Massachusetts’ Anti-Discrimination Laws Prohibit Associational Discrimination

In a recent employment discrimination decision, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that the Massachusetts discrimination statute, M. G. L. c. 151B, encompasses a claim for "associational discrimination."

"The term 'associational discrimination' refers to a claim that a plaintiff, although not a member of a protected class himself or herself, is the victim of discriminatory animus directed toward a third person who is a member of the protected class and with whom the plaintiff associates."  More ›

Second Circuit Holds FLSA Claims Subject to Class Action Waiver in Arbitration

An employee entered into an arbitration agreement with her employer when she was hired. The arbitration agreement required the employee to arbitrate any claims arising out of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") as opposed to suing in court and required the employee to individually arbitrate FLSA claims instead of arbitrating as part of a class of employees. Despite those provisions in the arbitration agreement, the employee filed a lawsuit in federal court alleging that she was denied overtime pay in violation of the FLSA on behalf of herself and a class of other similarly-situated employees. The employer sought to compel arbitration and to dismiss the employee's claim due to the class-action wavier provision in the arbitration agreement. The employee asserted that the provision was unenforceable based on the "effective vindication" doctrine, which allows a court to invalidate agreements "that prevent the 'effective vindication' of a federal statutory right. Specifically, the employee asserted that the costs and fees associated with arbitrating her claim individually, rather than collectively, would dwarf her potential damages under the FLSA. The district court denied the employer's motion and found the arbitration agreement to be unenforceable.  More ›

State Employee’s Retaliation Claim Barred by Eleventh Amendment

An employee for a State administrative agency sued the agency and various state employees alleging retaliation in response to a prior disability discrimination suit he filed against the same employer. Among other defenses, the employer asserted that as a state agency it was immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment and the doctrine of sovereign immunity. The district court did not rule on the issue but granted summary judgment for the employer on other grounds.  More ›

Retaliatory Discharge Claim not Preempted by the Labor Management Relations Act

A manufacturing employee's finger was partially amputated while using a "kicking method" of removing metal from bundles. He claimed medical and temporary total disability benefits under the Illinois Workers' Compensation Act. The employer considered the "kicking method" to be an unsafe work practice and when the employee returned to work, suspended him for three days. The employee's union filed a grievance on his behalf. The employee received additional safety training upon his return from the suspension, and shortly thereafter was again accused of violating a safety rule. The employer informed the union that the employee would be fired. The union advised the employee to ask that his discharge be characterized as a "permanent layoff with no recall rights" so that he would be eligible for unemployment insurance and a neutral job reference. The employer agreed as long as the employee dismissed the earlier filed grievance. More ›

PAGA Penalties Cannot be Aggregated for Diversity Jurisdiction Purposes

Under California's Private Attorney General Act (PAGA) statute, employees are given a private right of action against employers, on behalf of themselves, and on behalf of current and former employees,  in order to collect penalties for alleged wage and hour violations. Prevailing employees can recover up to $100 per pay period for an initial violation, and $200 per pay period for each subsequent violation, not to mention potential recovery of attorney's fees and costs. More ›

NLRB has wide Discretion to Delineate Parameters of Bargaining Unit

Despite its efforts to create a larger bargaining unit comprised of allegedly similarly-situated employees, an Alabama nursing home operator recently learned the hard way about the NLRB's "wide" discretion in determining who may be included in a bargaining unit. More ›

Seventh Circuit Finds Companies to be Single Employer for Purposes of Arbitrability Under Union Contract

A tile installation company employed union workers. Certain customers of the company request non-union employees in order to obtain cheaper labor. As a result, the owners of the company started a second company which employed only non-union employees. The union filed a grievance, seeking union benefits for the employees at this new company. The joint arbitration committee granted the union’s request, which prompted the companies to file a motion in federal district court seeking to vacate the award. The union also filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking to enforce the award. The owners argued that the new company was not subject to the collective bargaining agreement and thus should not be bound by the arbitration award. The district court granted the union’s motion to enforce the award on the grounds that under the “single employer” doctrine, the companies were treated as one and the same. The companies appealed, but the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s ruling. The Court of Appeals concluded that the two companies were centrally operated by the same entity, and were thus one and the same for purposes of arbitrability under the contract.

For more information read Lippert Tile Co., Inc. v. International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen, et al. No. 12-2658 (7th Cir., August 1, 2013).

Despite Sovereign Status Indian Tribe Must Follow NLRA

In a decision that could have ripple effects nationwide, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) has held that federal labor protections apply to an Indian tribe’s casino operations in Oklahoma.

Workers at the Winstar World Casino, in conjunction with the Teamsters, initiated the NLRB action because the Chickasaw Nation, a federally recognize tribe, refused to follow the National Labor Relations Act (the “NLRA”). The tribe argued that the NLRA should not apply because of the tribe’s sovereign status. More ›

Arbitrator’s Award Given Preclusive Effect in Racial Discrimination Case

In Wade v. Ports America Management Corp., the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District held that an arbitration award, pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement, had res judicata effect on a plaintiff’s subsequent common law racial discrimination claim.

Wade, an African-American longshoreman, was laid off in September of 2008, even though he had more seniority than other employees who were retained. The effective collective bargaining agreement (CBA) required union members to submit any grievances related to their employment to binding arbitration. More ›

Jury Issue Exists over Employment Termination Following Funeral Attendance Overseas

In Adeyeye v. Heartland Sweeteners, LLC, (7th Cir. July 31, 2013), the Seventh Circuit reversed a summary judgment that a trial court granted in favor of the employer. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 bars employment discrimination on the basis of religion. As a result, employers must reasonably accommodate employees who make requests to partake in religious practices or acts (Slip op. at 1-2). In this case, the employee sought several weeks of unpaid leave to attend his father's funeral overseas in Nigeria, and to lead the performance of the burial rites.  Id. at 2. The employee explained that his attendance at the funeral rites was "compulsory" and that if he did not show up to perform the rites, he and his family would sustain a spiritual death. Id. The employer denied the requests for unpaid leave. The employee attended the funeral ceremony in Nigeria and his employment was terminated upon his return appearance at his workplace. The trial court granted the employer summary judgment based on its finding that the employee's two letters failed to provide any notice of the religious character inherent in his requests for unpaid leave. Id. at 2. The Seventh Circuit disagreed and found the same letters and record adequately created disputed issues of material fact over whether the employer had notice of the religious matter associated with the request for leave, and whether the employee had a sincerely held religious belief, as well as over causation and the employer's claimed undue hardship. More ›