Women “Treated Like a Piece of Meat” at the V.A.

The New York Times had an enlightening, if disheartening, article this past week about the rampant sexual harassment that female veterans face when they attempt to obtain medical care at the V.A.

An entrenched, sexist culture at many veterans hospitals is driving away female veterans and lags far behind the gains women have made in the military in recent years, veterans and lawmakers of both parties say. Although the Department of Veterans Affairs has scrambled to adjust to the rising population of female veterans and has made progress — including hiring more women’s health care providers, fixing basic privacy problems in the exam rooms and expanding service to women in rural areas — sexual harassment at department facilities remains a major problem.

Women say it is galling that such a demeaning atmosphere persists, especially for the roughly 30 percent of female veterans who have reported being harassed or assaulted while serving in the military.

Read the whole article here….

Flight Attendants File EEOC Charge Alleging American Airlines Discriminates Against Women

AA Accused of Discrimination

The union that represents more than 27,000 American Airlines flight attendants has filed a charge with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging that the airline's attendance policy discriminates against women. The flight attendants charge that the attendance policy "fast tracks" flight attendants — a group that is 75% female — to potential discipline and discharge actions, while pilots — who are overwhelmingly male — are not subject to the policy.

This type of case is called a “disparate impact” case. Employment actions and policies can be problematic even if they do not intentionally discriminate against a protected group of workers. The law recognizes both "disparate treatment" discrimination (intentional acts of overt discrimination) and "disparate impact" discrimination (neutral policies and practices that have a disproportionate, adverse impact on a protected group and that cannot be justified by business necessity).

While disparate impact cases can come up with regard to any protected class (in this case, gender) they actually most often arise in the context of alleged age-based discrimination. Layoffs are often alleged to be based on age — a layoff targeting high-earning employees might have a disproportionate impact on long-tenured employees who happen to be older, for example. Similarly, recruiting efforts that focus on college campuses might unfairly exclude older workers.

Read More…

IKEA Hit with Yet Another Age Discrimination Lawsuit

IKEA Hit with 5 Age Discrimination Lawsuits

Alleging the company discriminates against its older employees and fosters a "corporate culture of age bias," IKEA is the target of a newly-filed class action lawsuit (Paine v. IKEA Holding US, Inc. et al., No. 19-cv-00723 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 21, 2019)). Since February 2018, at least five current and former employees have filed lawsuits against IKEA alleging age discrimination.

The lawsuits have all been filed in a period of just over a year. And they all argue that Ikea has fostered a workplace culture of discrimination, which systematically recruits and promotes young talent rather than workers over 40. The problem is alleged to have become even worse, once the company began an aggressive restructuring effort in 2017.

Whether protected-age job seekers can pursue lawsuits under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act without showing the alleged bias was intentional is a question on which federal courts are divided. The U.S. Supreme Court in 2017 declined to consider the issue in a case against R.J. Reynolds, leaving in place a holding by a federal appeals court in Atlanta that the ADEA doesn’t permit disparate impact or unintentional bias claims by job applicants. But a federal district court in California reached the opposite conclusion in a case against PricewaterhouseCoopers. Ultimately, this split in the circuits will have to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Age discrimination as a part of a large company restructuring can often be something that appears obvious while being simultaneously very difficult to prove. To make matters even more challenging, companies often offer severance packages to those being laid off, giving them only a few weeks to consult with an attorney and consider the issues.

If you find yourself the subject of a proposed layoff and you believe you may have been targeted due to your age (over 40) or if you have been given a severance agreement to review and consider, start looking for a qualified employment lawyer right away. Finding a qualified employment attorney who represents employees rather than companies may be more challenging than you think. In Texas, a good place to start is the Find-A-Lawyer page of the Texas Employment Lawyers Association. In other states, I would suggest you start with the National Employment Lawyers Association. Both groups feature lawyers who represent employees rather than employers and both have a lot of good information available for you to review and consider.

