Employment Law 360 reports that Hawaiian Airlines has been sued by a group of employees claiming that their mandatory unpaid 10-day customer service training course violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.
According to court papers, trainees learned things like federal regulatory requirements and how to use a standard airline software system. … The suit claimed the Fair Labor Standards Act and state law required trainees be paid at least minimum wage “because, among other things, attendance was mandatory, the course material was related to the trainee’s job, and attendance was during regular working hours.”
Today is Yom Kippur, the Jewish Day of Atonement, the day on which we make peace with God for all of the sins we’ve committed over the past year. On Rosh Hashanah God writes each person’s name in Book of Life. Over the next 10 days, Jews seek forgiveness for wrongs done against God and other human beings. During Yom Kippur, each individual makes their personal petitions to God, and hopes for forgiveness for the upcoming year. If all goes well, when God closes the Book of Life at the end of Yom Kippur, your name remains and your soul is safe for another year.
The Fair Labor Standards Act does not require paid lunches for employees. Indeed, quite to the contrary, the FLSA provides that meal breaks (presumptively defined as breaks of more than 20 minutes during which the employee is totally relieved of his or her work duties) can be unpaid.
What happens, however, to an employee’s overtime compensation if the employer pays an employee for non-working lunches? Is the employer entitled to use the extra compensation for the paid lunches to offset other overtime compensation?
I’ve been thinking all weekend whether to write about Donald Trump’s 2005 hot mic embarrassment, and, if so, what I’d write about. After all, I’ve already recently written about plagiarism and your b.s. meter in the wake of Melania Trump’s RNC speech, victim blaming sexual harassment victims in the wake of Donald Trump’s comments about his hope for his daughter’s reaction to workplace harassment, and, perhaps most critically, the importance of discourse in setting appropriate tones and modeling appropriate conduct in the workplace and beyond.
Then I saw Mr. Trump’s non-apology, and I had my theme.
Thank you to each of these resources for including me. Each contains a plethora of blogs and tweeters that are worth checking out. I know I found some new resources to follow, and I’m confident you will too.
I am no fan of the NLRB and its aggressive agenda over the past few years. And, it appears I don’t stand alone.
Check out these scathing words from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in Heartland Plymouth Court MI v. NLRB [pdf], in which the appellate court ordered the NLRB to pay the employer’s $17,649 in legal fees for the Board’s bad faith litigation by continuing to pursue a case that the NLRB knew it could not win. Why? Because the NLRB’s position ran counter to the law of every single appellate court.
Two recent EEOC lawsuits (here and here) illustrate the risk employers continue to take when they deny unpaid leaves of absence to employees as a reasonable accommodation under the ADA.
There is no doubt that prescription-pain-medication abuse is a rampant problem in America. Indeed, this week the State of Ohio even went so far as to limit the ability of an injured worker to receive reimbursements for pain meds from the state workers’ compensation fund.
So, what then does one make of this story from Employment Law 360, describing a recent lawsuit the EEOC filed against Georgia medical practice?
Last week, the Department of Labor rolled out its final regulations mandating paid sick leave for the employees of federal contractors. According to the DOL, Once fully implemented, more than one million employees of federal contractors will be covered. At the highest of levels, the rule mandates that covered workers earn up to 56 hours (7 work days) of paid sick leave annually. Notably, the rule does not apply retroactively, and only applies to new federal contracts and replacements for expiring contracts on or after January 1, 2017.
Jack White month comes to an end with a few clips from Norah’s most excellent School of Rock “Many Shades of Jack White” show. She was asked to do a lot in this show. Of the 19 songs in the set, she sang lead on 9 (including Hotel Yorba, in which sang and played guitar), guitar on another, and background vocals on 3 more. That’s a .684 batting percentage, which is a whole bunch for a 10 year old to carry on her shoulders. And she totally killed it (not that I’m biased).
Two things stand out for me. First, I love when Norah gets to sing and play guitar simultaneously, which she did on one of my all time favorites, Hotel Yorba. Secondly, I love how Norah is no longer just on stage singing or playing some songs, but is transitioning into an entertainer, cognizant of the fact she is, in fact, putting on a show for an audience.
When an employer presents an agreement to an employee ancillary to the separation of that employee’s employment, or settles a claim asserted by an employee, part of the bargain for which the employer is paying is finality. Yet, over the past couple of years, the federal government has made this finality harder and harder to achieve.
Confidentiality, non-disparagement, and other “gag” provisions in employee separation and settlement agreements have been under attack by various federal agencies, including the EEOC and the NLRB. Now, OSHA also has joined the fray.
As the calendar winds its way into autumn, and as the temperature starts to trend downward, we move into flu season. Which is why should pay special attention to this story from Employment Law 360:
This case is remarkable. Because of some odd communications between a juror and the court, the concurring opinion gives a unique look behind the curtain of jury deliberations. And it isn’t pretty.
Last Saturday was Jack White show #1 for Norah and her School of Rock friends. One of my personal highlights was Norah singing The White Stripes’s cover of the Robert Johnson 1937 blues classic, “Stop Breaking Down”.
It’s rare that I write a same-day follow-up post, but an email I received from a reader in response to this morning’s post merits special attention.
The email read as follows:
Your article on why your son hates Donald Trump is way off base. I think it exemplifies why you have not adequately informed your son on the facts such as she could always come here on a tourist visa….. Educate your son and let him know that part of the reason for Trump’s stance on ILLEGAL immigration is because one day an Illegal Immigrant just might take the job he wants to earn more money.
This was my response:
He’s 8, and while brilliant (the apple not falling far from the tree), I think the nuances of immigration policy might be a bit much for him. Besides, we start our policy discussions in the Hyman house with nuclear proliferation. Immigration policy isn’t until he turns 10.
I’m going to assume I now have one less reader, and that’s perfectly fine by me.
My eight-year-old son hates Donald Trump. I know hate is a strong word. I rarely use it (except when describing the most evil of all condiments, mustard. I hate mustard).
But, Donovan hates Donald Trump. All you have to do is mention his name, and he will tell you how much he hates the Donald, and how he has no room in his life for anyone who thinks any differently.
Over the months of listening to our son tell us of his hatred for Trump we never thought to ask why. Until we did.
On December 1, the Department of Labor’s new salary test for exempt employees is set to take effect, raising the salary level to qualify for certain white collar overtime exemptions from $455 per week to $913 per week.
That is, it is set to take effect if the two lawsuits filed yesterday don’t delay or outright stop the rules from taking effect.
According to Ajilon (as reported by BenefitsPro), American employees spend 140 per year (or an average of 33 minutes per day) on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and other social networks. Aggregated across all employees, the survey estimates this personal time costs employers $192.4 billion each year.
These numbers, however, merely beg the questions — (1) should you care and (2) what can you do about it?
In EEOC v. Catastrophe Management Solutions [pdf], the EEOC asked the 11th Circuit to determine whether banning an African-American employee from wearing dreadlocks constitutes race discrimination.
In a lengthy decision that discusses the very concept of race, the court answered the question “no”.
