The Majority Opinion: Legal Blog

EEOC v. Bob Evans Farms, LLC - United States District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania Facts :  Hayle Nadalin, nee Macioce ("Macioce") began working at a Bob Evans restaurant as a waitress in 2009.  Bob /Evans used an automated computer-based scheduling system to create employee schedules based upon factors such as employees' availability and the anticipated needs of the restaurant.  Subject to a manager's approval, employees could change their schedules.  Jay Moreau("Moreau"), who was the General Manager of the location that Macioce worked at, had the authority to "pencil in" employees onto the finalized schedule if needed. In July of 2014, Macioce was pregnant with a due date in September.  She indicated that she wanted to work up until she gave birth to her child (which ultimately occurred on September 12).  In mid July, Macioce and Moreau discussed Macioce's future work schedule.  As Moreau believed Macioce's pregnancy...

Midwest Division - MMC, LLC v. National Labor Relations Board - D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Facts :  Midwest Division - MMC, LLC had a d/b/a, Menorah Medical Center ("Menorah") which operated a hospital.  In Kansas, where Menorah was located, state law requires hospitals have an internal peer-review program to monitor the quality of care furnished.  Menorah subsequently formed the Nursing Peer Review Committee ("Committee"0 for the hospital's nursing staff.  The committee was charged with examining alleged violations of the applicable standard of care by the hospital's nurses and reported serious breaches to the state licensing agency. The committee investigated two nurses, Sherry Centye ("Centye") and Brenda Smith ("Smith"), at the hospital for alleged substandard conduct.  Both Centye and Smith received letters from Menorah's Risk Manager that alleged the nurses had "exhibited unprofessional conduct as defined by th...

A few months ago, I watched a documentary on Netflix of French President Emmanuel Macron in his campaign to become president of France.  While the documentary, Emmanuel Macron: Behind the Rise , was compelling, given the fact that Macron came from 'relative' obscurity to eventually winning the run-off election, it left me wondering how his presidency would play out.  Well it did not take long for him to announce an ambitious agenda, including a proposed reform of the country's Labor Code.  While I will not attempt to act like I know the inner workings of that Labor Code (in fact, it appears many legal scholars in France grapple with a thorough comprehension themselves), I did not want to highlight an article from Bloomberg which gives readers an idea of what kind of fight President Macron might be in for as he attempts to reform the country's Labor Code. As always, below are a couple articles that caught my eye this week. French President Seeks to Reform Lab...

Varela v. AE Liquidation, Inc. - Third Circuit Court of Appeals Facts :  Annette Varela and John Dimura ("Appellants"), on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated employees, worked for Eclipse Aviation Corporation ("Eclipse") and were laid off after Eclipse suddenly closed its doors in February 2009.  Based upon the voluminous facts in the record, this shutdown was unexpected because after Eclipse declared bankruptcy in November 2008, it reached an agreement to sell the company to its largest shareholder, European Technology and Investment Research Center ("ETIRC").  If that agreement had been completed, it would have allowed Eclipse to continue operating.  However, the sale was contingent upon funding from Vnesheconomban ("VEB"), which never materialized, although there was much back and forth between VEB and Eclipse in which VEB repeatedly indicated the funding would come through.  As a result of VEB not providing the requi...

Last week, I wrote an article about attempts by unions and pro labor groups in Missouri to stop the implementation of a right to work law in the state (that was set to go into effect on August 28th).  These opponents of right to work in the state had collected more than 300,000 signatures in an effort to get the measure on the ballot next November.  (Although readers might recall that "only" 100,000 signatures were required to place the matter before voters...although as I noted, it is always a good idea to get more signatures than necessary in case some are excluded for any given reason). Shortly after the signatures were delivered to the Missouri Secretary of State's office last Friday, Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft's spokeswoman Maura Browning said that the right to work law was essentially suspended.  Assuming enough of the signatures are found to be valid, voters will have the opportunity to rule on the future of right to work in Missouri. As noted ...

I had intended to write a note about the minimum wage vote in Kansas City a few days ago, but work kept me tied up.  However, I did want to highlight that article in particular, given the protracted and drawn out legal fight that is likely to follow.  The article from The Kansas City Star gives readers a good idea of where things stand at the moment, with an eye to to the future. As always, below are a couple articles that caught my eye this week. Harvard Appeals NLRB Decision to Invalidate Unionization Vote Readers might recall that last year, a student unionization election occurred at Harvard.  After the vote occurred, there were subsequent challenges made to several ballots cast in the election as well as claims that Harvard had improperly prevented eligible students from participating in the election .  While the initial results appeared to show a vote against unionization, the Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board, John J. Walsh, J...

This past February, Missouri Republican Governor Eric Greitens signed a bill that would make Missouri a right to work state .  (The right to work bill would prevent employers from mandating union membership as a condition of employment). Unsurprisingly, unions were quick to criticize the bill as a job killer with Democrats in the state trying to find ways to stop the implementation of the bill.  The prevailing notion to contest the right to work bill was to collect enough signatures to get the matter on the 2018 ballot.  Although only 100,000 notarized signatures are needed to force a vote, it was recently announced that 300,000 signatures had been gathered to support putting the right to work measure on the 2018 ballot for voters to decide upon.  (It is always a good idea to get more signatures than necessary as many signatures are often contested, illegible, signed by people not registered to vote in the state, etc.  As a result, if more signatures are su...