코로나 사태 후 '소송 쓰나미' 온다 (2) 확진 대응·해고 사유 등 고용주·직원간 해석 달라 변호사도 의뢰인도 처음 "누적된 분쟁 계속 터질 것"
사상 초유의 팬데믹 사태로 인해 노동 시장이 흔들리자 곳곳에서 법적 분쟁의 우려가 높아지고 있다. 코로나19로 인한 직장 내 확진자 발생시 대응, 재택근무, 해고, 보건 지침 기준 등 각종 노동법 관련 문제가 불거지고 있기 때문이다.
법조계에서는 “비상 사태이다 보니 당국의 가이드라인도 수시로 변하고 있다. 노동법 적용시 상당히 애매한 사례가 쏟아지면서 관련 문의가 급증하고 있다”고 전했다.
예를 들어 그동안 CDC는 감염자 주위에 있었던 직원이 음성 결과가 나왔어도 마지막 노출일을 기준으로 14일간 자가 격리를 권고했다. 하지만 이 규정은 최근 변경됐다. CDC는 지난 26일 “감염자와 접촉했어도 특별한 증상이 없다면 코로나19 테스트를 필수로 받지 않아도 된다”고 밝혔다.
사정이 이렇다 보니 고용주나 노동자나 혼란스러운 건 매한가지다. 코로나19와 관련 이슈는 보건 당국의 지침이 판단 기준이다. 변호사들도 코로나19 관련 분쟁이 발생할 경우 가장 먼저 들여다보는 게 CDC 등의 가이드라인이다. 코로나19에 감염됐다가 직장으로 복귀한 직원에게 고용주가 완치 확인을 위한 목적으로 의료 서류를 요구했는데 법적 분쟁이 발생할 수 있다.우선 CDC측은 “고용주는 직원에게 병가 또는 업무 복귀를 위해 코로나19 검사 결과나 진단서를 요구해서는 안 된다. 실질적으로 의료기관이 극히 분주한 관계로 증빙 서류를 제때 발부하지 못할 수 있음을 인지해야 한다”고 전했다. 반면 고용법 위반 여부를 조사하는 가주공정고용주택국(DFEH)은 “(고용주는) 직원에게 15일 이내에 건강 상태에 대한 의료 서류 증명을 요구할 수 있다”고 밝혔다.
변호사들도 각종 문의가 쏟아지자 법적인 판단 기준을 명확하기 위해 관련 규정을 날마다 검토하고 있다.
김해원 변호사는 “코로나19 기간 수시로 변경되는 시, 카운티, 주, 연방, 보건 당국 등의 규정을 알아보느라 정신이 없다. 부당해고 관련 문의도 계속되고 있다”며 “요즘 같은 시기에는 해고 등 민감한 사안이 많아서 곧바로 소송을 제기하는 경우가 많다”고 말했다.
법조계에 따르면 한인들은 주로 ▶(맞벌이 부부는) 개학은 했지만 온라인 수업으로 인해 부모 중 1명이 불가피하게 자녀를 돌봐야 할 경우 재택근무 가능 여부 ▶음성 판정을 받았음에도 자가 격리 의무 여부 ▶감염 위험으로 직원이 출근을 거부할 경우 해고 가능 여부 ▶감염자 발생시 사업장 폐쇄 및 방역 기준 ▶감염 증세가 있는 직원에 대한 대처 방법 등의 문의가 많다.
브리아나 김 변호사는 “최근 LA 인근 주류 마켓 등에서 직원 간 집단 감염 사태로 인한 소송이 제기됐다. 감염 위험으로 일을 꺼리는 직원들에게 고용주가 적절한 대처를 못해 발생한 소송”이라며 “이번 사태를 계기로 직원 보호 이슈가 화두가 될 것이다. 앞으로 코로나19 관련 소송은 급증할 것”이라고 말했다.
한편 팬데믹으로 인한 법정 폐쇄와 소송 일정 연기 사태에도 노동법 관련 법률 서비스의 수요는 꾸준하다.
