Menu

Showing 24 posts from March 2013.

Customs & Border Patrol Announces New Paperless Form I-94, with Implications for Employers

On March 27, 2013, the Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) issued a final interim rule describing its plans for introduction of a new, electronic Form I-94 Arrival/Departure Record for use at sea and air ports of entry. The Form I-94 is completed by all individuals lawfully entering the United States, and can be used by such individuals as evidence of alien registration, immigration status, and/or employment authorization. The paperless Form I-94 will be phased in at air and sea ports of entry beginning on April 30, 2013; individuals entering by land will continue to utilize paper Forms I-94. More ›

EEOC Sues Toys "R" Us On Behalf of Deaf Job Applicant

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has sued retailer Toys “R” Us for failing to provide an interpreter to assist a deaf job applicant during an interview.

The case raises the interesting question of whether an employer must provide an interpreter for job seekers who are deaf.  The EEOC claims that such a step is one of the reasonable accommodations for disabled workers required by the federal Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”). More ›

School District Prevails in Title VII Retaliation case Filed by Basketball Coach

A high school girls varsity basketball coach sued a school district for gender discrimination after the school failed to hire her as the boys varsity basketball coach. The court found in favor of the coach and ordered the district to hire her as varsity coach for both the boys and girls basketball teams. More ›

Plaintiff Can’t Avoid CAFA Removal by Stipulating to Damages Cap

A stipulation by a class-action plaintiff that he and the class will seek damages that are less than the threshold for jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA) does not defeat federal jurisdiction under the Act. More ›

Denial of Class Certification as to Alleged wage and hour Violations Affirmed by Court of Appeal

In Daily v. Sears, the Fourth Appellate District, Division One, affirmed the trial court’s granting of the defendant’s motion to preclude class certification.

Plaintiff Dailey was a former employee of Sears, who asserted wage and hour claims individually and on behalf of a proposed class of similarly situated managers and assistant managers.

Dailey argued that Sears uniformly categorized Managers and Assistant Managers as exempt from overtime and meal/rest break requirements, but nonetheless implemented policies that had the effect of requiring the proposed class members to work at least 50 hours per week, spending the majority of their time on nonexempt activities. Sears argued that determining how the class members actually spend their time requires individualized evidence and cannot be proven on a classwide basis. The trial court granted Sears’ motion. More ›

EEOC Findings not Dispositive in Employee’s Discrimination Suit

Just because the EEOC finds that an employee was subjected to a retaliatory termination does not mean an automatic win in the courts. The plaintiff-employee in this case learned that the hard way. More ›

Private Employee has no Right to Pursue Pattern or Practice Claim; Thus, no Entitlement to Class Action Procedural Mechanism

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued its ruling today in the matter of Parisi v. Goldman, Sachs & Co. et al., No. 11-5229-cv (2nd Cir., Mar. 21, 2013). More ›

Crowdsourced Workers: Are they Employees or Independent Contractors?

What happens when modern innovations in the workforce (made possible by the advent of the internet) collide with traditional concepts of employment?  You get lawsuits like Christopher Otey v. Crowdflower, Inc., filed late last year in the Northern District of California. More ›

Citing "Legal Uncertainty" Caused by Recess Appointments, House GOP Members Introduce Bill to Halt All NLRB Activity

On March 13, 2013, GOP members of the House Education and the Workforce Committee introduced a bill intended to put a halt to all actions by the National Labor Relations Board pending resolution of the confusion caused by a recent D.C. Circuit ruling that found President Obama's "recess appointment" of two of the three current NLRB members unconstitutional. Citing the "legal uncertainty" facing employers in the wake of the D.C. Circuit's decision in Noel Canning v. NLRB, the bill, titled the Preventing Greater Uncertainty in Labor-Management Relations Act (H.R. 1120), would restrict the Board's authority to take any action until one of three events occurs: the U.S. Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of the President's "recess appointments", a Board quorum is constitutionally confirmed, or the terms of the two "recess appointments" expire. More ›

Employers may Violate Federal Law by Refusing to hire Union Organizers

Here’s a challenging scenario for employers: An individual applies for a job. The employer becomes aware that the applicant is a union volunteer who will likely try to organize the workplace if hired.

Can the employer refuse to hire the applicant without violating federal labor laws?

The answer depends on whether the applicant can demonstrate a “genuine interest in employment” apart from, or in addition to, his or her union activities. As demonstrated in a recent case, this may be an easy standard for union organizers to meet. More ›