Skip to main content

Entire Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals to Rehear Challenge to Alabama's Minimum Wage Act


Recently, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to undertake a full court review of a 2015 Alabama law which prohibits cities or local municipalities in the state from adopting their own laws in regard to minimum wages, leave benefits, collective bargaining, and other employment related matters.  

In order to follow how this case came about, let us start at the beginning.  The Birmingham City Council passed a resolution in 2015 that called on the Alabama Legislature to raise the state's hourly minimum wage rate up to about $10/hour.  After the Legislature declined to do so, the Birmingham City Council passed a local ordinance to increase the minimum wage rates for all hourly workers within the City's boundaries.  The Birmingham local ordinance sought to raise the hourly wage rate from $7.25/hour (the statewide and federal hourly wage rate) up to $10.10/hour.  However, the Alabama Legislature quickly sought to preempt this (and other related) local laws and passed the Minimum Wage Act which mandated that the state's minimum wage rate be set at $7.25/hour with no local ordinances being allowed to set local wage rates above that rate.

A lawsuit was filed soon thereafter that alleged Alabama's statewide law was unlawful as it discriminated against minorities.  After the case was dismissed by a federal district judge in 2017, a three panel judge from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling last year that found that while the lawsuit did not establish a valid 13th or 15th Amendment or Voting Rights Act causes of action lawsuit, a plausible 14th Amendment claim had been plead.  The three member panel noted that the Minimum Wage Act denied 37% of Birmingham's black wage earners a higher wage rate compared to only 27% of white workers.  As a result, it was plausible to find that the Minimum Wage Act bore heavily on black hourly workers and that a valid claim had been established that the legislative vote had been "rushed, reactionary, and racially polarized."  

That victory was short lived as the decision was recently vacated with the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals announcing that the entire Court, all twelve justices, would weigh in on the case this time.  (The Eleventh Circuit's announcement that it would grant a rehearing on the matter vacated the previous decision.)

As some have noted, this announcement by the Eleventh Circuit is somewhat unprecedented and could be an indication that the prior three member decision will be altered or revised in some form or fashion.  Regardless, with approximately twenty other states having similar legislation in place (prohibiting local ordinances that conflict with statewide laws), the decision from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals could have ramifications beyond just Alabama.


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, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

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
Post a Comment
Read more

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
Post a Comment
Read more