법률 데이터 분석 기관 톰슨로이터스 보고서에 따르면 올해 2분기(4~6월) 법률 시장의 종합 지표 지수(PMI)는 51 포인트다. 법률 시장이 양호한 기준(PMI 기준 65 포인트 이상)에 못 미치는 수치다. 법률 시장 역시 팬데믹에 급격히 움츠러든 셈이다.
항목별로 보면 부동산 소송(-12.2%p), 세금 관련 소송(-9.1%p), 특허 소송(-7.5%p) 등 전반적으로 소송이 감소(평균 -7.5%p)했다. 반면, 팬데믹 사태에도 노동법 관련 소송(-4%p)과 특허출원업무(-2.5%p) 부분의 감소세가 가장 적었다.
데이브 노 변호사는 “변호사도, 의뢰인도 처음 겪는 사태다. 상당히 다양한 사례가 쏟아져 나온다”며 “특히 지금은 법원 운영 중단 등으로 각종 문제가 정체돼 있지만 팬데믹이 끝나면 누적된 법적 분쟁들이 터져 나올 것”이라고 전망했다.
Henry Ephriam landed in the hospital, terrified and suffering from chest pains, one of 125 workers at the Ralphs grocery chain’s Compton warehouse who were sickened with COVID-19.
Maria Pilar Ornelas struggled to breathe with a fever of 103.7. One of more than 180 workers at a Central Valley slaughterhouse who tested positive for the coronavirus, she says her supervisor told her to come to work anyway.
In Glendale, the wife and children of 77-year-old Ricardo Saldana say he died after nursing home staff were told not to wear masks and gloves. Seventeen employees and 22 residents caught the virus. Five died.
Warehouse workers. Meatpackers. Nursing home residents. Cruise ship passengers. With infections in California surging past 680,000 and deaths topping 12,400, COVID-19-related lawsuits have begun to hit federal and state courts.
Businesses fear being blamed for the virus’ spread. They are mounting fierce campaigns in Congress and statehouses for measures to protect them from lawsuits over infections, hospitalizations and deaths related to the pandemic.
Since the virus took hold, many employers have been under siege, accused of failures to enforce social distancing, inadequate protective supplies and a lack of transparency when workers are infected. Customers also feel endangered when safety rules are poorly enforced.
“Relief from costly litigation could truly mean the difference between employers opening their doors and workers returning to work, or being forced to shutter their businesses permanently,” the California Chamber of Commerce and 24 industry groups wrote to congressional leaders last month.
The signers included retailers, manufacturers, agribusinesses, technology companies, hotels, restaurants and builders.
As yet, there is no tidal wave of COVID-related litigation — and may never be, given the hurdle of proving where exactly anyone was infected. At work? In the supermarket? On a sidewalk? And juries may be forgiving if employers argue they have tried to comply with shifting government guidelines.
But U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has predicted “an avalanche” of litigation and “the biggest trial lawyer bonanza in history.” And Republicans are pushing for a sweeping liability shield dubbed the Safe to Work Act, a measure that consumer groups staunchly oppose.
The issue is a sticking point in stalled negotiations between the Trump administration and Democratic lawmakers over broad legislation to extend billions of dollars in federal unemployment benefits and relief for state and local governments.
In California, plaintiffs have filed more than 550 lawsuits as a result of the pandemic, according to a widely cited tracker by the law firm Hunton Andrews Kurth. So far, most involve such matters as companies’ disputes with insurers, including one by the renowned Napa Valley restaurateur Thomas Keller. Or small businesses taking banks to court over missing out on rescue loans. Or students filing complaints against universities, seeking refunds. Concert and sports events ticket holders are suing to get their money back, as are airline and amusement park customers.
Fewer than 50 involve the kinds of claims for personal injury, wrongful death or inadequate safety measures that the proposed federal liability shield addresses.
“Under current law, if businesses take reasonable steps to protect workers and customers, they are protected from lawsuits,” said Jacqueline Serna, deputy legislative director for the trade association Consumer Attorneys of California.
