The Supreme Court once again has shown its strong preference for enforcing the terms of arbitration agreements as written by the parties. In Henry Schein Inc. v. Archer & White Sales Inc., Justice Kavanaugh’s first written opinion, the Court held that when an arbitration agreement delegates the threshold question of arbitrability to an arbitrator, the arbitrator, not a court, should decide the question, even if it is clear to a court that the dispute is not covered by the arbitration agreement. This unanimous opinion adds to a growing body of recent Supreme Court case law making clear that the terms of arbitration agreements, like any other contract, should be enforced as written and without policy considerations or exceptions. Continue Reading Supreme Court Enforces Yet Another Arbitration Agreement
Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP is pleased to announce the addition of Natalie Tynan to its national labor and employment practice. Tynan joins the firm’s immigration group as a senior attorney in Washington.
As the new year gets off to a start, employers in the retail industry will be making wage adjustments to meet current and future minimum wage increases. Employees in 21 states around the country will see their state’s minimum wage increase.
The National Labor Relations Board’s current joint employer standard received a mixed review from a federal circuit court late last month, providing some guidance on how courts may evaluate the Board’s ongoing rulemaking efforts.
Effective January 1, 2019, California’s minimum wage increased from $11.00 to $12.00 per hour. This increase applies to all employers who employ 26 or more employees (“large employers”). For employers with 25 or fewer employees (“small employers”), the minimum wage increased from $10.50 to $11.00 per hour. (In fact, all employers ultimately will pay a statewide minimum wage of $15.00 per hour, although the timing of the increase depends on the employer’s size: for large employers, California’s minimum wage will increase by $1.00 on a yearly basis through January 1, 2022, and for small employers, California’s minimum wage will increase by $1.00 on a yearly basis through January 1, 2023. Cal. Lab. Code § 1182.12).
The Scope of the Issue
The Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”) has been the source of a tremendous amount of litigation since President George H.W. Bush signed it into law in 1990. Over the past few years, Plaintiffs’ counsel have developed a cottage industry of sorts by filing thousands of lawsuits alleging that company websites are not accessible to the blind or visually impaired, in violation of Title III of the ADA, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in “places of public accommodation.” 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a). While ADA lawsuits previously focused on physical access barriers to businesses, these new lawsuits allege that: (1) private company websites qualify as places of public accommodation; and, (2) websites with access barriers (e.g., websites without compatible screen-reading software) deny plaintiffs the right of equal access. Plaintiffs have also challenged the accessibility of mobile applications and online job application interfaces.
The Federal government has entered its 12th day of partial shutdown, making it the fourth longest in American history to date. But, not all government departments are affected, and the Department of Labor is one that is not. The DOL is already fully funded for 2019, so the current stalemate between Congress and the President does not affect its resources.
California’s legislature and courts have acted to curb an employer’s ability to recover its fees and costs when it prevails in a lawsuit brought under California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”, Government Code § 12940 et seq.), even if the plaintiff employee rejected the employer’s Code of Civil Procedure Section 998 offer to compromise. Continue Reading California: No Fee Award For Prevailing Employer in FEHA Action Even Where 998 Offer Rejected
Before the lame duck period of the 115th Congress, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and a group of 58 Democrat co-sponsors, introduced the Restoring Justice for Workers Act (H.R. 7109), which would prohibit employers from requiring employees to sign mandatory arbitration agreements.
In Hernandez v. Pacific Bell Co., a California court held that employees who drive between their homes and a client worksite (in this case, a customer’s residence) using a company vehicle under the company’s voluntary vehicle take-home program need not be compensated for the commute time.