The Majority Opinion: Legal Blog

  For those in the HR field looking for a relevant article, I refer you to the first one this week.  It should come as no surprise that employee retention is a key part of the job for any HR professional...but more so in this employee friendly job market.    As always, below are a couple articles that caught my eye this week. Tips For Improving Management Styles in the Midst of an Employee Friendly Job Market As the saying goes, “employees do not leave companies, they leave bad bosses.”  (I would posit that money is a key factor too, but I digress.)  This article from The Fast Company has four tips for how employers can be a better boss while working (or struggling) to maintain a fully staffed workforce.  While some tips are somewhat common sense (such as a suggestion that employers stop micromanaging and focus on the big picture), there are a few that might not have crossed your mind (such as encouraging employees to pursue internal opportunities.) ...

  On August 13th, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker signed into law an amendment to the Illinois Freedom to Work Act.  The amendment, which will take effect on January 1, 2022 and only applies to restrictive covenants entered into after January 1, 2022, has several important points to note: Employers in the state are barred from entering into non compete agreements with any employee that earns $75,000 or less per year.  The salary threshold will increase $5,000 every five years until January 2037. Employers are also barred from entering into non solicit agreements with any employee that earns $45,000 or less per year.  The salary threshold will increase $2,500 every five years until January 2037. Before entering into a non compete agreement, employers will be required to advise employees to consult with an attorney.  Employers will also be required to provide employees with at least 14 days to review the non compete or non solicit agreement before they can decide...

In recent weeks, United States Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett rejected an appeal from Indiana University students that sought to contest the lawfulness of Indiana University’s coronavirus vaccine mandate as a condition of enrollment for the fall 2021 semester. As readers might have likely seen, vaccine mandates in the workplace (and elsewhere) have become a hot button issue.  With the rejection of the appeal, Indiana University can lawfully require students to be vaccinated in order to attend classes this fall.  However, the fact that Justice Barrett did not comment on the rejection of the appeal has left some questions as to whether the Supreme Court is indicating its agreement with vaccine mandates…or if this rejection of the appeal was more focused on the specific facts of the Indiana University case and would not necessarily apply to other related situations. Although the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission had released guidance earlier this year that employer...

  Remote work has been an ongoing topic over the past (many) months.  While remote work has been relatively accepted by both employers and employees alike, a potential change to remote work policy/pay at Google just might shake things up...and not necessarily in a good way. As always, below are a couple articles that caught my eye this week. Pay Reduction For Remote Workers? At Google, That’s Under Consideration Business Insider wrote a recent article in which it noted that some companies, including Google, are weighing pay reductions for workers that have chosen to work remotely rather than return to the office.  The logic follows that since these workers are working remotely (and have often relocated to a lower cost of living locale), a pay reduction makes sense (in the mind of employers that is.)  While nothing is certain and the idea could fizzle out, if a large scale employer like Google is considering such a move, surely others will follow suit. ALJ Finds Sta...

  Travers v. Federal Express Corporation - Third Circuit Court of Appeals Facts :  Gerard Travers (“Travers”), who worked for Federal Express Corporation (“FedEx”), served in the U.S. Navy and Reserves.  During his tenure at FedEx, Travers completed his Reserve duties during leave from work.  Although FedEx provides employees with paid leave for time spent at jury duty, for illness, and bereavement, paid leave is not offered for military leave. Travers filed suit against FedEx on the grounds that the Uniform Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (“USERRA”) entitled him to paid leave for military duty.  FedEx countered on the grounds that since it did not provide paid leave for military duty to any employee, it had not treated service members any differently than the rest of its employees.  The District Court dismissed the lawsuit on the grounds that USERRA did not provide for paid leave for military duty as paid leave was not a “right and...

  On July 8th, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy signed several pieces of legislation into law, one of them being A5892 which makes it unlawful for employers in the state to misclassify workers for the purpose of evading insurance premiums. As an attorney that has handled my fair share of insurance premium disputes (including audits of commercial general liability policies), I can tell you it is not uncommon for employers to misclassify (intentionally or otherwise) workers as contractors rather than employees in an effort to lower their insurance premiums.  However, as any good audit will discover, workers that should have been designated as employees rather than contractors will result in a higher premium being assessed against the insured (the employer.) This new law seeks to ferret out some of those issues by making these misclassifications unlawful. For a copy of the text of A5892:   https://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2020/Bills/A9999/5892_I1.HTM

  With vaccine mandates becoming a somewhat hot button issue lately, I think it is appropriate to look at the topic under the lens of employment law.  While the situation is rapidly changing (almost daily), this is a good article to lead things off today. As always, below are a couple articles that caught my eye this week. Biden Administration Reportedly Examining Whether Employers Can Mandate Vaccines I think the headline article here says it all:  The President Joe Biden administration is reportedly looking at whether employers (and businesses) can mandate the coronavirus vaccine.  As this article from Reuters notes, several employers, such as United Airlines, Microsoft, and Tyson Foods, have recently announced that they are requiring vaccines for their employees.  In fact, Labor Secretary Marty Walsh commented that mandatory vaccines are something that is being examined, although there does not appear to be a clear cut answer on the legality/effectiveness of...