The Majority Opinion: Legal Blog

Ziober v. BLB Resources, Inc. - Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Facts :  Kevin Ziober ("Ziober") worked as an operations director for BLB Resources, Inc. ("BLB").  About six months after joining BLB, Ziober signed an agreement that required the arbitration of legal disputes.  Ziober, who served in the United States Navy Reserve, was recalled into active duty to serve in Afghanistan.  On his last day of scheduled work, BLB apparently told him that he would not have a job upon his return from active duty. Ziober subsequently filed suit against BLB in April 2014 upon his return from Afghanistan on the grounds that he was allegedly terminated from his job after providing notice of his deployment to Afghanistan as part of the United States Navy Reserve.  Ziober alleged violations of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Act of 1994 ("USERRA").  BLB moved to compel arbitration based upon the agreement signed by Ziober.  The district c...

Age discrimination is a topic that I come across every so often, but not a lot of cases/developments jump out.  With that being said, given a recent age discrimination related ruling from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and two recent age discrimination suits filed against Tesla and Google, I think this is a good time to devote attention to the topic. As always, below are a couple articles that caught my eye this week. 11th Circuit Holds "Subtle" Age Discrimination Lawful (For John Applicants) Earlier this month, the 11th Circuit held that subtle age discrimination is lawful in regard to the hiring of job applicants.  According to the Court of Appeals, job applicants cannot benefit from the disparate impact provision of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA").  Instead, only employees are entitled to protections under the ADEA.  Noah Feldman over at Bloomberg breaks down the Court's ruling well and points out how the Court arrived at the s...

Recently, Associated Builders and Contractors (and national trade associations) brought suit in Texas to challenge the implementation of the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces rule.  This rule, which has also been referred to as the "Blacklisting Rule" would require that contractors who seek federal work to disclose recent labor law violations.  This rule arises out of Executive Order No. 13673 (issued by President Barack Obama on July 30, 2016) which was designed to achieve sweeping labor law reforms.  The Obama administration's goal with the Blacklisting Rule was to withhold government contracts from employers with a history of violations.  Opponents of the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces rule argued that it violated contractors' First Amendment rights and would restrict open competition for federal contracts by forcing companies to disclose allegations of unadjudicated labor and employment law violations.   Late Monday, Judge Marcia Crone from the U...

Soto v. Motel 6 Operating, L.P. - California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District - Division One Facts :  Lidia Soto ("Soto") worked for Motel 6 for nearly two and a half years as a nonexempt employee.  Upon leaving her position with Motel 6, she brought a representative PAGA action against her former employer on the grounds that Motel 6 violated California Labor Code Section 226(a).  Soto claimed that Motel 6 violated Section 226(a) by failing to provide nonexempt employees with a wage statement that set forth "all vacation and PTO (paid time off) wages accrued during the applicable pay period." Motel 6 demurred and claimed that Section 226(a) does not require that employers itemize the monetary value of vacation balances before the employment relationship is terminated.  Soto countered and argued that Section 226(a) requires itemization of earned "wages" and other California cases have recognized that vacation pay is a "wage". ...

On November 8, voters in Alabama will get to decide whether to amend the state constitution and solidify the right to work law in the state.  Amendment 8 would write right to work into the state constitution (and therefore make it harder to repeal).  Readers might recall that a similar ballot initiate will be up for vote in Virginia this November as well.   Similar to Virginia, if this amendment passes and right to work is written into the state constitution, it would become difficult (if not nearly impossible) to undo the law.  Any attempt to change the law (and amend the constitution) would require a three fifths vote in both the House and Senate in Alabama and then a statewide vote. Alabama, a right to work state since 1953, is a heavily unionized state.  In fact, approximately 10.2% of the workforce belonged to a union in 2015.  For a southern state, that is a somewhat unprecedented number of union workers.  Common thought would follow that ...

I come across ERISA articles and related lawsuits every so often.  Given the rather complex nature of these cases, I do not go too in depth, but enjoy skimming through them.  This week, I came across an update on three class action ERISA suits brought against MIT, NYU, and Yale that I think readers would enjoy.  Even for those who do not know much about ERISA, this article does a good job breaking down the basics of the case and what the grounds are for the suits. As always, below are a couple articles that caught my eye this week. Recent ERISA Suits Brought Against MIT, NYU, and Yale As John Manganaro over at planadviser writes, three separate class action ERISA suits were filed against MIT, NYU, and Yale on the grounds that the universities breached their duty of loyalty and prudence under ERISA by causing plan participants to pay millions of dollars in "unreasonable and excessive fees" for record keeping, administrative, and investment services of the retire...

Readers might recall that two lawsuits have recently been filed which challenge the new overtime rules that were set to go into effect December 1, 2016.  One suit was filed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce while the other suit was filed by several business groups and officials from 21 (predominantly Republican) states.  Under the new overtime rules, employers would be required to pay overtime to any salaried worker who earns less than $47,500/year.  For those unfamiliar with the current rules, the minimum threshold is presently $23,600/year. Earlier this month, the 21 states that filed one of the suits requested that an emergency injunction be issued to stop the implementation of the new rules.  Note, the request is not limited to only the 21 states that have brought suit...and instead would apply nationwide if the injunction were granted. It will be interesting to see how this one plays out...given that Congress recently approved a six month delay in the ...