Mealey's Employment

  • April 23, 2024

    Arguments On Staying Or Dismissing Pending Arbitration Heard By U.S. High Court

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — Attorneys representing delivery drivers and the individual owners and managers of Intelliserve and related corporate entities (together, Intelliserve) presented oral arguments to the U.S. Supreme Court on April 22 in a dispute over the dismissal rather than the stay of a case alleging wage-and-hour violations where both sides agreed that the claims were subject to arbitration.

  • April 22, 2024

    U.S. High Court Denies Domino’s FAA Petition In Truck Drivers’ Expenses Case

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on April 22 denied a petition for a writ of certiorari filed by Domino’s Pizza LLC after the company’s truck drivers (D&S drivers) were found by the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals to be exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) in their class case alleging unreimbursed business expenses and violation of California’s unfair competition law (UCL).

  • April 22, 2024

    Amazon’s High Court Petition Denied In Flex Delivery Drivers’ Tips Class Suit

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on April 22 denied a petition for a writ of certiorari by Inc. and Amazon Logistics Inc. (together, Amazon) concerning the applicability of Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) Section 1’s exemption to Amazon Flex delivery drivers in a class case over tips.

  • April 19, 2024

    Plaintiffs Win Little In Suit Over Business Deal Involving Reinsurance Distributor

    MIAMI — Following a bench trial over “a failed business relationship” involving a managed health care reinsurance distribution company, a Florida federal judge ruled for the defendants on claims for breaches of an asset purchase agreement (APA) and the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, but found that the plaintiffs proved breach of employment agreements based on disparaging comments and salary miscalculations.

  • April 19, 2024

    Car Dealerships Will Pay $325,000 To End EEOC Disability, Age Bias Suit

    TEXARKANA, Texas — A Texas company that owns car dealerships will pay $325,000 and provide other relief to settle a lawsuit by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in a Texas federal court alleging that the employer fired a senior sales executive to avoid medical costs related to his cancer diagnosis, the EEOC announced.

  • April 18, 2024

    2nd Circuit Affirms $13M Ruling For Multiemployer Fund In Withdrawal Liability Row

    NEW YORK — In a per curiam opinion upholding confirmation of a roughly $13 million award, a Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel agreed with an arbitrator that the appellant’s predecessor “was not operating in the business and construction industry” and so didn’t quality for an exemption from withdrawal liability under part of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

  • April 18, 2024

    EEOC Complaint Accuses Sheetz Of Racially Biased Hiring Practices

    BALTIMORE — Sheetz Inc., Sheetz Distribution Services LLC and CLI Transport LP (together, Sheetz) discriminate against classes of Black, Native American and other multiracial applicants based on their race by screening for criminal convictions and then denying employment based on them, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleges in a complaint filed April 17 in a federal court in Maryland.

  • April 17, 2024

    Judge Issues Limited Stay In Catholic Employment Groups’ Gender Transition Case

    FARGO, N.D. — Because a forthcoming final rule governing Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Section 1557 could impact some portions of religious employers’ case, the action can be stayed until May 1, after which if the rule is not yet finalized the government defendants must answer the complaint, a federal judge in North Dakota said April 16.

  • April 17, 2024

    U.S. High Court: Job Transfer Bias Suit Must Show Harm, Not ‘Significant’ Harm

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — An employee alleging that a lateral job transfer constitutes discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 must show harm, but that showing need not be of “‘significant’ harm,” the U.S. Supreme Court ruled April 17 in an appeal by a St. Louis Police Department sergeant who alleged that her transfer from a position as patrol detective to the Intelligence Division was discriminatory.

  • April 17, 2024

    Jack In The Box Workers Partially Awarded Attorney Fees, Costs In Wage Suit

    PORTLAND, Ore. — Motions for attorney fees and costs by both sides in a wage-and-hour suit brought by a class of Jack in the Box Inc. workers who saw some success with their claims were partially granted and partially denied by a federal judge in Oregon who ruled that the workers were entitled to a portion of the attorney fees and costs they sought and that the employer was entitled to no attorney fees but was entitled to a portion of the amount it sought for witness fees and other costs.

  • April 16, 2024

    California Appeals Court Upholds Judgment, Sanctions In On-Call Rest Periods Case

    SAN FRANCISCO — A California trial court did not err in retroactively applying the state’s Emergency Ambulance Employee Safety and Preparedness Act (EAESPA) to a putative class complaint by an ambulance service employee arguing that she and others were improperly denied rest breaks as they were required to remain on call and did not abuse its discretion in imposing $2,000 in sanctions against the worker’s counsel after they refused to dismiss the lawsuit, a California appellate panel ruled, opining in part that the retroactive application of the EAESPA had already been considered and ruled on.

  • April 16, 2024

    Divided U.S. High Court Rules On Veterans’ Education Benefits

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — Service members who earn education benefits under both the Montgomery GI Bill and the Post-9/11 GI Bill may use the benefits under either one in any order up to the 48-month aggregate cap provided in 38 U.S. Code Section 3695(a), the U.S. Supreme Court majority ruled this morning.

  • April 15, 2024

    EEOC Issues Final Rule Implementing The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on April 15 announced the issuance of the final rule implementing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) and stating that the rule will provide the clarity needed “that will allow pregnant workers the ability to work and maintain a healthy pregnancy and help employers understand their duties under the law.”

