The Majority Opinion: Legal Blog

Shorter week this week in the office, so only a few articles have been included here. Thanks again to the readers of the blog for following along.  With Thanksgiving being this week, there's less time to blog.  With that being said, I will plan on hitting the ground running next week with some good posts to close the year out. As always, below are a few articles that caught my eye this week. Immigration Laws in Light of Obama's Executive Order This blog that I read during the week is one of the top employment law blogs I check out, especially for laws as they apply to California employers and employees.  In this note, Anthony Zaller has a few thoughts on how President Obama's Executive Order on immigration coincides with immigration and labor laws on the federal and state level.  Perhaps most importantly, regardless of what the Executive Order states, employers in California still need to ensure they are recognizing California employment laws (namely, in regard

California certainly is on a roll, no?  First San Francisco and Oakland voters approve an increase in minimum wage in both cities over the coming years.  Now, we have the Retail Workers' Bill of Rights which is a comprehensive set of policies introduced as two different pieces of legislation.   The Board of Supervisors in San Francisco has tentatively (and note, unanimously) passed both pieces of proposed legislation this week.  At this point, a confirmation vote is scheduled to occur today, November 25, and if the legislation passes, it will become law within 180 days after the effective date.  It is important to highlight key pieces of both pieces of legislation, ahead of the confirmation vote.   Board of Supervisors File No. 140880:  Hours and Retention Protections for Formula Retail Employees : Applies to Formula Retail employers with 20 or more employees in San Francisco (Formula Retail are businesses with at least 20 retail sales establishments worldwide). T

Earlier this month, the EEOC filed suit against FedEx and charged that the company violated the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") by discriminating against a large class of deaf and hard of hearing package handlers and job applicants for several years.  The suit came about as a result of 19 charges filed throughout the country that cited discrimination against deaf and hard of hearing employees by FedEx. The EEOC alleged in the present suit that FedEx failed to provide needed accommodations such as a sign language interpretation and closed captioned training videos during the mandatory initial tour of facilities and new-hire orientation.  FedEx also allegedly failed to provide accommodations to these employees during staff, performance, and safety meetings.  The EEOC further charged that FedEx failed to provide needed equipment substitutes and modifications for deaf and hard of hearing package handlers.   This alleged conduct, if found to be true, violated th

Richmond District Neighborhood Center and Ian Callaghan - NLRB Facts :  Ian Callaghan and Kenya Moore both worked at the Beacon Teen Center at San Francisco's George Washington High School for the 2011 - 2012 school year.  Before the start of each school year, offer letters are sent to those employees who the school wants to return.  Both Callaghan and Moore got rehire letters for the 2012 - 2013 school year.  Before doing so, they exchanged Facebook messages that included the following: "I don't want to ask permission." "Let's do some cool shit, and let them figure out the money." "Teach the kids how to grafitti up the walls." "We'll take advantage, play music loud." "Have parties all year and not get the office people involved.  just do it and pretend they are not there." "I'm outta town.  But I'll be back to raise hell wit ya." A Beacon employee sent screenshots of the conversa

Two posts in one day?   Why yes.  Have a layover in Phoenix for work and given my post earlier today on recent minimum wage increases in San Francisco am Oakland, I think this post fits right in.  Last month, the Los Angeles City Council passed the Citywide Hotel Worker Minimum Wage Ordinance which has a broad impact across the board for hotel workers, beyond just the minimum wage rate.  As a result, let me point out a few of the big parts of the Ordinance: The Ordinance applies to hotels with 150+ guest rooms within the Los Angeles city limits.  Hotels with the Airport Enterprise Hospitality Zone are included, however the Ordinance does not apply to cities like Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, West Hollywood, Glendale, Pasadena, and Long Beach. The minimum wage increase is as follows:  hotels with 300+ guest rooms must pay all employees $15.37/hour by July 1, 2015; hotels with 150+ guest rooms must pay all employees $15.37/hour by July 1, 2016.  Perhaps most importantly, ther

On election day this year, voters in San Francisco passed Proposition J and Measure FF in Oakland which will subsequently raise the minimum wage in both cities.  Under the new minimum wage rates for San Fransisco, it will increase as follows: $11.05 per hour on January 1, 2015 $12.25 per hour on May 1, 2015 $13.00 per hour on July 1, 2016 $14.00 per hour on July 1, 2017 $15.00 per hour on July 1, 2018 As for Oakland, the new minimum wage rate will increase to $12.25 per hour on March 2, 2015.  From that point on, every January 1, the minimum wage rate will increase, indexed to inflation. These are both significant minimum wage increases that passed muster with voters this election cycle.  The question becomes, will this become a pattern for other cities or states in the coming years? Additional information on San Francisco's minimum wage increase can be found here:  http://sfgsa.org/index.aspx?page=411 Additional information on Oakland's minimum wage in

