The Majority Opinion: Legal Blog

Shortest month of the year leads to fewer EEOC cases and settlements coming across my radar.  Perhaps this is one of the shorter EEOC Roundups in recent memory?  Nevertheless, the below settlement is worth highlighting. As always, there are some EEOC cases that jump out at me when I review developments on that front.  Below are some EEOC cases and settlements that caught my eye this month. Wellpath to Pay $75,000 to Settle Religious Discrimination Case According to a lawsuit filed against Wellpath, a provider of healthcare services in correctional facilities, an employee was hired and prior to starting work told the Human Resources department that due to her religious beliefs, she was to dress modestly and requested to wear a scrub skirt rather than scrub pants.  The religious accommodation request was denied and the employee’s job offer was subsequently rescinded.  Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, discrimination against an applicant or employee because of their religio

Nothing like a late breaking news story for a Friday afternoon, right?  A little earlier this afternoon, it was announced that workers at a Mesa, Arizona Starbucks had voted an overwhelming 25 - 3 to unionize and in doing so have become the third Starbucks location to approve unionization efforts. Readers might recall that workers at two Buffalo area locations had voted to unionize recently.  While other locations have moved to unionize, not many have been given the green light to hold an election.  Granted, this Mesa location was rather quick to do so and an election was authorized by the National Labor Relations Board.  Although an election took place and the votes had already been cast, announcement of the results were out on hold while Starbucks challenged individual locations voting rather than by region. With that being said, this unionization of the Mesa location marks the third store to unionize and the first outside of New York.  If I were a betting man, I think this is likely

Ah yes, a delayed filing that potentially prohibits an attorney from arguing a motion or legal point.  Some attorneys might call that concerning; I would call it nightmare fuel.  I refer readers to the below article about a tricky situation Starbucks finds itself in due to a late filing. As always, below are a couple articles that caught my eye this week. Virginia Senate Committee Votes Down Bills That Would Have Halted Minimum Wage Hike Earlier this week, a Virginia Senate Committee blocked three different bills from proceeding ahead which would have repealed a planned statewide minimum wage hike.  Readers might recall that the current minimum wage rate, $11/hour, is set to increase yearly until it hits $15/hour in 2026.  For the time being, with this Committee blocking the three bills from moving forward, the eventual $15/hour wage rate is still full steam ahead. 8 Minutes Short: Starbucks Misses Filing Deadline In Fight Against Unionization As this article from The Huffington Post

Recently, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed suit against the Biden administration over the planned wage hike for federal contractors. President Joe Biden had announced his administration would implement a wage hike for federal contractors that would see these workers get $15/hour.  However, according to Paxton, raising wage rates for federal contractors to $15/hour amounts to federal overreach that would harm the Texas economy.  Under this line of reasoning, Paxton has argued that raising wage rates to $15/hour would require many employers to dismiss employees to help defray the increased labor costs.  As well, the argument follows that the increase in labor costs would ultimately be passed onto Texas consumers.  Rounding out the argument against the wage hike, Paxton argued that the ability to raise wage rates fell solely to the U.S. Congress, rather than the President.  Note, Mississippi and Louisiana have joined the suit as well.  (There is also another suit that was filed ove

Earlier this morning, it was announced that the USWNT’s equal pay lawsuit that had been filed against the U.S. Soccer Federation has reached a final resolution with a reported $24 million settlement. Readers might recall that the equal pay lawsuit filed by these soccer players garnered widespread media attention when it was filed back in 2019 .  The lawsuit sought back pay totaling around $66 million.  (The lawsuit also included a claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  That Title VII claim, which complained of disparate treatment in regard to things such as travel and lodging (in comparison to the USMNT) was previously settled.) Getting to this stage has been a long haul, including a prior dismissal of the equal pay lawsuit during the summary judgment phase .  U.S. District Court Judge Gary Klausner dismissed the equal pay lawsuit on the grounds that during the period in question, the USWNT actually made more money per game compared to the USMNT.  The USWNT’s request t

