Skip to main content

What I’ve Been Reading This Week


For those readers that are TikTok aficionados (or simply like a good story about a large scale employer potentially wading into a minefield), I refer you to the last article I am going to highlight this week.  I will caution readers that the story is still developing and not all the facts are yet known.  However, this is one that I will be interested to see progress.

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



Recently, Workers United, the union representing unionized workers at Starbucks, filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board and accused Starbucks of unlawfully closing an Ithaca, New York location that had voted to unionize back in April.  According to Workers United, workers at the Ithaca location went on strike following complaints about an unsafe working condition in relation to a grease trap at the store.  Starbucks thereafter decided to permanently close the sore and cited the grease trap as the reason.  However Workers United have argued that this closure is unlawful on the grounds that Starbucks is actually closing the store in retaliation for April’s unionization vote rather than because of the grease trap matter.



Ryan Golden over at HRDive recently wrote an article in which he reminds employers (and HR professionals) the importance of taking into account workers with visual and hearing disabilities as many workplaces transition back into in person (or a hybrid) work schedule.  Many employers have likely found ways to accommodate these workers when the workplace was virtual.  However, it is oftentimes easy to forget to plan for how to accommodate these workers as the work setup changes.  After all, while it has been many months since some workplaces were requiring an in person work schedule, the requirement to accommodate those workers with disabilities does not change.



File this under things you never want to hear an employer say:  “I don’t believe in maternity leave.”  Unfortunately, that is what is alleged to have been uttered by Joshua Ma, a TikTok executive.  While Ma has taken a step back from his role in the company following these alleged comments, TikTok has started an investigation.  The tricky thing for any employer is to have an executive/supervisor utter these words (or something similar), a pregnant employee feel they have been discriminated against (because of their pregnancy), and then proceed to file a pregnancy discrimination claim against their employer using the executive/supervisor’s comments as Exhibit A at trial.  While it is not clear if Ma actually said those words, I would be curious to see how this plays out as additional facts are uncovered.

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

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

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