Showing 12 posts from September 2011.

Another California Court Holds Employers must "Make Available," not "Ensure" meal Breaks

September 14, 2011 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

For the past few years, California courts have been inundated with lawsuits filed by employees claiming that they did not receive their thirty-minute uninterrupted meal breaks per Labor Code section 512, which provides that:   More ›

Fifth Circuit Recognizes “Hostile Work Environment” Claim Under the ADEA

September 13, 2011 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

In a matter of first impression, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment in favor of the employer and permitted the employee to proceed with his harassment claims under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.  More ›

Court Erred in Excluding “Me Too” Evidence Relating to Employee’s Claims of Sexual Harassment and Discrimination

September 12, 2011 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

The California Court of Appeals recently issued an important ruling about the use of "me too" evidence in discrimination and harassment cases.  More ›

Ninth Circuit: Social Workers are not “Learned Professionals” Under FLSA and are Therefore not Exempt From Overtime Requirements

September 12, 2011 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

On September 9, 2011, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that social workers in the state of Washington are not “learned professionals” under the Fair Labor Standards Act and therefore, are not exempt from overtime compensation. More ›

NLRB Identifies new test for Assessing Bargaining Units in Nonacute Care Facilities

September 1, 2011 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) recently stated that it will no longer apply a special standard when determining whether bargaining units in nonacute health care facilities are appropriate under the National Labor Relations Act. Instead, employees in health care facilities other than hospitals will be subject to the same “community-of-interest” standard that the NLRB utilizes in other workplaces. More ›

NLRB Cannot Award Back Pay to Undocumented Workers Even When Employer Knew of Worker’s Illegal Status

September 1, 2011 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

Seven undocumented workers filed unfair labor practice charges against their employer, asserting that their rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act to be free to bargain collectively regarding working conditions were violated when they were fired after complaining as a group about how a supervisor treated them. The workers settled with the employer. Pursuant to the formal settlement agreement the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ordered the employer to reinstate the workers and pay them lost wages. The employer argued that the workers could not be bound by the agreement based on the U.S. Supreme Court’s prohibition on awarding back pay to undocumented workers who violate the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA). An administrative law judge ruled against the employer on the grounds that the employer had violated the IRCA by failing to verify the workers’ work authorization status. On appeal, an NLRB three-member panel unanimously found that because the Supreme Court decision used IRCA-violator-neutral language in its decision, the NLRB had no remedial authority to enforce a back pay award to undocumented workers. However, two NLRB members issued a concurring opinion warning employers that the decision should not be construed as closing the door on other possible monetary remedies for undocumented workers. In light of the concurring opinion, employers should be mindful that, going forward, the NRLB will consider any remedy within the board’s statutory powers to prevent an employer from being unjustly enriched by its unlawful conduct when the employer discriminates against undocumented workers.

EPPA Permits Employer to Request Polygraph Test After Receiving Credible Evidence that Employee Stole from Employer

September 1, 2011 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

A bank discovered that $58,000 was missing from one of its locations. Surveillance videos showed that the manager at the location had instructed his employees to ignore certain anti-theft policies, and employees confirmed that the manager had repeatedly violated the policies. The employer fired the manager for violating the policies. Before informing the manager of his termination, however, the employer requested that the manager submit to a polygraph test regarding the missing money. The manager refused and, after being fired, sued the employer for violating the Employee Polygraph Protection Act (EPPA). The EPPA prohibits employers from requesting that an employee take a polygraph test, except where the request is made as part of “an ongoing investigation” into a “specific incident of economic loss” and based upon a “reasonable suspicion” that the employee was involved. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that the employer’s request was made as part of an investigation into a “specific incident of economic loss” because while the EPPA does not allow employers to use polygraph tests as “fishing expeditions” whenever money is lost, the employer here requested the test only after receiving other evidence suggesting that the manager had taken the money. The court also found that the employer’s suspicion of the manager was reasonable because the “totality of the circumstances” established not only that the manager had the opportunity to take the money, but also gave “reason to believe that [he] was actually capitalizing on that opportunity.” Employers should be aware that requesting or even suggesting that an employee take a polygraph test violates the EPPA, unless the employer has evidence prior to making the request that credibly suggests that the employee stole the employer’s money or property.

NLRB Clarifies Double Eagle Rule

September 1, 2011 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

Employees of a condominium complex were governed by an employee manual that included a rule prohibiting employees from being on the property unless working or picking up a paycheck. A maintenance employee took a personal leave to deal with a legal claim that had been raised against him. While on leave, the employer was informed that the employee had been seen loitering on the premises and discussing his legal issues with residents. The employee was warned about this conduct, but was subsequently found engaging in the same conduct. As a result, the employee was reassigned to a less desirable position. The employee later resigned. An unfair labor practice charge was filed against the employer based on the argument that the rule under which the employee was punished was overly broad. The administrative law judge hearing the matter ruled that the rule was overbroad and that discipline imposed pursuant to an unlawfully overbroad rule is itself unlawful. This premise is commonly referred to as the “Double Eagle rule.” The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) reversed, and in doing so provided some clarification regarding the proper application of the Double Eagle rule. Specifically, the NLRB ruled that the rule does not apply where the conduct for which discipline was imposed is “not similar” to conduct protected by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. Additionally, an employer may raise an affirmative defense by establishing that the employee’s conduct actually interfered with his or her own work, or that of others, and that such interference, rather than the violation of the rule, was the true reason for the discipline. Employers should strive to have narrowly tailored workplace rules that specifically fit their workplaces, and to ensure that the basis for any termination based on misconduct is well-documented, including the effects of that misconduct on the business.

Worker Denied Ability to Maintain Discrimination Claim Based on Sexual Orientation

September 1, 2011 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

After working on the 2007 Country Music Awards production, a theater producer complained to his union that one of his co-workers harassed him based upon his homosexual orientation. Shortly thereafter, according to the employee, the union local stopped referring him for jobs. The employee sued, alleging violations of the Tennessee Human Rights Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, for gender discrimination and retaliation, and also alleged violation of the union’s duty of fair representation. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit dismissed the employee’s claims because neither federal nor the applicable state law prohibit discrimination based upon sexual orientation. Courts have uniformly held that the reference to “sex” in Title VII does not refer to sexual orientation. The employee had attempted to circumvent those decisions by arguing that he was discriminated against for failing to conform to sexual stereotypes, a claim which has been found to be viable under Title VII. The court rejected this argument, finding that the employee’s claim was simply one for discrimination based on sexual orientation, which is not prohibited under Tennessee or federal law. Employers—especially those that conduct business in numerous states—must be mindful of both state and federal anti-discrimination laws, which are often different in terms of what constitutes a protected characteristic. More than 20 states prohibit discrimination based upon sexual orientation. Read more about this case here.

NLRB Releases Report on Social Media Cases

September 1, 2011 by Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP

On August 18, 2011, the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) Acting General Counsel issued a report that highlights numerous cases involving the use of social media by both employees and employers and the effect of such use on the workplace. More ›

Search

Subscribe via Email

RSSSubscribe via RSS
TwitterFollow us on Twitter/X

Blog Editors

Blog Contributors

Archives