We hope you have found our video chat series helpful and informative. We are continuing this series of quick and bite-sized video chats, where our employment partners team up with practitioners in various areas of law to discuss the most pressing issues for employers navigating the return to work. Each 15-minute Q&A session offers targeted
Recently, Southwest Airlines won a second major victory when Northern District of Illinois Judge Seeger granted its motion to dismiss claims brought under Illinois’ unique Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”). Crooms v. Southwest Airlines Co., Case No. 19-cv-2149.
Plaintiffs alleged Southwest violated BIPA by requiring them to scan their fingers when clocking in and out of work without giving them the written notice or receiving their consent as required by BIPA. When initially employed, three of the plaintiffs were represented by the Transportation Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO Local 555 (“TWU”) and were covered by a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”). The CBAs at issue provided Southwest had the “right to manage and direct the work force” and included a mandatory four-step grievance and arbitration procedure for resolution of disputes. Plaintiffs were later promoted to Ramp Supervisors, a non-union position and agreed to comply with Southwest’s Alternative Dispute Resolution (“ADR”) Program. The fourth named plaintiff was never covered by a CBA but was always a party to the ADR Program.
In jurisdictions across the country — especially COVID-19 “hot spots” — courts have entered emergency orders suspending trials and hearings, tolling the statute of limitations, and shuttering their doors to conducting anything but the most essential business. Non-essential hearings — including hearings related to non-emergency civil matters — are being conducted through Zoom and Skype to continue court proceedings without violating shelter-in-place orders and social distancing guidelines. In jurisdictions where shelter-in-place orders consider certain “legal services” as essential businesses which must remain open, those partaking must still abide by social-distancing guidelines (including six-foot spacing, and not gathering in groups of more than a minimal number such as 5 or 10), which can make something as routine as taking in-person depositions impossible. At the same time, businesses are reeling from the economic impact of COVID-19, and may find it beneficial to slow the pace of pending litigation. Responding to interrogatories, culling through thousands of emails to find responsive documents, and taking the time to prepare for depositions may not be front-of-mind for businesses simply trying to focus on retaining employees and staying afloat.
Continue Reading Emergency Court Rules for COVID-19 Slows Litigation and Provides Choices for Businesses
Last week, in Kim v. Reins International California, Inc., No. S246911, after more than two years on review and extensive briefing by amicus curiae, the California Supreme Court unanimously resolved an issue of first impression concerning the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA): whether settlement of individual Labor Code claims extinguishes PAGA standing.
California’s Labor Code contains a number of provisions designed to protect the health, safety, and compensation of workers. Among those laws, PAGA provides a mechanism for employees to enforce the Labor Code as the state’s designated proxy. In particular, PAGA authorizes “aggrieved employees” to pursue civil penalties on behalf of the state. Those penalties differ from statutory damages or other penalties an employee may recover individually for alleged Labor Code violations because relief under PAGA is intended to benefit the general public, not the party bringing the action.
Ten years from now there may well be no more Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) class actions. The law, like the rest of life, is not immune from disruptive innovations. In our own lifetime, we have seen disruptive innovations from chemical photography to digital photography, from personal computers to smart phones, and from snail…
In July, we reported that a three-judge panel for the Ninth Circuit withdrew its holding in Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising Int’l that Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court—the landmark California Supreme Court decision that makes it harder for companies to rely on independent contractors—applies retroactively. Rather than answering the question of Dynamex‘s retroactivity, the Court stated its intent to file an order certifying that question.
Continue Reading The Ninth Circuit Asks The California Supreme Court If Dynamex Applies Retroactively
As previously detailed here, the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2018 Epic Systems decision established that requiring employees to waive their right to pursue collective or class actions does not violate the National Labor Relations Act’s “catchall” protection—the right to engage in “concerted activity”—and courts must enforce arbitration agreements as written.
The Supreme Court not only confirmed the legality of class action waivers under the Federal Arbitration Act, but it also narrowly construed the NLRA’s catchall provision as focused on the right to organize unions and bargain collectively in the workplace.
The Court’s holding that the right to engage in such “concerted activities” does not guarantee collective or class action procedures underpins a recent NLRB decision concerning issues of first impression: imposing and requiring as a condition for continued employment a new class action waiver rule in response to collective action.
As detailed in prior posts, in January, the Illinois Supreme Court held that a plaintiff need not plead an actual injury beyond a per se statutory violation to state a claim for statutory liquidated damages or injunctive relief under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). While recent decisions applying BIPA have been largely Illinois-based, the Ninth Circuit recently applied BIPA in Patel v. Facebook to affirm a lower court’s ruling that plaintiffs in the ongoing Facebook BIPA class action alleged a concrete injury-in-fact to confer Article III standing and that the class was properly certified.
The Ninth Circuit is the first federal circuit court to conclude that a plaintiff alleging a BIPA violation has standing for purposes of Article III of the US Constitution. The ruling makes it easier for plaintiffs to certify BIPA class actions, within and outside of Illinois. …
Continue Reading The Ninth Circuit Clears The Way For BIPA Class Actions
Congratulations and special thanks to Lisa Brogan (Chair), Editor, and Contributors James Baker, Jordan Faykus, and Jenna Neumann for their contributions to the 2019 Edition of The ABA Business Law Section, Recent Developments In Business and Corporate Litigation; Chapter 20: ERISA.
Covered topics include:
- US Supreme Court on church plan exemptions;
- The standard of review
On July 10, 2019, the California Senate Labor Committee voted in favor of Assembly Bill (AB 5). As we previously reported (see HERE), AB 5 would make it harder for companies to rely on independent contractors because it presumes a worker is an employee unless a hiring entity passes a difficult three-part test. Supporters…