join our network! affiliate login  
Custom Search
GET OUR FREE EMAIL NEWSLETTERS!
Daily and Weekly Editions • Articles • Alerts • Expert Advice • Learn More

Do Zero Tolerance Policies Make Zero Sense?

Fisher Phillips • July 22, 2018
When one hears about a workplace shooting, it’s easy to demand a “Zero Tolerance” rule against workplace violence. It’s understandable that after the staggering and even criminal revelations of the #METOO Movement that employers would want to nip harassment and discrimination in the bud before it rises to the level of unlawfulness. And in the safety setting, a single violation of Lock Out or Confined space entry procedures or removal of a guard could result in multiple deaths or grievous injuries. No violation is acceptable.

House Members Introduce Bipartisan Anti-Harassment Legislation

Littler Mendelson, P.C. • July 22, 2018
On July 17, 2018, a bipartisan group of House lawmakers—Reps. Lois Frankel (D-FL), Ted Poe (R-TX), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Barbara Comstock (R-VA), and Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE) —introduced legislation targeting workplace harassment. Senators Kamala Harris (D-CA) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) introduced a companion bill in the Senate last month. The Ending the Monopoly of Power Over Workplace harassment through Education and Reporting (EMPOWER) Act (H.R. 6406, S. 2994) would, among other obligations, ban nondisclosure and non-disparagement agreements related to harassment as a condition of employment or receipt of employment-related benefits, and would require certain public disclosures. This federal bill comes on the heels of several state-level proposals stemming from the #MeToo movement.

Class Action Waivers Are Lawful, Says United States Supreme Court

Brody and Associates, LLC • July 20, 2018
The United States Supreme Court has spoken – class and collective action waivers are lawful. The Court’s May 21 decision overturns the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) position that these waivers violate employee rights and resolves a split among federal appellate courts. Employers should run, not walk, and include such provisions in their respective employment agreements!

Littler Global Guide - Puerto Rico - Q2 2018

Littler Mendelson, P.C. • July 22, 2018
Guidance on the Federal Employee Retention Benefit for Certain Employers Affected by Hurricane Irma and María

No Meal Break Violation Where Employees Are Incentivized to Stay Onsite Through Offer of Discounted Meal

Carothers DiSante & Freudenberger LLP • July 20, 2018
Today, the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion in Rodriguez v. Taco Bell Corp., upholding the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Taco Bell on class claims for alleged meal break violations. In this case, Taco Bell authorized and permitted employees to take meal breaks during which they were relieved of duty and free to leave the premises. However, Taco Bell offered employees the option of purchasing a discounted meal at Taco Bell, in which case they had to remain on site to eat it (in order to prevent theft/abuse associated with employees bringing discounted food to third parties outside the restaurant). Because no good deed ever goes unpunished in California, a class action lawsuit was filed against Taco Bell alleging that their practices violated California law by denying employees lawful meal breaks.

State Court Concludes ABC Test Should Be Applied Retroactively

Fisher Phillips • July 20, 2018
You remember the game-changing, earth-shattering, monumental decision from the California Supreme Court a few months ago that fundamentally changes the test to determine whether your workers are independent contractors or employees, don’t you? For those who had put it out of their minds hoping it was all just a nightmare, here’s the quick summary: rather than applying a balancing test that took into a number of factors, the California Supreme Court said that hiring entities need to prove that all of their workers satisfy the “ABC test” in order to properly classify them as employees. The test appears notoriously difficult to overcome, especially because Prong B of the test requires you to prove that the worker is performing work outside the usual course of your business. We’ve written about this test extensively; you can read more about it here.
Upcoming Seminars
Our Members
Become A Member