Employment Law Watch : Employment & Labor Lawyer & Attorney : Reed Smith Law Firm

There has long been talk of amending the upper limit on the compensatory award for unfair dismissals, and we now have confirmation and details of this new statutory cap. 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Mark Goldstein contributed to the content of this post.

Just weeks after one New York federal judge gave employers a small glimmer of hope by ruling that a group of former interns could not sue as a class, another on Tuesday dashed employers’ hopes by ruling that a group of former interns who worked on the film “Black Swan” should have been classified and paid as employees. Judge William H. Pauley III reasoned that because the interns’ work more closely resembled that of a traditional employee, they should be able to seek unpaid wages from their former employer. Glatt, et al. v. Fox Searchlight Pictures Inc., et al., 11 Civ. 6784 (S.D.N.Y.).

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Steven B. Katz wrote a new article on Forbes about Monday’s U.S. Supreme Court decision in Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter.   Read the full article here.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The California courts say they like arbitration. But they don’t like the Federal Arbitration Act. Not one little bit. Especially that part about the FAA requiring that “private agreements to arbitrate are enforced according to their terms,” and barring any state rule that “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives” of the FAA. AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. ––, 131 S.Ct. 1740, 1753, 1773 (2011). You see, California prides itself on its public policy, and it doesn’t like to see the “supreme law of the land” get in the way.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

California employers, who, only thirteen months ago, thought they no longer had to worry about wage/hour class actions by employees over meal and other rest breaks need to worry again.

When the California Supreme Court handed down its blockbuster decision in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.4th 1004 (2012), thirteen months ago, California employers collectively sighed in relief. Why? Because Brinker’s main holding was that employers only need to provide an opportunity for employees to take meal breaks. There was no need for employees to actually clock out and stop work for breaks. Because liability turned on whether an employee consented to missing a break, most observers concluded that such an inherently employee-by-employee would make class action lawsuits and class-based relief impossible, unless a rash employer prohibited employees from taking breaks.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Julia Fradkin contributed to the content of this post.

The latest edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) hit the shelves of doctors’ offices and has created additional headaches for employers already struggling with accommodating claimed mental disabilities. The DSM-5 is the standard classification of mental disorders used by mental health professionals and is the single most important guide in diagnosing mental disorders. The newest edition replaces the DSM-IV, in operation for almost two decades, and it supposedly “better characterize symptoms and behaviors of groups of people who are currently seeking clinical help but whose symptoms are not well defined by DSM-IV.”

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Unpaid internships are a mutually beneficial staple of the American business landscape. They provide raw workers, generally students, with a glimpse into a particular industry at no cost to the company. Especially in these uncertain economic times, internships provide unemployed students with crucial real-world experience. But no good deed goes unpunished. In the past few years, several high-profile companies have fallen victim to lawsuits brought by former interns for alleged wage and hour violations. Recently, however, this wave of class action litigation hit a major roadblock. 

To view the entire post on Forbes.com, click here.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

It has been a busy few weeks with several new interesting employment cases being reported – here is a quick round up of a few that caught our eye: 

There is yet another warning to employers on the importance of getting that contract drafting just right, as Blackburn Rovers found out to their cost (that cost being £2.25 million). And victimisation has been a hot topic in the last few weeks – we look at three new important victimisation cases below. 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

May 28^th marks the anniversary of the effective date for the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, the first bill signed into law by President Obama.  The Act sparked renewed focus on improving wage-equality for the American workforce and continues to be an important  goal for administrative agencies such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.  Employers are encouraged to review their wage/hour policies to ensure they are up-to-date and compliant with federal and state laws.

To read the entire post on Forbes.com, click here.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On Tuesday, another appeals court struck down an NLRB rule that would have required millions of businesses to display posters informing workers of their right to form a union and engage in other concerted activity.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that the NLRB rule violated employers’ free speech rights by forcing them to display the posters or face charges of committing an unfair labor practice.

To read the entire post on Forbes.com, click here.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Q:        What is easiest way to get rid of a wage and hour class action?  

A:        Making an offer of judgment to moot the named plaintiff’s claim by proposing to pay him or her an amount that will fully satisfy his or her entire individual claim.

This is exactly the strategy that the employer utilized and which, at first blush, the U.S. Supreme Court approved in Genesis Healthcare Corp v. Symczyk. But don’t get too excited, a quick review of Genesis establishes that its utility will likely be limited. 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The draft Employment Tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal Fees Order 2013 (the “Order”) has just been published by Parliament, giving us an insight into how the new Employment Tribunal fee structure will operate when it comes into force, expected to be this summer. 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Reed Smith’s Labor & Employment group writes The Employment Beat, a new blog on Forbes.com. The Reed Smith Employment Beat alerts employers and management-leaning readers on breaking news they need NOW to react to the ever-challenging legal and practical demands of today’s workplace.

During the week of April 15, 2013, two events occurred that may have a significant impact for companies’ immigration-related employment practices: the Boston marathon attack and the introduction of the Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Modernization Act of 2013. This article will address an employer’s responsibilities in light of both of these events, and as immigration reform moves from mere discussion to reality.

To read the entire post on Forbes.com, click here.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Today we take a brief look at a couple of interesting employment law cases from the last two weeks: Anderson v London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority  shows us how not to draft a pay review clause, and HM Land Registry v McGlue looks at when aggravated damages in discrimination cases might be appropriate.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link