The Majority Opinion: Legal Blog

Happy Halloween to readers.  In between waiting for trick or treaters this evening, feel free to peruse the below EEOC developments to pass the time. As always, there are some recent EEOC cases that jump out at me when I review developments on that front.  Below are a couple EEOC cases and settlements that stand out. Disability Discrimination Claim Filed Against Home Depot   At the start of the month, the EEOC filed a disability discrimination suit against Home Depot after it allegedly failed to accommodate and then fired an employee who had a disability related emergency at work.   The lawsuit claimed that the employee held a position at a Home Depot store in Peru, Illinois.  After the employee had a medical related emergency related to her disability that required prompt attention, Home Depot is alleged to have failed to provide her adequate means to attend to the disability and then fired her for minor infractions (caused by Home Depot's alleged failure to accomm

I have previously referenced Republican Governor Bruce Rauner's attempts to allow local governments in Illinois to establish right to work zones .  A somewhat controversial proposal, given the Democratic make up and pro-labor history in the state, Governor Rauner has pushed for this to become a reality in the state.  This past September, Democrats sent Governor Rauner a bill that would prevent local governments from setting up right to work zones and instead give only the General Assembly the ability to create right to work policies.  Unsurprisingly, Governor Rauner vetoed that bill.  As has been mentioned before, this right to work zone dispute arose after the Lake County village of Lincolnshire approved a right to work ordinance in 2015 (that was subsequently struck down in federal court.)  Currently, that case is being appealed with Governor Rauner backing an appeal all the way to the United States Supreme Court. Last Wednesday, Democrats sought to override the Governor&#

Tuesday night's vote in the United States Senate in regard to rescinding a law that allowed consumers to participate in class actions and avoid mandatory arbitration (in claims made against financial institutions), was particularly eye catching.  There is a case with similar issues currently pending before the United States Supreme Court.  While the Senate's Tuesday night vote will likely have little to no effect on the Supreme Court case, there were enough similarities between the two matters that lead me to wonder if Congress might take similar action (in the realm of employment contracts).  Time will tell. As always, below are a couple articles that caught my eye this week. The Save Local Business Act Picks Up Seven New Sponsors Earlier this month, I noted that the Save Local Business Act was gaining momentum as it was starting to work its way through Congress.  ( For those unfamiliar with this proposed bill, it would reverse the National Labor Relations Board'

McKay v. Board of Trustees of Community College - United States District Court, District of Connecticut Facts :  Robert McKay ("McKay") applied for a "Career Specialist" position at Quinebaug Valley Community College but was not selected for an interview.  Instead, several male and female candidates were chosen to interview.  McKay subsequently filed suit and alleged that he had been discriminated against on the basis of his gender.  The Board of Trustees of Community Colleges ("the Board"), the defendant in this case, filed a motion for summary judgment. Holding :  The District Court recognized that for McKay to prevail (or at least survive summary judgment), he would have to establish:  1) he is a member of a protected class; 2) he was qualified for the job that he applied; 3) he was denied the job; and 4) the denial occurred under circumstances taht give rise to an inference of invidious discrimination.  If McKay can establish those four fact

Wheat v. Rogers & Willard, Inc. - United States District Court, Southern District of Alabama, South Division Facts :  Ralph Wheat ("Wheat") was employed by Rogers & Willard, Inc. ("Rogers") as a project manager/estimator until he was terminated at the age of 77.  Wheat subsequently filed suit against Rogers on the grounds that he was terminated because of his age, in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"). In support of his claim, Wheat replied upon notes that Mike Rogers (majority owner of Rogers & Willard, Inc. along with Steve Willard) made at a conference approximately a year before Wheat was terminated.  (Mike Rogers and Steve Willard made the decision to terminate Wheat.)  The notes that Mike Rogers made at the conference included the following:   Immediately under the heading, "Attracting and Retaining employees," Rogers wrote "'Fire all the old people.'  Fiat president."

