Labor & Employment Digest: October 2015
Cybersecurity issues are a hot topic in legal and compliance circles, but, even as companies turn their attention to addressing these genuine concerns, other problems crop up like a game of whack-a-mole. The labor and employment legal landscape changes almost as fast as the privacy and data security space, so...
September 30, 2015 at 08:00 PM
11 minute read
Cybersecurity issues are a hot topic in legal and compliance circles, but, even as companies turn their attention to addressing these genuine concerns, other problems crop up like a game of whack-a-mole. The labor and employment legal landscape changes almost as fast as the privacy and data security space, so L&E attorneys must keep up with matters ranging from whistleblowing to the FCRA. Here are some thoughts about current labor and employment trends from outside experts.
Disney World unfair labor practice charge
According to news reports, on June 5, a labor union representing Disney World character performers filed an unfair labor practice charge protesting the alleged chilling effect of a company policy forbidding performers from publicly disclosing which characters they portray. The irony is unavoidable, especially to any employer who has been targeted by the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) highly imaginative campaign to rid the working world of dormant unfair labor practices lurking in the wording of handbooks and policies. A Mickey Mouse ruling is inevitable.
—Keith H. McCown, partner (Boston), Morgan, Brown & Joy LLP
Employers would be wise to consider a change in approach to whistleblower risk-management
In recent years, Congress has enacted or expanded whistleblower protections under more than 30 statutory schemes affecting employers of all sizes and in various industries. As a result, many employers have dramatically changed their whistleblower risk-management approach. Best practices now include using multi-disciplinary management teams composed of legal, HR, compliance and risk management personnel to respond to and resolve whistleblower complaints; providing ombudsman support services to whistleblowers; and conducting independent review of all proposed adverse employment actions against known whistleblowers prior to implementation. Such practices can significantly reduce the number of whistleblower retaliation claims.
—Mary E. Pivec, partner (Washington, DC), FordHarrison LLP
On joint employers
The NRLB's recent decision in Browning-Ferris Industries of California v. Sanitary Truck Drivers has fundamentally altered the standard for determining whether businesses are “joint employers” of the same employees. The previous standard focused on whether Business A exercised direct control over Business B's employees. Now, “joint employer” status may exist where Business A has authority to control essential terms and conditions of Business B employees' employment — even if Business A exercises this authority only indirectly or not at all. Many business relationships — including lessor-lessee, franchisor-franchisee and contractor-subcontractor — could be impacted by the new standard. Therefore, companies should evaluate their relationships to identify what control, direct or indirect, they may possess over the terms and conditions of other businesses' employees.
—Elizabeth F. Mason, Esq. partner (Boston) Bernkopf Goodman LLP
FCRA violations
The surge of class actions against employers for Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) violations is largely due to the availability of statutory damages that can reach up to $1,000 per class member where “willfulness” is shown, even where no injury exists. At the same time, district courts are beginning to provide guidance on the nuanced issues these lawsuits raise, with a number of recent decisions treating FCRA willfulness as a question of law in class actions against employers. An understanding of these decisions will aid employers in reviewing their compliance with FCRA obligations and in forming their litigation strategy.
—Galit Knotz, counsel (Los Angeles) Akin Gump
Cybersecurity issues are a hot topic in legal and compliance circles, but, even as companies turn their attention to addressing these genuine concerns, other problems crop up like a game of whack-a-mole. The labor and employment legal landscape changes almost as fast as the privacy and data security space, so L&E attorneys must keep up with matters ranging from whistleblowing to the FCRA. Here are some thoughts about current labor and employment trends from outside experts.
Disney World unfair labor practice charge
According to news reports, on June 5, a labor union representing Disney World character performers filed an unfair labor practice charge protesting the alleged chilling effect of a company policy forbidding performers from publicly disclosing which characters they portray. The irony is unavoidable, especially to any employer who has been targeted by the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) highly imaginative campaign to rid the working world of dormant unfair labor practices lurking in the wording of handbooks and policies. A Mickey Mouse ruling is inevitable.
—Keith H. McCown, partner (Boston), Morgan, Brown & Joy LLP
Employers would be wise to consider a change in approach to whistleblower risk-management
In recent years, Congress has enacted or expanded whistleblower protections under more than 30 statutory schemes affecting employers of all sizes and in various industries. As a result, many employers have dramatically changed their whistleblower risk-management approach. Best practices now include using multi-disciplinary management teams composed of legal, HR, compliance and risk management personnel to respond to and resolve whistleblower complaints; providing ombudsman support services to whistleblowers; and conducting independent review of all proposed adverse employment actions against known whistleblowers prior to implementation. Such practices can significantly reduce the number of whistleblower retaliation claims.
—Mary E. Pivec, partner (Washington, DC),
On joint employers
The NRLB's recent decision in Browning-Ferris Industries of California v. Sanitary Truck Drivers has fundamentally altered the standard for determining whether businesses are “joint employers” of the same employees. The previous standard focused on whether Business A exercised direct control over Business B's employees. Now, “joint employer” status may exist where Business A has authority to control essential terms and conditions of Business B employees' employment — even if Business A exercises this authority only indirectly or not at all. Many business relationships — including lessor-lessee, franchisor-franchisee and contractor-subcontractor — could be impacted by the new standard. Therefore, companies should evaluate their relationships to identify what control, direct or indirect, they may possess over the terms and conditions of other businesses' employees.
—Elizabeth F. Mason, Esq. partner (Boston)
FCRA violations
The surge of class actions against employers for Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) violations is largely due to the availability of statutory damages that can reach up to $1,000 per class member where “willfulness” is shown, even where no injury exists. At the same time, district courts are beginning to provide guidance on the nuanced issues these lawsuits raise, with a number of recent decisions treating FCRA willfulness as a question of law in class actions against employers. An understanding of these decisions will aid employers in reviewing their compliance with FCRA obligations and in forming their litigation strategy.
—Galit Knotz, counsel (Los Angeles)
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllInside Track: How 2 Big Financial Stories—an Antitrust Case and a Megamerger—Became Intertwined
AT&T General Counsel Joins ADM Board as Company Reels From Accounting Scandal
How Gen AI Is Changing Legal Work for In-House Counsel
Trump Likely to Keep Up Antitrust Enforcement, but Dial Back the Antagonism
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 3Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 4Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250