The Majority Opinion: Legal Blog

Shoun v. Best Formed Plastics, Inc. - US District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division Facts :  George Shoun injured his shoulder in March 2012 while on the job at Best Formed Plastics and spent several months off recovering.  Jane Stewart, who processed the worker's compensation claim for the company, prepared an accident report and monitored Shoun's medical treatment.  In February 2013, Stewart apparently posted a message on her Facebook page: "Isn't [it] amazing how Jimmy experienced a 5 way heart bypass just one month ago and is back to work, especially when you consider George Shoun's shoulder injury kept him away from work for 11 months and now he is trying to sue us." Stewart's Facebook page was apparently linked to her business e-mail address and was available to the business communities in northeastern Indiana and southern Michigan.  Stewart's statement remained on her Facebook page for 76 days. Shoun ...

Earlier this year, I keyed in on a case pending before the United States Supreme Court that readers should keep an eye on, Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk .  ( Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk - Original Update ).  Last week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on this case.  For those who do not remember, this case concerns whether workers who have already clocked out for the work day, but are still required to go through employer mandated screening before leaving work, should be compensated for that time spent in security screening. The employer, Integrity, spent a majority of the time during oral argument focused on the position that the security screening process is simply a part of leaving work for the day.  Since employees are not paid for time spent punching out, the argument followed that employees should not be paid for emptying their pockets at the end of the day and going through screening. The federal government has join...

Normally, I reserve the One to Keep an Eye On blogs for cases that are working through the appellate system.  In this case, however, there is a big bill working through Congress now that I wanted to highlight. Several legislators in Congress introduced a bill called the Schedules That Work Act which seeks to control how employers schedule many of their lower-wage workers.  The bill would give workers in all industries the right to request a flexible, predictable, or stable schedule without fear of retaliation.   Take for example workers in the retail and restaurant industry.  Employers of these workers would be required to provide two weeks' advance notice of schedules and compensate employees who are sent home before the end of their shifts, work a split shift, or are assigned on-call shifts.  The bill also provides that employers would be required to accommodate the scheduling needs of workers who attend school or have serious illnesses, car...

A couple good articles this week...my favorite being a warning to employers to not label workers as independent contractors rather than employees.  This is an issue I have seen start to come up more and more often lately.  As always, below are a few articles that caught my eye this week. 10 Ways Employers Can Offer Reasonable Accommodations to An Employee's Disability Stephen Simpson has written one of the better articles that I have read in a while.  Disability laws require that an employer provide a reasonable accommodation to a disabled employee, if possible, and this article identifies ten different ways an employer can do just that.  The article also includes a case for each of the ten suggestions which make it more relate able and easy to follow. Beware of Labeling Workers as 'Independent Contractors" Rather Than 'Employees' Michael Haberman has a good article on the increased risks that have come up over the past few years for employers wh...

Rice v. Kellermeyer Company - US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Western Division Facts :  In early 2012, Ronald Rice, the VP of Sales at Kellermeyer Company announced to his co-workers that his wife was pregnant with their first child.  On June , 2012, Rice requested permission to use accrued vacation time from June 11 through June 15, partly because of "an unexpected appointment" for his pregnant wife.  Rice's supervisor denied the request for Rice to use paid leave for June 14 through June 15 and told him that if he took time off, it would be unpaid. Rice subsequently requested FMLA paperwork from the director of HR to allow him to attend the appointment.  Three days afterward, Rice was fired.  Rice brought suit against Kollermeyer for violations of the FMLA by interfering with, restraining, or denying Rice the exercise of his rights under the FMLA and retaliating against him by discharging him for asserting his rights under the FML...

This is one of the bigger pieces of legislation to come along in quite some time.  California employers take note...this one will impact you! On September 10, 2014, California's Governor signed into law AB 1522, the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014.  This law, which goes into effect July 1, 2015, requires California employers to provide workers paid sick leave.  With a few exceptions, the law covers employees who work at least 30 days within a year of starting their employment. A few important parts of the law to note: Employees will accrue paid sick leave at a rate of at least one hour for every 30 hours worked. Employees may use accrued paid sick leave for personal illness, a family member's health condition, or leave related to domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking. Accrued sick days carry over to the following year of employment, but an employer may limit an employee's use of paid sick days to 24 hours or three days per cal...

Every employer has encountered it at one point or another:  one, several, or all of their employees show up late to work or leave early without prior approval.  It is one thing if time off has been requested or prior approval has been granted.  It is another thing when the employee is expected to be at work and simply shows up late or leaves early without getting approval to do so from their supervisor.   Often, when an employer learns of an employee's tardiness or decision to leave early, the employer wants to immediately discipline that employee.  Before an employer acts, however, there are a few things to keep in mind: Set out expectations clearly for each employee.   Has the employee been made aware of the employer's expectations on when to be in the office?  Employers should note that simply relying on the arguments of "employees should have known when to be here" or "they should have recognized when other employees were requir...