This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
The standard for determining joint employment has gone back and forth in recent months between employee-friendly and employer-friendly definitions as the Board and courts have tried to bring clarity to the issue. Then in December 2017, the Board changed the standard by deciding the Hy-Brand Industrial Contractors, Ltd.
Funk , an editor of Indiana EmploymentLaw Letter and attorney with Faegre Baker Daniels LLP in Indianapolis, says of the latest development. In December 2017, a Republican-majority NLRB reverted to the old employer-friendly joint-employment standard in deciding the Hy-Brand case. Circuit was issued.
But Garrison cautions that employers need to realize if they are exercising direct control over another employer’s employees, they still will be seen as being in a joint-employment relationship and will face joint-employer liability. Washington, D.C. 20570-0001.
When the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a decision on joint employment on December 14, 2017, many employers breathed a sigh of relief as the Board reinstated an old employer-friendly standard on what’s considered joint employment. Troublesome Tactic. Maybe Just a Hiccup. Questions on Board-Union Ties.
This was demonstrated in the case of Maxutova v Nunn Media Pty Ltd [2017] FCCA 2336. Maxutova v Nunn Media Pty Limited [2017] FCCA 2336. Employers should exercise caution with what they say, and, in particular, what they put into writing, when discussing an employee’s performance. Abraham Ash.
Partner (US) LLC , 2017 U.S. 20, 2017), three full-time employees of Randstad claimed that a district court had erred in granting summary judgment to Randstad on the basis that they were covered by the administrative exemption. In Perry v. Randstad Gen. Lexis 23297 (6 th Cir. Staffing Consultant Analysis. “A
When a staffing agency and a client both exercise control over an employee, the staffing agency is usually considered the primary employer for Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) purposes, according to the U.S. June 6, 2017)). Department of Labor (DOL). As one recent court decision shows, however, that’s not always the case.
As such, it’s important for employers to be aware of the NLRB’s test for workplace rules and to take it into consideration when drafting and revising their employee handbooks and policies. standard, an employer rule is presumptively invalid if it has “a reasonable tendency to chill employees” from exercising their rights under the NLRA.
In this episode of The Workplace podcast, CalChamber employmentlaw experts Matthew Roberts and James Ward discuss the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) ruling in Stericycle, Inc. and Teamsters Local 628, and how it affects California employers’ workplace rules and handbooks. Stericycle, Inc. Roberts says.
Global hiring initiatives, or the effort by United States-based employers to broaden their recruiting efforts overseas, are not a new phenomenon. In 2017, 70% of U.S. Any employer hiring in the EU must comply with GDPR. These efforts can help organizations understand whether their data is GDPR regulated and ensure compliance.
In one recent decision that affects most workplaces, the NLRB established a new test for evaluating an employer’s policy, rule, or handbook provision to determine if it will potentially interfere with the exercise of an employee’s NLRA rights ( The Boeing Company, 19-CA-090932 (Dec. 14, 2017)). 14, 2017)).
.” A narrow exception to the rule exists when the discharge is contrary to fundamental and well-defined public policy as evinced by existing constitutional or statutory law. In other words, an employee cannot be terminated because she refused to violate the law or exercised a statutorily conferred right. July 21, 2017).
Is he or she ‘employable’? Be it a specific accounting test or an application development exercise – the latest pre-employment tests contain sections that are dedicated to testing whether an applicant is fit for the specific requirements of the job in question. These agencies are well-versed with recruitment and employmentlaws.
March 10, 2017)). Usually, the franchisor licenses its trademark and sets some standards relating to products and quality, but the franchisee is solely responsible for all employment decisions, such as hiring, firing, supervising, paying wages, etc. Gail Cecchettini Whaley, CalChamber EmploymentLaw Counsel/Content.
In fact, if you asked me about this strategy, I would advise you about the liberal standard for retaliation (adverse action = any act that would reasonably deter one from exercising their statutory rights), and suggest that contacting ICE would likely subject you to a retaliation claim.
The proposed rule recommends that an employer only be considered a joint-employer of another employer’s employees if it “possesses and exercises substantial, direct and immediate control over the essential terms and conditions of employment and has done so in a manner that is not limited and routine.” Not a member?
” The employee filed suit, alleging his employer interfered with his previously approved FMLA leave and discharged him in retaliation for exercising his right to leave. In support of his lawsuit, he attested that he had complied with all obligations under the Act, as well as his employer’s policies.
In a 2015 decision in a case involving Browning-Ferris Industries of California, the Board changed previous precedent and created a standard that said an employer can be deemed a joint employer of another employer’s employees if it exercises even indirect control over the workers. Impact of Rulemaking.
Campbell asked the court to dismiss all of Howard’s claims against him as the individual supervisor, including claims that he had interfered with Howard’s FMLA rights and retaliated against him for exercising those rights. Well, obviously supervisors need to exercise great care when it comes to FMLA compliance.
Attend: #MeToo Sexual Harassment: How to Recognize and Prevent Devastating Claims and Workplace Culture Problems , on Monday, November 20, 2017. Employers are strictly liable for sexual harassment by a supervisor if the harassment results in a tangible employment action (e.g., Click here to learn more, or to register today!
When an employee’s Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave is just one of many factors in an adverse employment action, it’s still FMLA retaliation, a federal appeals court has ruled. 16-1471 (March 21, 2017)). The employer approved his request but Roger believed that management was upset with him taking time off.
According to the NLRB’s recent joint employer ruling, two entities must “directly and immediately exercise control over the essential employment terms of another entity’s employees” to be considered joint employers. 156 (2017). 154 (2017). A return to the old standard.
Re-emphasis of the prohibition against retaliation for exercising the right to take a protected leave of absence. California’s new ban-the-box law prohibits employers with five or more employees from asking job candidates about any criminal background before a conditional job offer has been made. Not a member?
