Traditional Labor

On May 7, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated the rule adopted by the National Labor Relations Board (the Board) that required most private sector employers to display on their properties and websites a large poster notifying employees of their rights under the National Labor Relations Act (the Act) and that failure to do so would be an unfair labor practice. 

This well-established principle surprises many nonunion employers who mistakenly think that the federal law protecting union activities, the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA"), does not apply to them.  The reality is that the NLRA protects nonunion employees in exactly the same way it protects employees engaged in union activities.

Last week, President Barack Obama signed into law the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (S. 181) (the "Act"), substantially expanding the time limit within which a worker may bring a claim for unlawful pay discrimination.  The revised statutory language of the Act rendered the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 (2007), invalid.  In Ledbetter, the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff bringing a claim for discriminatory pay practices had to show that the discriminatory acts affecting his or her pay occurred during the 180 days (for states without a fair employment agency) or 300 days (for states with a fair employment agency) prior to the filing of a discrimination charge.  The Act eliminates this required showing by amending Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act.  Each statute will now permit the period for a worker to file a charge of pay discrimination to be triggered each time the worker receives an allegedly discriminatory paycheck, even if the pay decision was made much earlier.

Employees who complain about sexual harassment are protected from retaliation by federal and state laws.  Under a January 26 ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court, employees who provide information in the employer’s investigation of the complaint have the same protection.  Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville, No. 06-1595 (Jan. 26, 2009).

On September 17, 2008, the House approved the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (S. 3406).

The Washington Legislature has passed, and the governor has signed into law, two new types of employee leaves that all Washington employers, regardless of size, will be required to provide.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently decided a defined contribution plan case that could expand the right of participants in ERISA-covered benefit plans to sue fiduciaries for a breach of their duties under ERISA.

On February 7, 2008, U.S. District Judge Neil Wake issued a lengthy order upholding the Legal Arizona Workers Act (“Act”) against a variety of constitutional challenges.

As the most sought-after category of nonimmigrant work visa, the H-1B visa allows U.S. employers to hire foreign nationals in positions deemed “Specialty Occupations.”

The U.S. Department of Labor ("DOL") has recently issued a comprehensive set of proposed new regulations under the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA").

The National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB" or "Board") recently issued a significant decision that will affect workplace e-mail policies for both union and nonunion employers.

On August 10, 2007, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) announced new regulations that will require action by employers when they receive a “no match” letter from the DHS or the Social Security Administration (“SSA”), providing notice of potentially invalid employee social security numbers or other identity documents.

On July 22, 2007, a new Washington law goes into effect that imposes additional restrictions on employers who want to obtain credit reports on employees or job applicants.

On July 2, Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano signed into law what she described as “the most aggressive action in the country against employers who knowingly or intentionally hire undocumented workers.”

In a decision that could have far-reaching effects on employers throughout Oregon, the Oregon Court of Appeals ruled recently that employees have a private right of action for unpaid wages and penalties attributable to missed rest breaks.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has just affirmed a ruling by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) that an employer committed an unfair labor practice by maintaining an overly broad confidentiality rule. This decision is the latest reminder that federal law, the National Labor Relations Act (the Act) guarantees employees—even non-union employees—the right to engage in concerted activities for their mutual aid or protection, and prohibits employers from interfering with, restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of those rights.

Generally, an employee with a disability may be held to the same standards of conduct and performance as employees without disabilities. The EEOC has said that for years. But what happens when misconduct is caused by the employee's condition? The Ninth Circuit has concluded that firing an employee for misconduct caused by a known disability is the same as firing an employee for having a disability. That means, according to the reasoning of the Ninth Circuit, employers and their individual managers now face liability for disciplining or firing employees who violate basic workplace rules and standards of behavior if the conduct results from a disability.

This is an extraordinary ruling, and one that employers in Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Hawaii, California and Arizona must take into account when contemplating discipline or discharge of employees with disabilities.