Late yesterday, Twitter lit up with news that collegiate student athletes are really “employees”. But beyond the headline, my colleague Jarad Lucan explains what REALLY happened in plain English. Suffice to say, even though it’s March Madness, you might not want to bet on that result just yet.
Many of you may remember a few
You have a disabled employee out of leave for 180 days. Your policy says that employees may be terminated after the end of 180 days. So, on day 181, can you fire the employee?
Today, my colleague Christopher Parkin tackles that difficult question in a recent ADA case brought by the EEOC against a very
My good friend, Jon Hyman of the Ohio Employer’s Law Blog, probably said it best this morning:
I try to shy away from hyperbole, but OH MY GOD, THIS CASE COULD BE RUINOUS!!!
Yeah, pretty much.
So, if you — like me — have been
Raise your hand if you know what “Donning and Doffing” is?
To those that have raised your hand, you are most likely: a) an employment lawyer; b) a Scrabble nerd; or c) not being honest with yourself.
It’s just not a phrase anyone uses in real life — like a “snood” (I’ll get to the relevance of that term down below.)
But on Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an important decision on the subject that will have a direct impact on when employers need to pay their employees for putting on (donning) and taking off (doffing) protective gear.
The case, Sandifer v. U.S. Steel, can be downloaded here.
History buffs will appreciate the decision for its lengthy discussion of the origins of modern day wage & hour law. But the basic gist is this: Many decades ago, wage & hour law developed a theory that “changing clothes” before and after a shift is not compensable working time. The question remained – what about things like a hardhat? Or a special flame resistant jacket? Or safety goggles?
In other words, should an employee be able to get compensation for putting on and taking off protective gear?
The court said it would first adopt the 1950s definition of “clothes” — namely “items that are both designed and used to cover the body and are commonly regarded as articles of dress.” Jackets, pants, suits, but also protective clothing like a hardhat that is, after all, still a “hat”.
What’s excluded from that definition? Things like tools and accessories. According to the court, “Many accessories—necklaces and knapsacks, for instance—are not ‘both designed and used to cover the body.’ Nor are tools ‘commonly regarded as articles of dress.’” Our definition leaves room for distinguishing between clothes and wearable items that are not clothes, such as some equipment and devices.Continue Reading Donning, Doffing and “Changing Clothes”: Supreme Court Says When Employees Get Paid
In a 2-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (which does not include Connecticut) held on Tuesday that the NLRB erred in disallowing an employer’s mandatory arbitration agreement that waived the rights of employees to participate in class actions.
The decision in D.R. Horton v. NLRB (download here from Bloomberg Law)
Last Friday, lawyers representing two government officials petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to hear arguments over whether former a 2002 state decision to layoff only union personnel violated those employee’s constitutional rights.
Back in June 2013, you may recall that the Second Circuit ruled that such layoffs did violate the right of association. I’ve
For those of us that have been practicing for a while, it had seemed that the days of the big settlements for race discrimination cases were behind us.
After all, when the Coca-Cola and Texaco settlements were announced back in the late 1990s and 2000, many companies took notice.
But the news today is
As I continue this week to recap some important FLSA decisions this summer by the Second Circuit, the next one will be important in the long run for employers.
Wage and hour claims have been a thorn in employers side for a while now. (My friend, Molly DiBianca of the always fabulous, Delaware Employment Law
As we wrap up summer and start returning from vacations, there are several important Second Circuit FLSA decisions decided over the last few weeks that employers need to be aware of. I’ll cover them in posts over the next few days.
Earlier this summer, the Second Circuit (which is the appeals court for the federal