Skip to main content

What I've Been Reading This Week


Earlier this week, I was gearing up for the March 16th confirmation hearing for Alexander Acosta, President Trump's nominee for Labor Secretary.  However, given the delay in that confirmation hearing, we will likely have to wait another week for any new developments on that front.  With that being said, I did want to start this post off with a reference to that confirmation hearing and the reason for the apparent week long delay.

As always, below are a couple articles that caught my eye this week.


Labor Secretary Nominee's Confirmation Hearing Postponed

Since President Trump's new nominee for Labor Secretary, Alexander Acosta, was announced, it has been relatively smooth sailing (in comparison to the prior nominee, Andy Puzder).  Although Acosta's confirmation hearing before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee ("HELP") had been set for yesterday, according to Jill Disis over at CNN, the hearing has been pushed back a week.  The reason you ask?  Was it because of Acosta's delay in turning over requested documentation and information or perhaps some breaking news scandal?  No, it was much less "flashy"...the HELP Chairman, Senator Lamar Alexander, was going to be traveling back to his home state to make an appearance with President Trump.  With the Chairman of the Committee being unavailable for the scheduled March 16th hearing, it has now been re-set to March 22nd.  I doubt this will impact the likelihood of Acosta's confirmation...but opponents to his nomination will now have a bit more time to investigate his background.


Op-Ed Proposes Limits to Non-Competes in Wisconsin

David Haynes over at The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel wrote an article earlier this month and advocated for loosening the overly restrictive nature of non-competes in the state.  In his article, Haynes argues that Wisconsin should actually be taking steps to limit the restrictive nature of non-competes (counter to what the State Legislature has attempted to do recently), which would in turn create greater job growth.  Whether non-competes actually have the "chilling" effect in the state that Haynes suggests is up for debate...but there certainly is some merit to the argument that the restrictive nature of non-competes in Wisconsin might be preventing some job growth in several sectors of the state economy.


Employers Beware: The Lack of an Oxford Comma Could Be Costly

Earlier this morning, I came across Daniel Viktor's article over at The New York Times in which he noted that a recent decision out of the First Circuit Court of Appeals could cost an employer upwards of $10 million in a class action overtime pay lawsuit.  The reason you ask?  The lack of an Oxford comma in a state statute...specifically in relation to an exemption for overtime pay carved out in a section of the relevant statute.  There is not necessarily anything he employer could have done differently in this instance (in regard to how the statute was written...and then interpreted by the Court of Appeals).  However, with the Court of Appeals reversing the District Court's ruling in favor of the employer, might we see the Supreme Court take the case?  Regardless, this is an interesting (if not thought provoking) case note that is worth checking out.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more