Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives

Employers contemplating a forced transfer of a worker will need to grapple with a new standard set out by the US Supreme Court under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the law that makes it unlawful to discriminate against workers based on various protected characteristics. The Supreme Court in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis issued an important ruling that clarifies the evidentiary standard employees must meet when asserting a discriminatory transfer claim against an employer under Title VII.   Prior to the Court’s decision, there was a Circuit split with most courts holding that an employee had to show a significant employment disadvantage to prevail on a claim that their transfer violated Title VII.  In its opinion, the Supreme Court held instead that an employee must show (i) the employer’s action was discriminatory, and (ii) that the employee suffered “some harm” respecting an “identifiable term or condition of employment” to state a claim for discrimination under Title VII.  The majority noted that the Court’s “some harm” standard is a downward departure from the type of evidence that lower courts had traditionally required to show discrimination under Title VII – namely, that an employee must suffer “significant,” “material,” or “serious” harm to have an actionable claim. 

On December 22, 2023, the Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) published a final rule that could have consequential effects for federal construction contractors and subcontractors.  The rule, which implements President Joe Biden’s Executive Order 14063, directs agencies awarding “large scale construction contracts” to require the use of project labor agreements (PLA). 

On December 14, 2023, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) published a final rule that restricts federal contractors in who they can employ when carrying out federal service contracts under the Service Contract Act (SCA).  The final rule implements President Biden’s Executive Order signed on November 18, 2021, and goes into effect on February 12, 2024.  The DOL estimates that this rule will affect 1.4 million workers on service contracts.

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Occupational Safety Health Administration (OSHA) recently signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to coordinate investigations and enforcement actions between the two agencies.  The MOU is the latest step by OSHA to blur the lines between workplace safety law and labor law, and could result in more workplace citations from OSHA or unfair labor practice charges filed with the NLRB.

In September 2023, OSHA announced a proposed rule that would allow an outside third party selected by employees to accompany an OSHA compliance safety ...

The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) recently published a final rule titled “Pre-enforcement Notice and Conciliation Procedures.”  This rule rescinds the evidentiary standards from the 2020 rule titled “Nondiscrimination Obligations of Federal Contractors and Subcontractors: Procedures to Resolve Potential Employment Discrimination,” which required specific pre-determination notice requirements and certain evidentiary standards. In a blog post, the OFCCP explains that the “new final rule restores flexibility to OFCCP’s pre-enforcement and conciliation procedures, promotes efficiency in resolving cases, strengthens enforcement and promotes alignment of the standards of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”

Federal contractors have had a flurry of headlines to keep up with over the last few months. Most prominent among them is the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council’s interim rule barring federal agencies and contractors from using TikTok or any other ByteDance product (the “Covered Applications”). 

In Harris et. al. v. Medical Transportation Management, Inc. et. al., the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals held that a putative class cannot be certified as an “issue” class under Rule 23(c)(4) without also satisfying the requirements in Rule 23(a) and (b).  This ruling is important because it prohibits putative classes from using the “issue” class mechanism of Rule 23(c)(4) to skirt the important procedural requirements in Rule 23(a) and (b) that are meant to protect both the litigants and absent parties.  The court also encouraged the use of the partial summary judgment mechanism, rather than Rule 23(c)(4), to resolve discrete legal issues common to many class members. 

Last week, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion in Sharp v. S&S Activewear, L.L.C. where it confirmed that music in the workplace can form the basis of a Title VII sex harassment claim even when it is (1) not directed at any particular individual employee, and (2) offends both female and male employees.

The Fourth Circuit issued an opinion in Messer et al. v. Bristol Compressors International, LLC et. al. that should serve as a cautionary tale to employers planning to use severance agreements when implementing layoffs.  There, the court considered three questions.  First, whether Bristol Compressors validly eliminated its severance plan before terminating Plaintiffs’ employment.  Second, whether certain Plaintiffs who signed a Stay Bonus Letter Agreement (“SBLA”) waived their claims against Bristol Compressors.  And third, whether four of the Plaintiffs received adequate notice under the WARN Act before their employment was terminated.

As part of the bill funding the federal government, President Biden signed into law the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) and the PUMP for Nursing Mothers Act (PUMP Act). These relatively unknown laws are important pieces of legislation carrying with them significant changes to the workplace for pregnant employees.

On December 7, 2022, New York City Council Member Tiffany Cabán along with three other co-sponsors introduced a proposed bill that would prohibit all employers from terminating employees without (1) “just cause” or (2) a bona fide economic reason.  The bill would amend current law which protects “fast food” employees from being terminated without just cause.

The EEOC recently issued long awaited guidance on how an employer’s use of software, algorithms, and artificial intelligence will be treated by the Commission under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). In issuing this guidance, the Commission focused on employers administering software that uses algorithmic decision-making or artificial intelligence in making employment decisions before and during employment. The Commission outlined three general areas in which the use of such technology may violate the ADA: (1) an employer not providing a reasonable ...

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has started to take affirmative steps to include non-binary classifications on agency forms.  In an announcement last month, individuals will be able to choose a non-binary gender markers when filling out intake and charge of discrimination forms used by workers for discrimination complaints levied against employers.  On these forms, an individual will be able choose “X” for the voluntary self-identification questions and use the prefix “Mx.”

The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (“WARN”) Act requires employers to give employees at least 60 days’ notice when a “mass layoff” is about to occur at a “single site of employment,” which is typically a single location or a group of contiguous work locations.  Courts are beginning to confront the question of what constitutes a “single site of employment” under the WARN Act for employees working remotely, and how remote work policies impact class certification considerations.  Given the prevalence of remote work during the pandemic and the likely continuation of such work arrangements, these decisions are of particular importance to employers considering mass layoffs or facing class actions based on the application of remote work policies or practices.

The Supreme Court has granted a temporary stay of the OSHA Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS), otherwise known as the OSHA vaccine mandate. The Court ruled that OSHA had exceeded the authority delegated to it by Congress under the Occupational Safety and Health Act. In making this finding, the Court held that OSHA only has the authority to issue workplace safety standards, not broad health measures. The concurring opinion focused upon the “major questions doctrine,” which requires Congress to speak clearly when delegating authority of “vast economic and political significance” to an administrative agency.