The Majority Opinion: Legal Blog

As with many employment & 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. Recently, Senate Bill 5312 was introduced in the Washington Legislature and is presently working its way through committee at this time.  Senate Bill 5312 is Washington's version of "ban the box" which seeks to mirror other related bills passed by cities and states on the topic.  If passed, the bill would prevent employers from asking applicants about their criminal history during the initial application process.  Violations of this bill would result in penalties being assessed against employers. Of course, employers could still ask an applicant about their criminal history later on in the application process.  This bill is simply intended to level the playing field and allow all applicants to be judged based upon their qualifications, rather than their criminal history. Senate Bill 5312 al

UNF West, Incorporated v. National Labor Relations Board - Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Facts :  UNF West, Incorporated ("UNF") is a corporation involved in distributing natural and organic foods.  At its facility in Moreno Valley, California, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 166 ("Union") began an organizing campaign in 2012.  A representation election was conducted and the Union lost.  The Union then filed objections based upon alleged unfair labor practices and requested the election results be set aside.  Before an Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") could rule on the objections, the Union withdrew them and sought another election.  Although a new election was set for a short time later, it was canceled the night before it was to take place due to fresh allegations of unfair labor practices by two labor consultants hired by UNF. The two labor consultants, Juan Negroni ("Negroni") and Carlos Ortiz ("Ortiz")

A few good updates were on my radar this week, namely dealing with the right to work legislation working its way through the Missouri Legislature, the Secretary of Labor nominee's delayed hearing, as well as a development on the Harvard student unionization vote.  As a result, I want to keep this update concise and to the point and give readers a bit more information on two major developments on the labor and employment law front from across the country this week. As always, below are a couple articles that caught my eye this week. With Missouri's Right to Work Bill a Near Certainty, Both Sides Gear Up For the Next Fight Never let it be said that supporters and opponents of certain pieces of legislation are not forward thinking.  Celeste Blott over at The St. Louis Post-Dispatch wrote an article earlier this week about AFL-CIO President Mike Louis having recently filed petitions for the 2018 ballot that would seek to reverse any right to work legislation that is pass

Perhaps we should call this the right to work month.  Recently, the New Hampshire Senate approved the right to work bill by a 12 - 11 vote in favor of the legislation moving through the state legislature. It goes without saying that this was an extremely close vote and even though it now moves on to the House, there is no guarantee it will receive the necessary votes there.  Readers might remember that a right to work bill moving through the Missouri legislature appears to have more support (and a likely, if not near certain, chance of becoming law).   Some readers might wonder why New Hampshire is having a tougher time with its right to work law compared to Missouri (and other states that have recently attempted to pass right to work bills).  There are a host of possible explanations but one could be that New England has traditionally been a 'labor friendly' part of the country with a history of strong union support.  In fact, if New Hampshire were to approve its right

For those employers who have not checked or forgot about the change in mileage reimbursement rates, the IRS announced the optional standard mileage reimbursement rates have changed for 2017.  Beginning January 1, 2017, the reimbursement rates have decreased, and are as follows: 53.5 cents per mile for business miles driven; 17 cents per mile driven for medical or moving purposes; and 14 cents per mile driven in service of charitable organizations (same as current rate in effect). For those employers that use the standard IRS rates for mileage reimbursement, make sure to change your expense reimbursement policies.

As with many employment & 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. Recently, House Bill 937 was introduced in the Texas Legislature and seeks to raise the state's minimum wage rate to $10.10/hour over a five year time frame.  The current hourly wage rate ($7.25/hour) has been in effect since 2009 and minimum wage advocates are aggressively attempting to use this bill to jump start the discussion on a higher hourly wage rate in Texas.  State Representative Safronia Thompson (a Democrat from the Houston area) is championing this piece of legislation after a similar measure she supported in the last legislative session failed to pass. Note, there are other bills currently circulating in the Legislature which seek to raise the minimum wage rate to $15/hour.  At this point, it is still too early to say whether any of these bills will become law.  I think the only realis

