Earlier this year, we reported that New York City adopted The Establishing Protections for Freelance Workers Act, also known as the Freelance Isn’t Free Act, (the “Freelance Law”). As explained in our prior blog, under the Freelance Law, a company must: (1) provide a written contract when it contracts with a freelance worker for services worth $800 or more, (2) ensure that all payments to freelance workers are made on a timely basis and paid in full, and (3) prohibit any type of retaliatory or adverse action against freelance workers for exercising the rights granted to them under the Freelance Law.
Retailers and other employers regularly consider the backgrounds of job applicants and employees when making personnel decisions. It is not illegal for employers to ask questions about an applicant’s criminal history, or to require a background check. However, whenever an employer requests background information about a job applicant or employee, the employer must comply with federal and state laws. Within the last five years, employers have been put under increased scrutiny, especially when they require criminal background checks during the hiring process. This article summarizes recent legal trends regarding criminal background checks in the employment context, and discusses how employers—particularly those within the retail industry—can ensure compliance with the law. Continue Reading
In August 2016, the Department of Homeland Security proposed an “International Entrepreneur” parole rule that would allow qualifying foreign entrepreneurs to develop and grow their start-up companies in the United States. After public comment, the rule was finalized and released in the closing days of the previous Administration. Continue Reading
The Supreme Court’s decision on June 26 to take up the travel ban cases this fall, and in the meantime partially lift the injunction on the President’s travel ban, has created renewed uncertainty for certain travelers. Statements by the Departments of State and Homeland Security have brought some clarity, though many remain confused. Continue Reading
On June 12, 2017, the U.S. Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) Office of Labor-Management Standards published a notice of proposed rulemaking regarding its intention to rescind the so-called “persuader rule,” moving the DOL one step closer to withdrawing the controversial regulation introduced by the Obama administration. Continue Reading
In In re Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc. 855 F.3d 459 (2d Cir. 2017), the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a district court order subordinating the claims of former Lehman Bros. (“Lehman”) employees for undelivered equity-based compensation to those of the defunct bank’s general creditors. The Court determined the compensation benefits were securities that had been purchased by the former employees when they agreed to receive them in exchange for their labor and the asserted damages arose from those purchases, requiring the claims’ subordination under the Bankruptcy Code. The decision is important to employees and employers weighing the value of hybrid compensation packages and creditors seeking to safeguard their priority position among bankruptcy claimants. Continue Reading
The California Supreme Court issued its long awaited ruling in Mendoza v. Nordstrom, in which it clarified California’s so-called “day of rest” rule, which guarantees employees “one day’s rest therefrom in seven,” prohibits employers from “causing” its employees to work more than six days in seven, and exempts employees when, inter alia, the total hours of employment do not exceed 30 hours in any week or six hours in any one day. (Cal. Labor Code §§ 551, 552, 556.) Although part of California law since 1858 in one form or another, the day of rest rule had not been actively litigated until Plaintiffs Christopher Mendoza and Meagan Gordon brought a Private Attorney General Act claim against their former employer, Nordstrom, Inc. for allegedly failing to provide them, and other aggrieved employees, “one day’s rest therefrom in seven.” Nordstrom removed the case to federal court and prevailed at the district court level. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit asked the California Supreme Court to determine: Continue Reading
In November 2014, San Francisco passed the first predictive scheduling legislation in the country. Since that time, other states and municipalities have followed San Francisco’s lead, and have either proposed or enacted some variation of a predictive scheduling law.
On March 3, 2017, New York became the most recent major city to introduce predictive scheduling legislation. The New York City Council’s Committee on Civil Service and Labor introduced, and ultimately passed, a bill (Int. No. 1396-2016) that would implement predictive scheduling for non-salaried fast food employees. New York City’s legislation requires employers to post a worker’s schedule at least 14 days in advance, and to pay a premium if the schedule is changed with less than 14 days’ notice. Importantly, the bill creates a private right of action for employees seeking to enforce their rights. Mayor Bill de Blasio signed the predictive scheduling ordinance into law on May 30, 2017, and it will become effective in 180 days. Continue Reading
The U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) announced today that it was rolling back an Obama-era policy that attempted to increase regulatory oversight of joint employer and contractor businesses.
Courts and agencies use the joint employer doctrine to determine whether a business effectively controls the workplace policies of another company, such as a subsidiary or sub-contractor. That control could be over things like wages, the hiring process, or scheduling. Continue Reading
On May 23, the NLRB issued Road Sprinkler Fitters Local Union 669, finding that U.A. Local 669 (Union) violated the NLRA when it sought to apply and enforce facially valid anti-double breasting language in a national master labor contract to a dispute that it had with Firetrol Protection Systems, Inc. (Firetrol), a non-union company following an unsuccessful organizing campaign, and by, then, suing to compel Firetrol’s corporate parent, MX Holdings (MX), and several of its sister subsidiaries who had no involvement in the dispute to arbitrate and remedy the dispute. According to the Board, the Union’s conduct violated NLRA Sections 8(b)(4)(A) and (B) because it restrained and coerced MX and the other neutral employers with the dual objects of forcing them refuse to do business with Firetrol and forcing Firetrol to recognize and bargain with the Union — even though the Union had never been certified as the bargaining representative of Firetrol’s employees. The Firetrol decision can be found at 365 NLRB No. 83. Mark Ross and Keahn Morris represented Firetrol in this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact Sheppard Mullin with any questions regarding this decision.