Skip to main content

What I’ve Been Reading This Week


With a trial yesterday, most of my week was spent preparing exhibits, witness testimony, trial briefs, etc.  Unfortunately, that left me with little time to read through articles and cases.  Nevertheless, I did come across two topics worth highlighting this week.

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


Amidst Legislative Efforts to Curb Minimum Wage Hike, Arkansas Governor Voices Opposition

Earlier this week, a House panel in the Arkansas Legislature endorsed legislation which would curb minimum wage hikes for certain workers in the state, previously approved by voters last November.  Under the legislation currently pending in the House, small businesses, some nonprofits, and teenagers would be exempted from the minimum wage hike.  (Readers might recall that voters had previously approved a minimum wage hike from $8.50/hour up to $11/hour by 2021.). However, Republican Governor Asa Hutchinson stated his opposition to the legislation as did the state GOP.  Even with this pronounced opposition, the sponsor of the legislation indicated the intent to still bring the matter to a vote.  It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the coming weeks.  With notable Republicans in the state starting to make their opposition known, this proposal might not have the legs to make it through the Legislature.


California Employers: Your Employees Are Entitled to Reporting Time Pay If Required to Call In to Confirm Shift

At the start of February, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Divison Three issued a decision in Ward v. Tilly’s, Inc. in which the Court reversed the lower court’s order and held that an employee that is ‘on call’ and required to call in two hours before their shift starts to confirm if they are actually needed for work are entitled to pay for this ‘on call’ period.  Under Wage Order 7, employers in California are required to pay employees “reporting time pay” for each workday “an employee is required to report for work and does report, but is not put to work or is furnished less than half said employee’s usual or scheduled day’s work.”  The employee that filed suit in this case argued that having to contact the employer two hours before the shift was to start triggered the reporting for work requirement of Wage Order 7.  The Court of Appeal agreed, unswayed by the employer’s contention that reporting for work required the employee to physically appear at the worksite at the start of a scheduled shift to trigger the reporting for work requirement.  Consequently, it was held that on call scheduling placed a burden on these employees to not make social plans, go to school, or schedule other events, such that the employer not being required to pay these employees reporting time pay would be abuse of Wage Order 7.  Although the Court’s opinion is rather lengthy here, it is a well written opinion that is worth reading.

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