But the GOP congressional bill, she said, would mean “no liability under any state laws for a coronavirus-related personal injury claim. It preempts California laws meant to protect workers against gross negligence, willful misconduct, nuisance, disability, civil rights, assault, battery, fraudulent concealment — you name it.”
Corporations have already seen some success: A dozen states have enacted liability protections for business generally. And in at least 20 states, hospitals, nursing homes and healthcare providers are now immune from most coronavirus-related lawsuits.
California has not adopted any COVID-19 liability measures. Nor are healthcare companies protected. The Service Employees International Union filed suit Aug. 20 against Riverside Community Hospital and its owner, HCA Healthcare in Tennessee, on behalf of three employees who contracted COVID-19 and the daughter of another who died of the disease.
Lawsuits involving grocery chains and warehouses that employ thousands of essential workers are among the most closely watched.
In the San Joaquin Valley, 52 workers at a Safeway facility were sickened, prompting a suit by the widow of one who died. In San Francisco, a picker who fills orders at an Amazon Fresh center sued over safeguards. And Walmart is the target of COVID-19 claims in Chicago and Dallas.
A class action filed last month on behalf of some 800 workers at a Ralphs warehouse in Compton reveals how contentious — and how personal — safety issues have become in the coronavirus era.
On May 11, Ephriam, a 37-year-old receiver who handles incoming goods, took a short nap after his shift and woke up with a 104-degree fever. The day before, the facility had announced that a single worker had tested positive for the virus, calling it “an isolated incident,” according to the suit filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court.
As his symptoms worsened, Ephriam said, he notified Ralphs of 20 employees with whom he’d worked closely, but the company contacted just five — an assertion Ralphs disputes. Within weeks, more than 100 workers were infected.
At the hospital, doctors sought to put Ephriam on a ventilator. He refused, fearing side effects, and was released in four days. Meanwhile, he said, he had brought the virus home: His fiancée, who was nursing their 7-month-old baby, fell ill.
In the suit, Ephriam and seven other plaintiffs say Ralphs took a “cavalier attitude” toward the pandemic, failing to provide enough masks, gloves or hand sanitizer, forcing employees to work close together and making them touch the same pad when clocking in.
“It was terrifying,” Ephriam said. “But management played it like it was no big deal. They didn’t care.”
Ephriam and his fiancée have largely recovered. But another plaintiff, Crescencio Perera, also fell severely ill and infected his family, the suit said. Perera’s wife, daughter, brother, nephew and father-in-law came down with COVID-19, and his father-in-law died.
Even now, the plaintiffs say, shared computers lack plastic keyboard covers to facilitate cleaning, shared scanner guns are not sanitized between shifts, temperature checks are spotty and social distancing rules are not enforced.
In a court response, Ralphs said it has complied with all government guidelines, adding that the COVID-19 protections urged in the suit are “a laundry list of amorphous demands and draconian requirements.”
It said that Ephriam provided just seven names of co-workers and that the company contacted all of them. “Ralphs posted reminders about social distancing as soon as the CDC recommended it,” the company said. And it cited surveillance footage showing Ephriam failing to wear a mask before his diagnosis and hugging two co-workers.
But Ephriam contends he and others were not distancing or wearing masks at the time because Ralphs had not advised them to do so, nor had it revealed that the virus was circulating at the warehouse. “They had nothing in place telling us what we should or shouldn’t be doing,” he said.
Ralphs spokesman John Votava declined to comment.
Similar safety complaints are the focus of a class-action suit on behalf of 750 employees of Central Valley Meat Co., the nation’s seventh-largest beef packer.
In early April, Ornelas, a 41-year-old quality control inspector, and her colleagues heard the virus had infected co-workers at the Hanford, Calif., slaughterhouse. “But supervisors were telling us, ‘Oh, it’s just a rumor,’” she said.
