The U.S. Supreme Court currently is contemplating whether to review three employment discrimination cases involving what, if any, protection Title VII extends against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. See R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission et al., case number 18-107 (considering transgender discrimination under … Continue Reading
If I told you that calling a colleague with links to the Traveller community a “fat ginger pikey” might not be harassment, you would be forgiven for picking up the phone to the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority. That is, however, one of the points we can take away from the EAT’s decision in Evans v Xactly … Continue Reading
Admittedly, an employee is more likely to bring a claim against their employer; after all, usually it is the one with the cash. But as last month’s case of Timis and another v Osipov shows, that need not always be the case.… Continue Reading
In its first opinion of the 2018 term, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Mount Lemmon Fire Dist. v. Guido, No. 17-587, slip op. at 1-7 (November 6, 2018) that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) applies to all political subdivisions of states, regardless of size, rejecting an argument that the 20-employee jurisdictional threshold … Continue Reading
In part 1 of this blog series, we asked how employers facing a Data Subject Access Request (DSAR) should be dealing with ‘mixed data’ cases, i.e. when a third party’s personal data is intertwined with that of the requester? Mixed data comes in many forms; for example, an email from John to a colleague saying … Continue Reading
Most companies doing business in California are aware of California’s long-standing public policy in favor of employee mobility over an employer’s ability to impose a provision prohibiting an employee from going to work for a competitor post-termination, which is embedded in California Business & Professions Code Section 16600. Particularly where the employer is headquartered outside … Continue Reading
Here is an interesting little question about how far an employer needs to formalise steps taken to accommodate an employee’s disability. Mr Brangwyn went to work for South Warwickshire NHS Foundation Trust in 2008 as Occupational Therapy Technician. This was not directly a medical role but did involve some time escorting patients around the building … Continue Reading
At some point in the next two months it is statistically inescapable that almost every employer in the UK will receive some worthy but deeply off-putting law firm flier about all the legal risks which can possibly be extracted from the office Christmas party. This is not it.… Continue Reading
The change in administration following the 2016 election resulted in a change in the political makeup of the National Labor Relations Board. That, in turn, led to a number of significant changes in the law, affecting a wide range of labor relations issues and impacting both unionized and non-union employers. Please join us on October 10 … Continue Reading
Earlier this year, the United States Supreme Court held in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis that employers can require employees to agree to arbitrate disputes between them solely on an individual basis and to waive class and collective action litigation procedures without running afoul of federal law. (See our post here). Addressing an issue not … Continue Reading
We’ve been keeping you apprised of the many developments over the past few years coming from the United States Supreme Court and other courts concerning agreements between employers and their employees to arbitrate disputes arising out of the employment relationship. The Supreme Court’s decision last term in Epic Systems v. Lewis, which we discussed in … Continue Reading
Right-to-work laws prohibit employers from entering into union security or “closed shop” agreements with unions that require employees to join and financially support a union in order to obtain employment. Twenty-seven U.S. states presently have such laws. In some states that do not have these laws, cities have passed local right-to-work ordinances to apply to … Continue Reading
Today we cross to the Emerald Isle for a recent lesson on bullying and negligence issued by the Irish Court of Appeal. Though not binding on the UK Courts, it is hard to see that any very different principles could apply here.… Continue Reading
Forget the law for a moment and answer me this. If: despite having no reasonable grounds to hold that view, I genuinely believe that someone made a racist remark about me; and I sit on that belief without a murmur of complaint for four years; and when my work is entirely justifiably criticised, I then … Continue Reading
On July 26, 2018, the California Supreme Court ruled in Troester v. Starbucks Corporation that the federal de minimis doctrine does not apply to a California employee’s class action wage claims. This ruling will have widespread impact, particularly on those employers with large numbers of non-exempt employees such as retailers and food service providers, as … Continue Reading
The Court of Appeal handed down its much anticipated judgment on Friday last week in the joined cases of Royal Mencap v Thompson Blake and John Shannon v Jakishan and Prithee Rampersad (t/a Clifton House Residential Home). The decision provides much-needed clarity on whether workers are entitled to the national minimum wage for each hour during … Continue Reading
Here is a new case which you think initially might be quite helpful on the calculation of holiday pay, but which then suddenly veers off into the contractual undergrowth, and actually isn’t. However, what it does do is administer a sharp lesson about the wisdom of trying to incorporate broad principles into individual employment contracts. … Continue Reading
How often have you had an employee make some vague and unspecific complaint about your “unlawful” or “improper” or “inappropriate” conduct (often among a welter of other gripes and grievances) only to find him later claiming protection as a whistle-blower. Is that sort of gripe really enough for him to gain that protection?… Continue Reading
On Tuesday, June 26, 2018, the Supreme Court upheld President Trump’s travel ban. The Court addressed the legality of the Presidential Proclamation issued on September 24, 2017 entitled, Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats.… Continue Reading
By Wm. Michael Hanna, Emily R. Spivack, and Dylan Yepez On June 27, 2018, the United States Supreme Court decided in a 5-4 decision that public sector unions may no longer collect so-called “fair share” fees from non-members. The decision will have broad implications for public sector unions and employers. Fair share fees are charged … Continue Reading
Apparently, said the Court of Appeal, the unlawful retention and circulation of confidential material by a union representative “was not a sufficient departure from good industrial relations practice” to justify his dismissal, a conclusion which initially seems little short of perverse, let alone an alarming comment on the state of industrial relations in the UK’s … Continue Reading
In 1974, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538, that the timely filing of a class action complaint tolls the applicable statute of limitations for all persons encompassed by that complaint. The impact of that ruling was that potential class members did not have to intervene … Continue Reading
On April 30, the California Supreme Court adopted in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court the so-called “ABC test” to determine whether individuals are employees or independent contractors for purposes of determining the applicability of California’s Wage Orders. The Wage Orders govern important employment issues including California’s unique daily overtime regimen and its requirements … Continue Reading
As we know, where an employee is engaged under one or a series of fixed-term contracts for a period of over 2 years, they acquire the right not to be unfairly dismissed. It is also the case that non-renewal of a fixed-term contract will count as a dismissal under the ERA 1996. An employee whose … Continue Reading
