Labor & Employment Law Practice Group Podcast
July has been a busy month for the Department of Labor (DOL). On July 6th, DOL published proposed revisions to the “white collar” overtime regulations which would more than double the minimum salary level required for exemption. On July 10th, DOL defended its 2011 tip credit regulations before the Ninth Circuit in Oregon Restaurant & Lodging v. Perez. Last week, on July 15th, DOL issued new guidance – an “Administrator’s Interpretation” – concluding that “most” workers are employees, not independent contractors. A decision on the validity of DOL’s home care worker regulations is expected any day from the D.C. Circuit in Home Care Association v. Weil, and in August, DOL is expected to issue a request for information on the use of electronic devices by overtime-protected employees outside of scheduled work hours. In this teleforum, the Bush Administration’s wage-hour team at DOL provided a briefing on these developments and discussed what else we can expect from DOL over the next 18 months.
Labor & Employment Law and Religious Liberties Practice Groups Podcast
- Paul DeCamp, Jackson Lewis P.C.
- Alexander J. Passantino, Seyfarth & Shaw
When is an employer liable or not liable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for refusing to hire an applicant or discharging an employee based on a “religious observance and practice?” We discussed the case decided on June 1, 2015 by the U.S. Supreme Court.on this Courthouse Steps Teleforum conference call.
Labor & Employment Law Practice Group Podcast
- Michael E. Rosman, General Counsel, Center for Individual Rights
On December 15, 2014, the National Labor Relations Board published a final rule amending its representation case procedures, which will become effective on April 14, 2015. According to the Board, the final rule retains the essentials of existing representation case procedures but removes “unnecessary barriers to the fair and expeditious resolution of representation cases.” Among other things, the rule shortens the election process to as few as 14 days from the current median time of 38 days, requires employers to give unions employees’ personal telephone numbers and email addresses, and makes post-election appeals discretionary with the Board rather than as of right.
The final rule has been challenged in lawsuits brought by employer associations in the U.S. District Courts for the District of Columbia and Western District of Texas. The complaints allege that the rule will restrict communication between employers and employees before an election, depriving employers of due process and speech rights and employees of information needed to decide intelligently how to vote.
Post-Argument SCOTUScast featuring Paul Mirengoff
- Homer L. Deakins, Jr., Chairman Emeritus, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.
- Brent Garren, Deputy General Counsel, Local 32BJ, Service Employees International Union
- Hon. John N. Raudabaugh, former member, National Labor Relations Board, Reed Larson Professor of Labor Law, Ave Maria School of Law, National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation
Paul E. Mirengoff January 27, 2015
On January 13, 2015, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Mach Mining v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. This case involves the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) Title VII duty to investigate claims of discrimination levied against an employer and to make good faith efforts to eliminate discriminatory employment practices before filing suit against that employer. The question this case asks is whether and to what extent a court may enforce the EEOC's duty to conciliate discrimination claims before filing suit.
To discuss the case, we have Mr. Paul Mirengoff, Mr. Mirengoff is a retired attorney in Washington, D.C. and is a blogger at powerlineblog.com. SCOTUScast 12-18-14 featuring Karen Harned
Karen Harned December 18, 2014
On December 8, 2014, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk. This case concerned whether time employees spend undergoing mandatory security screenings after work is compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), as amended by the Portal-to-Portal Act, which clarifies that certain activities are generally not compensable working time under the FLSA.
Justice Thomas delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court, which held that the time that employees spent waiting to undergo (and undergoing) security screenings is not compensable under the FLSA. Justice Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion, which Justice Kagan joined. The judgment of the Ninth Circuit was reversed.
To discuss the case, we have Karen Harned, who is the Executive Director of the National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center.