Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives

Last week, New York’s Governor signed a bill into law that effectively prohibits employers from accessing employees’ or job applicants’ personal social media accounts. The law goes into effect on March 12, 2024.

When there is a willful violation to the Fair Credit Reporting Act (”FCRA”) consumers can recover either actual damages sustained by the consumer or statutory damages of no less than $100 and not more than $1000. (Punitive damages and attorney fees also are available).  There has been a trend in the district courts examining whether plaintiffs must prove that they suffered actual damage in order to recover statutory damages. Since 2007 several Circuits have reviewed this argument and each has explained that the provision for statutory damages does not require a showing of “actual damages.” The Eleventh Circuit is the most recent to weigh in on this question in Santos v. Healthcare Revenue Recovery Grp., and agrees with its sister Circuits.

In the wake of the #MeToo movement, New York, like other states, enacted legislation aimed at limiting employers’ use of non-disclosure provisions in settlement agreements to resolve claims of workplace discrimination. Recently, Governor Kathy Hochul signed legislation that amends those existing laws to further strengthen the restrictions on non-disclosure provisions in settlement agreements for discrimination, harassment, and retaliation claims. The legislation also extends the statute of limitations for filing such claims with the state enforcement agency. 

Employers who conduct background checks on applicants or employees must comply with the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.  Among other things, the FCRA requires employers who procure criminal background reports (“consumer reports”) to provide applicants and employees with a Summary of Rights form as prepared by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) when providing them with the FCRA-required pre-adverse action notices. See 15 U.S.C. § 1681b(b)(3)(A)(ii).

Earlier this year, Harris County, Texas, which encompasses a substantial majority of the City of Houston, became the sixth Texas city or county to embrace a “ban the box” policy when it adopted the Fair Chance Policy.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) announced earlier this month that it will begin the rulemaking process related to “Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability:  Accessibility of Web Information and Services of State and Local Governments.” 

Of the many class action-related decisions from the last year, two courts issued holdings that are particularly relevant to defending against class action lawsuits (particularly in the context of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)).

The Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division and the National Labor Relations Board released a Memo of Understanding announcing that the two agencies will be collaborating “to strengthen the agencies’ partnership through greater coordination in information sharing, joint investigations and enforcement activity, training, education, and outreach.” The MOU took effect upon both agencies’ approval in early December and will remain in effect for five years.

President Joe Biden signed a new executive order on July 9, called the Executive Order on Promoting Competition in the American Economy, aimed at cracking down on monopolies in Big Tech, labor and other sectors.  According to a Fact Sheet released by the White House, the Executive Order includes 72 initiatives the President wants over a dozen federal agencies to undertake for the stated purpose of promoting competition throughout the U.S. economy.

On April 7, 2021, a split panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (the “11th Circuit”) issued its highly-anticipated decision in Gil v. Winn-Dixie Stores, reversing a 2017 judgment against Winn-Dixie that found that the grocery chain’s website violated Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).  The 11th Circuit reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings, in part, based on its finding that websites are not a “public accommodation” under the ADA.

In January 2021, New York City amended the Fair Chance Act to expand protections for both applicants and employees with criminal histories.  The amendments take effect July 29, 2021, adding additional protections for workers in the state.  Prior to the amendment, NYC’s Fair Chance Act prohibited employers from making an inquiry about an applicants’ criminal conviction records until after a conditional offer of employment is extended.  Then, an employer was required to balance a variety of factors to determine job-relatedness of the conviction.

Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“Title III”) prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in public accommodations, requiring that individuals with a disability be offered the “full and equal enjoyment . . . of any place of public accommodation.”  42 U.S.C. § 12182(a).  As we previously discussed, the 30-year-old statute does not directly address whether “places of public accommodation” include websites, mobile applications, and other emerging web-based applications and technologies and, therefore, does not provide a standard for ensuring accessibility for web-based accommodations.

The Federal Reserve anticipates an approximate two percent reduction in unemployment by June 2021, envisioning rapid mass-hiring by employers once governments lift the more stifling COVID-19 restrictions.  Businesses requiring pre-employment background checks may be uniquely exposed to liability under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) if minor mistakes are amplified by mass-hiring events.

Given the pervasiveness of social media in society, the National Labor Relations Board (Board) has been forced to frequently weigh in on the intersection between employee and employer’s social media activity and labor law. The Board has released a great catalog of cases over the past decade touching on issues related to the workplace and social media—these issues range from what social media policies and employer may enact to what discipline an employer may impose for an employee’s social media conduct.