I only came across a few articles this week that really jumped out at me; namely a couple that deal with new laws that will impact California and Massachusetts employers an employees over the next few months.  I always caution employers (and employees) in states with new employment laws like these to take the time to review the specifics of the law...failure to do so could open both employers and employees up for unwanted (and avoidable) exposure. As always, below are a few articles that caught my eye this week. 6 Steps California Employers Should Take in Preparation for AB 1897 This is one of the better articles I have come across in regard to the impact that AB 1897 is going to have on California employers starting January 1, 2015.  For those not familiar with AB 1897, California employers will now be on the hook when labor contractors fail to follow the law.  ( ie  a California employer has a labor contractor provide workers.  The labor contractor classifies the workers

Chadwell v. Brewer - US District Court for the Western District of Virginia Facts :  Kelly Chadwell worked as a special education teacher in Lee County, Virginia from 2003 until his termination last year.  For the last two years of his employment, Chadwell worked at Jonesville Middle School.  At the school, he had a secluded office at the end of a dead end hallway.  Chadwell shared the office with a teacher's aide, although the aide barely worked in the office.  The principal of the school suspected Chadwell was drinking on the job and got approval from the superintendent and counsel for the school district to place a video camera in Chadwell's office.  A video camera was put inside a stuffed animal and Chadwell was observed on one occasion drinking a beer at his desk.  Chadwell was confronted about the drinking and was given the choice to sign a last chance agreement (which included, in part, that Chadwell take part in alcohol rehabilitation) or be terminated.  When Ch

Note, I realize this EEOC Roundup:  October Edition blog is finally being posted nearly halfway into November.  My apologies for the delay, but work has kept me busier than normal and I have not had as much time to pull this one together. 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: Wells Fargo to Pay $295,000 to Settle Alleged Retaliation Against Hispanic Employee   An EEOC investigation revealed that a Hispanic employee suffered differential treatment based on her race and national origin.  The Hispanic employee reported to the Wells Fargo Human Resources department that she was subjected to differential treatment and her supervisor told her not to speak Spanish during non-duty time.  Afterward, Wells Fargo initiated discipline and ended up terminating the employee for practices other employees regularly engaged in without discipline.  

A couple good articles this week that cover a pretty broad spectrum of employment law issues.  In particular, the note about how Illinois will soon allow employers to pay employee wages via payroll cards sounds interesting...and also like it could lead to several lawsuits. As always, below are a few articles that caught my eye this week. Illinois to Now Allow Employers to Pay Wages Via Payroll Cards Jeffrey Ruzal has a good note on the soon to be effective law that will allow Illinois employers to pay their employees by way of a payroll card.  Of course, employees must agree to be a part of this program...no employee can be forced to participate.  Jeffrey has a few thoughts and reminders for employers who decide to go down this road.  Food for thought. A California Employee is Fired/Quits - A Reminder on When the Final Paycheck is Due Earlier this year, I wrote a blog on how the final paycheck of a Texas employee is handled.  This particular article deals with when

Yes indeed, today is election day.  That means that many employees will be going to the polls before, during, and after their work day.  For those employees who want to go vote during the work day, the question arises, can they?   Well, like with any good legal question, the answer is, "It depends."  Depending upon what state you are in, employees may be entitled to paid time off to go vote.  A brief overview of which states allow for paid time off, which don't, and which states haven't specifically addressed the issue: Paid Time Off States Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, West Virgina, and Wyoming No Paid Time Off States Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, North Dakota, and Wisconsin States That Have No Law on the Issue Connecticut, Washington D.C., Delawar

Cochran v. Schwan's Home Service, Inc. - California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Two Facts :  The Plaintiff, Colin Cochran, sought to bring a class action against Schwan's based upon Shwan's failure to reimburse him and similarly situated employees for use of their personal cell phones for work related calls.  The Superior Court denied the motion for class certification.  In essence, the Superior Court held that individual fact issues were prevalent (so a class action on behalf of the group would not be appropriate) such as whether employees paid for the cell phone plan themselves, whether employees purchased different cell phone plans because of work phone usage, etc.   Holding :  The Court of Appeal reversed the Superior Court and held that it is irrelevant whether an employee has "unlimited minutes" or actually paid the cell phone bill by himself/herself.  The Court held that the critical issue is whether the employee was re