Jim represents employers on a broad range of employment matters, including whistleblowing, discrimination, retaliation and wrongful termination matters. He has extensive experience handling matters involving misappropriation of trade secrets and the enforcement of non-competition and non-solicitation agreements. He also regularly defends financial services firms in employment-related arbitrations before the AAA, JAMS and FINRA. Jim is routinely engaged by public and private companies to conduct internal investigations.
On November 8, 2018, the Department of Labor published an Opinion Letter (FLSA2018-27) reissuing its January 16, 2009 guidance (Opinion Letter FLSA2009-23) and reversing the agency’s Obama-era position on the 20% tip credit rule. The letter marks another significant shift in Department of Labor policy, and among the first major changes in federal tip credit policy over the last decade. READ MORE
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
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
As Congress considers a bill to change the definition of joint employment under two federal statutes, the Supreme Court is poised to decide whether to take up the issue under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the U.S. Department of Labor has withdrawn administrative guidance issued by the prior administration, and several states have enacted or considered joint employment legislation. In this rapidly evolving legal landscape, companies may want to keep a close eye on a doctrine that can lead to unexpected legal exposure. READ MORE
As employers well know, the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) permits employees to file suits on behalf of themselves and others who are “similarly situated.” 29 U.S.C. 216(b). In practice, this often means large employers find themselves defending against a single or handful of employees attempting to certify a collective action that includes hundreds or thousands of employees nationwide. Many times, the collective group includes employees in states where the plaintiffs have never worked. However, as a NY federal court recently reminded us, while plaintiffs’ evidentiary burden is not onerous at this stage, lack of knowledge about the employees in other states continues to be an obstacle for plaintiffs in obtaining conditional certification. On the opposite side of the coin, this failure of evidence can be utilized by defendant employers to narrow the proposed collective group or altogether prevent the conditional certification of a collective action. READ MORE
Recently, in Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc., the California Supreme Court upheld a $90 million award of statutory damages, interest, and penalties against an employer who required employees to remain on-call during rest periods, despite no evidence showing that any employee’s rest period was ever actually interrupted. This holding has significant implications statewide, and employers in California should promptly review their rest break policies to ensure full compliance. READ MORE
On September 25, 2016, California Governor Jerry Brown signed S.B. 1241 into law, prohibiting employers doing business in the Golden State from requiring California employees, as a condition of employment, to agree to non-California choice-of-law or venue provisions for claims arising in California, either in litigation or arbitration. Such provisions are frequently found in employment, arbitration, or non-compete agreements. The new law will be codified as California Labor Code section 925, and will apply to contracts entered into, modified, or extended on or after January 1, 2017.
As California employers adjust to recent amendments to the state’s Equal Pay Act, additional changes are looming. As we reported here, last year, California adopted the Fair Pay Act, which provides new pay equity provisions related to employees of the opposite sex. Those amendments took effect on January 1, 2016. Now, California lawmakers are setting their sights on pay disparities based on race and ethnicity. On February 16, 2016, California Senator Isadore Hall III (D-South Bay) introduced Senate Bill 1063, known as the Wage Equality Act of 2016 (“SB 1063”), which seeks to expand pay equity requirements beyond sex to include race and ethnicity.
On June 29, 2015, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio signed into law the Fair Chance Act (the “Act”), which prohibits employers from inquiring into the criminal backgrounds of certain job applicants in the initial stages of the employment application process. You can read more about the Act here. The New York City Commission on Human Rights (the “Commission”), the agency charged with enforcement of the Act, recently issued “Legal Enforcement Guidance” (the “Guidance”) regarding the Act. As summarized below, the Guidance provides clarity regarding various aspects of the Act, including definitions of key terms, per se violations and exemptions from the Act.
On May 28, 2015, the Sixth Circuit in Rhinehimer v. U.S. Bancorp Investments, Inc. affirmed a $250,000 jury verdict in favor of a former financial advisor for U.S. Bancorp Investments (“USBII”) who alleged that he had been terminated in violation of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (“SOX”) whistleblower provisions. In doing so, the Sixth Circuit rejected the “definitively and specifically” standard for proving protected activity under SOX and abrogated its prior SOX decision in Riddle v. First Tennessee Bank Nat’l Assoc., 497 F. App’x 588 (6th Cir. 2012) to the extent it relied upon the standard.