Re-emphasis of the prohibition against retaliation for exercising the right to take a protected leave of absence. California’s new ban-the-box law prohibits employers with five or more employees from asking job candidates about any criminal background before a conditional job offer has been made. on Friday, September 7, 2018.
Thus, a public policy wrongful discharge claim will arise only when: The termination violated a policy enabling an employee’s exercise of a statutorily created right. 167 (February 23, 2017). Hence, the doctrine of employment at will remains alive and well in the Old Dominion. See Bowman.). No Bowman Claim for Karina.
The hospital immediately sought to dismiss the suit on what might be considered a legal technicality, contending that the nurses’ lawsuit was a meritless claim brought to quell the hospital’s exercise of legitimate “petitioning activity”—i.e., Suffolk Superior Court, 2017). Blanchard, et al.
Employer Takeaway. Attorneys and enforcement agencies regularly cite inadequate manager training as a leading cause of employmentlaw violations. Additionally, employers must exercise caution when mixing telework and FMLA leave. Miller , 845 F.3d 3d 821 (7th Cir. Kate McGovern Tornone is an editor at BLR.
Between Skeleboner, other similar phallic October 31 apparel, and the wide array of naughty [fill in the blank] costumes, odds are that someone in your workplace may not exercise the same awesome discretion when coming to work on Tuesday. Then Be Afraid of Halloween from Dan Schwartz at the Connecticut EmploymentLaw Blog.
November 8, 2017). Though it’s unknown how this case will ultimately turn out—and the employer may even ultimately prevail—you should take heed that timing can be a critical factor courts consider in discrimination and retaliation cases of all types, not just pregnancy discrimination cases. ” Kiyoko Rubio v. Christine M.
On January 25, 2017, Regional Health received a report from a provider stating that Nicole advised a student patient, “No glove, no love.” The administrative law judge (ALJ) upheld the determination awarding unemployment benefits. Nicole’s Joking Falls Flat. Regional Health appealed the determination.
Global hiring initiatives by United States-based employers seeking to broaden their recruiting efforts overseas, are not a new phenomenon. Although global hiring has expanded significantly since the pandemic in 2020, the direction of building teams abroad has been an initiative for employers long before. In 2017, 70% of U.S.
According to Pella, William did not suffer from a “serious health condition” that entitled him to FMLA leave, did not adequately advise the company that he might need FMLA leave, and did not attempt to exercise his FMLA rights. October 20, 2017). The minute details of the FMLA continue to befuddle employers.
In its decision in The Boeing Company on December 14, 2017, the NLRB reassessed its standard for determining when a workplace policy or rule violates Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Category 1: Rules that Are Generally Lawful.
Alexander sued, alleging that Kellogg interfered with his FMLA rights and retaliated against him for exercising those rights. To succeed on an interference claim, an employee must show that the employer knew he needed leave and denied him that leave. Employer Takeaway. points and was fired. Appeals Court Weighs in. LLC , 725 F.3d
Larry sued FedEx, claiming it violated the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) when it miscalculated his pension. he was fired for exercising his right to take military leave and for complaining about his pension calculations). May 10, 2017). Court’s Ruling. Kenneth Savage v. Bottom Line.
The court indicated that based on the plain language of the constitutional amendment, the city was entitled to enact its minimum wage ordinance under the constitution, but the legislature was entitled to exercise its power to preempt local governments’ ability to enact minimum wage ordinances. 3d DCA, 2017). 3D17-705 (Fla.
The fact that Plaintiffs could (and did) work for CTG’s business rivals and transport personal clients while simultaneously maintaining their franchises without consequence suggests, in two respects, that CTG exercised minimal control over Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also exercised considerable discretion in choosing when and where to drive.
9 simple steps to drafting a bangin’ EEOC Position Statement — via Eric Meyer’s The Employer Handbook Blog. via Dan Schwartz’s Connecticut EmploymentLaw Blog. EEOC Loses Battle, But Maybe Not The War, Over Wellness Programs — via Employment Essentials. via Michigan EmploymentLaw. via FisherBroyles.
Day & Zimmerman argued that sending the letter wasn’t an adverse employment action, even though it identified Stan and his ADA charge. 15-cv-1416 , August 22, 2017. Koenig, a contributor to New Mexico EmploymentLaw Letter , can be reached at barbara@frjlaw.com. . Day & Zimmerman NPS, Inc.,
At any rate, establishment of such a relationship is a highly factual exercise. So, if the “if” is just that—a big if—why is this technicality important for employers to get right? 9, 2017)), an employer denied an employee’s request for FMLA leave to care for his grandfather. In a recent 2 nd circuit case, Coutard v.
In January 2017, however, she claims her managers told her she had to stop wearing the hijab or be fired because they were concerned about the safety implications if the head garment was grabbed or pulled. Keseandra Brooks was an employee at Hanover Health and Rehabilitation Center in Mechanicsville, Virginia.
Second, he claimed that the disciplinary suspensions constituted retaliation for his exercise of FMLA rights. The court noted that to prove an interference claim, an employee must at least show that his employer interfered with, restrained, or denied his exercise of or attempt to exercise FMLA rights and the violation caused him harm.
This decision is an important reminder that employees have the right to share employment-related information with one another and that even nonunion employers are subject to certain provisions of the NLRA. NLRB , March 24, 2017, Pillard, C.). Banner Health System v. Nancy R.
Bar none, the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) is the hardest employmentlaw to administer for employers and the easiest to abuse by employees. That double whammy often results in frustrated employers making rash decisions, which, of course, lead to lawsuits. Interference Claim. Learning from Our Mistakes.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 318,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content