U.S. Supreme Court Reverses Ninth Circuit: Federal Arbitration Act Preempts California Law To Uphold Waiver of Class Action Option in Mandatory Arbitration

In AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, U.S., No. 09-893, 4/27/11, an ideologically divided U.S. Supreme Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) trumped California law to uphold class action waivers in arbitration. 

According to the majority opinion authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, a blanket prohibition on arbitration provisions requiring individual arbitration in favor of class-wide procedures would undermine the FAA's "liberal federal policy in favor of arbitration."  In so holding, the Court rejected the California Supreme Court rule in Discover Bank v. Superior Court, 36 Cal. 4th 148 (2005) that voided as unconscionable an arbitration clause containing a class action waiver. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had upheld the Discover Bank rule. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, disagreed with both courts and held that the Discover Bank rule impermissibly "interferes with arbitration" under the FAA.

AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, involving a consumer arbitration provision, has important implications for employers. Employers with mandatory pre-dispute arbitration agreements for employees should consider amending them to make collective class action relief impermissible. 

Stay tuned for further insight into arbitration and class action issues, including the eagerly awaited U.S. Supreme Court decision in WalMart over whether the court-certified class size is too broad. But, in pre-dispute arbitration, AT&T offers potential insulation from class action claims to at least employers and commercial service providers.

Philadelphia Joins the Movement To Ban Inquiries into Arrests and Convictions on Employment Applications

This post was written by Don A. Innamorato and Meghan O. Offer.

On April 13, 2011, Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter signed a new city ordinance that bans Philadelphia employers from asking applicants about their convictions during the initial phases of the hiring process and precludes them from ever asking about arrests which failed to result in a conviction. Due to become effective on July 12, 2011, the Fair Criminal Record Screenings Standards Ordinance (“the Ordinance”) applies to all City agencies (other than the courts and law enforcement agencies) and private employers with ten (10) or more employees working within the City of Philadelphia. Similar to the “Ban the Box” legislation passed by several states and other cities such as Atlanta, Baltimore and Chicago, and pending in Pennsylvania cities such as Pittsburgh, the Ordinance aims to prevent applicants with criminal records from being summarily excluded from the hiring process. 

The Ordinance completely bars employers from ever asking about or basing hiring decisions on an applicant’s history of arrests that failed to result in a conviction. The Ordinance broadly defines forbidden inquiries as any direct or indirect method of gathering information through any mode of communication. Forbidden methods would include job applications and a recruiter’s written or oral requests for information. Although not specifically addressed in the Ordinance, this broad language will also likely preclude any “Google” or other electronic background checks to investigate an applicant’s arrest history.  The Ordinance also prohibits employers from asking about or otherwise investigating an applicant’s conviction history until completion of a “first interview” in person or by phone. Without an interview, the employer would have no right to gather any information regarding the applicant’s record of conviction. During the initial interview, the employer cannot ask about or discuss the applicant’s conviction history unless the applicant volunteers this information. After an initial direct interview, however, an employer is free to investigate the applicant’s conviction history. 

The Ordinance specifies that it does not alter the Pennsylvania Criminal History Record Information Act, 18 Pa.C.S. § 9125, that bars employers from denying employment based on a criminal conviction unless:

  1. the conviction was for a felony or misdemeanor;
  2. the crime has a sufficient connection to the applicant’s suitability for the position, and
  3. the applicant is given written notice of the decision not to hire based on the conviction. 

Finally, although a Philadelphia employer may seek information about an applicant’s convictions after a first interview, how it obtains that information and any notice to the applicant remain governed by the Federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 USC § 1681, et. seq.

Penalties:

Each violation of the Ordinance is a “Class III” offense under the Philadelphia Code that involves a possible $2,000-per-violation fine.

What Covered Employers Should Do Before July 12, 2011:

Covered Philadelphia employers need to take several steps prior to the July 12, 2011 effective date of this Ordinance:

  1. Review and remove from current job applications, including any online applications, any questions or inquiries regarding an applicant’s arrest or conviction record;
  2. Delay any manual or “automatic” criminal background system or procedure (including through third-party vendors) until after a first interview;
  3. Warn, in writing, every recruiter, employee, or employer agent involved in the hiring process not to ask questions or otherwise seek information (as in emails) about an applicant’s past convictions until after the first interview and provide these individuals with social media training to avoid inadvertent violations of this Ordinance;
  4. Avoid any inquiry into arrests that failed to result in conviction.