By then meatpackers across the country, working elbow to elbow cutting carcasses on fast-paced assembly lines, were getting sick by the thousands. In Los Angeles County, infections at a Farmer John pork processor had taken off in March, an outbreak that would eventually sicken at least 254 workers.
At Central Valley Meat, it wasn’t until workers posted news of their illness on Facebook that the company acknowledged the virus had spread in the plant, according to the federal suit filed last month.
Chief Executive Brian Coelho, whose family owns the privately held company, did not respond to multiple phone calls and emails. Central Valley Meat lawyers have yet to respond to the complaint.
Ornelas, who fell ill April 23, is still suffering. “I wake up and the next thing you know it’s just horrible. Headache, fever, chest pains, stomach problems.”
She wiped away tears. “I was a person who didn’t believe in depression,” she said. “But now I’m like, I just should have died. I want to give up.”
Ornelas brought the virus home to Pete Mabie, her partner. At the breakfast table, a carton of milk fell out of his hands. He started dropping things at the lumberyard where he works. He was hospitalized three times.
“I get electric shocks in my hands and feet,” he said. “The doctors say the virus caused nerve damage or a mini-stroke.”
Since April, Ornelas has returned to her $14.25-an-hour job three times, spurred by what she said was a threat of termination. But each time she felt too ill to continue. She has no health insurance, and her medical bills amount to hundreds of dollars.
Ornelas’ attorney, Aaron Olsen, said Central Valley Meat programs offering extra pay for perfect attendance and meting out discipline points for absences encouraged sick workers to stay on the job, violating guidelines for companies issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Although the company is taking workers’ temperatures and has posted signs urging social distancing, Ornelas said that when she returned in June, plastic curtains that had been hung between workers were down. “People were shoulder to shoulder again,” she said. “They had masks but weren’t wearing them.”
A federal liability shield would make it harder for lawsuits filed by Ephriam, Ornelas and other workers to succeed.
It could also protect cruise ship lines and nursing homes, industries with some of the nation’s highest infection rates, against claims from customers.
Travelers exposed to the virus on cruise ships have filed a slew of lawsuits, including four California class actions against Carnival Corp. on behalf of some 2,400 passengers. The company drew worldwide publicity in March after state officials, learning the virus was circulating on its Grand Princess vessel, at first refused to allow it to dock.
A Placer County man who had traveled on the ship was California’s first known COVID-19 fatality. And 33 others had tested positive. After five days stranded off San Francisco on lockdown, passengers were permitted to disembark, with hundreds forced into a 14-day quarantine at military bases.
Carnival “chose to place profits over people, including the safety of their passengers, crew, and the general public,” according to a class action filed in federal court in April by Robert Archer, a San Francisco retiree, and 61 other passengers who were hospitalized with COVID-19 or suffered severe symptoms as well as “anguish, fright, horror.”
According to the complaint, which asks for $5 million in damages, the cruise line was guilty of “gross negligence” in allowing some 2,000 passengers to board the ship in February and socialize unhindered without warning them that about 1,000 staff and travelers, still on board from a previous leg of the trip, had been exposed to the virus.
Carnival spokesman Roger Frizzell declined to comment on the litigation but said in an email, “Our top priorities are compliance, environmental protection and the health, safety and well-being of our guests and crew members.” The company has “created a new senior executive role of a chief compliance and ethics officer,” he said.
Like cruise lines, nursing homes are a target of coronavirus-related consumer suits. In California, more than 4,900 residents and staff at elder care facilities have died of COVID-19, about 40% of the state’s total fatalities. Throughout California, 1,120 skilled nursing homes and 301 assisted-living facilities have reported outbreaks.
In a lawsuit against Glenhaven Healthcare, Saldana’s family says that the Glendale facility “went so far as to lock up protective equipment that the local fire department delivered.... As a result, the virus ran rampant.”
The complaint, filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, said the nursing home concealed the fact that an employee exposed to the virus had spent two weeks interacting with staff and residents. And it says an exposed resident was moved into Saldana’s room without informing him or his family.
