Skip to main content

What I've Been Reading This Week


I had intended to post an additional article earlier this week but got tied up with work on a trial.  With that being said, on my flight back home, I was able to find a few good articles that really ran the gamut of topics this week.  The one I would point readers to in particular is a Second Circuit decision that held that anti-gay discrimination in the workplace is prohibited under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  I suspect that this issue will eventually reach the Supreme Court, given an expected split among circuits on the matter.  However, as I note below, the Second Circuit opinion is worth a read.

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


Second Circuit Holds Anti-Gay Discrimination in the Workplace is Prohibited Under Title VII

To call a Second Circuit ruling last week that held anti-gay discrimination in the workplace is prohibited under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 "groundbreaking" is an understatement.  While the ruling does not apply nationwide (it only will impact employers/employees in the Second Circuit), if other courts follow the Second Circuit's holding, anti-gay discrimination in the workplace could become the new norm.  Readers might recall that Title VII bars discrimination in the workplace, schools, and other settings based upon race, nationality, and sex.  If these civil rights protections are expanded nationwide to also protect LGBTQ people (as the Second Circuit's opinion does), this decision could be considered a landmark case.  While the Second Circuit's opinion is quite lengthy, it is worth paging through for a sense of how the Court arrived at its decision.


Do Laws Barring Employers From Asking About Salary History Actually Matter?

Noam Scheiber at The New York Times wrote an interesting article a few weeks ago in which he surmised that laws in New York City, Delaware, and California which bar employers from asking applicants about their salary history might not actually be having its intended effect.  Many of these laws were passed to prevent discrimination that can arise when an employer judge's an applicant's worth based upon his/her previous salary history which can further increase pay disparities and other obstacles that confront some applicants.  However, as Scheier suggests, employers that cannot ask about prior salary history might assume a female candidate would accept less pay than a male (since women tend to earn less than their male counterparts).  In fact, one study shows that some employers tend to assume things about certain applicants when they are barred from explicitly asking (such as the criminal history of young black and Hispanic males in cities that have ban the box measures in place).  It leads one to think that employers would also assume similar things in regard to salary history of certain applicants in parts of the country that prohibit asking about prior salary history.  While these laws are well intentioned...perhaps that are not as effective as lawmakers would have expected.


Wage Theft a Growing Concern As Hourly Wages Rise in Santa Fe

Stop me if you have heard this one before:  A state, county, city, etc. approves a wage hike and some employers decide to play hardball and for some given reason decide they are not going to comply with the new hourly wage requirement.  The tough thing for some employees that deal with these wage theft issues is the fact that the laws/ordinances that approved the wage hike often do not have the teeth to make enforcement a reality.  Sometimes that is because there are not the means/resources to actually enforce the wage hikes or perhaps the penalties are not severe enough for employers to care.  Regardless, as Tripp Stelnicki at The New Mexican explains, after the hourly wage rate in Santa Fe rose to $11.40/hour, people have started to notice a steady uptick in wage theft claims made against employers over the past few years.  In fact, some observers think that many wage theft claims actually go unreported, in part because of language barriers or a lack of knowledge on how to actually have a wage theft claim properly investigated and resolved.  Is there a solution?  More/better enforcement, an increase in knowledge on how to actually file a wage theft claim, more stringent penalties on employers, etc.  The real question is what will actually make a difference so these hourly workers realize an increase in their hourly pay rates without being cheated by their employers.  Time will tell.


A Burger Flipping Robot: The Next Employee of the Month?

The Washington Post published an article a few days ago that highlighted a burger flipping robot that is currently in operation at a California fast food burger location.  This robot, expected to sell for $60,000.00 once other employers can buy it in the coming months, can receive orders, flip burgers, monitor meat temperatures, and rotate between spatulas, among other take.  The only thing this robot cannot do?  Put the meat patty on the grill.  Besides that ‘downside’, similar to automated machines that have started to be installed at fast food locations to take a customer’s order, I think employers will continue to look at alternatives to combat rising labor costs.  Will all minimum wage jobs vanish overnight?  Certainly not.  But for those thinking their hourly wage job is immune to automation and eventual replacement, I would tread carefully.

Comments

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, it was noted that emplo

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per