Our Labor and Employment attorneys understand that employment class, collective, and mass action litigation presents special risks to employers, and are fully prepared to help employers maneuver through the special challenges these complex cases present.
Read More...
Hunton & Williams partner Terence Connor was ranked among the 100 Most Powerful Employment Attorneys for 2010 by Human Resources Executive magazine in its June 2010 edition. The ranking was selected on the basis of submissions by firms, evaluations by clients and peers, and research by Lawdragon, a media company offering legal news, online lawyer profiles, and rankings.
Continue Reading...Section 351 of California’s Labor Code prohibits employers from taking any gratuity patrons leave for their employees, and provides that such gratuity is “the sole property of the employee or employees to whom it was paid, given, or left for.” A number of Courts of Appeal have consistently held that this prohibition does not extend to employer-mandated tip pooling -- where employees must pool and share their tips with other employees. Louie Hung Kwei Lu, a former card dealer with Hawaiian Gardens Casino, Inc., decided to test these rulings.
Continue Reading...On July 19, 2010, the United States Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor and Treasury issued interim final regulations covering the mandates under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended (the “Health Care Reform Act”), relating to the internal and external claims review process. These requirements, which do not apply to grandfathered group health plans, substantially expand the claims review and appeals processes that group health plans must follow in administering claims. Because the new requirements apply as of the beginning of the first plan year on or after September 23, 2010, all group health plans, especially self-funded plans that administer claims internally, must begin taking action now to update their claims review processes and plan documentation to comply with the new rules.
According to recent federal court decisions, a shareholder, director, or other individual holding a similar position in a corporation may find his or her job status disqualifies him or her from legal relief under many state and federal anti-discrimination laws should such individual believe that he or she has been the subject of unfair treatment in the workplace. In Kirleis v. Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C., No. 09-4498 (3rd Circuit July 14, 2010), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed a district court’s ruling that a law firm shareholder was not an “employee” of the professional corporation protected by federal and state anti-discrimination laws.
Continue Reading...As reported on Hunton and Williams LLP’s Privacy and Information Security Law Blog, on August 10, 2010, Illinois Governor Pat Quinn signed the Employee Credit Privacy Act, which prohibits most Illinois employers from inquiring about an applicant’s or employee’s credit history or using an individual’s credit history as a basis for an employment decision. The definition of “employer” under the Act exempts banks, insurance companies, law enforcement agencies, debt collectors and state and local government agencies that require the use of credit history.
Continue Reading...On July 20, 2010, Hunton & Williams LLP announced the release of the first edition treatise Privacy and Data Security Law Deskbook (Aspen Publishers). The deskbook provides a detailed overview of the workplace issues affected by information privacy and data security law and is a practical one-stop loose-leaf guide for privacy professionals, compliance officers and lawyers responsible for privacy or data security.
Continue Reading...The USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (“FSIS”) is proposing an amendment to USDA regulations that would require meat and poultry processors to pay overtime to USDA inspectors who engage in donning and doffing activities that, when combined with the time spent engaged in inspection activities, result in more than 8 hours of work per day. The FSIS claims that the amendment is necessary to achieve compliance with the Supreme Court’s decision in IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez, 546 U.S. 21 (2005), and the Office of Personnel Management’s interpretation of that decision.
Continue Reading...The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held—consistent with other courts that have considered the issue—that “insurance agents are independent contractors and not employees for purposes of various federal employment statutes,” including ERISA, the ADEA, and Title VII. In Murray v. Principal Financial Group, Inc., case number 09-16664, the panel unanimously affirmed a district court order granting summary judgment in favor of a purported employer because it found that the plaintiff was an independent contractor, not an employee entitled to the protections of Title VII. The panel’s opinion clarifies the appropriate test for distinguishing between employees and independent contractors in the context of Title VII, and concludes that despite apparent precedent for multiple tests, there is, in fact, only one.
Continue Reading...Though the primary focus of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank”) is the reduction of systemic risk in financial markets and increased regulation of large financial institutions, Dodd-Frank also contains executive compensation, corporate governance and enforcement provisions applicable to most public companies. Some of these provisions are highlighted below. For more insights on the full range of business and legal issues associated with current market and regulatory changes, including the Dodd-Frank Act’s executive compensation, corporate governance and enforcement provisions, please visit Hunton & Williams LLP's Financial Industry Resource Center.
Continue Reading...An Indiana nursing home was found in violation of Title VII this month for acceding to a resident’s request for white-only healthcare providers. In Chaney v. Plainfield Healthcare Ctr., No. 09-3661 (7th Cir. July 20, 2010), a unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed a lower court’s ruling in favor of the nursing home and held that this was a clear violation of Title VII.
The nursing home, Plainfield Healthcare Center (“PHC”), housed a resident who did not want assistance from black nursing assistants. PHC complied with this racial preference by detailing on an assignment sheet, which employees received daily, that no black nursing assistants should enter the particular resident’s room or provide her with care. The court held that this policy violated Title VII by creating a racially-charged and hostile work environment, as the assignment sheet unambiguously and daily reminded plaintiff, a black nursing assistant, that certain residents preferred no black nursing assistants, and that unlike white aides, plaintiff was restricted in the rooms she could enter, the care that she could provide, and the patients she could assist.
PHC argued that long-term care facilities have obligations to their clients that place them in a different position than most employers. PHC further argued that Indiana regulations state that long-term care residents have a right to choose a personal attending physician and other providers of services, and that without the policy, PHC risked exposing black employees to racial harassment from the residents and therefore exposing itself to hostile workplace liability. The court found all of these arguments unavailing, instead offering several alternative courses of action that PHC could have taken, such as:
While this case is particularly relevant for providers of long-term care, it also serves as a reminder to all employers that if they cater to customers’ perceived racial preferences, they may be found in violation of Title VII. Employers faced with customers who demand service-providers of a certain race or ethnicity should, in lieu of formulating policies that accede to such demands, seek the advice of legal counsel to devise solutions that will not run afoul of Title VII.
This website is for general information purposes only. Information posted is not intended to be legal advice. For more information, please see the Disclaimer and Privacy Notice links.
Enter keywords:
