The Majority Opinion: Legal Blog

As always, there are some recent EEOC cases that jump out at me when I review recent developments on that front.  Below are a few recent EEOC cases and settlements that stand out: Weight Watchers Settles EEOC Pregnancy Discrimination Suit The EEOC filed a pregnancy discrimination suit against Weight Watchers as a result of Weight Watchers' alleged failure to hire an applicant as a group leader because she was pregnant.  After learning that the applicant was pregnant, Weight Watchers allegedly told her that she would not be hired because she was pregnant and refused to consider the applicant further.  These alleged actions violate federal law which prohibit employers from discriminating against employees and applicants that are pregnant.   Weight Watchers settled for $45,000 and agreed to provide other relief to settle the suit, including the posting of anti-discrimination notices. EEOC Press Release:   http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/4-7-14.cfm Check

A few weeks ago, the United Auto Workers attempted to unionize a Volkswagen plant in Tennessee.  After that attempt to unionize the plant failed because of a lack of a majority vote, the UAW filed objections to the election claiming improper actions by outside groups affected the results ( See UAW Objection blog here ).  However, on April 21, the UAW decided to withdraw its objections which ended the NLRB review of the election results.  As I had previously noted, since the UAW had filed its objections, the NLRB could not certify the results.  Since a new vote on whether to unionize cannot occur until at least twelve months after the NLRB certifies the results of an election, I suggested that the UAW was putting themselves in a tough spot, since if they kept pushing ahead with their objections and did not prevail, the twelve month clock would continue to be pushed back. It appears that the UAW has decided to live to fight another day and will regroup, wait the twelve month p

This is a big week leading up to the vote today, April 25, by the Northwestern University football team on whether or not to form a union. This is the fifth installment of the ongoing series on the Northwestern University football players' vote on whether to form a union.  As many are aware, that vote will occur today.  The next question for many is, what will happen now? First, the original ruling by the Regional Director of the NLRB has been appealed by Northwestern University to the full NLRB in Washington, D.C.  At this point, we are awaiting a ruling from the full Board.  Here a few scenarios of how this could play out, depending upon the NLRB's ruling: No Vote Occurs Let's get the easiest one out of the way first.  Remember, the NLRB could decide to put off the players' vote on whether to unionize until after the NLRB considers the request for review filed by Northwestern.  As of now, that has not occurred.  I do not anticipate hearing any last minu

This is a big week leading up to the vote on Friday, April 25, by the Northwestern University football team on whether or not to form a union.  There will be a special series this week focusing on the events and issues surrounding this case.During the past few weeks, when spring football occurs, the Northwestern University football team has been dealing with more than simply running through the standard practices and scrimmages.  With the vote on whether or not to unionize pending this Friday, the environment surrounding the football program has been different this spring, compared to years past. The United Steelworkers are one of the prominent labor unions in the country.  As such, they are working to help the Northwestern University football players unionize.  The inevitable question is, regardless of the outcome with Northwestern, what is the next step? There are approximately seventeen private FBS universities who will be directly impacted by the Northwestern outco

For those of you following the blog, there have been a few cases filed by NFL cheerleaders the past few months complaining of wage and hour violations (see Oakland Raiders Cheerleader lawsuit ; Cininncati Bengals Cheerleader lawsuit ).   Yesterday, five former members of the Buffalo Bills cheer leading group have filed a wage and hour claim complaining of the wages they are paid.  The cheerleaders, called the "Buffalo Jills", claim that among other things, they were not paid for their time at games or mandatory public appearances that left them open to "groping and sexual comments."  These plaintiffs also complain about a "Jiggle Test" in which their bodies were scrutinized while they did jumping jacks.   At this point, we have had three complaints filed against teams (the Raiders, Bengals, and Bills) this year in regard to pay for cheerleaders.   Something tells me this will not be the last NFL cheerleader lawsuit we see... I have attached

This is a big week leading up to the vote on Friday, April 25, by the Northwestern University football team on whether or not to form a union.  There will be a special series this week focusing on the events and issues surrounding this case.During the past few weeks, when spring football occurs, the Northwestern University football team has been dealing with more than simply running through the standard practices and scrimmages.  With the vote on whether or not to unionize pending this Friday, the environment surrounding the football program has been different this spring, compared to years past. While the head coach of the Northwestern University football team, Pat Fitzgerald, has urged his players to vote against forming a union ( ESPN Article ), that has not changed the work environment on the field.  While many people have been critical of the coach coming out against his players unionizing, Fitzgerald has still had to lead his team through offseason workouts and drills in

This is a big week leading up to the vote on Friday, April 25, by the Northwestern University football team on whether or not to form a union.  There will be a special series this week focusing on the events and issues surrounding this case. Earlier this month, the head of the National Football League Players Association, DeMaurice Smith came out in support of the efforts by some Northwestern University football players to form a union.  In the statement made to the Huffington Post, Smith emphasized that college athletes have not been given a seat at the table and not had a chance to push for better medical coverage, limitations on practice times, scholarship shortfalls, etc.  It is interesting that in recent weeks, it seems like a lot of the focus has been away from "pay the college athletes" and has instead progressed to more of a human rights cry by way of saying that unions will allow college athletes to obtain better medical coverage and have better practic

This is a big week leading up to the vote on Friday, April 25, by the Northwestern University football team on whether or not to form a union.  There will be a special series this week focusing on the events and issues surrounding this case. Last week, the union that seeks to represent the Northwestern University football players filed its brief in response to the appeal filed by Northwestern University ( brief filed in opposition to Northwestern University's Appeal to NLRB ).  As to be expected, the brief argued that the decision reached by the NLRB Regional Director was "meticulously and carefully reasoned."  As well, it was argued that Northwestern did little more in its brief than raise irrelevant policy arguments that simply suggested that unionization of Northwestern football players might be bad for business.  For those keeping score at home, the Northwestern University football team will vote this week, the 25th, on whether to unionize.  If the NLRB deci

