The Majority Opinion: Legal Blog

  Another week down and another debate in the books.  Following last week’s debate between President Donald Trump and Democratic candidate Joe Biden, Vice President Mike Pence and Senator Kamala Harris sat down on Wednesday to talk about several topics ahead of the November 3rd election.  While I will refer readers to other resources which dissect that debate in minute detail (including the cameo appearance by a particular fly), a recent podcast on social media posts and the 2020 election is relevant to this week’s political developments and Wednesday’s debate. As always, below are a couple articles that caught my eye this week. President Trump Issues Executive Order Banning Racial Sensitivity Training At the end of September, President Donald Trump issued an executive order in which he banned training that involved race and sex based discrimination.  The executive order is quite far reaching as it applies to executive departments and agencies, the U.S. military, fed...

  Recently, with the U.S House of Representatives voting 329 - 73 in favor of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, the legislation moves to the Senate for further debate and (unlikely) vote. Readers will recall that last month I had highlighted this legislation as one to keep an eye on .  The legislation, sponsored by Democrats (who have majority control of the House), would require employers to provide reasonable accommodations to help pregnant workers continue working as well as prohibit employers from denying employment opportunities to these workers because they are pregnant. As I had noted in my prior post, even with this legislation clearing the House (by a sizable margin), I think it is unlikely it will get very far in the Senate for a few reasons.  For starters, the Senate is in effect operating on a limited capacity for a few weeks because of several Senators testing positive for the coronavirus.  As well, once the Senate gets back to business as usual, I susp...

  On September 15th, Hawaii Governor David Ige signed Senate Bill 2193 into law which impacts the state’s ban the box legislation, which has been in effect since 1998. Prior to the passage of Senate Bill 2193, the state’s ban the box legislation had a ten year “look back” period in which employers could consider felony and misdemeanor convictions of applicants.  Any felony or misdemeanor convictions past ten years could not be considered when choosing whether to hire the applicant.  The ban the box legislation also required employers to apply a “rational relationship” test before they could deny an employment position after conducting a background check.  Under this “rational relationship” test, an employer could only consider those convictions that occurred within the ten year window if there was a “rational relationship” between the conviction and the prospective job. Senate Bill 2193 rewrites the state’s ban the box legislation in a few ways:  1) Felonies old...

  Earlier today, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a request by Major League Baseball (“MLB”) to take up an unlawful wage class action lawsuit brought by minor league baseball players, which means the case will likely proceed ahead to a trial setting. As a bit of background, a group of minor league baseball players had filed suit against MLB several years ago on the grounds that they were earning less than $7,500.00 per year, in violation of federal law .  ( For years, minor league baseball players have earned less than the minimum wage rate, which has been a source of contention .)  The lawsuit, Senne v. Royals , is comprised of both current and former players who seek back pay for hours worked.  The lawsuit bounced around a bit in the lower courts with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issuing a ruling last year that allowed the suit to proceed as a class action.   Readers might recall that in 2018, the Save America’s Pastime Act was introduced which sought to st...

  Some readers might have watched the Presidential debate earlier this week and decided that they will head to the polls to vote for President Donald Trump or Democratic candidate Joe Biden (or perhaps a write in vote for Mickey Mouse, Scooby Doo, or Joey Baggadonuts.)  In doing so, I would refer you to the below article from The National Law Review that addresses some states which provide paid leave to go vote.  Of course there are several other articles worth reviewing, but that paid leave article is well worth a read. As always, below are a couple articles that caught my eye this week. A Closer Look At the Increase to Labor Costs if Florida’s Amendment 2 Passes in November The Florida Restaurant & Lodging Association has provided a calculator which shows how much the labor costs will increase for employers in the state, as to tipped workers, should voters approve Amendment 2 next month.   For those needing a refresher, Amendment 2 would increase the hourly pa...

  On September 17th, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 685 into law which requires employers in the state to provide notice to their employees, within one business day, that they might have been exposed to the coronavirus. There are several key pieces of the legislation that I do want to highlight.  Employers must provide the potential exposure notice to their employees in a manner typically used to communicate employment related information.  The notice itself must protect employee privacy, identity, and personal health information.  The notice is also required to include information about coronavirus paid sick leave and benefits as well as the employer’s implemented (or planned) disinfection and safety plan. Notably, Assembly Bill 685 goes one step further and also requires employers to report this potential exposure to the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (“COSHA”.)  COSHA is charged with issuing citations, shutting do...

  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 caught my eye this month. Lawsuit Filed Against Chipotle for Sexual Harassment & Retaliation Earlier this month, a sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuit was filed against Chipotle.  The lawsuit claims that a Tampa location service manager was sexually harassed by a coworker and was unlawfully terminated when a complaint was made.  After the coworker made several suggestive comments to the manager, the conduct escalated to two sexual assaults in one day.  While the prior harassment had already been reported to store management, the manager stated she planned to report the sexual assaults to corporate.  Within three days, the manager was terminated.  This alleged conduct, if true, is in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits discrimination based upon sex and retali...