Skip to main content

Suit Filed to Block Minimum Wage Hike in Arizona


Yesterday, a Maricopa County Superior Court judge heard arguments in regard to a legal challenge that seeks to halt implementation of a minimum wage hike in the state that was approved by voters this past November.  Under the approved measure, Proposition 206, the minimum wage rate (currently at $8.05/hour) will rise to $10/hour and then ultimately $12/hour by 2020.

For those who have not been following the matter, last week, the Arizona Chamber of Commerce filed suit to challenge the higher minimum wage rate.  The Chamber, joined by a few other pro-business groups, argued that the minimum wage hike violated the state's constitution because it failed to identify a funding source for its budget implications.

For those who support a higher minimum wage rate in the state, I would not necessarily call this lawsuit disheartening.  Last Friday, a request to immediately block the minimum wage hike was rejected.  As a result, hearings were set on the matter for this week.  Of course, that does not necessarily mean this lawsuit will be rejected...nor does it mean the lawsuit will prevail and block the minimum wage hike.  Instead, this is likely a matter of the judge being thorough and taking the time to allow all parties to argue their position and assert the basis for their suit (or why the suit should fail).  With that being said, the approved minimum wage measure would raise the hourly wage rate in the state to $10/hour on January 1, 2017.  With less than two weeks to go, the clock is ticking.  Stay tuned.



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,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more