Employer's "Honest Belief" Concerning Employee's Alleged Misuse of Leave Supported Termination

A benefits administrator for the county who was regularly charged with administering employment policies and procedures was involved in a vehicle accident. Thereafter, she obtained medical treatment which required additional time off and modifications to her duties upon return. Approximately seven weeks after the accident, the county asked her to submit a formal request for leave pursuant to the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) in light of the time requested off. The employee did not respond, and the county accordingly notified her that her FMLA leave would commence on the date the forms had been mailed, but that final, official approval for her requested leave had not yet been given. 
. More ›

Court Holds that Franchisor is Not Employer Pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act

Benjamin Orozco worked as a cook in a Craig O's Pizza and Pasteria franchise which was owned by Sandra and Arnold Entjer. Craig and Roxana Plackis owned Roxs Enterprises, Inc. ("Roxs"), which was the franchisor of Craig O's. Initially, the Entjers paid Orozco a salary of $1,200 bi-weekly. In 2007, his wages were reduced to $1,050 per week, and later, in 2011, they changed his pay to $11 per hour. Orozco quit and filed suit against the Entjers, claiming he was entitled to overtime pay and that he was not properly paid minimum wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Orozco ultimately settled with the Entjers but then added as a party Craig Plackis, the franchisor. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of Orozco finding, in part, that Plackis was Orozco's employer. Plackis moved for judgment as a matter of law, which was denied, and as a result, appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. More ›

Prevention and Corrective Policies help Employer to Avoid Sexual Harassment Liability

Rhonda Simpson's manager first approached her in 2002 at a local fast food restaurant because he thought Ms. Simpson looked just like Farrah Fawcett. The manager suggested Ms. Simpson come see him at the national closeout retailer (the "Company") where he worked should she ever need a job. Ms. Simpson eventually did interview with the manager and was hired by the Company as a cashier and worked her way up to assistant manager. For most of the time she worked for the Company, she did not report to the manager who initially recruited her. More ›

Court Affirms Employer's Authority to Schedule Workweek under FLSA

A core management task for employers is to properly schedule the workweek for their employees. If done correctly, an employer can reduce its obligation to pay overtime wages to its hourly, non-exempt employees. But an employer that fumbles in its scheduling of the workweek for its hourly employees can sustain liability under the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees.  29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq. The U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, recently affirmed a summary judgment entered in favor of an employer that permanently changed its workweek schedule for a group of employees which had the effect of decreasing the amount of overtime wages that would have otherwise been paid by the employer. The employees had filed a class action complaint. More ›

Court Vacates Summary Judgment Regarding Sex Discrimination and BFOQ Stating Reasons for Implementation were Arbitrary

Male sheriff's deputies were denied the right to supervise female-only housing within the city and county of San Francisco correctional facility. The policy, which was in effect since 2006, was put in place for the safety of the female inmates, as well as to curtail the sexual misconduct of the past. A group of sheriff's filed suit against the city and county of San Francisco alleging that the policy prohibiting male deputies from supervising female inmates in housing units of jails operated by the County violated Title VII and California's Fair Employment and Housing Act. More ›

New Illinois law Limits an Employer's Ability to Conduct Criminal Background Checks of job Applicants

On July 19, 2014, Illinois Governor, Pat Quinn, signed into law the Job Opportunities for Qualified Applicants Act, 30 ILCS 105/5.855. The Act, which goes into effect on January 1, 2015, significantly limits an employer's ability to request or review the criminal background information of applicants as part of the hiring process and is a victory for "Ban the Box" advocates working in several states. More ›

EEOC Issues new Guidance on Pregnancy, Outlines Broader Accommodation Requirements for Pregnant Employees

On July 14, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued new guidance on pregnancy discrimination in the workplace. The document, titled Enforcement Guidance: Pregnancy Discrimination and Related Issues, is the first official update of the Commission’s position on pregnancy since 1983. The Guidance document is comprised of four parts: Part I, discussing equal treatment of pregnant and non-pregnant employees under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA); Part II, addressing treatment of pregnancy and pregnancy-related conditions as disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Amendments Act (ADAAA); Part III, reviewing other federal and state laws impacting pregnant workers; and Part IV, setting forth the EEOC’s best practices for employers. While not rising to the level of new law or regulations, the EEOC’s Guidance will be looked to by the Commission’s own investigators and, most likely, by federal courts. As such, the Guidance is a significant new tool for employers as they seek to avoid claims of discrimination involving gender and pregnancy. More ›

Supreme Court: ACA Contraception Mandate may not be Applied to Objecting Closely-Held, For-Profit Corporations

On June 30, 2014, in a highly-anticipated decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the contraceptive mandate contained in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) may not be applied to a closely-held, for-profit corporation if the owners of the corporation hold sincere religious beliefs that would be violated by compliance with the mandate. The majority opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito in a 5-4 decision, rejected a series of arguments made by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), including, most significantly, HHS’s main argument that for-profit corporations may not seek protection for religious beliefs because they are unable to “practice religion.” The Court instead adopted the view of the plaintiff companies, finding that forcing a for-profit, closely-held company to provide contraceptives may offend the religious beliefs of the individual owners of the company and thereby violate religious freedom. Because, the Court concluded, there are other practicable methods of providing no-cost contraception to women, it is unnecessary and unlawful to impinge upon individuals’ religious beliefs in this way. More ›

Supreme Court Holds Partial-Public Employees Cannot Be Forced to Pay Dues to a Union They Do Not Wish to Join

The United States Supreme Court issued an opinion on June 30, 2014, finding that eight home health care workers in Illinois cannot be compelled to pay dues to a union they do not wish to join. The workers were part of the Illinois Rehabilitation Program (the "Program"), which was designed to prevent unnecessary institutionalization of individuals who can sufficiently be cared for at home at a lesser cost to the state. The Program allows participants to hire a "personal assistant," typically a family member, who provides homecare services tailored to the individual's needs. Illinois state law establishes an employer-employee relationship between the caregiver and disabled customer. While the customer exercises predominant control over the employment relationship, Illinois, subsidized by the federal Medicaid program, pays the assistant's salary.  More ›

After NLRB v. Canning: A Practical Guide for Employers

The Supreme Court's decision last week in NLRB v. Canning left many employers scratching their heads—and with good reason.

Sure, the unanimous ruling served as a rebuke to the Obama Administration, and hundreds of National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) rulings expanding employee rights and protections have been wiped off the books.  But what exactly is the current state of the law?  And how should you, as an employer, proceed in terms of creating and implementing employment-related policies? More ›