Legislation that was introduced in the California Legislature on February 10th would make it a requirement that both public and private employers in the state require employees and independent contractors get the coronavirus vaccine as a condition of employment. Under the terms of AB 1993, if approved, the vaccine mandate would go into effect on January 1, 2023 and would remain in place until the Centers for Disease Control determined that coronavirus vaccines were no longer necessary for the health and safety of individuals. Notably, the bill does provide an exemption for those workers with a medical condition, disability, or those with sincerely held religious beliefs. Readers will recall that the U.S. Supreme Court had recently struck down a vaccine mandate for large scale employers.  Following that ruling, it was speculated that states (or cities, counties, etc.) could step in and implement vaccine mandates that might survive judicial scrutiny.  Granted, AB 1993 was only recently i

Perhaps this could of been an Amazon dedicated post if not for the first article I highlighted   With that being said, all three articles are worth a read and provide a few different topics were noting.  Whether readers are interested in union elections or workplace coronavirus policies, I would suggest giving all three articles a read. As always, below are a couple articles that caught my eye this week. Seattle City Council Passes Resolution Supporting Unionization Efforts at Starbucks In a resolution that is really nothing more than a symbolic gesture, the Seattle City Council approved a resolution in which it expressed its support for unionization efforts at three Seattle area Starbucks locations.  The resolution passed last Tuesday 6 - 0 although several Councilmembers did not vote.  There was some disagreement among Councilmembers about what role, if any, the City Council should play in matters such as this which impact private businesses and that was not directly city business.  

Late last week, the U.S. Senate approved legislation that would bar mandatory arbitration provisions for sexual harassment & abuse claims. A few years after the #MeToo movement took off following widespread claims of sexual harassment in the workplace, Congress has sent this legislation to President Joe Biden’s desk for signature.  Notably, this legislation received bipartisan support and appears as close to a “lock” of becoming law as anything I have seen lately.  In fact, President Biden has previously voiced his support for such legislation and is expected to sign it into law. Under the legislation that cleared the Senate, mandatory arbitration of sexual harassment & abuse claims will no longer be allowed.  While the parties can still agree to arbitrate the claims, this legislation will allow these claims to proceed ahead in court and be heard by a jury.  Notably, the legislation is also retroactive, so for those employers that are seeking to enforce a prior signed mandatory

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. Plans are underway for a proposal to be introduced to the Detroit City Council that would see the hourly pay rate for Detroit municipal employees raised to $15/hour. If approved by the City Council, pay for about 270 municipal employees would go up starting July 1st.  Notably, there are already several thousand municipal employees that already make at least $15/hour.  This proposal would seek to create a floor for Detroit municipal employees that would set the starting salary for any municipal position at $15/hour. The proposal to create this $15/hour wage floor would cost Detroit a little over $1 million annually.  However, as Mayor Mike Duggan has argued, this cost to Detroit is minor compared to the importance or raising wage rates for municipal employees.  If I were a betting man, I would suspect that once this

On February 9th, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed SB 114 into law which provides supplemental paid sick leave to workers that are told to quarantine due to the coronavirus, need to care for a family member that has been told to quarantine, need to take time off to get the coronavirus vaccine or booster, experience symptoms relating to the vaccine or booster (although this paid time off is capped at 3 days/24 hours off), have contracted the coronavirus, or need to care for a child whose school is closed due to the coronavirus. The legislation does make a distinction if the employee is full time or party time, however.  With that being said, the maximum amount of paid leave for a full time employee is capped at 80 hours between January 1, 2022 and September 30, 2022. Notably, the legislation does provide that employees can be required to produce a positive test if requested by the employer (or a positive test of a family member.)  For any employee that refuses to provide a positiv

This week (and this year) have been somewhat labor centric.  With that being said, the two articles I highlight this week are worth a read even for those not as interested in labor law. As always, below are a couple articles that caught my eye this week. Biden Administration Announces Steps to Increase Union Membership & Collective Bargaining Recently, a task force created by President Joe Biden that was directed to find ways to boost union membership and collective bargaining among private and public employees has released approximately 70 steps the Biden administration can take.  As Noam Scheiber at The New York Times writes, those steps include allowing union organizers to have access to workers on federal property, creating preferences in federal grant and loan programs for employers with strong labor standards, and prohibiting employers from using federal contract money on anti union campaigns. For an administration that is in desperate need of good news on the labor front, i