Earlier this month, California Governor Jerry Brown signed A.B. 168 into law which will prohibit employers from asking about the salary history of job applicants or relying on salary history information (including compensation and benefits) for employment.  (This includes a ban on questions about an applicant's salary history in interview and on applications themselves.)  This new section of the California Labor Code, Section 432.3, will also prohibit agents of the employer (such as recruiters) from asking for this information.  Interesting to note that this new law applies to both public and private sector employers in the state. Taking things one step further, the bill also requires employers, upon reasonable request, to provide an applicant with the pay scale for the position in which they apply.  Bear in mind, the new law still allows an applicant to voluntarily and without prompting disclose salary information to a prospective employer.  So long as the applicant d

Perhaps I should have styled this one as " The New York Times Edition", given that I read a couple great articles from them this week.  With that said, one of the more timely and relevant articles in recent memory has to do with the fight to end sexual harassment in the workplace.  Readers might recall having heard about sexual harassment allegations made against Harvey Weinstein recently (not to mention the allegations over at Fox in recent months).  While the topic is quite sobering, Clyde Haberman penned a well thought out and researched piece on the topic that is worth a read. As always, below are a couple articles that caught my eye this week. Paid Sick Leave to Care For Your Dog? That's Fine...At Least With One Italian Employer Recently, The New York Times posted an article about how Sapienza University in Rome allowed one of its employees to use paid time off to care for her sick English Setter.  While the employer initially counted the days the emplo

Earlier this week, the New York City Council unanimously passed a bill that expands paid sick leave for workers in the city.  The approved bill will now provide victims of domestic violence or sexual assault with the ability to use paid sick time for "court appearances, meetings with law enforcement, serving an order of protection, counseling, or moving to get away from an abuser."  The law, as previously written, only provided paid sick days to victims for physical and mental health needs...and not the victims of domestic violence or sexual assualt. Taking things one step further, the definition of a "family member" that would merit leave time for care was also expanded.  Covered "family members" will now include traditional family members (such as a child, spouse, parent, sibling, etc.) as well as a domestic partner, a blood relative or "any other individual whose close association with the employee is the equivalent of a family relationship

Most employers have been confronted with a similar situation:  An employee walks into the office/workplace and gives their two week notice.  The question that the employer then faces is simple...now what?  While simply saying "Ok" to the employee's resignation and going back to work is not the best way to handle the matter, it is important to take a few steps so there is no confusion about what will happen next.  While this resource is not the definitive guide on the topic and not intended to serve as legal advice (those experiencing a similar situation should consult their HR representative and/or employment law attorney for guidance), it provides a framework that can be referred to when needed. The Employee Gives Their Notice Let us start at the beginning, the employee walks into your office and gives their two week notice.  (Of course, not all employees give two week notice.  Some might give more, some might quit on the spot.)  As any good professional would a

On October 2, the United States Supreme Court denied certioriari in MasTec Advanced Technologies v. National Labor Relations Board .  That case centered on two main questions:   Can an employer terminate an employee for his/her disloyalty when that employee makes disparaging and disloyal public statements about the employer's only customer?; and In such cases, is the employee's disloyalty measured under an objective or subjective standard? Facts :  Many MasTec technicians were involved in a pay dispute with their employer in regard to a new pay policy that had been implemented.  A group of these technicians decided to talk with a local television station about the matter and did interviews in which they claimed their employer instructed them to lie about services provided so additional amounts could be charged to customers.  After MasTec learned that its employees had made disparaging, disloyal, and allegedly untruthful public statements on television about its onl

Player protests in the NFL have dominated the news cycle for several weeks now (with it likely to continue for the foreseeable future).  While we will not delve into the specifics of these protests, an article from The New York Times makes this topic applicable to this blog as that New York Times article addresses whether the National Labor Relations Act provides "protection" for these players.  Even for those who have heard enough about the protests, this article is well worth a read as it provides some guidance on how things could play out if a player were terminated for protesting, sued their employer (the NFL team/owner), and the matter played out in court. As always, below are a couple articles that caught my eye this week. Is Universal Basic Income the Next Frontier For Democrats? Forget "Fight for $15", it appears that some Democrats (or at the very least, progressives) are seeking to make universal basic income the next rallying cause.  Unive

Late last month, Rhode Island Governor Gina Raimondo signed a bill into law that will require employers in the state to offer their employees up to three days of paid sick leave per year, beginning next year.  The bill, the Healthy and Safe Families and Workplaces Act, will further require employers to increase the number of paid sick leave days to four in 2019 and five days in 2020. For those unfamiliar with the paid sick leave fight in Rhode Island, an original proposal called for employers to provide up to seven days of paid sick leave.  Critics of that proposal wanted it scaled back as well as a protection for small business owners.  As noted, this law will eventually require five days of paid sick leave as well as a "small business carve out" for employers with less than 18 employees. Regardless of the concessions made to get this bill across the finish line, this is quite an achievement for the state and paid sick leave proponents. For additional inform

