Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives

A new Virginia law will require employers to provide current or former employees with copies of certain employment-related documents upon request.

Effective July 1, 2019, Virginia employers must provide a copy of a limited set of employment documents to employees upon receipt of a written request for such information from the employee, her attorney or an authorized insurer.  The law applies to current and former employees, and allows an employer 30 days to produce the documents after receipt of the request.

The House of Representatives passed the Equality Act (H.R. 5 – 116th Congress) this past Friday, May 17, mostly along party lines – the resolution passed with a 236 to 173 vote, with only 8 of the “aye” votes cast by Republicans.  The Equality Act would amend various civil rights laws, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Civil Rights Act”), the Fair Housing Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Jury Selection and Services Act, and other laws regarding employment with the federal government, to explicitly include sexual orientation and gender identity as protected characteristics.

In a recent advice memorandum, the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) set forth its position that drivers for the rideshare company Uber are independent contractors, not employees, for purposes of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”).  This means that the Board, as it is currently comprised, will not entertain efforts of drivers to unionize or seek other protections under the NLRA.  Because it is only a directive from the Board’s General Counsel, as opposed to a decision by the five-member Board, the advice memorandum is not appealable to a federal appellate court, and those who oppose the Board’s position will not have judicial recourse.  The Board’s advice memorandum comes on the heels of the Department of Labor’s recent opinion letter stating that workers for a “virtual marketplace company that operates in the so-called ‘on-demand’ or ‘sharing’ economy” are not employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and thus not covered by the law’s minimum wage and overtime requirements.

California First Appellate District’s recent decision in Subcontracting Concepts, LLC v. DeMelo, A152205 (April 10, 2019) applies well-established unconscionability principles to an arbitration agreement signed by an employee of an independent contractor.

The employee, DeMelo, was hired directly by Express Messenger Systems, Inc. (d/b/a OnTrac), which contracted with Subcontracting Concepts, LLC (SC).  At the start of his eCamployment, DeMelo was required to sign SC’s “Owner/Operator Agreement,” a five-page, 27-paragraph agreement with an arbitration clause in paragraph 26.  Two and one-half years later, DeMelo filed a wage claim with the California Labor Commissioner. The two corporate entities and several individually-named supervisors petitioned to compel arbitration and stay the Labor Commissioner proceeding.  The San Francisco Superior Court denied the petition, finding the arbitration agreement to be unconscionable. The First Appellate District agreed, and certified this case for publication.

On April 10, 2019, the California Court of Appeals, Second District, in Diaz v. Sohnen Enterprises, 2019 S.O.S. 1722, ruled that an employee impliedly consents to an arbitration agreement by simply continuing to work, despite never signing the arbitration agreement and even outright rejecting it.

Prior to distributing arbitration agreements to its employees, Sohnen notified them that it was adopting a new dispute resolution policy requiring arbitration of all claims and specified that continued employment would constitute an implied consent of the agreement’s terms.  One of Sohnen’s employees, Erika Diaz, verbally rejected the arbitration agreement but nevertheless continued working at Sohnen.

New legislation requires that New York employers provide annual, interactive anti-harassment training.  What does this mean for your business?  Hint: that training video you’ve been showing to new employees for years is no longer sufficient.  Failing to provide the training could result in hefty penalties.    

 Partners J.R. England and Ryan Bates discuss “Things You Need to Know in 5 Minutes or Less” here.

On May 13, 2019, in Outokumpo Stainless USA, LLC v. N.L.R.B., No. 17-15498 (11th Cir.), the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit enforced an NLRB order finding that stainless steel producer Outokumpo’s posting of a side letter along with a NLRB settlement notice “constituted non-compliance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement” and that “default judgment was thus proper under the plain terms to which the Company had previously agreed.”

Massachusetts’ highest court, The Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”), recently issued its long awaited decision in Sullivan v. Sleepy’s LLC, SJC-12542, in which the SJC responded to certified questions of first impression from the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The case is particularly important for businesses which pay employees through commissions or draws (i.e., advances on commissions), particularly in the retail context where the ruling departs considerably from federal law.

Originally published in The Business Journals, Jayde Brown and Alan Marcius discuss proactive steps small businesses can take to avoid common employment-related legal problems.  Read more here. 

To all employers in Washington DC who employ tipped workers, heed this warning: as of July 1, 2019, you must comply with new notice, reporting, and training requirements, as set forth in the Tipped Wage Workers Fairness Amendment Act of 2018 (the “Act”).  The Act, which became effective December 13, 2018, repealed a ballot initiative (Initiative No. 77) that would have changed how tipped workers in DC would have been paid to eventually match the standard minimum wage by 2026.  With the goal of protecting the rights of tipped workers, the Act sets forth the following requirements for all employers of tipped workers in the District:

On May 2, 2019, the Ninth Circuit ruled in Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, holding that the new independent contractor test established by the California Supreme Court in its 2018 decision in Dynamex v. Superior Court applies retroactively to franchisors. As a result of this decision, employers and franchisors who have classified workers as independent contractors may see an increase in wage and hour class actions alleging that the workers are or have been misclassified. Additionally, the decision has serious implications for any California companies that operate under a franchise business model.

Businesses with at least 100 employees and federal contractors with at least 50 employees must annually file an EEO-1 Private Sector Report disclosing to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission the number of women and minorities they employ by job category, race, sex and ethnicity.  Covered employers have been providing this traditional race-ethnicity and sex data (referred to as “Component 1 data”) to the Commission for over half a century.  The EEOC uses it to analyze employment patterns and support civil rights enforcement.

In a positive development for employers, the California Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for an employer in a class action alleging willful violations of the Federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA” or “Act”).  In Culberson v. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts, the plaintiffs alleged Disney willfully violated two provisions of the FCRA: (1) plaintiffs alleged Disney’s disclosures letting job applicants know they may be subject to a consumer report were not contained in a standalone document; and (2) plaintiffs alleged Disney rejected some applicants based on information in their consumer reports without first providing the notice required by the FCRA.  In affirming summary judgment, the court concluded that it need not decide whether Disney violated the FCRA, because the court found that any such violation was not willful. 

Many workplace policies and employee handbooks contain restrictions on employees speaking to the media.  Through these policies, employers often seek to limit what organizational information is disclosed to third parties, and to exercise at least some control over statements that may be attributed to the company.  Such restrictions, though, may be found to violate employees’ rights under the National Labor Relations Act (“the Act”) due to overbreadth when not drafted carefully.  And, while the National Labor Relations Board in the Trump era has seemed willing to revisit pro-worker rulings, the General Counsel last month released an Advice Memorandum affirming this long-standing precedent.

In a recent decision, the National Labor Relations Board reversed decades of precedent regarding a successor employer’s bargaining obligations following the asset purchase of an entity with a unionized workforce.