The nursing home said its staff followed health guidelines from local and federal authorities. “We can definitively say that Glenhaven Healthcare heroes put our patients first every day,” it said in a statement.
Last month, the facility’s attorneys sought to move the lawsuit to federal court, saying that a 2005 U.S. emergency preparedness law grants it immunity from elder-abuse, negligence and wrongful-death claims.
The complaint fails to establish that Saldana died as a result of any misconduct, they wrote in a July 31 filing, adding: “information about the novel coronavirus ... and how to prevent its spread was ... constantly evolving during March and April.”
The Glenhaven suit shows how hard it may be to win COVID-19 cases, despite the nursing home industry’s long history of investigations over substandard care and staffing. In Los Angeles County, more than 2,000 complaints are registered with public health officials each year.
“We don’t foresee a flood of lawsuits,” said Anthony Chicotel, an attorney for California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform. His San Francisco watchdog group has referred just 13 coronavirus cases for potential litigation.
Personal injury attorneys are paid through contingency fees, so they take only strong cases, Chicotel said. With residents’ relatives largely blocked from visiting, “it will be harder to prove there were violations of the standard of care,” he added. “And what was the standard of care? It was fluid.”
Still, Chicotel said, the liability shield advocated by businesses and under negotiation in Congress would amount to a “catastrophe” for nursing home residents.
“It would immunize all sorts of bad conduct,” he said. “It would free poor providers from the last layer of accountability.”
As workplaces reopen, coronavirus could unleash an ‘avalanche’ of lawsuits over family leave, discrimination
Legal experts expect more companies could face discrimination lawsuits from parents struggling to cope with household and child-care duties while working from home.
In March, Stephanie Jones, a single mom in West Chester, Pa., with an 11-year-old son, had several conversations with her employer about child-care concerns while schools were closed because of the novel coronavirus pandemic. According to a lawsuit filed April 16, she asked higher-ups at Eastern Airlines, where she worked as director of revenue management, if she could have two hours a day of flex time to focus on her son amid the long hours and weekends she was working.
Jones alleged that after a human resources official said her options were to take leave or resign, she asked about taking leave under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act. The official responded with an email that said he was “also well aware of the various new laws that you’ve had time to look up while at home” and that the law was “there as a safety net,” the lawsuit alleges.
Three days later, she was terminated, allegedly due to a “conflict” with other employees, which Jones denied.
Jones’s case, which was reported by Bloomberg Law, was one of the first known lawsuits under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, which aims to expand paid sick leave and family medical leave to help vulnerable workers deal with schools and child-care centers closed because of the novel coronavirus, among other things.
(Jones, through a lawyer, declined to speak for this article. Emails sent to Eastern Airlines and its executives were not immediately returned. Eastern’s website says it is offering “relief flights” from Central and South America to Miami and mentions charter services.)
Yet it may be a sign of things to come as working parents — particularly mothers — struggle to manage work and child care.
“I’m one of these that believe that when the courts open back up, there’s going to be an explosion of coronavirus-related litigation, and this is just one piece of it,” said Cynthia Blevins Doll, an attorney with the firm Fisher Phillips who represents employers.
Christine Dinan, senior staff attorney for A Better Balance, which operates a help line about work and family legal issues, said some callers said they had been denied leave or paid time off for child care. As workplaces open back up, “those tensions are really going to be on prime display,” she said.
For now, many workers may be focusing on health concerns and fear retribution if they complain in an environment of record unemployment claims. Other employers, particularly those with workforces that have more easily translated to working from home, may have been more flexible as employees cope with shuttered schools and the pandemic.
But as things go on, some anticipate parents — especially women — will confront biases connected with family caregiving responsibilities that could result in more legal action.
“As school closures continue, the fragile safety net people have cobbled together will start to fray,” said Alexis Ronickher, a partner at the firm Katz, Marshall & Banks, which represents workers. “My expectation is we’ll start to see a lot more problems for caregivers and very much expect them to have a disproportionate effect on women.”
