The Majority Opinion: Legal Blog

  For those in the HR field looking for a relevant article, I refer you to the first one this week.  It should come as no surprise that employee retention is a key part of the job for any HR professional...but more so in this employee friendly job market.    As always, below are a couple articles that caught my eye this week. Tips For Improving Management Styles in the Midst of an Employee Friendly Job Market As the saying goes, “employees do not leave companies, they leave bad bosses.”  (I would posit that money is a key factor too, but I digress.)  This article from The Fast Company has four tips for how employers can be a better boss while working (or struggling) to maintain a fully staffed workforce.  While some tips are somewhat common sense (such as a suggestion that employers stop micromanaging and focus on the big picture), there are a few that might not have crossed your mind (such as encouraging employees to pursue internal opportunities.)  As always, some of these tips migh

  On August 13th, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker signed into law an amendment to the Illinois Freedom to Work Act.  The amendment, which will take effect on January 1, 2022 and only applies to restrictive covenants entered into after January 1, 2022, has several important points to note: Employers in the state are barred from entering into non compete agreements with any employee that earns $75,000 or less per year.  The salary threshold will increase $5,000 every five years until January 2037. Employers are also barred from entering into non solicit agreements with any employee that earns $45,000 or less per year.  The salary threshold will increase $2,500 every five years until January 2037. Before entering into a non compete agreement, employers will be required to advise employees to consult with an attorney.  Employers will also be required to provide employees with at least 14 days to review the non compete or non solicit agreement before they can decide to sign.  (Although emp

In recent weeks, United States Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett rejected an appeal from Indiana University students that sought to contest the lawfulness of Indiana University’s coronavirus vaccine mandate as a condition of enrollment for the fall 2021 semester. As readers might have likely seen, vaccine mandates in the workplace (and elsewhere) have become a hot button issue.  With the rejection of the appeal, Indiana University can lawfully require students to be vaccinated in order to attend classes this fall.  However, the fact that Justice Barrett did not comment on the rejection of the appeal has left some questions as to whether the Supreme Court is indicating its agreement with vaccine mandates…or if this rejection of the appeal was more focused on the specific facts of the Indiana University case and would not necessarily apply to other related situations. Although the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission had released guidance earlier this year that employers could m

  Remote work has been an ongoing topic over the past (many) months.  While remote work has been relatively accepted by both employers and employees alike, a potential change to remote work policy/pay at Google just might shake things up...and not necessarily in a good way. As always, below are a couple articles that caught my eye this week. Pay Reduction For Remote Workers? At Google, That’s Under Consideration Business Insider wrote a recent article in which it noted that some companies, including Google, are weighing pay reductions for workers that have chosen to work remotely rather than return to the office.  The logic follows that since these workers are working remotely (and have often relocated to a lower cost of living locale), a pay reduction makes sense (in the mind of employers that is.)  While nothing is certain and the idea could fizzle out, if a large scale employer like Google is considering such a move, surely others will follow suit. ALJ Finds Starbucks Unlawfully T

  Travers v. Federal Express Corporation - Third Circuit Court of Appeals Facts :  Gerard Travers (“Travers”), who worked for Federal Express Corporation (“FedEx”), served in the U.S. Navy and Reserves.  During his tenure at FedEx, Travers completed his Reserve duties during leave from work.  Although FedEx provides employees with paid leave for time spent at jury duty, for illness, and bereavement, paid leave is not offered for military leave. Travers filed suit against FedEx on the grounds that the Uniform Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (“USERRA”) entitled him to paid leave for military duty.  FedEx countered on the grounds that since it did not provide paid leave for military duty to any employee, it had not treated service members any differently than the rest of its employees.  The District Court dismissed the lawsuit on the grounds that USERRA did not provide for paid leave for military duty as paid leave was not a “right and benefit” under USERRA.  Trav

  On July 8th, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy signed several pieces of legislation into law, one of them being A5892 which makes it unlawful for employers in the state to misclassify workers for the purpose of evading insurance premiums. As an attorney that has handled my fair share of insurance premium disputes (including audits of commercial general liability policies), I can tell you it is not uncommon for employers to misclassify (intentionally or otherwise) workers as contractors rather than employees in an effort to lower their insurance premiums.  However, as any good audit will discover, workers that should have been designated as employees rather than contractors will result in a higher premium being assessed against the insured (the employer.) This new law seeks to ferret out some of those issues by making these misclassifications unlawful. For a copy of the text of A5892:   https://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2020/Bills/A9999/5892_I1.HTM

  With vaccine mandates becoming a somewhat hot button issue lately, I think it is appropriate to look at the topic under the lens of employment law.  While the situation is rapidly changing (almost daily), this is a good article to lead things off today. As always, below are a couple articles that caught my eye this week. Biden Administration Reportedly Examining Whether Employers Can Mandate Vaccines I think the headline article here says it all:  The President Joe Biden administration is reportedly looking at whether employers (and businesses) can mandate the coronavirus vaccine.  As this article from Reuters notes, several employers, such as United Airlines, Microsoft, and Tyson Foods, have recently announced that they are requiring vaccines for their employees.  In fact, Labor Secretary Marty Walsh commented that mandatory vaccines are something that is being examined, although there does not appear to be a clear cut answer on the legality/effectiveness of requiring vaccinations.

