Rhonda Levy and Douglas Sanderson discuss a recent court decision in Canada that sheds light on how best to deal with accommodation requests.

Human Resources Director Canada

View (Subscription required.)

In London District Catholic School Board v.

Lisa (Lee) Schreter weighs in on employers paying employees in cryptocurrencies and the legal questions that may raise.

Bloomberg Law

View (Subscription required.)

A federal court in New Jersey recently applied the arbitrary and capricious standard of review for a denial of benefits claim despite the enactment of an anti-discretionary statute in Minnesota, which governed the benefit plan policy. Hocheiser v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32154 (D.N.J. Feb. 22, 2021).

Deepti Orekondy and Jorge R. Lopez discuss the new rights and protections provided under lllinois’ new Senate Bill 0508, which provides additional employment protections for individuals flagged by an employment eligibility verification system.

SHRM

View (Subscription required)

It was all very well to say ‘Drink me,’ but the wise little Alice was not going to do that in a hurry. ‘No, I’ll look first,’ she said, ‘and see whether it’s marked “poison” or not’; for […] she had never forgotten that, if you drink much from a bottle marked ‘poison,’ it is almost certain to disagree with you, sooner or later.

                                           —Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland, Chapter 1, Down the Rabbit Hole

On June 29, 2024, Governor Newsom signed into law an amendment to California Code 1770, clarifying the scope of SB 478. Under SB 478 and previously published guidance from the attorney general, California restaurants were effectively prohibited from charging service fees or other surcharges, which many restaurants have implemented to offset rising costs, unless the amount of the service fee was specifically identified as part of the listed prices.

Employers concerned about the risks and expenses associated with employment litigation have increasingly required their employees to agree to arbitration in the event of a dispute.  Even upon the issuance of the arbitrator’s final decision, however, a court’s intervention may still be necessary.  At the very least, the court can actually enforce an arbitration award, whereas the arbitrator cannot.  Moreover, the losing party in the arbitration may seek to vacate the arbitrator’s decision on limited grounds, or seek further review of the district court’s decision by filing an appeal with th

Over the years, attempts to arbitrate breach of fiduciary duty claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Section 502(a)(2) have had varying results.¹  One court recently recognized that “whether any benefits plan may agree to submit to arbitration and/or whether an individual employment agreement may compel claims on behalf of a benefits plan to proceed to arbitration are not issues of clearly settled law.”²  This issue is before two circuit courts of appeal this year.  So far, the court rulings in the cases seem to provide some guidance while a

Pamela Reynolds’ article discusses whether employers can enforce arbitration of breach of fiduciary duty claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Section 502(a)(2).

Benefits Pro

View (Subscription required.)

In Aponte Valentín v. Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, CC-2018-748,¹ the Puerto Rico Supreme Court reinforced the strong public policy favoring arbitration agreements in Puerto Rico, validating continued employment as implicit consent for such agreements.

On November 9, 2021, in United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Canada Local 333 v.

Rhonda B. Levy and Douglas Sanderson examine Northern Regional Health Authority v. Horrocks, in which the Supreme Court of Canada decided that in Manitoba, human rights disputes arising from the interpretation, application or alleged violation of a collective agreement fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of a labour arbitrator.

Human Resources Director Canada

View 

Update: This bill was signed into law on March 3, 2022.

On April 4, 2022, in Fraser Health Authority v British Columbia General Employees’ Union, 2022 CanLII 25560, Arbitrator Koml Kandola of the British Columbia Labour Relations Board dismissed the union’s grievance respecting the dismissal of the grievor because she was ineligible to work under the order issued b

Since late fall 2021, we have seen a steady flow of arbitration awards emerge in Ontario and British Columbia that consider issues relating to mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policies in the unionized workplace. In this Insight, we provide an overview of key trends in these awards.

Rhonda B. Levy and Barry Kuretzky provide an overview of key trends in arbitration awards in Ontario and British Columbia since fall 2021 that have considered issues relating to mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policies in the unionized workplace.

Human Resources Director Canada

View (Subscription required.)

The United States Supreme Court’s decision in Viking River Cruises v. Moriana will dramatically impact employers’ rights to enforce arbitration agreements related to claims under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA).¹  This decision, which is a significant win for employers with interests in California, will allow employers to compel arbitration of a PAGA plaintiff’s individual PAGA claims.

