In August, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (covering Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee) upheld an arbitration agreement that required individual arbitration of claims under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Court’s decision is in line with the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis.
Continue Reading Sixth Circuit Upholds Mandatory Arbitration Of FLSA Claims
US Secretary of Labor, Alexander Acosta, recently announced the creation of a new office, the Office of Compliance Initiatives. The “OCI” will be tasked with promoting greater knowledge of federal labor laws and regulations through enhanced compliance assistance outreach efforts. The goal of the OCI initiative is to prevent workplace violations.
Continue Reading The DOL Creates A New Compliance Office And Announces Six New Opinion Letters
In recent years, joint employer liability has emerged as a persistent threat for companies who use franchise business models. Franchisors are increasingly facing claims brought by employees of franchisees for entitlements flowing from their employment. The outcome in these cases is unpredictable because the law is undergoing change. As such, the joint employer aspects of franchising arrangements can prove to be a minefield for the unwary and are a growing global concern.
Click here to read the full article (originally published in the September 2018 edition of Franchising World), which covers key developments in joint employer liability for franchisors operating in Australia, Canada and Mexico and describes a proactive approach to help mitigate risk.
With the modern workforce comes modern employment problems. Businesses and workers alike have embraced the “gig economy,” but employment laws were not designed for workforces dominated by independent contractors and freelancers. This disconnect leaves gig economy businesses open to significant liability where such workers should have been classified as employees under the law.
Continue Reading New York Delivers Good News For Independent Contractors, But Risks Remain
Last month the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of a class of 1,400 student bus drivers who sued their employer for failing to comply with state background check laws. The Court’s decision is notable because it is part of a broader trend of states and cities making it more difficult for employers to use background checks. Under Connor v. First Student, Inc., employers in California must comply with overlapping statutes regulating investigative consumer reporting agencies.
This month the California Supreme Court reaffirmed that workers’ compensation laws are the exclusive remedy for an employee’s injuries. In King v. CompPartners, the Court ruled that an employee’s tort claims against a utilization review company and a doctor performing a mandatory utilization review were preempted. In so doing, the Court reminded employees that the Court construes the Workers Compensation Act (WCA) liberally and broadly, in favor of awarding workers’ compensation, not in permitting civil litigation.
New York state just released draft guidance and models for employers to comply with the state’s new sexual harassment prevention policy and training requirements, which go into effect on October 9, 2018. The state is encouraging comments from the public, employers and employees through September 12, 2018, which can be submitted through the state’s website.
Continue Reading New York State Releases Proposed Sexual Harassment Prevention Guidance
A recent decision by the National Labor Relations Board left experienced labor practitioners scratching their heads. In Tschiggfrie Properties Ltd. v. NLRB, a three-member panel of the Eighth Circuit did more.
The panel vacated the NLRB’s decision in a case involving an employee who was fired for abusing his employer’s Wi-Fi and for sleeping on the job. (The same employee also initiated the process of unionizing the workforce and served as an observer for the union election.) Before the appellate court, the NLRB unsuccessfully argued that a showing of a nexus, or a link between the employee’s protected activity and the adverse employment action, was not required to satisfy the employee’s initial burden in a wrongful termination case. The Eighth Circuit found that the NLRB misapplied the burden of proof, vacated the NLRB’s order and remanded the case with instructions to reconsider whether the general counsel could make the appropriate showing.
Click here to read more about this case, the reminder its decision serves and next steps employers should take.
The First District Court of Appeal’s August 1, 2018 decision in Nishiki v. Danko Meredith, APC reminds employers of the harsh consequences for failing to timely (and properly) pay an employee’s wages upon resignation or termination.
The Court of Appeal addressed the Superior Court’s order 1) affirming the California Labor Commissioner’s award of $4,250 in “waiting time” penalties (i.e., the statutory penalty under Labor Code section 203 for the time an employee has to wait for the late payment of final wages), and 2) awarding Nishiki attorneys’ fees in the amount of $86,160 following the employer’s unsuccessful appeal from the Labor Commissioner to the Superior Court. On further appeal to the Court of Appeal, the employer argued the waiting time penalties were unwarranted and the attorney fees award was excessive. Though the Court of Appeal reduced the waiting time penalties, it otherwise affirmed the judgment and remanded for the trial court to award Nishiki additional attorneys’ fees incurred in responding to Danko’s appeal to the First District.
Continue Reading Substantial Penalties For Innocent Mistakes Regarding Final Wages Upon Termination
