California Employment Law Update : Labor and Employment Lawyers & Attorneys : Proskauer Rose Law Firm : Wage & Hour Laws, Disability, Workplace Safety

 Wednesday, October 12, 2011

10:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m. PST
12:00 p.m. – 1:00 p.m. CST
1:00 p.m. – 2:00 p.m. EST

Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and the rest of the new social networking media have not only revolutionized the ways employees communicate with each other, both on and off the job, but have raised a host of new problems for employers. Not surprisingly, social media is also changing the face of litigation, something with which employers must increasingly learn to cope.

Please join us for a fast-paced hour-long webinar that talks about the problems and challenges social media pose in employment litigations and how employers can best deal with them. This is not just another social media program – but a program focused on what employers need to be doing now to prepare for the unique problems social media pose in employment litigations, including:

• The latest case law regarding social media
• Suggested employment policies regarding social media
• Social media in discovery or e-discovery in employment law litigation with suggested language for discovery requests
• Using (or not using) social media and or Web-based searches in hiring and the potential issues this type of search raises

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks

As we reported previously, in December 2007 the National Labor Relations Board issued a decision relating to company e-mail policies in The Guard Publishing Company, d/b/a The Register-Guard, 351 NLRB No. 70 (2007), holding that an employer (i) may restrict the use of its computer systems to business related uses only, and (ii) could distinguish between personal and organizational solicitation in enforcing its no-solicitation policy.

Earlier this week, in The Register-Guard v. NLRB, No. 07-1528 (D.C. Cir July 7, 2009), the D.C. Circuit issued its decision reversing, in part, the Board’s decision.

Neither party requested review of (and, thus, the court did not address) the Board’s general holding that allowed restricting the use of company e-mail to business purposes.  The Court also chose not to address the Board’s position on distinguishing between the types of solicitation. Instead, it held that based on the facts of this particular case — where the policy in question did not actually make a distinction between types of solicitation — the employer could not discipline an employee for a union-related solicitation. As discussed below, the decision highlights the risks to employers who act based on the current Board law in the absence of a clear written policy that makes an explicit distinction between types of solicitation. Moreover, even if employers have such a policy now, the future Obama Board is likely to modify the current law.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks

Chau v. Starbucks Corp., 174 Cal. App. 4th 688 (2009)

Jou Chau, a former Starbucks “barista,” brought a class action against the company, challenging Starbucks’ policy of permitting shift supervisors to share in tips that customers place in a collective tip box. Chau alleged the policy violated California’s Unfair Competition Law based on a violation of Labor Code § 351. The trial court certified a class consisting of thousands of current and former baristas from 1,350 Starbucks stores in California and, after finding liability, awarded the class $86 million in restitution. The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment, concluding that Starbucks had not violated the statute by allowing the shift supervisors (who spent more than 90 percent of their time performing the same service tasks as the baristas) to keep a portion of the collective tips merely because those employees also had limited supervisory duties.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks

As of this writing, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has confirmed 109 cases of the H1N1 virus, commonly known as swine flu, in the United States. The World Health Organization has confirmed 331 cases of swine flu worldwide and has raised the pandemic threat level to Phase 5 on its six-step scale (Phase 5 designation essentially means that infections from the outbreak that originated in Mexico have been jumping from person to person with relative ease). This Client Alert outlines a few of the myriad legal issues that employers may face with regard to swine flu. As every situation is different, employers are strongly encouraged to seek the advice of counsel with respect to any questions related to these issues. We are, of course, available to provide a more detailed analysis as to any of the matters discussed below or to advise on any other questions that you may have on pandemic flu planning and its implications for the workplace.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks

Recent changes in the legal and economic landscape have significantly heightened the risk that employers’ compensation systems will come under attack. Congress has passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (“Ledbetter”), which effectively waives the statute of limitations for compensation discrimination claims under the majority of federal employment statutes. The law increases a plaintiff’s ability to recover for compensation discrimination, by placing into issue each and every decision impacting pay, starting from the date of initial hire, rather than just those decisions that occurred within statutory filing period. The law has made the issue of pay equity a hot button issue. Plaintiffs’ attorneys and government regulators are primed for attack.¹

The Obama administration also has brought the specter of increased EEOC and OFCCP enforcement activity, as well as the possibility of additional proemployee legislation in the pay discrimination arena. Of note is the Paycheck Fairness Act (“PFA”), which, if passed in its current form, would substantially amend the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and make it significantly easier for employees to establish unlawful pay discrimination. The PFA broadens the categories of employees that plaintiffs can claim as comparators for purposes of showing pay inequity; it sharply curtails the affirmative defenses available to employers; it makes it easier for plaintiff’s attorneys to bring large class-action lawsuits, and it permits uncapped compensatory and punitive damages. It also allows the OFCCP to use a simplistic and often inaccurate “pay grade methodology” when identifying federal contractors unjustly investigated and make it more difficult for them to defend against agency audits.

Coupled with these legal developments have been a rash of company layoffs, rising unemployment, and an increasing number of employees and former employees who face difficult financial plights. All of these forces make employee compensation discrimination lawsuits more likely. Conducting internal audits to identify disparities in compensation that might be subject to legal challenge, and appropriately addressing such disparities, is one of the best ways to prevent pay discrimination lawsuits and to place your organization in the most favorable position should they occur. This Tip of the Month provides guidance for in-house counsel and human resources executives when undertaking such audits.

^{_________________________
1} For more information on the Ledbetter Act see our Client Alert about it.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks