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,...

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

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. ...