Unpacking the Supreme Court's Janus Decision

June 30, 2018 by Tom H. Luetkemeyer

The United States Supreme Court issued its long-anticipated decision in Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employee Council 31 on June 27, 2018.  The five to four majority held that requiring public-sector employees who are not union members to pay union agency fees violates the First Amendment.  In the final paragraphs of the majority opinion, the Court made it clear that in the context of a public sector employer-union relationship, non-member employees in the bargaining unit must provide express consent before union dues can be deducted from their paychecks.  Janus' implications for public employers are wide-ranging. However, the immediate question that unionized public-sector employers must address is how to administer existing agency fee provisions in collective bargaining agreements and distinguish between union members and non-members, whose express consent is now required before union dues can be deducted from their paychecks.  It is important to note that this decision is grounded in constitutional principles and only applies to public sector unionized employees. More ›

Strategies for Age Inclusion in Honor of the ADEA's 50th Birthday

June 29, 2018 by Linda K. Horras

In honor of the golden anniversary of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), the EEOC issued a report entitled "The State of Age Discrimination & Older Workers in the U.S. 50 Years After the ADEA." At a time when sex and race issues are at the forefront of the news, the EEOC reminds us that older workers face struggles of their own obtaining and retaining employment. More ›

Multiple Minimum Wage Increases to Take Effect on July 1, 2018

June 28, 2018 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

On July 1, 2018, multiple state and local authorities will increase the hourly minimum wage rate ever closer to the $15.00 per hour wage demanded by the Fight for $15 advocates. The following lists of minimum wage increases are not exhaustive and may not reflect increases within a certain working sector (for example, increase in minimum wages for tipped workers or hotel workers).Therefore, we encourage you to contact legal counsel for up-to-date information regarding your city, county or state. More ›

California Court Okays Hour Rounding Policy

June 26, 2018 by Linda K. Horras

In  AHMC  Healthcare,  Inc.  v.  Letona,  decided  earlier  this  week,  a  California  state  of  appeals  court  considered  an  employer's  use  of  a  time  clock  rounding  system  and  whether  it  violated  California  Labor  Law.  While  it  is  a  California  case,  it  rests  on  the  federal  regulation  governing  time  rounding  found  in  29  CFR  §  785.48  and  is  thus  an  instructive  case  for  all  employers  who  use  or  are  thinking  about  adopting  a  rounding  policy.  More ›

Trust the Process: Relying on Existing Law or Policy is not an ADA Defense Says Third Circuit

June 25, 2018 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

Many times, employers evaluate disability claims by simply checking the boxes. It’s easy to develop tunnel vision, especially when the employer feels the issue is narrowly defined by an existing law or policy, e.g., a law or employer policy requiring that certain employees be vaccinated. However, this narrow frame of mind may cause employers to miss the complete picture. A recent 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals (DE, NJ, PA) decision illustrates the consequences of missing the big picture. In Ruggiero v. Mount Nittany Medical Center, the court addressed the interplay between a hospital’s vaccination policy and the ADA, holding held an employee’s ADA claim could proceed because the hospital failed to engage in the interactive process. The Court held the hospital had a duty to engage in the process once aware of her disability and request for accommodation, regardless of its policy requiring that all employees be vaccinated. More ›

Lawful, Unlawful, or It Depends? NLRB Issues New Guidance on Employer Policies Affecting Section 7 Rights

June 22, 2018 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

Earlier this month, the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) General Counsel issued Memorandum GC-18-04 providing guidance on handbook rules in light of the Board’s Boeing Company decision. In Boeing, the Board reevaluated when a seemingly neutral work rule, handbook rule, or employment policy violates the rights of workers granted by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). In doing so, it adopted a new test balancing the negative impact a given rule may have on an employee’s ability to exercise his or her Section 7 rights versus the employer’s right to maintain a disciplined and productive workplace. It also laid out three categories of rules: those that are always lawful, those that are usually always unlawful, and those it depends-type rules falling into the middle category. The GC’s guidance sorts common workplace policies into these three buckets. More ›

SCOTUS Green Lights Class Action Waivers in Major Win for Employers

May 23, 2018 by Linda K. Horras

The United States Supreme Court ruled earlier this week that employees must submit claims to arbitration on an individualized basis when their employment agreements require it, even when those claims could be brought as class or collective action under federal legislation such as the Fair Labor Standards Act. Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch held that parties to an arbitration agreement are bound by their agreement, as the Federal Arbitration Act envisioned. The Court cited the long history of supporting private arbitration agreements as an efficient and cost-effective means of handling disputes between parties, including parties to an employment agreement who have a dispute over wages. More ›

NLRB Agenda Includes Setting a Regulatory Joint Employer Standard

May 17, 2018 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

We have written previously regarding the saga of the National Labor Relations Board and joint employer status here, here, and here. In short, the question of when a business is responsible for another business’s employees has been in flux for a few years, affecting franchisee/franchisor relationships, businesses that utilize temporary employees, parent and subsidiary companies, and similar arrangements. More ›

The Risks and Rewards of Allowing Employees to Work During FMLA Leave

May 17, 2018 by Linda K. Horras

The Family & Medical Leave Act ("FMLA") grants employees leave in certain enumerated situations. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held it also allows the employee and employer to strike an agreement that the employee will perform certain duties and responsibilities during the leave and receive compensation for it without creating an actionable interference claim under the FMLA. More ›

Experience Caps Run Afoul of ADEA’s Disparate Impact Provision, and Outside Applicants May Sue Thereunder Rules 7th Circuit

April 30, 2018 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

If your company hires in Illinois, Indiana, or Wisconsin, and uses years of experience ranges in job postings, it is time to break out the red pen and strike the upper end of those ranges. In a 2-1 opinion, the 7th Circuit recently held the disparate impact provision of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) protects outside job applicants as well as internal job applicants. Now, hiring practices that disparately impact outside applicants over age 40 are unlawful. Applying that ruling in the case before it, the court revived a disparate impact lawsuit claiming experience caps disparately impacted older workers in violation of the ADEA. More ›

Search

Subscribe via Email

RSSSubscribe via RSS
TwitterFollow us on Twitter/X

Blog Editors

Blog Contributors

Archives