NLRB changes damages presumptions when employer refuses to hire paid union organizersBy Michael R. LiedLabor and Employment Law, August 2007In Oil Capital Sheet Metal, Inc., 349 NLRB No. 118 (2007), the Complaint alleged, and the Administrative Law Judge found, that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(3) of the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to hire Couch, a paid union organizer.
Failure to insure contraceptives was not sex discriminationBy Michael R. LiedLabor and Employment Law, June 2007Union Pacific Railroad provided health care benefits to its employees who were covered by collective bargaining agreements. While the health plans provided benefits for services such as routine physical exams, they excluded coverage for a number of things. They excluded both male and female contraceptive methods, prescription and non- prescription, when used for the sole purpose of contraception. The health plans only covered contraception when medically necessary for a non-contraceptive purpose.
Mass flu outbreak: Employment implicationsBy Michael R. LiedLabor and Employment Law, June 2007Not “if” but “when.” According to the Director of the Centers for Disease Control (“CDC”), a pandemic, likely an influenza break- out, is inevitable. Some CDC recommendations have employment law implications. For example, if employees become ill, an obvious issue may be the need to satisfy Family and Medical Leave Act obligations. There may also be issues under the Occupational Safety and Health Act. There could be implications under the Fair Labor Standards Act for employees who are required to work from home. For employers with a union, there may be labor law issues.
Employer’s handbook rules discourage protected labor activityBy Michael R. LiedLabor and Employment Law, March 2007The lesson in Guardsmark, LLC v. N.L.R.B. is that it is important to review handbook language to assure that it does not violate Federal labor law.
NLRB decides successorship issuesBy Michael R. LiedLabor and Employment Law, September 2006In Planned Building Services, Inc., 347 NLRB No. 64, the National Labor Relations Board (“Board”) considered what it describes as two significant issues: (1) the appropriate analytical framework to be applied in determining whether an alleged successor employer has unlawfully refused to hire its predecessor’s employees to avoid a bargaining obligation; and (2) the appropriate make-whole remedy when a successor employer discriminatorily denies employment to its predecessor’s employees and violates its duty to bargain by unilaterally setting initial terms and conditions of employment.
No workers’ compensation benefits for injury at company-sponsored picnicBy Michael R. LiedLabor and Employment Law, September 2006Allstate Insurance planned a company picnic for July 21, 2000. The picnic occurred on Allstate’s grounds, it was attended exclusively by Allstate employees, and Allstate provided all the materials and equipment.
Union violated labor law by photographing employeesBy Michael R. LiedLabor and Employment Law, September 2006Randell Warehouse of Arizona, Inc., 347 NLRB No. 56 (“Randell II”), presented the issue of whether a union’s unexplained photographing of employees while union representatives distributed campaign literature to them prior to an election constituted objectionable conduct.
Employee dress and grooming policiesBy Michael R. LiedLabor and Employment Law, August 2006Recently, the full Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, often considered a fairly liberal Court, rejected a plaintiff’s claim that the employer’s requirement that she wear makeup constituted sex discrimination.
Proposed rule provides employer guidance on Social Security “No-Match” lettersBy Michael R. LiedLabor and Employment Law, August 2006Employers annually send the Social Security Administration (SSA) millions of earnings reports (W-2 Forms) in which the combination of employee name and social security number (SSN) does not match SSA records.
Supreme Court makes retaliation claims more dangerous for employersBy Michael R. LiedLabor and Employment Law, August 2006Claims of retaliation have been increasing in recent years. For example, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has received more than 22,000 charges alleging retaliation in each of the last five years.
Employee destroys computer files and violates Computer Fraud and Abuse ActBy Michael R. LiedLabor and Employment Law, July 2006In International Airport Centers, L.L.C., et al., v. Jacob Citrin, 440 F.3d 418 (7th Cir. 2006), Citrin was employed to identify properties that IAC might want to acquire, and to assist in any later acquisitions. IAC provided Citrin a laptop to use to record data that he collected in the course of his work.
Employee must arbitrate retaliatory discharge claimBy Michael R. LiedLabor and Employment Law, July 2006Joann Melena joined Anheuser-Busch as a nonunion employee at its distribution center in Mt. Vernon, Illinois in February 1999.
New VESSA rules announcedBy Michael R. LiedLabor and Employment Law, July 2006The Victim’s Economic Security and Safety Act (“VESSA”) allows for up to 12 weeks for unpaid leave in a 12-month period to allow employees or household members who are the victims of domestic or sexual violence to take time off to pursue such matters as court hearings, counseling, relocating, and seeking medical or legal services to insure the victim’s safety.
Faulty release fails to bar age discrimination claimsBy Michael R. LiedLabor and Employment Law, January 2006In Kruchowski, et al. v. Weyerhaeuser Co., the group of plaintiffs signed a release of claims, in order to obtain a severance package.
Personal Information Protection Act requires notification of security breachesBy Michael R. LiedHuman and Civil Rights, August 2005A new Illinois statute, effective January 1, 2006, requires entities which collect personal data to notify individuals when there has been a breach of computer system security and where personal information may have been acquired.
The problems of religion in the workplaceBy Michael R. LiedLabor and Employment Law, February 2005Ever since 1964, Federal law has prohibited discrimination based on religion.
“Similar” is not “equal”-Or is it? Equal pay issuesBy Michael R. LiedLabor and Employment Law, February 2005Sandra Wheatley was the director of the Wicomico County, Maryland, Emergency Services Department, and Jane Grogan was the deputy director.
Wachovia Corporation will pay $5.5M for compensation discriminationBy Michael R. LiedLabor and Employment Law, February 2005The United States Department of Labor, Office of the Federal Contract Compliance Programs, undertook a corporate management review of the headquarters of First Union National Bank in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Work authorization updatesBy Michael R. LiedLabor and Employment Law, February 2005All employers must ensure proper completion of the Employment Eligibility Verification form (Form I-9) for each newly hired employee, including U.S. citizens and aliens.
Employer blows filing deadlineBy Michael R. LiedLabor and Employment Law, November 2004Ferrari v. Illinois Department of Human Rights, _____ Ill. App. 3d ____, 815 N.E.2d 417, 287 Ill. Dec. 14 (4th Dist. 2004), is a cautionary case for employers-miss filing deadlines at your peril.
Illinois enacts Right to Breastfeed ActBy Michael R. LiedLabor and Employment Law, November 2004On August 16, 2004, the Illinois Right to Breastfeed Act became effective.
Casino’s policies violate National Labor Relations ActBy Michael R. LiedLabor and Employment Law, August 2004In Double Eagle Hotel and Casino, 341 NLRB No. 17 (2004), a three-member panel of the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB") found that several of the casino's policies violated the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA").
No earrings for men: Is that a problem?By Michael R. LiedLabor and Employment Law, August 2004In Pecenka v. Fareway Stores, Inc., 672 N.W.2d 800 (2003), the Iowa Supreme Court decided the employer did not violate Federal or Iowa law by barring male employees from wearing earrings.
Restrictive covenant / covenant not to compete updateBy Michael R. LiedLabor and Employment Law, June 2004The courts continue to churn out cases interpreting restrictive covenants in the employment context. An analysis of some recent cases follows.
The plaintiff’s depositionBy Michael R. LiedLabor and Employment Law, February 2004There are a number of things that defense counsel may hope to accomplish in the plaintiff's deposition. Counsel may want to both fully understand and seek to narrow the plaintiff's claims.
Spot an error in your article? Contact Celeste Niemann at cniemann@isba.org. For information on obtaining a copy of an article, visit the ISBA Newsletters page.