Under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, workers at employers with fewer than 500 employees are eligible for up to 12 weeks of paid sick leave and expanded family and medical leave at two-thirds of their regular pay. The provisions apply through the end of 2020. (Businesses with fewer than 50 employees may qualify for an exemption).
The law created new forms of paid leave that employers are not accustomed to managing, Doll said. With new laws going into effect quickly, she fears some employers may misread employees’ requests and deny the leave, not realizing they could be violating the law.
Marianne Cooper, a sociologist at the VMware Women’s Leadership Innovation Lab at Stanford University, said that for many, the pandemic has increased the burdens on women for household and child-care duties. “All the different systems that women across the class ladder rely on to help them with that greater burden are gone overnight.”
Under federal anti-discrimination law, parents are not a protected class, although some state and local jurisdictions have certain protections. Federal courts have, however, made the connection between family caregiving responsibilities and sex discrimination, legal experts said.
“If you fire someone because of an assumption that she’s not a valuable worker because she’s a mother, that’s gender discrimination,” said Joan Williams, a law professor at the University of California Hastings who directs the Center for WorkLife Law. She said employers should look carefully at the demographics of their layoffs and whether layoffs include a disproportionate number of mothers or parents.
Some have said the pandemic could be an equalizer, shifting expectations for household responsibilities between men and women and making the “invisible” work of child care more apparent as managers struggle with schooling their own children and kids popping up in Zoom calls becomes the norm.
“The optimistic view is that we’re finally going to change our view of the definition of the ideal worker,” Williams said. “The pessimistic view is we’re going to have an avalanche of lawsuits as we discriminate against adults with caregiving responsibilities.”
Q: 코로나19 때문에 비즈니스도 힘들고 직원이 일을 열심히 안 해서 해고하려고 하는데 부당해고와 차별 보복 소송을 예방하려면 어떻게 해야 하나?
A: 코로나19 때문에 경영이 악화하여 아니면 일을 못 한다는 이유로 직원을 해고하려는 고용주들이 많다. 그러나 이런 이유로 직원을 해고하면 요즘에는 부당해고와 차별로 인한 보복이라고 소송을 당할 가능성이 높다. 실제로 그런 실례들도 많다.
가주는 임의고용을 채택하기 때문에 직원은 아무 때나 그만둘 수 있고, 고용주는 아무 때나 해고할 수 있어서 해고를 사전 통보할 필요도 없고, 해고 이유를 알려줄 필요도 없으며 퇴직금을 줄 필요도 없다. 그러나 차별이나 부당해고법에 해 당하는 해고를 했을 경우에는 소송을 당한다는 점을 많은 고용주가 모르고 있다. 부당 해고, 차별·보복에 해당하는 대표적인 소송사유는 다음과 같다.
1. 차별: 직장 내 차별은 원고 측이 인종, 여성, 장애, 40세 이상 고령자, 임산부, 특정 종교와 같이 보호받는 집단에 속한 사람을 다른 직원들과 다르게 대우할 경우만 해당한다. 그렇기 때문에 같은 인종, 같은 연령대, 같은 종교를 가진 직원들을 다르게 취급한다고 무조건 차별은 아니다. 문제는 고용주가 이런 보호받는 집단에 속해 있다는 이유로 해고한 것이 아니고 경영 악화나 직원의 업무수행 때문에 해고했다 하더라도 그 직원이 이 보호받는 집단에 속했을 경우에는 차별소송을 제기할 수 있다. 즉, 고용주가 아무리 해당 직원이 임산부라서, 나이가 많아서, 특정 인종이라서, 아니면 장애가 있어서 해고한 것이 절대로 아니라고 주장해도 해고 이유가 그렇지 않다고 분명하게 명시하지 않았으면 차별소송을 벗어나기 힘들다. 평소에 일을 잘 못 했다면 수시로 구두와 문서 경고를 해서 문서화해야 한다. 그런데 많은 한인 고용주들은 문서 경고나 해고 시 문서로 된 사유를 확실하게 주기를 꺼린다.