IHOP Franchises Agree to Pay $700K and to Create an HR Department to Settle Sex Harassment Suit

IHOP Franchises Settle Sexual Harassment Suit

Several IHOP franchises have agreed to pay $700,000 after the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued them, alleging they failed to prevent or correct continual sexual harassment and retaliation against employees (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Lucinda Management, LLC, et al., No. 2:17-cv-02458 (D. Nev. Feb. 19, 2019)). They will also have to create an HR department of professionals with experience handling and preventing discrimination, harassment and retaliation.

The franchises created a hostile work environment for employees after they ignored worker complaints about harassment, EEOC alleged in its complaint. Furthermore, the restaurants allegedly retaliated against some of the employees who spoke up about the problems, behavior which included reducing work hours, groundless discipline and termination. One restaurant, the complaint said, fired an employee after the worker reported seeing a cook "regularly touch female food servers' genitals and kiss them."

The restaurants also agreed to stop using a “72-hour sexual harassment policy”, which required employees to submit complaints of sexual harassment in writing within 72 hours. This had the obvious effect of preventing valid claims of harassment from being investigated and remedied.

As a part of the settlement agreement, the franchises will work with an EEO monitor who will, among other things, ensure any harassment-related policies, procedures and practices comply with Title VII and the consent decree's requirements.

Read more here…

Fifth Circuit Upholds Ruling Against Claim of Employment Discrimination Based on Transgender Status But Leaves the Door Open to Future Argument of the Issue

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

In an opinion issued yesterday in Wittmer v. Phillips 66 Company, the Fifth Court of Appeals affirmed the granting of summary judgment in favor of Phillips 66 on a claim of employment discrimination based on transgender status. 

The Court of Appeals went beyond merely upholding the lower court’s summary judgment however. In its opinion, the Fifth Circuit expressly rejected the district court’s determination that Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on transgender status

The Fifth Circuit pointed to its past precedent holding that Title VII does not prohibit sexual orientation discrimination and faulted the district court for not distinguishing this case from that precedent.  Interestingly, this decision leaves some room for the possibility that the Fifth Circuit might someday hold that Title VII does in fact prohibit transgender employment discrimination as long as the case is distinguished from discrimination based on sexual orientation, which the court has already ruled is not prohibited.

Here is the text of the Fifth Circuit opinion.

Here is a link to the Fifth Circuit oral argument.

Here is the text of the original district court opinion.

One Senator Blocks Trump-Nominated Reappointment of EEOC’s only LGBTQ Commissioner

Chai Feldblum, a member of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

GOP senator Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah has used his power in the Senate to block the reappointment of the EEOC’s only LGBTQ commissioner, Chai Feldblum, because her existence is a "threat to marriage."

This is a real blow to American workers, especially those who are disabled. Feldblum, an Obama appointee who was re-nominated by President Trump, has spent most of her time on the Commission championing the rights of the disabled in the workplace.

In her capacity as an EEOC commissioner, she has little to nothing to do with any laws or policies having to do with marriage. So when it comes down to it Senator Lee doesn't like her because she is a lesbian.

Meanwhile, this will leave the EEOC without a quorum in 2019, making it more difficult for the agency to conduct business.

In my opinion, Sen. Lee is abusing his power as a member of the U.S. Senate. To block a Trump-appointee who has a long track record of being a strong advocate for workers in general and the disabled in particular based on nothing more than one’s personal religious preference is misguided and harmful to an extremely important federal agency.

I don't think anyone should be very happy about it.

Read the entire story here.

With $500K Appeal Looming, Local Veterans Concerned By Bexar County Commisioners’ Termination of Benefits Officer; Officer Alleges Political Retribution

Local Verterans Benefits Officer Terminated

“U.S. Army veteran Steven Price just had hip replacement surgery for the second time. Price has been fighting for his service disability status to be upgraded from 70 percent to 100 percent for decades, starting in 1988 when the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) diagnosed his hip and low back issues as congenital bone disease....The difference between winning and losing his appeal is about $500,000 in retroactive pay, he said.”

