New California Law Prevents Employers from Imposing Non-California Forum Selection or Choice of Law Provisions upon California Employees

As part of our efforts to update employers regarding the newly-enacted statutes that will affect employers in the coming year, this post addresses a bill recently signed into by California Governor Jerry Brown that prohibits employers from requiring most employees who live and work in California to agree to a forum selection or choice of law clause that would designate a forum or substantive law of a jurisdiction outside California.

The bill, designated as Senate Bill 1241, is straightforward on its face adding section 925 to the California Labor Code.  It prohibits any employer from requiring an employee who “primarily resides and works in California” to adjudicate outside of California a claim arising in California, or to deprive California-based employees of “the substantive protection of California law” with respect to such a claim.  “Adjudication” is defined to include litigation and arbitration.  The statute becomes effective on January 1, 2017, with respect to contracts entered into after that date.

Continue Reading

Seventh Circuit Reverses Decision that Title VII Doesn’t Protect Against Anti-Gay Discrimination and Agrees to Re-hear Employment Discrimination Case

The Seventh Circuit reversed and vacated the panel decision holding that Title VII does not protect employees from anti-gay discrimination and will re-hear the case, Hivey v. Tech Community College, en banc.  Kimberly Hively claims that her former employer, Ivy Tech Community College, violated Title VII when she was denied full-time employment and promotions and eventually terminated based on her sexual orientation.  We previously reported on this case and its implications for the rapidly-changing legal landscape on LGBT workplace protections.  What the Seventh Circuit’s Recent Title VII Ruling Means for Sexual Orientation Discrimination in the Workplace  With today’s decision by the Seventh Circuit to rehear the case en banc, the status of sexual orientation discrimination under Title VII remains uncertain.  We will continue to monitor this case for its impact on employers going forward.


Kelley Drye Launches Occupational Health & Safety Blog

We are excited to announce that Kelley Drye’s Occupational Safety & Health practice group has launched the Not Safe For Work blog. We think our readers will benefit from the focused insight and expert analysis on the latest occupational safety and health issues from Kelley Drye’s occupational health and safety attorneys. You can follow Not Safe For Work for analysis, summaries, and discussion of the latest occupational safety and health developments, including action by OSHA, the Chemical Safety Board, the Mine Safety & Health Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, and others.

Occupational health and safety law arises largely from the 1970 Occupational Health and Safety Act and is enforced by the Occupational Health and Safety Administration of the U.S. Department of Labor (OSHA). In addition OSHA enforces the law, administers reporting requirements, and handles substantial rulemaking responsibilities that impact a very broad range of employers and industries. It also addresses reducing risks from toxic chemical exposure, electrical hazards, fall hazards, noise levels, mechanical dangers, extreme temperatures, unsanitary conditions and other sources. OSHA compliance impacts virtually every employer in the U.S. Check out the Not Safe For Work blog to stay up to date.

EEOC Continues its “Fight” Against Mandatory Flu Vaccines

Following up on a post from last week on the issue of mandatory flu vaccine policies, the EEOC seems to be on a march to challenge any employer – particularly hospitals – that denies an employee a requested exemption from a mandatory flu shot for religious reasons.

Last week the EEOC sued Saint Vincent Health Center, a Pennsylvania hospital, claiming that the hospital had unlawfully fired six employees who were denied an exemption from the hospital’s mandatory flu vaccine policy.  According to the complaint, the hospital allotted 14 other employees exemptions from the vaccine based on health reasons, but denied the requests of the employees for religious-based exemptions because they “did not provide proof of religious doctrine.” The health center says they have a vaccination policy that allows employees to apply for exemptions to receiving the vaccine based on health concerns or religious beliefs.

Continue Reading

‘Tis The Season for Sneezin’ – Where Does The Law Stand On Mandatory Flu Vaccines?

Fall is in the air – when the air becomes crisp, our thoughts turn to Halloween, turkey and — thanks to constant reminders — and our annual flu vaccine.

Many health care facilities have implemented policies which require employees to be vaccinated.  There are many reasons why this is a good practice, particularly for employees who work on the ‘front lines’ of patient care; however, we have recently been reminded that such policies must be carefully crafted and implemented to accommodate employees who cannot or do not wish to be vaccinated.

Up until this year, there was little EEOC activity and not much litigation over flu vaccines.  But that has changed with two federal courts reaching the issue this year.

Continue Reading

Is There a Change in the Wind for LGBTQ Law?

Unlike many of us, the courts were not on vacation during the month of August in the area of LGBTQ law.  We have seen a number of rulings which seem to signal that the courts are trying to “slow down” the EEOC and other federal agencies as they pursue their stated goal of advancing the rights of LGBTQ employees in the workplace.  These decisions also should send a message to Congress and the Supreme Court that it is time for one or both of these bodies to act and clarify the obligations of an employer to gay, lesbian and transgender employees.

