According to a trio of new studies, Facebook can hurt your (and your employees’) mental health.

355 Friends = Too Many?

One study found that when you get a new Facebook “friend,” you get happy. But as you collect more and more friends and start to compare your life with the lives depicted (and often distorted) on their Facebook pages, you feel like a loser.

So, what’s the magic number of Facebook friends? 354, according to the study.

Facebooking = Depressed Dudes?

Another study found a link between time spent on Facebook and depressive symptoms, especially in young men. “Facebook seems to be a new medium for men to compete with one another,” said Mai-Ly Nguyen, one of the study’s researchers.

Facebook Whining = Friend Losing?

Another study concluded that there’s a whole lot of whining going on in the Facebook universe. It concluded that — just as in “real” life — incessant grumbling and complaining results in losing friends (even virtual ones).

Facebook Smiling = Happy Life?

Not all the news was bad. A fourth study found that “smile intensity” in Facebook photos is a “robust predictor of self-reported life satisfaction 3.5 years later.” (No, I’m not making that up.) The researchers concluded that those who exhibit “a more intense smile in their Facebook photo” had “better social relationships” and reported having better lives than their frownier counterparts.

What Should Employers Do?

Out-of-control use of any social media can hurt employee health, productivity and lots of other things employers should care about. Stay up-to-speed on the latest SM developments, implement a reasonable SM policy (like this one) and train employees on proper use of SM.

Also, SMILE.

Earlier today, the Department of Labor proposed new FMLA rules related to leave for military families and airline flight crews.

Here’s a handy summary from the DOL. Here are FAQs. Here and here are fact sheets.

Here’s what the DOL identified as the major provisions:

• extension of military caregiver leave to eligible family members of recent veterans with a serious injury or illness incurred in the line of duty;
• a flexible, three-part definition for serious injury or illness of a veteran;
• the extension of military caregiver leave to cover serious injuries or illnesses for both current service members and veterans that result from the aggravation during military service of a preexisting condition;
• the extension of qualifying exigency leave to eligible employees with covered family members serving in the Regular Armed Forces;
• inclusion of a foreign deployment requirement for qualifying exigency leave for the deployment of all service members;
• the addition of a special hours of service eligibility requirement for airline flight crew employees; and
• the addition of specific provisions for calculating the amount of FMLA leave used by airline flight crew employees.

The DOL says it will accept public comments on the proposed regs here (although the new rules aren’t loaded into that system quite yet).

Want to tell the EEOC how you feel? Now’s your chance …

The EEOC is seeking public comments on its proposed Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2012-2016.

The U.S. Supreme Court has issued its first significant employment law decision of the year.

Decision

In a unanimous decision (Hosana-Tabor v. EEOC), the Court for the first time recognized a “ministerial exception” to discrimination laws.

At stake was whether a religious institution can discriminate in favor of employees aligned with its beliefs. In other words, can a church prefer members of its own denomination and discriminate against atheist candidates in filling a minister position?

The Court’s answer? Yes (in certain circumstances).

Factors

The Court rejected the EEOC’s “extreme position,” which sought to limit the exception to employees who perform “exclusively religious functions.”

While the Court was “reluctant to adopt a rigid formula for deciding when an employee qualifies as a minister,” it provided a “multi-factor analysis” that looks at “all the circumstances.” Key factors include whether the employee (1) is “held out as a minister,” (2) underwent significant training, (3) was formally commissioned and (4)  performs “important religious functions.”

The Court ruled that the exception may apply even if the clear majority of an employee’s duties are non-religious: “The amount of time an employee spends on particular activities is relevant in assessing the employee’s status, but that factor cannot be considered in isolation, without regard to the nature of the religious functions performed and the other considerations.”

Reasoning

Why did the Court come down on this side of the issue? Here’s what it said: “Requiring a church to accept or retain an unwanted minister, or punishing a church for failing to do so, intrudes upon more than a mere employment decision. Such action interferes with the internal governance of the church, depriving the church of control over the selection of those who will personify its beliefs.”

For more, check out these fine analyses by SCOTUS and the Connecticut Employment Law Blog.

Previously here on the Blawg, we discussed last year’s Supreme Court ruling that employers can require employees to waive class actions in favor of arbitration.

Employers across the nation rejoiced. Not so fast …

The NLRB just ruled that such agreements violate the an employee’s right to protected concerted activity under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). In short, the NLRB ruled that the NLRA trumps the Federal Mediation Act (and thus the Supreme Court’s decision). The ruling applies to both union and non-union workplaces.

The decision will most certainly be appealed to federal court and could wind up in front of the Supremes again. In the meantime, be very careful about trying to enforce arbitration agreements that require employees to waive their right to file a class action. If you do, you just might wind up in the NLRB’s crosshairs.

Here’s more from The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times.

Other sectors had little or no change.

Unemployment Down

Employment law lessons are truly everywhere.

Wage & Hour Insights is reporting on a new lawsuit filed against Lady Gaga by her former personal assistant. In short, the plaintiff claims that she is owed several hundred thousand dollars because Lady Gaga failed to pay her overtime.

