functions, operational, and safety factors. Where job duties present any type of safety risk, jewelry may be prohibited or severely limited. In other areas, moderate (including size and amount) jewelry may be worn. No other visible body jewelry/body piercings may be worn while an employee is in the workplace.
- Tattoos - No visible tattoos or other body art (such as surgically implanted ball bearings, spikes, and the like) are permitted in the workplace. Exceptions may be made for employees who have small, non-offensive tattoos that cannot easily be covered by standard clothing (i.e., wrist, neck, etc.). All exceptions require the approval of [Enter Appropriate position].
- Violations - Violations of this policy will result in discipline, up to and including termination.
- Exceptions - Employees seeking an exception from any of the above standards should speak with [Enter Appropriate Employer Representative].
Tips
Employers are generally permitted to have and enforce grooming and hygiene standards in the workplace that apply to all employees or employees with certain jobs, even if they conflict with an employees religious beliefs. Employers should keep in mind, however, that inconsistent application of a Grooming Policy could lead to claims of discrimination. For example, if an employer's Grooming Policy permits certain types of facial hair, but not a beard required by an employee's religion, this inconsistent application could lead to allegations of discrimination. If all beards are not permitted because of a safety risk, then the employee would not have grounds to claim he was the victim of discrimination.
In such situations, the employer should rely on the Exceptions section of the Grooming Policy and strive to reasonably accommodate the employee's religious belief or medical situation, unless doing so would result in an undue hardship. As with any policy, consistent application is critical.
Having a Grooming Policy that is detailed will avoid claims that employees feel singled out when it comes to grooming standards as the employer has made its policy universally understood in a written policy. Moreover, if employees are aware of the employer's expectations with regard to grooming and hygiene, this could avoid potential infractions. The policy should adhere to government standards, as well as legitimate business reasons which vary depending on the industry and culture of the workplace.
An increased number of employees in today's workforce have some form of piercing or tattoo. However, tattoos and body piercings are generally considered to be personal expressions rather than religious or cultural expressions. Therefore, employees who choose to wear body piercings or tattoo are generally engaging in personal and individual expression rather than a religious right. Thus, most policies which prohibit tattoos and body piercings will be generally enforceable.
Warnings
While jewelry is a form of personal expression, it also may cause safety risks in the workplace. In such situations, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) offers guidelines for the safe use of and suggestions for when jewelry should not be worn. For example, dangling jewelry can create a safety hazard. Similarly, hair that is not tied back may cause safety concerns. Wearing jewelry when operating machinery can cause risks, including jewelry becoming caught in the equipment, electrocution, and the transfer of unwanted heat to the body. Employers should highlight these risks to employees and clearly address them in the grooming policy if applicable.
Employers should also keep in mind that safety concerns related to jewelry do not only apply to jobs in which employees operate machinery. For example, those working with children should not wear sharp jewelry as there is a potential to injure a child. Additionally, employees who work with chemicals risk adverse reactions between the chemicals and the jewelry.
Further, an employer should be aware that it may be required to provide accommodations to dress code, grooming or appearance policies based on religious beliefs or practices. Employees may be permitted to wear head coverings, certain hairstyles or facial hair or observe religious prohibits against wearing certain garments. An employer must engage in the interactive process and make a good faith attempt to provide an accommodation if doing so would not create an undue hardship such as a threat to health, safety or security, increased cost to the employer, decreased workplace efficiency or an unjust burden on other employees. Each request should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. An employee's request for a religious accommodation may not be denied based on co-worker jealousy or customer preference. Also, an employer may not deny an applicant a position or assign an employee to a non-customer facing positing because the individual wears religious attire, presents the wrong image or makes others uncomfortable. Even if an employer grants a request for a religious accommodation to its dress code, it may still enforce its dress code for other employees who do not request a religious accommodation. An employer does not need to have actual knowledge of an individual's need for a dress code accommodation based on religion or receive a request for an accommodation to be liable for religious discrimination and failure to accommodate. The focus in on the employer's motivations. An individual seeking to establish a discrimination claim is not required to show that the employer had actual knowledge of the individual's need for an accommodation and must only show that the need for an accommodation was a motivating factor in the employer's adverse employment decision.