NAVIGATING US AND GLOBAL EMPLOYMENT LAW
Special thanks to Joe Ward, Jacob Kaplan, Christine Streatfeild, Alexander Davis, Sara Pitt, and Erin Shields.
Late last year, after a month-long trial, a Baker McKenzie team secured a complete defense verdict in favor of our client MedMen and its two co-founders. The trial was the culmination of three…
Special thanks to Maurice Bellan, Graham Cronogue and Sydney Hunemuller.
On September 9, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order 14042 and related guidance, requiring most government contractors and subcontractors who contract with federal agencies to impose a COVID-19 vaccine mandate on their employees. In the intervening months, the scope and significance of Executive Order 14042 have continued to change. As we near the end of 2021, we expect these shifts to continue at least until January 2022, but likely well afterward. The following are some of the key areas where we have seen changes and expect to see more:
Timing: The enforcement deadline for vaccination has moved and may move again, especially in light of the multiple lawsuits surrounding its implementation, including the nationwide injunction which was issued December 8 and the potential congressional response (see infra) The original deadline for employee vaccination was December 8, 2021, but the current deadline for employees to be “fully vaccinated” has been moved to January 18, 2022.[1] This additional time provides a small amount of breathing room for corporations, but it remains to be seen whether the extension will be enough or if more time will be allowed.[2] Unless and until a new deadline is issued, it is wise to treat January 18 as the target date. However, compliance teams should be alert to any extensions that would allow for a smoother transition.
Agency-Specific Regulations: The scope of the mandates have increased, as certain agencies have applied the mandate to contractors that provide only products. The Executive Order and guidance carved out contractors who solely provided products. However, the guidance left the door open for agencies to impose their own wider-reaching requirements, regardless of the types of contracts involved. Agencies have already begun imposing these separate requirements, further complicating the landscape and obligating contractors to carefully scrutinize any new bids or contract modifications lest their particular agency has included the FAR clause requiring compliance.[3] Accordingly, the intake process needs to remain diligent to both avoid agreeing to this significant commitment and seize on potential opportunities to try to negotiate delayed implementations or other concessions. By the same token, companies should be alert for changes to agency requirements in case an agency retracts or refines its treatment of product providers.
Legal Challenges: It remains an open question as to which (if any) of the restrictions will actually become effective for product or service providers, as multiple litigants have challenged various aspects of the mandate and have received substantial (albeit temporary) relief. The following are some key litigation challenges:Continue Reading Update on COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates
When world economies face challenges, employment litigation claims of all types arise. In this Quick Chat video, our Labor and Employment lawyers discuss the range of trending employment-related claims and cases and share what employers can do to best position themselves to manage impending litigation.
Click here to watch the video.
Review our brochure, COVID-19…
Special thanks to our summer associate Brianna Miller for her contributions to this post.
In Trinity Services Group, Inc. v. NLRB, No. 20-1014 (June 1, 2021), the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit recently rejected the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) attempt to prohibit employers from expressing opinions the NLRB considers baseless. In reversing the NLRB, the Court held that the National Labor Relations Act (the “Act”) only prohibits employer speech containing a threat of reprisal or the promise of benefits, and that expressions which are merely “views, arguments or opinions” are not unlawful.
The case arose when an employee discovered a mix-up regarding the amount of her accrued paid leave. When she raised the issue with her supervisor, he pinned the blame on the union. The NLRB and the Court both found there was no objective basis for blaming the union rather than the employer for the mix-up.
