The Employer Handbook Blog

In a 2-1 decision issued today (copy here), the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the National Labor Relations Board lacked the authority to act as early as March 2010, when President Obama appointed Craig Becker to the Board. The Third Circuit held that Member Becker's appointment to the Board while the Senate was on an intrasession recess (a break within a session of the Senate) was unconstitutional. Implicit in the court's decision is that the appointments of Members Block, Griffin, Flynn in 2013, while the Senate held pro-forma sessions, were also invalid.

The Third Circuit ruled that recess appointments are only valid if made during intersession breaks (i.e., between sessions of the Senate).

This decision is crazy-long (102 pages plus a 55 page dissent). Thankfully, my Dilworth Paxson colleagues, Erin Galbally and Marjorie Obod prepared an e-alert summarizing the decision.

If you do business in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, or the US Virgin Islands, the net effect of this decision may be that, until the Supreme Court rules in this pending case, you can basically ignore just about anything* that the Board has done this decade (well, since March 2010). 

* From June 22, 2010 through August 27, 2011, the Senate had confirmed enough Board members for quorum. So don't ignore that stuff.

(h/t The Volokh Conspiracy)

Robert Mariotti was the vice-president and secretary of the company his father founded. Not only was he a corporate officer, but Mariotti also served as a member of the board of directors, and was a shareholder who could only be fired for cause.

In 1995, Mariotti had a spiritual awakening, which he claims resulted in a resulted in "a systematic pattern of antagonism" toward him in the form of "negative, hostile and/or humiliating statements" about him and his religious affiliation. Mariotti claimed that this behavior ramped up for over a decade and, ultimately, resulted in his termination. Thereafter, he sued his former employer for religious discrimination. The company moved to dismiss the claim on the basis that a shareholder-director-officer is not an "employee" under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and, thus, has no standing to assert a claim for religious discrimination.

What happened you say? Well, even if you read the lede, click through for full analysis...

Continue reading "Third Circuit says VIPs cannot sue for Title VII discrimination" »

This blog is nearly 2 1/2 years old and we have our first Equal Pay Act post. The Equal Pay Act requires equal pay for equal work on jobs the performance of which require equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions. Any wage discrimination on the basis of sex violates the Act.

The EEOC celebrated "Equal Pay Day" last week. So, now is as good a time as any to address the Act through this recent case from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

In Puchakjian v. Township of Winslow, Deborah Puchakjian filled a Municipal Clerk vacancy within the Township of Winslow which came about a result of the retirement of the male incumbent. His salary at retirement was $85,515; Ms. Puchakijan's salary to replace him was $55,000.

She sued.

She lost.

You see, there are four exceptions to the Act's general rule of equal pay for equal work:

1. a bona fide seniority system,
2. a merit system,
3. a system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of production, or
4. any factor other than gender

The Third Circuit agreed with the lower court that the retired Municipal Clerk's yearly salary increases over his 29-year tenure in the position "both explained and motivated the wage disparity." Consequently, the wage disparity was based on a factor other than gender.

Given these four Equal Pay Act exceptions, claims under the Act are tough to prove. That said, a priority in the EEOC's Strategic Enforcement Plan (FY 2013-2016), is the enforcement of equal pay laws. Indeed, in 2012, the EEOC received over 4,100 charges of gender-based wage discrimination, and obtained over $24 million in relief for victims of gender-based wage discrimination through administrative enforcement efforts and litigation.

So, now is as good a time as any to conduct a wage audit and make sure that any disparity in pay for equal work is attributable to one of the Act's exceptions.

That's right folks. It's time for another edition of "Fact or Fiction" a/k/a "Quick Answers to Quick Questions" a/k/a QATQQ f/k/a "I don't feel like writing a long blog post" d/b/a (just for today) "Eric's 36th-Birthday Post". 

*** Sigh ***

Ahh...let's get to today's question:

May an employee raise claims in federal court against an employer under both the Fair Labor Standards Act (federal) and a state wage and hour law? Or is the latter preempted by the former, such that an employee may only pursue FLSA claims?

The answer to today's question -- at least in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals -- comes to us from a decision rendered Tuesday in Knepper v. Rite Aid Corp. There, the court recognized that the FLSA "evinces a clear intent to preserve rather than supplant state law." Consequently, it held that state wage and hour laws such as the Maryland Wage and Hour Law and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act -- two laws that track the federal overtime requirements -- are not preempted by the FLSA.

The answer to today's QATQQ is FICTION.

Let's say you operate a business in NJ. Your disabled employee comes to you requesting an accommodation for his disability. Does the mere failure to provide that accommodation trigger a claim under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD)? What about under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)?

I have two recent cases and two different answers -- depending on whether you are in state or federal court, plus some general accomodation tips for employers after the jump...

