Earlier this year, we wrote about the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Oregon Rest. & Lodging Ass’n v. Perez, which prohibited tip-pools that include “back-of-the house” employees. Last week, the Court rejected a petition to review the decision en banc. This means that, unless the Supreme Court weighs in on the issue,
Class Action Waivers in Employment Agreements Are No Longer Enforceable in the Ninth Circuit
If your company uses a class action waiver in your employment agreements and you are located in Alaska, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, the Northern Mariana Islands, Oregon, or Washington, you are out of luck. Thanks to a recent decision from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (which has jurisdiction over the aforementioned areas), that waiver is no longer enforceable.
Recently, the Court ruled in Morris v. Ernst & Young, LLP, No. 13-16599, 2016 WL 4433080 (9th Cir. Aug. 22, 2016), that an employment agreement that requires employees to pursue legal claims against their employer in “separate proceedings” and in arbitration violates federal law. In that case, two employees sued Ernst & Young alleging they were misclassified as exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act and were owed overtime pay. The trial court compelled individual arbitration, pursuant to the “separate proceedings” in arbitration demanded by the employment agreement the two employees signed upon hire. The Ninth Circuit reversed.
Employees are guaranteed the right to “engage in . . . concerted activities for the purpose of . . . mutual aid or protection” by the National Labor Relations Act. The Court held that protection for “concerted activities” means that employers cannot require employees to waive their right to pursue legal claims as a class action.
Continue Reading Class Action Waivers in Employment Agreements Are No Longer Enforceable in the Ninth Circuit
City of Seattle Proposes New Ordinance Regulating Employee Scheduling
Seattle restaurants and retail employers may soon face significant restrictions on employee scheduling. The Seattle City Council is currently considering a proposed ordinance with the potential to impact hundreds of employers across the City. Following are the basics of the proposed legislation.
What employers would be covered by the proposed ordinance?
- Retail employers and large limited or quick food service employers with 500 or more employees worldwide; and
- Full-service restaurants with 500 or more employees and 40 or more locations worldwide.
What employees would be covered by the proposed ordinance?
- Hourly, non-exempt employees who work at least 50% of the time within the City of Seattle.
Continue Reading City of Seattle Proposes New Ordinance Regulating Employee Scheduling
OSHA Delays Enforcement of New Reporting Requirements for Drug & Alcohol Testing
As previously reported, OSHA’s latest revisions for covered employers will dramatically impact routine post-accident drug testing programs. The new rules are available for review here, but here’s what you need to know:
- OSHA Postponed Enforcement. OSHA just delayed the date on which it will begin enforcing these new requirements. OSHA’s memo postponing
2016 Oregon Legislative Update: What You Might Have Missed
Oregon’s new minimum wage law, signed by Governor Brown on March 2, 2016, received a lot of press during the 2016 legislative session. This new law establishes a tiered system for determination of the minimum wage based on the location of the employer. The minimum wage will increase annually on July 1 of each year, with the first increase (from $9.25 to $9.50 in rural areas and to $9.75 everywhere else) taking place this year. By 2022, Oregon’s minimum wage will increase to $14.75 inside Portland’s urban growth boundary, $13.50 in midsize counties, and $12.50 in rural areas. The full text of the enrolled Senate bill is available here.
With minimum wage receiving all of the attention, Oregon employers may have missed other employment-related bills. Here are the bills that passed during the 2016 Oregon Legislative Session and those that failed (but we might see again in the future).
Continue Reading 2016 Oregon Legislative Update: What You Might Have Missed
IRS Extends ACA Reporting Deadlines
The IRS issued key extensions to looming 2016 information reporting deadlines for applicable large employers. This relief applies only to the deadlines for reporting the coverage that employers offered in 2015:
- The deadline for providing employee statements is extended to March 31, 2016 (from February 1, 2016).
- The deadline for filing 1094-Cs and 1095-Cs with
Time to Notify Your Employees of Oregon’s Paid Sick Leave Law
Oregon employers should all be aware that Oregon’s new Paid Sick Leave (PSL) law goes into effect on January 1, 2016. We originally reported on the the PSL law’s requirements in July of this year.
Late yesterday, the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) published its final rules implementing Oregon’s PSL law: download
Tacoma, Washington Paid Employee Sick Leave Law Goes Into Effect in February 2016
Flu season is fast approaching, and this winter, Tacoma employers will join Seattle employers in being required to provide paid sick leave. On February 1, 2016, Tacoma’s new paid sick leave ordinance goes into effect. As we have blogged about before, Tacoma is just the latest of a number of state and local jurisdictions
The Ninth Circuit Joins Its Sister Circuits in Ruling That an Employee Who Threatens Co-Workers with Violence Is Not “Qualified” Under the ADA
The Ninth Circuit released a precedent-setting Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) decision yesterday, and it’s a big win for employers. The Court held that an employee who makes “serious and credible threats of violence toward his co-workers” is not a “qualified individual with a disability” and therefore cannot state a claim under the ADA or Oregon disability law. Karen O’Connor, Brenda Baumgart and Andrea Thompson from Stoel Rives represented the employer in this case, Mayo v. PCC Structurals, Inc., and a link to the Court’s decision is here.
Plaintiff’s Stress Leads to Death Threats in the Workplace
Plaintiff was a long-term welder at an industrial facility. Despite a 1999 diagnosis of major depressive disorder, he worked without significant issue for decades. In 2010, plaintiff and a few co-workers claimed a supervisor bullied them at work. Shortly after a meeting among plaintiff, a co-worker and the company’s HR director to discuss the supervisor, plaintiff began making threatening comments. He told a co-worker that he “felt like coming down to [the facility] with a shotgun and blowing off” the heads of his supervisor and a different manager. Among other comments, he also told other co-workers that he planned to come to the facility during the day shift “to take out management” and that he “wanted to bring a gun down to [the facility] and start shooting people.”Continue Reading The Ninth Circuit Joins Its Sister Circuits in Ruling That an Employee Who Threatens Co-Workers with Violence Is Not “Qualified” Under the ADA
EEOC Rules That Title VII Prohibits Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation
In a 3-2 decision published on Thursday, July 16, 2015, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) concluded that intentional discrimination against an employee based on their sexual orientation is sex discrimination- an act strictly prohibited under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. “Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is premised