On March 5, 2013, Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, and Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., introduced legislation that would raise the federal minimum wage. If enacted, the recently-proposed Fair Minimum Wage Act would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act to raise the federal minimum wage to $10.10 per hour over three years. The increase would be accomplished by establishing a minimum wage of $8.20 per hour on the first day of the third month after enactment - an increase of 95 cents over the current federal minimum wage - followed by a minimum wage of $9.15 per hour one year after the initial bump and then $10.10 per hour a year later.
In addressing a disability discrimination claim under the ADA, the Eleventh Circuit ruled this past week that an indefinite leave of absence does not constitute a reasonable accommodation.
The recently released 2012 EEOC enforcement statistics indicated an overall decrease in charges and increase in damages paid by employers. Notably, for the second consecutive year, the EEOC reduced its pending inventory of private sector charges by 10% from fiscal year 2011, bringing inventory to 70,312. However, the EEOC obtained the largest amount of monetary recovery in 2012, totaling $365.4 million. Leading the states in originating charges was Texas at 9.0% of charges filed nationally, followed by Florida (8.0%) and California (7.4%).
As the FMLA celebrates its 20th birthday this February, social media continues to be an increasingly important resource for employers in combating frivolous FMLA interference and retaliation charges by former employees.
It has been a rough year for employers so far after several adverse decisions from the Supreme Court. Not wanting to be left out, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued its final rule implementing regulations under the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA) on March 25, 2011. The new regulations go into effect on May 24, 2011. There has been a lot of discussion online about the meaning of the regulations but they are not surprising and are for the most part consistent with the ADAAA itself. The essence is that employers can forget about challenging a plaintiff’s claim that he or she is disabled in all but the most extreme cases. As just about everyone previously concluded when the ADAAA became law, disability discrimination cases now turn on the reason for adverse employment action, the interactive process and/or the reasonableness of accommodations. If you are interested in details, some specifics points from the regulations follow.
Today, March 22, 2011, the Supreme Court issued its decision in the Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp. case. The sole issued addressed by the Court was “whether ‘an oral complaint of a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act’ is ‘protected under [the Act’s] anti-retaliation provision.’” Given the recent spate of pro-employee decisions, it is hardly surprising that the Court answered the question in the affirmative. The court began its analysis by noting that the FLSA protects employees who have “filed any complaint.” The decision by Justice Breyer focuses on the meaning of those three words – filed any complaint. While he concludes that the words in isolation are open to competing interpretations, consideration of the language in view of its purpose and context permits only one interpretation. I will spare you the lengthy – some might say tortuous reasoning – and go straight to the holding:
In my last post, I discussed the Sixth Circuit’s recent decision in Lewis v. Humboldt Acquisition Corp., which upheld the current Sixth Circuit standard that a plaintiff must show that his or her disability was the “sole reason” for the adverse employment action; sometimes referred to as the “solely” standard. Of the ten circuits to consider the issue, eight apply a “motivating factor” (or “substantial cause”) test, under which a plaintiff must only show that a disability was a motivating factor of the adverse employment action.
The Sixth Circuit issued a decision in Lewis v. Humboldt Acquisition Corp. on March 17, 2011 that is based on an interesting anomaly in the Sixth Circuit’s treatment of ADA claims. Ms. Lewis was a registered nurse who began working at the Humboldt Manor Nursing Home in July 2004. Sometime in September 2005, she developed a medical condition that “among other things, affected her lower extremities.” As a result of the condition, Ms. Lewis sometimes used a wheelchair. Humboldt Manor terminated Ms. Lewis’ employment in March 2006 because of an “outburst” that she had at the nurses station. Three co-workers testified that she yelled, criticized supervisors and used profanity. Ms. Lewis and another employee testified that she was upset but did not act inappropriately. Ms. Lewis alleged that the true reason for her termination was her use of a wheelchair and that Humboldt Manor exaggerated the severity of her behavior to use it as a pretext for disability discrimination.
The first significant Supreme Court pronouncements on employment law are here and both seem tailored to create further litigation. The first, decided late last week, is NASA v. Nelson, unanimously reversing a 9th Circuit decision that government employment background check questionnaires violated the constitutional right to “information privacy.”
