The Majority Opinion: Legal Blog

Shortest month of the year leads to fewer EEOC cases and settlements coming across my radar.  Perhaps this is one of the shorter EEOC Roundups in recent memory?  Nevertheless, the below settlement is worth highlighting. As always, there are some EEOC cases that jump out at me when I review developments on that front.  Below are some EEOC cases and settlements that caught my eye this month. Wellpath to Pay $75,000 to Settle Religious Discrimination Case According to a lawsuit filed against Wellpath, a provider of healthcare services in correctional facilities, an employee was hired and prior to starting work told the Human Resources department that due to her religious beliefs, she was to dress modestly and requested to wear a scrub skirt rather than scrub pants.  The religious accommodation request was denied and the employee’s job offer was subsequently rescinded.  Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, discrimination against an applicant or employee ...

Nothing like a late breaking news story for a Friday afternoon, right?  A little earlier this afternoon, it was announced that workers at a Mesa, Arizona Starbucks had voted an overwhelming 25 - 3 to unionize and in doing so have become the third Starbucks location to approve unionization efforts. Readers might recall that workers at two Buffalo area locations had voted to unionize recently.  While other locations have moved to unionize, not many have been given the green light to hold an election.  Granted, this Mesa location was rather quick to do so and an election was authorized by the National Labor Relations Board.  Although an election took place and the votes had already been cast, announcement of the results were out on hold while Starbucks challenged individual locations voting rather than by region. With that being said, this unionization of the Mesa location marks the third store to unionize and the first outside of New York.  If I were a betting man...

Ah yes, a delayed filing that potentially prohibits an attorney from arguing a motion or legal point.  Some attorneys might call that concerning; I would call it nightmare fuel.  I refer readers to the below article about a tricky situation Starbucks finds itself in due to a late filing. As always, below are a couple articles that caught my eye this week. Virginia Senate Committee Votes Down Bills That Would Have Halted Minimum Wage Hike Earlier this week, a Virginia Senate Committee blocked three different bills from proceeding ahead which would have repealed a planned statewide minimum wage hike.  Readers might recall that the current minimum wage rate, $11/hour, is set to increase yearly until it hits $15/hour in 2026.  For the time being, with this Committee blocking the three bills from moving forward, the eventual $15/hour wage rate is still full steam ahead. 8 Minutes Short: Starbucks Misses Filing Deadline In Fight Against Unionization As this article from T...

Recently, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed suit against the Biden administration over the planned wage hike for federal contractors. President Joe Biden had announced his administration would implement a wage hike for federal contractors that would see these workers get $15/hour.  However, according to Paxton, raising wage rates for federal contractors to $15/hour amounts to federal overreach that would harm the Texas economy.  Under this line of reasoning, Paxton has argued that raising wage rates to $15/hour would require many employers to dismiss employees to help defray the increased labor costs.  As well, the argument follows that the increase in labor costs would ultimately be passed onto Texas consumers.  Rounding out the argument against the wage hike, Paxton argued that the ability to raise wage rates fell solely to the U.S. Congress, rather than the President.  Note, Mississippi and Louisiana have joined the suit as well.  (There is also an...

Earlier this morning, it was announced that the USWNT’s equal pay lawsuit that had been filed against the U.S. Soccer Federation has reached a final resolution with a reported $24 million settlement. Readers might recall that the equal pay lawsuit filed by these soccer players garnered widespread media attention when it was filed back in 2019 .  The lawsuit sought back pay totaling around $66 million.  (The lawsuit also included a claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  That Title VII claim, which complained of disparate treatment in regard to things such as travel and lodging (in comparison to the USMNT) was previously settled.) Getting to this stage has been a long haul, including a prior dismissal of the equal pay lawsuit during the summary judgment phase .  U.S. District Court Judge Gary Klausner dismissed the equal pay lawsuit on the grounds that during the period in question, the USWNT actually made more money per game compared to the USMNT. ...

Legislation that was introduced in the California Legislature on February 10th would make it a requirement that both public and private employers in the state require employees and independent contractors get the coronavirus vaccine as a condition of employment. Under the terms of AB 1993, if approved, the vaccine mandate would go into effect on January 1, 2023 and would remain in place until the Centers for Disease Control determined that coronavirus vaccines were no longer necessary for the health and safety of individuals. Notably, the bill does provide an exemption for those workers with a medical condition, disability, or those with sincerely held religious beliefs. Readers will recall that the U.S. Supreme Court had recently struck down a vaccine mandate for large scale employers.  Following that ruling, it was speculated that states (or cities, counties, etc.) could step in and implement vaccine mandates that might survive judicial scrutiny.  Granted, AB 1993 was only r...

Perhaps this could of been an Amazon dedicated post if not for the first article I highlighted   With that being said, all three articles are worth a read and provide a few different topics were noting.  Whether readers are interested in union elections or workplace coronavirus policies, I would suggest giving all three articles a read. As always, below are a couple articles that caught my eye this week. Seattle City Council Passes Resolution Supporting Unionization Efforts at Starbucks In a resolution that is really nothing more than a symbolic gesture, the Seattle City Council approved a resolution in which it expressed its support for unionization efforts at three Seattle area Starbucks locations.  The resolution passed last Tuesday 6 - 0 although several Councilmembers did not vote.  There was some disagreement among Councilmembers about what role, if any, the City Council should play in matters such as this which impact private businesses and that was not direct...