Employment & Labor

By Tony H. McGrath on March 22, 2019

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) generally requires employers to pay non-exempt employees overtime pay at one and one-half times their “regular rate” of pay for all hours worked over 40 in a given workweek. The regular rate is the result of a math equation: The employee’s total compensation (with a few defined exceptions) paid by the employer during the workweek in question, divided by the total number of hours worked during that week. The…

Labor & Employment Law Blog

NLRB’s Division of Advice Gives “Advice” As to the Application of Boeing — When a Work Rule/Employment Agreement is Facially Valid Under the NLRA in Union and Union Free Workplaces

By Keahn Morris & John Bolesta on March 22, 2019

In The Boeing Company, 365 NLRB No. 154 (2017), the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) reassessed the standard it would apply when determining the facial validity of otherwise neutral work rules based upon a balancing between a given rule’s negative impact on employee’s ability to exercise their statutory rights and the rule’s connection to an employer’s right to maintain discipline and productivity in the workplace. For the purpose of applying this new balancing standard,…

California Employment Law Report

Discounted meal policy requiring employees to stay on company premises upheld

By Anthony Zaller on March 22, 2019

In Rodriguez v. Taco Bell Corp., 896 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2018), an employee brought a putative class action alleging that Taco Bell’s discounted meal policy effectively denied employees the ability to take a duty free meal break. At issue in this case was Taco Bell’s policy of offering a discounted meal from the restaurant during the employees’ meal breaks as long as the employees ate the meal on the company’s premises. The ability to…

Canadian Labour and Employment Law

Discussions with EI Officers: Employers Should Tread Carefully

By Claire-Marie Colantuoni on March 22, 2019

Employers commonly receive calls from Employment Insurance (EI) Officers seeking clarification of the information provided by the employer in a Record of Employment (ROE). The clarification or confirmation typically relates to the employee’s first / last day worked, insurable hours, insurable earnings and / or the reason for issuing the ROE (Block 16). Employers who are asked to speak to their reason for issuing the ROE should pause and consider what, if any, information to…

Health Employment and Labor

New Jersey Law Prohibits Prospective Waivers and Secret Discrimination, Retaliation, or Harassment Settlements

By Laura A. Stutz on March 22, 2019

new_jersey_map_shutterstock_405813937_1280x720

On March 18, 2019, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy signed a bill amending the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) to prohibit contractual provisions that result in the wavier of a right or remedy provided under the LAD or prevent the disclosure of information pertaining to claims of discrimination, retaliation or harassment. The amendment, which is immediately effective, prohibits any provision in an employment agreement, other than a collective bargaining agreement, that: Waives any substantive…

Louisiana Law Blog

Don’t Throw Out Your Old Construction MSA Just Yet – LA Middle District Holds That the Date of the MSA Controls (Not the Date of the Work Order) For Purposes of Applying the Louisiana Construction Anti-Indemnity Act

By Steven Boutwell on March 22, 2019

By: Matthew C. Meiners The Louisiana Construction Anti-Indemnity Act (La. R.S. 9:2780.1) generally renders null, void and unenforceable any provision in a construction contract (defined broadly to include design, construction, alteration, renovation, repair, and maintenance) which either: (1) purports to indemnify, defend, or hold harmless, or has the effect of indemnifying, defending, or holding harmless, the indemnitee against the negligence or intentional acts or omissions of the indemnitee, an agent or employee of the indemnitee, or…

Hospitality Labor and Employment Law

EEO-1 Part 2 – Update

By Robert J. O'Hara on March 22, 2019

This week, the U.S. District Court granted the EEOC’s request for a brief reprieve (until April 3) to provide information to federal contractors about what and when they will need to file the EEO-1 Part 2 pay data report. The judge told the EEOC to spell out how pay data will be collected, when it is due and how employers should format the data. The Department of Justice, arguing for EEOC, claimed EEOC’s systems were…

Technology Employment Law

New York to Enforce Two Sets of Harassment Training Requirements

By Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. on March 22, 2019

April_First_Block_Calendar_shutterstock_1044407029_1280x720

Our colleague Nancy Gunzenhauser Popper at Epstein Becker Green has a post on the Retail Labor and Employment Law Blog that will be of interest to our readers in the technology industry: “April Fools Joke? No. NYC Employers Really Have Two Sets of Training Requirements.” Following is an excerpt: Don’t forget – April 1 marks the beginning of a new set of sexual harassment training requirements in New York City. While the training requirement…

Employment Law Watch

Eleventh Circuit holds that comparators in discrimination cases must be “similarly situated in all material respects”

By Peter Stuhldreher & Paul Knettel on March 22, 2019

On March 21, 2019, the full en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit clarified that in order to establish a prima facie case of workplace discrimination through alleged preferential treatment of a comparator outside the plaintiff’s protected class, a plaintiff must show that the alleged comparator is “similarly situated in all material respects.” The opinion clarifies the “similarly situated” standard in discrimination cases and may assist employers in obtaining summary judgment, particularly…

California Employment Law Update