CA Supreme Court Issues Long Awaited Ruling on the Taking of Meal Periods

Today, after over three years, the California Supreme Court issued its ruling in the infamous Brinker v. Superior Court case, which addresses, among other things, an employer's obligation to "provide" employees with meal and rest breaks.

Stay tuned.... our evaluation of this momentous decision will follow.

Ninth Circuit: Employees do not Violate the CFFA when Violating Computer use Restrictions

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently issued an opinion concerning employee violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. More ›

Maryland: Employers Cannot Demand Applicants’/Employees’ Social Network Passwords

Maryland is the first state to pass legislation which bans employers from asking for current and prospective employees' passwords to social media sites. The legislation passed the General Assembly and is now waiting to be signed by the Governor. The demand for such legislation is not limited to Maryland. Senators from New York and Connecticut have asked the Department of Justice and the EEOC to investigate this particular practice, which has become more and more common with employers of late. Illinois and California presently have similar legislation pending.

Conducting checks into employees' and prospective employees' backgrounds is very common, yet can be very risky. Before delving into your applicants'/employees' social networking backgrounds, consult with counsel to determine whether your methods are appropriate and compliant with local, state, and federal law. 

Caucasian School Board Employee Successful in Race Discrimination, Constructive Discharge Claims

A Caucasian finance coordinator for a school district was reassigned to a position of food services assistant after the racial majority of the Board changed in an election. The employee then took sick leave, and while on leave, requested that the Board provide her with information concerning her new job duties and requested a new contract. The Board provided neither. After being on leave for roughly ten months, the superintendent notified the employee that he was recommending her termination given that she had exhausted her sick days. The employee then provided a doctor's note indicating her ability to return to work. She was told she would have a contract for the food services assistant position when she returned, but the Board failed to provide the contract or any information concerning the new job role. Within weeks, she resigned her position and filed suit alleging race discrimination, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge pursuant to Title VII. The race discrimination and constructive discharge claims proceeded to jury trial, as did the employee's request for punitive damages. The jury found that the demotion from finance coordinator to food services assistant was an adverse employment action which was based on race, and that she was effectively forced out of her position due to race, and awarded her $70,825. She was also awarded punitive damages against the individual Board members. The Board moved to set aside the jury's verdicts, and the Court agreed, leaving only the $10,000 award of compensatory damages in tact. The employee appealed. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the employee, in part, in finding that the evidence presented was sufficient to permit a reasonable jury to conclude that the change in position was a demotion with diminution in title and significantly decreased responsibilities, and could be found demeaning and thus support a claim for constructive discharge. The Appellate Court's role was to determine whether there was a complete absence of probative facts to support the jury's verdict, and the Court could not say that there was. The jury's verdict was reinstated, but the issue of punitive damages was remanded back to the trial court so that the jury could be properly instructed regarding the affirmative defense of "ignorance" of the law before determining any award. More ›

Title VII "Ministerial Exception" Does Not Apply to Technology Teacher in Catholic School

A federal district court in Ohio has found that Title VII's "ministerial exception" does not apply to a non-Catholic technology teacher at a Catholic school. The Ohio case, Dias v. Archdiocese of Cincinnati, et al., was one of the first to analyze the ministerial exception following the U.S. Supreme Court's January 2012 ruling that the exception applied to a teacher at a Lutheran school in Hosanna-Tabor Church v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. More ›

U.S. Supreme Court and State Legislatures Address Privacy Issues in the Workplace

A loaded question, admittedly, but the answer for the Supreme Court, once again, is no.

In Federal Aviation Administration v. Cooper, No. 10-1024 (March 28, 2012), the Supreme Court had to decide whether individuals may recover actual damages under the Privacy Act for sustaining mental or emotional distress. 5 U.S.C. §552a(g)(4)(A). Writing for the majority in a 5-3 decision, (which did not involve Justice Kagan), Judge Alito dispatched with all suspense by first declaring the holding that the Act does not provide for such remedies. The Privacy Act bears unique qualities. It covers the activities of Executive Branch agencies who hold confidential records. The Act permits an individual to file a civil suit against an agency over "intentional or willful" violations of the Act. 5 U.S.C. §552a(g)(1)(D) & 5 U.S.C. §552a(g)(4)(A). An individual can recover "actual damages" upon proving that an agency has violated the requirements of the Act "in such a way as to have an adverse effect on an individual". Id. More ›