2. 보복: 해당 직원이 차별을 당했다고 고용주나 매니저에게 정당하게 불평을 했지만 불평했다는 이유로 보복을 당해 해고되거나 불이익을 당했다고 차별과 관련된 소송사유를 제시한다. 차별뿐만 아니라 해당 직원이 해고 전에 노동법 관련 불평 등 정당한 이유로 고용주를 상대로 불평했다면 역시 그 이유로 보복을 당해서 부당해고를 당했다고 소송할 수 있기 때문에 조심해야 한다.
3. 부당해고: 해고할 때 해고 이유와 근거를 명확하게 제시하지 못하면 부당해고 소송의 빌미를 제공해 줄 수밖에 없다. 해고 전에 정확한 해고 이유와 근거를 반드시 문서로 작성해 해당 직원에 공개하는 게 필요하다. 해고 이유나 문서도 없이 오히려 이를 명시하는 게 해고할 때 불편해서 단순히 해고 통보만 한다면 고용주 보호가 안 된다. 당연히 해고 이유가 있어서 해고하는데 그 이유를 문서로 통보하지 못할 이유가 없다.
4. 차별과 보복 예방: 고용주에게 해당 직원이 차별을 당했다고 불평했지만, 고용주가 이를 예방하지 않았다는 이유로 소송사유를 제시한다.
5. 합리적 배려 제공: 직원이 육체적·정신적 장애를 겪고 있는데 고용주가 합리적 배려를 제공하지 않아서 이전 업무의 필수기능을 수행 못 했다고 소송사유를 제시할 수 있다.
6. 직원과 상호작용: 해당 장애 직원과 상호작용을 통해 어떤 업무를 수행하는 것이 사측과 직원에게 모두 유리한지를 논의한 과정이 문서로 남아야 한다. 직원과의 대화와 문서로 된 자료 보관은 장애 직원이 계속해서 근무할 수 있도록 도와주고 고용주가 장애 차별 소송을 피할 수 있는 핵심이다. 이 점이 한인 고용주들이 매우 취약한 부분이다.
상호작용의 목표는 합리적 배려의 제공 없이 장애 직원이 업무의 필수 기능을 수행할 수 있는지를 결정하는 것이다. 가주에서 대부분 배려를 제공하지 않을 경우 상호 작용도 하지 않았다고 소송을 당한다.
모든 사람이 같이 취급되는 단일민족이고 미국의 차별법에 익숙하지 않은 한인 고용주들은 특히 무엇이 차별이고 무엇이 차별이 아닌지 모를 수 있다. 그렇기 때문에 직원을 해고하기 전에 그 직원이 과연 보호받는 집단에 속해있는지, 아니면 그 직원이 평소에 노동법이나 고용법 관련 불평을 고용주에게 했는지, 그 직원이 상해보험이나 노동청 클레임을 제기한 상태인지를 사전에 철저히 조사하고 해고 결정을 내려야 한다.
[이슈 분석] 외교관 성추행 의혹 관련 논란 송영길 의원 두둔 발언 파장 동성간이라도 '성희롱' 조심
한국서 논란이 되고 있는 ‘남성의 성적 수치심’ 이슈가 미주 한인 사회에도 경종을 울린다.
가주의 경우 동성간 농담이라도 “배 나왔네” “어젯밤 뭐했어" 같은 한 마디를 우습게 여겼다가는 성희롱 소송으로까지 번질 수 있기 때문이다.
논란은 19일(한국 시간) 한 라디오 방송에서 발생했다. 한국의 송영길(더불어민주당) 의원은 최근 한국 외교관의 뉴질랜드 대사관 직원 성추행 의혹과 관련, “같은 남자끼리 배도 한 번씩 툭툭 치고 엉덩이도 한 번 치고 했다는 건데 … ”라며 “뉴질랜드는 동성애에 상당히 개방적인 곳”이라고 말했다.
