On January 25, 2019, the Illinois Supreme Court issued a highly anticipated decision, Rosenbach v. Six Flags Entertainment Corporate et al., extending the reach of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA). BIPA is an Illinois privacy law that regulates the collection, use, and retention of biometric data such as fingerprints, face, and eye scans by imposing procedural requirements on corporations that collect the data. Though not an employment case, the decision impacts employers using biometric time-keeping systems in Illinois.
The Seventh Circuit recently clarified that courts should determine whether an arbitration agreement provides for or permits class-action claims. The decision in Herrington v. Waterstone Mortgage Corp. is instructive on many levels, not the least of which is its clarity.
Illinois employers will have a new headache this new year, because as of January 1, 2019, they must reimburse employees for all “necessary expenditures and losses” incurred within the scope of their employment. This August, the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act changed to specifically include an expense and loss reimbursement requirement.
Last month the Seventh Circuit drew a distinction between “commissions” and “bonuses” as those terms are used in the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (IWPCA) and its implementing regulations. For employers, particularly those in retail, Sutula-Johnson v. Office Depot informs how employers structure, amend and communicate their employee incentive compensation schemes.
On June 14, franchisors received good news when the US District Court in the Eastern District of Illinois ruled that Jimmy John’s Franchise, LLC is not a joint employer of its franchisees’ employees.
In 2014, former employees of various Jimmy John’s franchisees brought a collective action against their former franchisee employers and against Jimmy John’s Franchise, LLC. The former employees alleged they were misclassified as exempt under the FLSA and consequently denied overtime pay. They also claimed that Jimmy John’s, as an alleged joint employer, was jointly liable for their damages.
On summary judgment, the Court applied a modified version of the Seventh Circuit’s Moldenhauer test to determine joint employment. It stated that all of the factors reviewed boiled down to one essential question: whether
Jimmy John’s exercised control and authority over franchise employees in a manner that caused the FLSA violation (at least in part). And, the Court determined that the evidence demonstrated that the franchise owners determine how to classify and compensate franchise employees — not Jimmy John’s. As such, Jimmy John’s did not exercise control over the alleged FLSA violation and was not a joint employer.
Click here to read more on the decision and its impact on franchisors.
Attorneys from the EEOC (Greg Gochanour, Regional Attorney for Chicago Office) and the NLRB (Paul Hitterman, Regional Attorney for Region 13 of the NLRB) joined us in leading the discussion. Topics included disciplining employees for uncivil workplace behavior, the enforceability of confidentiality restrictions on witnesses during internal investigations and the NLRB’s newly issued test for reviewing employee work rules.
Here, we share a “top 10” list to highlight the principal takeaways from the program.
Is your HR team struggling with how to manage a diverse workforce in the #metoo era? Join us and representatives from the EEOC and NLRB for a complimentary seminar on April 12th to discuss the agencies views on these topics and more, including:
- The Evolving Workplace and Where We Stand With the New Administration
- The EEOC’s perspective: Sexual Harassment, Mandated Training, Civility Rules and Confidentiality (featuring Greg Gochanour, EEOC Supervising Trial Attorney
- The NLRB’s Perspective: The New Standard for Evaluating Work Rules and What it Means for Employee Handbooks, Confidentiality and Civility in the Workplace (featuring Paul Hitterman, NLRB Regional Attorney, Region 13)
- Ethics CLE: Rule 37 (ESI), Spoliation and Litigation Holds
When: 8:30 AM CST – 11AM CST (The seminar kicks off with registration and a networking breakfast, and the program begins at 9AM)
Where: Hyatt Regency Deerfield (1750 Lake Cook Rd., Deerfield, IL 60015)
On Wednesday, December 13, Barbara Gressel, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Business Affairs and Consumer Protection (BACP) provided the Chicago Bar Association’s Labor & Employment Committee with an informative presentation about the City of Chicago’s Paid Sick Leave Ordinance (in effect since July 1, 2017).
Ms. Gressel, who leads the Department’s compliance and enforcement efforts, reviewed the Ordinance’s accrual and carry over rules, as well as the provisions concerning usage caps. The remainder of her presentation involved how the Department will investigate charges, and the administrative process for formally enforcing the ordinance. Here are our takeaways:
Department Investigations Initiated by Employee Complaint
- Enforcement begins with the filing of a complaint by an employee. Employees may obtain a copy of a blank complaint by visiting the Department’s webpage. The charge must be filled out by hand, or on a typewriter. The complete complaint can be filed by facsimile (fax) or in person.
- The Department intends to investigate each facially valid complaint on a class-wide basis. It reasons that if one employee is not receiving proper payment, accrual, carryover etc., no employee is. The request for information will be by administrative subpoena.
- At least initially, the Department intends to attempt to resolve complaints informally. Employers who refuse to meet their obligations during this initial period will be prosecuted for a ordinance violation. Similarly, after the initial familiarization period (expected to last 18-24 months), the Department will use its formal ordinance enforcement process whenever it determines to allege a violation has occurred.
In October, we discussed one of the hottest trending class-action claims: the Illinois Biometric Privacy Act (BIPA). In our alert, we noted that it was not clear whether a plaintiff would need to show a concrete injury to be entitled to damages or whether a mere statutory violation would be sufficient to warrant damages.
On November 21, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision on this very issue.
Attention employers using biometric identification technology, such as retina scans, fingerprint identification and facial recognition technology:
A number of corporations in Illinois, including internet and video game companies, food product manufacturers, gas stations, and restaurant chains, have been sued in the past few months for alleged BIPA violations.