NLRB's Marina Del Rey Decision Provides a Primer on Keeping Employees out of the Workplace After Hours

In the day and age when employees are working longer hours than ever, would an employer want to ban employees from workplace premises after their shift is over? Marina Del Rey Hospital did, and implemented a policy preventing employees from accessing the hospital "only as expressly authorized by this policy." The policy allowed "expressly authorized" entry only if the employee was visiting a patient, receiving medical treatment, or conducting hospital-related business, which included an employee's "normal duties" as directed by management.

But can the hospital lawfully do this? Yes and no. The NLRB recently said yes, an employer may prevent off-duty employees from accessing their worksite, but reprimanded the employer for doing so in an unlawful way. More ›

You Down with OPT? DHS Proposes Longer Post-Graduate Work Authorization for STEM Graduates, with a Catch

Last week, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a proposed rule that would amend its F-1 nonimmigrant student visa regulations regarding optional practical training (OPT) for students with higher education degrees in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics (i.e., the STEM fields). The proposed rule is in response to a 2015 federal district court case that vacated the current OPT STEM regulations because of alleged procedural errors when those regulations were enacted.  The court stayed its ruling until January 2016, however, allowing the earlier regulations to remain in effect until then and giving DHS time to issue a new rule, which is exactly what they are doing. More ›

The Cat Fights Back: Seventh Circuit Discusses Cat's Paw Theory Post-Staub

In 2011, the United States Supreme Court made the"cat's paw" theory of liability significantly easier for employees to prove. An employee can establish a cat's paw theory of liability in an employment discrimination suit when a biased person who lacks the ability to make employment decisions dupes the official decision-maker into committing a discriminatory employment action. The Supreme Court, in Staub v. Proctor Hospital, made it significantly easier for an employee to prove a cat's paw case when it held that a plaintiff need only show "proximate cause" between the biased person and the final decision. Since then, lower courts have been pouncing on the chance to interpret ambiguities that the Supreme Court left open; last week, the 7th Circuit threw their hat in the ring. More ›

DOL Delays Expansion of home Health care Worker Benefits

Last month, we highlighted a revival of Department of Labor (DOL) rules expanding overtime and minimum wage coverage to home health care workers. At the time, it appeared likely that the decision in Home Care Association of America v. Weil could lead to the DOL to immediately enforcing previously-blocked 2013 regulations that were effective on January 1, 2015.  More ›

Student Interns: To pay or not to Pay?

With the school year just underway, thousands of students are heading off campus to begin student internships. (Hollywood is paying attention too.)  Of those interns, many go unpaid. In recent years, the number of students challenging their unpaid status and seeking minimum wage and overtime protections afforded by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FSLA) has increased dramatically. In the wake of these challenges, employers must carefully evaluate their internship programs, and answer this question: to pay or not to pay. More ›

EEOC Settles Background Check Suit with BMW, Leaves Employers Still Without Guidance

Earlier this week, it was announced that BMW Manufacturing Co. and the EEOC had entered into a Consent Decree, resolving one of three high-profile suits over a company's use of background checks in the hire process that had been pending since 2013. The settlement requires BMW to pay $1.6 million to roughly 56 claimants and other applicants to be identified and provide job opportunities to rejected applicants. The deal was approved Tuesday, September 8th by the South Carolina federal judge overseeing the litigation. More ›

Click to Agree? NLRB will Accept Electronic Signatures in Union Organizing Efforts

When was the last time you scrolled through an online statement of Terms and Conditions, just wanting to get to the bottom so that you can click “Agree” and move on with your day? By doing so, you legally committed to something, and you may not even know what it is. Would you believe that, as of September 1, a union could use a similar electronic form to gather employee signatures and trigger a representation election? Well, believe it. More ›

Ninth Circuit: Because of Simple Contract Oversight, Executive must Arbitrate Separation Dispute

Most executive level employees have detailed employment agreements outlining the terms and conditions of their high-paying jobs. Putting such agreements in place is a really good idea for a number of reasons, even though it can be a cumbersome task during the "feel good" on-boarding process. But most companies work through the specifics of the agreement because certainty is better than uncertainly when it comes to contracts — especially when the relationship ends, which it always does for one reason or another (another bummer to particularize when bringing someone in). Because most of an executive's employment agreement is necessarily devoted to what happens when he or she leaves, these agreements often include a provision requiring arbitration to resolve any contract dispute (the validity of which is the subject of innumerable court opinions not tackled here). They usually also include a clause that establishes the venue of any dispute and which state law applies — or at least they should. One executive recently found out what happens if you fail to mention which state law applies — you lose. More ›

In a Twist, Judge Overturns Arbitration Decision Suspending Tom Brady

On September 3, Judge Richard Berman of Southern District of New York overturned the NFL's four-game suspension of New England Patriots’ quarterback Tom Brady.  Besides being a dream come true for ESPN, the ruling is quite significant from a labor and employment law perspective, as the judge drastically departed from courts' typical deference to arbitration awards and unwillingness to interfere with the language in collective bargaining agreements. More ›

Joint Employer Standard Expanded: NLRB Overturns 30 Years of Precedent

In a dramatic departure from over 30 years of precedent, the National Labor Relations Board has modified the standard by which it determines whether two entities are "joint employers" under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The 3-2 ruling in Browning-Ferris Industries of California, published on August 27, 2015, has serious implications for companies that utilize staffing agencies and temporary employees, and for the staffing agencies themselves. The ruling greatly increases the ability of workers to bargain with both their employer and the company that hires their employer and to hold both companies responsible for various wrongs.  More ›