The Majority Opinion: Legal Blog

On October 13th, Medieval Times filed a lawsuit against the union that represents employees at one of its New Jersey locations on the grounds that the company’s trademark was infringed upon when the union chose the name “Medieval Times Performers United.” According to the company, the logo and script of the union closely resemble those of the company.  As a result, the company has alleged that the union is unlawfully “threatening the established goodwill of Medieval Times” by including the company’s name in the union’s name along with the medieval themed imagery.  The argument follows, according to Medieval Times, that the name name “Medieval Times Performers United” implies the union is affiliated with or endorsed by the company. The union has alleged that this is a frivolous lawsuit and an attempt by Medieval Times to bully the workers who just voted to unionize back in the summer.  Something tells me this is not the last we are going to hear on the matter. For addition...

Regular readers of the blog likely haven taken note of the (major) increase in labor law developments to close out 2022.  With all of those developments, it would be wrong of me to gloss over those highlights and not give them the attention they deserve.  With that being said, I also wanted to look at the other side of the coin this week.  While I read through a few compelling articles on labor law related matters (and noted an article about the unionization effort at Starbucks), I am highlighting a few employment law and HR related topics for readers to page through in the coming days. As always, below are a couple articles that caught my eye this week. Survey: App Based Workers Prefer to Be Classified As Independent Contractors Back in September, a survey was conducted among 1,251 app based workers to get their input on whether they prefer to be classified as independent contractors or instead classified as employees.  By a somewhat surprising 77%, those app based...

As with many labor & employment law cases (and bills) being litigated around the country, there are always a few that stand out.  This is one to keep an eye on. This November, November 8th to be exact, voters in Tennessee will have the opportunity to enshrine the state’s right to work law into the Tennessee Constitution. Tennessee already has a right to work law in place that allows employees to opt out of joining a union and prohibits union membership as a condition of employment.  Readers might be wondering if there is already a right to work law in place, why bother with an amendment to the Tennessee Constitution?  Well, quite simply, enshrining the right to work law in the state’s Constitution better “insulates” it from being repealed by the State Legislature at a later point (say if Democrats were to muster enough votes to repeal the state’s right to work law.) By amending the Tennessee Constitution to include the state’s right to work law, proponents of the meas...

Earlier this month, San Diego City Councilmember Raul Campillo submitted a proposal to San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria in which it has been proposed that city employees would get twelve weeks of paid parental leave (or fourteen weeks if there was a complication during delivery.) This proposal, which would dramatically increase the amount of paid parental leave currently offered to city employees (four weeks as of this writing), seeks to put San Diego city employees in a class of their own.  Notably, California has a state law in place which offers new parents six weeks of partially paid leave and another six weeks of unpaid leave. Of course, many readers are likely wondering what this twelve weeks of paid parental leave would end up costing.  That is where things might get tricky.  Currently, San Diego’s paid leave program costs the city $1.5 million/year.  Campillo’s proposal would hike that cost to $5 - $6 million/year.  However, Campillo has suggested that offeri...

On Labor Day, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 257 (also known as the FAST Recovery Act) into law which dramatically impacts the fast food industry in the state. Under the new law, a ten member council made up of fast food workers, franchisees, franchisers, advocates for fast food workers, and representatives from the Governor’s office will be formed.  This council will be charged with establishing minimum standards on wages, working hours, and other conditions related to the health and safety of fast food workers. Many observers suspect (or should I say, expect) that this council will move to raise hourly wage rates for fast food workers to $22/hour next year.  Whether that happens remains to be seen.  However, I can envision a situation where this wage rate goes into effect in the not too distant future. Note, this new law applies to fast food employers with more than 100 workers. For additional information:   https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/bill...

As the saying goes:  Not so fast, my friend.  Late this afternoon, the Amazon Labor Union withdrew its petition with the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) to hold an election at a Moreno Valley, California warehouse location. Only a few weeks ago, (on October 12th) the union had filed a petition with the NLRB to hold an election.  The NLRB held there was sufficient support among workers at the warehouse to hold an election.  Nevertheless, the union has withdrawn its petition and an election will no longer take place.  While no reason was given for the withdrawal of the petition (nor does a reason need to be given), it leaves one to speculate if the recent election loss at a New York Amazon warehouse gave the union cold feet? For additional information:   https://www.theverge.com/2022/10/24/23421694/amazon-labor-union-withdrawn-petition-california-ont8-fulfillment-center

In recent weeks, that National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) issued a 3 - 2 decision in which it held that Tesla cannot prohibit its factory workers from wearing clothing with union insignia while in the workplace. Tesla had sought to bar its factory workers from doing so, in reliance upon a 2019 NLRB decision.  However, the NLRB reversed its 2019 ruling in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and held that is presumptively unlawful for an employer to restrict union clothing without a special circumstance that would justify the ban, even if the employer’s policy is neutral on its face.  In this instance, the NLRB found that Tesla had failed to show any special circumstance to support its ban.  Consequently, the NLRB’s decision stipulated that workers have a protected right to display union insignia under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). What does this mean for employers going forward?  In short, when an employer interferes in any way with its employees’ cho...