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 couple EEOC cases and settlements that stand out: United Bible Settles Pregnancy Discrimination Suit for $75,000.00 Recently, a federal judge awarded a pregnancy discrimination victim approximately $75,000.00 in back pay and damages.  The case arose out of a claim that United Bible violated federal law by enforcing an unlawful "no pregnancy in the workplace" policy which prohibited the continued employment of any employee who became pregnant...(yes, really...).  Under the policy, any pregnant applicant who sought a resource technician position was refused the position.   United Bible apparently fired Sharmira Johnson, a resource technician who provided care to residents, once she became pregnant.  Even though United Bible argued the termination was lawful because it was done to ensure Johnson's safety, as well as the safety of her unb

A much shorter week in the office for me than normal.  With having to travel a few days this week for work, I did not have as much time to read on my downtime. With that being said, as always, below are a few articles that caught my eye this week. Caitlyn Jenner & Transgender Workers This is a good article from Eric Meyer on transgender workers and OSHA guidance for employers on restroom access for these workers.  With the recent announcement from Caitlyn Jenner and the subsequent Vanity Fair article, transgender issues have become a more commonly discussed topic.  Eric's article on this one is well worth a review! Ohio Looks to Pass "Ban the Box" Measure I have blogged about "Ban the Box" measures before, well actually, for quite a while now.  I came across this note from Angela Preston on Ohio's recent efforts to pass a "Ban the Box" measure in the state.  One of the better and more comprehensive articles I have come acros

Runzheimer International, Ltd. v. David Friedlen and Corporate Reimbursement Services, Inc. - Wisconsin Supreme Court Facts :  David Friedlen ("Friedlen") had been an employee of Runzheimer International ("Runzheimer") since 1993 as an at will employee.  However, in 2009, Runzheimer required all employees to sign a restrictive covenant that would prevent the employees form working for competitors for two years after employment with Runzheimer ended.  Friedlen signed the agreement but was subsequently fired two years later.   After consulting with an attorney and being advised the the covenant was unenforceable, Friedlen went to work for a competitor of Runzheimer.  Runzheimer subsequently filed suit against Friedlen and his new employer.  The Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge who initially heard the matter ruled that the covenant's promise of continued employment was not lawful consideration and therefore ruled that the covenant was unenforceable. 

Recently, Senator Chris Murphy (Connecticut) and Senator Al Franken (Minnesota) introduced a new bill, the Mobility and Opportunity for Vulnerable Employees (MOVE) Act, which would enable low wage workers to seek employment elsewhere, without being restricted by non-compete agreements.  Note, the bill is co-sponsored by fellow Democratic Senators, Elizabeth Warren (Massachusetts) and Richard Blumenthal (Connecticut).    Some readers might have heard of a report late last year that Jimmy John's required their workers to sign non-competes which would prohibit their employees from working for a sandwich competitor for two years following employment at Jimmy John's.  ( Jimmy John's Non-Competes ).  Yes, sadly that is a real story... This proposed MOVE Act would ban the use of non-competes by employers, like Jimmy John's, in relation to employees making less than $15/hour, $31,200/year, or the minimum wage in the employee's municipality, and would require emp

Tough to narrow down some of the articles I wanted to post this week.  One of the more interesting reads came from the article about potential issues with off the clock work by non-exempt employees.  This is an issue that could certainly become more prevalent in the coming years, especially with more and more access to work e-mails and databases from smartphones, tablets, etc. As always, below are a few articles that caught my eye this week. Important Deadlines to Keep in Mind For California's Paid Sick Leave Law Another good article from Anthony Zaller; this time in relation to some key deadlines that California employers should keep in mind in regard to California's Paid Sick Leave Law.  While some of the deadlines have already passed, there are a few coming up at the start of July that employers should note.   Workplace Bullying Laws Becoming More Prevalent In US Minding the Workplace has a very well written note on the increasing number of workplace bullyi