But his case manager, Bexar County Veterans Service Officer Queta Rodriguez, was fired Nov. 9 and her position was eliminated in a decision she calls political retaliation for running against County Commissioner Paul Elizondo earlier this year. Bexar County Commissioners voted 3-1, with Elizondo abstaining, to approve the selection of a new veterans service office director and cut Rodriguez's position.

”The Commissioners' decision has left the veterans service office without a full-time accredited claims officer – and likely for a while.” Price and other veteran’s are upset that political retribution may be hurting their chances to get the benefits they so terrible need. 

Read the entire article at the Rivard Report.

Sexual Harassment can Affect Health for Decades

Source: Picpedia

Illnesses can include high blood pressure, poor quality sleep, anxiety, even depression

Many say that time heals all wounds. But that’s not true. The impact of workplace sexual harassment or sexual assault can result in lingering health problems years after the experience, a new study published in the JAMA Internal Medicine journal says.

The study, “Association of Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault With Midlife Women’s Mental and Physical Health”, set out to answer the following question: Do women with a history of sexual harassment or sexual assault have higher blood pressure, greater depression and anxiety, and poorer sleep than women without this history.

It found that women with a history of workplace sexual harassment had “significantly higher odds of hypertension and clinically poor sleep than women without this history, after adjusting for covariates”. Women with a history of sexual assault had significantly higher odds of clinically significant depressive symptoms, anxiety, and poor sleep than women without this history, after adjusting for covariates, it says.

Read the Entire Article at Entrepreneur.com

How Getting Fired Is More Financially Devastating for Women

Sex Discrimination Has Devastating Economic Consequences

Getting fired is almost always difficult and disappointing, but research suggests the impacts are far more devastating for women than men.

In fact, while men typically bounce back stronger, earning an average of 1.3% more in their subsequent role, women typically see their salaries decrease by an average of 24%, according to a recent study by Insurance Quotes.

“The salary decrease that we’re seeing in this study is really significant,” says Insurance Quotes media relations associate Bri Godwin. “That’s enough to really change how you live your life.”

Read the rest of the Article at FastCompany.

Women Need to Know They Don't Have to Accept Bullying or Sexual Harassment in the Workplace

Credit: Prentsa Aldundia

The recent national turmoil over the Supreme Court candidacy of Judge Kavanaugh and the completely broken way that we have dealt with allegations of sexual assault in this country has had one hopefully positive side effect — the number of women around the country who have felt confident enough to come forward with their own stories.

In the workplace, this issue most often takes the form of workplace harassment or bullying. Recently, writer Jessica Press was caught by surprise while working on an article about workplace bullying. When she posted to social media that she was looking for stories from women about their experiences of being bullied at work, she expected a sprinkling of replies. Instead, as she recounts in her feature article appearing in Redbook magazine’s October issue, she got a deluge:

“My inbox was flooded — overflowing with incoming mail. I’d put out the call to a handful of experts and Facebook groups for women’s stories of workplace bullying. I thought perhaps I’d hear from a dozen women.

Instead, within a week, nearly a hundred stories from around the country and around the world poured in, with a steady stream continuing in the days and weeks that followed. They worked in hospitals, academia, sales, food service — anywhere and everywhere. There were women still living in fear of retaliation. There were those who shared their journeys of deteriorating marriages, depression, anxiety, and PTSD-like symptoms. There were a surprising number who had involved lawyers and were limited in what they could even reveal due to nondisclosure agreements.”

The article contains a number of tips for dealing with workplace bullying and I commend it to your reading. I hope the national turmoil we are currently suffering will lead to real conversation and, ultimately, real change. Hopefully it will serve, if nothing else, to let people know that bullying, sexual harassment and assault occurs much more frequently than many believe.

I also hope that we can make progress in dispelling some of the false beliefs that many still hold about bullying and harassment in the workplace. Here are a few of the worst:

1. That if bullying/sexual harassment/assault happened then the woman must have done something to put herself in peril.

2. That it must always take more evidence than a woman’s word that something happened to be equal to a man’s word that it didn’t.

