The Majority Opinion: Legal Blog

Ziober v. BLB Resources, Inc. - Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Facts :  Kevin Ziober ("Ziober") worked as an operations director for BLB Resources, Inc. ("BLB").  About six months after joining BLB, Ziober signed an agreement that required the arbitration of legal disputes.  Ziober, who served in the United States Navy Reserve, was recalled into active duty to serve in Afghanistan.  On his last day of scheduled work, BLB apparently told him that he would not have a job upon his return from active duty. Ziober subsequently filed suit against BLB in April 2014 upon his return from Afghanistan on the grounds that he was allegedly terminated from his job after providing notice of his deployment to Afghanistan as part of the United States Navy Reserve.  Ziober alleged violations of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Act of 1994 ("USERRA").  BLB moved to compel arbitration based upon the agreement signed by Ziober.  The district court

Age discrimination is a topic that I come across every so often, but not a lot of cases/developments jump out.  With that being said, given a recent age discrimination related ruling from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and two recent age discrimination suits filed against Tesla and Google, I think this is a good time to devote attention to the topic. As always, below are a couple articles that caught my eye this week. 11th Circuit Holds "Subtle" Age Discrimination Lawful (For John Applicants) Earlier this month, the 11th Circuit held that subtle age discrimination is lawful in regard to the hiring of job applicants.  According to the Court of Appeals, job applicants cannot benefit from the disparate impact provision of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA").  Instead, only employees are entitled to protections under the ADEA.  Noah Feldman over at Bloomberg breaks down the Court's ruling well and points out how the Court arrived at the s

Recently, Associated Builders and Contractors (and national trade associations) brought suit in Texas to challenge the implementation of the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces rule.  This rule, which has also been referred to as the "Blacklisting Rule" would require that contractors who seek federal work to disclose recent labor law violations.  This rule arises out of Executive Order No. 13673 (issued by President Barack Obama on July 30, 2016) which was designed to achieve sweeping labor law reforms.  The Obama administration's goal with the Blacklisting Rule was to withhold government contracts from employers with a history of violations.  Opponents of the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces rule argued that it violated contractors' First Amendment rights and would restrict open competition for federal contracts by forcing companies to disclose allegations of unadjudicated labor and employment law violations.   Late Monday, Judge Marcia Crone from the U.S. Distric

Soto v. Motel 6 Operating, L.P. - California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District - Division One Facts :  Lidia Soto ("Soto") worked for Motel 6 for nearly two and a half years as a nonexempt employee.  Upon leaving her position with Motel 6, she brought a representative PAGA action against her former employer on the grounds that Motel 6 violated California Labor Code Section 226(a).  Soto claimed that Motel 6 violated Section 226(a) by failing to provide nonexempt employees with a wage statement that set forth "all vacation and PTO (paid time off) wages accrued during the applicable pay period." Motel 6 demurred and claimed that Section 226(a) does not require that employers itemize the monetary value of vacation balances before the employment relationship is terminated.  Soto countered and argued that Section 226(a) requires itemization of earned "wages" and other California cases have recognized that vacation pay is a "wage". 

On November 8, voters in Alabama will get to decide whether to amend the state constitution and solidify the right to work law in the state.  Amendment 8 would write right to work into the state constitution (and therefore make it harder to repeal).  Readers might recall that a similar ballot initiate will be up for vote in Virginia this November as well.   Similar to Virginia, if this amendment passes and right to work is written into the state constitution, it would become difficult (if not nearly impossible) to undo the law.  Any attempt to change the law (and amend the constitution) would require a three fifths vote in both the House and Senate in Alabama and then a statewide vote. Alabama, a right to work state since 1953, is a heavily unionized state.  In fact, approximately 10.2% of the workforce belonged to a union in 2015.  For a southern state, that is a somewhat unprecedented number of union workers.  Common thought would follow that this proposed constitutional amend

