Skip to main content

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

Some of the biggest news over the past week was a decision from a court of appeals in California that enables Uber & Lyft to have additional time to reclassify their drivers as employees rather than independent contractors.  Readers will likely recall a prior order in the case in which Uber & Lyft were given 10 days to comply with the requirement that the drivers be reclassified.  As noted below, this matter is far from over.  However, for the time being, Uber & Lyft have won a reprieve.

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


Hostile Work Environment or Just Workplace Bullying?

Eric Bachman wrote an article earlier this month for Forbes in which he differentiated between a valid hostile work environment claim and “only” workplace bullying.  As Eric writes, Title VII is relatively straightforward in terms of what is required to establish a hostile work environment claim, namely that the key is that the abusive conduct must be related to an employee’s race, sex, or religion.  Going one step further, Eric provides a few defenses that employers can use when confronted with a hostile work environment claim, including employer taking steps to reasonably prevent and promptly correct the complained of behavior.


Uber & Lyft Win Reprieve From Court of Appeals in Regard to California Driver Classification

Yesterday, a court of appeals in California has extended the time in which Uber & Lyft would have to comply with an order that would require the companies to reclassify their drivers as employees rather than contractors.  Prior to the court of appeals issuing its ruling, Lyft had indicated that it would likely shut down operations in the state as it would not have enough time to comply with the order.  (Uber had not announced any plans, before the court of appeals issued its ruling.  However, it was expected it would follow Lyft’s lead and also shut down operations in the state.)  While Assembly Bill 5 remains in effect (and the decision from the court of appeals does not foreclose the issue), Uber & Lyft can breathe a sigh of relief.

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