The Court examined the provisions in Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA, which proscribes certain speech. Section 8(a)(1) makes it unlawful for an employer to “interfere with, restrain or coerce employees” in the rights guaranteed by the Act. The Court also considered the provisions in Section 8(c) which guarantees parties freedom of speech, specifically that “[t]he expression of any views, argument, or opinion…shall not constitute an unfair labor practice.” The Court sought to reconcile the two provisions, and holding that only speech containing a threat of reprisal or promise of benefits is prohibited by the NLRA, while Section 8(c) protects “any” view, argument or opinion. The Court held the statement the NLRB found illegal contained neither a threat of reprisal or the promise of benefit and thus was not illegal. Undeterred by the plain meaning of the word “any,” the NLRB requested the Court to create an exception under Section 8(c) for statements which are “patently false.” The Court rejected that request as contrary to the plain language of the section.Continue Reading NLRB’S Attempt at Fact Checking Rejected
Ordinarily, courts defer to the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) factual findings and its remedial orders given the Board’s broad discretion when fashioning a remedy. However, in the D.C. Circuit’s recent decision in RAV Truck & Trailer Repairs Inc. v. NLRB, 997 F.3d 314 (D.C. Cir. 2021), the Court refused to do so.
Sometimes being too persuasive can have a downside, as Peter Robb, former General Counsel of the NLRB can attest. Robb had convinced the NLRB to find an owner had illegally closed his business and had further persuaded the NLRB to order it reopened. Contrary to common practice, the Court refused to rubber stamp the NLRB’s factual findings or to defer to the remedy, stating that the NLRB’s order “does not purport to explain how restoration is even factually possible.” Instead, the Court gave the NLRB a second chance at finding the necessary evidence in the now closed record.Continue Reading DC Circuit Court Reins in NLRB: No “Rubber Stamp” of NLRB’s Findings and Remedy
A second court of appeals has refused to adopt a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) decision declaring an employee’s speech violated the National Labor Relations Act. See Tecnocap, LLC v. NLRB, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 18080 (4th Cir., June 17, 2021). Similarly, in a decision issued earlier this month, the D.C. Circuit vacated an NLRB decision, finding instead it was not unlawful for an employer to make a false statement. See Trinity Servs. Grp. v. NLRB, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 16314 (D.C. Cir., June 1, 2021) (which we blogged about here). In Tecnocap, the Fourth Circuit deemed the NLRB’s decision out of bounds because in its view the employer’s speech “communicated accurate and lawful information,” and did not constitute unlawful “direct dealing” with its employees.
Continue Reading NLRB Loses Second Recent Speech Decision
In brief
The California Supreme Court recently established new law on two important topics for meal period compliance and litigation. Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC (2021) San Diego Superior Court, Case No. S253677 (February 25, 2021). First, the Court held that California employers cannot round time punches for meal periods. Second, the Court held that time records showing noncompliant meal periods raise a rebuttable presumption of meal period violations. The Donohue Court also implicitly approved a method for employers to use to determine whether meal period premiums should be paid for missed, short or late meal periods.Continue Reading California Rejects Meal Period Rounding
As a result of the pandemic, many companies have been forced to consider layoffs and furloughs. In this video, our Labor and Employment attorneys discuss how employers should approach such cost-cutting measures to ensure they are not discriminatory and to avoid allegations of differential treatment.
Click here to watch the video.
For the last year, employers have faced unprecedented challenges navigating the impact of the pandemic. Keeping up with scores of new laws, evolving standards, shelter-in-place orders (see our tracker here), quarantine restrictions and more has meant no rest for the weary. And, in the backdrop, there’s the looming threat of employment litigation arising from…
Government agencies are increasingly setting their sights on larger targets, ramping up enforcement efforts to root out systemic discrimination. This has important ramifications for employers who may suddenly find themselves defending a claim that, for all intents and purposes, feels like a class action, even though it started as an individual agency charge. With advancements in technology, large data sets on workforces are more common than ever, and government agencies are taking advantage of this and will not hesitate to request data on classes of individuals to search for trends indicating potential discrimination.
In her first public speech since being named as Chair of the EEOC, Charlotte Burrows pledged that the federal government’s workplace civil rights agency will emphasize enforcement of laws to combat systemic discrimination. This commitment to addressing systemic discrimination is consistent with President Biden’s plans to combat racism. (In January, Biden signed an executive order creating a government-wide “racial equity review” and underscoring enforcement of anti-discrimination laws. Read more here.)Continue Reading Government Agencies Eye Larger Targets: How Employers Can Navigate the Increase in Systemic Litigation
