On June 14, 2019, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) issued an important decision clarifying whether and when an employer may lawfully exclude union organizers from its privately owned public spaces. Under then extant Board caselaw, where an employer had invited the public to enter or use space on its private property, the employer could not lawfully exclude union organizers from entering and using that same “public space” because that exclusion was considered to…

Labor & Employment Law Blog

It’s OK to Be Different- NLRB Rules That Union Represented Employees Are Not Entitled to Midterm Bargaining Over Same Paid Holiday Granted to Non-Represented Employees

By John Bolesta & Keahn Morris on June 6, 2019

Does an employer automatically engage in unlawful discrimination when it grants an improved benefit to its non-union employees but withholds the improvement from its union employees who are covered by a collective bargaining agreement? In a recent decision, Merck, Sharp & Dohme Corp, 367 NLRB No. 122, issued on May 7, 2019, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) said No. This is an important decision because it clearly delineates the difference between mere disparate…

Labor & Employment Law Blog

Supreme Court Rules That Employers Can Be Forced To Defend Against Actions Under Title VII Not Properly Brought Before the EEOC

By John Bolesta & Ryan Munitz on June 3, 2019

Resolving a circuit split regarding the jurisdictional nature of Title VII’s charge-filing requirement—the statutory requirement that an employee who alleges that he or she has been subjected to unlawful treatment is required to file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), or an equivalent state or local agency, prior to bringing suit in court—the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion on June 3, 2019, penned by Justice Ginsburg, holding that “a…

Labor & Employment Law Blog

New York Requires Employees be Provided 3 Hours Paid Time Off to Vote

By James Hays & Myles Moran* on June 3, 2019

As part of New York State’s fiscal year 2020 budget, Governor Andrew Cuomo has announced an amendment to Section 3-110 of the state election law providing all New Yorkers with three hours paid time off to vote on any election day.…

Labor & Employment Law Blog

Mandatory Backpay in ADEA Claims: What Will SCOTUS Decide?

By Jenna Mennona on May 30, 2019

Baltimore County has petitioned the Supreme Court to decide whether backpay for violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) is mandatory. Background In 1999, two Baltimore County Correctional Officers initiated charges at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) claiming that they were being discriminated against based on their ages because they had to contribute more to the County’s pension plan than younger employees. After years of litigation and various appeals in the U.S.…

Labor & Employment Law Blog

California’s Meal and Rest Break Rules for Commercial Motor Vehicle Drivers Remain Preempted by Federal Law . . . For Now

By Corrine Hays & Paul Cowie on May 10, 2019

Signaling another positive development for interstate motor carriers operating in California, the United States District Court for the Central District of California (the “Central District”) recently dismissed a truck driver’s claims that motor carrier U.S. Xpress failed to provide a class of drivers with legally required meal and rest periods compliant with California law. See, Ayala v. U.S. Express Enters., Inc. et al. Case No. 5:16-cv-00137-GW-(KKx) (Order Granting Partial Summary Judgment). The Court, in granting…

Labor & Employment Law Blog

“Financial Core” – A Dissident Writer’s Recourse

By Richard Kopenhefer & Michelle Juen on May 9, 2019

Amid the confusion and tensions of the WGA-ATA dispute over packaging fees and agency ties to affiliated production entities, more than 7,000 termination letters have been sent out to non-franchised agents who once represented WGA members.[1] The mass firing was “mandatory rather than optional”[2] and 92% of writers who voted in favor of the Code of Conduct acted in concert as insisted by the Guild. As WGA West president David A. Goodman said,…

Labor & Employment Law Blog

“Panic Button” Laws Make Their Way Across The U.S., Summoning Help for Hotel Employees Suspecting Crime

By Shawn D. Fabian on May 8, 2019

Last August, we wrote about a Chicago ordinance requiring hotel employers to, among other things, equip hotel employees assigned to work in guestrooms or restrooms with portable emergency contact devices. The emergency contact devices, referred to as “panic buttons,” may be used to summon help if the employee reasonably believes that an ongoing crime, sexual harassment, sexual assault or other emergency is occurring in the employee’s presence. The Chicago ordinance took effect July 1, 2018.…

Labor & Employment Law Blog

No Evidence? No Problem! National Labor Relations Board’s General Counsel Memorandum Eases Burden On Beck Objectors Following Board’s Decision in Kent Hospital

By John Bolesta & Ryan Munitz on May 8, 2019

On April 29, 2019, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) issued Memorandum GC 19-06, which provides guidance to the Board’s regional offices on how to handle cases involving Beck objectors and how to allocate secondary expenses related to union lobbying activity after the Board’s March 1, 2019 decision in United Nurses & Allied Professionals (Kent Hospital), 367 NLRB No. 94 (2019). In Communications Workers of America v.…

Labor & Employment Law Blog

The Future of Independent Contractors: Ninth Circuit Applies Dynamex Retroactively and the DLSE Issues Opinion Letter Expanding Its Scope

By Justine Phillips, Timothy Kim & Andrea Isaacs on May 7, 2019

Last year, the California Supreme Court decided Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles, a landmark decision that dramatically increased the risk of misclassifying individuals as independent contractors. As previously reported, although Dynamex replaced the longstanding Borello standard with the “ABC” test, it also left two critical questions unaddressed. First, Dynamex did not address whether the ABC test applies retroactively. Second, Dynamex did not decide whether its scope was limited…

Labor & Employment Law Blog

Up-to-date Information on Labor & Employment Law

Blog Authors

NLRB Limits Union Access Rights to “Public Spaces” of Employers

It’s OK to Be Different- NLRB Rules That Union Represented Employees Are Not Entitled to Midterm Bargaining Over Same Paid Holiday Granted to Non-Represented Employees

Supreme Court Rules That Employers Can Be Forced To Defend Against Actions Under Title VII Not Properly Brought Before the EEOC

New York Requires Employees be Provided 3 Hours Paid Time Off to Vote

Mandatory Backpay in ADEA Claims: What Will SCOTUS Decide?

California’s Meal and Rest Break Rules for Commercial Motor Vehicle Drivers Remain Preempted by Federal Law . . . For Now

“Financial Core” – A Dissident Writer’s Recourse

“Panic Button” Laws Make Their Way Across The U.S., Summoning Help for Hotel Employees Suspecting Crime

No Evidence? No Problem! National Labor Relations Board’s General Counsel Memorandum Eases Burden On Beck Objectors Following Board’s Decision in Kent Hospital

The Future of Independent Contractors: Ninth Circuit Applies Dynamex Retroactively and the DLSE Issues Opinion Letter Expanding Its Scope

Company

Support

New to the Network