As some readers might have heard, Major League Baseball (“MLB”) owners locked out players back in December following the end of the collective bargaining agreement with the players’ union. Following the lockout, talks on a new collective bargaining agreement with the players’ union was slow going with both sides really not engaging in discussions of any kind until a few weeks ago.  However those talks have been slow going with both sides digging in their heels and really not ceding much ground.  MLB owners recently suggested using a mediator to try and bridge the gap between both sides.  However the players’ union denied that request and indicated it would not agree to attending mediation. As a result, the scheduled start of spring training (the end of this month) is perilously close to being pushed back, perhaps indefinitely. That brings us to Labor Secretary Marty Walsh offering to get involved and suggesting he would be willing to try and help MLB owners and the players’ union find

In recent days, an anonymous Instagram account has gained traction as the account has put a spotlight on the low pay and poor working conditions of many hill staffers.  (For those unaware of what constitutes a “hill staffer”, this is in reference to the multitude of workers that make up the staff of members of Congress.) The Instagram account, Dear White Staffers, has been around since 2020 but only recently has it gained infamy for identifying countless reports of low pay, lack of diversity, and grueling hours among hill staffers.  The account posts tales of some hill staffers living off food stamps, barely making enough to live in affordable housing, being on call 24/7 for minimal pay (often averaging out to around $3/hour), and dealing with a toxic workplace culture in Congress (who has apparently led some staffers to seek counseling.) Perhaps most upsetting for some is the fact that many of the same members of Congress that have pushed for higher pay rates and more conducive work e

I find updates on prior topics to always be worth circling back on, especially when it has been quite a while since there was any developments.  This week, I want to lead things off with an article about cheerleader pay in the NFL.  The following two articles are worth reading as well, but first let us get to an update on a topic I have not covered lately. As always, below are a couple articles that caught my eye this week. A Closer Look at NFL Cheerleader Pay Ah yes, NFL cheerleader pay (or lack thereof) was a common topic a few years ago.  Although that was a prevalent topic for many months, it has been quite sometime since I last came across a relevant article on the topic.  With that being said, this article from Sarah Hepola at Texas Monthly provides an interesting insight into the matter with a special focus on the Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders.  While the article does not really break ground, it is worth reading for those looking for a refresher on the matter. Some Sick Workers “

Yesterday, a petition was filed with the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) in which workers at a second Staten Island Amazon warehouse have asked the NLRB to hold a union election. Readers will recall that last month, the NLRB found a “sufficient showing of interest” among workers at one Amazon warehouse in Staten Island such that an election was authorized by the NLRB .  As previously noted, just because an election will be held does not necessarily suggest that the unionization effort will be successful.  With that being said, organized labor cheered the authorization of the election at the first warehouse, partly because of how difficult it has been for organized labor to unionize Amazon. With this second unionization effort underway at the second Amazon warehouse, we might be seeing the start of a wave of other unionization efforts at other Amazon warehouses.  Bear in mind of course that the NLRB has not authorized an election at this second warehouse, however.  At this time,

Recently, a regular reader of the blog brought up a situation where an employee uses leave under the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) and subsequently takes a second job.  The question arose is this lawful? Before we get into a more nuanced discussion, I remind readers that this blog is not intended to serve as legal advice.  If you are in a situation where you need a legal opinion or counsel, I suggest you confer with your preferred labor & employment law related counsel. With that being said, let us take a step back and look at the language of the FMLA.  Section 825.216(e) of the FMLA stipulates that “If an employer has a uniformly-applied policy governing outside or supplemental employment, such a policy may continue to apply to an employee while on FMLA leave.  An employer which does not have such a policy may not deny benefits to which an employee is entitled under FMLA on the basis the FMLA leave was fraudulently obtained as in paragraph (d) of this section.” So take a situa

Last week, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) confirmed that there was a “sufficient showing of interest” among workers at a Staten Island Amazon warehouse to meet the minimum threshold to hold a union election. In order for an election to be held, a “sufficient showing of interest” must be established among eligible workers.  Under this standard, at least 30% of edible workers that could vote in an election must provide their signature to the union, in this case the Amazon Labor Union.  While a prior attempt to unionize this warehouse fell short last year after the requisite 30% of eligible workers did not provide their signature, this “second bite at the apple” cleared that 30% hurdle. Now of course just because a union election will occur does not mean this Amazon warehouse is going to vote to unionize.  Collecting signatures from 30% of eligible workers and obtaining a majority of votes in the actual election are two different situations.  With that being said, this is a s