The Majority Opinion: Legal Blog

  Rounding out a rather busy month, I wanted to take a moment to look back at two big events that have been evolving over the past few week.  Readers might have seen hazard/hero pay become a major talking point in some circles as local ordinances have recently been passed requiring additional pay for certain front line workers...much to the chagrin of employers.  On the other side of the coin, a union election underway at an Amazon location in Alabama has started to garner attention given the increased scrutiny it has received.  However, the noticeable silence by one major political figure has caught the eye of some observers. As always, below are a couple articles that caught my eye this week. Protests Arise Over Long Beach Grocery Store Closures A few weeks ago, the Long Beach City Council enacted an ordinance that will require large grocery stores in the area to pay their employees an additional $4/hour as a result of working during the coronavirus pandemic .  Around that same time

  Employees at the downtown Portland location of Voodoo Doughnuts have recently given their employer an ultimatum:  Voluntarily recognize their union by this Thursday or the employees will file a petition for a National Labor Relations Board election. The employees, who seek to have the Doughnut Workers United (“DWU”) union represent them, founded the DWU last March.  According to the employees, Voodoo Doughnuts was not adequately protecting its employees until the DWU stepped in to help.  A spokesman for the DWU stated that it had fought for an increased security presence for the downtown location’s employees, as well as took steps to provide food and support for struggling employees. Note, should Voodoo Doughnuts voluntarily recognize the DWU (or should the election turn out in favor of the DWU), only workers at the downtown Portland location would be recognized.  If that were to happen, the DWU has indicated it would request the company do several things, including rehiring several

  A week ago, in response to the coronavirus pandemic, the West Hollywood City Council approved a premium pay ordinance for large grocery store employees that will see these employees earn an additional $5/hour effective immediately and will expire 120 days from the effective date of the ordinance. Of note, the ordinance applies to grocery store employers that employ more than 300 workers nationwide and more than 15 employees per grocery store in West Hollywood.  (“Grocery stores” are defined in the ordinance as any business that devotes 70% or more of their business to selling fresh and/or prepackaged food.) As for who qualifies for this $5/hour premium pay, the ordinance applies to any employees who are “employed directly by a hiring entity at a grocery store.”  However, managers and supervisors are not eligible for this $5/hour premium pay. One thing for grocery store employers in West Hollywood to keep in mind here, while they can attempt to limit an employee’s hours (to make up fo

  On Thursday, the U.S. House of Representative is expected to vote on the Equality Act, a piece of legislation that would prohibit discrimination against LGBTQ workers in the workplace. Readers might recall that the U.S. Supreme Court had issued a previous ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia in which the Court held that an employer that terminates an employer for being gay or transgender violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 .  While the U.S. House had approved a version of the Equality Act last session which would have codified the Court’s ruling from Bostock , the legislation never made it past the Senate with Senate Republicans grounding the bill. With the new legislative session starting recently, however, the Equality Act was reintroduced in the House.  With a vote expected to take place on Thursday, it is widely expected the legislation will obtain a majority vote and make it to the Senate.  (After all, Democrats still have majority control of the House.)

The Create a Respectful and Open Workplace for Natural Hair Act (also known as the “CROWN Act”) is a law that originated in California which prohibits discrimination based upon the natural hairstyle or hair texture of employees or job applicants.  California, which became the first state to approve such a measure, has been followed with similar laws across the country including in New York, New Jersey, Virginia, Colorado, Washington, and Maryland.  Despite the U.S. House of Representatives approving legislation last year at the federal level, that proposal failed to advance in the Senate. With that being said, there have been a few new developments in regard to the CROWN Act across the country in recent weeks.  Based upon those developments, this week is as good of a time as any to focus on a few noteworthy stories in relation to the CROWN Act. As always, below are a couple articles that caught my eye this week. Dartmouth Students Voice Support For New Hampshire’s Passage of CROWN Act

  Earlier this week, President Joe Biden held a town hall in Milwaukee in which he took a range of questions from the audience.  While President Biden addressed student loan forgiveness and defunding the police, among other topics, I wanted to highlight his most recent comments in regard to raising the federal hourly minimum wage rate to $15/hour. In response to a question from an audience member about raising the wage rate to $15/hour, President Biden acknowledged that while he supports a $15/hour wage rate, he wanted to see that wage rate be gradually phased in.  It is worth noting that President Biden recognized that small business owners could be detrimentally impacted by a wage hike and in doing so, gradually phasing it might be appropriate.  (This concern has been a recurring theme across the country as other cities and states consider raising their minimum wage rates.  It is one thing for large employers to shoulder the burden of a sudden increase in labor costs...it is an entir

  At the start of the month, Arizona Governor Doug Ducey signed HB 2045 into law which amended the Arizona Civil Rights Act (“ACRA”) to provide workplace protections for pregnant workers in the state. The law, which is expected to take effect this July, amends the ACRA to specify that prohibited discrimination “because of sex” and “on the basis of sex” includes because of or on the basis of pregnancy or childbirth or related medical conditions.  With the passage of this law, the ACRA will now mirror the protections offered by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. For additional information on HB 2045:   https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/1R/bills/HB2045H.pdf