Earlier this week, the Colorado Supreme Court announced its ruling in the highly anticipated Coats v. Dish Network case.  I had pointed this one out to readers last September as one to keep an eye on ( Coats v. Dish Network - Original Post )...sure enough, it took a bit longer than expected, but we finally have a ruling.  Coats v. Dish Network - Colorado Supreme Court Facts :  A quadriplegic man, Brandon Coats, lost his job at Dish Network after he was fired for failing a random drug test as a result of off-the-job medical marijuana use.  Coats claimed that he used marijuana to control muscle spasms that had resulted from a car accident that left him wheelchair bound.  Coats brought suit against Dish and claimed he had been unlawfully terminated, as his marijuana use was legal under Colorado state law and he had never been impaired while on the job. The trial court upheld the termination.  The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling on the ground

Noll v. International Business Machines Corp. - Second Circuit Court of Appeals Facts :  Alfred Noll ("Noll") was a deaf software engineer who sued his employer, IBM, for failure to accommodate him under the Americans with Disabilities Act "ADA".  Noll alleged that IBM refused to offer him real-time translation services for intranet files as an accommodation for his disability.  Instead, IBM provided Noll with on site and remote sign language interpreters who could translate the files for him.  However, Noll apparently did not like using the interpreters because looking back and forth between the video and the interpreter was a "confusing and tiring" process. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment in favor of IBM on the grounds that IBM reasonably accommodated Noll by providing a sign language interpreter. Holding :  The Second Circuit Court of Appeals noted upfront that under the ADA and New Y

Late last month, I updated readers on a vote from the Los Angeles City Council to raise minimum wage in the city to $15/hour.  ( Los Angeles City Council Votes to Raise Minimum Wage ).  As I noted, the only thing left for this minimum wage increase to occur was for Mayor Eric Garcetti to sign the measure into law, which I predicted was probable.   This past Saturday, Mayor Garcetti did just that and signed the measure into law which will now make Los Angeles the largest city in the country with a $15/hour minimum wage.  In doing so, the first increase in the minimum wage will occur next July, with wage rates increasing from $9/hour to $10.50/hour.  Then in 2017, and every year thereafter, it will raise another step:  $12, $13.50, $14.25, and then finally to $15/hour.  As has been reported elsewhere, this move by Los Angeles to increase its minimum wage rate could spur other cities to do the same.  At the very least, this minimum wage increase approved by the Los Angeles City

I found a wide range of articles this week that I think readers will enjoy...everything from OSHA and wage and hour issues all the way to criminal background checks in California.  Something for everyone! As always, below are a few articles that caught my eye this week. OSHA's New Rule to Protect Construction Workers in Confined Spaces Recently, OSHA issued a new rule to protect construction workers in confined spaces.  Joe Lustig over at Joe's HR and Benefits Blog has a good look at this recent development and who it impacts.  For those interested in OSHA issues, this is a good one to review. The New Battlefront: When An Employee Works The Washington Post has a great article on how the new wage and hour battlefront is likely to be over when an employee works (ie work schedules and flexible scheduling bills being considered around the country), rather than simply how much an employee makes.  The article is very, very thorough and paints a broad picture of

With the recent news out of New Mexico that a Right to Work piece of legislation failed to pass ( New Mexico Right to Work Bill Fails to Pass ), earlier last month Maine also failed to pass a similar Right to Work bill.  In this case, the bill died in the Legislature's Labor Committee after the committee voted 7 - 6 to recommend to the full Legislature to kill the bill.  Unsurprisingly, the Committee's six Democrats voted to kill the bill along with one independent; the Committee's six Republicans voted to support the Right to Work bill. At this point, the Right to Work legislation issues is dead in the state.  Keep words are "at this point."  As the proponent of the bill, Representative Larry Lockman noted, the effort to pass Right to Work legislation can take several years.  In this case, that's likely what it will take in a northeastern state that is traditionally a union friendly area.   For additional information:   http://bangordailynews.com/201

