All in a Day's Work: The Employer's Legal Guide

In an Opinion Letter released on Tuesday, May 14, the Office of the National Labor Relations Board’s General Counsel opined that Uber drivers are not legal “employees” for the purposes of federal labor laws. This opinion, written by Associate General Counsel Jayme L. Sophir, comes less than a month after a similar Opinion Letter was issued by the Department of Labor signaling a trend in favor of federal agencies classifying gig economy employees as…
As part of the international commitments recently assumed by Mexico, on April 29, 2019, the Chamber of Senators approved the Bill through which Several Provisions of the Federal Labor Law and certain secondary laws in matters of Labor Justice, Freedom of Association and Collective Bargaining are amended (the “Reform“). The Reform will enter into force as soon as it is published in the Federal Official Gazette. Below please find the most relevant pieces of the…
In Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising Int’l, Inc., the Ninth Circuit revived a decade old wage and hour class action and simultaneously dealt a blow to many employers utilizing independent contractors by holding that California Supreme Court’s “ABC test,” as set forth in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles, applies retroactively. We previously covered the prospective impact of Dynamex when the decision was announced just over a year ago. In Dynamex, the…
On May 21 at 1:00 p.m. eastern, the Employment and Executive Compensation Groups of Hogan Lovells will host a one-hour webinar to discuss pay equity laws and compliance issues. A hot-button issue, pay equity is regularly in the news and atop legislative and regulatory agendas in the employment sphere at federal, state and local levels. Many well-intentioned employers have for some time been conscious of pay equity and are striving to achieve it. However, the…
In a lengthy April 29, 2019 Opinion Letter, the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) examined the relationship between a virtual marketplace company (“VMC”) and its service providers.  Applying a six-factor test derived from U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the DOL opined that the service providers were independent contractors under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”)—not employees. According to the Opinion Letter, the VMC is an online/application-based “referral service that connects service providers to end-market consumers…
Employers in Minnesota should be aware of a key difference between federal and Minnesota employment law. In McBee v. Team Industries, Inc., the Minnesota Supreme Court held that, unlike the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) does not require employers to engage in an interactive process before deciding whether to accommodate an employee who claims to have a disability. The interactive process is a duty that the ADA places…
Following up on our prior posts here and here, after over a month of delays, a federal district court judge has ruled that employers with at least 100 employees (“covered employers”) must submit EEO-1 survey data on employees’ pay and hours worked in 2018 by September 30, 2019. Judge Tanya Chutkan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia also ruled that covered employers must turn over two years of pay data…
The Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that a court cannot force class arbitration unless both the employer and the employee clearly agreed to class arbitration. In Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, Frank Varela found out his employer Lamps Plus had been hacked and his tax information stolen, resulting in a fraudulent tax return filed in his name.  Varela sued his employer in California federal district court for poor data practices.  He brought a class action…
Following months of speculation, the Supreme Court announced today that it would decide whether the prohibition in Title VII against discrimination “because of sex” encompasses discrimination against gay and transgender workers. The Supreme Court agreed to hear two cases, one from the Second Circuit and another from the Eleventh Circuit, that reached opposing conclusions on whether gay workers are protected by Title VII.  In Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda, No. 17-1623, a case brought by…
Lawmakers in Colorado are in the process of evaluating House Bill 1267, which would reclassify wage theft from a misdemeanor to a felony if the amount at issue exceeds $2,000.00. Under existing Colorado law, an employer may be guilty of wage theft if it willfully refuses to pay a wage claim or falsely denies the amount or validity of a wage claim, with the intent to annoy, harass, oppress, hinder, or defraud the employee. House…