The Majority Opinion: Legal Blog

  As with many labor & employment law 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. Earlier this year, HB 6536 was introduced in the Connecticut General Assembly which would require employers to reimburse employees for all “necessary” expenditures incurred while working from home. Many readers are likely wondering what qualifies as a “necessary” expenditure.  HB 6536 sets out several items, but clarifies the list is not exhaustive.  HB 6536 states that “Necessary expenditures” means all expenditures required of the employee by the employer, in the discharge of employment duties that inure to the primary benefit of the employer, including, but not limited to, the cost of purchasing:  (A) Equipment and technology, including, but not limited to, items such as computers, printers and cellular phones; (B) services, including, but not limited to, services such as internet provider services, mobile inte

  Last Thursday, the California Legislature approved SB 95 which will provide employees in the state with additional paid sick leave benefits to combat the financial impact of the coronavirus.  A day later, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed the legislation into law. When the Families First Coronavirus Response Act expired at the end of 2020, the only employees in California that were able to take supplemental sick leave were those employees that worked in jurisdictions that had implemented their own paid sick leave ordinances.  SB 95 will provide paid sick leave for any employee in the state that is unable to work or telework for an employer due to reasons related to the coronavirus.  However, SB 95 will only apply to employers that have more than 25 employees. Of note, SB 95 also provides supplemental sick leave employees to obtain a vaccine or to those that are experiencing symptoms from a vaccine that prevent them from working or teleworking. Perhaps one of the more important

  Today, voting is to wrap up at the Bessemer, Alabama Amazon location where workers are attempting to unionize .  While the outcome of the union election will not be immediately know, attention has already turned to potential unionization at other Amazon locations. Readers will recall that Amazon had previously opposed a mail in vote, instead requesting  the election be delayed until it was safe to hold in person .  After Amazon’s efforts to stop the mail in vote failed, the seven week mail in election got underway.  While many politicians have decided to wade into the fray and voice their support (or opposition) to the election, the relative absence of President Joe Biden has taken many by surprise .  Given his vocal support for unions during the previous election, many thought he would lend his voice to the unionization efforts at the Alabama location.  (After all, a unionization of this Amazon fulfillment center would be a big step toward cutting into the company’s successful effor

  Another week goes by with more rumblings about a minimum wage hike.  For those keeping tabs on some of the swing votes in the Senate (in particular, Democrats who will need to be relied upon to vote along party lines to pass this legislation), a development about West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin’s wife being nominated for a position by President Joe Biden could signal an olive branch being offered to assure passage.  Time will tell. As always, below are a couple articles that caught my eye this week. Ford Greenlights Permanent Work From Home Option For 30,000 Employees Hannah Denham at The Washington Post recently reported that Ford has announced plans for a permanent work from home arrangement for 30,000 of its employees.  As Ford announced during a recent virtual town hall meeting, beginning in July, workers will be able to return to the office for face to face meetings or team projects.  The rest of the time, they would be permitted to work remotely.  Of course, certain position

  As with many labor & employment law 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. In recent weeks, the Tennessee Legislature has taken great strides to advance the Tennessee Right to Work Amendment which would add a new section to Article XI of the Tennessee Constitution to codify the state’s right to work law. Tennessee, which has been a right to work state since the 1940’s, has been somewhat of a standard bearer over the years in regard to upholding the state’s right to work law.  Adding this new section to the Tennessee Constitution would further enshrine the right to work law in the state. Now bear in mind, even if 2/3 of the Tennessee House and Senate approve the Tennessee Right to Work Amendment, that does not resolve the matter.  Voters would have the final say in the November 2022 elections as to whether formally codify the state’s right to work law into the Tennessee Constitution.  Wit

  On March 12th, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed Assembly Bill A3354B into law which will provide employees four hours of paid sick leave to obtain a vaccine. There are a few interesting carve outs here.  For one, Assembly Bill A3354B applies to all employers, regardless of size or sector.  As well, the four hours of paid leave is provided for each vaccine shot.  (An employee was getting the two dose Pfizer vaccine, for instance,  could obtain eight hours of paid leave for both shots.  An employee getting the single shot Johnson & Johnson vaccine would be eligible for only four hours of paid leave.) In addition, employers are prohibited from retaliating against any employee that uses the paid leave to obtain a vaccine. For additional information:   https://legislation.nysenate.gov/pdf/bills/2021/A3354B