Germany Bans Managers From Calling Employees After Hours This is an interesting article about a recent move by the German Labor Ministry to ban managers from calling or e-mailing staff outside of work hours, except in cases of emergency.  The Labor Ministry based this reasoning on the grounds that employees need not be under this undue stress from always having to be on call. In a related note, France has also taken similar measures by banning employers from e-mailing their employees after hours ( France Bans After Hours E-mails to Employees ). While this probably would not happen across the board in this country, it is still interesting to note the move by Germany.  Should any employers institute a policy similar to this in the United States, it would more likely be predicated on the grounds of avoiding potential wage and hour issues, rather than minimizing stress on employees.  How Unions Would Work In NCAA Sports This article by Billy Haisley walks through how u

As a follow up to the prior note on how Texas handles the final pay check of employees, with different rules depending upon whether the employee left the employment voluntarily or involuntarily, it is important to note how each state handles the matter. When the Employee Leaves Voluntarily: Payment Due Immediately:  Illinois (if possible, but not later than next pay day); Oregon (if employee gave 48 hours notice; within five days or next pay period, whichever comes first, if no notice given); West Virginia (if employee gave one pay day's notice; if no notice, by next scheduled pay day) Payment Due Within 72 hours:  California (or immediately if employee gave at least seventy two hours notice) Payment Due Within 5 Working Days:  Wyoming Payment Due at the Next Pay Period:   Alaska (or within three days after employee gives notice); Arizona; Colorado; Connecticut; Delaware; District of Columbia (or within seven days, whichever is sooner); Hawaii (or immediately if e

Today, Northwestern University filed its brief with the National Labor Relations Board in regard to the attempt by Northwestern football players to unionize ( Northwestern Football Players Given Green Light to Unionize - Blog ).  In the brief, Northwestern asked the NLRB to overturn the decision by the NLRB Chicago Regional Director that would allow Northwestern football players to vote on whether to form a union.  Interestingly enough, the brief includes mention of the potential Title IX ramifications and what would happen if the football players would eventually be paid for playing football.  As readers may well be aware, Title IX requires colleges and universities to afford equal opportunities to female students who participate in varsity collegiate sports.  If male athletes who play football would receive pay, implications could arise over paying female athletes so that colleges and universities comply with Title IX. A copy of Northwestern's brief can be found here: 

Everyone has probably at one time or another seen a union stand outside a business with a "Shame On John Doe Corp." sign.  Unions use these signs in an attempt to draw attention to a particular company's allegedly unfair labor practices.  Some businesses do nothing proactive about these signs and simply let the union sit outside the business with the protest signs.  In Wichita, a union recently sat outside a Subaru dealer and displayed a "Shame on Subaru" sign.  Not to be outdone, Subaru made their own sign and put it to the right of the the union's sign. What did Subaru's sign say, you ask?  "For Having Unbeatable Prices".  Anyone driving by would see the "Shame on Subaru" sign followed by "For Having Unbeatable Prices".  Very creative, Subaru!   The link below includes a picture outside the Subaru dealer.  Who knew that a union protest could turn into high comedy. Special thanks to the Wichita Eagle for addi

Update On Oakland Raiders Cheerleader's Lawsuit This very well written article by Amanda Hess of ESPN the Magazine has a fascinating look into additional details about the wage and hour lawsuit filed by the Oakland Raiders Cheerleader earlier this year ( Oakland Raiders Cheerleader's Lawsuit - Blog ), as well as the reaction that lawsuit has generated amongst current and former cheerleaders. It is interesting to note that under the contract, any disputes that arise over the contract the cheerleaders signed are to be resolved by arbitration, with the commissioner of the NFL, Roger Goodell, as the designated arbiter.  To get this case into an actual courtroom, that arbitration provision is a hurdle that will have to be cleared first. Roundup of Recent EEOC Verdicts & Settlements - March I always find it interesting to see which claims were resolved, either via verdict or settlement during the prior month.  Interestingly enough, this overview of cases from around

The EEOC recently released guidance for employers on how Title VII applies in regard to religious dress and grooming.  Many employers likely have been or will be confronted with situations in which employees will come to work wearing certain religious items that might conflict with employer dress codes or standards.  This publication from the EEOC does a good job walking employers (and employees) through the federal discrimination laws and what needs to be done when religious dress and grooming become a potential issue at work. It is important for employers to remember that federal discrimination laws require that employers make exceptions to dress codes and grooming requirements to accommodate employees' religious standards, unless doing so would cause "undue hardship" for the employer.    A link to the EEOC publication can be found here:  http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/publications/fs_religious_garb_grooming.cfm

Each state has a host of new employment and labor related laws that take effect in 2014.  This series focuses on several new laws from around the country that are of particular interest. SB 292 amended the Fair Employment and Housing Act Government Code Section 12940, and clarified that sexually harassing conduct does not need to be motivated by sexual desire.  Under the new law, hostile treatment can amount to unlawful sexual harassment regardless of whether the treatment was motivated by any sexual desire.  The bill, authored by Senate Majority Leader Ellen Corbett, was proposed in response to Kelley v. Conoco Companies , a 2011 case from the Court of Appeal, First District, California.  In that case, Kelley, a male ironworker at Conoco, claimed he was subjected to a barrage of graphic, vulgar, and sexually demeaning comments and gestures at work as a result of his complaints about his supervisor.  After the union suspended him and Conoco decided not to rehire him, Kel