The Colorado Supreme Court ruled today in a 6-0 decision that Colorado’s “lawful activities statute,” which provides protections to employees who engage in lawful off-duty conduct, only applies to conduct that is lawful under both state and federal law. The Court’s decision in Coats v. Dish Network, which can be accessed here, involved
Supreme Court Sends UPS Pregnancy Accommodation Case to Trial
The U.S. Supreme Court handed a defeat to United Parcel Service (UPS) this week. At issue was whether UPS violated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) by requiring a pregnant woman with lifting restrictions to go on leave during her pregnancy, while workers in certain other categories (such as those with on-the-job injuries) were allowed light duty. We consider the ruling and the lessons it holds for employer leave and accommodation policies below.
In a decision announced March 25, 2015, the Supreme Court ruled that the district court, which had dismissed Young v. UPS (PDF) on summary judgment, must proceed to trial on the question of whether intentional discrimination occurred when a pregnant UPS employee was treated less favorably than others in similar situations.
The Court ruled in Young that under the PDA an employee can make a prima facie case of discrimination by showing that she was denied accommodation, while other sick or disabled workers with a similar inability to work were allowed accommodation. The employer then must show that it had a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for the difference in treatment to avoid liability, and if it makes such a showing the plaintiff can rebut the showing through evidence of pretext.
Continue Reading Supreme Court Sends UPS Pregnancy Accommodation Case to Trial
U.S. Supreme Court Finds Post-Shift Security Checks Noncompensable in Integrity Staffing v. Busk, But Employers Shouldn’t Get Too Excited
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a rare unanimous decision earlier this week in Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk, held that time spent by warehouse employees at Amazon.com warehouses waiting to go through security checks at the end of their shifts was “postliminary” activity not compensable under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and its major amendment, the Portal to Portal Act (“PPA”). While Busk may provide welcome clarity for employers who wish to implement such screens, the case probably does little to radically change the analysis of compensability of other pre- and post-shift activities beyond its narrow set of facts.
Amazon.com’s Warehouse Security Checks
Integrity Staffing is a staffing agency that provides employees to Amazon.com. Those employees work in the company’s warehouses pulling products from shelves and getting them packaged for mailing to buyers. Because of concerns related to employee theft, Integrity Staffing required employees to go through security checks before leaving the warehouse at the end of their shift, but did not pay employees for that waiting time. Waiting in line and going through these security checks took about 25 minutes.Continue Reading U.S. Supreme Court Finds Post-Shift Security Checks Noncompensable in Integrity Staffing v. Busk, But Employers Shouldn’t Get Too Excited
EEOC’s Tough Stance on Employee Separation Agreements
Employers like separation agreements. Separation agreements, of course, are contracts that employees sign when their employment is terminated that allows them to be paid severance and in exchange they usually give up the right to sue their employer. Separation agreements provide finality to employment terminations by offering employers protection from claims and potential claims. The agreements many employers use are often standardized and have served them well for years. But now might be the time to take another look at those documents, lest the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) looks first.
Recently, the EEOC has aggressively asserted its (re)interpretation of the law regarding the enforceability of separation (severance) agreements, suing several companies for using what it perceived to be overly broad agreements. See, EEOC v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc. no. 1:14-cv-00863 (N.D. Ill. 2014); see also, EEOC v. CollegeAmerica Denver, Inc., no. 14-cv-01232-LTB (E.D. Co. 2014). The EEOC doesn’t like separation agreements that do not make it sufficiently clear (in the EEOC’s opinion) that employees do not waive the right to file charges with the EEOC or participate in agency investigations, even though the employee can waive claims for damages under the statutes the EEOC enforces like Title VII or the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). In the CVS Pharmacy and CollegeAmerica cases, the EEOC alleged the employers’ separation agreement forms constituted a “pattern or practice” of denying employees their statutory rights. (“Pattern or practice” is significant because such cases can carry much higher penalties than a run-of-the-mill lawsuit; they can also inspire class-action lawyers to start snooping around.)Continue Reading EEOC’s Tough Stance on Employee Separation Agreements
NLRB Attempts to Make an End Run Around Courts Invalidating its Rulings on Arbitration Agreements
On October 28, 2014, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) issued its decision in Murphy Oil USA Inc., once again attempting to prohibit employers from requiring employees to enter into agreements to arbitrate employment disputes if those agreements preclude collective or class action litigation. As we have blogged about in the past, this new decision runs contrary to an overwhelming majority of federal district and appellate court decisions rejecting and criticizing the Obama NLRB’s previous attempt to so extend the law. A copy of the Murphy Oil USA decision can be found here.
