A recently filed petition for certiorari asks the U.S. Supreme Court to clarify the procedural requirements for ending private causes of action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). Specifically, petitioner Dorian Cheeks is asking the Supreme Court to review a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit holding that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 (“FRCP 41”) prohibits the dismissal of FLSA claims through private, stipulated settlement agreements absent approval from either a federal district court or the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”).
The California Supreme Court is poised to clarify what limits may apply to burdensome discovery demands in litigation under California’s Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (“PAGA”), which allows employees to bring non-class representative actions against employers on behalf of themselves and other “aggrieved employees” for alleged violations of the Labor Code.
After more than 30 years, the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) has concluded that it was time to change the standard for determining when companies are to be considered joint employers under the National Labor Relations Act. On August 27, 2015, with its much-anticipated decision in Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc., the Board issued a new joint-employer standard that will examine whether an employer has the potential to exercise control over employees’ working conditions and reversed the previous requirement that a joint employer must exercise direct and immediate control over the employees in question.
In Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc., the Second Circuit held that without the approval of a district court or the U.S. Department of Labor, parties cannot secure a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice of an FLSA claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). In practice, this holding will prevent parties to an FLSA litigation – where there is a bona fide dispute as to liability – from reaching a privately negotiated settlement that includes a joint stipulation of dismissal of the case.
On October 8, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk. In Busk, plaintiffs allege that, under the FLSA, their employer should have compensated them and other warehouse employees for time spent passing through the employer’s security clearance at the end of their shifts, including their time spent waiting in line to be searched. Busk is an important case to watch because the Court may provide employers with wide-ranging guidance on what pre-work or post-work tasks are compensable.
“Sometimes surrender is the best option.” That is how Judge Raymond J. Dearie of the Eastern District of New York begins his opinion in Anjum v. J.C. Penney Co., Inc., before denying J.C. Penney’s motion to dismiss a putative Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action based on the company’s offer to pay the claims of four named plaintiffs with offers of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68—a strategy often referred to as “picking off.” Even though the court rejected J.C. Penney’s picking off attempt in this case, the judge’s opinion in Anjum recognizes the validity of this tactic and provides some practical lessons for defense counsel looking to successfully pick off an FLSA collective in the Second Circuit.
Given the difficulty of finding a job in today’s economy, unpaid internships are becoming increasingly popular, particularly for students looking to gain resume-boosting experience. Yet just because someone is willing to work for free and will derive some benefit from an unpaid internship, it does not make it legal under state and federal law. Class litigation regarding unpaid interns is on the rise, and likely will increase even more given the recent ruling in Glatt v. Fox Searchlight Pictures. Read More
In a series of recent verdicts since 2011, Higher Labor Courts in Germany have increased the employer’s scope to monitor and control employees’ use of provided company IT and to sanction breaches of contract and statutory law discovered hereby. While the protection of the employee’s privacy and right to self-determination regarding his personal data had been the focus of the jurisdiction in the past, labor law jurisdiction has now strengthened the employer’s rights of ownership (as to their company IT) and of profession. This enables employers to track unlawful action committed by their employees on electronic devices in a more efficient way and will support employers particularly in the maintenance of their business operations, in litigation procedures against employees as well as in internal company (compliance) investigations.
1. Verdict by the Higher Labor Court Berlin-Brandenburg from February 16, 2011 (4 Sa 2132/10)
Until 2011, the employer’s possibility to access and control the computer of an employee, which was furnished by the employer in order for the employee to fulfill his contractual obligations, with regard to possible breaches of law depended on whether the employer had allowed the use of such computer for business purposes only or also for private use. According to lower German labor courts and German scholars, the grant of private use of company IT qualified employers as “providers of telecommunication services” in the sense of the German Telemedia Act (Telemediengesetz; “TMG”) and German Telecommunications Act (Telekommunikationsgesetz; “TKG”) to the effect that the employers were deemed to be subject to the requirements of the “secrecy of telecommunications” (Fernmeldegeheimnis). Such secrecy of telecommunication bans the respective service provider from reviewing “the contents and the detailed circumstances” of any communication that takes place via its communication channels. Lower German labor courts and German scholars argued that, due to the grant of private use of email and internet, employers could not be treated in a different way than professional providers of telecommunication services, such as AOL or T-Mobile, as the respective communication would no longer only relate to internal affairs of the company. Instead, there would be a risk that the employer takes note of private communication as well even if he intends to check business communication only. Read More