Your Custom Text Here
Available here and excerpted below:
"An arbitrator overseeing a gender discrimination case against Sterling Jewelers, parent of 12 chains in the United States including Kay Jewelers, has certified a class of thousands of women to proceed to trial.
Women in the class may pursue a claim challenging Sterling’s pay and promotion practices, the arbitrator, Kathleen A. Roberts, a retired United States magistrate judge at the dispute resolution company JAMS, said in a ruling Monday night." (link)
On December 10, 2011, Michael S. Douglas, Jr. filed a race discrimination complaint in Manhattan Supreme Court against 643 Broadway Holdings LLC (d/b/a Bleecker Kitchen & Co.) and co-owner Joshua Berkowitz. The complaint alleges that Berkowitz racially harassed former Bleecker Kitchen & Co. restaurant manager Douglas during his employment with Bleecker. The complaint further alleges that Berkowitz was not aware that Douglas, who is Filipino and African-American, was black, when Berkowitz, using coded words, counseled Mr. Douglas against hiring black servers. Mr. Douglas is represented by Cyrus E. Dugger of the Dugger Law Firm, PLLC and Michael Grenert of Liddle & Robinson L.L.P.
Maybe so said attorney Steven Wise to a New York appellate court:
"A state appeals court will decide in coming weeks whether chimpanzees are entitled to "legal personhood" in a case that could lead to expanded rights for animals such as gorillas, elephants and dolphins, according to the lawyer advocating for a 26-year-old chimp named Tommy.
Attorney Steven Wise argued before a five-member mid-level appeals court Wednesday on behalf of Tommy, who lives alone in a cage in upstate Fulton County. A trial-level judge has refused a request by Wise and his Nonhuman Rights Project to have Tommy released to join other chimps at a Florida sanctuary that mimics their natural habitat.
Wise argues that animals with human qualities, such as chimps, deserve basic rights, including freedom from imprisonment. He's also seeking the release of three other chimps in New York and said he plans similar cases in other states. If he succeeds, he said he will seek personhood for other species with human qualities, which he defines as self-determination and autonomy." (link)
Perhaps intelligent animals should have some basic rights above those we give to far less intelligent animals like cows - actually probably so - but do intelligent animals already inherently have those rights absent a statute to that effect?
Not sure I'm convinced - but it's an intriguing non-frivolous question.
The heirs of Anna S. Harrington, the woman portrayed as Aunt Jemima on Aunt Jemima pancakes products for approximately 80 years, have filed a class action alleging Quaker Oates intentionally withheld royalties associated with the use of her likeness:
"In their suit, D.W. Hunter and Larnell Evans say Quaker Oats representatives discovered their great-grandmother, Anna S. Harrington, making pancakes at the New York State Fair in 1935.
Harrington portrayed the character in commercials and other public appearances for 15 years.
The suit says Quaker Oats used Harrington's pancake recipes and trademarked her likeness as the character 'Aunt Jemima' in 1937.
The great-grandsons say Quaker Oats exploited Harrington with the intent of not paying royalties toward her estate after her death in 1955. They claim the companies conspired not to acknowledge Harrington's status as an employee of Quaker Oats by saying they could not find any employment records or images of her. But they say, Quaker Oats had her image deposited with the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
Harrington's family, according to the complaint, filed the suit after it was able to obtain a death certificate that listed Quaker Oats as Harrington's employer." (link).
The suit also alleges that Quaker Oates wrongfully took Harrington's pancake recipes and racially discriminated against her and her family. Plaintiffs seek $2 billion in damages.
An informative overview of the intersection of light duty work and the ADA, FMLA, and PDA from the FMLA Insights Blog: Don't Be Tripped Up by Light Duty Obligations under the FMLA and ADA: A Discussion of Employer Best Practices.
A cautionary tale to smaller employers concerning FMLA coverage and compliance:
"On September 19, 2014, the 7th Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of an employee on the issue of FMLA coverage under the joint-employer doctrine. Cuff v. Trans States Holdings, Inc., No. 13-1241 (7th Cir., 9-19-2014). The Family and Medical Leave Act applies only to an employer that has at least 50 employees within 75 miles of the employee's work station. Cuff was on the payroll of Trans States, which only had 33 employees. However, Department of Labor Regulation 29 C.F.R. 825.106(a) provides that workers are covered by the FMLA when they are jointly employed by multiple firms that collectively employ 50 or more workers. In addition, DOL Regulation 29 C.F.R. 825.104(c) provides that 2 or more firms may be treated as a single employer when they operate a joint business. The joint-employer doctrine applies when one person is employed jointly by two firms that otherwise have distinct labor forces.
