Posts by: David B. Smith

#MeToo One Year Later: A Viral Hashtag with Lasting Effects

David B. Smith and Annie Prasad VadilloPosted on October 15, 2018

On October 15, 2017, the #MeToo movement began in earnest following a tweet by actress Alyssa Milano. To commemorate the one-year anniversary of the #MeToo movement, the Orrick Employment Law and Litigation Blog will analyze the effects of the movement from the employment perspective. Part 1 below looks at the movement’s impact on sexual harassment claims in the workplace, Part 2 focuses on the legislative reaction to the movement, and Part 3 discusses how employers have responded to #MeToo.

OFCCP Director’s Departure Should Not Change Agency’s Priorities

David B. SmithPosted on August 17, 2018

OFCCP recently lost Trump-appointed Director Ondray Harris due to his resignation. Deputy Director Craig Leen takes Harris’s place in the interim. Harris’s departure raises some important questions that covered federal contractors may be asking.

What was Harris able to accomplish during his short tenure? During Harris’s time at the Agency, there were few policy developments. The Agency extended the moratorium on audits for many health care providers who offer medical coverage under the military’s TRICARE program. In addition, the Agency made good on its promise to provide contractors with additional transparency by (1) publishing its scheduling methodology; and (2) releasing a guidance document titled “What Contractors Can Expect” that stresses good behavior by the Agency and its staff. READ MORE →

Wait a Minute…California Supreme Court Says Employers Must Pay for De Minimis Off-the-Clock Work

James McQuade and David B. SmithPosted on July 30, 2018

On July 26, 2018, the California Supreme Court found that employers must compensate workers for the time they spend on certain menial tasks after clocking out of their shifts. In a unanimous decision, the Court held that California wage law did not bar a putative class action brought by a former Starbucks employee who routinely spent several minutes on trivial close-out tasks after his shift. READ MORE →

Here We Go Again: Browning-Ferris Revisited

James McQuade, David B. Smith and Necia HobbesPosted on April 11, 2018

As a result of recent activity at the D.C. Circuit and the National Labor Relations Board (the “NLRB”), the joint employer standard is in a state of flux. On April 6, 2018, the D.C. Circuit decided that it will review the NLRB’s ruling in Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc. (“Browning-Ferris”), a controversial decision concluding that a company and its contractor could be found to be joint employers even if the company did not exert overt control over workers’ terms and conditions of employment. In December 2017, the D.C. Circuit remanded the case in light of the NLRB’s decision in Hy-Brand Industrial Contractors, Ltd. and Brandt Construction Co. (“Hy-Brand”), which overruled the broad Browning-Ferris standard for joint employment and returned to a more employer-friendly standard. But, the NLRB recently vacated its Hy-Brand decision based on a conflict regarding one of its Members. Now, the D.C. Circuit likely will weigh in on the appropriate scope of the joint employer standard. READ MORE →

Are Interns Actually Employees? DOL Adopts New Guidance for Assessing Whether Interns Qualify as Employees

David B. SmithPosted on January 10, 2018

As part of its revision of Obama-era policies, the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) recently announced a new test for assessing whether interns qualify as employees under the Federal Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). The agency’s adoption of a “primary beneficiary” test aligns the DOL with several circuit court decisions and provides greater flexibility in analyzing intern-employer relationships under federal law. READ MORE →

Reversed! NLRB Overrules Browning-Ferris Decision And Returns To Prior Joint Employment Standard

Julie Totten, David B. Smith and Annie H. ChenPosted on December 27, 2017

On December 14, 2017, the new Republican majority at the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) overturned a controversial Obama-era decision regarding joint employment. The Board’s 3-2 decision in Hy-Brand Contractors, Ltd. and Brandt Construction Co. (“Hy-Brand”) rejected the 2015 Browning-Ferris decision, which had fundamentally broadened the joint employer standard. READ MORE →

It Isn’t An April Fool’s Joke – New Amendments to California’s Laws Against Discrimination Become Effective April 1

Jessica Perry and David B. SmithPosted on March 9, 2016

The adage that “there is no rest for the weary” is perhaps an all too familiar one for California employers. Although employers might have already spent the past few months implementing a host of new laws that took effect in early 2016, there has been less fanfare about the upcoming regulatory amendments under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA,” Cal. Govt. Code § 12900, et seq.) that go into effect April 1, 2016.

Taking a Page from DOL’s Playbook, EEOC Seeks to Add Pay Data to EEO-1 Reports

David B. SmithPosted on February 2, 2016

In August 2014, the Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contractor Programs (“OFCCP”) proposed that federal contractors report compensation information on an Equal Pay report. Amid significant contractor comments that OFCCP coordinate with the EEOC to amend the Employer Information Report (“EEO-1”), EEOC did so on January 29, 2016. The EEOC intends to ask the Office of Management and Budget to approve additional data collection that would require most employers to submit aggregate data on pay ranges and hours worked. The EEOC believes that the additional data “will assist [EEOC and OFCCP] in identifying possible pay discrimination and assist employers in promoting equal pay in their workplaces.” However, questions remain whether this data would yield any meaningful analysis of actual pay differences that would assist either agency in uncovering pay discrimination.

What Can Brown Do For PAGA? Budget Proposal Seeks Greater Oversight of PAGA Claims

David B. SmithPosted on January 26, 2016

California Governor Jerry Brown’s administration recently submitted a budget proposal to the California Legislature that would increase State oversight of Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claims and amend the PAGA statute accordingly. The proposal has significant implications for the administration of PAGA claims going forward.

The Times They Are A-Changin: National Labor Relations Board Revises The Joint-Employer Test After More Than Thirty Years

Pat Gillette, Lisa Lupion and David B. SmithPosted on September 2, 2015

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.