In these recordings of our two-part webinar series, our presenters take a look back at 2020 and forecast what is likely to have the
We are exited to invite you to our two-part Annual Illinois Employer Update on February 2, 2021 from 1:00 – 2:15 pm CST and February 4, 2021 from 3:00 – 4:15 pm CST.
In two 75-minute virtual sessions, we will forecast what is likely to have the most significant impact on Illinois employers in 2021,…
Last week the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a National Labor Relations Board’s decision involving Weingarten rights, the application of its Wright-Line analysis, and a witness credibility determination. These core principles are no doubt headliners of the NLRB’s Big Top. In one fell swoop, the lion bit the lion tamer, the elephant tossed the mahout, and the trapeze artist lost his grip and came crashing down. Circus Circus Casinos, Inc., v NLRB, No. 18-1201 (June 12, 2020). This is the second recent decision tightening the Wright-Line analysis and will likely result in fewer discharged employees being reinstated. See our August 2019 Alert. “NLRB Holds Pretext Finding Standing Alone Insufficient.”
Continue Reading NLRB Tumbles From High-Wire in Circus Circus Dispute
In February 2020, the NLRB finally unveiled its long-awaited joint-employer rule governing joint-employer status under the NLRA. The final rule returns the test for determining joint employment to the standard the Board applied for several decades before the 2015 Browning-Ferris decision. The test set forth by the new joint-employer rule provides that a business is a joint employer only if it has “substantial direct and immediate control” over another company’s workers and actually exercises that control. While this is no doubt a welcome relief for employers who routinely contract with subcontractors and staffing companies, it is important to note the limited scope and that this rule does not impact joint-employer tests applied under other employment laws. The proposed rule was initially released in late 2018 and ultimately generated nearly 30,000 public comments (see our coverage here).
Although the rule is an employer-friendly change, employees who are terminated for engaging in protected concerted actives will continue to have a claim for relief against their primary employer. Similarly, union organizing efforts can continue amongst temporary employees as they have for years. Bargaining will continue to occur as it always has between employers and their employees’ union representatives. The labor movement, however, is likely disappointed by the demise of the 2015 Browning-Ferris rule. For years, unions have chaffed at the prohibition against secondary boycotts contained in the Taft Hartley Act of 1947. The 2015 Browning-Ferris rule allowed a backdoor repeal of a significant portion of the secondary boycott ban with its loose definition of joint employer.
The Seventh Circuit significantly narrowed the EEOC’s broad interpretation of the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) last month. The court held that the ADA does not cover discrimination based on a future impairment.
The Seventh Circuit determined that the “regarded as having” prong of the ADA does not extend to applicants who are rejected due to an employer’s concerns about future disabilities. Shell v. Burlington N. Santa Fe Ry Co. The Seventh Circuit joins the Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits in holding that the present tense “having” in the ADA does not include the future tense “will have.” The facts here involved an obese applicant, and not an applicant with an existing predisposition, so its practical impact may be narrower than at first blush.
Chicago is the most recent city to adopt a “predictive scheduling” ordinance, the Chicago Fair Workweek Ordinance.
Effective July 1, 2020, employers subject to the Ordinance must provide advance notice of work schedules to covered employees. If changes are made to the posted schedule, employers must pay additional wages, “predictability pay,” as a penalty. This penalty applies to both increases and reductions of shifts.
This article was originally published on Law360.com.
Three recent decisions arising under the National Labor Relations Act highlight that ambiguity and inattentiveness are the twin banes of labor and employment attorneys. In all three cases, the dispute arose because two personnel policies or approaches overlapped, opening the way for conflicting claims. As these cases demonstrate,…
Even as IPOs bloom this spring in the technology sector, there exists well publicized macro-economic uncertainty, stemming from Brexit concerns, among other developments. Real threats to free trade and investment flows remain, with the potential for a much more serious outbreak of protectionism and isolation on a global scale. A recession may or may not be looming, depending on the day and your media outlet.
In these uncertain times, the best counsel know to be prepared for everything, including business change. To successfully manage global business change, in-house counsel must identify potential legal roadblocks, plan ahead and provide a strategic approach. Counsel must be prepared for everything, including some tough decisions:
- Cost-realignment such as furloughs, compensation reduction or benefit forfeitures;
- Workforce reductions;
- Reorganizations; and
- Transfer relocation and seconding of employees.
For 15 years, the minimum salary threshold required for US workers to qualify for the Fair Labor Standards Act’s “white-collar” exemptions has been $23,660 per year.
On March 7, 2019, the Department of Labor issued a new overtime proposal increasing that minimum salary threshold to $35,308 per year. The DOL estimates the new rule will take effect in January 2020.