The Witch: I’m not a witch! I’m not a witch! Sir Bedevere: But you are dressed as one The Witch: *They* dressed me up like this! Crowd: We didn’t! We didn’t… The Witch: And this isn’t my nose. It’s a false one. Sir Bedevere: [lifts up her false nose] Well? Peasant 1: Well, we did do the nose. Sir Bedevere: The nose? Peasant 1: And the hat, but she is a witch! Crowd: Yeah! Burn her! Burn her!
How wide of a net is the EEOC entitled to cast when issuing a subpoena for documents during an investigation? According to EEOC v. United Parcel Service, decided earlier this month by the 6th Circuit, the answer is a lot wider than you’d like.
Last week, Derek Rotondo, a dad of two young children, filed a sex discrimination charge with the EEOC against his employer of seven years, J.P. Morgan. Why? I’ll let Derek explain, in a blog he wrote for the ACLU.
The EEOC has taken a judgment of $118,483 against a New jersey debt collection firm in a pregnancy discrimination case. Why? Because the firm rescinded a job offer to a female employee after it learned that she was pregnant.
That alone, however, will not earn one an employer a nomination for “Worst Employer of 2017.” I’ll let the EEOC explain further:
Next week, I am taking a much needed break, as I will be out of the office. I’ll see everyone back on June 19. Of course, now that I’ve committed not to blog next week, the employment-law poop will certainly hit the fan next week, in which case my blogger OCD will compel me to break my pledge, interrupt my trip, and bring you all the news that’s fit to blog. Either way.
The past two years have been busy for the Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division. One can directly track a large part of its busy workload to its enlargement of who qualifies as an “employer” under the Fair Labor Standards Act. In 2015, the DOL issued guidance re-defining, and broadening the definition of, who qualifies as an “independent contractor”. And, the following year, the DOL did the same with its definition of “joint employer”.
Alex Acosta, the newly appointed Secretary of Labor, looks to roll back the clock on these interpretations.
This year, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act turns 50. Which means the law itself has been protected from age discrimination for a decade (rim shot).
To mark the law’s golden anniversary, the EEOC next week will hold a public meeting, “The ADEA @ 50 - More Relevant Than Ever.” According to the EEOC, “The meeting will explore the state of age discrimination in America today and the challenges it poses for the future.”
It’s been six weeks since I reported on NLRB v. Pier Sixty, in which the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals held that the National Labor Relations Act protected the profanity-laced Facebook rant of a disgruntled employee. I have hoped that Pier Sixty is an aberration. Thankfully, last week the 1st Circuit came along with a well reasoned contrarian view in a case in which the alleged employee misconduct was much less severe.
One of the elements of my kids’ school that I like most is that the curriculum provides many opportunities for public speaking at every grade level. Each of mine had their separate chance to exhibit their comfort in front of crowd during the last week of school.
I came across an interesting article at the Harvard Business Review—The Omissions That Make So Many Sexual Harassment Policies Ineffective. The article starts with a simple question. “If 98% of organizations in the United States have a sexual harassment policy, why does sexual harassment continue to be such a persistent and devastating problem in the American workplace?”
When you settle a lawsuit with an employee, you are bargaining for finality. You are paying that employee to resolve all disputes between you, whether asserted or unasserted. You want to be done with that individual forever.
There has been much judicial and administrative ink spilled over the past few years over whether the National Labor Relations Act permits employers to require employees to give up their rights to litigate or arbitrate class or collective actions. This issue is one of the most important issues facing employers, which have looked to class-action and collective-action waivers as an important weapon to fight to scourge of wage and hour litigation.
This weekend is a big one for Norah. Today, she graduates from 5th grade and walks across the quad to become a middle schooler. And tomorrow, she turns 11. I think she’s more excited than usual about this birthday, because 10 was not her favorite year. Let’s just say that she and preteen girl-drama have not mixed well, and some have gone out of their way to make her feel less than special. (and, yes, I realize that the drama is only going to get worse).
Which is why I legit teared up this past weekend when she sang, “Brass in Pocket” by The Pretenders.
The Equal Pay Act requires that an employer pay its male and female employees equal pay for equal work. The jobs need not be identical, but they must be substantially equal, and substantial equality is measured by job content, not job titles. This Act is a strict liability law, which means that intent does not matter. If a women is paid less than male for substantially similar work, then the law has been violated, regardless of the employer’s intent.
This strict liability, however, does not mean that pay disparities always equal liability. The EPA has several built-in defenses, including when the pay differential was “based on any other factor other than sex.” So, what happens if two comparable employees, one male and one female, come to you with different salary histories. Does the Equal Pay Act require that you gross up a lower earning female to match the salary of a higher paid male, or do the mere disparate prior salaries justify the pay disparity under the Equal Pay Act?
The ADA expressly excludes from its coverage “transvestism, transsexualism, … [and] gender identity disorders not resulting from physical impairments….”
Thus, it should be an easy call for a court to dismiss a lawsuit in which an employee, born a male but who identifies and presents as a female, alleges disability discrimination because of her gender identity disorder.
Writing at Inc.com, Suzanne Lucas (aka Evil HR Lady) reports on a study published by the Economics Policy Institute, which says that employers short their employees $15 billion in wages per year. According to Suzanne, “Wage theft isn’t always the case of a corrupt boss attempting to take advantage of employees.” She is 100 percent correct. In fact, most instances of an employer not paying an employee all he or she is owed under the law results from our overly complex and anachronistic wage and hour laws, not a malicious skinflint of a boss intentionally stealing from workers.
In MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC (5/16/17) [pdf], a two-member majority of the National Labor Relations Board held that an employer violated section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act when it banned from its property an ex-employee who had filed against it a wage/hour collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
I write a lot about music (particularly for a legal blog), which means that if you are any sort of regular reader, you read a lot about music. What can I say? You write what you know. I we do a lot of music in my house. Between my two kids we have three bands, three weekly lessons, three rehearsals, and gigs, gigs, and more gigs (including three this weekend).
Much of my writing about music is about my favorite band, Old 97’s. And, I don’t apologize for it. Yes, I love their music, and their songs, and how damn good they are live. But I also love who they are, as noted by this clip from their Cleveland show last week.
Who else gets a shout-out from the stage in the middle of a concert? Norah, that’s who. I can only assume she’s learning and will pay it all back when she’s famous some day.
(Bonus, check out Nicole Atkins, who we knew very little about before last week, and she converted us all to huge fans with one 40-minute opening set).
Let’s play a game. Close you eyes and imagine. Imagine you’re the CEO of a company. And let’s also imagine your VP of HR is investigating a former executive of the company (who happens to be close friend and confidant of yours) for illegal or unethical conduct. And imagine that you privately ask said VP of HR, on the down-low, if maybe he can give your good-guy buddy a pass and end his investigation.
At least half of my legal practice is serving as outside labor-and-employment counsel for small to midsize businesses. And, increasingly, much of that practice is consumed with drafting post-employment covenants, sending cease-and-desist letters to employees who are in violation of said covenants, or filing lawsuits to enforce said covenants; or, conversely, advising a business whether it can hire an employee with a non-compete agreement, responding to cease-and-desist letters, or defending a lawsuit seeking to enforce said covenants.
