The Majority Opinion: Legal Blog

As always, there are some EEOC cases that jump out at me when I review developments on that front.  Below are a couple EEOC cases and settlements that stand out. The Cheesecake Factory to Pay $15,000 to Settle Disability Discrimination Claim A few weeks ago, the EEOC announced that the Cheesecake Factor and its wholly owned subsidiary would pay $15,000.00 and implement changes to settle an Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") claim brought by a former employee.  The facts alleged that the employee, who was deaf and had just been hired as a dishwasher, was subsequently terminated for issues associated with his disability.  Apparently the Cheesecake Factory denied the employee's request for orientation training either with closed captioned video or an American Sign Language interpreter.  As some readers are likely aware, the ADA requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to an employee (or job applicant) with a disability, unless doing so wou...

Connors v. Jim Shorkey Family Auto Group, et al - United States District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania Facts :  Lauren Connors ("Connors") worked for Shorkey Kia as a sales person from September 4, 2013 until October 31, 2016.  On October 18, 2015, Connors was sexually assaulted by a coworker, Todd Holland ("Holland"), during a work related trip.  Connors suffered severe emotional distress as a result of the sexual assault.  After an investigation and the sexual assault allegations were found to be true, Holland given the option to resign.  As a result of his resignation, Holland was entitled to severance pay and his commissions. In October of 2016, Connors was informed that Holland would be rehired.  Connors repeatedly stated that she would be very upset if that happened and her mental health would deteriorate if Holland returned.  Connors proceeded to send multiple e-mails to her employer detailing how Holland's rehiring would n...

Today, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Janus v. AFSCME .  Readers might remember this case as it is one I have highlighted in the past , given the increased attention this labor law case has received leading up to oral arguments before the Court.  As a refresher, the case deals with whether a state employee can be required to pay dues to a union (known as "agency fees"), even if that employee is not a part of the union, to cover the costs of a union representing all employees in the collective bargaining process.  For those wondering, these agency fees are normally more than half (and sometimes up to 100%) of actual union dues.  (That begs the question of whether these agency fees are actually union dues "in disguise"). How We Got Here Let us start at the beginning so that readers can understand how we got to this point. At the outset, I will note that a 1977 decision from the Supreme Court in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education ...

Early next week, the United States Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in Janus v. AFSCME , one of the most closely watched cases before the Court this term.  I was actually talking with a colleague about this case yesterday and the importance it has for labor and unions long term.  For readers that might have forgotten about this case, the Court will consider whether workers that do not join a union can be forced to pay agency fees (a/k/a "fair share" fees) to cover the costs of having the union represent them. While unions are legally required to represent all employees in a bargaining unit (including those employees that are not a part of a union), unions have long argued that these agency fees are vital.  Without these agency fees, unions have pointed out that employees would have no incentive to join a union (and pay union dues) but could instead remain non-union members and still enjoy the benefits of having the union represent them without having to p...

Late last week, an Associate General Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB") concluded that Google did not violate federal labor law when it terminated an employee after he circulated an internal memorandum that suggested women were not as biologically suited for coding jobs as men. The employee, James Damore ("Damore"), worked at Google and was terminated shortly after he circulated the internal memorandum that both criticized his employer and also made statements about women in the workplace.  Following his termination, Damore filed a complaint with the NLRB and argued that Google violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA") on the grounds that he was unlawfully terminated for engaging in protected activity.  However, the Associate General Counsel disagreed and held that although Damore's memorandum contained protected statements (in regard to his criticism of Google), he was ultimately terminated for s...

Vasquez, et al v. Whole Foods Market, Inc. - United States District Court, District of Columbia Facts :  Victor Vasquez, Nadeem Sheikh, Katia Sadoudi, Svetlana Bautista, Ibrahima Ba, Nicholas Miano, Pa M. Mjie, Michael Amegnaglo, and David Berger ("Plaintiffs") worked as Store Team Leaders at different Whole Foods stores in the Washington, D.C. area.  During their time working at Whole Foods, Whole Foods used a profit sharing program called "Gainsharing".  Under this Gainsharing program, Whole Foods awarded bonuses to employees whose departments performed under budget by distributing the surplus savings among the employees in that department.  However, the Plaintiffs claimed that Whole Foods undermined this program by imposing a nationwide scheme of "shifting" labor costs.  Under this alleged scheme, if a department came in over budget, Whole Foods corporate leadership instructed store leadership (including Store Team Leaders) to "shift" th...

This week turned into one of my busier ones with several work trips out of town. While that enabled me a bit of time to read through some articles on my flights, it has been a non stop week with little time to write a proper What I’ve Been Reading This Week post.  With that being said, I did come across a couple good articles that I wanted to highlight, in particular the Bloomberg article about a rise in union influence at airports across the country.  As always, below are a couple articles that caught my eye this week. Does a Lack of Paid Sick Leave For Many Employees Actually Hurt Employers? Christopher Ingraham at The Washington Post published an article this past Tuesday which addressed the negative impact that a lack of paid sick leave can actually have on employers (not just employees).  When these sick employees lack paid sick leave, they inevitably decide to go into work rather than forgo a day's pay.  That leads to these sick employees infec...