The Majority Opinion: Legal Blog

Denim?  At work?!?  I know, I know.  Many employers dislike allowing employees to dress casually, even on Fridays.  I have heard from some employers who refuse to bend the rules and allow for more casual dress on any day of the week as they think the casual dress will take away from the professional work environment.  I understand some employers who have these concerns, but I think this is a "denim day" we can all get behind. Since 1996, Lee National Denim Day has raised nearly $100 million for the fight against breast cancer.  The point of this is simple:  For a $5 donation, employees get to wear denim to work.  Some employers give employees the chance to donate the money while other employers make the donation on behalf of their employees.  The first Lee National Denim Day saw more than 3,000 employers participate and raised $1.4 million for the fight against breast cancer.  This year, Lee National Denim Day falls on Friday, October 3, 2014.  This is a great tradi

Every so often, I come across a few good articles on a particular topic during the week that warrant a "What I've Been Reading This Week" post dedicated solely to that topic.  This week was no exception as there were several good labor law articles I came across that caught my attention.  As always, below are a few articles that caught my eye this week. Southwest is on the Rise, But Will Labor Issues Ground Them? Bloomberg Businessweek has a good article on the potential labor union issues that Southwest is facing.  A few weeks ago, Southwest rebranded itself by way of a new logo, designs on planes, etc. to much fanfare.  What has not been talked about as much, as of yet, is the growing rumbling among its employees over negotiations over their contracts.  This is one to keep an eye on. A Look at How Unions Are Shrinking & the Subsequent Impact What better way to start a Labor Law Edition blog than to start with the basics.  This article takes an in

As with many employment and labor law related cases that are being litigated around the country, there are always a few that stand out.  This is one to keep an eye on. Facts :  The EEOC has brought suit against a New York company and alleged that the company required its employees to participate in prayer circles, thank God for their job, and say "I love you" to managers and co-workers.  Three former employees of the company alleged that in addition to participating in prayer circles, they were required to read spiritual texts, burn candles, and keep the lights dim.  After these employees complained about the practices, they were subsequently fired. It is important to keep in mind that at this point, these are just allegations.  The company has yet to file an answer, and at that point, we will have a better idea of where this case is going. The Main Issue :  Whether the company violated federal law when it forced employees to take part in religious act

Cadenas v. Butterfield Health Care II, Inc. - US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division Facts :   Araceli Cadenas started work at a nursing home facility in September 2011.  The position required assisting residents with a range of motion exercises, placing and removing splints,  assisting with dressing, bathing, and eating, as well as lifting, moving, and physically transferring residents from their beds to their wheelchairs.  The position required Cadenas to push more than twenty pounds when she pushed residents in their wheelchairs.  The employer had an unwritten policy of offering light duty work to employees who had work related injuries, however.  Cadenas delivered a doctor's note to the HR Director in early May 2012 that stated Cadenas was 14 weeks pregnant and that she should not lift, push, or pull over twenty pounds beginning the 20th week of her pregnancy.  In mid May, the HR Director informed Cadenas that the doctor's note was

This is a special post for me as last week marked the first full year of The Majority Opinion blog.  That's right, it was a little over a year ago that I posted the first blog to much 'fanfare'...ha.  I want to thank the readers of the blog for following along with me over the past year and reading through the articles, comments, notes, etc. that I have posted.  I could not do this without loyal readers and for that I am grateful. With that being said, let us get going with this post.  As always, below are a few articles that caught my eye this week. N.F.L. Cheerleader Lawsuits Creating Dissension Within the Ranks? With the recent announcement of the settlement of one of the Oakland Raiders lawsuits for $1.25 million ( First Oakland Raiders Cheerleader Lawsuit Settles - Blog ), this is a timely followup to some of the other cheerleader lawsuits still pending.  Eric Morath has a brief look at how many former and current cheerleaders view these wage and hour lawsu

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.  As we have seen over the past few months, the EEOC has made pregnancy discrimination claims a priority this year.  In this instance, this note focuses on a new law that protects pregnant employees and employees who have recently given birth in Delaware.  Recently, Governor Jack Markell of Delaware, signed into law the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act.  This Act extends workplace protections to pregnant employees as well as employees who have recently given birth and requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to these employees.  While this is a somewhat wide sweeping law, it is important to note that the Act only requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for the known limitations of pregnant employees, so long as the accommodation does not result in an undue hardship fo

For those keeping track at home, back in January, a lawsuit was filed by a former Oakland Raiders cheerleader who alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") as a result of several wage and hour violations by the Raiders.  ( Oakland Raiders Lawsuit Blog ).  Since that first lawsuit, several other lawsuits have been brought by current and former N.F.L. cheerleaders against several teams and have alleged similar wage and hour violations.  I have followed these lawsuits with keen interest, but this first one really stood out as it was, in essence, the template for all future cheerleader wage and hour suits. Well, after several months of litigation, this case has finally settled and the Raiders have agreed to pay $1.25 million.  In addition to that settlement amount, additional provisions were provided for:   Instead of earning $125/game in a single paycheck delivered at the end of the season, the cheerleaders will now earn $9/hour, plus overtime, and w