* * *
The 7th Circuit held that Cuff was covered by the FMLA because he was jointly employed by Trans States and GoJet, who collectively employ 50 or more workers." (link)
As the issue of domestic violence is brought to the forefront of national dialogue Massachusetts has acted:
"In the wake of the Ray and Janay Rice incident sweeping the news across the country, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick has enacted emergency legislation entitled “An Act relative to domestic violence.” The new law is effective immediately and mandates that all employers with 50 or more employees permit an employee to take up to 15 days of leave from work in any 12-month period if the employee, or a family member (defined below) of the employee, is a victim of abusive behavior and the employee is using the leave from work to:
Seek or obtain medical attention, counseling, victim services or legal assistance; secure housing; obtain a protective order from a court; appear in court or before a grand jury; meet with a district attorney or other law enforcement official; attend child custody proceedings; or address other issues directly related to the abusive behavior against the employee or family member of the employee; and
The employee is not the perpetrator of the abusive behavior against such employee’s family member." (link)
On August 30, 2014, California became the second state to guarantee sick time. While, likely a surprise to most people, although federal law provides some protections for at least unpaid medical leave, at least after employees working for certain employers have been on the job for a year (FMLA), there is no federal law broadly guaranteeing paid sick days -- not even just one.
Some local jurisdictions like NYC have passed local laws. But, absent local legislative action, there is an enormous gaping hole in protections for sick workers.
Right now -- you're thinking about the fact that you do have sick days at work -- that's great news. The bad news is that those sick days are likely merely your employer's disrcretionary policy and are not mandated under federal law -- which I'm sure you think they should be.
Here is an overview of the new California law from the Labor and Employment Law Blog:
"The new law is called the 'Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act.' Beginning on July 1, 2015, both public and private employers (of any size) will be required to provide eligible employees with paid sick leave 'at the rate of not less than one hour per every 30 hours worked.' Eligible employees are those employees who have worked 30 or more days within a year after their date of hire. Under the new law, exempt employees are deemed to work a 40 hour workweek. Employees are to be compensated at the same wage as the employee normally earns during regular work hours. The rate of pay shall be the employee’s hourly wage. If the employee in the 90 days of employment before taking accrued sick leave had different hourly pay rates, was paid by commission or piece rate, or was a nonexempt salaried employee, then the rate of pay shall be calculated by dividing the employee’s total wages (not including overtime premium pay) by the employee’s total hours worked in the full pay periods of the prior 90 days of employment.
There are a few exceptions in which employers are not required to offer the new paid sick leave benefit and they relate mainly to employees who are covered under a collective bargaining agreement, or who work in the construction industry, the home healthcare industry, or the airline industry." (link)
An in-depth overview of the new California law is available here.
Based on the experience of Connecticut, the only other state to pass a similar state-wide law, concerns raised about the California law are unlikely to be realized:
"California joins Connecticut, the first state to guarantee its residents have paid sick leave. If that state’s experience is a guide, the California Chamber of Commerce, which called the state’s bill a 'job killer,' should have nothing to worry about. A year and a half after Connecticut’s law took effect, most employers said the costs had been negligible or non-existent, abuse hadn’t cropped up, and many actually saw benefits. More than three-quarters support the law, with nearly 40 percent saying they’re very supportive." (link)
Wait -- "more than three-quarters support the law?" Sounds like supporting the rights of workers to take a paid sick day might even attract votes to supportive legislators.
Just 48 states to go . . . including New York.
As covered by the New York Times:
"[M]arijuana’s recent strides toward the legal and cultural mainstream are running aground at the office. Even as 23 states allow medical or recreational marijuana, employment experts say that most businesses are keeping their drug-free policies. The result is a clash between a culture that increasingly accepts marijuana and companies that will fire employees who use it." (link)
During July New York passed a medical marijuana law permitting New Yorkers suffering from a narrow list of conditions to obtain marijuana for medical treatment.
This development in turn sets up a future series of conflicts between employers and at least some state and/or local disability discrimination laws, which may require reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities -- the people many of the medical marijuana laws are targeted to assist.
New York is no exception. Indeed, it appears ripe for this conflict because of the state law's definition of those permitted to use medical marijuana as "disabled" within the meaning of New York disability discrimination law:
"The New York law specifically classifies individuals prescribed medical marijuana as 'disabled.' Accordingly, employers may need to provide reasonable accommodation for medical marijuana users. While courts have not yet addressed the issue of what constitutes a 'reasonable accommodation' for medical marijuana use, one suggestion is relaxing an employer's drug policy to permit the employee's medical marijuana use. Whether or not such 'accommodation' is reasonable will depend on the employee's specific job. While it is low cost to the employer, if the side effects of marijuana have a negative impact on the employee's job, as could be the case of truck drivers or machine operators, such accommodation may not be reasonable." (link)
Advocates for reasonable accommodations regarding medical marijuana use with respect to drug policies are in no small part assisted by increasing voices in support of the positive medical effects of marijuana -including Dr. Sanja Gupta.
Dr. Gupta recently noted he is "doubling down on medical marijuana;"
"I have met with hundreds of patients, dozens of scientists and the curious majority who simply want a deeper understanding of this ancient plant. I have sat in labs and personally analyzed the molecules in marijuana that have such potential but are also a source of intense controversy. I have seen those molecules turned into medicine that has quelled epilepsy in a child and pain in a grown adult. I've seen it help a woman at the peak of her life to overcome the ravages of multiple sclerosis.
I am more convinced than ever that it is irresponsible to not provide the best care we can, care that often may involve marijuana.
I am not backing down on medical marijuana; I am doubling down." (link)
This will certainly be one of the more interesting employment law issues over the course of the next few years, particularly given the lack of movement with respect to the federal prohibition on the use of marijuana.