  Readers might remember that in 2016, voters in Flagstaff approved an hourly wage rate of $15 .  However, that wage rate was (and still is) higher than the statewide hourly wage rate of $12.15.  The bad news comes in when you recall that there is a law in place that cities, towns, and counties cannot approve a higher wage rate than the statewide wage rate.  If that happens, the city, town, or county is required to reimburse the state for costs associated with that higher wage rate. Currently, there is a lawsuit pending in Maricopa County Superior Court to challenge this penalty provision.  The outcome of that lawsuit remains to be seen. With that being said, voters in Tucson are scheduled to vote on a similar measure in November which would result in a $15/hour wage rate by 2025.  However, one might assume that voters might be a bit gun shy about approving a higher wage rate if it would result in penalties being imposed for a wage rate higher than $12.15/hour.  A smart special interes

Readers will likely recall the union election that occurred at an Amazon location in Bessemer, Alabama a few months ago in which workers voted overwhelmingly to reject unionization efforts .   That resounding defeat of the union was a major blow to those that hoped the unionization of the Amazon location would signal the start of an upswing in unionization across the country . Following the results of the election being announced, the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union (which had sought to represent the workers) filed objections with the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) on the grounds that Amazon had engaged in unlawful union busting activities leading up to the election and therefore a second election should occur.  Well, that just might happen.  An NLRB hearing officer issued a report and held that the objections should be sustained on the grounds that Amazon had engaged in unlawful behavior by placing a mailbox to collect ballots on the grounds at the warehouse (wit

  A few weeks ago, curators, conservators, editors, and other employees at the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum in New York City took one step closer to unionizing when the Technical, Office, and Professional Union, Local 2110, U.A.W. filed a petition with the National Labor Relations Board seeking to conduct a union election. The proposed bargaining unit, which would total around 160 professional and nonprofessional employees at the Guggenheim, apparently saw a renewed push following the coronavirus pandemic.  Notably, there is already one union in place at the Guggenheim:  The International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 30, which saw art handlers, maintenance, mechanics, other Guggenheim employees vote to unionize in 2019.  As well, there are already unions in place at the Museum of Modern Art in New York City, the Philadelphia Museum of Art, and the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. While the Guggenheim’s Director, Richard Armstrong, had voiced opposition to the 2019 unionization, it i

  While this is not necessarily a minimum wage dedicated post, I think it certainly trends in that direction given the two articles I am highlighting this week.  For starters, a recent development at Target in regard to the entire compensation package offered to employees is noteworthy.  When taking into account a proposal to eliminate the minimum wage rate in California (proposed by a candidate in the recall election for Governor), there is a lot for readers to chew on here. As always, below are a couple articles that caught my eye this week. Target Offers to Pay 100% of College Tuition In Effort to Attract Workers As CNBC reported earlier this week, Target is offering to pay 100% of college tuition for its workers (in approximately 250 degree programs) as the big box retailer competes with other employers to attract workers.  While other companies such as Chipotle, WalMart, and Chipotle have implemented similar college tuition offers to entice workers to come aboard, Target’s progra

  On July 19th, Delaware Governor John Carney signed Senate Bill No. 15 into law which will raise the hourly minimum wage rate in the state to $15/hour by 2025. Notably, the wage hike will apply to all employers in the state that have an employee.  For those Delaware employers that are reading this and starting to sweat, there is one good piece of news here:  The $15/hour wage hike will be scaled in over the next few years.  The current wage rate, $9.25/hour, will increase to $11.75 on January 1, 2023, then to $13.25 on January 1, 2024, and finally $15/hour on January 1, 2025. The approved legislation further stipulates that if/when the federal minimum wage rate ever exceeds Delaware’s wage rate, the federal minimum wage rate would apply. For a copy of Senate Bill No. 15:   https://legis.delaware.gov/json/BillDetail/GenerateHtmlDocument?legislationId=48445&legislationTypeId=1&docTypeId=2&legislationName=SB15

  Last month, the Labor Department issued a proposed rule that would raise the minimum wage rate to $15/hour for employees of federal contractors. The proposed rule would implement President Joe Biden’s executive order that addressed the same and raise the hourly wage rates starting in January of 2022 with annual raises tied to inflation starting in 2023. As with any proposed rule, this is subject to revision and could be amended before the final rule is issued this November. In the interim, federal government contractors (and subcontractors) should start taking steps to ensure compliance with this expected change.  Short of an unexpected change, I would expect this proposed rule to mirror the final rule issued later this fall. For a copy of the proposed rule:   https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2021-15348.pdf