Nationwide, 36 states and over 150 municipalities have adopted “ban the box” laws that prohibit employers from asking applicants about their conviction or arrest records on their initial applications.  This article provides updates on recent changes and updates in Hawaii, California, and St. Louis, Missouri.

On August 3, 2020, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York struck down portions of the DOL’s Final Rule regarding who qualifies for COVID-19 emergency paid sick leave under the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act (“EPSLA”) and the Emergency Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act (“EFMLEA”), collectively referred to at the Families First Coronavirus Response Act.

Of particular importance to employers, the Court invalidated two provisions of the DOL’s Final Rule pertaining to: (1) conditioning leave on the availability of work and (2) the need to obtain employer consent prior to taking leave on an intermittent basis.

An employer’s obligations under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) are triggered when it obtains a “consumer report” from a “consumer reporting agency” for use in making an employment decision. A federal court in the Middle District of Florida is set to rule on a summary judgment motion clarifying whether a business that transmits public records unaltered to a prospective employer is a “consumer reporting agency”.

Social distancing and uncertainty about COVID-19 have altered many aspects of daily life, uprooted traditions, and redefined “normal.” Unions are seizing this opportunity in a push for electronic representation elections.

On May 6, a coalition of fourteen unions (the “Coalition”) urged Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell, Kevin McCarthy, and Chuck Schumer to fund and direct the NLRB to establish a system and procedures to facilitate electronic union representation elections. The Coalition highlights COVID-19’s effect on the workforce in unemployment, underemployment, and dangerous working conditions, and submits that these effects highlight the need for union representation. Further, the Coalition asserts that the nature of COVID-19 makes in-person representation elections impractical, and, in conjunction with employer objections to elections by mail, it is exceedingly difficult for workers to form unions in the current climate.

A hotly contested ruling in a Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) class action case will soon be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.  The Ninth Circuit in Ramirez v. TransUnion LLC, Case No. 17-17244, recently granted the parties’ Joint Motion to Stay the Mandate, seeking to stay the Ninth Circuit’s mandate pending TransUnion’s filing of a petition for writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court.  The Motion to Stay comes soon after the court denied TransUnion’s Petition for Rehearing or Rehearing En Banc regarding the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Ramirez v. TransUnion LLC, 951 F.3d 1008 (9th Cir. 2020).

For the first time in the Ninth Circuit, the Court of Appeals addressed the issue of whether every class member in a class action lawsuit needs “standing” to recover damages at the final judgment stage, and found in the affirmative.  In Ramirez v. TransUnion LLC, No. 17-17244, 2020 WL 946973 (9th Cir. Feb. 27, 2020), a class of 8,185 consumers brought a class action against the credit reporting agency TransUnion LLC (“TransUnion”) pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), alleging that TransUnion, knowing that its practice was unlawful, incorrectly placed terrorist alerts on the front page of consumers’ credit reports and later sent the consumers misleading and incomplete disclosures about the alerts and how to remove them.

With the age of artificial intelligence (AI) unfolding, products aimed at automating the recruiting and hiring process are hitting the market with increasing frequency.

Companies have been utilizing AI for tasks such as screening resumes, and even interviewing candidates and assessing whether they will be successful employees.  These automated tools range from algorithms that “weed through” resumes to personality assessments and biometric analyses that employ AI to analyze a candidate’s facial expressions, body language, voices, and inflections in video interviews.

On December 17, 2019, the Fair Chance to Compete for Jobs Act of 2019 (the “Fair Chance Act”) was signed by the President as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act.  This federal “ban-the-box” law proscribes federal agencies and contractors from asking about a job applicant’s criminal history until after they make a conditional offer of employment.  For federal contractors, the law only extends to positions related to a federal contract.  The Fair Chance Act will go into effect on December 17, 2021.  The Office of Personnel Management and General Services Administration will issue implementing regulations before the law goes into effect.

On November 22, 2019, the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Sterling Infosystems, Inc. (“Sterling”) regarding allegations that it violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) in providing criminal background checks to employers.  Sterling is a “consumer reporting agency” as defined by the FCRA, which provides background check results to employers when requested.  The CFPB is an independent federal agency tasked with regulating and enforcing a host of consumer protection and financial protection statutes, including the FCRA.

Dollar General and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) recently settled a six-year-old Title VII lawsuit.  The EEOC brought its race discrimination claim on behalf of a Charging Party and a class of Black job applicants, alleging that Dollar General’s use of criminal justice history information in the hiring process had a disparate impact on Black applicants.

