Skip to main content

What I've Been Reading This Week


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 discrimination against the unemployed.  The reason given for the veto is that the bill would have apparently done nothing to improve the lives of unemployed New Jerseyans and would instead have driven up the cost of doing business in the state.  Interesting, to say the least.


Be Aware That Even "Small" Delays in Pay Can Be FLSA Violations

This article by Doug Hass is a good reminder to employers to be aware that even small delays in pay, say a day or two, can result in FLSA violations.  The article carefully points out that under the FLSA, a delayed payday to an employee is akin to not having been paid at all...how does that sound employers?!  As well, Doug points out that an employer who cries "no harm, no foul" cannot escape liability for delayed paydays to their employees.  So the next time an employer tells you your payday will be pushed back a few days because of cash flow issues, know that there is a potential FLSA issue at play.


An Employee Leaves a Casino & Takes the Names of a Few Higher Rollers...Now What?

The Baltimore Sun has an interesting article about a casino employee who left one casino for another, and in doing so, took the name of approximately 19 elite players with her.  Unsurprisingly, her former employer took her to court and claimed that she could not take the names of the players with her.  You might be sitting there saying, "Why didn't the casino have a non-compete in place?"  Well, they did...sort of.  When the employee was approached about signing a non-compete, after she had already been working at the casino, she refused and quit.  This is an interesting story, but serves as a reminder to employers to require that employees sign non-competes before starting employment, to avoid situations like this.

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,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more