Skip to main content

What I've Been Reading This Week


I read through a lot of good articles this week, especially from some of the blogs I routinely follow.  One of my favorites was on a recent EEOC suit against UPS in regard to the company's prohibition on beards and hair rules.  That article is certainly well worth a quick read!

As always, below are a few articles that caught my eye this week.


Older Workers Benefit Protection Act: Nice Try Hershey Managers

Joanna Bowers has a somewhat humorous article on several former Hershey's managers who were terminated in 2009 and 2010, accepted severance pay and waived their claims against the company, then turned around and tried to sue Hershey's for age discrimination.  This is a good article that deals with issues surrounding the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act...and provides a thorough breakdown of why the managers' age discrimination claim failed.



When I want to review some of the finer points of California's Paid Sick Leave Law, I often turn to the California Employment Law Report.  This week was no exception as Anthony Zaller gave readers five major amendments to California's Paid Sick Leave Law that employers and employees should note.  As noted, these amendments apply going forward, after being signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown on July 13, 2015.  


EEOC Brings Suit Against UPS Over Beard & Hair Rules

Another good article from Joe Lustig, with this particular one focusing on a recent suit filed by the EEOC against UPS in relation to the company's policy that prohibits male employees in customer contact or supervisory positions from having bears or growing hair below collar length.  The EEOC alleged that UPS has failed to hire or promote individuals whose religious practices conflict with the company's appearance policy.  As well, the EEOC alleged that UPS failed to provide religious accommodations to its appearance policy.  This case is in the early stages, but it is certainly one to keep an eye on.


Department of Labor Issues "Administrator Interpretations" in Regard to Independent Contractors

Recently, the Department of Labor ("DOL") released "Administrator Interpretations" and weighed in on the test for whether someone is an independent contractor or an employee.  In essence, as the Interpretations note, the DOL finds that most workers are employees under the FLSA.  This article breaks down the Interpretations well and walks readers through some of the finer points of this issue.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more