The Majority Opinion: Legal Blog

I came across several great articles this week, but I have had to keep this post shorter given the limited time I have had to post an update this week.  With that being said, the article that has an update on Wisconsin's Right to Work law is well worth a read.   As always, below are a couple articles that caught my eye this week. Federal Judge Throws Out Challenge to Wisconsin's Right to Work Law Recently, U.S. District Court Judge J.P. Stadtmueller threw out a case filed by labor unions which sought to challenge Wisconsin's Right to Work law on the grounds that it violated the National Labor Relations Act.  As David Schuyler over at The Milwaukee Business Journal writes, Judge Stadtmueller cited a case from the Seventh Circuit which upheld Indiana's Right to Work law as support for his ruling.  To the surprise of probably no one, the unions have indicated they will appeal the ruling.  As always, stay tuned.   U.S. Lags in the Area of Paid Parental Leave

As with many employment and labor law related cases (and bills) being litigated around the country, there are always a few that stand out.  This is one to keep an eye on. Similar to the minimum wage fight in Arizona (and Washington & Maine), there is a pending minimum wage ballot measure that will go before voters this November.  If approved, Amendment 70 would raise the minimum wage rate in the state from $8.31/hour to $12/hour by 2020.  Last week, U.S. Labor Secretary Tom Perez voiced his support for Amendment 70 and indicated that the Obama administration backed the ballot measure as well.  Given that Colorado is a swing state this election cycle (well, depending who you ask) and tends to be a more liberal state, I think this ballot measure stands a good shot of becoming law.  With that being said, one of the holdup a could be the fact that this is a 'flat' increase to $12/hour across the state.  While Oregon implemented different minimum wage rates for urba

As with many employment and labor law related cases being litigated around the country, there are always a few that stand out.  This is one to keep an eye on. Facts :  The National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB") issued a decision in 2014 in this case that employment contracts which banned class action lawsuits and required employees to arbitrate employment disputes on an individual basis violated the National Labor Relations Act. The Main Issue :  Are employment contracts that require workers to arbitrate disputes individually, and constitute class action waivers, valid under federal labor laws? Current Status :  A petition for certiorari was filed with the United States Supreme Court by the NLRB and the Justice Department. Looking Ahead :  I think it is likely that the Supreme Court will consider this issue as two prior cert petitions were recently filed by employers (Epic Systems and Ernst & Young) that also dealt with class action waivers.  Given the spl

A few weeks ago, the NLRB made a major ruling when it decided that graduate students at private universities can unionize .  To many, this was a landmark decision that again overturned prior NLRB rulings.  Even though the dust has not settled yet, I think this is a good time to highlight a few articles which touch on that NLRB ruling. As always, below are a couple articles that caught my eye this week. A Closer Look at the Board's Ruling and Resulting Impact Natasha Baker over at Inside Higher Ed has one of the more well thought out examinations of the Board's ruling and what the possible impact might be.  Tracking the Board's decision and analysis, Baker does a good job tracking prior decisions that ultimately led to this one.  It goes without saying that Baker took it one step further and offered a look at what the possible impact this decision could have going forward.  I would consider this a good supplement to those who want to read more than just the Board

Although I had already posted an article earlier this morning, this breaking development out of Texas is too important to not write about immediately. Earlier today, two lawsuits were filed to challenge the new overtime rules.  The first suit was brought by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.  The second was brought by several business groups and officials from 21 states.  Both suits were filed in federal court in the Eastern District of Texas to challenge the Department of Labor's new overtime rules set to take effect December 1 .  (The 21 states include Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and Wisconsin).  For those needing a refresher, under the new overtime rules, employers would be required to pay overtime to any salaried worker that earns less than $47,500/year.  (Note, that threshold is double the current minimum rate of $23,66

Minimum wage issues have continued to develop around the country over the past few months.  Some cities and states such as California and New York have taken steps to raise the minimum wage rates, while others, such as New Jersey and Minneapolis have declined to raise wage rates.  Recently, there has been some movement on the issue in Arizona.  As a result, I think it is important to highlight a few key points in regard to this fight to increase the minimum wage rate in the state: Judge Tosses Challenge to Minimum Wage Ballot Measure :  A few weeks ago, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Joshua Roberts threw out a case that sought to challenge the signatures gathered that would put a minimum wage ballot measure before voters in November.  In doing so, this now paves the way for voters in the state to decide in November whether to raise minimum wage rates to $12/hour by 2020 (the current minimum wage rate is $8.05/hour). Minimum Wage Issue Could Impact Senate Race :  Give

A few days ago, Republican Presidential candidate, Donald Trump, introduced a plan that would provide for paid maternity leave for workers in the country.  Under Trump's plan, new mothers would be guaranteed six weeks of paid maternity leave (although new fathers would not be guaranteed the same right) which would be paid for via existing unemployment insurance. As others have noted, Trump's proposal breaks from traditional conservative politicians on the issue but still falls short of Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton.  Under Clinton's proposal, twelve weeks of parental (yes, for both mothers and fathers) would be provided and paid for via taxes on the wealthy.  Regardless of who wins in November, it will be interesting to see if any form of either proposal actually becomes law. For additional information:   http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-donald-trump-child-care-policy-20160913-story.html

It has been an extremely busy couple of weeks in and out of the office.  As a result, this is a shorter post than I would have preferred...but I have had less time than normal to read through articles as I would have liked. As always, below are a couple articles that caught my eye this week. NLRB Criticized For Enabling Racially and Sexually Demeaning Misconduct By Striking Workers Recently, D.C. Circuit Judge Patricia Millett authored an opinion (and wrote a concurring opinion) in which he criticized the NLRB for its "too-often cavalier and enabling approach" to racially and sexually demeaning misconduct by employees on strike.  Readers might remember a law passed in Pennsylvania last year which removed the "labor dispute" exemption for unions ...which addressed similar bad behavior as this case.  Interesting to note a high ranking judge take aim at the NLRB for giving "refuge" to conduct that she labeled as being "not only intolerable b

