Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives

The issue of whether workers are properly classified as independent contractors rather than employees is a common dispute in the gig economy, particularly in newer, technology-based industries, such as ride-sharing.

That issue just became a much simpler one in Florida: On May 9, 2017, Florida’s governor signed into law a bill that, among other things, establishes that drivers for companies such as Lyft and Uber—called “transportation network companies” or “TNCs” under the law—are independent contractors, not employees, as long as the company satisfies four conditions:

Recently, we discussed a decision from the U.S. District Court for the District Columbia that considered whether a former employee’s failure to initially list an employment discrimination claim on her bankruptcy schedules barred her from pursuing the claim against her former employer under the doctrine of judicial estoppel.

On May 4, the House of Representatives passed the American Health Care Act, (AHCA), which is aimed at repealing and replacing portions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). While many of the changes do not affect employer-sponsored coverage, there are several changes in the bill that are likely to be of interest to employers.

The effects of the regulatory reform initiatives of the Trump Administration are beginning to be felt at the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) with the formal action by OSHA to finalize withdrawal of the “Volks Rule” regulation. On May 3, 2017, in response to a CRA resolution of disapproval, OSHA published a final rule removing amendments to OSHA’s recordkeeping regulations from the Code of Federal Regulations.

Continue Reading

In a previous post, we discussed the Second Circuit’s opinion finding that Rite-Aid lawfully fired a long-tenured pharmacist after he refused to comply with the company’s new mandate that pharmacists administer immunizations.  The plaintiff requested that the Second Circuit rehear the case, arguing that it should consider additional evidence.  Without discussion, the Second Circuit denied the plaintiff’s request, upholding its prior decision.  The pharmacist was not protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act because he could not perform an essential function ...

At the request of the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the New York Court of Appeals recently answered several questions regarding liability under the New York Human Rights Law Section 296(15)—which prohibits denying employment on the basis of criminal convictions when doing so violates New York Correction Law Article 23-A—and Section 296(6)—which prohibits aiding and abetting such discrimination.

Imagine that you are a company with two openings for the same position.  After selecting the two most qualified candidates, you offer each candidate a salary equal to his or her prior salary, plus 5%, pursuant to your established policy for setting new hire salaries.  On its face, your policy has nothing to do with sex, but does it violate the Federal Equal Pay Act?  This was the issue addressed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the recent decision Rizo v. Yovino, No. 16-15372, slip op. at 11–12 (9th Cir. Apr. 27, 2017).

There has been a flurry of activity and uncertainty related to immigration issues since President Trump took office. Hunton & Williams partners Adam Rosser and Emily Burkhardt Vicente discuss the concerns faced by the business community and the future of the H-1B visa program in the US. View the 5-minute video here.

In an April 24, 2017 decision, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied a motion to dismiss filed by Bravo! Facility Services, Inc. (“Bravo!”) against a former employee who brought claims under the ADA, District of Columbia Human Rights Act, and the FMLA.  Bravo! asserted that the plaintiff should be barred under the doctrine of judicial estoppel from asserting her claims because she initially failed to disclose her employment discrimination claims in her chapter 7 bankruptcy case filed after her employment terminated.  The plaintiff had moved to reopen her bankruptcy case and amended her asset schedules to disclose the claims before filing suit against Bravo!  In denying Bravo!’s motion, the court distinguished these facts from other situations where a plaintiff fails to disclose a claim prior to filing suit or only after challenged by an adversary.

In a landmark ruling on April 4, 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, sitting en banc, became the first federal appellate court to officially recognize a discrimination claim under Title VII based solely on the plaintiff’s sexual orientation.  The Court’s decision in Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College of Indiana reflects a groundswell of recent cases questioning whether sexual orientation claims are viable under Title VII.  Although the Seventh Circuit is the only appellate court so far to hold that sexual orientation discrimination is a form of “sex” discrimination under Title VII, recent panel decisions from the Second and Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeals signal that additional circuit courts might be poised to overrule existing case law to find similar protections.