The National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) under the current administration continues to issue employer friendly rulings in the context of evaluating whether employer work rules violate the National Labor Relations Act (the “Act”).   In LA Specialty Produce Company, 368 NLRB No. 93 (October 10, 2019) (“LA Produce”), the Board’s first ruling applying the standard in The Boeing Co., 365 NLRB No. 154 (2017) for determining the validity of rules, policies and handbook provisions under the Act, the Board’s three-member majority opined that the employer’s rules limiting workers’ comments to reporters and blocking them from sharing certain information about clients are legal despite a union’s claims that the rules encroach on workers’ rights under the Act. The decision offers the first glimpse at how the Board’s Republican leadership will balance workers’ rights and their employers’ interests. The Board’s approach in LA Produce is likely to please businesses and their advocates, as it gives greater weight to the business reality and the business justification for an employer’s work rules, policies, and handbook provisions.

Imagine a future in which Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) does the recruiting and hiring at U.S. companies.  Every new hire will be the uniquely perfect candidate whose skills, personality, presence, temperament, and work habits are a flawless match for the job.  Performance management and poor performance become extinct, relics from an age in which humans brought primitive instincts, biases, and flawed intuition to hiring and employment decisions.  While there are risks and challenges to employers in introducing this technology, manufacturers of AI software say that some version of that future may not be too far off.  AI software such as Mya, HireVue, and Gecko are among the numerous platforms that employers are now leveraging to hone in on and hire the best candidates more quickly. Generally speaking, AI interviewing products combine mobile video interviews with game-based assessments. The AI platform then analyzes the candidate’s facial expressions, word choice, and gestures in conjunction with game assessment results to determine the candidate’s work style, cognitive ability, and interpersonal skills.

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a case on October 7 that likely would have clarified the scope of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”) related to the operation of virtual platforms like websites and applications by private businesses.

The United States District Court for the Western District of New York recently granted an early dismissal of a class action lawsuit prior to class certification.  Mandala v. NTT Data, Inc., 18-CV-6591 CJS, 2019 WL 3237361, at *1 (W.D.N.Y. July 18, 2019). The plaintiffs in Mandala were two African-American men who applied for and were offered jobs with the defendant employer.  After the employer conducted a criminal background check on the plaintiffs and found they each had a felony criminal conviction, the employer withdrew their job offers.  The plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against the employer alleging claims for disparate impact race discrimination under Title VII, and violations of New York state laws prohibiting criminal history discrimination and regulating the background check process.

On July 11, 2019, the House Financial Services Committee, led by Chairwoman Maxine Waters (D-CA), considered The Restricting Use of Credit Checks For Employment Decisions Act (the “Act”) as one of four bills designed to reform the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and the credit reporting system.

The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) recently rescinded several Model Forms and Disclosures related to the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”), determining they are no longer necessary.  As we wrote about last Fall, [“Fall” hyperlink to CEJ and RTQ HELP blog article dated September 21, 2018] this change is the result of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) issuing its own model forms and disclosures.  The FTC forms that have been rescinded and the corresponding CFPB forms that now apply are as follows:

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.

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.”

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. 

As we discussed in a previous post , the courts, the Congress, and the Department of Justice (the “DoJ”) continue to grapple with the scope of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”) as it relates to the accessibility of private businesses’ websites for disabled people.  A decision by one state trial court in California seems to adopt a more strict reading of the definition of “public accommodation” than previous cases in California and in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (which includes the federal courts in California) on the subject, which further demonstrates the difficulty that many courts, including this one, are having with these ADA website accessibility cases.

The Scope of the Issue

The Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”) has been the source of a tremendous amount of litigation since President George H.W. Bush signed it into law in 1990.  Over the past few years, Plaintiffs’ counsel have developed a cottage industry of sorts by filing thousands of lawsuits alleging that company websites are not accessible to the blind or visually impaired, in violation of Title III of the ADA, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in “places of public accommodation.”  42 U.S.C. § 12182(a).  While ADA lawsuits previously focused on physical access barriers to businesses, these new lawsuits allege that:  (1) private company websites qualify as places of public accommodation; and, (2) websites with access barriers (e.g., websites without compatible screen-reading software) deny plaintiffs the right of equal access.   Plaintiffs have also challenged the accessibility of mobile applications and online job application interfaces.