You may recall my post from a couple months ago about Brett Favre’s alleged harassment of a New York Jets employee, Jenn Sterger. The NFL has completed its investigation and has been unable to substantiate any allegations that Favre violated league policies. However, the commissioner did conclude that Favre failed to cooperate with the investigation and was less than candid so he fined him $50,000, which is pocket change to Favre. I was not going to bother commenting on this sorry spectacle until I happened to hear ESPN’s “legal analyst” on Sportscenter this morning. The analyst, who shall remain nameless, expressed the following opinions: 1) Sterger could sue Favre and the Jets, although there might be some statute of limitations issues; 2) Favre could be considered her supervisor because he was higher up the chain in the Jets organization than Sterger; and 3) if Sterger were to file suit, her case would likely get to a jury. The only question I had after hearing this was how can I get an analyst job at ESPN because I can do better than this.
Topics/Tags
Select- Labor & Employment Law
- Employment Law
- Department of Labor
- Coronavirus
- Discrimination
- Labor Law
- FLSA
- Overtime Pay
- Non-Compete Agreements
- National Labor Relations Board
- Wage & Hour
- Federal Trade Commission
- Privacy
- Reasonable Accommodation
- NLRB
- Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation
- Workplace Accommodations
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- FMLA
- Arbitration
- Employment Litigation
- Workplace Violence
- Religion Discrimination
- Medical Marijuana
- IRS
- Litigation
- Social Media
- Employer Policies
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Disability Discrimination
- Retirement
- National Labor Relations Act
- Medical Cannabis Dispensaries
- Sexual Orientation Discrimination
- Accommodation
- Race Discrimination
- OSHA
- Employer Handbook
- ERISA
- Whistleblower
- EEOC
- ADAAA
- United States Supreme Court
- Unions
- ACA
- Affordable Car Act
- Title VII
- Employer Rules
- Sexual Harassment
- Technology
- Federal Arbitration Act
- NLRA
- Transgender Issues
- Disability
- 401(k)
- Employment Settlement Agreements
- Sixth Circuit
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- Fair Labor Standards Act
- Paycheck Protection Program
- Benefits
- Class Action Litigation
- Gender Identity Discrimination
- Posting Requirements
- Disability Law
- Securities Law
- E-Discovery
- Evidence
- Health Savings Account
- Preventive Care Benefits
- SECURE Act
- Family and Medical Leave Act
- US Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration
- Environmental Law
- Privacy Laws
- Representative Election Regulations
- Department of Justice
- Healthcare Reform
- Older Workers' Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA)
- Affirmative Action
- Electronically Stored Information
- Equal Opportunity Clause
- Telecommuting
- Compensable Time
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration
- Security Screening
- Supreme Court
- E-Discovery Case Law
- Electronic Data Discovery
- ESI
- Unemployment Insurance Integrity Act
- American Medical Association
- Attendance Policy
- Return to Work
- Seniority Rights
- Classification
- Confidentiality
- Disability Leave
- Equal Pay
- Fair Minimum Wage
- Federal Minimum Wage
- Genetic Information Discrimination
- Media Policy
- Misclassification
- National Origin Discrimination
- Retaliation
- Social Media Content
- State Minimum Wage
- Wage Increase
- Employment Incentives
- HIRE Act
- Social Security Tax
- Taxation
- Antitrust
Recent Posts
- Federal Court Overturns Expansion of Overtime Requirements
- U.S. Supreme Court to Review Title VII Reverse Discrimination Case
- NLRB General Counsel Expands Focus on Non-Compete Agreements and Stay-Or-Pay Agreements
- FTC's Non-Compete Rule Struck Down
- District Court Finds in Favor of FTC, Declines to Issue Injunction
- DOL Increases Compensation Threshold for Exemption Eligibility
- Federal Trade Commission Announces New Rule Invalidating Non-Compete Agreements
- EEOC Announces Final Rule Providing Guidelines under the PWFA
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Immediate Termination
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Labor & Employment Law Update February 2024