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,...
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