Alexander T. MacDonald and Joy C. Rosenquist discuss California’s Proposition 22 and a recent California Supreme Court decision that upheld the voter-approved law allowing app-based drivers to work as independent contractors.

Westlaw Today

View (Subscription required)

Alexander MacDonald comments on the implications of SpaceX’s lawsuit against the NLRB, which alleges that the board violates constitutional separation of powers and due process protections by wielding different types of authority in the same case.

Bloomberg Law

View (Subscription required.)

On February 26, 2024, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in Tricoast Builders, Inc. v. Fonnegra, No. S273368 (Cal. Feb. 26, 2024). For employers, the most important takeaway from this case is that the court held a litigant’s waiver of the right to a jury trial can be conclusive if a party seeking reversal of the waiver cannot demonstrate it caused prejudice to the party. The decision makes it more difficult for a party to convince a court to let it back out of a jury trial waiver in a civil case.

Background

Alyesha Asghar said the Supreme Court’s decision in Muldrow v. St. Louis, which will make it easier for employees to pursue discrimination claims over job transfers, does not mean an end to IE&D.

The Washington Post

View (Subscription required.)

In a favorable ruling for employers defending against wage statement compliance claims, the California Supreme Court in Naranjo v. Spectrum Services Inc. (Naranjo) settled an age-old dispute by determining that an employer that reasonably and in good faith believed it was providing a complete and accurate wage statement has a viable defense to a claim for penalties under the California wage statement statute.

Background

As the Supreme Court mulls the Chevron decision, Michael Lotito says whatever the court decides, it’s likely little will change at the ground level of day-to-day enforcement activities.

Law.com

View (Subscription required.)

In Ruiz Mattei v. Commercial Equipment Finance, Inc.,¹ the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico determined that claims under the Unjustified Dismissal Act² and the Workplace Discrimination Act³ are transferable to the employee’s heirs following the employee’s death.

In a recent case issued by the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico (“the Court”), the Court addressed the standard and level of proof that must be presented by employers when raising as an affirmative defense a corporate reorganization. In Segarra Rivera vs. International Shipping Agency, 2022 T.S.P.R. 33, 208 D.P.R. ____ (Mar.

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the Second Circuit’s decision in Laurent v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, which held that retirees could receive money damages in the form of recalculated benefits in a class action over how the company’s cash balance pension plan calculated lump-sum benefits.

On Monday, January 24, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion in a case of critical interest to employers offering 401(k) or other defined-contribution retirement plans.  In Hughes v. Northwestern University, Case No. 19-1401, the Court voted unanimously to vacate a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, temporarily reinstating allegations by employees of Northwestern University that the fiduciaries of Northwestern’s retirement plans had violated the duty of prudence required by ERISA.

On September 18, 2024, at the request of the State of Michigan and its attorney general, the Michigan Supreme Court clarified issues relating to future minimum wage rates and minimum cash wage rates for tip-credit employees stemming from an earlier opinion.

UPDATE: On August 21, 2024, the Attorney General and State of Michigan asked the Michigan Supreme Court to clarify – no later than September 15, 2024 – various rulings in its July 31, 2024 decision, e.g.: 1) How the state should calculate CPI adjustments for the preset minimum wage rates in 2025 through 2028; 2) Whether, aside from in 2025, future minimum wage rates will take effect on February 21 or January 1; and 3) Whether the court intended to have the minimum cash wage increase from 80% (2028) to 100% (2029) rather than 80% (2028), 90%

Ole Kristian Olsby and Nina Elisabeth Thjømøe clarify how to actively prevent sexual harassment and unwanted attention in the workplace through a recent Supreme Court ruling.

International Law Office (ILO)

View Article (Subscription required.)

An employer pays its managers an annual salary and in addition provides monthly advances based on an estimate of the incentive bonus the employee appears likely to have earned by the end of the year. However, if the employee's performance declines over time so that the earned bonus ends up being less than the amounts advanced over the course of the year, it seems obvious that the employer should be able to deduct the overpayments from future paychecks.

The Virginia Supreme Court has spoken again on the calculation of damages in a complex employment contract case. In Online Resources Corp. v. Lawlor, No. 120208 (Va. Jan. 10, 2013), the court addressed the expert qualifications required for the valuation of equity following the termination of the chairman and chief executive officer (CEO) ("executive") of a publicly-traded company, as well as the applicability of Delaware Corporations Law to related change in control (CIC) provisions. 

Background

On August 29, 2014, the Texas Supreme Court in Exxon Mobil Corp. v.

Alyesha Dotson says the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on affirmative action may result in a less-diverse talent pool for employers in the coming decades. 

Forbes

View 

David Christlieb talks about the Supreme Court striking down affirmative action, as well as its decision in siding with an employee who refused to work.

WGN Radio

View

Alexander MacDonald says agencies may have to “regulate more modestly and litigate more often” after the U.S. Supreme Court overruled Chevron.

SHRM Online

View (Subscription required.)

Alex MacDonald says that federal agencies will have to look for new ways to advance their policy positions in the wake of SCOTUS overturning Chevron. 

Corporate Compliance Insights

View

Alexander T. MacDonald and Michael J. Lotito review four decisions in the U.S. Supreme Court's recently completed term and discuss how the rulings may affect employment law.

Westlaw Today

View (Subscription required.) 

Ellen Donovan McCann says post-employment benefits are often the first to be amended when businesses experience budget challenges, but employers may have to take more care in changing them if SCOTUS decides that former employees can sue over those benefits.

SHRM

View (Subscription required)

As workplace issues have become more complex, human resource professionals and managers often turn to employment lawyers for advice in sorting out matters involving the interaction between business requirements and the requirements of employment laws and regulations. When is such advice protected from disclosure under the attorney-client privilege?

On June 1, 2023, in United States ex rel.

The Wisconsin Fair Employment Act (WFEA) prohibits employers from discriminating against applicants and employees on the basis of their arrest and conviction records.¹  Generally, an employer cannot make decisions on the basis of an arrest or conviction record unless the crimes “substantially relate” to the circumstances of the job at issue.²  For many years, the state agencies responsible for enforcing this law—the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development (DWD) and the Labor and Industry Review Commission (LIRC)—have taken the view that crimes of domestic violen

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.

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 

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.)

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”).

Commenting on a SCOTUS decision, Alka Ramchandani-Raj said a type of OSHA matter that could see a future change in venue may be those involving certain General Duty Clause citations. 

Safety+Health

View 

Littler’s Workplace Policy Institute files brief for the Coalition for a Democratic Workplace urging court to grant review of Goldstein v. Professional Staff Congress and reaffirm Constitutional protections against compulsory union representation