Skip to main content

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

 

I wanted to give a nod to a recent coronavirus related bonus that Walmart is providing its workers before moving on to a more nuanced look at a key factor that claimants must take into account when filing an age discrimination claim.  Being tied up in trial most of the week did not give me much time to read through articles but these should give readers something interesting to page through over the next few days.

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


Walmart Announces Coronavirus Related Holiday Bonuses For Hourly Workers

Earlier this week, Walmart announced that it would provide its hourly workers with a holiday bonus, due in part to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic.  As Melissa Repko at CNBC noted, full time hourly workers will receive a bonus of $300 while part time hourly workers will receive a bonus of $150.  It is worth noting that Walmart has been providing its employees with several bonuses throughout the year in an effort to provide its workers with financial help during the coronavirus pandemic.  I would suspect that other big box retailers might follow suit and provide similar bonuses (or paid time off options) to round out the end of 2020.


Using a Comparator In Age Discrimination Cases: Is There a Threshold?

Philip Miles posted an article earlier this morning in which he took at how much of an age difference there needs be be between an age discrimination claimant and a comparator before a court will infer age discrimination.  (For reference, in age discrimination cases, claimants often rely on a comparator.  By showing that the similarly situated co-worker (the comparator) was treated better than the claimant, an inference of discrimination can exist.  With an age discrimination claim, the age difference between the claimant and the comparator is highly relevant.)  In the Third Circuit, Miles writes that the threshold “cut off” appears to be in the 5 - 7 year range.  As always, this age range can vary by state and circuit, so I would remind readers to review the relevant caselaw in their jurisdiction when considering the matter.

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