For those readers who might not have noticed, today is Inauguration Day of the 45th President of the United States.  As much fun as it would be to get into an in depth discussion of the political issues of the day, we will instead stay on topic and take a closer look at President Trump's nomination for Labor Secretary, Andy Puzder.  I have written about Trump's nominee previously, but given that confirmation hearings are yet to occur (and today is Inauguration Day), I think it is appropriate to dedicate this topic to Puzder. As always, below are a couple articles that caught my eye this week. A Closer Look at Andy Puzder Let us start at the beginning and take a closer look at Andy Puzder.  Many readers likely have not heard his name mentioned before (as he does not have a political background and instead comes to the table with sizeable experience in the private sector).  Jodi Kantor and Jennifer Medina at The New York Times have one of the more concise and clear

Yesterday, the Republican controlled Missouri House gave initial approval to the passage of a right to work bill by a 101 - 58 vote that mainly fell along party lines (although there was a lone Democratic vote in favor of the bill's passage).   For those needing a refresher, right to work laws prohibit labor contracts that require all workers who benefit from union representation to have to pay mandatory union dues, even if the worker is not part of the union.  Democrats traditionally oppose these laws as an improper attempt to 'union bust' and cut funding from unions (by not requiring workers who benefit from the union & its collective bargaining, but are not members, to receive a free benefit of the bargain without compensating the union in return).  Republicans on the other hand counter that forcing workers who are not part of a union to be required to pay union dues as a condition of employment is improper. Readers might recall that when Democratic Govern

Clemons v. City of Memphis, Tennessee - United States District Court, Western District of Tennessee, Western Division Facts :  Davin Clemons ("Clemons") was a TACT officer for the Memphis Police Department.  Clemons claimed that during his employment, the City of Memphis and the Memphis Police Department ("Defendants") discriminated against him because of his sex and sexual orientation.  Apparently, Clemons' supervisors told him they did not approve of his 'homesexual lifestyle', made negative comments about Clemons' engagement to a same-sex male officer, and inconsistently applied department policies against him, among other alleged discriminatory conduct.   Clemons subsequently brought a Title VII suit against Defendants on the grounds that he was unlawfully discriminated against because of his sexual orientation.  Defendants moved to dismiss his suit. Holding :  ( Note, this analysis only focuses on the Title VII sexual orientation

Pineda v. JTCH Apartments, LLC - Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Facts :  Santiago Pineda ("Pineda") and his wife lived in an apartment owned by JTCH Apartments, LLC ("JTCH").  Pineda did maintenance work around the apartment complex in return for a discount on his rent.  Pineda initially filed a lawsuit against JTCH for unpaid overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").  Three days after JTCH was served with the summons, Pineda and his wife received a notice to vacate their apartment for nonpayment of rent.  (The amount JTCH demanded was equal to the rent reductions Pineda had received over the course of his employment).  Subsequently, Pineda's wife joined his suit and amended complaint was filed which included a retaliation claim.   In the following jury trial, Pineda unsuccessfully sought an instruction on emotional distress damages for his retaliation claim.  The jury found in favor of Pineda for both his overtime wage

Another short week with work travel has left me less time that I would have liked t read through articles.  Although the update on the approval of D.C.'s new family leave plan is paramount in so much as it may lead to other cities adopting a similar measure.  Time will tell, but this is certainly a major 'win' for advocates of a more comprehensive family leave plan in the U.S. (similar to the rather generous family leave plans offered to employees in other countries, often throughout Europe). As always, below are a couple articles that caught my eye this week. D.C. Approves Broad Family Leave Plan In late December, the D.C. City Council approved by a 9 - 4 vote one of the more expansive family leave plans in recent memory.  ( Readers might recall that the plan was granted preliminary approval in early December. )  As Alison Thoet over at NPR writes, under the approved measure, the Universal Paid-Leave Amendment Act will give 8 weeks of leave to new parents, six