In Murphy Oil, the NLRB split 3-2 along party lines, with the majority finding that gas station chain Murphy Oil’s arbitration agreements were unlawful. In so doing, the NLRB reaffirmed its controversial January 2012 DR Horton ruling, where the Board ruled that such agreements conflict with employees’ rights to engage in concerted activity under the National Labor Relations Act. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals refused the enforce the Board’s order, and the NLRB declined to seek review from the U.S. Supreme Court. In what some might say is refusing to take “no” for an answer, the NLRB is trying to resurrect its DR Horton decision.Continue Reading NLRB Attempts to Make an End Run Around Courts Invalidating its Rulings on Arbitration Agreements
David Nosal, Employee Data Theft, and Why Employment Lawyers Should Understand Their Clients’ IT Infrastructure
Earlier this month, a federal judge in San Francisco sentenced David Nosal to a year in prison, three years’ supervised release, 400 hours of community service, and $60,000 in fines. His crime? Nosal violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”), among other federal statutes, when he departed from his former employer with a stash of its most sensitive business data.
Employment law doesn’t normally develop in criminal courtrooms, but Nosal’s case is an important exception. The outcome of his pending appeal to the 9th Circuit will almost certainly offer important guidance for employers on how best to prevent and, where necessary, remedy employee data theft. It’ll likely reinforce a familiar lesson: employers should craft their employee technology policies with an eye toward the law of data security. A well-developed IT infrastructure can give an employer substantial legal advantages and lead to better outcomes when employee data theft occurs.
What Is The CFAA?
To understand the practical importance of Nosal’s case, employers should first understand how the CFAA can apply to departing employees who steal company data. Congress passed the CFAA in 1986 – before the advent of most modern information technology – to combat computer hacking. The CFAA makes it a federal offense to obtain information or perpetrate a fraud either by (a) accessing a computer “without authorization,” or (b) by “exceed[ing] authorized access” on any such computer. In addition to its criminal penalties, the CFAA creates a parallel civil cause of action for hacking victims.Continue Reading David Nosal, Employee Data Theft, and Why Employment Lawyers Should Understand Their Clients’ IT Infrastructure
Chasm Continues To Widen, For Now, Between NLRB and Federal Courts On Enforceability Of Class Action Waivers In Employment Agreements
Just last week, in the case GameStop Corp., a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) administrative law judge applied recent Board precedent and ignored contrary cases from federal courts to find an employer’s arbitration agreement was unenforceable because it waived the right of employees to bring class or collective actions. While the decision has yet to be approved by the NLRB itself (parties can appeal ALJ decisions to the NLRB), it illustrates the continuing tension in this area between the NLRB (which disfavors class action waivers in employee arbitration agreements) and the federal courts (which favor them).
As we have reported, U.S. federal courts continue to hold that employees may enter into arbitration agreements in which they waive the right to file class or collective action claims. The U.S. Supreme Court put its stamp of approval on such waivers in 2011 in the blockbuster case AT&T v. Concepcion, holding that the enforceability of arbitration agreements was governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), which preempted any state law purporting to regulate arbitration agreements, including arbitration agreements with class action waivers. Building on a decades-long line of cases steadily increasing support for the concept of arbitration and similar alternative dispute resolution (“ADR”) methods for resolving litigation, Concepcion also held decisively that arbitration agreements could include waivers by the parties of the right to bring lawsuits as class actions. The U.S. Supreme Court has re-affirmed Concepcion in subsequent decisions.Continue Reading Chasm Continues To Widen, For Now, Between NLRB and Federal Courts On Enforceability Of Class Action Waivers In Employment Agreements
Washington Court Affirms That Anti-Retaliation Laws Protect HR Employees
The Washington Court of Appeals recently determined that state anti-discrimination laws prohibit retaliation against human resources and legal professionals who oppose discrimination as part of their normal job duties. The court also declined to extend the same actor inference, a defense against discrimination claims, to retaliation claims.
Lodis worked at Corbis Holdings as a vice president
Washington Law Against Sexual Orientation Discrimination Not Retroactive
On September 13, the Washington Supreme Court held that a 2006 amendment to the Washington Law Against Discrimination, which makes it illegal for employers to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, does not apply retroactively. But the Court also held that evidence of pre-amendment harassment is admissible to show why post-amendment conduct is discriminatory.
NLRB’s Court Woes Continue: New Election Rules Struck Down
The Obama NLRB’s regulatory agenda continues to fare poorly in the federal courts. On the heels of court decisions staying the NLRB’s new “notice” requirement, see previous posts here, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia Circuit has just struck down the NLRB’s new rules designed to speed up union representation