It’s sort of a no-lose proposition. If I’m right, well, then I pat myself on the
Indeed, the SCOTUSBlog summed up the employment law decision today pretty succinctly:
Workers who are required to stay after
Over the past month, after the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision, much has been made in the press about how it is unprecedented for the court to consider a company’s religious beliefs in making its decisions.
The first one, Harris v. Quinn, dealt with whether non-union public employees could be forced to pay union dues. The court issued a relatively narrow holding, ruling that “partial” public employees could not be required to…
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 9-0 decision (with a heated split on the reasoning), ruled that the recess appointments to the NLRB made by President Obama during a three-day recess were invalid.
You can download the decision here.
Much of the early instant analysis has focused on the recess appointment power itself. But…
Much will be written about the new First Amendment free-speech-in-the-workplace case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court today.
But frankly, I wouldn’t be surprised if most of them say nearly the same thing — that testimony by an employee who has been subpoenaed outside the course of his…
It’s Baseball Season; a time for the Sox to come out and play.
Not the Red Sox — this is, after all, a legal blog (run by a Yankees fan, no less). No, today, we’re talking about Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) Whistleblower Protection.
Still with us.
My colleague, Clarisse Thomas, has taken a look back at the…
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.
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
January is almost over, which probably seems a little strange to be talking about what happened in 2013.
But as someone who majored in history in college, I’m a firm believer that you can learn a lot by studying the past — even the recent one.
Which is why I’m excited about tomorrow’s presentation that…
Readers of a certain vintage, will remember Gilda Radner’s character Emily Litella who often said “Never Mind”. (If you’ve never heard of Gilda Ratner or this, then I’ll pause while you watch this classic video.) Readers of a later vintage will think of Nirvana’s “Nevermind”. If you just want the dictionary definition, here …