  This evening, sometime in the ballpark of 5:30 PM, it is expected the Senate will formally approve the confirmation of President Joe Biden’s nominee to become the next Labor Secretary. Readers might recall that while progressives had hoped (it not pushed) President Biden to pick a Labor Department nominee such as Bernie Sanders , those ideas quietly faded.  In lieu of a progressive nominee that some Democrats had pushed for, Boston Mayor Marty Walsh eventually emerged from the scrum as President Biden’s nominee .  Boasting a strong union background since at least the age of 21, Walsh skated through the nomination process relatively unscathed.  It is expected Walsh will be confirmed as the next Labor Secretary once the Senate votes later today.  While there might be a few Republicans that approve his nomination, I would expect the vote to mainly be along party lines.  Upon confirmation, I would look for Walsh to start to implement labor friendly policies and initiatives at the Labor D

  A noteworthy, to say the least topic, comes out of England after Uber announced earlier this week that it would classify its driver in the country as employees rather than independent contractors.  As noted below, this is not the definitive decision that will impact all Uber drivers worldwide, but it is a development worth leading things off this week.  As always, below are a couple articles that caught my eye this week. Uber Announces Plan to Classify Its England Drivers As Employees Adam Santariano at The New York Times wrote an article earlier this week in which he noted the somewhat surprising announcement from Uber that it had decided to classify its more than 70,000 drivers in England as employees, which will thus provide these drivers with a minimum wage, vacation, and a pension.  It has been no secret that Uber (and other gig companies) have long fought attempts to reclassify their workers as employees rather than independent contractors.  (In fact, that is still an ongoing

  As with many labor & employment law 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. CROWN Act legislation has been a hot topic lately .  With several pending CROWN Act pieces of legislation around the country, a recent development out of West Virginia is worth recognition. Senate Bill 108 (“SB 108”) was introduced in the West Virginia Legislature last month which seeks to prohibit discrimination in the workplace based upon the natural hairstyle of a worker.  While related CROWN Act legislation failed to advance during the last legislative session, it is still too early to say the likelihood of this bill passing.  With Republicans having majority control of both the West Virginia House & Senate, I would suspect this legislation likely will not advance.  However, stranger things have happened...and with CROWN Act legislation suddenly becoming a hot topic, I would suspect there is more pressure

  South Texas College v. Arriola - Thirteenth District Court of Appeals - Texas Facts :  Cynthia Arriola (“Arriola”) was hired by South Texas College (“STC”) in March of 2009.  Following her marriage in July of 2017, she informed her coworkers that she was intending to get pregnant.  Afterward, Arriola claimed her coworkers negatively reacted to this news and she was subjected to harassment.   Upon complaining to her supervisor in September of 2017, she was subsequently terminated the following month.   Arriola subsequently filed suit against STC on the grounds that they had unlawfully discriminated against her in violation of the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (“TCHRA”).  Arriola complained that she was discriminated against due to her gender and was discriminated against for engaging in protected activity. STC filed a plea to the jurisdiction on the grounds that while the TCHRA prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, there was no such protection for a wor

  Minimum wage (and a $15/hour wage rate) has been a hot topic over the years...not even counting the increased buzz around the matter since Democrats regained majority control of Congress (and the Presidency) in recent months.  With the stimulus bill that was signed into law this week, it is worth noting what did not make it into the final bill.  (Spoiler alert, it was the 15/hour wage rate proposal.) As always, below are a couple articles that caught my eye this week. Following Setback on $15/Hour Federal Minimum Wage Rate, Senators Regroup Readers might have heard that last week, the Senate passed a $1.9 trillion stimulus package.  Despite attempts by Democratic Senators (and Independent Senator Bernie Sanders) to get a provision included in the legislation that would have raised the federal hourly minimum wage rate to $15, that provision was ultimately excluded.  However, as Newsweek writes, Senator Sanders in particular has doubled own and indicated that he will continue to seek

