Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives

Please join us for a complimentary webinar program on Thursday, November 4,  covering recent developments on:

• Enforcement
• "Grandfathered" Status
• The Immediate Group Health Plan Reforms, including
  • Adult Child Coverage
  • Retroactive Rescissions
  • Lifetime/Annual Limits
  • External/Internal Appeals Process
  • Preventative Services and Other Patient Protections
• W-2 Health Benefits Reporting
• FSA/HRA Reimbursement of OTC Drugs
• Early Retiree Reinsurance Program

If an employee told you that a regular customer had a habit of making inappropriate sexual comments to her, would you think that your company could be liable to your employee for the customer’s conduct?  The answer is “yes,” your company could be liable.  A recent lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) serves as a reminder that employers may be liable for the harassing conduct of not only their employees, but also, non-employees such as customers, delivery people, copier repair personnel, and independent contractors.

Hunton & Williams announced today the launch of its new website — the Hunton & Williams Health Care Reform Center, huntonhealthcarereform.com.   The website focuses on legal developments in the area of the recent federal health care reform.

Employers who hold their breath and declare an employment position as “exempt” from the Fair Labor Standards Act’s overtime previsions − all the while knowing that the exempt v. non-exempt question is a close call − should take a simple step to save themselves substantial damages should a court later rule the position non-exempt.

When entering into an employment arrangement with the employee, the employer should obtain the employee’s acknowledgement in writing that the employee’s weekly hours may fluctuate, and that each weekly portion of the employee’s annual salary will constitute payment for all hours worked during that week.

Under the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"), not only is an "employer" responsible for compliance with the FMLA, but any "successor in interest of an employer" is responsible as well. However, the FMLA does not define the term "successor in interest." The meaning of this term is crucial because an employee who has worked for an employer for less than 12 months might still be eligible for FMLA protection if that employer is considered a successor in interest to the employee’s former employer and the employee’s combined length of service for both employers is 12 months or more.

Hunton & Williams partners Laura Franze and Roland Juarez recently participated in a panel of California employment law experts to discuss various cutting edge issues in labor and employment law, including the impact of social media, new trends in non-compete agreements and trade secret protections, the ripple effect of the Ninth Circuit's ruling in Dukes v. Wal-Mart, and other related topics.

The Eleventh Circuit recently ruled that an employee had standing to seek an injunction against his employer and a labor union over alleged violations of the Labor Management Relations Act (“LMRA”) in the union organizing context.  In Mulhall v. UNITE HERE Local 355, Hollywood Greyhound Track, Inc., d.b.a. Mardi Gras Gaming, (No. 09-12683, September 10, 2010), the Eleventh Circuit reversed the lower court’s dismissal of the case, overruling its decision that the employee lacked a cognizable injury, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

How would you handle the following situation?  You have recently learned that one of your employees “posted” on Facebook complaining about the company, specifically commenting on work conditions and wages.  Several other employees have made comments on this employee’s Facebook page and a discussion has ensued.  These comments and complaints are damaging to the company’s reputation and portray the company in a negative light. 

Your natural inclination may be to instruct the employee to take these comments down and prohibit him from continuing to use Facebook to discuss work issues.  Yet, unions may be looking for you to do exactly that so they can try to file an unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”).  Employers have the right to protect their reputations and to prevent the possible disclosure of confidential information.  But unions may try to construe the above situation and the employer’s reaction to it as interference with an employee’s right to engage in concerted activity, a violation of Section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”).  Notably, such an argument by unions could apply to both unionized and non-unionized employers. 

In yet another employee misclassification case, Kentucky Attorney General, Jack Conway, brought suit against FedEx Corp. alleging that FedEx violates Kentucky state law by misclassifying its drivers as independent contractors.  The Complaint contends that FedEx violated state law in regards to unemployment insurance, workers compensation, payroll taxes, and the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act.  The lawsuit asks the Court to order FedEx to classify its drivers as employees and to pay the contributions and penalties required by state law, which includes back pay dating to 2000 and totaling at least $10 million.

The Washington Times recently published an article by Hunton & Williams attorney Kurt Larkin regarding the impact that the Dodd-Frank Act will have on big labor's ability to infiltrate boardrooms of corporate America. To read the editorial, click here.