Skip to main content

What I've Been Reading This Week: Austin's Paid Leave Edition


The City of Austin recently approved a somewhat controversial paid leave ordinance on February 5, 2018.  I call it controversial because pro-business groups and employers have been vocal critics of the ordinance for a handful of reasons (namely that the paid leave ordinance violates the Texas Constitution).   With the recent filing of a lawsuit in District Court in Austin and a few developments on the matter as of late, I thought it would be appropriate to dedicate this post to the topic.

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


Austin's Paid Leave Ordinance Goes to Court

The National Law Review has a good overview of the lawsuit filed by several business groups and staffing agencies that are seeking to invalidate a City of Austin paid sick leave ordinance set to go into effect on October 1, 2018.  (While I linked readers to the petition, above, The National Law Review breaks things down in a concise and easy to follow format).  The ordinance would require businesses with more than 15 employees to provide eight days of paid sick leave.  Businesses with fewer than 15 employees would be required to provide six days of paid sick leave.  (Employees would be able to accrue one hour of sick leave for every 30 hours worked).  However, the lawsuit argues that the paid leave ordinance violates minimum wage laws as employers would be required to pay employees for time spent away from work (which would equate to employers being required to pay more than minimum wage).  No answer has been filed to the lawsuit as of yet.  However, something tells me this one will soon start to garner widespread attention statewide and across the country.


Texas Attorney General Seeks To Limit Austin's Paid Leave Ordinance

On Monday, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a plea in intervention in the recently filed lawsuit that is challenging the City of Austin paid leave ordinance.  The Attorney General argues that the minimum amount of compensation established for workers is laid out in the Texas Constitution.  As a result, the Attorney General stipulates that the paid leave ordinance "is an attempt to unlawfully and inappropriately usurp the authority of the state lawmakers...".  Had I known the Attorney General's position on the matter, I would have talked with him about this when I met with him a few weeks ago in Dallas.  Perhaps another time...


Coalition Uses Austin's Paid Leave Ordinance As Inspiration to Push For Similar Measure in San Antonio

Stanford Nowlin at the San Antonio Current wrote an article recently in which he noted that a coalition has started to push for a paid leave ordinance in San Antonio, as a result of the success of Austin passing one back in February.  Using Austin's paid leave ordinance as a catalyst, labor and community groups are trying to get a ballot measure before voters in the city to consider whether to approve a paid leave ordinance for workers in San Antonio.  In order to get the matter before voters, approximately 75,000 signatures are needed from eligible voters.  While this still has a ways to go, it appears the success of getting a paid leave ordinance passed in Austin (notwithstanding the recent lawsuit) is inspiring other cities to attempt to do the same.

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