  With the start of any new Presidential administration, there are always a host of legislative priorities to tackle.  That includes relevant labor & employment law matters.  As noted below, there have been a few developments on that front in regard to how President Joe Biden is handling things over at the National Labor Relations Board, a potential minimum wage hike, and juggling growing labor issues over the Keystone XL Pipeline. As always, below are a couple articles that caught my eye this week. $15/Hour Wage Hike Legislation Uncertain in Congress Politico published a report earlier this week that reported that despite the House indicating they intend to tie any Covid relief bill to a $15/hour minimum wage hike, it is unclear whether the President Biden administration will back that proposal.  President Biden, who has previously voiced his support for a $15/hour wage rate has appeared to indicate that he wants Congress to take up that matter and the Covid relief bill separatel

  Following President Joe Biden termination of National Labor Relations Board General Counsel, Peter Robb, hours after taking office last month , Acting General Counsel, Peter Ohr, has wasted no time in undoing much of Robb’s work. Those efforts to reign in some of the employer friendly policies and proposals pushed for by Robb have taken center stage, starting with Scabby the Rat.  Back on February 2nd, Ohr filed a Motion to Dismiss in International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 150, a/w International Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO.  That case involved a union’s use of Scabby the Rat (a giant inflatable rat) at a public entrance to a trade show.  A charge was filed that the use of Scabby was improper as it could unlawfully coerce third parties to not to business with the employer, who the union was protesting.  An Administrative Law Judge recommended dismiss in the case.   However, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) issued a notice and sought briefs on

As with many labor & employment related cases (and bills) being litigated around the country, there are always a few that stand out.  This is one to keep an eye on. Last week, two grocery industry trade groups filed suit against the city of Seattle on the grounds that the city’s $4/hour hazard pay increase for certain grocery store worker interferes with the collective bargaining process between grocery stores and unions. That $4/hour hazard pay increase, the Hazard Pay for Grocery Employees Ordinance, went into effect last Wednesday.  The ordinance applies to large grocers, specifically those with more than 500 employees statewide and grocery stores larger than 10,000 square feet in the city.  The $4/hour pay boost applies to all workers at these locations and remains in effect for as long as Seattle remains in a declared civil emergency. According to the lawsuit, this ordinance is unlawful as it is “invalid and unconstitutional.”  In particular, the trade groups allege that the o

  Hazard pay has been (and continues to be) a hot topic.  Next week, I will highlight a recent lawsuit filed by two trade groups against the city of Seattle that delves more into the matter.  For the purposes of this post, I will give a brief nod to the topic by noting how one employer, Krogers, has responded to the implementation of a hazard pay ordinance in Long Beach. As always, below are a couple articles that caught my eye this week. Low Wage Workers in Texas Hang Hat On Hope of Increase to Hourly Wage Rate The Texas Tribune published an article late last week in which it took note of the minimum wage fight ongoing in Texas.  As the article notes, the hourly minimum wage rate in Texas is currently $7.25 (as is the federal hourly minimum wage rate.)  However, despite unsuccessful attempts by Texas Legislators to raise the hourly wage rate in the state (which have been stymied by Texas Republicans), there is new hope among hourly and low wage workers in the state that a Democratic

  Martinez v. UPMC Susquehanna - Third Circuit Court of Appeals Facts :  Beginning in 2016, Zeferino Martinez (“Martinez”) began working at a hospital as an orthopedic surgeon on a three year contract.  In 2017, UPMC Susquehanna (“UPMC”) bought and took over the hospital where Martinez worked.  At the time, Martinez was told he would continue with his contract.  However, not long after, UPMC terminated Martinez.  The explanation for the termination was that UPMC was “moving in a different direction and [Martinez’s] services were no longer needed.”  At the time of his termination, Martinez was 70 years old. Soon after Martinez’s termination, UPMC hired two new doctors who took over some of Martinez’s job functions.  Both doctors were “significantly younger”, “less qualified”, and “less experienced” than Martinez.  UPMC also posted an opening for an orthopedic surgeon.  Despite applying for the position several times, Martinez never got a response. Martinez subsequently sued UPMC under

  As with many employment and labor law related cases (and bills) being litigated around the country, there are always a few that stand out.  This s one to keep an eye on. On January 8th, HB 789 was introduced in the Illinois Legislature which has the potential to impact the use of non-compete agreements in the state. The legislation proposes amending the Illinois Freedom to Work Act by requiring employers in the state to review their form contracts and modify their procedures for having employees sign these sort of restrictive covenants.  At present, Illinois employers are allowed to require their employees to sign restrictive covenants.  (Many of these restrictive covenants include non-compete agreements, non-solicitation covenants, and confidentiality provisions.) HB 789 would apply to non-compete agreements and covenants that bar the solicitation of customers.  (HB 789 does not address other restrictive covenants, as currently written.)  Employers would not be allowed to use a non-