Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives

On September 10, 2015, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (“OFCCP”) issued a Final Rule implementing last year’s Executive Order 13665, which prohibits federal contractors from discharging, or discriminating against, any employee or applicant who “has inquired about, discussed, or disclosed” either their own compensation information or that of another employee or applicant.

A recent ruling from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has broadened the standard for assessing joint-employer status under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

A recent ruling from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has broadened the standard for assessing joint-employer status under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

In a ruling that redefines the concept of employment in the United States, the National Labor Relations Board yesterday issued its much-anticipated decision in Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc. d/b/a Newby Island Recyclery, 362 NLRB No. 186 (2015). The decision rewrites and drastically expands the definition of who is a “joint employer” under the National Labor Relations Act. The business community has been bracing for this decision for several months, and now that it has been released, the Board’s new standard is likely to create a host of labor relations ...

For many employers and employees, arbitration is a quicker and less costly means of resolving employment-related disputes. As a result, it has become standard practice for many employers to require as a condition of employment that employees agree to arbitrate employment-related claims. Mandatory arbitration clauses are routinely found in employment agreements or given to employees as separate employment policies at the time of hire or during their employment.

California’s paid sick leave law, which only went into effect on July 1, 2015 and was recently further clarified on July 13, 2015, continues to raise questions for California employers. Most recently, California’s Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (“DLSE”) was asked by an employer to clarify what the use of the word “day” meant for employees who work ten hour shifts, i.e. more than the traditional eight-hour work day. The DLSE found that such employees would be entitled to the wage they normally earn, meaning for those employees a day would mean ten, as opposed to eight hours, entitling them to an additional two hours of leave.

Reprinted with permission of Nation’s Restaurant News

In a long-awaited ruling, the National Labor Relations Board on Thursday upheld a controversial shift in the standard for determining “joint employer” status in a closely watched case that is expected to reverberate through the franchising world.

Continue Reading

In a ruling that redefines the concept of employment in the United States, the National Labor Relations Board yesterday issued its much-anticipated decision in Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc. d/b/a Newby Island Recyclery, 362 NLRB No. 186 (2015). The decision rewrites and drastically expands the definition of who is a “joint employer” under the National Labor Relations Act. Businesses have been bracing for this decision for several months, and now that it has been released, it appears their worst fears have been realized.

On Friday, August 21, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld the U.S. Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) 2013 rule extending FLSA overtime and minimum wage protections to employees of home health care agencies who provide “companionship services” or live-in domestic care. The rule modified an exemption that was part of a 1974 amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) that required domestic service workers to receive overtime and minimum wage, but excluded from those requirements employees who provide companionship services or live in the home where they work. Under the 2013 rule, the exemption for companionship services and live-in care only applies to workers employed by individuals or families who are receiving the care, not to employees of third-party home care providers. The 2013 rule also narrowed the definition of companionship services. Specifically, a worker only falls under the companionship exemption if the worker is employed directly by members of a household where the worker provides “fellowship and protection” (i.e. socializing with and monitoring the safety of elderly or infirm people) or if the worker provides daily living assistance, such as dressing and grooming, in conjunction with fellowship and protection, but does not spend more than twenty percent of their time providing such assistance.

On August 12, 2015, the Fifth Circuit held that an unaccepted Rule 68 offer of judgment to a named plaintiff in a class action does not render the plaintiff’s claim moot. In Hooks v. Landmark Indus., Inc., No. 14-20496 (5th Cir. 2015), the Fifth Circuit joined the minority of Circuit Courts—Second, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits—and held that an unaccepted Rule 68 offer is a legal nullity, with no operative effect. The majority of the Circuit Courts to decide this issue —Third, Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Tenth, and Federal Circuits—have all held that a complete Rule 68 offer moots an individual’s claim.