3. That if sexual harassment/assault really happened the woman would have reported it immediately.

4. That sexual harassment/assault is, any any time or context, normal male behavior (“boys will be boys”).

These are all 100% FALSE. And yet many people, including well-meaning women I meet in focus groups, will often state some version of one of these falsisms.

The #MeToo movement has helped to expose just how badly this country has been dealing with the treatment of women who suffer bullying/harassment/assault. But if the raging anger of a bunch of old, male senators last week showed us anything it is that this problem will not go away easily or quietly. We still have a long way to go.

Docking Pay From Salaried, Exempt Employees Is Illegal...And Very Common

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) is the federal law the controls the terms under which employees must be paid overtime. All employees fall into one of two categories "Exempt" or "Non-Exempt". If an employee is non-exempt, when they reach more than 40 hours in a given work week, they have to be paid at time and a half for any additional hours. If they are non-exempt), they aren't eligible for overtime. Most people think of non-exempt employees as "hourly" and exempt employees as "salaried".

• Pro-Tip: Just because your employer pays you as salaried does not necessarily mean that you should be considered exempt and not entitled to overtime. Exempt employees are typically involved in management or high-level administration of the business. There are other exceptions as well but a good rule of thumb is this: if you are more like a rank and file line worker or clerical worker, you should probably be getting overtime. If you aren't you need to find a good employment lawyer.

As a general rule exempt employees are paid a salary and don't have to be paid overtime no matter how many hours they work. But there are other rules that come that exempt status. One important one that employers often ignore is the rule against docking pay.

Exempt employees who are late or who need to leave work early - for doctor's appointment, child care, whatever - cannot have their pay docked for missing a couple of hours of work. If an exempt, salaried employee shows up for work, even if it's just for 15 minutes, he or she must be paid for the entire day. That's the rule.

The employer can discipline, fire, or demote the employee. But it cannot dock the employee's pay.  Importantly, the employer is allowed to dock vacation time and force the employee to use that to cover the hours missed. But the employees pay may never be docked.

So what happens if the employer breaks this rule and docks pay? Well then the employer has just lost the FLSA "exemption" as to that employee. This means the employee is owed overtime for all hours over 4o worked in the last two years plus all overtime worked in the future. This can add up to a substantial amount.

So, long story short is this: If you are paid by salary and your employer docks your pay for being late or missing a few hours of work here or there, you should contact an employment lawyer right away. Your employer is taking advantage of you and breaking the law. You may be owed a substantial amount of overtime pay.

Jury Awards Administrative Assistant $850,000 in Age Discrimination Lawsuit

A jury has awarded a Temple University executive assistant $850,000 in an age discrimination lawsuit alleging that, among other things, she was told by her boss, a Chinese national, that "in China, they put women out to pasture at your age" (Briggs v. Temple University, No. 16-248 (E.D. Pa., July 19, 2018)).

After she was fired, Ruth Briggs sued the Philadelphia-based school, claiming age discrimination and hostile work environment during her tenure as an executive assistant to the chair of the university’s computer and information sciences department. Briggs also said she suffered retaliation when she repeatedly complained to the university’s human resources department. The university, however, said she was fired for performance deficiencies.

A unanimous federal jury awarded Briggs compensatory damages of $350,000 for pain and suffering, back pay loss of $250,000 and $250,000 in liquidated damages.

Read local media report here. 

What should I do if I'm being retaliated against at work?

I get a lot of questions from readers on all kinds of topics. For a myriad of reasons, it would not be appropriate for me to answer a specific individual's question or to otherwise provide legal advice online. However, I can address general areas of concern in a general way. While I hope that this information is useful, be warned that you absolutely should NOT consider any information you read here to be legal advice as to your particular situation. Legal analysis is very fact and geographically specific. If you have a legal question, my best advice is that you contact an attorney who specializes in such matters in your area. 

