The Majority Opinion: Legal Blog

As always, there are some EEOC cases that jump out at me when I review developments on that front.  In fact, by my count, it has been about a year since I last highlighted some recent EEOC cases.  I suppose twelve months later is as good of a time as any to do another EEOC Roundup.  Below are a couple EEOC cases and settlements that caught my eye this week.  Former Owner of VHS West Suburban Medical Center Agrees to Settle Disability Discrimination Suit The former owner of VHS West Suburban Medical Center has agreed to settle a disability discrimination suit for $150,000 following a recent lawsuit that was filed following claims of a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).  The lawsuit claimed that a worker requested a reasonable accommodation of a temporary, part time schedule in January 2016.  Her employer instead put her on unpaid leave.  Even after notifying her employer that the reasonable accommodation was no longer needed, she ...

Earlier this month, the Florida Legislature approved legislation that prohibits employers in the state from requiring employees be vaccinated against the coronavirus as a condition of employment. Readers will recall that federal contractor vaccine mandates and large scale employer vaccine mandates have been a hot button topic in recent weeks.  In fact, following a Fifth Circuit stay of the large scale employer vaccine mandate, the Sixth Circuit was selected as the Circuit that will hear the consolidated cases on the topic. With Florida approving this legislation last week, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis was not shy about hailing the legislation as a win for employers and employees alike.  In particular, Governor DeSantis called the legislation vital to protect an individual’s freedom without allowing for government overreach via these vaccine mandates. For additional information:   https://www.yahoo.com/news/florida-gov-poised-sign-bills-023338720.html

Workplace safety has been a somewhat common topic over the past year, due in no small part to concerns over workplace safety in light of the coronavirus pandemic.  While there are several articles I want to highlight for readers this week, I call particular attention to the first article in regard to an employee that was allegedly fired after raising concerns about workplace safety in regard to possible transmission of the coronavirus at work. As always, below are a couple articles that caught my eye this week. Labor Department Files Suit Against Peterbilt After Worker Fired For Voicing Concerns About Workplace Safety Earlier this month, the Labor Department announced it had filed suit against PACCAR, Inc. d/b/a Peterbilt Motor Co. after the company allegedly terminated an employee who voiced concerns about being exposed to coronavirus in the workplace.  According to the lawsuit, the employee had expressed concerns about contracting the coronavirus in the workplace last year, ...

Late last week, the U.S. House of Representatives approved legislation that would provide four weeks of paid family and medical leave for all employees and independent contractors. That legislation, called the Build Back Better Act, is a cornerstone of President Joe Biden’s legislative agenda that has been stuck in somewhat of a quagmire in Congress…despite Democrats having majority control of both the House and Senate.   Readers might recall that paid leave has been on, then off, then back on the table while the House worked to find enough votes to approve the legislation . With the legislation clearing the House, it now heads to the Senate where its passage is no sure thing.  Despite Democrats having a narrow majority in the Senate, some Democratic Senators including Joe Manchin have indicated their opposition to paid leave being included in the Build Back Better Act due to the cost of the paid leave.  Will a compromise be reached that would result in paid leave remaini...

Last week, unionized workers at Kroger in Houston voted to authorize a strike that could take place at any time…perhaps even as readers are paging through this post. The workers had previously voted to authorize a strike last November after negotiations fells apart with the company in regard to a new contract.  However, a strike did not occur while the company and the workers’ union continued to negotiate.  With that being said, with apparently no serious advancement in regard to a new contract, the workers voted again to authorize a strike.  While no date was set to strike, the vote gives the green light for these unionized workers to walk off the job at any time. Will there be a resolution before Thanksgiving?  Perhaps.  With that being said, this is a rather tenuous situation with a strike appearing to be imminent but the exact timeframe of when it will occur not yet clear.  Stay tuned. For additional information:   https://www.fastcompany.com/90698...

Perhaps this should have been a “Labor Law Edition” to close out the week, given that the two articles that I want to highlight for readers are labor centric.  Even for those readers that do not encounter labor unions or unionization efforts often, I encourage you to give both of the below articles a read. As always, below are a couple articles that caught my eye this week. Starbucks & the Union Elections: The Start of a Wave Of Unionization Efforts In the Food Industry? As readers might recall, workers at several Buffalo area Starbucks locations have sought to unionize.  While Starbucks has sought to have one election for all the stores, each store will have its own election.  As Katishi Maake at Retail Brew writes, labor advocates are hoping to use a successful election at one (or more) of the Buffalo area stores as a catalyst to encourage other workers in the food industry to follow suit.  I refer readers to the article for Maake’s thoughts on the matter. ...

Several years ago, back in 2013 to be exact, a case was working its way through the Ninth Circuit in which a group of Apple store employees sued the company on the grounds that they should be paid for the time spent waiting in security bag screening lines at work. That case, Frlekin v. Apple , saw several twists and turns after the class action was filed, including being tossed out but eventually reinstated last year.  The workers claimed that this time was compensable but Apple pushed back, noting that these workers could simply not bring a bag to work and could avoid the screening. Perhaps all is well that ends well?  Last Friday, the parties have asked a federal judge to approve a nearly $30 million settlement in which Apple would pay these workers to resolve the lawsuit.  While the proposed settlement must be approved by the Court, this could finally resolve a rather drawn out and protracted lawsuit. For additional information:   https://www.bloomberg.com/news/ar...