Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives

Last week, a federal judge in the Eastern District of Michigan granted Domino’s Pizza, Inc.’s motion to dismiss, holding that workers operating under the Domino’s brand must arbitrate their claims that the pizza chain made its franchises promise not to hire each other's employees, then misled the public to believe no such agreement existed.

Earlier this year, we wrote about a proposed bill in California, AB 51, which would prevent employers from requiring their employees to bring all employment-related claims, including discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and wage and hour claims, in arbitration instead of state or federal court.  Earlier this month, Governor Newsom signed AB 51 into law.

This month, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed several employment-related bills into law. The laws go into effect January 1, 2020, and include an extension to the deadline to file certain state discrimination claims and address harassment training and prevention, as well as mandatory arbitration agreements.

As we blogged about earlier this year, a U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., in April ordered the EEOC to collect two years’ worth of EEO-1 Component 2 pay data from mid-size and large employers by a deadline of September 30, 2019.  In its most recent status report on the subject, however, the agency revealed it did not collect enough data to satisfy the judge’s response criteria, having received submissions from only 39.7% of eligible employers.  Perhaps unfortunately for employers, the EEOC said it will continue accepting compensation data for reporting years 2017 and 2018 until it satisfies the court’s criteria that Component 2 data “be equal to or exceed the mean percentage of EEO-1 reporters” that turned in EEO-1s in each of the past four years.  On its official website, the EEOC encourage all employers to “submit their data as soon as possible.”

The IRS has issued final regulations amending the hardship distribution rules for qualified retirement plans, including 401(k) and 403(b) plans. The final regulations are substantially similar to the proposed regulations that were issued in November 2018, but provide a few clarifications.  Plans that have been complying with the proposed regulations will satisfy the final regulations.  Below is a summary of the key changes and action items for plan sponsors.

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a case on October 7 that likely would have clarified the scope of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”) related to the operation of virtual platforms like websites and applications by private businesses.

The #MeToo movement has placed sexual harassment on the front pages of newspapers, has galvanized some states to reconsider their own sexual harassment laws, and has encouraged employers to take a closer look at their policies and procedures.

With such heightened awareness of sexual harassment, employers may feel an inclination to resolve doubts in favor of the accuser.  A recent Second Circuit decision, however, illustrates a counterweight to this outlook.

Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP was recognized in Benchmark Litigation’s 2019 Labor and Employment guide, which seeks to find law firms and partners who stand out in their labor and employment practices throughout the US. The Firm’s Labor & Employment Team was recognized by Benchmark Litigation in 5 locations, and 13 partners from the practice were also recognized as “Benchmark Litigation Labor & Employment Stars.”

Read the Press Release

Does an individual who receives a single text message, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (“TCPA”), have standing to sue in federal court?  The answer, for now, depends on where the lawsuit is filed.

Illinois joined a handful of other states when its prohibition on employer inquiries into applicants’ prior wage or salary information took effect this week.

Under the law, no employers in Illinois can ask about the wage or salary histories of job applicants.  If an employer receives salary history information voluntarily from the applicant, the employer still may not use that information to screen candidates.

For at least one more year, health plans, including employer-sponsored plans, will be able to exclude the value of drug manufacturer discounts from participant deductibles and out-of-pocket maximums, even where no medically appropriate generic drug is available.  The Department of Labor (DOL), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the Department of Treasury (collectively, the "Departments") jointly issued a temporary non-enforcement pledge relating to these so-called "accumulator programs" as a result of an apparent catch-22 relating to high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) with health savings accounts (HSAs).