Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives

The Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. 215(a)(3) ("FLSA") forbids an employer from retaliating against an employee for making prior FLSA complaints.  Simple concept, one would think.  But with most employment related legal issues, the "devil" is often in the details.  What is an "employee," exactly, under the FLSA?  Does it include an applicant for employment, who is retaliated against by a prospective employer?  A divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently ruled that the answer is "no," rejecting a claim that a prospective employer violated the FLSA by rescinding an employment offer to an applicant after learning about a FLSA lawsuit the applicant filed against her prior employer.  Dellinger v. Sci. Applications Int'l Corp., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 16635 (4th Cir. Aug. 12, 2011).

In the current economy, with unemployment over 9% and multiple applicants for every position, an out-of-work individual should be doing everything possible to get a new job, right? Perhaps, but not for purposes of “mitigation” under fair employment statutes.

On August 11, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York ruled that a fired employee alleging discriminatory discharge under Title VII had no obligation to enroll in vocational training in order to mitigate his damages from the alleged discrimination. EEOC v. Dresser Rand Co., No. 04-CV-66300, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89466 (Aug. 11, 2011).

The NLRB announced today it has issued a Final Rule requiring employers to notify employees of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). A Fact Sheet  is also available. The rule is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on August 30, 2011. It is effective November 14, 2011.

On August 8, 2011, the Second Circuit issued a decision in Millea v. Metro-North Railroad Co., taking an expansive view of the Family and Medical Leave Act’s (“FMLA”) anti-retaliation provision.  Turning to Title VII for guidance, the Court held that the jury should have received an instruction that broadly defined the term “materially adverse action.”

The Veterans’ Employment and Training Service (VETS) of the Department of Labor (DOL) just posted a “Special Announcement” delaying the 2011 VETS-100/100A Filing Cycle.

Typically, covered employers are required to submit the VETS-100 and VETS-100A Reports annually by September 30.  The forms identify the number of protected veteran employees and new hires in the workforce.  This year, the Department had announced a plan to accept electronic submissions of the reports effective August 1, 2011.  Unfortunately, technical problems have interfered with the electronic filing.  Contractors presently cannot register or file for the 2011 cycle.

On August 9, 2011, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a putative class action cannot be rendered moot by a defendant’s Rule 68 offer of judgment to the named plaintiff, even when the offer of judgment fully satisfies the named plaintiffs claim.  In doing so, the Ninth Circuit joined the other three circuits that have considered the pre-certification effect of an offer of judgment on the mootness of a class action.  The other three circuits (Second, Third, and Fifth) have similarly held that a defendant cannot “pick off” lead plaintiffs with an offer of judgment in order to avoid a class action.

First introduced in the Employee Free Choice Act as an alternative to card check, the quickie election has been brought back as part of the National Labor Relations Board’s (“NLRB”) rulemaking process.  On June 21, 2011, the NLRB, with Board Member Brian Hayes dissenting, issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking suggesting numerous changes to the procedures governing union elections.  These proposed changes are significant and if accepted would both alter the landscape of secret ballot elections and place employers at a severe disadvantage.

The national unemployment rate, as reported by the Department of Labor, has stubbornly remained at about 9% or higher for more than two years. As many of these unemployed individuals search for new jobs, some have purportedly been denied available employment opportunities simply because they were unemployed. Unemployment discrimination, as it is often called, is not currently prohibited under federal law. The EEOC and Congress, however, have taken steps focused on so-called unemployment discrimination that could affect how employers conduct their hiring processes.