  On the heels of several states recently announcing that they will reopen and withdraw face mask requirements, attention has turned to many workers that work directly with the general public and the risk that some might be in with the coronavirus pandemic still ongoing. In an effort to address concern among workers in the states that have reopened and rescinded face mask requirements, a House Subcommittee is holding a virtual hearing this morning at 10:45 AM EST on “Science Based Strategies to Protect Workers From COVID-19 Infections.”  The hearing is set to receive testimony from several witnesses on the topic. While the hearing likely will not produce much in the way of a tangible solution to how to protect workers that work directly with the general public, it gets a conversation going on the topic with the potential for further action and/or legislation being introduced in the House on the matter. For those looking to watch the hearing this morning:   https://edlabor.house.gov/hea

  Stop me if this headline sounds vaguely familiar.  ( Readers might recall that on his first day on the job back in January, President Joe Biden terminated National Labor Relations Board General Counsel Peter Robb (“Robb”) after Robb refused to resign .) Last week, President Biden abruptly terminated Equal Employment Opportunity Commission General Counsel Sharon Gustafson (“Gustafson”) after Gustafson also refused to resign.  Like Robb, Gustafson was a President Donald Trump appointment that still had time left in her term.  (Gustafson’s term was set to run through 2023.) The decision to terminate Gustafson when she still had several years left in her term is somewhat profound and further indication that the Biden administration is seeking to aggressively change course in both how the NLRB and EEOC operate.  It has been considered standard practice to allow appointments from prior administrations to complete their terms before being replaced.  However, it appears the Biden administrat

  As with many labor & employment law 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. Oregon currently has a family leave law in place that allows eligible employees to take up to 12 weeks of protected leave to care for an infant, treat a serious health condition, and several other qualifying grounds. A covered employer is required to provide such leave if that employer has 25 or more employees. HB 2474 would drastically change that by making a covered employer any employer that has one or more employees.  (So in essence nearly every employer in the state.)  The legislation would also eliminate a requirement that the employee work at least 20 hours per week to be eligible for this leave.  Going one step further, an employee would qualify for this leave so long as they had worked for 30 days before taking leave (a change from the current 180 day requirement.)  Last, but not least, an employee could

  With spring right around the corner (after all, Daylight Saving Time is this weekend), it is about the time of year when Girl Scouts will be outside your local grocer selling cookies.  That leads to an article I highlighted below which addresses whether an employer can allow a group like the Girl Scouts on their property while prohibiting other non employees (such as a union).  I will bury the lede and let readers find out more in the below article. As always, below are a couple articles that caught my eye this week. Girl Scouts vs. Unions...Can An Employer Lawfully Exclude One From the Premises But Not the Other? I am sure many readers have gone to the grocery store before and seen Girl Scouts (or sometimes Boy Scouts) selling cookies outside the entrance or exit.  However, in my experience, I cannot recall ever seeing a labor union handing out pamphlets outside these same grocery store doors.  That begs the question:  Can an employer lawfully exclude one group from its premises whi

  As with many labor & employment law 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. In mid February, AB 1003 was introduced in the California Legislature which proposes making an employer’s intentional theft of wages (in an aggregate amount greater than $950) punishable as grand theft.  The proposed legislation, if passed, would prevent intentional theft of wages from being punished under any other criminal provision.  (Although wages, benefits, or other compensation could still be recovered in a civil action by an employee.) For a copy of the AB 1003 legislation:   https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB1003

  Back in 2019 , the Labor Department (under former President Donald Trump) issued an opinion letter in which it held that if a truck driver is completely relieved of duty and is provided with adequate sleeping facilities (ie in the truck’s sleeping berth), the driver is not “working while riding” and therefore is not entitled to compensation for that time under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). Fast forward to a new Labor Department under President Joe Biden, which is taking a more employee friendly approach to employment law topics.  Within the past few weeks, the Labor Department has withdrawn several opinion letters issued over the past few years, including the 2019 opinion letter.  With the withdrawal of that 2019 opinion letter, the Labor Department has reverted to the prior standard that had been in place.  In doing so, only up to 8 hours of sleeping time may be deducted from a driver’s trip that is 24 hours or longer.  For any trip under 24 hours, no sleeping time may be d