Employment Law

A Welcome ‘Waive’ of Second Circuit Cases: Class Action Waivers Deemed Enforceable

and Posted on

Coins and Hourglass

For the better part of the last decade, the Second Circuit routinely and consistently struck down class action waivers in arbitration provisions. As recently as March 2011, the Second Circuit appeared to have brought down the hammer even further, by stating in In Re: American Express Merchants’ Litigation (“AmEx”) that a mandatory arbitration provision—even one that includes an express “class action waiver”—is unenforceable to the extent it “effectively precludes any action seeking to vindicate [plaintiff’s] statutory rights.”  READ MORE →

Court Strikes Down Proposed Class of Female Wal-Mart Employees – Again!

Posted on

After suffering defeat in the United States Supreme Court, Plaintiffs in Dukes et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. returned to court in California in an attempt to certify a newly defined and smaller class of 150,000 current and former female employees. On August 2, 2013, Judge Charles R. Breyer of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification, which leaves each member of the proposed class to pursue her claims individually against Wal-Mart. Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 3:10-CV-03005-CRB, Slip Op. at 2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 2, 2013).  READ MORE →

Don’t “friend me”: More State Law Limitations on Accessing Employee Social Media Sites

Posted on

Effective July 28, 2013, Washington became the eleventh state to have a law prohibiting employers from, among other things, asking its personnel for the user names and passwords to employee social media accounts. The law does have some limited exceptions, including allowing employers to retrieve content from an employee’s personal social media account in the context of an investigation into an employee’s misconduct, or if an employee is accused of making unauthorized transfers of proprietary information. Even then, however, employers can only access the information if it’s provided by the employee voluntarily.  READ MORE →

Further Down the Rabbit-Hole we go: California’s Troubling Treatment of Incentive-Based Compensation Systems

Posted on

On July 17, 2013, the California Supreme Court denied review of the Second Appellate District’s decision in Gonzalez v. Downtown LA Motors, 2013 Cal. App. LEXIS 257 (Cal. App. 2d Dist. Mar. 6, 2013), which addressed minimum-wage requirements for piece-rate workers. The Court of Appeal held that the employer had to pay a separate hourly rate of at least minimum wage during work time when piece-rate employees are engaged in compensable activity that does not directly produce piece-rates.  READ MORE →

Today is the Day – UK Employment Law Update

Posted on

Map and Compass

TODAY is a big day for employment law. Even though many of you will be thinking about your holidays, or may have even jetted off to sunny shores, take care to remember that certain changes are taking place which will affect your standard document and how you handle any exiting employees. Read more.

You Can’t Get Paid for Sleeping on the Job

Posted on

Bonds

Employees who live in employer-provided housing as part of their job may not so easily claim wages for 24-hour periods of work under California’s Wage Orders, according to a recent opinion, Mendiola v. CPS Security Solutions, Inc., Case No. B245019 (July 3, 2013). Mendiola involved a class of security guards who were employed at various constructions sites across California. On weekdays, the guards were scheduled from 5:00 to 7:00 a.m. and from 3:00 to 9:00 p.m. On weekends the guards patrolled from 5:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. From 9:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m. on weekends and weekdays, the guards were to remain on call at the construction site where they were provided trailer residences for their exclusive use during the on-call time. READ MORE →

Fifth Circuit Defines “Whistleblower” Narrowly Under Dodd-Frank

and Posted on

On July 17, 2013, the Fifth Circuit issued the first circuit court decision interpreting Dodd-Frank’s anti-retaliation provision.  In Asadi v. G.E. Energy (USA), L.L.C., the Fifth Circuit held that, to be protected under Dodd-Frank’s anti-retaliation provision, an individual must be a “whistleblower,” which is defined by the statute as an individual who has made a report to the SEC. Notably, this holding directly conflicts with the SEC’s regulations interpreting the Act, as well as five district court decisions that had all held that employees who make internal reports to company management are protected under Dodd-Frank even if they did not make reports to the SEC. Rejecting these analyses, the Fifth Circuit based its decision on the plain wording of the statute, which it found to be unambiguous in protecting only “whistleblowers” as defined by the Act. READ MORE →

The Buck Stops Here!: Gristedes Foods CEO May Be Personally Liable for FLSA Claims

and Posted on

Stack of Money

Last week, in Irizarry v. Catsimatidis, Docket No. 11-4035-cv (July 9, 2013), the Second Circuit held that Gristedes Foods CEO—and current NYC mayoral candidate—John Catsimatidis faces personal liability for settlement payments of FLSA claims against his company. The Court determined that Catsimatidis’ active participation in the operation of the company qualified him as an “employer” under the FLSA and could therefore lead to personal liability. READ MORE →

The Affordable Care Act – Consider Yourself on Notice

and Posted on

Gavel and Hundred-Dollar Bill

Under the Affordable Care Act, employers subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act must provide a “Notice of Coverage Options” to each employee. The purpose of this Notice is to inform employees that they may obtain health insurance through their states’ Health Insurance Marketplace. For current employees, the Notice must be distributed before October 1, 2013.  For new employees, the Notice must be given within 14 days after work begins.  READ MORE →

U.S. Supreme Court Adopts a Narrow Definition of a Supervisor in Harassment Claims

and Posted on

Resolving a split among the circuits, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a “supervisor” for Title VII harassment liability is limited to those who have the power to take a tangible employment action against the alleged victim (e.g., hire, fire, demote, promote, transfer, or discipline). Merely overseeing and directing the alleged victim’s daily work is insufficient to meet this heightened standard.   READ MORE →