Photo of Todd Hanchett

Todd Hanchett

Subscribe to Todd Hanchett's Posts

Drawing on nearly 20 years of experience, Todd Hanchett represents employers in high-stakes litigation and traditional labor law matters. As a seasoned litigator, he regularly represents clients before state and federal courts around the country, as well as in labor arbitrations and before the National Labor Relations Board. In addition to employment matters, Todd specializes in litigating and trying cases involving employee non-competition, non-solicitation, and confidentiality agreements, as well as tortious interference claims. His practice focuses particularly on companies in the medical device, senior housing, health care and hospitality industries.

Click here for Todd Hanchett's full bio.

Follow:Read more about Todd HanchettTodd's Linkedin Profile

*a prior version of this post indicated the House vote was still pending. The House passed this legislation on March 27, 2020. 

Like you, we are closely monitoring the rapid developments caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The latest is Congress passing the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (or “CARES” Act). We focus below on the employment-related provisions of the Act, but encourage you to continue checking our COVID-19 Resource Hub for additional updates on other aspects of the Act.

Direct Payments to Individuals 

Under the Act, direct payments of $1,200 will be made to single individuals who earn $75,000 or less in adjusted gross income, and $2,400 to married couples who earn $150,000 or less in adjusted gross income, according to their 2018 tax returns or 2019 tax return if already filed.  There will be an additional $500 payment per child.  These payments scale down as income increases, phasing out entirely for individuals earning $99,000 and joint filers without children earning $198,000.

Increased Unemployment Benefits 

The Act also provides assistance to states to administer and expand unemployment benefits. 
Continue Reading UPDATE: Congress Passes Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act

Through a series of decisions issued in late 2019, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) has signaled a return to common sense in its approach to the rules governing labor relations.  Here are a few of the Board’s decisions that are of interest to employers.

Employers May Require Employees to Maintain Confidentiality in…

In light of the current administration’s approach to immigration enforcement, it is important that employers understand their legal rights and responsibilities when faced with potential raids by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) or local police acting in cooperation with ICE.  Understandably, many employers will want to ensure not only that they are complying with the law, but also that they are looking out for their employees.  Employers must be careful, however, not to provide too much assistance and cross the line between compassionate and criminal behavior.
Continue Reading Protecting Your Company and Your Employees During an ICE Raid

In Mendoza v. Nordstrom, the California Supreme Court answered three questions from the Ninth Circuit concerning California’s “day of rest” statutes.  The Court’s decision clarifies a significant ambiguity for employers regarding the obligation to provide employees with their statutorily mandated day of rest.

Mendoza involved a putative class action filed by former Nordstrom employees alleging Nordstrom violated California’s Labor Code by failing to provide them with one day of rest in seven and causing them to work more than six in seven days.  After the district court granted summary judgment in Nordstrom’s favor, plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
Continue Reading California Supreme Court Clarifies California’s Day of Rest Statutes

Some Oregonians are no doubt breathing clouds of relief with the introduction of Senate Bill 301, the Oregon Legislature’s proposal to protect employees from being fired for personal marijuana use.  Employers, on the other hand, may find themselves in a sticky (icky) situation trying to comply with the proposed law, which, at first glance, seems straightforward but would present significant challenges if passed.
Continue Reading Oregon Legislature’s Attempt to Protect Pot Users Poses Challenges to Employers

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,…

The NLRB recently reversed course again to allow temporary employees provided by a staffing agency to join regular employees in a single bargaining unit without the consent of the employer or the staffing agency. Miller & Anderson, Inc., 364 NLRB No. 39 (2016).

The Board Flip Flops

Historically, unions seeking to organize employees directly employed by an employer (called a “user employer” by the Board) alongside temporary employees provided by a staffing agency (“provided employees”) in a single bargaining unit were required to obtain consent of both the user employer and the staffing agency.

In 2000, however, the Clinton Board overturned that rule to eliminate the consent requirement, allowing employees to form one bargaining unit as long as they shared a community of interest and the employer and the staffing agency were considered “joint employers.” M. B. Sturgis, Inc., 331 NLRB 1298 (2000).  Four years later, the Bush II Board decided Oakwood Care Center, 343 NLRB 659 (2004), and overturned the Board’s decision in Sturgis to again require consent.
Continue Reading NLRB Reverses Course Again: Organizing Temporary Workers Just Got Easier

Fans of unscrupulous professional football players and coaches often justify their heroes’ misbehavior with a now-classic sports adage: “If you ain’t cheatin’, you ain’t tryin’.”  In the 1970s, for example, legendary Oakland Raiders owner Al Davis allegedly bugged locker rooms, watered down fields, and spied on other teams using a helicopter.  Such extreme shenanigans are…

In Oregon Rest. & Lodging Ass’n v. Perez, the Ninth Circuit ruled this week that federal law restricts a restaurant employer from maintaining a tip pool that includes “back-of-the-house” employees and requires directly tipped employees to share their tips, regardless of whether a tip credit is taken and employees are paid at least minimum wage.

The FLSA permits an employer to count a tipped employee’s tips toward its hourly minimum wage obligation.  This is known as a “tip credit.”  Section 203(m) of the FLSA requires employers who take a tip credit to give notice to employees and allow employees to retain all of the tips they receive, unless such employees participate in a valid tip pool.  Under section 203(m), a tip pool is valid if it is comprised exclusively of employees who are “customarily and regularly” tipped, commonly referred to as “front-of-the-house” employees.

The employers in Oregon Rest. & Lodging Ass’n, however, did not take a tip credit against their minimum wage obligation.  (Indeed, Oregon does not permit a “tip credit,” and requires that all employees receive the state-mandated minimum wage.)  Rather, the employers in Oregon Rest. & Lodging Ass’n paid their tipped employees at least the federal minimum wage and required their employees to participate in tip pools.  Unlike the tip pools contemplated by section 203(m), however, these tip pools included both front- and back-of-the-house employees.Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Declares Tip Pools Invalid Under FLSA Even Where Employers Pay More Than Minimum Wage

Employers probably are aware of the “quickie” election rules implemented earlier this year by the National Labor Relations Board (“the Board”), but they may not have considered all of the rules’ consequences. With as little as 15 to 20 days to respond to an organizing drive, employers must be prepared to educate employees about the risks and consequences of union representation on very short notice. While many employers have prepared as we described here, some still may not be ready to answer questions from workers and explain the consequences of unionizing the workplace. Responding to workers’ questions about a union without being properly prepared can make a mess of things, even if employers speak the truth.

A recent case from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Board decision that provides a good reminder that managers must be extremely careful even when speaking the truth to workers during an organizing campaign.

Be Careful What You Say

When a car dealership in Illinois learned that some employees were stirring up interest in unionizing, the plant’s general manager met with workers to discuss unions and answer their questions. The manager answered their questions honestly, but his answers still violated labor law, according to the Board and the Sixth Circuit.Continue Reading What Employers Can and Cannot Say During a Union Organizing Campaign