Four months ago, the Dow was close to 30,000, employment rates were at historic highs, the coronavirus was still “novel,” and millions had not yet taken to the streets in global protests against police brutality and racial inequality. The workplace we now return to exists in
Last week, the US Supreme Court made it easier for a federal worker to establish a claim for age bias.
This decision does not impact private employers, because it relied on the specific language of the federal sector section of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). But could this signal a possible future loosening of the burden of proof for other plaintiffs? We will have to wait and see.
SCOTUS held that federal employees can establish age discrimination under the federal sector section of the ADEA, merely by proving that age bias “taints the employer’s decision-making process.” Babb v. Wilkie, Secretary of Veteran Affairs, No. 18-882. This is weaker than the “but-for” standard of causation applicable to age discrimination claims under Gross v. FBL Financial Services, Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (2009). In other words, the fact that the same employment decision would have been reached had age not been taken into account is not relevant for purposes of deciding a federal government employee’s age discrimination claim.
Continue Reading It is Now Easier For Federal Workers to Prove Age Bias
Employers are in uncharted territory with the COVID-19 pandemic, which has created complicated employment issues that continue to evolve by the hour. Join Kelley Drye’s Labor and Employment co-chairs Barbara Hoey and Mark Konkel and senior associate Diana Hamar as they share practical advice for
As federal, state and local governments continue to develop their responses to the COVID-19 outbreak, employers may find themselves in uncharted territory as to how to deal with emerging employee issues.
There are three overriding rules that all employers should remember:
Below are some general answers to questions our clients have been asking. However, please be aware that this is a very fact-specific and complex topic; COVID-19 related employment issues are evolving by the hour. Employers are cautioned to stay abreast of federal, state, and local government advisories, and to consult legal counsel before making employment decisions or changing policy.
With the arrival of 2019 novel coronavirus (“COVID-19”) to the United States, employers should begin thinking about strategies to mitigate business interruptions, ensure employee safety, and avoid unnecessary litigation.
Know Your Resources
Employers should continue to monitor reliable guidance provided by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) and local public health agencies. Understanding how COVID-19 is transmitted and what steps can be taken to protect diagnosed or exposed employees is essential to dispelling employee fears. Employers can educate employees on prevention and symptoms and should be prepared to answer employee concerns regarding workplace safety. The following are guides which may be helpful to employers:
If you’re waiting for a reversal of the trend at the Supreme Court to limit employers’ ability to insist on arbitration instead of litigation, or of the trend limiting class claims, keep waiting.
The Supreme Court continues to limit the ability of employees to pursue class arbitration against their employers. The latest salvo—the Court’s decision in Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela—comes on the heels of last year’s Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, which found that class action waivers in individual arbitration agreements between employers and employees are enforceable. Taking the next natural step in limiting class actions, Lamps Plus now requires arbitration agreements to specifically permit class claims; if an arbitration agreement leaves the issue unaddressed, no class claim is available at all.
In a noteworthy decision last week, the Ninth Circuit ruled that fast food workers in California can voluntarily bargain away some of their meal period rights in exchange for discounted meals. The unanswered questions are how much employees can trade away, and in exchange for what.
The case (Rodriguez v. Taco Bell) challenged
In the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, employers are able to enforce individual arbitration proceedings if arbitration was agreed to in an employment contract. Settling a Circuit split on the issue, the Supreme Court decision affirmed the Fifth Circuit holding in Murphy Oil, and remanded the Ninth and Seventh Circuit decisions in Ernst & Young, LLP v. Morris and Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis. Justice Gorsuch, writing for the majority, found that “as a matter of law the answer is clear. [ . . . ] Congress has instructed federal courts to enforce arbitration agreements according to their terms–including terms providing for individualized proceedings.” (Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 584 U.S. ___ (2018) (slip op., at 2).
The Court, when looking at the Arbitration Act and the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”), decided the two provisions could be read in harmony. “When confronted with two Acts of Congress allegedly touching on the same topic, this Court is not ‘at liberty to pick and choose among congressional enactments’ and must instead strive ‘to give effect to both.’” (Id., slip op. at 10) (quoting Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 551 (1974). The Court was unable to find any “clear and manifest” intent, as required by Morton, of Congress to displace the Arbitration Act with the NLRA.
The Court found that their holding was consistent with the prior decisions in Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20, 32 (1991) and NLRB v. Alternative Entertainment, Inc., 858 F. 3d 393, 413 (CA6 2017) finding that the Fair Labor Standards Act and Age Discrimination in Employment Act do not displace the Arbitration Act. The Court likened the employee’s theory to an “interpretive triple bank shot” that “raise[s] a judicial eyebrow.” (Epic Systems Corp., slip op., at 15). Justice Gorsuch also reminded the employees that Congress “does not, one might say, hide elephants in mouseholes.” (Id., quoting Whitman v. American Trucking Assns., Inc., 531 U.S. 457, 468 (2001). Therefore, the Court sided with the employers and held that “Congress has instructed that arbitration agreements like those before us must be enforced as written.” (Id., slip op., at 25).
Continue Reading When Arbitration is in Play, Class Action is off the Table
Employers, even with the most robust and well-intentioned human resources departments, can still face the dreaded misclassification lawsuit for their salaried employers. In many cases, exempt employees are properly classified as executive or administrative employees. A misclassification lawsuit, however, is difficult to dismiss early because plaintiffs are afforded great latitude in crafting factual disputes that can only be resolved at trial. On top of that, plaintiffs generally bring such claims as class or collective actions – making litigation costly as well. Further compounding the problem, settlement of wage and hour misclassification cases is the preferred mode of resolution – but only after a range of damages can be made with some degree of certainty.
What if I told you that if you included one simple sentence in your employment contracts, handbooks and policies for salaried employees, it would likely reduce your exposure by approximately two-thirds in FLSA cases? For starters, it would make it easier to settle at the right amount by avoiding unnecessarily inflated ceiling for damage calculations by plaintiffs. So what are the “magic words” in this simple sentence?
For exempt employees, your salary is intended to pay for all hours worked during each pay period, regardless of your scheduled or tracked hours.
Continue Reading Add One Line in Your Employment Contracts and Policies to Reduce Exposure to Misclassification Liability
Partner Mark Konkel was mentioned as Saks Fifth Avenue’s defense counsel in a newly-filed wage-and-hour class action in the Law360 article “Saks Hit With NY Wage Class Action Over Sales Commissions.” The high-end retailer has been accused of violating New York state labor law at its flagship department store in Manhattan. Mr. Konkel and a