On July 8, 2022, in Gist v. ZoAn Management, Inc., the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the trial court and court of appeals granting the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration.  The court concluded that because nothing in the arbitration agreement prohibited the plaintiff from being awarded any relief he might be entitled to under Oregon’s wage and hour statutes, the arbitration provision was not unconscionable and therefore enforceable.

Background

Christine Sargent writes about an Oregon Supreme Court case that affirmed the importance of implementing enforceable arbitration agreements.

SHRM Online

View (Subscription required.)

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario recently held a preliminary hearing to determine whether allegations made under the Human Rights Code (Code) fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of a labour arbitrator, or whether the Tribunal had concurrent jurisdiction over employment-related human rights matters in a unionized workplace.  

Angel Valverde presents issues for development of international arbitration in the U.S., as there are no visas that specifically allow a foreign national to be employed as an arbitrator, attorney or expert witness in an arbitration proceeding.

International Law Quarterly

View

Rhonda B. Levy and Barry Kuretzky discuss a case in which an arbitrator issued the first award in Ontario to address and uphold the reasonableness of a hospital vaccination policy that allows employers to terminate employees for non-compliance.

Human Resources Director Canada

View (Subscription required.)

On June 28, 2023, the California Second District Court of Appeal issued a decision interpreting the scope of California Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.98(a)(1), a recently amended California statute that requires employers to pay all arbitration costs and fees within 30 days of the due date, or risk being in material breach of the arbitration agreement.  In Cvejic v. Skyview Capital, the court held that an arbitrator cannot cure a missed or late arbitration fee payment.

Alexander MacDonald explains when California employers’ employment agreements are subject to state law and AB 51 may apply. 

XpertHR

View

Rhonda Levy, Adrian Jakibchuk, Barry Kuretzky and George Vassos comment on an arbitrator’s ruling that federal employers can count employees’ sick leave credits as paid medical leave days under the Canada Labour Code (CLC) if their own program provides “a more favourable benefit” to workers.

Human Resources Director Canada

View

Alexander MacDonald discusses a case in which the ACLU, sharp critic of arbitration, is arguing that individual arbitration plays a “fundamental role” in protecting labor rights.

The Federalist Society

View

On April 12, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed whether the Federal Arbitration Act’s (FAA) transportation exemption—meaning the FAA would not apply—only relates to workers within the transportation industry. In Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC,¹ the Supreme Court unanimously held Section 1 of the FAA exempts classes of workers who are actively engaged in interstate transportation, even if the individuals are not employed by a company in the transportation industry (the “Transportation Exemption”).

Two days before the United States Supreme Court ruled in Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC,¹ that the Federal Arbitration Act’s (FAA) transportation worker exemption (meaning the FAA would not apply) extends beyond the transportation industry, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addressed whether the exemption applies to “contracts of employment” between business entities. In Fli-Lo Falcon, LLC v.

On May 3, Governor Ron DeSantis signed into law SB 2006 (codified as Section 381.00316, Florida Statutes).  The law prevents business entities from requiring that patrons or customers provide documentation certifying COVID-19 vaccination or post-infection recovery to enter or obtain service from a business in Florida. It also prohibits educational institutions from requiring students or residents, and governmental entities from requiring persons, to provide vaccination passports or proof of post-infection recovery.

The advent of Health Care Reform has not lessened the importance of complying with existing Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and Internal Revenue Code requirements for employer-provided group health plans, such as COBRA, which requires covered health plans to provide certain notices and the opportunity to elect continued coverage to covered persons (qualified beneficiaries) who would otherwise lose coverage because of certain "qualifying events" such as termination of employment, loss of dependent status, and others.

IRS Updated COBRA Audit Guidelines

The Illinois Department of Labor (IDOL) has just issued some much-needed guidance, through Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs), on whether enrollment and use of E-Verify is prohibited in Illinois for private employers that do not have federal contracts. The answer is NO.

Stacey James and Jamie L. Santos discuss a California amendment that seeks to allow restaurants to support higher wages and benefits while clearly disclosing service fees to consumers upfront.

Wolters Kluwer

View (Subscription required)