The Majority Opinion: Legal Blog

Earlier this month, several DC firefighters and paramedics filed a motion asking that their employer be held in contempt for enacting (and enforcing) a policy that prohibits workers from having facial hair and beards. The four workers that filed the motion have argued they have beards as a result of their religion.  According to the complaint, they were removed from field duty in March of 2020 after a policy was implemented preventing workers from having facial hair.  (The policy went into place around the start of the Covid pandemic.)  In their motion, the workers point to a 2009 decision in Potter v. District of Columbia  in which a federal court held that workers have a right to facial hair for religious reasons.  Consequently, the workers argue that their employer cannot prohibit them from having a beard under  Potter.   At the time the policy was issued in 2020, the employer stated its prohibition on facial hair was intended to allow its workers t...

As with many labor & employment law related cases (and bills) being litigated around the country, there are always a few that stand out.  This is one to keep an eye on. On October 6th, the United States Supreme Court granted a petition to hear an appeal of the In re Grand Jury case from the Ninth Circuit.  This particular case asks the Court to consider the standard that governs the attorney-client privilege in “dual purpose” communications.  For the context of this case, “dual purpose” communications include when communications are made for both legal and non legal advice. The Ninth Circuit has joined with the Fifth Circuit to hold that the “primary purpose” test governs the analysis.  Under this test, it is up for a court to determine if the primary purpose of the communication is to provide legal advice.  If this is found to be the case, the communication is protected by the attorney client privilege and protected from disclosure.  If this is not f...

Pucilowski v. Spotify USA, Inc - Second Circuit Court of Appeals Facts :  Valerie Pucilowski (“Pucilowski”) worked at Spotify as a user researcher.  During her employment with Spotify, she was diagnose with major depression, generalized anxiety disorder, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.  As a result, she sometimes worked from home.  After suffering a head injury and concussion, she took two weeks leave from her job and was apparently terminated three days after she returned to work. In doing so, she signed a separation agreement which provided her with two months’ salary in exchange for her waiving, among other things, any Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) claims against Spotify.  Pucilowski thereafter proceeded to file suit against Spotify on the grounds that the separation agreement was not enforceable because she claimed Spotify fraudulently induced her to sign the separation agreement and took advantage of her mental condition when she was pres...

This week, more than half of freight rail workers in the country are set to vote on whether or not to approve a proposed labor deal that was brokered by the Biden administration by in September. Readers might recall that the Biden administration stepped in to help negotiate a new labor deal in an effort to avoid a strike by these rail workers that could immobilize the economy headed into the Christmas season.  However, in order for that proposed labor deal to take effect, several unions have to vote on whether or not to approve it.  In doing so, that has set up a few high stakes votes in recent weeks among members from these various unions. At current count, seven unions have voted in favor of the deal while three have voted against it.  Those in support of the deal point out that it provides rail workers with better pay and benefits and is the best deal they could have hoped to get.  However, opponents of the deal have argued that it does not go far enough and leave...

While I was going to brief a case about a recent hostile work environment lawsuit, I think it is better suited for some light reading to end the week.  I caution readers that while no two hostile work environment claims are the same and each one requires a fact intensive analysis, it is important to remember that sometimes isolated (or limited) instances can still create a hostile work environment. As always, below are a couple articles that caught my eye this week. The Joys (& Headaches) of Remote Work Let’s call this a first world problem situation.  Many readers likely have some version of a work from home setup since Covid first started or perhaps a hybrid setup in recent months.  With the surge in remote work, many workers have taken to trips, vacations, cruises, etc. to enjoy a bit of downtime while also working.  As this article from USA Today notes, there can be hiccups that happen with some remote work setups, including when making a transatlantic trip ...

Recently, the California Legislature approved Assembly Bill 1041 which will enable eligible employees to  use state family and medical leave and paid sick leave to care for a “designated person.” Prior to this law getting approved, the California Family Right Act (“CFRA”) enables eligible employees to take job protected leave to care for numerous family members including an employee’s child, parent, parent in law, grandparent, grandchild, sibling, spouse or state registered domestic partner.  However, Assembly Bill 1041 has included “designated person” within the scope of CFRA to include “any individual related by blood or whose association with the employee is the equivalent of a family relationship.  Notably, however, the “equivalent of a family relationship” is not defined.  Perhaps that matter will be clarified in subsequent legislation? This new law will go into effect on January 1, 2023. For additional information:   https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/face...

In both the First Circuit Court of Appeals and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, the Courts are considering two cases that ask whether delivery drivers are exempt from arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”).  For those unaware, if an employee is held to fall under an exemption of the FAA, the employee cannot be compelled to arbitrate a matter with their employer.  In these two cases, the delivery drivers of an employer are attempting to argue that they are transportation workers under the FAA, given their delivery work, and therefore are exempt from arbitration under the FAA. As for the case in the First Circuit, Canales v. LePage Bakeries Park Street , the employer is asking the Court to reverse a district court finding that the employer’s delivery drivers are transportation workers and therefore exempt from arbitration under the FAA. In regard to the case in the Second Circuit, Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC , the delivery drivers have asked t...