The Lawsuit

The complaint describes a 24-hour non-stop cycle of Gaga-ness, including allegations that the plaintiff:

• worked “not only in [Lady Gaga's] home, but also during her travels for her global concert tours, from city to city throughout the world, at locales including stadiums, private jets, fine hotel suites, yachts, ferries, trains and tour buses”
• “was always behind the scenes, and figuratively, if not literally, always at her side”
• “was on duty during all hours of each twenty-four (24) day, with no entitlement to breaks, for meals or otherwise, or, at times, even sleep”
• was responsible for keeping Lady Gaga “on her desired schedule from the earliest waking hour, for being responsive to the slightest need throughout the day, and for addressing spontaneous, random matters in the middle of the night”
• was also responsible for “ordering meals and ensuring that they were correctly prepared and served at specific times; maintaining the availability of [defendant's] personal supplies; ensuring the availability of chosen outfits; ensuring the promptness of a towel following a shower; and serving as a personal alarm clock to keep [defendant] on schedule”

Wow.

The Lessons

All employers (even celebrity superstars who demand 24-hour attention including “towel promptness”) need to know the ins and outs of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Never ever assume that an employee is exempt from overtime just because they’re paid a salary. And always always always carefully follow FLSA record-keeping and other requirements. If you don’t, you could be facing claims for backpay, damages and penalties far exceeding the original amount owed.

Click here for our handy FLSA Cheat Sheet to help you stay out trouble.

Today, President Obama made three “recess” appointments to the National Labor Relations Board.

They are:

• Sharon Block (Democrat, Labor Department official)
• Richard Griffin (Democrat, union lawyer)
• Terence Flynn (Republican, NLRB lawyer)

Bios of each appointee can be found in the President’s press release here.

As of yesterday, the NLRB had no quorum following the expiration of Democrat Craig Becker’s term. Without a quorum, the NLRB is unable to rule on cases or issue new regulations.

Republicans and business groups are certain to attack the appointments as improper. One argument will likely be that “recess” appointments aren’t appropriate because Congress isn’t in recess (it’s conducting pro forma sessions at the moment).

Stay tuned.

My guess is that some of you may have been somewhat distracted by all the holiday-ish-ness toward the end of 2011.

If so, below are the major year-end developments you need to know about. We’ll cover these in excruciating detail in our January 26 webinar. But for now here are the basics:

NLRB Posting Delayed (Again). The NLRB announced that it is once again postponing the deadline for posting the new union rights poster previously discussed here and here. The deadline is now April 30. According to the NLRB, the extension is to “facilitate the resolution of legal challenges that have been filed with respect to the rule.”

New Union Election Rules. The NLRB also pushed through its new union election procedures, discussed previously here. The rules are designed to speed up the election process, which generally favors unions. The new rules will limit an employer’s ability to communicate with employees and to challenge various aspects of the process prior to the election. Various business groups have filed lawsuits seeking to block the rules. But as of now they’re scheduled to take effect April 30.

VOW to Hire Heroes. A new law (the Veterans Opportunity to Work (VOW) to Hire Heroes Act) offers tax credits to employers that hire unemployed and/or wounded veterans. It also could make it easier for members of the military to sue for discrimination. Among other things, the VOW Act amends USERRA to allow employees to file hostile work environment claims based on military status.

FMLA Forms Expired? You may have noticed that the DOL’s official FMLA notice and certification forms expired on December 31, 2011. Despite the expiration date stamped on each form, they’re still valid while the DOL seeks re-approval of the forms by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

Stay tuned for more.

Want to know what the EEOC has in store for next year?

There’s no better place to start than the EEOC’s just-release annual Performance and Accountability Report. Here are a few highlights …

Address Systemic Issues Now

The PAR makes it clear that the EEOC will continue to focus on “investigating and litigating cases of systemic discrimination as a top agency priority.” The numbers bear that out. The EEOC has 580 pending systemic investigations, a 24% increase over last year. It also has 47 pending high-level Commissioner charges — a 20% increase over last year and a 213% increase over five years ago.

What this means for employers: Now is not the time to ignore potentially systemic discrimination. For a bevy of tips on how to avoid becoming an EEOC statistic, check out our latest free webinar.

Don’t Expect Extensions

According to the PAR, the EEOC’s performance standards required it to resolve 54% of its discrimination charges within 180 days. The EEOC fell short, resolving only 41% within 180 days. The result: a rather astounding backlog of 78,136 discrimination charges.

What this means for employers: The EEOC will likely face increased pressure to resolve charges quickly. Employers may be given less time to respond to requests for information and may not be granted extensions to file charge responses.

Consider Mediation

The PAR makes it clear that the EEOC intends to continue emphasizing its mediation program. It notes that in 2011 the program resulted in the “highest number of resolutions in the history of the program.” It had a total of 9,831 resolutions resulting in more than $170 million in recoveries — a 21% increase.

What this means for employers: Expect the EEOC to (strongly) encourage you to engage in mediation if you’re facing a discrimination charge. But don’t be too afraid — 96.9% of participants reported having confidence in the program and said they would use it again.