해당 외교관은 지난 2017년 뉴질랜드대사관 근무 당시 현지 남성 직원의 엉덩이를 만지는 등 세차례 성추행한 혐의를 받고 있다. 이와 관련, 한국에서는 송 의원이 성추행 범죄를 일종의 문화의 차이로 치부하고 두둔한다며 비난의 목소리가 제기되고 있다. 송 의원의 발언과 혐의 내용을 가주법에 비춰 변호사들에게 물었다. 변호사들은 대개 “상당히 위험한 인식을 가진 발언”이라는 입장이다.
동성간 성희롱 소송의 경우 한인 고용주가 이성간 성희롱 사건처럼 심각하게 대처하지 않았다가 낭패에 처하기도 한다.
김해원 변호사(고용법)는 “현재 동성간 성희롱 소송을 두 건이나 방어하고 있다”고 밝혔다. 김 변호사는 “한인들은 대개 성희롱이 이성 간에만 적용된다고 생각하는데 완전히 잘못된 생각"이라며 “나이가 든 한인 남성 임원이 ‘수고한다’며 젊은 한인 남성 직원의 어깨를 주물러 줬다가 소송을 당한 사례도 있다”고 말했다.
성희롱 또는 성추행은 성별, 성적 정체성, 연령과 상관없이 성적 수치심을 느꼈는지가 기준이다.
유지호(31·어바인)씨는 “한인 회사에 다닐 때 동성 상사가 ‘근육이 멋있다’며 가슴을 만져보거나 성적 취향 등을 묻는 경우가 있었다”며 “같은 남자끼리 편한 마음에 이야기를 하는 것 같은데 상당히 불쾌했다. 남성들 사이에 오가는 성적인 욕부터 노골적인 대화가 불편했던 적이 한두 번이 아니었다”고 말했다.
실제 남성이 성희롱 관련 소송을 제기하는 경우는 늘고 있다. 그만큼 남성도 직장 내에서 ‘성적 수치심'을 느낀다는 것을 방증한다.
연방평등고용기회위원회(EEOC)는 직장 내에서 발생하는 각종 불법 행위를 수사한다. EEOC에 따르면 지난해 접수된 직장 내 성희롱(sexual harassment) 관련 고소는 총 7514건이다. 이중 남성이 제기한 고소가 총 1262건이다. 전체 성희롱 고소건 중 16.8%에 해당한다. 이는 2017년(1209건·전체 고발건의 15.9%)과 비교하면 남성의 고발건은 늘었다.
데이브 노 변호사는 “한인들은 동성간에 발생했다면 ‘성소수자’와 관련이 있을 거라 짐작하는데 성희롱 인식이 부족한 것”이라며 “한 예로 ‘배가 나왔네’ 라든가 상대의 신체적 특징을 언급하다가 성적 수치심을 유발하면 이성이든, 동성이든, 의도가 있든, 없든 소송의 빌미가 될 수 있어 주의해야 한다”고 전했다.
실제 가주에서는 지난 2014년부터 성욕(sexual desire) 또는 성적 의도가 없는 행동이라도 상대가 수치심을 느낄 경우 성희롱으로 규정할 수 있는 법(SB292)이 시행중이다.
이 법에 따른 판례도 있다. 지난 2014년 1월 가주항소법원은 맥스 테일러가 근무하던 회사(나보스드릴링)를 상대로 제기한 성희롱 소송에 대해 사측에 "16만 달러를 배상하라”는 원심 판결을 확정했다. 당시 동성 동료 직원들은 테일러가 이성애자임을 알았음에도 구두로 ‘게이’ ‘포르노 스타’ 등으로 지칭했다. 이는 농담 여부를 떠나 성희롱으로 인정됐다.
지난 3월 LA 동부 지역의 볼드윈파크경찰국에서도 동성간 성희롱 소송이 제기됐다. 소장에서 원고(마틴 헤레라 경관)는 “상사 경관이 탈의실에서 말을 걸며 내 알몸을 뚫어지게 쳐다봤다(intensely look). 상사이기 때문에 어색한 대화를 이어가야 했다”고 밝혔다.