In late August, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") published its final guidance on retaliation, the EEOC's first update on the matter since 1998.  Retaliation is currently the most common charge that is filed with the EEOC (as of 2015, it made up 44.5% of all charges), so it should come as no surprise that updated guidelines were published.  For those not aware, to establish a valid retaliation claim, an employee must show:  1) the employee engaged in protected activity; 2) the employee suffered an adverse action by the employer; and 3) there is a "causal connection" between the protected activity and the adverse action by the employer. In addition, the EEOC also included a question and answer section and a fact sheet to supplement this update.  Even for those readers who do not deal with retaliation issues, this is worth a review. For a copy of the EEOC's guidance on retaliation:  https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/retaliation-g

Recently, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie vetoed a bill that would have raised the minimum wage rate in the state to $15/hour.  Recall that next door in New York, many portions of the state are soon to see $15/hour.   The Governor's veto, in and of itself, was not overly surprising given his prior comments on the issue.  But after his veto, the Governor recently made comments on the reasons for his disagreement with the minimum wage bill.  In essence, Christie argued that a $15/hour minimum wage rate would be a job killer and result in a mass exodus of work to other states.  (That is a relatively 'normal' response to the Fight for $15 movement.  And as recent studies have shown, might actually be true).    However, Christie went one step further and criticized the Legislatire for taking the minimum wage issue up with a planned ballot measure.  Not one to shy away from conflict, the Governor argued the Legislature in New Jersey was acting counter to its intende

Minimum wage issues across the country are an ongoing development.  In some parts of the country (such as New York and California), minimum wage rates are going into effect with relative ease.  In other parts of the country (such as Minnesota and New Jersey), however, cities and states are struggling to approve minimum wage increases).  As a result, I think this is a good time to highlight minimum wage developments across the country and devote this post to that very topic. As always, below are a couple articles that caught my eye this week. Working the U.S. Open as a Ball Person I know some readers of the blog are probably avid tennis fans...I know we have one loyal reader who follows tennis very closely.  CNN Money has a rather unique look at those who work the U.S Open as a ball person.  (For those not aware, the ball person at a tennis tournament is the person who chases after tennis balls all over the court, provides tennis balls to the players, etc.)  As Ahiza Garcia

Recently, the United Auto Workers ("UAW") requested that Volkswagen recognize the NLRB's order that UAW, Local 42 is the exclusive collective bargaining representative of a group of workers at Volkswagen's plant in Chattanooga.  Readers might remember that a group of workers at that plant voted to form a union and be represented by the UAW .  However, Volkswagen contested the results of that election which ultimately resulted in he NLRB upholding the election results.  To the surprise of few, Volkswagen has chosen to appeal the NLRB's ruling and has taken the case to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.   I do not think that the UAW's request to Volkswagen will go anywhere.  At most, it is the UAW attempting to drum up some publicity (re making 'good faith' efforts to resolve the matter and represent workers at the Volkswagen plant).  On the other hand, I do not think it is any sure thing that Volkswagen will find success in federal court.  The D.

On August 25, the U.S. Department of Labor ("DOL") appealed the injunction granted by a federal judge in Texas that halted the implementation of the 'Persuader Rule' .  Readers might remember that the Persuader Rule would impose significant reporting requirements that would mandate employers or consultants to disclose any arrangement to persuade employees in regard to the formation of a union or collectively bargain. After the Persuader Rule was announced, several lawsuits were filed to challenge its implementation.  Although not all cases were successful, opponents of the Persuader Rule found a receptive court in the Northern District of Texas that agreed the plaintiffs were likely to prevail in their suit that claimed the DOL exceeded its authority and promulgated a rule that was arbitrary, vague, and in violation of federal law and the Constitution. Now just because one judge in Texas granted the injunction does not necessarily mean the Persuader Rule i

It was difficult to narrow things down this week and pick just a few articles to highlight.  With that being said, the article that touched on the NLRB's joint employer standard decision from last year was well thought out and certainly worth a read (even for those who do not follow NLRB/labor law developments). As always, below are a couple articles that caught my eye this week. Minnesota Supreme Court Blocks $15/Hour Minimum Wage Ballot Measure Last week, I had pointed out to readers that the Minnesota Supreme Court would hear arguments this week on whether to allow a $15/hour minimum wage ballot measure would appear on the November ballot .  The Supreme Court issued a unanimous order the day after it heard the case and held that the ballot measure would not appear on the November ballot.  The Supreme Court agreed with the city of Minneapolis and held that the proposal to raise the minimum wage rate in the city was not a proper subject for an amendment to the city'

A few months ago, readers might remember that I pointed out that the New Jersey Legislature had voted to approve a minimum wage hike in the state .  Under the approved legislation, the minimum wage rate would rise to $10.10/hour in the next year and at least $15/hour over the next five.  (The current minimum wage rate in the state is $8.38/hour).  In that article, I had noted that the bill was then going to go before Governor Chris Christie for his approval or veto. As I had suggested previously, I thought that the Governor would likely veto the bill based upon his prior actions and comments on similar legislation.  Well, a few days ago, Governor Christie did just that and vetoed the bill on the grounds that it "would trigger an escalation of wages that will make doing business in New Jersey unfathomable."  Pointing to the increase in hourly minimum wage rates, the Governor referred to the bill as a "really radical increase."  (It is interesting to compare th