Employers failing to strictly comply with FCRA requirements in conducting background checks continue to face expensive consequences.  On November 16, 2018, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California approved a $1.2 million settlement of a class action lawsuit alleging violations of the FCRA filed against the popular pet supplies chain Petco.

In a new class action filed recently against a hospital housekeeping company, employees allege their employer’s fingerprint scanning time-tracking system runs afoul of privacy laws.  The Pennsylvania-based company Xanitos Inc. now faces the lawsuit in federal court in Illinois, claiming the company violated the state’s Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA).

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) issued a new “A Summary of Your Rights Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act” (“FCRA”)  (“Summary of Rights”) form on September 12, 2018.  This form replaces the previous version issued on November 12, 2012, and is expected to be implemented by employers on September 21, 2018.

On May 21, 2018, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, holding that the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) does not prohibit the use of arbitration agreements with class/collective action waivers covered by the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”).   The Sixth Circuit has now concluded in Gaffers v. Kelly Services, Inc.  that the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), like the NLRA, does not bar the use of arbitration agreements with class/collective action waivers.

Oregon’s Fair Work Week Act (also known as Oregon’s predictive scheduling law) (the “Act”) is proceeding full speed ahead and will add significant challenges and costs for retailers. The majority of the Act goes into effect on July 1, 2018. Following similar ordinances regulating employee hours passed at municipal levels in Emeryville, California; New York City; San Francisco; San Jose; Seattle; and Washington, D.C., Oregon becomes the latest jurisdiction and the first state to enact a predictive scheduling law.

Continue

California is the land of employment legislation, and 2018 is shaping up to be another year of change. We are less than six months into the year, and already several bills that could significantly impact California businesses—for better or for worse—are pending in the California legislature.

Continue Reading

A magistrate judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon recently made findings and recommendations to dismiss a purported class action against Kroger subsidiary Fred Meyer.  The suit alleges that the retailer’s background check process for prospective employees violates the Fair Credit Reporting Act by both failing to properly disclose that a report will be run, and failing to comply with the statute’s procedural requirements before taking adverse action against an applicant.

On April 23, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Ratliff v. Celadon Trucking Servs., 1:17-cv-07163, dismissed a putative class action lawsuit alleging a violation of the pre-adverse action notice requirements in section 1681b(b)(3) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”).  Ratliff is significant in the body of background check precedent because it is a part of an emerging trend of § 1681b(b)(3) claims (as opposed to the more commonly challenged § 1681b(b)(2)Disclosure claims) challenged and dismissed for lack of Article III standing.

In the opinion, Judge Manish S. Shah found plaintiff Ratliff could not show that he suffered an injury-in-fact after defendant Celadon allegedly did not properly provide him with an FCRA mandated notice before declining his employment due to the results of his criminal background check.

On April 3, 2018, San Francisco amended its Fair Chance Ordinance, the city and county’s so-called “ban-the-box” legislation that limits how private employers can use an applicant’s criminal history in employment decisions.  The amendments, which take effect on October 1, 2018, expand the scope and penalties of the San Francisco ordinance and add to the growing framework of ban-the-box legislation across California.  The complete text of the amendment can be found here.

In June, new laws will go into effect that restrict employers’ ability to request and use criminal history information about applicants in three jurisdictions: Kansas City, Missouri; the State of Washington; and the city of Spokane, Washington.

Continue Reading

On December 21, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in Moore v. Rite Aid Headquarters Corp., 2:13-cv-01515, dismissed a class action lawsuit alleging a violation of the pre-adverse action notice requirements in section 1681b(b)(3) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”).  Moore is significant in the body of criminal background check precedent because it is a post-Spokeo ruling dismissing a pre-adverse action notice claim (as opposed to a 1681b(b)(2) Disclosure claim) on standing grounds after the parties participated in discovery and developed a factual record.

On December 14, 2017, in a 3-2 decision along party lines, the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) issued a decision in The Boeing Company, 365 NLRB No. 154 (2017) case.  This is a significant and long-awaited victory for employers grappling with unfair labor practice charges stemming from facially neutral workplace rules and signals the Board’s intent to retreat from regulating non-union activity.  Specifically, Boeing  rescinds the onerous workplace rule standard in Lutheran Heritage Village-Livonia, 343 NLRB 646 (2004) in favor of a new, more rational test.

