Unless you have been stranded on a deserted island over the past few years, you’ve likely heard that Starbucks has been fighting a protracted battle over unionization of its employees. In addition to dealing with the union seeking to represent its employees, Starbucks also has had to contend with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB … Continue Reading
The ancient art of fiddling while Rome burns is obviously still flourishing in government, as witness the release last week of a new consultation paper on fees for Employment Tribunal claimants. My colleague Alexander Bradbury has the official line here. We have been this way before. The ET started charging claim and hearing fees in … Continue Reading
In 2013, the Government introduced fees for bringing claims to the Employment Tribunal and the Employment Appeal Tribunal. Although they were then abolished following a Supreme Court ruling in 2017, the issue is back in the spotlight and the subject of fee-rocious debate once more following the publication of a Government consultation into their re-introduction. … Continue Reading
It was what seems an eternity ago in July 2018 that the Court of Appeal handed down its judgment in the combined cases of Royal Mencap v Thompson Blake and John Shannon v Jakishan and Prithee Rampersad (t/a Clifton House Residential Home). A link to our blog post at that time is here. Readers will … Continue Reading
The first Supreme Court judgment on employment competition in a century was handed down recently – and it is good news for employers.… Continue Reading
There was a great deal of entirely unfair schadenfreude directed at the Government last month over its abject failure to justify the Employment Tribunal fees regime in front of the Supreme Court. After all, apart from the report of its own Justice Committee, the views of everyone else from both sides of industry and all … Continue Reading
Two weeks ago, the Supreme Court refused British Gas consent to appeal the Lock holiday pay case any further, finally putting an end to the five year saga of whether an element in respect of commission should have been included in Mr Lock’s holiday pay. Mr Lock himself has long lost interest and left British … Continue Reading
The U.S. Supreme Court, in Harris v. Quinn decided on June 30, 2014, declined the opportunity to overhaul the structure of public sector “fair share” fees that applies in most public sector labor contracts today. That structure was created in the Court’s 1977 Abood v. Detroit Board of Education case, which found that public sector … Continue Reading
The Supreme Court has issued a 5-4 decision in which it found that closely-held for-profit corporations can avoid the mandate under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that requires the provision of birth control coverage to their employees. In reaching their decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Burwell, the justices determined … Continue Reading
In a highly anticipated decision, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals declined to enforce the key portion of the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) decision in D.R. Horton, Inc. In January 2012, the NLRB ruled that an arbitration agreement between an employer and an employee that required the employee to bring any claims against the … Continue Reading
The U.S. Supreme Court departed from the pro-arbitration stance it has taken in the past several terms in Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter, No. 12-135, 569 U.S. ___ (June 10, 2013). Dr. John Sutter, a pediatrician, brought a putative class action lawsuit against Oxford Health Plans, a health insurance company, for Oxford’s purported failure … Continue Reading
Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court had the opportunity to address a split in the circuits regarding whether or not a Rule 68 offer of judgment to a named plaintiff in a FLSA collective action mooted a potential collective action. In Genesis Healthcare Corp., et al. v. Symczyk [pdf], the Supreme Court held that because … Continue Reading
Recently, the Supreme Court reinforced that in class action litigation, the courts must undertake a rigorous analysis of the Federal Rule’s prerequisites in certifying a class of litigants. As previously reported here, the Supreme Court addressed this issue in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes in 2011. In Dukes, the Supreme Court noted that trial courts … Continue Reading
Late in January 2013, the United States Supreme Court refused to hear a case, Brush v. Sears Holding Corporation, involving an employee who alleged that she was terminated in retaliation for criticizing her employer’s treatment of another employee’s sexual harassment claim. Consequently, the Eleventh Circuit’s decision [pdf] stands. The Court of Appeals found that complaining … Continue Reading
As reported in Health care reform: The implications of Supreme Court’s decision for employers, “the heart of the law requires that ‘large employers’ offer a medical plan that provides ‘minimum essential health benefits’ to their full-time employees or pay a tax effective Jan. 1, 2014.” So which employees are full-time employees? The Patient Protection and … Continue Reading
Following a recent United States Supreme Court decision striking down most of Arizona’s “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act” (SB 1070) immigration law, a US District Court Judge lifted an injunction on Tuesday permitting the State to enforce the “show me your papers” provision of the law. This now permits Arizona to begin … Continue Reading
In recent years, courts and administrative agencies have broadened the Title VII protections against discrimination based on sex using the Price Waterhouse theory of gender non-conformity. For example, as previously reported here, the EEOC used this rationale to recognize a cause of action for transgender discrimination under a theory of sex stereotyping and gender non-conformity. … Continue Reading
Squire Sanders is featuring a series of webinars at 1:00 p.m. EDT on July 25 and July 26 focusing on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. During each session, W. Michael Hanna, Tara Aschenbrand, and Jeremy Morris will discuss: The US Supreme Court Decision and Aftermath Overview of Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act … Continue Reading
On June 25, 2012, the US Supreme Court, in a 5-3 decision, issued its much anticipated decision in Arizona v. United States [pdf], striking down three provisions of the Arizona law S.B. 1070, and upholding a fourth. The case arose from the State of Arizona’s appeal of an injunction blocking four parts of the immigration … Continue Reading
Today in a landmark decision, the United States Supreme Court decided that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) is constitutionally permissible. In a closely divided 5 – 4 decision, the Court ruled that the so-called “individual mandate” was constitutional as a tax. Based upon the Court’s ruling, the PPACA will continue. Although some of … Continue Reading
So were the words of Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor to the Solicitor General Donald Verrilli during last week’s oral argument in Arizona v. United States, as she challenged the government’s position that the Constitution and the doctrine of preemption prevents states from mandating their law enforcement officers to conduct immigration status checks. Such a challenge … Continue Reading
As recently reported on Squire Sanders’ Sixth Circuit blog, the United States Supreme Court recently held that a “ministerial exception” precluded employment discrimination claims brought by ministers against their churches in a landmark decision. Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, No. 10-553 (January 11, 2012). In this case, the Court found that a … Continue Reading
For the past couple years, it seemed we couldn’t avoid hearing or reading coverage on the unprecedented employment discrimination class action filed against Wal-Mart. It has now been more than ten years since the case was filed. Based on recent news, one cannot help but wonder whether the suit will be resolved before yet another ten years of litigation have passed. The general background facts include: … Continue Reading
In a landmark victory for employers, in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes [pdf] the United States Supreme Court threw out a sweeping sex-discrimination lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores Inc., ruling Monday that the 1.6 million women allegedly victimized had too little in common to form a single class of plaintiffs. As Jess Bravin and Ann Zimmerman … Continue Reading
