Much speculation abounds regarding why workers at the Volkswagen (VW) plant in Chattanooga rejected the United Auto Workers’ (UAW) in a recent vote. Factors appeared to be aligning in favor of the UAW, such as
Continue Reading VW Aftermath – Factors Still Favor Non-Union South
The Office of Federal Contract Compliance (OFCCP) has revised the rules implementing Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act, which applies to certain federal contractors. The revised rules, which are effective on March 24, 2014 require covered federal contractors to invite each job applicant to voluntarily disclose (“self-identify”) whether he or she has a disability as defined by the Rehabilitation Act at the pre-offer and post-offer phases of the application process. Covered federal contractors also must invite their current employees to voluntarily self-identify any disabilities every five years. Continue Reading OFCCP Revises Disability Disclosure Rules for Federal Contractors
A group of football players at Northwestern University has teamed with the United Steelworkers Union and formed a labor union, the College Athletes Players Association (CAPA). What’s more, the players have filed a petition with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), at its regional office in Chicago, to have CAPA recognized as the players’ exclusive bargaining representative in negotiations with the players’ “employer.” Continue Reading College Football and Labor Law? Let the Debate Begin
A federal court recently ruled that an employer’s rigid application of its light-duty policy could be used as evidence of pregnancy discrimination. The employer had a policy of providing light-duty jobs only to employees with on-the-job injuries, which the Court here, and the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) in general, have blessed as not showing disability bias against those with impairments caused off-the-job. Here, however, a pregnant certified nursing assistant who had a temporary lifting restriction was denied a light-duty job. Since her job required lifting in assisting nursing home residents, the employer considered her to have “resigned” when the employee gave notice of the doctor’s restrictions. The employee sued. Continue Reading Rigid Application of Light-Duty Policy May Discriminate Against Pregnant Employees
Readers of a previous post will recall that in December 2013, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the view of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or the Board) in the significant D.R. Horton ruling. There, the Fifth Circuit held that an arbitration agreement that requires employees to arbitrate all employment disputes but restricts the arbitration proceedings to individual arbitrations only (i.e., not allowing class or collective arbitrations) does not violate Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. Continue Reading NLRB Continues to Strike Down Arbitration Agreements
In a split decision, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has rejected the view of the National Labor Relations Board (the Board). According to the Court’s majority opinion, an arbitration agreement that requires employees to arbitrate all employment disputes but restricts the arbitration proceedings to individual arbitrations only (i.e., not allowing class or collective arbitrations) does not violate Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. D. R. Horton v. National Labor Relations Board (December 3, 2013). The Board is considering an appeal.
Why is this important? Continue Reading NLRB Loses Appeal in D.R. Horton: Arbitration Agreements Can Require Only Individual Arbitration, But …
A federal circuit court’s recent ruling provides more evidence of a prevalent employment law trend that has developed in the last few decades. The trend? Candid interactive communication about an employee’s rights and an employer’s responsibilities.
Over the past few decades, attentive employers have seen courts favor those who communicate forthrightly concerns or issues and correspondingly disfavor those who do not. While there are anecdotal exceptions, we have seen this trend in the following: Continue Reading Religious Accommodation Ruling Confirms Employment Law Trend Toward Candid Interactive Discussion
The Supreme Court’s Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”) ruling will impact the “spouse” definition in the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) (among other extensive impacts in the employment law and employment benefits industry). Employers can expect the Department of Labor to issue, relatively soon, some guidance on the definition of spouse in light of the DOMA ruling.
It is anticipated that the definition of spouse will look to the state of celebration – that is, the state where the same-sex union was performed, or what state issued the license, regardless of the state of residence of the couple. But, until the guidance is issued, what should an employer do “in the meantime?” Continue Reading DOMA and the FMLA – What Should Employers Do “In the Meantime”?
A trucking company has a practice of not returning any trucker to a driver position if that trucker has admitted to being an alcoholic, even if the trucker completes a treatment program. The EEOC sued on behalf of a trucker and challenged this practice. In this instance, however, the trucker did not complete a treatment program. He explained that he did not complete a program since it would be futile – he could not get his job back anyway.
In a recent ruling, a District Judge in Arkansas ruled that the trucking company’s practice of automatic disqualification of the alcoholic trucker violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). The Court ruled that a jury will have to decide the merits of the specific driver’s claim, but the Court entered an injunction against the trucking company from further use of its practice. EEOC v. Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc. (W.D. Ark. June 24, 2013) found here. Continue Reading EEOC Continues Attack on Employer Practices that “Automatically” Disqualify
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a class action waiver in an arbitration agreement is enforceable. Although not an employment case, the decision likely signals that an employee’s waiver of the right to bring a class action will be enforceable if included in an employment agreement that requires arbitration to settle any employment-related dispute. American Express Company v. Italian Colors Restaurant, No. 12-133 (June 20, 2013). A copy of the opinion is available here.
What does this decision mean for employers? Continue Reading Supreme Court Says a Class Action Waiver in Arbitration Agreement is Enforceable