On November 10, 2017, the New York Department of Labor released a set of proposed regulations affecting the Minimum Wage Order for Miscellaneous Industries and Occupations, which applies to most employers, except hotels and restaurants. The regulations propose the following call-in pay requirements for employers:

• Reporting to work. An employee who, by request or permission of the employer, reports for work on any shift must be paid for at least four hours of call-in pay.
• Unscheduled shift. An employee who, by request or permission of the employer, reports to work for any shift for hours that have not been scheduled at least 14 days in advance of the shift must be paid an additional two hours of call-in pay.
• Cancelled shift. An employee whose shift is cancelled within 72 hours of the scheduled start of such shift must be paid for at least four hours of call-in pay.
• On-call. An employee who, by request or permission of the employer, is required to be available to report to work for any shift must be paid for at least four hours of call-in pay.
• Call for schedule. An employee who, by request or permission of the employer, is required to be in contact with the employer within 72 hours of start of the shift to confirm whether to report to work must be paid for at least four hours of call-in pay.

[From Hunton’s Retail Blog]  If you are a retailer, you may have policies and procedures in place regarding who can speak on behalf of your company. Such policies may generally instruct employees not to speak to the press as a representative of the company, and to direct all media inquiries to a particular person or department. Similarly, if you are a retailer, you may have a policy in place that instructs employees to forward any reference requests to your human resources department. These commonplace policies allow retailers to control their public image and protect employee ...

On March 27, 2017, President Trump signed H.J. Res. 37, blocking the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Rule, the controversial rule enacted by the Federal Acquisition Regulatory (FAR) Council in August 2016, that legislators have criticized as a method to blackball federal contractors. The bill’s signing follows the U.S. Senate’s March 6, 2017 vote of 49-48 (along party lines) to formally disapprove of the rule.

On March 6, 2017, an NLRB administrative law judge (“ALJ”) issued a ruling finding that a nonunion automotive manufacturing facility in Alabama violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) when it terminated three employees who walked off the job over a holiday-season scheduling dispute. The ALJ found that the employees were engaged in protected concerted activity despite the fact that they denied discussing the decision to leave work before their shifts had ended.

While the Trump Administration has not declared equal pay to be a key initiative, equal pay challenges for employers are not likely to go away. The Trump Administration has given no indication it will roll-back new EEO-1 reporting requirements, and the void in federal legislation will likely be filled by an increasing hodge-podge of state legislation. Hunton & Williams LLP labor and employment partners Bob Quackenboss and Emily Burkhardt Vicente discuss the challenges that companies will face, and what they can do to prepare.

View the 5-minute video here.

On January 22, 2017, the City of Los Angeles ‘banned the box’ when the Los Angeles Fair Chance Initiative for Hiring (Ban the Box) (the “Initiative”) went into effect, prohibiting private employers in Los Angeles “from inquiring into or seeking a job applicant’s criminal history unless and until a conditional offer of employment” is made to the individual. In doing so, Los Angeles becomes the fourth California city to ‘ban the box’ with greater protections than the state statute, and the second to do so with respect to private employers. If an employer makes a ...

With Christmas falling on a Sunday this year, employers should be mindful of state blue laws, which sometimes require premium pay to hourly employees working on Sundays or holidays. Although most state laws, as well as federal law, do not require premium pay for work performed on holidays (unless, of course, the employee has worked more than 40 hours that week), there are a few exceptions, such as Massachusetts and Rhode Island.

Enforcing a race-neutral grooming policy that prohibits employees from wearing dreadlocks is not intentional racial discrimination under Title VII.  That is what the Eleventh Circuit recently held in Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Catastrophe Management Solutions, --- F.3d ---, No. 14-13482, 2016 WL 4916851 (11th Cir. Sept. 15, 2016).

Employers should be aware of a recent ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that overly broad confidentiality and nondisparagement policies violate the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”).  The case, Quicken Loans v. NLRB, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 13778 (D.C. Cir.), involved an employment policy which prohibited employees from using or disclosing a broad range of personnel information without Quicken's prior written consent or to criticize publicly the company and its management. The National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) determined that those rules ran afoul of Section 7 of the NLRA because they “unreasonably burden the employees’ ability to discuss legitimate employment matters, to protest employer practices, and to organize.” Quicken then appealed the NLRB’s decision to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

On August 29, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued Vasquez v. Empress Ambulance Service, Inc., --- F.3d ---, No. 15-3239-CV, 2016 WL 4501673 (2d Cir. Aug. 29, 2016), holding that an employer may be held liable for a low-level employee’s animus under the cat’s paw theory of liability if the employer’s own negligence allows that animus to result in adverse employment action against another employee.