We reported on the Seventh Circuit’s ruling in Hively v. Ivy Tech, where the Court (reluctantly) held that Title VII did not cover discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.  In so doing, the Court was openly conflicting with the EEOC on this important issue and signaled that either Congress or the Supreme Court needed to address this question.  The EEOC on August 30 asked the full 7th Circuit to reconsider that ruling. Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College, No. 15‐1720 (7th Cir. July 28, 2016)

Continue Reading

Ninth Circuit Invalidates Class Waiver in Arbitration Agreement

In a ruling that widens the divide between federal appellate courts, the Ninth Circuit sided today with the Seventh Circuit and the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) in holding that the class action waiver provision of a company’s arbitration agreement with employees violates the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). Prior to this decision, the Seventh Circuit was alone in its dissention from the federal majority with respect to this issue.

The United States Supreme Court in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion made clear that class waivers are enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”), at least in the context of consumer class actions, and that state laws that inhibit the full effectuation of the FAA are void. The NLRB, however, in its continuing bid to establish its relevance in the contemporary workplace, has challenged class waivers executed by employees; in D.R. Horton, Inc. v. NLRB, the NLRB held in 2012 that employees’ Section 7 rights are violated by such waivers, and that the FAA does not override this right. The NLRB’s ruling in D.R. Horton spawned a great deal of commentary and litigation – the NLRB’s ruling that class waivers are unenforceable was itself rejected by an appellate court in the Fifth Circuit. A host of federal appellate courts, as well as lower courts, have also criticized the NLRB’s ruling and refused to adopt its reasoning. Notably, the Fifth Circuit decision emphasized that the use of class action litigation is a procedural, rather than a substantive right, and that prohibiting class action waivers would discourage arbitration and, thus, violate the spirit and purpose of the FAA.

Continue Reading

What the Seventh Circuit’s Recent Title VII Ruling Means for Sexual Orientation Discrimination in the Workplace

On July 28, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (“Seventh Circuit”) ruled that Title VII does not protect against sexual orientation discrimination.  See, Hively v. Ivy Tech Cmty. Coll., 2016 BL 244172, 7th Cir., No. 15-1720, 7/28/16.  The Seventh Circuit ruling is the first by a federal circuit to address the question since the EEOC held in an administrative ruling that bias based on sexual orientation is sex discrimination violating Title VII.

The Seventh Circuit did not discuss the merits of Ms. Hively’s case, who alleged Ivy Tech Community College did not promote her because she is a lesbian.  Instead, the Court discussed the “paradoxical legal landscape in which a person can be married on Saturday and then fired on Monday for just that act.”  Judge Rovner wrote:

For although federal law now guarantees anyone the right to marry another person of the same gender, Title VII, to the extent it does not reach sexual orientation discrimination, also allows employers to fire that employee for doing so….Many citizens would be surprised to learn that under federal law any private employer can summon an employee into his office and state, “You are a hard‐working employee and have added much value to my company, but I am firing you because you are gay.” And the employee would have no recourse whatsoever—unless she happens to live in a state or locality with an anti‐discrimination statute that includes sexual orientation. . .

Continue Reading

What You Need to Know About Recent Amendments to Illinois’s Equal Pay Act

As of January 1, 2016, Illinois’s Equal Pay Act (the “Act”) expanded to prohibit all employers, regardless of size, from paying unequal wages to men and women for doing the same or substantially similar work, except if the wage difference is based upon a seniority system, a merit system, a system measuring earnings by quantity or quality of production, or factors other than gender.  The previous version of the Act only applied to employers with four or more employees.

The recent amendments to the Act also increase the civil penalties for violation of the law as follows:

  1. For employers with four or more employees:  For a first offense, a fine not to exceed $2,500; for a second offense, a fine not to exceed $3,000; and for a third or subsequent offense, a fine not to exceed $5,000; and
  2. For employers with fewer than four employees:  For a first offense, a fine not to exceed $500; for a second offense, a fine not to exceed $2,500; and for a third or subsequent offense, a fine not to exceed $5,000.

Continue Reading

Sandquist v. Lebo Automotive, Inc.: California’s Cautionary Tale About the Importance of Drafting Arbitration Agreements with Precision

Ambiguities in employee arbitration agreements may force employers to litigate putative class action claims in arbitration. The California Supreme Court delivered this cautionary message by its recent holding in Sandquist v. Lebo Automotive, Inc. In Sandquist, the plaintiff, an African-American male, filed a discrimination class action on behalf of “current and former employees of color” following his separation from the company. The company filed a motion to compel individual arbitration, relying on an arbitration clause the plaintiff signed in three separate documents upon commencing his employment. The trial court granted the company’s motion, concluding that the existing case precedent required the court – rather than the arbitrator – to determine whether class arbitration was available. Ultimately, the trial court interpreted the arbitration agreements’ as impliedly prohibiting class arbitration and, on that basis, struck the class allegations.

Upon review, the Court of Appeal reversed the trial court, holding that the arbitrator, not the trial court, must determine whether an arbitration agreement permits class arbitration. The California Supreme Court granted review and, on July 28, 2016, a narrowly divided Court affirmed the Court of Appeal, holding that the question of whether a court or an arbitrator decides if an arbitration agreement permits class claims should be determined on a case-by-case basis, specifically focusing on the agreement’s terms and resolving any ambiguities in favor of the non-drafting party. By its decision, the Court placed itself at odds with numerous federal appellate courts that have held that such questions are for a court, not an arbitrator, to decide.

Continue Reading