Voters in Massachusetts have approved a statewide law mandating employers with at least 11 employees provide those employees with up to 40 hours of paid sick time per year. This mandate makes Massachusetts the third state requiring paid sick days, behind Connecticut and California. Under the new law, effective July 1, 2015, Massachusetts employees can earn up to 5 paid sick days a year, and those who work for employers with less than 10 employees will be eligible for unpaid sick days. The new law covers both private and public employers and requires the paid sick time to be compensated at the same hourly rate currently paid to the employee. Additionally, the law will permit employees to roll-over up to 40 hours of unused sick time to the next calendar year and specifically prohibits employers from interfering with or retaliating against an employee for the use of earned sick time. We are advising our clients with operations in Massachusetts, and in other states and cities with similar laws, to revise their policies and their employee handbooks to properly account for this new requirement.
Bass, Berry & Sims attorneys Michael Moschel, Tim Garrett and Dustin Carlton authored the article “NLRB’s Expansive View: The Northwestern ‘Football’ Ruling and Why Inside Counsel Should Care,” that was published by InsideCounsel on November 13. In the article, the authors discuss how the recent NLRB decision in the Northwestern University case may indicate a broader approach to union rights and how the decision could impact all employers in the U.S. To read the full article, click here.
On October 28, 2014, the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) again held that employers violate Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) when they require employees to sign class action waivers as a condition of their employment. The Board first so held in D.R. Horton, Inc., 357 NLRB No. 184 (Jan. 3, 2012). Although numerous courts have since rejected the Board’s reasoning in D.R. Horton, the Board nonetheless reaffirmed its position, meaning that employers who maintain such agreements will continue to face significant hurdles to their enforcement.
In Murphy Oil USA, Inc., 361 NLRB No. 72 (Oct. 28, 2014), the employer (“Murphy Oil”) required, as a condition of employment, that all employees sign a Binding Arbitration Agreement and Waiver of Jury Trial (the “Agreement”). The agreement specifically provided:
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), in agreeing with an administrative law judge’s (ALJ) April 2013 ruling, has held that suspending and discharging a union member for refusing a drug and alcohol test after the employee demanded union representation is a direct violation of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Continue Reading
On September 10, 2014, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law a bill providing most employees in California the right to earn up to three paid sick days per year. Known as the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act of 2014, the legislation takes effect July 1, 2015. California is one of only two states, with Connecticut, that mandates paid sick leave for employees. Continue Reading
Can sandwich shop employees be protected from discipline even though they suggest to the public that sandwiches may be contaminated by sick workers?
- Yes, said the NLRB
- The decision affirms a continuing trend of cases that are significantly pro-employee.
FMLA regulations require that an employer tell an employee, in writing, when certification forms must be returned and the consequences of failing to do so. Recently, a federal appellate court upheld and enforced those requirements.
The FMLA certification process can be arduous for even the most diligent of employers. Regulations impose some specific notice obligations. A new Sixth Circuit ruling emphasizes how important dotting all the i’s and crossing all the t’s are to compliance with the Act. Specifically, failure to provide a “return by” date on the FMLA notice form or otherwise notify an employee in writing that leave may be denied if medical certification is not provided within the allotted time may preclude an employer from denying leave under the Act. Continue Reading
Some employers believe that an employee who is out on FMLA cannot be disciplined or terminated. More savvy employers know that such a broad application is not quite accurate, as an employee’s request for or taking FMLA leave does not give the employee any greater rights than if the employee were actively at work. This case, here, is a prime example.
What happened? The employee requested leave for birth of her child, and the leave was granted. While on leave, however, the employee visited the employer’s premises. While there, she took home 6 cases of sample baby formula (yes, the employer produces baby formula), and doing so was a clear policy violation (think – stealing). A co-worker reported the misconduct, and an investigation resulted in the employee’s termination. The employee then sued, claiming that she was terminated while on FMLA leave and thus the termination was unlawful. Continue Reading
Whether the plaintiff is actually engaged in “protected conduct” is always a key question when defending a retaliatory discharge claim. This certainly is true when such a claim is brought under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX).
On August 8, 2014, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals clarified the nature of the protected activity a successful SOX retaliatory discharge plaintiff must plead in order to survive a motion to dismiss. See Nielsen v. AECOM Technology Corp., Case No. 13-235-cv (August 8, 2014, 2nd Circuit).
Nielsen, a fire engineering manager, alleged that he was fired in retaliation for threatening to resign if the company continued to tolerate the conduct of one of his subordinates whom he claimed was allowing fire safety designs to be marked as approved without the subordinate actually having reviewed the plan. Continue Reading
Savvy employers know that legal and regulatory trends are toward candid and effective communication. Think interactive process under the ADA. But, at times, this same rule applies to employees. Here, an employee who refused to read the Rosary with a resident was terminated. The refusal was considered failing to perform a requirement of her job, since the resident requested that the prayer be read to her. This was the fifth incident in her 13 months of employment.
The employee later sued for religious discrimination and won a jury verdict. The Fifth Circuit reversed however. Why? Because the employee never claimed to a manager, before the termination decision, that the request to read the prayer was against her religious beliefs. Rather, the managers involved in the decision knew only of the employee’s refusal to perform the job duty, not that the refusal was tied to her religious beliefs. This decision is similar to the Tenth Circuit’s decision, written about here, regarding an employee’s request to wear a head covering but without having invoked the religious basis for the request.
Interestingly, in that Tenth Circuit case, the plaintiff was the EEOC, not the individual employee, and the EEOC recently asked the Supreme Court to grant permission for an appeal.