Echevarria v. Utitec, Inc. - United States District Court, District of Connecticut Facts :  Haydee Echevarria ("Echevarria") began working for Utitec, Inc. ("Utitec") on April 23, 2013 as a receptionist and assisted various managerial employees as needed.  Echevarria met Arthur Dostaler ("Dostaler"), an eyelet toolmaker at Utitec, shortly after she was hired and their relationship initially consisted of simply exchanging pleasantries.  In early 2014, Dostaler allegedly began hanging around Echevarria's desk to talk with her about his personal life, work complaints, and Echevarria's appearance.  At Echevarria's request, Dostaler stopped making comments about her clothing and lipstick but she believed he kept giving her "I want you looks".  While Dostaler denied making any comments or giving any looks, Echevarria apparently did not report anything to her supervisors or human resources. On July 17, 2014,  Echevarria, Dostaler,

King v. Ford Motor Company - Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Facts :  LaWanda King ("King") worked for Ford Motor Company ("Ford") as an assembler at one of its vehicle assembly plants.  After transferring to one of Ford's Chicago plants in 2010, King alleged she was sexually harassed by a supervisor and began to be reassigned to less desirable tasks, missed out on overtime, and received unwarranted discipline.  On March 20, 2012, King filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") and alleged she had been sexually harassed and retaliated against.  The EEOC issued a right to sue letter on August 31, 2012, but King moved without advising the EEOC and therefore did not receive the letter.  King was ultimately terminated on April 2, 2013 after missing several weeks of work for medical reasons that Ford alleged she did not properly document. King subsequently filed two more charges of discrimination w

This past Monday, the United States Supreme Court heard arguments on NLRB v. Murphy Oil .   This is one of the paramount employment law cases currently pending before the Court this term and has drawn quite a bit of attention.   The case centers on one principal issue :  Whether an employment contract which requires employees to forfeit their right to join a class action lawsuit and agree to resolve any disagreement by way of binding arbitration (rather than in trial) is lawful.   As Chief Justice John Roberts pointed out during arguments on Monday, a ruling in favor of employees in this case would invalidate employment agreements covering approximately 25 million people.  Given the coverage this case has received over the past week (and the potential ramifications of the Court's ruling), I think it is appropriate to make this case a priority for readers. As always, below are a couple articles that caught my eye this week. NLRB v. Murphy Oil Kicks Off U.S. Su

Back in August, I made note of a union election at a Nissan plant in Mississippi .  That election, which resulted in a nearly 2 - 1 vote against unionization, was somewhat of a paramount moment in the fight of labor unions to get a footing in the south.  Leading up to the election, the United Auto Workers ("UAW") charged that Nissan engaged in unfair labor practices (including threats of shutting down the plant if the workers voted to unionize.)   Since the results of the election were announced, the UAW has kept the pressure up and filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB") on the grounds that Nissan's alleged unfair labor practices prevented a proper election from occurring.  In fact, a few weeks ago, the UAW filed an amended complaint with the NLRB and alleged that Nissan maintained (and continues to do so) an employee surveillance, data collection, and rating system which records employee union activity and subsequently rates t

Back in July, I pointed readers to a bill that was being introduced in Congress:  H.R. 3441 a/k/a the Save Local Business Act .  This bipartisan bill seeks to reverse a 2015 National Labor Relations Board ('NLRB') decision, Browning - Ferris , which changed the definition of joint employer.  Almost immediately after this decision was issued, employers and pro-business groups cried foul as Browning - Ferris made it easier for companies to be considered joint employers and therefore become liable for subsequent labor law violations committed by franchisees and contractors. At this point, readers might be wondering what is next?  Could the NLRB take action before this bill would become law?  Doubtful.  Although the NLRB has recently taken on a 3 - 2 Republican majority (and could therefore issue a decision to 'undo' Browning - Ferris ), the Republican controlled Congress is aggressively moving this bill along.  Today, Wednesday October 4th, the House Education and

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. For those unfamiliar with E-Verify, this process checks the Social Security numbers of recently hired employees against the Social Security Administration and Department of Homeland Security Records to ensure the employee is eligible to work in the United States (and not improperly using someone's Social Security number in order to obtain employment.)  E-Verify is often used to ensure that illegal immigrants are not being hired by employers.  Early last month, three Republican Congressman introduced the Legal Workforce Act (a/k/a H.R. 3711) which would ultimately phase in mandatory E-Verify participation for new hires in six month increments.  That implementation would begin on the date of enactment: Businesses with more than 10,000 employees would have to comply within 6 months; Busines