New Jersey Adopts State-Wide Mandatory Paid Sick Leave

Posted in Wage & Hour

Earlier this month, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy signed a much-anticipated state-wide paid sick leave law.  The law, which will go into effect Oct. 29, 2018, requires all New Jersey employers – regardless of size – to provide paid sick leave to their employees, whether full- or part-time.  Notably, while dubbed the “paid sick leave bill,” the law also requires employers to pay “sick” leave to employees absent from work for reasons wholly unrelated to their own or a family member’s illness.   In this GT Alert, we outline the law’s key provisions.

Continue Reading.

California Supreme Court Creates New Worker Classification Test

Posted in State Law, Wage & Hour

On Monday, April 30, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued its long-awaited ruling in Dynamex Operations West v. Superior Court. The new ruling adopts a new worker classification test and makes it easier for independent contractors to be found to be employees under California Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) wage orders, which impose obligations relating to minimum wages, maximum hours, overtime, and a number of very basic working conditions such as minimally required meal and rest breaks. Whether it will impact compliance issues beyond the Wage Orders remains to be seen.  This decision will impact employers who rely on independent contractors to conduct their business.

Continue Reading.

Revisiting the Great Joint Employment Debate

Posted in EEOC, NLRB

Michael J. Slocum authored a New Jersey Law Journal article titled “Revisiting the Great Joint Employment Debate: From ‘Browning-Ferris’ to ‘Hy-Brand’ and Beyond.” The article discusses the joint employment doctrine under the National Labor Relations Act.

To read the article, click here.

Ninth Circuit: Employers May Not Consider Salary History in Deciding to Pay Men and Woman Differently

Posted in Compensation, Discrimination, Wage & Hour

The day before Equal Pay Day, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, ruled that employers defending claims under the Equal Pay Act cannot rely on workers’ past salaries in any respect in trying to justify pay disparities between women and men. Aileen Rizo v. Jim Yovino, 16-15372, 2018 WL 1702982 (9th Cir. Apr. 9, 2018) (en banc). This ruling expressly overturns the Ninth Circuit’s prior holding in Kouba v. Allstate Insurance Co., 691 F.2d 873 (9th Cir. 1982), conflicts with rulings from other circuits, and tees up a very important issue for potential Supreme Court review.

Continue Reading.

Supreme Court Rejects Practice of Construing Fair Labor Standards Act Exemptions Narrowly

Posted in Department of Labor, FLSA

On April 2, 2018, in a 5-4 decision, the United States Supreme Court held that automobile service advisors are not entitled to overtime pay. Although the precise holding is of limited application because few companies outside car dealerships employ individuals as automobile service advisors, the Supreme Court’s analysis will have wide-reaching application. Departing from years of contrary thinking, the decision definitively states there is no basis for construing exemptions to the minimum wage and overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) narrowly. This is a major victory for employers, who have long faced the frequently-intoned argument that courts must construe the FLSA’s exemptions narrowly against them.

Continue Reading.

New Jersey Legislation Raises the Stakes in Unequal Pay Claims

Posted in Discrimination, Wage & Hour

Last week, the New Jersey Legislature passed a high profile bill proposing sweeping amendments to New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination (LAD). The most noteworthy amendments are designed to broaden LAD’s protections against alleged discriminatory pay practices. If Governor Murphy signs the bill into law, as is almost certain, New Jersey’s equal pay law will be among the nation’s most expansive laws of its kind and will carry severe penalties for employers who run afoul of its mandates.

Continue Reading.

Federal Law Reaches a Tipping Point

Posted in Department of Labor, FLSA

On March 23, 2018, President Trump signed into law the 2,232-page Omnibus Appropriations bill – HR 1625, Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY 2018, which funds the government for the rest of the fiscal year. Included in that bill were a few paragraphs that prohibit restaurant owners from sharing server tips with supervisors, managers, or themselves.

Continue Reading.

Unique Strategy in ERISA Class Action Results in Zero Liability to Defendants

Posted in Employee Stock Ownership Plan, ERISA & Employee Benefits Litigation

In Wema Hoover v. Brijon Management & Employee Leasing Services, et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-05786-MAS-DEA (D. N.J.), a former employee of Brijon Management & Employee Leasing Services, Inc. (Brijon) and a participant in the Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) sponsored by Brijon filed a class action complaint alleging that Brijon, its former Chief Executive Officer (CEO), and others violated ERISA when they approved the ESOP’s sale of 100 percent of Brijon’s stock to Defendant CarolBri, LLC (CarolBri), an entity partially owned by Brijon’s former CEO, for an amount that plaintiff alleged was less than the fair market value of the stock.

Continue Reading.

GT Publishes a Multi-Country Survey with the ACC on Covenants Not to Compete

Posted in International Labor & Employment

Greenberg Traurig recently published a multi-country survey InfoPAKSM on covenants not to compete through the Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC). Covenants not to compete are important for employers to consider in order to protect proprietary information such as trade secrets, intellectual property, and highly confidential information. However, these post- employment restrictions vary country by country. These differences should be considered when an employer enters into an agreement with an employee.

Continue Reading.

Broadening the Scope of LGBT Rights Under Title VII: A Practitioner’s Guide to Zarda v. Altitude Express

Posted in Discrimination

On Feb. 26, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit handed down an en banc ruling in the case of Zarda v. Altitude Express, holding in a 10-3 decision that Title VII prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.  Addressing a case in which a sky diving instructor was allegedly terminated for being gay, the Court employed three separate theories to reach the conclusion that sexual orientation discrimination constitutes a form of sex discrimination (which, of course, is explicitly banned by Title VII):

  • The “Because of Sex” Theory: This theory takes a literal, textualist approach to interpreting Title VII, concluding that the statute’s plain language—which prohibits discrimination “because of . . . sex”—is inclusive of sexual orientation discrimination. In particular, the Second Circuit examined Title VII’s language from a “comparative” posture, reasoning that if an employer would not discriminate against a female employee who dated males (e., a heterosexual employee), but would discriminate against a male employee who dated males (i.e., a homosexual employee), then such discrimination is “because of . . . sex” and is duly outlawed by Title VII.

Continue Reading.