After reporting to HR about my manager with the company groping me, the HR representative filed no report and called the offender in the office to have him apologize to me. No other action was taken. Now I am being investigated and harassed at work and I don't understand why. What should I do?

While not every employer handles internal reports of misconduct this way, situations such as this are, sadly, something I hear about all too frequently from employees who come to see me. An employee follows the rules and does what he/she is supposed to do by reporting discrimination or harassment to HR, only to then be further harassed and retaliated against in response to his/her report. Often this retaliation comes in the form of management "keeping book" or noting every error or perceived mistake made by the reporting employee in an effort to build a record for termination. Sometimes the retaliation is much more severe. I have had cases in which employees were moved to a less desirable office location, passed over for promotions, accused falsely of misconduct, etc. Such a situation can make going to work seem almost unbearable. And in fact, this is often the goal of the employer -  to make your work life so terrible that you feel you have no choice but to quit.

So what can an employee in this type of situation do? Here are some suggestions:

1. Document Everything in Writing - Your boss or HR representative might be saying all the right things and telling you everything is fine but those oral statements are easily forgotten once you have been fired and you are later trying to prove what was said. Your best bet: document everything in a way that is at least somewhat verifiable. If you need to report misconduct, harassment, or retaliation do it via a written letter or email. In either case, print yourself a copy of what you sent and take it home for safekeeping. If you have an important phone call or meeting with HR or your boss in which you outline the harassment and they promise to take some action, document it in a follow-up email to the HR rep in which you thank the rep for meeting with you and restate your understanding of what was said by both parties. Again, print yourself a copy and take it home.

   • But Chris...can't the HR Rep later deny that my email correctly summarizes what was said? -- Sure, I suppose they could try to say that. But everyone (including the jury) will wonder why they didn't reply to your email back when it happened to correct your summary.

2. Don't Make Unforced Errors - You know they are watching every move you make just hoping you screw up so they can fire you. So don't help them. Don't be late to work. Do good work. Get your reports in on time. Don't gossip and tell co-workers what a big jerk your boss is. etc. These are unforced errors and they will come back to bite you in the end.

   • What if your boss doubles your workload to make it impossible for you to meet quota? -- This happens a lot so don't be surprised if it happens to you. Don't let it make you so angry that you start acting out and thereby give the boss a legitimate reason to fire you. That's playing into his/her hands. Instead, do the very best job you can and document the retaliation by emailing HR to let them know what is happening (don't forget to print a copy and take it home) and then do your best to comply with the new work requirements. Keep your boss informed on your status by regularly emailing (keep a copy). Remember, in addition to actually trying to be a good employee under difficult circumstances, you are building the paper trail you and your lawyer may need later to prove you were trying to be a good employee under the circumstances.

3. Consider Filing a Charge with the EEOC and/or Visiting with a Lawyer - Know this: Once retaliation starts, it rarely gets better on its own. If a boss is retaliating against an employee, it signifies a type of "line in the sand". That boss has declared (perhaps only to himself or herself) that you have got to go...period. So don't beat yourself up when nothing you do to placate your boss seems to work. It may just be time to go outside for help. One choice is filing what is called a "Charge" with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). Note that the EEOC only deals with EEO types of issues (race, sex, religion, disability, national origin) and retaliation if (and only if) you are being retaliated against due to an internal complaint that you were harassed or discriminated against based on one of those EEO categories. Another option that you really should consider is visiting with a qualified employment lawyer. If you have not been fired yet then your case might not be one that an employment lawyer can agree to take on a contingent basis. However, most employment lawyers will agree to a fee-based consultation, during which you can explain your situation and the lawyer gives you advice regarding what protections you might have under applicable law and what steps you need to take to best protect your interests. While legal fees vary greatly based on geography, you should expect to pay between $100-$500 for an hour of the attorney's time. In the grand scheme of things, this is a good value for the information you will receive.

