Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives

The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (“OFCCP”) has issued a proposed rule to strengthen the current regulations that require federal contractors and subcontractors to engage in affirmative action efforts for veterans. The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on April 26, 2011. Fed. Reg. 23,358 (Apr. 26, 2011). Public comments regarding the rule are due by June 27, 2011.

The OFCCP’s proposed rule would revise the regulations that implement the Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistant Act (“VEVRAA”), 41 CFR Parts 60-250 and 60-300, which have generally remained unchanged since 1976. VEVRAA, its amendments and regulations prohibit contractors from discriminating against protected veterans and additionally require contractors to take affirmative action to recruit, employ, and advance the employment of protected veterans. VEVRAA also requires certain contractors to maintain a written Affirmative Action Plan.

A recent Tenth Circuit decision sends a strong message that the court takes seriously the jurisdictional prerequisite that plaintiffs exhaust their administrative remedies in a Title VII claim prior to taking a claim to court.  The process to do so is well-known -- before an employee can file a lawsuit alleging discrimination against his or her employer, he or she must file a charge with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”).  Requiring individuals to exhaust their administrative remedies prior to filing a lawsuit serves, hopefully, to eliminate facially meritless charges, facilitate internal resolution, and help avoid litigation.  This is often the case, as many charges filed with the EEOC never end up on a court’s docket.  But what happens if the parties are already enmeshed in litigation and the plaintiff claims that the defendant’s conduct during the course of that litigation is retaliatory?  Can the plaintiff amend his or her complaint to include that allegation?  Or must he or she go back to the EEOC and file a charge for that claim?  In McDonald-Cuba v. Santa Fe Protective Services, Inc., the Tenth Circuit held that the latter is true.  No. 10-2151 (10th Cir. May 9, 2011).  The Fourth came down the other way in a similar case.

On May 3, the Ninth Circuit ruled in Tides v. Boeing Co., No. 10-35238, that the whistleblower provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (“SOX”) do not protect employees who disclose information to the media. Although SOX bars public companies from retaliating against employees who report conduct that they reasonably believe constitutes certain types of fraud or securities violations to Congress, federal regulatory or law enforcement agencies, or a person with supervisory authority over the employee, the Ninth Circuit held that this protection does not extend to employee disclosures to the media. Federal appeals courts have previously ruled on press disclosures under other whistleblower statutes, but the Ninth Circuit’s ruling is the first to analyze such disclosures under SOX.

On April 27, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) preempts rules created by states, such as California, that classify most class action arbitration waivers in consumer contracts as unconscionable.  The Court’s 5-4 decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 2011 WL 1561956 (U.S. Apr. 27, 2011) could signal big changes for consumer − and potentially wage and hour − class action litigation.

The Obama administration continues to move forward on implementing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, as amended (the "Health Care Reform Act"), as it has recently issued additional guidance on the grandfather rules for group health plans and the new Form W-2 rules for reporting the cost of employee group health coverage. Of note, the guidance reaffirms that the W-2 reporting of group health coverage costs will not be required until 2012, which means that any such reporting for 2011 will remain optional. The guidance also provides some important clarification on ...

The National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) regional offices addressing complaints involving employers’ social media policies must seek advice from the NLRB’s Division of Advice before taking any action. The memorandum, issued by the NLRB’s Office of the General Counsel on April 12th, added social media disputes to the list of matters that must be submitted to the Division of Advice.  The Division of Advice is responsible for issuing opinions on difficult or novel labor issues.