Albin v. LVMH Moet Louis Vuitton, Inc. - US District Court for the Southern District of New York *Note that my overview of this opinion focuses on whether an employee is protected under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act even when the employee is no longer pregnant or trying to become pregnant. Facts :  Katherine Albin began work at the the Thomas Pink store in January 2009.  She had her first child in August 2011 and was on maternity leave from August through November 2011.  When Albin returned from maternity leave, she was informed that her store manager would resign at the end of December.  Albin subsequently indicated her interest in the position.  However, unlike the normal procedure of having an overlap period of a few weeks between incoming and outgoing managers, Albin did not get to talk with the HR Manager until December 27, 2011 Albin had her official interview with the HR Manager in early January 2012 and then the US President of Thomas Pink, Humbert, conducted an

Ralph's Grocery Co. - NLRB Facts :  Managers at Ralph's Grocery noticed that the conduct of one employee caused them to believe he might be under the influence.  The employee was instructed to submit to a drug and alcohol test which he refused.  The employee was informed that any refusal would result in his termination.  As a result, the employee requested union representation.  After management tried to find a union representative but were unable to do so after about 15 minutes, the employee was directed to take the test or a refusal would constitute a positive test result.  The employee again refused and was subsequently discharged.   Holding :  An Administrative Law Judge found the discharge interfered with the employee's exercise of his Weingarten rights and a three member panel of the NLRB agreed.  In essence, the Weingarten rule is based upon the notion that employees have a right to union representation in an investigatory proceeding.  In this case, the NLR

Many employers have been in this boat before:  An employee is fired and before the employee actually leaves the office, turns in company equipment, etc., the fired employee erases his/her entire inbox.  The question then arises for employers:  Ok, now what? Without a doubt, this type of action by a fired employee can become a major headache for employers.  Luckily, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act ("CFAA") provides some guidance, and grounds upon which an employer can sue the fired employee.  The CFAA is designed to prevent unauthorized access or malicious interference with a computer system.   In order for an employer to state a valid claim under the CFAA, the employer must show that an employee actually caused damage to its computer or data system.  The CFAA defines "damage" as any impairment to the integrity or availability of data, a program, a system, or information.  However, this can often be a difficult hurdle for employers to clear.  Take for exa

My interest always piques with some of the articles that talk about Ban the Box measures.  This week provided one of the more interesting discussions of the ban the box legislation in New Jersey and Governor Chris Christie's subsequent veto of a bill that wold have protected unemployed workers in the state.  As always, below are a few articles that caught my eye this week. New Jersey Governor Vetoes Unemployment Discrimination Bill Ban the Box measures have been sweeping the country lately, with New Jersey being one of the most recent states to pan this type of measure.  In fact, Governor Chris Christie had just signed into law the Opportunity to Compete Act (New Jersey's Ban the Box legislation) that prohibits employers from inquiring about job candidates' criminal histories early in the hiring process.  In a surprising twist, Governor Christie vetoed a bill the same week he signed the Opportunity to Compete Act which would have prohibited discriminat

As with many employment and labor law related cases that are being litigated around the country, there are always a few that stand out.  This is one to keep an eye on. Facts :  A quadriplegic man, Brandon Coats, lost his job at Dish Network after being fired for failing a random drug test as a result of off-the-job medical marijuana use.  Coats claimed he used marijuana to control muscle spasms which resulted from a car accident that left him wheelchair bound.  After being fired, Coats subsequently brought suit against Dish and claimed he had been unlawfully fired as the marijuana use was legal under Colorado state law and that he was never impaired while on the job.  Looking Back:   The trial court upheld the firing and Coats appealed.  The Colorado Court of Appeals panel affirmed the lower court's ruling and held the firing of Coats was lawful since marijuana is illegal under federal law, employees have no protection to use it anytime they want.   It is important to

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.  In this instance, this note focuses on a new regulation that affects many San Francisco based employers. After several other states and cities have passed "Ban the Box" measures recently, New Jersey has followed suit and passed a law of their own that applies to all employers, both public and private, that employ 15 or more employees over 20 calendar weeks.  The Opportunity to Compete Act of 2014 (the official name of New Jersey's Ban the Box legislation) prohibits covered employers from inquiring about an applicant's criminal record until a few steps have been completed:  1) an interview has been conducted; 2) a determination has been made that the applicant is qualified for the position; and 3) the employer has selected the applicant as its first choice to fill the

Only a few of the EEOC suits and settlements jumped out at me this month...it goes without saying that a majority of the EEOC claims involved allegedly illegal conduct in relation to female workers.  I have seen it time and time again, but employers need to be aware of discriminatory or harassing conduct in the workplace and take steps to correct it immediately, regardless of the gender that is being subjected to the illegal conduct. 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: Royal Tire To Pay $182,500 to Settle Wage Discrimination Charge by Female Executive This settlement reminds me of the sex discrimination suit brought by a former Anheuser-Busch female executive that went to a jury earlier this year ( Former Anheuser-Busch Female Executive's Sex Discrimination Suit Fails - Blog ), except this one had a better end result.   In