The issue of religious background has generated substantial discussion during the current election cycle. Recently, the federal government highlighted the issue of religious discrimination and accommodation in the workplace.

On July 22, 2016, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) announced the release of a one-page fact sheet specifically designed to educate young workers of their rights and responsibilities under the federal employment anti-discrimination laws prohibiting religious discrimination. The fact sheet stresses that employers may ...

In December 2014, the New York Attorney General’s Office initiated an investigation into Jimmy John’s corporate office and its New York franchises. Jimmy John’s is a sandwich shop with franchises throughout New York and the United States. The investigation in New York concerned whether the use of a non-compete clause that barred departing employees from taking a job with any employer within two miles of a Jimmy John’s store that made more than 10 percent of its revenue from sandwiches was legal.

Recently, Washington DC council members unanimously voted to increase the city’s minimum wage to $15.00 an hour by the year 2020 for non-tipped hourly workers, many of whom work in the retail industry. The news comes just before Washington DC is scheduled to increase its minimum wage rate from $10.50 an hour to $11.50 an hour on July 1, 2016. The move makes DC the third jurisdiction behind California and New York to increase minimum wages to $15.00 an hour.

Continue Reading

The recently enacted Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA) provides a new form of expedited relief in federal court for owners of misappropriated trade secrets through an ex parte seizure of property. In “extraordinary circumstances,” DTSA permits a court to issue an order to authorize law enforcement officials to seize property – without advanced notice to the accused – in order to prevent the propagation or dissemination of the trade secret. The utilization of this ex parte seizure does not come without risk. Section 2(b)(2)(G) provides that in the case of wrongful or excessive seizure, a person who suffers damages has a cause of action against the applicant and can seek reasonable attorneys’ fees, damages for lost profits, cost of materials, loss of good will and punitive damages.

As we previously reported, the newly-enacted Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) represents a significant new weapon for companies to prosecute trade secret violations. Among other features, the DTSA’s nationwide reach and its provision for judicial seizure, double damages, and attorneys’ fees provide a much more robust enforcement and remedy scheme than is currently available under many state laws.

Congress gave companies a new weapon to fight trade secret theft this week. President Obama signed a law that addresses several issues that often mire trade secret litigation – cross border battles when multiple states are involved, venue and choice of law disputes, and lack of ability to seize trade secrets before they escape a state or the United States. Companies now have a civil federal cause of action (original federal jurisdiction) for trade secret theft and the ability to seize trade secrets through an ex parte temporary injunction procedure that could prove to be incredibly costly for the unfortunate company whose newly hired employee stole trade secrets from a former employer. There will be more to come on these elements over the next few weeks.

In Dover Energy, Inc., Blackmer Division v. National Labor Relations Board, the Board held that Blackmer violated section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) when it threatened Tom Kaanta, a Blackmer employee and United Auto Workers Union shop steward, with disciplinary action if he continued to make “frivolous” information requests to the company’s lead negotiator during collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) negotiations. On March 22, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reversed and held that the NLRB’s factual findings were not supported by substantial evidence.

On March 1, 2016, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) sued employers for the first time for sexual orientation discrimination. The EEOC filed lawsuits in federal courts in Pittsburgh and Baltimore against manufacturing and health care employers for unlawful sex discrimination on behalf of employees alleging they were harassed and discriminated against based on their sexual orientation.

The United States Supreme Court has denied a restaurant manager’s petition seeking review of whether parties may stipulate to the dismissal with prejudice of a lawsuit alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), or whether judicial or Department of Labor (“DOL”) approval is a prerequisite to such a dismissal, as the Second Circuit held in his case, Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc.  Having declined the petition for writ of certiorari, FLSA lawsuits will remain more difficult to resolve for employers in New York, Connecticut, and Vermont.

In a move that could significantly increase the cost and expense of defending a Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) collective action, a federal district court Judge has dispensed with the traditional method for joining putative class members in an FLSA collective action. The Judge is going to permit employees to join if they submit a notice.  Such a move could lead to more protracted litigation and will certainly be appealed. In Turner, et al. v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., No. 1:14-cv-02612, Senior U.S. District Judge John L. Kane of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado granted the plaintiffs’ motion for conditional certification and judicial notice to the class. The case involves plaintiffs’ wage and hour claims against Chipotle under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the state laws of Arizona, California, Colorado and New Jersey. That the plaintiffs’ motion was granted is not, in and of itself, notable. But what is remarkable is the procedure applied for those who would seek to join the suit.