Ten Most Recent State Law Articles
Indiana Adopts Right-to-Work Law
Indiana’s new right-to-work law amends the Indiana Code to prohibit collective bargaining agreements that would require workers to pay union dues or fees. The new law, signed by Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels on February 1, 2012, applies to any written or oral contract or agreement entered into, modified, renewed, or extended after March 14, 2012. It does not apply to or abrogate a written or oral contract or agreement in effect on March 14, 2012.
Indiana Enacts Right-to-Work Law: Becomes the Only Right-to-Work State in the Central Midwest
On February 1, 2012, Governor Mitch Daniels signed into law a bill that makes Indiana the nation’s 23rd right-to-work state. The bill’s legislative supporters describe the law as “a victory for job creation and individual freedom for workers to decide for themselves if they want to financially back a union.” The bill’s supporters envision “a surge in economic development interest” in Indiana because Indiana is now the only right-to-work state in the central Midwest.
Santa Fe Local Ordinance Sets Country's Highest Minimum Wage Requirement
On March 1, 2012 the minimum wage for employers in Santa Fe, New Mexico will increase to $10.29 per hour.
A Moving Target: The California DLSE Modifies Again Its FAQs on California's New Wage Notice Required for Hourly Employees
On January 23, 2012, the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) announced on its website1 modifications to the answers to two of its Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs), and added 10 new FAQs and answers concerning the wage notice required by the California Wage Theft Prevention Act (WTPA) in Labor Code section 2810.5.2
Is Rounding of Employee Time Entries Legal in California?--California Supreme Court Orders Appellate Court to Decide
In a matter of significance for California employers, in See’s Candy Shops, Inc. v. Superior Court of San Diego, the California Supreme Court recently ordered the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, to review a trial court decision holding that rounding employee time entries violated California law.
California Court of Appeal Finds Employees Are Exempt Under California's Commissioned Sales Exemption
On January 24, 2012, the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, issued an important decision providing new and needed guidance on the commissioned sales exemption. In Muldrow v. Surrex Solutions Corporation, the court concluded that a class of “senior consulting service managers” was exempt from overtime pay requirements.
Delaware Court of Chancery Issues Guidelines for Attorneys
The Delaware Court of Chancery has issued Guidelines to Help Lawyers Practicing before the Court. Chancery Court Guidelines.pdf This guidance may be particularly helpful to attorneys unfamiliar with the level of civility expected of the Delaware Bar. The guidelines also include advice on "best practice, which are informative even for seasoned practioners. Here are some excerpts from the new guidelines:
Class-Action Antitrust Complaint Alleging an Unlawful Employer "No-Poaching" Conspiracy Appears to Have Survived a Motion to Dismiss
Executive Summary: At a hearing yesterday in San Jose, California, a federal district court judge indicated from the bench that antitrust claims alleging an "over-arching conspiracy" to fix and suppress employee compensation through interconnected employer "no-poaching" agreements would survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
New York's Wage Theft Prevention Act Requires Notice to Employees
Executive Summary: On or before February 1, 2012, New York employers must provide notice to employees as required by the state's Wage Theft Prevention Act (WTPA).
Pennsylvania Court Holds That Trustees May File Mechanics’ Lien to Obtain Delinquent Contributions to Health and Pension Funds
In Bricklayers of Western Pennsylvania Combined Funds, Inc. v. Scott’s Development Company, [pdf.] an en banc panel of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania held that the trustees of employee benefit funds may assert mechanics’ liens against a property owner to recoup delinquent contributions owed by a contractor. In Scott’s Development, the property owner, Scott’s Development Co. (“Scott’s”) contracted with J. William Pustelak, Inc. (“Pustelak”) to perform construction work on its property. Pustelak was a party to collective bargaining agreements with two unions, under which Pustelak was to contribute to employee health and pension funds. After Pustelak failed to pay the required contributions, the trustees of the funds filed mechanics’ lien claims against Scott’s, seeking recovery of the contributions that Pustelak allegedly failed to make. In an issue of first impression, the Superior Court held that the trustees had standing to assert mechanics’ lien claims against the property owner.
Affiliate Member News