Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives

On April 23, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, a case which examines what test the federal courts should apply when considering whether to grant preliminary injunctions under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act. Here’s what employers need to know while waiting for the Court to issue their opinion.

Although there is no federally-mandated paid leave for U.S. employees in the private sector, states have increasingly required that employers provide various forms of paid leave to their employees.  That trend continues as several states began imposing requirements upon employers to permit employees to accrue and use paid sick leave for certain medical situations for employees or members of employees’ immediate families.  Paid sick leave for employees in the private sector is now required by 17 states, the District of Columbia, and various municipalities around the country.

On Tuesday, April 23, 2024, the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) published the final version of a rule originally proposed in September 2023, raising the salary threshold for the Fair Labor Standards Act’s (“FLSA”) exemption for executive, administrative, professional, and computer employees and the total annual compensation level for the highly compensated employee exemption. The final rule also provides for periodic, automatic increases going forward. So, what should employers know about the final rule, and how can they stay compliant with this shifting landscape?

California lawmakers are considering passing a bill that would give employees the “right to disconnect” by ignoring after-hours calls, emails, and other communications from their employers.  The bill, AB 2751, introduced by Assemblyman Matt Haney (D-San Francisco), would add a Section 1198.2 to the Labor Code that would effectively prevent employers from contacting employees outside of working hours, with limited exceptions.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) voted on April 23 to approve a final rule banning most non-compete agreements between employers and their workers (Final Rule). The Final Rule is scheduled to go into effect 120 days after it is published in the Federal Register, which will likely occur in the next few weeks, though legal challenges may delay the Final Rule’s effective date and FTC enforcement actions.

In a welcome win for defendants litigating claims under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”), earlier this month a Northern District of Illinois magistrate judge denied a plaintiff’s motion to compel communications between defendant Union Pacific Railroad Company (“Union Pacific”) and the vendors that provided it with fingerprint-activated security gates.  Fleury v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., No. 20 C 390, 2024 WL 1620613, at *4-6 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 15, 2024).  In so doing, the court implicitly affirmed that, in a BIPA lawsuit, the common interest doctrine presumptively protects the communications between biometric technology vendors and their customers, regardless of which entities are named as defendants.  This ruling is a powerful tool in the BIPA landscape for employers (who are typically the customers in this scenario) and other defendants alike because it supports the ability of BIPA defendants to coordinate their defense strategy with entities who share their legal interest.  The opinion is also a good reminder, however, that vendors and their customers should use best practices early on in a BIPA litigation to maximize the scope of the common interest doctrine.

Employers contemplating a forced transfer of a worker will need to grapple with a new standard set out by the US Supreme Court under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the law that makes it unlawful to discriminate against workers based on various protected characteristics. The Supreme Court in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis issued an important ruling that clarifies the evidentiary standard employees must meet when asserting a discriminatory transfer claim against an employer under Title VII.   Prior to the Court’s decision, there was a Circuit split with most courts holding that an employee had to show a significant employment disadvantage to prevail on a claim that their transfer violated Title VII.  In its opinion, the Supreme Court held instead that an employee must show (i) the employer’s action was discriminatory, and (ii) that the employee suffered “some harm” respecting an “identifiable term or condition of employment” to state a claim for discrimination under Title VII.  The majority noted that the Court’s “some harm” standard is a downward departure from the type of evidence that lower courts had traditionally required to show discrimination under Title VII – namely, that an employee must suffer “significant,” “material,” or “serious” harm to have an actionable claim. 

The start of spring has brought with it important deadlines and announcements from the EEOC, OFCCP, and the OMB regarding the reporting of employee demographic data to the federal government.

As announced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) earlier this year, the 2023 EEO-1 data collection process will open on April 30, 2024 with a deadline to file by Tuesday, June 4, 2024. Private employers with at least 100 employees and federal contractors with at least 50 employees can begin to report their data as of April 30, 2024 in order to meet the deadline.

On March 6, 2024, President Biden issued an Executive Order designed to increase participation in the U.S. Department of Labor’s Registered Apprenticeship Program (“the Program”). The purpose of the Program is to connect job seekers looking to learn new skills with employers looking for qualified workers. 

On March 12, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed two separate district court decisions addressing how pizza delivery drivers should be reimbursed for their vehicle-related expenses under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The underlying cases involved minimum wage claims under the FLSA.  In both cases, the drivers alleged that their employers had not sufficiently reimbursed them for the expenses they incurred while using their personal vehicles to make deliveries, resulting in the employees earning less than the minimum wage.  One employer ...