Skip to main content

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

 

I wanted to give a nod to a recent coronavirus related bonus that Walmart is providing its workers before moving on to a more nuanced look at a key factor that claimants must take into account when filing an age discrimination claim.  Being tied up in trial most of the week did not give me much time to read through articles but these should give readers something interesting to page through over the next few days.

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


Walmart Announces Coronavirus Related Holiday Bonuses For Hourly Workers

Earlier this week, Walmart announced that it would provide its hourly workers with a holiday bonus, due in part to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic.  As Melissa Repko at CNBC noted, full time hourly workers will receive a bonus of $300 while part time hourly workers will receive a bonus of $150.  It is worth noting that Walmart has been providing its employees with several bonuses throughout the year in an effort to provide its workers with financial help during the coronavirus pandemic.  I would suspect that other big box retailers might follow suit and provide similar bonuses (or paid time off options) to round out the end of 2020.


Using a Comparator In Age Discrimination Cases: Is There a Threshold?

Philip Miles posted an article earlier this morning in which he took at how much of an age difference there needs be be between an age discrimination claimant and a comparator before a court will infer age discrimination.  (For reference, in age discrimination cases, claimants often rely on a comparator.  By showing that the similarly situated co-worker (the comparator) was treated better than the claimant, an inference of discrimination can exist.  With an age discrimination claim, the age difference between the claimant and the comparator is highly relevant.)  In the Third Circuit, Miles writes that the threshold “cut off” appears to be in the 5 - 7 year range.  As always, this age range can vary by state and circuit, so I would remind readers to review the relevant caselaw in their jurisdiction when considering the matter.

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