I come across ERISA articles and related lawsuits every so often.  Given the rather complex nature of these cases, I do not go too in depth, but enjoy skimming through them.  This week, I came across an update on three class action ERISA suits brought against MIT, NYU, and Yale that I think readers would enjoy.  Even for those who do not know much about ERISA, this article does a good job breaking down the basics of the case and what the grounds are for the suits. As always, below are a couple articles that caught my eye this week. Recent ERISA Suits Brought Against MIT, NYU, and Yale As John Manganaro over at planadviser writes, three separate class action ERISA suits were filed against MIT, NYU, and Yale on the grounds that the universities breached their duty of loyalty and prudence under ERISA by causing plan participants to pay millions of dollars in "unreasonable and excessive fees" for record keeping, administrative, and investment services of the retirement

Readers might recall that two lawsuits have recently been filed which challenge the new overtime rules that were set to go into effect December 1, 2016.  One suit was filed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce while the other suit was filed by several business groups and officials from 21 (predominantly Republican) states.  Under the new overtime rules, employers would be required to pay overtime to any salaried worker who earns less than $47,500/year.  For those unfamiliar with the current rules, the minimum threshold is presently $23,600/year. Earlier this month, the 21 states that filed one of the suits requested that an emergency injunction be issued to stop the implementation of the new rules.  Note, the request is not limited to only the 21 states that have brought suit...and instead would apply nationwide if the injunction were granted. It will be interesting to see how this one plays out...given that Congress recently approved a six month delay in the implementation of t

In a few short weeks, voters in Virginia (and four other states) will make decisions that will impact the right to work law in the state.  For those not familiar with right to work, these laws protect employees from being required to join a union, while also allowing non-union employees to benefit from collective bargaining or negotiating done by a union.  Critics of right to work have routinely called these laws an attack on unions and enable non-union members to take advantage of the work unions do without having to pay union dues. Virginia, a right to work state since 1947, has a proposed state constitutional amendment ballot initiative that voters will decide upon November 8th.  The proposed ballot initiative would essentially strengthen the existing right to work law already in place by amending the state constitution and placing the right to work law in the constitution.  Note, at this time, the right to work law in Virginia exists by way of statute.  In theory, at any po

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. One of the more prevalent employment and labor law developments across the country over the past several months has been the continued fight for higher minimum wage rates.  In fact, there are several minimum wage ballot initiatives pending this November.  In Washington, Initiative 1433 is a minimum wage ballot measure that, if approved, would increase minimum wage rates in the state as follows:  $11/hour in 2017, $11.50/hour in 2018, $12/hour in 2019, and ultimately $13.50/hour by 2020.  After 2020, the wage rate would be annually adjusted for inflation.  (Note, the current minimum wage rate in the state is $9.47/hour...but that will automatically increase to $9.53 next year). I have seen less polling on this ballot measure than others in the country.  With that being said, Initiative 1433 does not appea

It seems like this election cycle, either minimum wage or parental leave have been one of the more discussed labor & employment law topics.  Given Donald Trump's announcement a few weeks ago of his proposed paid maternity leave plan, I think it is a good idea to take a look at the broader issue:   Paid maternity leave (or the lack thereof) in the U.S. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Chobani Announces New Parental Leave Plan Chobani, one of the leading yogurt makers, announced earlier this month a new parental leave plan that would prove for six weeks of fully paid parental leave for new mothers and fathers at the company.  As Michael Addady writes, this expansive new policy applies to both salary and hourly workers...and even applies to those workers who adopt a child.  Given that the U.S. is the only industrialized country that does not require employers provide paid parental leave for new parents, this move by Chobani is somew

Chadwick v. Duxbury Public Schools - Massachusetts Supreme Court Facts :  From 2006 until 2015, Nancy Chadwick ("Chadwick") was employed as a teacher at Duxbury High School.  In 1998, Chadwick was diagnosed with PTSD but was able to manage the symptoms until 2009.  After 2009, she experienced issues related to her PTSD which she claimed were caused by bullying and harassment from her supervisor.  Chadwick had her attorney notify the school that she requested an accommodation in the form of a replacement supervisor but the school did not change supervisors.  Throughout 2013 and 2014, Chadwick and the school engaged in a series of "interactions" which Chadwick claimed involved discrimination and retaliation against her.  After being placed in a disciplinary action program in mid 2014 that could result in her termination, Chadwick brought a discrimination suit. Duxbury sent discovery requests to Chadwick that asked for certain documentation in relation to the