  • April 15, 2024

    Alabama Unemployment Applicants Seek Reinstatement Of Suit Over Pandemic Delays

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court should reverse the Alabama Supreme Court’s judgment upholding dismissal of a lawsuit over the delays in processing the large amount of applications filed due to the coronavirus pandemic for failure to exhaust administrative remedies as the case is resolved by Patsy v. Board of Regents, unemployment benefits applicants argue in their petitioner brief.

  • April 15, 2024

    COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate Scrutiny Question Won’t Be Answered By U.S. High Court

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on April 15 declined to answer a question posed by a Michigan State University (MSU) worker in putative class complaint concerning whether Jacobson v. Massachusetts requires that a governmental action such as a vaccine mandate is “subject to heightened scrutiny” and whether such a mandate by MSU failed that test.

  • April 15, 2024

    AI Hiring Company Says Court Got Illinois Jurisdiction Ruling Wrong

    CHICAGO — Illinois is an improper jurisdiction for an artificial intelligence-assisted interview case in which five of the six named plaintiffs were never in the state, and the court reached a contrary conclusion by relying on precedent ignoring that application software is not a product and the role a third party played in its use, the company argues in a motion for reconsideration of a federal judge in Illinois’ ruling denying a motion to dismiss.

  • April 12, 2024

    Unanimous High Court: Transportation Industry Work Not Needed For FAA Exemption

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — Employees who fall within the carveout in Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) for workers engaged in interstate commerce “‘must at least play a direct and ‘necessary role in the free flow of goods’ across borders,” but do not need to work in the transportation industry, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court ruled April 12, quoting from Sw. Airlines Co. v. Saxon.

  • April 11, 2024

    EEOC Says AI’s Use Doesn’t Redefine Employment Agency Status

    SAN FRANCISCO — Workday Inc.’s use of artificial intelligence and machine learning in screening and sorting job candidates offers a “more sophisticated means” of performing these tasks but does not differentiate the company from traditional employment agencies, the Equal Opportunity Employment Agency (EEOC) says in seeking to file an amicus curiae brief in support of a man who claims to have been discriminated against and is battling a motion to dismiss his case.

  • April 11, 2024

    Judge: Employee Who Quit After Refusing COVID Tests Not Constructively Discharged

    MINNEAPOLIS — A Minnesota federal judge granted the motion of a Minnesota county to dismiss the complaint of a former county public defender alleging that she was constructively discharged from her position and resigned under duress after she refused to submit to COVID-19 testing in lieu of vaccination as the county transitioned back to an in-office working environment, finding that the former employee failed to establish that she had suffered an adverse employment action.

  • April 11, 2024

    Staffing Company Will Pay $2.2M To Settle EEOC Hiring Discrimination Case

    LOS ANGELES — A temporary staffing agency will pay $2.2 million and enter into a consent decree requiring injunctive relief to end a lawsuit in a federal court in California alleging that the agency discriminated while hiring against a class consisting of Black, Asian, white and other non-Hispanic workers, male and female workers and workers with disabilities, the EEOC announced.

  • April 11, 2024

    Golf Attendants Seek Rehearing After 11th Circuit Agrees They Are Not Employees

    ATLANTA — Golf attendants at Palm Beach County, Fla., golf clubs who received discounted golf in exchange for their services filed a petition for rehearing after the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court’s judgment for the county in their putative class lawsuit, opining that the attendants are public-agency volunteers and not employees under federal and state law.

  • April 11, 2024

    D.C. Circuit Enforces NLRB’s Ruling In Cadillac Dealership Strike Speech Case

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — A District of Columbia Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel denied a petition for review filed by a car dealership in a union dispute after the National Labor Relations Board reconsidered a 2019 decision in light of General Motors LLC and reaffirmed the earlier finding that the firing of a union negotiator violated the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

  • April 11, 2024

    5th Circuit Denies Rehearing After Cutting $365M From FedEx Retaliation Verdict

    NEW ORLEANS — Treating a petition for rehearing en banc as one for a panel rehearing, the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals denied it and also denied rehearing en banc in a case in which the panel reduced a more than $366 million jury verdict against FedEx Corporate Services Inc. in a former employee’s retaliation case to $248,619.57.

  • April 11, 2024

    Ohio Jury Finds Worker’s 8 Conditions Were Aggravated By Injury, Must Be Covered

    SIDNEY, Ohio — A mechanical contractor’s employee’s eight disc bulge and spinal stenosis conditions were aggravated by an injury he sustained at work in 2003 and should be covered under workers’ compensation, an Ohio jury ruled in eight verdicts.

  • April 11, 2024

    D.C. Circuit: Evidence Didn’t Support NLRB’s Finding In Union Animus Case

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — The evidence presented against an employer accused of reminding a truck driver that he was being surveilled and issuing a written warning rather than a verbal one to another driver for an infraction was not sufficient to support a finding by the National Labor Relations Board that the employer disciplined them due to drivers’ support of unionization, a  District of Columbia Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel ruled, granting the employer’s petition for review and denying the NLRB’s cross-application.

Can't find the article you're looking for? Click here to search the Mealey's Employment archive.