As with many employment and labor law related cases (and bills) that are being litigated around the country, there are always a few that stand out.  This is one to keep an eye on. Facts :  In early December, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion in regard to a Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") suit brought by former student athletes at the University of Pennsylvania .  The student athletes claimed that they were "employees", in accordance with the FLSA, and therefore were entitled to minimum wage as a result of their participation in the women's track and field team while at the university.  As a result, the former student athletes argued they were not paid for their "work" in violation of the FLSA.  The Seventh Circuit issued a ruling from three judges on the bench and dismissed the FLSA suit on the ground that student athletes who voluntarily play sports for a college does not entitle the students to being classified as

Last July, I had pointed readers to a bill working its way through the Legislature in California .  The bill, AB 2337, sought to require employers with 25 (or more) employees to provide specific information in writing to new employees upon hire and to other employees (upon request) of their right to take leave under Labor Code Section 230.1.   For those unfamiliar with Labor Code Section 230.1, it prohibits an employer from discharging or discriminating against an employee who is a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking from taking time off work for specified purposes in relation to their situation.  The Labor Code Section, as written, did not require written notice be given by employers.  However, effective July 1, 2017, employers will now be required to provide this written notice to new employees and current employees (upon request).

Ramirez v. T&H Lemont, Inc. - Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Facts :  Armando Ramirez ("Ramirez") filed a lawsuit against his former employer T&H Lemont, Inc. ("T&H") on the grounds that he had been subjected to discriminatory working conditions and a hostile work environment based upon his national origin.  Ramirez, who is Hispanic and born in Mexico, claimed that he had been fired in retaliation for reporting the alleged harassment.  After approximately three years into litigation and with discovery essentially over, Ramirez and his counsel had been unable to produce any witnesses to corroborate Ramirez's allegations.  Ramirez's counsel subsequently filed a motion to withdraw, however Ramirez was soon after able to locate three former co-workers who confirmed his allegations.   All three co-workers were deposed and gave similar testimony that T&H managerial and supervisory staff made things difficult for Ramirez, referred to him a

Busy, busy week in the office.  With that being said, one of the more "light hearted" articles I came across dealt with an employment law development over in France, in regard to after hour work e-mail usage.  Is it too soon to look at getting a job with a company over there?? As always, below are a couple articles that caught my eye this week. Working in France? Say 'Au Revoir' to Checking Work E-mail After Hours Interesting development in France, where employers with more than fifty employees are now required to negotiate after hours e-mail rules with their employees.  As Alyssa Newcomb over at NBC News writes, this effectively means that employees in the country can now choose to ignore work e-mails once they leave the office.  The article gives a nod to the (slim) possibility this could become a reality for workers in the U.S.   But in the meantime, we can dream, right?? EEOC Publishes Question & Answer Guide On National Origin Discrimination

A few weeks ago, I had pointed readers to a unionization election in which Harvard graduate and undergraduate student research and teaching assistants were to decide whether to form a union.  In late December, it was announced that after several challenges had been made to some of the ballots, the announcement of the results of the election would be delayed .  Interesting to note that although the results were "too close to call", it initially appeared that 1,456 students voted "no" while 1,272 voted "yes".  However, since the number of challenged ballots remains great than the margin of vote that decided the election, no official announcement has been made. On December 30, Harvard student union organizers filed an objection to the election on the grounds that Harvard may have prevented eligible students from participating in the election.  In essence, it has been alleged that the voter list provided by Harvard for the election may have excluded h

In late December, a lawsuit was filed to block the implementation of the minimum wage hike in Arizona.  In that suit, opponents to the minimum wage increase argued the wage hike violated the state's Constitution because Proposition 206 (which was approved by voters in November to raise minimum wage rates) failed to identify a funding source.   However, the Maricopa County Superior Court Judge who heard arguments on the case rejected the challenge.  As a result, a stay was sought with the Arizona Supreme Court...which was subsequently denied with a one sentence statement from the Court late last week. Consequently, the minimum wage hike went into effect on Sunday as originally planned.  As of Sunday, the minimum wage rate in the state is now set at $10/hour.  The minimum wage rate will increase in $.50 increments and eventually reach $12/hour by 2020.  I would not necessarily say the challenge to the minimum wage rate in Arizona is over, but supporters of Proposition 206