The Majority Opinion: Legal Blog

The U.S. Supreme Court made its long awaited ruling in Janus v. AFSCME earlier this week.  That development needs no introduction as readers have surely heard about the Court's decision and seen the immediate implications of what that ruling could mean for labor unions.  Rather than rehash that decision just a few days later, I thought it would be appropriate to instead look at a few other right to work matters pending across the country. As always, below are a couple articles that caught my eye this week. Could Supporters of a Right to Work Bill In New Hampshire Use Janus As a Springboard? Todd Bookman wrote a brief note that highlighted a somewhat renewed sense of optimism among Republicans in New Hampshire that have thus far failed to get a right to work bill passed in the state.  Although several attempts have been made in the past few years (despite appearing to have the votes to pass a bill), New Hampshire has yet to join the growing ranks of right t...

As always, there are some EEOC cases that jump out at me when I review developments on that front.  Below are a couple EEOC cases and settlements that stand out. D.C. Walmart Location Alleged to Have Discriminated Against Disabled Employees The EEOC has alleged in a recent lawsuit that a D.C. Walmart location violated the Americans with Disabilities Act when two deaf employees were denied reasonable accommodations and not given communications accommodations (such as sign language interpreters).  The suit alleges that without sign language interpreters, these two employees were not able to participate in work meetings, trainings, and other work related communications. La Fiesta Fresh Mexican Grill and Cantina to Pay $25,000.00 to Settle Sexual Harassment & Retaliation Suit A Mexican restaurant in Virginia has agreed to settle a sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit for $25,000.00 after allegations were made about how a male manager treated a young hostes...

At the end of the Supreme Court's term, the Court has issued a decision today in one of the most anticipated (and potentially far reaching) labor law cases in recent memory.  For those needing a refresher, the Court heard oral arguments in Janus v. AFSCME back in February in a case that addressed whether workers that do not join a public sector union can be forced to pay agency fees (a/k/a "fair share" fees) to cover the costs of having the union represent them during the collective bargaining process .  The law, as currently written (and challenged with this case), allowed unions to charge these agency fees even if workers did not join a union.  Needless to say, these agency fees had become a major point of contention among anti-union groups that criticized the compelled fees as a violation of the First Amendment. During oral arguments a few months ago, some Justices echoed the "talking points" previously made in regard to agency fees and seemed to sig...

Readers might recall that last week, voters in the District of Columbia made headlines when they approved Initiative 77 .  With approximately 55% of voters approving the measure, tipped workers in the District were put on the fast track for a minimum wage increase from the current hourly rate of $3.33 up to $15/hour in the coming years.  While this was a relatively close vote (with 44,353 vote in favor and 36,090 against), supporters of the measure cheered it as a major milestone in the ongoing minimum wage fight across the country. However, perhaps this is a good time to pump the breaks on celebrating the vote for the time being.  Since last week, restaurant owners indicated they intended to continue the fight against the minimum wage hike for tipped workers.  After voters approved Initiative 77, it was sent to Capitol Hill for a 30 day Congressional review.  During this review period, Congress could alter or overturn the measure entirely.  As well,...

As with many employment and labor law related bills (and cases) being litigated around the country, there are always a few that stand out. This is one to keep an eye on. Currently, the Employee Rights Act is working its way through the U.S. Congress.  This bill, H.R. 2723, would amend the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA") and make it an unlawful labor practice for a labor organization to interfere with the rights of employees to organize and collectively bargain, require union recertification after a a turnover in the workforce (exceeding 50% of the bargaining unit), require the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB") to give 14 days advance notice before a hearing to investigate an election petition, and also require an employer to provide the NLRB with a list comprised only of employee names and addresses of all eligible voters within 7 days after an NLRB determination of the appropriate bargaining unit or an agreement on eligible voters. Notabl...

Tough to narrow things down this week, but I came across a couple articles that I wanted to highlight for readers.  Given the attention that FLSA cheerleader lawsuits have been receiving, I think it makes sense to lead off with an update on the most recent case. As always, below are a couple articles that caught my eye this week. Dallas Cowboys Cheerleader That Filed FLSA Lawsuit Further Describes Experience With Team Earlier this week, I noted a recent FLSA lawsuit filed by a former N.F.L cheerleader .  Catherine Kast at The New York Post went in depth to give more of a background on the underlying facts of the case which is well worth a read.  Two things I will point out:  1) The former cheerleader, Erika Wilkins, has stated that while she could have simply settled with the team rather than filing her lawsuit, she wanted to take a stand and set an example for others (by bringing the FLSA/Equal Pay Act issues to the forefront); and 2) In several interview...

Yesterday, voters in Washington D.C. approved Initiative 77, a controversial ballot measure that will raise the hourly pay rate for tipped workers in the city from the present rate of $3.33/hour up to $15/hour in the coming years .  In the interim, employers will be required to make up the difference between the tipped employee minimum wage rate, $3.33/hour, and the Washington D.C. minimum wage rate, $12.50/hour, if the tipped employee does not earn at least the minimum wage rate. Opponents of the measure had long argued that if approved, it would lead to employers passing the increased labor cost onto customers (by way of service charges, higher prices for food and services, etc.), cutting work hours of its employees, and result in widespread layoffs as employers would seek to offset the rise in wages.  However, that 'campaign' to oppose Initiative 77 apparently did not pay off as the approximate 55% of voters that voted in favor the measure were unswayed by these pot...