The Majority Opinion: Legal Blog

Apologies in advance for the brevity of this post.  I am sitting on the runway at LAX and it is tougher to type sitting on an airplane than when I am in my office. With that being said, I have seen friends, colleagues, neighbors, strangers, and everyone in between doing the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge over the past few weeks.  I came across a very interesting article a few days ago that I thought would be perfect to kick off this week's "What I've Been Reading This Week" post.  As always, below are a few articles that caught my eye this week. Litigation Upcoming for ALS Ice Bucket Challenges in the Workplace? Everyone has likely seen a video or heard about the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge.  It is a great way to raise awareness and for those who also donate in addition to dumping a bucket of water on their heads, it is a unique way to raise funds.  With that being said, questions are starting to arise about how the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge can impact th...

One of the labor & employment law topics that has kept me interested this year is the ongoing struggle of N.F.L. cheerleaders to obtain higher pay and the subsequent wage and hour suits that have been brought as a result.  For those keeping score at home, the Oakland Raiders have been sued twice (at this time, there are five outstanding wage and hour suits brought by cheerleaders against four different N.F.L. teams).  The Raiders cases have been some of the most prevalent, and consequently the suits against that team have gotten a majority of coverage. Earlier this month, the N.F.L. filed a response to one of the cheerleaders' suits brought against the Raiders (the second Raiders lawsuit), which also named the N.F.L. as a potentially liable party.  In its response, the League claimed that the cheerleaders cannot pursue the claim against the League because the N.F.L. and its teams are immune from all state labor code provisions.  Interestingly enough, the...

Johnson v. Heckmann Water Resources - Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Facts :  Kevin Johnson and Brad Smith brought suit against their former employers, Heckman Water Resources, Inc. (HWR) and Complete Vacuum and Rental, L.L.P. (CVR) and sought unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").  During their employment, the employees were classified as non-exempt employees (and as a result, eligible for overtime) under the FLSA and were paid an hourly wage. The employees worked twelve hour shifts for seven consecutive days.  HWR and CVR used a Monday through Sunday workweek to calculate overtime under the FLSA.  Based upon the way the workweek was calculated, Johnson was compensated for four hours of overtime every pay period and Smith was compensated for eight hours of overtime. In their suit, Johnson and Smith alleged that their workweek should have begun on Thursday and ended on Wednesday, thereby entitling them to forty-four hours...

Each state has a host of new employment and labor related laws that take effect in 2014. This series focuses on several new laws from around the country that are of particular interest.  In this instance, this note focuses on a new regulation that affects many San Francisco based employers. After several other states and cities have passed "Ban the Box" measures, the District of Columbia has followed suit and passed a law of their own that prohibits employers from asking about a job applicant's criminal history until after a conditional job offer is made.  Bear in mind though that employers may still decline to consider an applicant further based on his or her qualifications, interview performance, and even Internet searches of applicants, provided that the decision is not based on any criminal background information. Some key points of the Fair Criminal Record Screening Act of 2014 (the official name of D.C.'s Ban the Box legislation): The Act ...

A lot of the efforts to raise minimum wage (both at the federal and state levels) has caught my eye.  In particular, Seattle's efforts to raise its minimum wage rates to an extraordinarily high rate of $15/hour was one of the more interesting topics I came across this week.  As always, below are a few articles that caught my eye this week. Fashion Rules at Work: The Do's and Dont's Every once in a while, I come across a good article on business related dress codes at work.  This is a different take on that topic and includes a few thoughts on what an employer can do if they implement a dress and grooming policy for employees. Attempt Made to Block Seattle's $15/Hour Minimum Wage Hike For those who have been following the recent developments, Seattle has passed a law to go into effect in April 2015 to raise the minimum wage in the city to $15 per hour.  To the surprise of few, many retailers, restaurants, and chain stores oppose this measure.  Ear...

Stenehjem v. Sareen - California Court of Appeal, Sixth Appellate District Facts :  Stenehjem filed suit against his former employer and its president and CEO for alleged defamation and wrongful termination, among other claims.  The defendants filed a cross complaint against plaintiff for civil extortion due to plaintiff's pre-litigation demand.  Specifically, plaintiff included in his demand a threat that unless the defendants paid plaintiff's claims, plaintiff  would file a False Claims Act and report defendants to federal authorities for allegedly forcing plaintiff to create false accounting documents.  The lower court granted plaintiff's motion to strike the cross complaint and the cross complaint was subsequently dismissed.  Holding :  The California Court of Appeal held that the former employee's pre-litigation demand was an unconstitutional extortion and therefore the cross complaint was improperly dismissed.  When the Court of Ap...

Recently, the United States Supreme Court ruled on National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning ( NLRB v. Noel Canning - Supreme Court Ruling blog ).  In that blog, I had noted that the Supreme Court held that President Obama's three appointments to the NLRB while he deemed Congress to be in "recess" were not proper and therefore all decisions that the Board made during that time frame were not valid.   The question then became, what would happen to all those rulings that the Board had made?  I speculated that a majority would be upheld, save for some smaller, unpublished decisions.  Well, lo and behold, the NLRB did just that and announced that it would ratify all administrative, personnel, and procurement matters taken by the Board from January 4, 2012 to August 5, 2013.  In doing so, the Board removed any questions in regard to questions concerning the validity of actions taken during this period.  This was really nothing more than cleanin...