Continue reading "Distinguishing state & federal disability-accommodation claims" »

That's right folks. It's time for another edition of "Fact or Fiction" a/k/a "Quick Answers to Quick Questions" a/k/a QATQQ f/k/a "I don't feel like writing a long blog post". So, let's get right to today's question:

Let's say I have a former employee who files a charge of discrimination with the EEOC. If a potential new employer comes calling from a job reference and I...

1. give my former employee a bad reference;
2. to get back at the employee for filing the charge; and,
3. because of my bad reference, the former employee is not hired...

Have I engaged in actionable post-employment retaliation?

You bet I have! So, the answer to today's QATQQ is "FACT".

Consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., here in the Third Circuit (PA, NJ, DE, USVI) post-employment retaliation is bad, bad, bad. In this Third Circuit decision, the court held that "an ex-employee may file a retaliation action against a previous employer for retaliatory conduct occurring after the end of the employment relationship when the retaliatory act is in reprisal for a protected act and arises out of or is related to the employment relationship."  Many state courts are on boards with this too (For example, check out this case from the NJ Supreme Court). A former employer engages in retaliation where its action results in discharge from a later job, a refusal to hire the plaintiff, or other professional or occupational harm. In essence, post-employment retaliation must involve some harm to an employee's employment opportunities.

In December 2006, 247 union workers went on strike at the Kohler manufacturing plant in Searcy, Arkansas. Three months later, Kohler hired 123 replacement workers.

Kohler and the Union settled their dispute in March 2008. As part of the settlement, Kohler agreed to reinstate the striking strikers. Kohler then fired the replacement workers and returned 103 of the original 247 striking workers to their former positions. 111 of the replacement workers then filed suit under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act ("WARN") alleging that they should have been given at least 60-days notice before being laid off.

Did Kohler violate WARN? Find out after the jump...

Continue reading "Legal? Replacing over 100 workers without any sort of notice" »

If you guessed 15 minutes, you would be right, according to a recent decision from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

And you don't need to point a gun at the employee's head? A rusty fork in the doo-dads "knowing and intelligent" waiver based on a "totality of the circumstances" will suffice.

What are those circumstances? Find out after the jump.

Continue reading "How long does an employee get to review a severance agreement?" »

Confession: I find bankruptcy VERY boring. And I loathe it. I'm a labor and employment attorney. When partners approach my door with bankruptcy assignments, I pick up the phone and pretend to yell at opposing counsel. So far I'm batting 1000.

But when I learned that the Third Circuit in Rea v. Federated Investors ruled that a private employer may refuse employment to a job applicant who has ever filed for bankruptcy, I mustered up the will power for this blog post.*Checks ESPN.com* Consider it my 2011 bankruptcy contribution.

I'll break down the court's ruling after the jump.

Continue reading "Employers can refuse to hire bankruptcy filers" »

My blog designers told me that if I want to build SEO -- that's Search Engine Optimization to you rookies -- I'd better write about employment law issues affecting Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware (duh!) and "optimize" my blog post titles with the keywords near the front.

Learn more about which employees are covered after the jump.

Continue reading "Third Circuit Employment Law 101: Who Does The FMLA Cover?" »

In some cases, a plaintiff will argue as part of his Title VII discrimination action that his former employer didn't fire him. But rather he was constructively discharged. That's fancy speak for being forced to resign.

Continue reading "Third Circuit Employment Law 101: Constructive Discharge" »

Robert Rank-And-File, an employee of Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Delaware, Inc., claims that Sally Supervisor told him, "Sleep with me, or you're fired!" Robert declines Sally's advances only to have Sally fire him. If Robert decides to pursue an action under Title VII against Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Delaware, Inc., how can he prevail at trial?

Continue reading "Third Circuit Employment Law 101: Quid Pro Quo Harassment" »

Look what just arrived in today's mail. It's a charge of discrimination from the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Looks like Robert Rank-And-File -- the guy Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Delaware, Inc. fired from data entry -- alleges that the company terminated him because he's disabled.

I'll show you after the jump.

Continue reading "Third Circuit Employment Law 101: ADA Mixed-Motive Disparate Impact Claims" »

Can an employer terminate a disabled employee because accommodating the employee would create a significant risk of substantial harm to the employee or others in the workplace?

Continue reading "Third Circuit Employment Law 101: ADA Defenses - Direct Threat" »

Ever been to a Gentlemen's Club?

(Pause...)

(Wait for it...)

Me neither. But I hear that dancers tend to have a few physical characteristics in common. Or how about a Chinese restaurant? Ever notice that the employees are all...Chinese? Is that why my job applications always end up in the circular file?

Ladies and gentlemen. After the jump, may I present to you: the BFOQ.

Continue reading "Third Circuit Employment Law 101: What is a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification?" »