   • How do I find a good lawyer to consult? -- An excellent question. To be honest, it isn't always easy. There are a lot of lawyers out there but few of them specialize in representing employees in employment-related disputes. Here are some sources and articles to help get you started:

     • How to Hire An Employment Lawyer

     • Texas Employment Lawyers Directory (for Texas residents)

     • National Employment Lawyers Directory (for those outside of Texas)

IHOPe You Brought Your Checkbook!

Two IHOP Restaurants to Pay Nearly $1 Million to Settle Sexual Harassment Suit

Teens Among Victims of Misconduct Including Simulated Sex Acts, Sexual Contact, Unwanted Sexual Comments and Physical Threats, Federal Agency Charged

Two southern Illinois International House of Pancakes (IHOP) franchises will pay $975,000 and furnish other relief to settle a systemic sexual harassment lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced today.

The EEOC had charged that numerous employees at the locally owned Glen Carbon and Alton, Ill., restaurants were routinely sexually harassed by coworkers and managers, including offensive sexual comments, groping, physical threats, and, in one instance, attempted forced oral sex with a management employee.

The EEOC filed its lawsuit in September 2017 (Equal Employment Opportunity Commis­sion et al. v. 2098 Restaurant Group, LLC et al., Civil Action No. 3:17-cv-1002-DRH) in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, seeking relief for more than 11 female employ­ees at the Glen Carbon IHOP and one male employee at the Alton IHOP. Some of the female employees were teenagers at the time of the alleged harassment.

The consent decree settling the suit, entered today by Judge David R. Herndon, requires the defendants to pay compensatory damages to 16 harassment victims. The decree also requires the com­panies to implement, distribute and enforce tougher policies prohibiting sexual harassment and establish procedures for promptly investigating and addressing sexual harassment complaints. The decree also requires the owner to be directly involved in preventing and correcting sexual harassment. The four-year decree further requires the defendants to provide sexual harassment training to employees, create and maintain documents regarding sexual harassment complaints, and post notices at their facilities. It also enables the EEOC to monitor the restaurants to determine whether harassment recurs, and, if so, that it is dealt with effectively. All the measures are intended to prevent further incidents of harassment.

The EEOC's Youth@Work website (at https://www.eeoc.gov/youth/ ) presents information for teens and other young workers about employment discrimination, including curriculum guides for students and teachers and videos to help young workers learn about their rights and responsibilities.

Do I Need to Hire a Lawyer to Review My Severance Agreement?

In a word, Yes.

As an employment lawyer, I spend a considerable amount of time reviewing severance agreements for clients.  Severance agreements are often filled with complicated legal issues and can be challenging to understand and properly navigate. Besides the dollar value of the package, there are several types of clauses in most severance agreements that employees should be aware of.  While situations differ as to how negotiable a severance agreement is in once case versus another, it is always advisable to have a board certified employment lawyer review the document with you so that, at the the very least, you understand all of the ramifications of the agreement you are signing.

Here are a few of the clauses that clients often need assistance with:

1. The Severance Payment: If an employee is already entitled to receive a severance payment, whether pursuant to an employment contract or company policy, there is no need to sign a severance agreement to get that money. An attorney can help ensure that if the employee does sign an agreement, it provides more than any severance payment the worker was already entitled to. An experienced employment lawyer may also have a sense of whether the amount being offered is within the usual range for the relevant industry.

2. Money the Employee is Already Owed: An employer who owes an employee money –  for unused vacation time or unreimbursed expenses, etc – must pay it regardless of whether a severance agreement is signed. 

3. Benefits: A severance agreement should explain what benefits the employee will receive upon separating from the employer and deal with continuation of health care benefits (if applicable) or with COBRA notice requirements.

4. Release of Claims: Employers usually want a full legal release from the employee as a part of any severance agreement.  Several issues can drop up here, including the effect of the release on benefit plans and/or on existing claims (workers compensation, disability claim, etc).  This release will usually cover all claims regardless of whether the employee even knows the potential claim exists.  So it is important to speak with an attorney so that you know if you actually have any claims and whether they should be released in return for the severance being offered by the employer.