Defending Employers Against Corporate Veil Piercing and Tiptoeing Out of France

U.S. employers with French operations must focus carefully on their investments or divestment operations. Through the “joint employer theory,” employees of a French company can now pierce its corporate veil to hold the ultimate parent, even one based in the United States, liable for restructuring costs, including severance packages and damages for unfair dismissal.

The French Supreme Court has set forth three cumulative criteria for a foreign company to be judged a joint employer (Jungheinrich 18 January 2011), and as a result sentenced to pay French personnel liabilities:

  • A common management (e.g., someone from the U.S. parent company board catapulted into the chairman position of the French subsidiary)
  • A direct or indirect majority stake in the French subsidiary
  • A common business carried out by the parent and the subsidiary (obvious notion in an industrial group, but that has been extended to portfolio management for holdings or private equity funds)

It creates a great concern for private equity funds where "top-down" and hands-on control on companies in portfolio is embedded in the business model. So it is for international group holdings. Alas, this is the new battlefield for French employees of U.S. companies.

"Better be a living rat than a dead lion" is the moral of the second breathtaking case (Dunlop Goodyear 1st February 2011): Shutting down a business in France will not be a legitimate reason for massive layoffs. 

  • First, when a parent company is deemed to be a joint employer - as in the Jungheinrich case - it must itself bring evidence that not only in France but also at the U.S. level, the criteria meriting a French layoff are met (i.e., economic difficulties, technological change, need to salvage the competitiveness of the business line which is threatened on its own market throughout the world).
  • And second, because even without the joint employer situation, the Dunlop case tells us that even though the French facilities are incurring losses or seeing their profits decreasing, the judges will scrutinize the company’s overall profitability, to bless or curse the concerned reorganization. Because a French company is undergoing huge losses does not mean anymore carte blanche for laying off everyone.

Anticipation will now – more than ever – be critically important. No step can be taken by the foreign parent company to please the banks (refinancing the subsidiary), or the French authorities or local works councils and unions (directly paying the layoffs costs), without a very careful analysis of the consequences. Tiptoeing out of France will be far more efficient and cheaper than roaring at judges and unions.

UK Regulations Amending PAYE Treatment of Post P45 Payments

This post was written by Fionnuala Lynch.

From 6 April 2011 the PAYE treatment of termination payments to an employee after a P45 has been issued will change. Any employers considering the timing of any imminent dismissals should consider whether it may be better to enter into any compromise agreement or other termination agreement before the end of this tax year. This will not change the actual amount of tax due but will have cash flow advantages for employees on higher rates of tax. As regards payments to be made after 6 April, employers should consider whether it may be better to make the entire payment before the issue of the P45 or structure the payment monthly, post P45. 

Continue Reading...

Enhanced Paternity Pay

In April last year we posted a blog on the change in law on paternity leave focussing on the new right to Additional Paternity Leave (APL) which came into force on 6 April 2010. Under this, eligible employees whose children are due to be born on or after 3 April 2011 will have the right to take up to 6 months’ APL. The right will also apply in the case of adoptions where parents are notified of a match on or after 3 April 2011.

Since the implementation of the right to take APL, a question has arisen on whether an employer who offers an enhanced maternity pay package to its female employees should also offer enhanced paternity pay to those employees who take APL.

This issue has become particularly pressing since a recent ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the Spanish case of Roca Álvarez v Sesa Start España ETT SA (ECJ Case C-104/09). Spanish law provides that female employees are entitled to time off during the course of the working day to feed a child under the age of 9 months. This right was originally introduced to facilitate breastfeeding by working mothers. However, this right was subsequently developed so as to allow fathers to take this leave provided both parents were employed. Therefore mothers who are employed were always entitled to this leave while fathers who also have employed status would only be so entitled if the child’s mother is also an employed person. This difference under the provision was held by the CJEU to amount to sex discrimination. In reaching this decision, the CJEU noted that the purpose of this leave was no longer strictly associated with breastfeeding but was actually a measure which reconciled family life and work for both parents. Therefore this purpose could be achieved by fathers taking the time off work as well as mothers. In addition, the fact that this leave could be taken by the father meant that this measure could not be regarded as being to ensure the protection of the special relationship between a mother and her child.

Continue Reading...