Skip to main content

What I've Been Reading This Week


Every so often I come across an interesting ERISA case or compelling article on the topic.  This week, I read a thorough case analysis of a recent ERISA case out of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals that dealt with a venue selection clause.  While ERISA might not be an everyday matter that readers deal with in the workplace, I highlight this article to give readers a broad overview of a wide range of employment and labor law topics.

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


Consistency Is Key With Restrictive Covenants in Employment Agreements

Consistency, consistency, consistency.  If there is one takeaway from Melissa Dunn's article about employers attempting to utilize and enforce restrictive covenants, this is the message to key in on.  I point readers in particular to the "lessons for employers" provided at the end.  However, note that while consistency (in terms of enforcement) is vital, Melissa is careful to differentiate and establish that consistency does not necessarily mean sticking to the same non-compete agreement for all employees.  Food for thought.


Illinois Governor Vetoes $15/Hour Minimum Wage Legislation

Recently, Illinois Republican Governor Bruce Rauner vetoed a bill that would have raised hourly minimum wage rates in the state up to $15/hour by 2022.  The current hourly rate, $8.25, would have been raised to $9/hour in January and gradually increased to the $15/hour threshold by 2022.  While Governor Rauner's veto should not come as much of a surprise, had the legislation been approved, Illinois would have joined California and New York as the third state to pass $15/hour legislation.  As Alexia Elejadle-Ruiz at The Los Angeles Times writes, while state lawmakers could attempt to override Rauner's veto, there do not appear to be enough votes to do so.  For the time being, the "Fight for $15" has stalled out in Illinois.


Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Rules on ERISA Plan's Venue Selection Clause

At the start of August, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion in In re Mathias in which the Court held in a 2 - 1 split decision that a venue selection provision in an employee benefit plan governed by ERISA was enforceable and was not inconsistent with ERISA's venue provision in ERISA Section 502(e)(2).  Interesting to note this was a case of first impression for the Seventh Circuit (and tracked a similar decision from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals).  For those looking for a rather in depth and thorough analysis of In re Mathias, this article from The National Law Review is worth a read.

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