I have been fortunate enough to attend spring training in both Arizona and Florida and take in ballgames before the start of the regular season. (For those that have never attended a Cactus or Grapefruit League game, I highly recommend doing so at least once. As an added bonus, many teams traditionally have morning workouts before a game. In the fields surrounding the main stadium, the teams will split up and have drills, conditioning, batting practice, mini games, etc. Depending the team, access is relatively flexible, so it is easy to walk between fields and watch the players practice.). An article from earlier this week addressed the problem that many spring training players find themselves, with many struggling to make ends meet as they are not being paid for attending spring training (although they do receive a small stipend). With the rate of pay for baseball players being an ongoing topic, I think it is appropriate to lead off this post with that article.
As always, below are a couple articles that caught my eye this week.
The Ongoing Problem of Unpaid & Underpaid MLB Spring Training Players
This past Wednesday, Ted Berg published an article in which he noted the growing concern over the fact that MLB players do not get paid for spring training with players only earning a stipend. For players at major league camp, that stipend can be as low as $95.50/day; but only $25/day for players in minor league camp. Using catchers as an example, as there are traditionally an abundance of catchers at every camp (moreso than any other position players), Ted talks with several current and former players that have explained how difficult it is to make ends meet while participating in spring training and not receiving a salary. While many big leaguers on sizeable contracts can afford to survive financially during spring training, for many others, including non-roster invitees, the dog days of summer (when they will actually be paid) cannot come soon enough.
California Supreme Court: Employee Lawsuits Against Payroll Provider For Inaccurate Pay Stubs Prohibited
On February 7th, the California Supreme Court issued a decision in Goonewardene v. ADP, in which the Court held that an employee is prohibited from suing a payroll company for failing to include the legally required information on the employee's earning statements. (For those unaware, California Labor Code Section 226(a) requires 9 specific items that must be included on an earning statement, including the total hours worked, the hourly pay rate, an employee's personal information, as well as the employer's name and address.) This case, a matter of first impression, found that because a payroll company's obligations are solely to the employer, an employee cannot establish it is a third party beneficiary of the employer's contract for payroll services (and therefore cannot maintain a claim for breach of that contract against the payroll provider.) While this is a rather lengthy opinion, it is well worth a read.
Several Bills Eliminating Forced Arbitration Introduced in U.S. Congress
Last week, there were several relevant bills introduced (and announced) in Congress which would drastically scale back the use of mandatory arbitration provisions in the employment context. Notably, the Forced Arbitration Injustice Repeal Act (the FAIR Act) would end the use of forced arbitration in worker disputes, the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Harassment Act would end the use of forced arbitration in disputes involving sexual harassment or discrimination, and the Justice for Servicemembers Act would end the use of forced arbitration in cases under the Uniform Service Employment Act (“USERRA”) for veterans, servicemembers, and their families. This announcement, from the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary includes notes on which members of Congress have introduced the legislation (with at least one announced Democratic candidate for President, New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, throwing her support behind the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Harassment Act) as well as a reference to how many cosponors each bill has. With arbitration being a hot button issue as of late, it will be interesting to see which bills find enough support (on both sides of the aisle) to become law.
A Few Signs You May Have Been Let Go Because of Your Age
Unfortunately, as many employees get older, some employers look for ways to let them go and replace them with oftentimes significantly younger employees. That can create potential liability for employers if the employee that was let go files an Age Discrimination in Employment Act claim and can establish their termination was because of their age. Recently, Donna Ballman published an article in which she identified several signs that could establish an employee was let go because of their age. As always, every case is different and there is often not a ‘smoking gun’ to establish discriminatory intent by an employer. With that being said, Donna provides several things that employees could look for if they suspect they have been let go because of their age.
Comments
Post a Comment