5. Non-Disparagement and References: Severance agreements often forbid employees from speaking badly about their employer even after they leave the company.  Sometimes the agreement contains language dealing with how the company will respond to future inquires regarding the employee from prospective employers.  

6. Restrictive Covenants & Noncompete Agreements: Many employees are bound by non-compete and non-solicit agreements created in employment contracts or other documents they have signed. These agreements prohibit the employee from competing with the employer in certain areas for a specific amount of time, and from hiring other workers away from the employer. Where these restrictions already exist, a lawyer should ensure that the severance agreement does not expand them. Where the employee has not already entered agreements on these topics, the attorney can work to limit the time and scope of restrictions the separation agreement imposes.

These are just a few of the myriad issues that might need to be addressed as a part of a severance agreement review.  If you are offered a severance agreement, it is important to hire an attorney to review it BEFORE you sign. But not just any attorney -- just as you would probably not hire a real estate lawyer to defend you in a criminal proceeding, you should make sure to seek out an employment law specialist when hiring an attorney to review a separation agreement. An experienced employment attorney can help protect employees, including executives and professionals, from the risk of waiving rights unnecessarily or leaving severance money on the table.

California Considering Ban on Employer Forced Arbitration

Last year, a bipartisan coalition in the United States Senate sponsored legislation to ban the use of mandatory arbitration agreements with regard to claims of sexual harassment and sex discrimination. The federal bill is still pending. 

Now, a similar bill has been filed in the California legislature. If it passes, the California bill would prohibit employers from requiring mandatory arbitration agreements as a condition of employment. And unlike the federal bill mentioned above, the California bill would prohibit arbitration clauses as a condition of employment as to all types of employment claims—not just sexual harassment and sex discrimination claims.

If passed, the California law would be an important start to a movement to get rid of employer-based, forced arbitration. Statistics show that arbitration is unfair to employees and is used by some employers to effectively opt out of the judicial system into a rigged, pseudo-court where wrongdoing can be effectively covered up by companies. 

And claims that arbitrating claims is more cost-effective than traditional adjudication in court are are not supported by the available statistical data. Many employment corporate defense lawyers point out that research shows arbitration is neither faster nor less expensive than litigation. 

There has long been data showing that a solid majority of Americans oppose forced arbitration in the employment context.  If this bill passes and becomes law in California, perhaps it will be the beginning of a nation-wide movement to allow employees back into the courtroom. 

Read More: National Law Review

The Rise of Digital Wage Theft

The days of punching a manual time-clock when you arrive at work are all but over. Digital time tracking systems now use things like facial recognition to monitor when a worker arrives and has finished for the day. However, the software that’s replaced the 19th century time-clock technology is helping some employers steal workers’ hourly pay.

This so-called wage theft is a problem for many healthcare workers, drivers, and food-service and factory employees, according to a study by Elizabeth Tippett, associate professor at the University of Oregon School of Law, published in the American Business Law Journal. An earlier report from the Economic Policy Institute found that wage theft in the US may account for more than $15 billion each year.

How digital wage theft works

Tippett’s study of 330 cases litigated in state and federal courts found three main types of digital wage theft:

• Rounding, which happens when the software is set to alter an employee’s starting and finishing times to pre-defined increments

• Automatic break deductions, which deduct preset time increments (for lunch or other breaks) from pay, regardless of whether the break was taken

• Time shaving, which takes place when managers alter time records to pare down the number of hours worked

Read more about this study in this article by John Detrixhe. 

Supreme Court Denies Overtime Pay to Service Advisors at Auto Shops & Dealerships

This week in Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, the Supreme Court limited overtime pay for service advisors at car dealerships nationwide, ruling that those employees are primarily salespeople who sell brake jobs, oil changes and other service work. Encino Motorcars' current and former service advisors sought backpay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) overtime-pay requirement, 29 U.S.C. 213(b)(10)(A). The requirement exempts “any salesman, partsman, or mechanic primarily engaged in selling or servicing automobiles, trucks, or farm implements.”