Boyer-Liberto v. Fontainebleau Corp - Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals Facts :  Reya Boyer-Liberto ("Liberto") was an African American employee at the Clarion Resort Fontainebleau Hotel in Ocean City, Maryland.  At the hotel, Liberto worked as a cocktail waitress.  On two occasions within a 24 hour period, Liberto was called a "porch monkey" and threatened with the loss of her job by a white restaurant manager.  The manager also threatened to "get" Liberto and "make her sorry".  After Liberto subsequently reported to higher ups at the hotel about the manager's conduct and the racial harassment, Liberto was fired. Liberto brought a hostile work environment and retaliation claim against Fontainebleau on the basis of violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  The district court awarded summary judgment in favor of Fontainebleau. Holding :  In its decision to reverse the district court's ruling, the Fourth Circuit

Another Friday and I find myself somewhere over the Rockies, en route to the west coast.  The wifi has been spotty, so I am working on tying this up before losing the connection again. Given the attention and press earlier this week from the United State Supreme Court's ruling in the EEOC v. Abercrombie and Fitch case, I thought this post should focus on that topic.  ( Breaking: Supreme Court Issues Opinion in EEOC Case ).  I found a lot of articles that just summarized the Court's opinion, but most of you have already read that.  Instead, I wanted to find a few articles that gave a different perspective and branched out on the topic. As always, below are a few articles that caught my eye this week. Abercrombie Loses - Now, Time To Regroup Slate has a good overview of the ruling from the Supreme Court earlier this week.  I included the article so readers could have another quick overview of the outcome of the case.  As well, the article includes a statement

As with many labor and employment 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 :  Employees claimed that Wal-Mart promised paid rest and meal breaks, but then allegedly forced the employees to miss breaks or work through them, and also work off the clock.  A class of 187,979 employees from Wal-Mart stores in the Pennsylvania area brought suit and and alleged wage and hour violations. Looking Back :  A jury awarded the class a judgment for $187,648,589.00.  On appeal, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld the jury's award on the grounds that liability had been established by evidence of class-wide violations.  The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that the employees had established damages through "data and analysis from Wal-Mart's own business records, including time clock and cashier log in data." Current Status :  Wal-Mart currently has a petition for certior

Within the past hour, the United States Supreme Court announced its ruling in the EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch case.  This is one of the premier and more talked about employment law cases that had been pending before the Supreme Court this term.  ( One to Keep an Eye On: EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch ). Facts :  For those not familiar with this one, Samantha Elauf applied for a job at Abercrombie. During the interview, she wore a head scarf but did not specifically state that as a Muslim, she wanted Abercrombie to give her a religious accommodation.  The Abercrombie manager who interviewed her did not ask about the headscarf or Elauf's religion.  After the manager consulted with her supervisor about the head scarf, the supervisor said Abercrombie employees were not allowed to wear hats of any kind as it violated Abercrombie's "Look Policy" which provided requirements on how employees had to dress (and prohibited the head scarf that Elauf wore).  As a res

As always, there are some recent EEOC cases that jump out at me when I review recent development on that front.  Below are a couple EEOC cases and settlements that stand out: Tiny's Organic Settles Pregnancy Discrimination Suit for $17,500.00 Earlier in May, the EEOC announced that Tiny's Organic would pay $17,500.00 to settle a pregnancy discrimination claim brought by a former employee.  The EEOC had alleged that Tiny's fired Maria Guillen nine days after she disclosed that she was pregnant with twins.  Even though Guillen had worked at Tiny's for over six years and had worked her way up, her employer claimed it feared for her safety and company liability.  Even though Guillen had a doctor who cleared her to perform her job without medical restrictions, Tiny's refused.  This conduct violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits discrimination based upon pregnancy, childbirth, or any medical condition related to pregnancy or childb