Recently, it was announced that minimum wage rates will be going up in Ohio, Washington and New Jersey in 2017.  Of course, the minimum wage hike in both states is still a far cry from what the Fight for $15 movement would like:  Ohio will raise minimum wage rates $.05 from $8.10 to $8.15/hour; Washington will raise minimum wage rates from $9.47 to $9.53/hour; and New Jersey workers will see a $.06 increase in the minimum wage rate from $8.38 to $8.44/hour. It is important to note that this was not the result of a hard fought piece of recent legislation (or Republican governors in Ohio or New Jersey taking action on the matter.  Note, Washington has a Democratic governor).  Instead, the increase is tied to an increase in the Consumer Price Index (which has risen .7% in the past year) This might not be the news that proponents of minimum wage increases were hoping to hear...but it is at least a step in the right direction.  Slowly but surely that is... For additional i

Tough to say what was the bigger development recently:  Paid sick leave for those working federal contracts or an increase in the minimum wage rate in Palo Alto.  Both will likely have major implications going forward, not just for those workers directly impacted, but for other cities and states that might now follow suit.  As always, below are several articles that caught my eye this week. Minimum Wage Becomes Focal Point of Vice Presidential Debate This past Tuesday, Governor Mike Pence and Senator Tim Kaine met for the first (and only) vice presidential debate.  During the 90 minute debate, Senator Kaine was quick to raise the topic of minimum wage and point out differences between the two tickets (namely that the Democrats have advocated for a $15/hour wage rate while the Republicans have seemed to suggest workers are already being paid too much).   Fox 29 has a good look at the topic and how arguments played out.  Worth a quick review, even for those who did watch the

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. A week or so ago, I had made note of Colorado's Amendment 70 which is a ballot initiative that seeks to raise the minimum wage rate in the state to $12/hour by 2020 .  In that post, I had pointed out that similar minimum wage ballot initiatives were pending in Arizona, Washington, and Maine this election cycle.  In fact, I had written about Arizona's minimum wage debate in late September , but thought it would be appropriate to again highlight Prop 206, given that the election is only about a month out. For those that are unaware, Prop 206 is the ballot initiative in Arizona that seeks to raise the state's hourly minimum wage rate from $8.05/hour to $10/hour in January 2017 and then further increase it to $12/hour in 2020.  To the surprise of very few, the minimum wage debate has found its wa

Recently, both Seattle and New York City have taken steps to pass ordinances that will mandate predictive schedules for many workers in each city.  Seattle recently approved the measure, which will go into effect next July.  As for New York City, a similar predictive schedule bill is currently under consideration.  Readers might remember that San Francisco has previously passed similar legislation into law which requires many employers in the city to post work schedules for their employees a few weeks in advance and face penalties if those schedules change.   The rationale behind these laws goes something like this:   Requiring that employers post schedules in advance allows their employees to have better control over their work/life balance, be better able to coordinate other jobs they have, not be at the 'mercy' of their employer that constantly changes work schedules, etc.  The fact that both Seattle and New York City have followed San Francisco's lead is not all

Readers might remember a piece of legislation that had been pending in California earlier this year.  Assembly Bill 1676 was introduced in the state legislature and sought to prevent employers from asking about an applicant's prior salary history and bar an applicant's salary history from justifying a gap in wages between men and women.  By the time A.B. 1676 cleared the Senate, the only major part of the bill that remained was barring employers from using prior salary history, alone, to justify a difference in wages.  Based upon this bill signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown on Friday, employers could still use prior salary history as a factor in determining wage rates...but simply could not use solely the prior salary history factor to make its determination.   As proponents of this bill have long argued, this legislation was necessary to eliminate pay discrimination in the state.  Although it does not go as far as many would have liked (considering how the Senate