The Supreme Court, in an 5-4 opinion authored by Justice Thomas, reinstated the dismissal of the suit. According to the Court, service advisors are “salesm[e]n . . . primarily engaged in . . . servicing automobiles." The ordinary meaning of “salesman” is someone who sells goods or services, and service advisors “sell [customers] services for their vehicles,” Service advisors are also “primarily engaged in . . . servicing automobiles.” “Servicing” can mean either “the action of maintaining or repairing” or “[t]he action of providing a service.” Service advisors satisfy both definitions. They meet customers; listen to their concerns; suggest repair and maintenance services; sell new accessories or replacement parts; record service orders; follow up with customers as services are performed; and explain the work when customers return for their vehicles. While service advisors do not spend most of their time physically repairing automobiles, neither do partsmen, who are “primarily engaged in . . . servicing automobiles.”

The Court rejected giving Chevron deference to the federal agency and rejected the interpretation of the Department of Labor and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, who had both relied on matching “salesman” with “selling” and “partsman [and] mechanic” with “[servicing]”. The but the word “or” is “almost always disjunctive.” Using “or” to join “selling” and “servicing” suggests that the exemption covers a salesman primarily engaged in either activity. The Court held that the FLSA gives no textual indication that its exemptions should be construed narrowly, thus ignoring the long-standing precedent that remedial statutes should be interpreted in order to provide broad protections to the individuals they seek to protect. 

Writing in dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the service advisors at Encino Motorcars "work regular hours, 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., at least five days per week, on the dealership premises. Their weekly minimum is 55 hours." Federal law calls for a time-and-a-half pay after 40 hours in a week, she noted. "Because service advisers neither sell nor repair automobiles, they should remain outside the exemption and within the act's coverage," she said. Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan agreed.

This is but one of many examples to come that will demonstrate the importance of elections on the Court. The election of Trump coupled with the Senate's highly questionable antics used to nab a seat for Justice Gorsuch has led to the elimination of overtime protections for thousands of workers across the country. Many will never see Justice Gorsuch as a legitimate member of the Court. However, his votes (expected to be 100% anti-worker) on the Court will be powerful all the same.

Read the Opinion

New Expert Report Offers Policy Recommendations for Non-compete Agreements

As this blog has discussed before, non-compete agreements are a real problem. A new report from the Brookings Institution’s Hamilton Project seeks does a deep dive on this nationwide problem, compiling the most comprehensive recent studies on non-compete agreements. The report’s author, Matt Marx, has several key policy recommendations for lawmakers who want to promote economic growth rather than stifle it:

• Employers should inform employees if they will be required to sign a non-compete agreement before they accept the job. Employers routinely hide the fact that employees are required to agree to a non-compete until after an employee has accepted a position and presumably turned down other offers. (This takes away employees' negotiating power and hurts the economy.)

• If existing employees are asked to sign new non-compete agreement, employers should be required to compensate them. (In Texas, employers often require long-time employees to sign new non-compete agreements with the promise of nothing more than continued at-will employment.)

• Allow judges to rewrite overreaching non-compete agreements so that they are in-line with state law. (In Texas, judges already have this power. The problem is that in order to get the issue to a judge, a lawsuit needs to be filed by either the employer or employee, taking time and costing legal fees.)

• Give attorneys general the power to go after firms that require workers to sign predatory non-competes. (This could be helpful in some states. Unfortunately in Texas our current Attorney General would have no interest in helping Texas workers in this way.)

• Bolster non-disclosure agreements so that they make a better substitute for non-competes. (This sounds good but I'm not sure how much stronger they could be without creating a real imbalance of power in the workplace.)

You can read the entire report here.

Non-Compete agreements are not evil per se. In fact in some cases they make sense. But companies have gone way beyond using non-competes to protect legitimate trade secrets and now routinely abuse them in attempt to gain a competitive advantage over other businesses by keeping employees out of the labor pool.