Want to hear about Governor Hickenlooper’s latest nominee to Colorado Supreme Court?

Tune in tomorrow morning to 850 KOA at 6:50 AM to hear my thoughts on Governor Hickenlooper’s latest nominee to the Colorado Supreme Court.

/0 Comments/by

First and Seventh Circuit decisions illustrate the “adverse employment action” requirement in EEO cases

As a general rule, the EEO laws, such as Title VII (race, gender, religion, etc.) and the ADEA (age), do not allow a plaintiff to sue for the everyday “slings and arrows” they might suffer in the workplace (quoting Shakespeare’s Hamlet). Rather, the law requires an “adverse employment action.” The adverse employment action test requires the plaintiff to show material harm to the terms and conditions of their employment. That doesn’t always have to mean being fired or demoted. In retaliation cases, it can be anything a reasonable worker would find sufficient to chill them from reporting misconduct.

Two recent decisions by the First and Seventh Circuit illustrate the kinds of conduct that do not rise to the level of an adverse employment action.

In the First Circuit case, the plaintiff argued that each of the following, separately and together, was sufficient, but the court disagreed:

  • The plaintiff’s supervisor allegedly demonstrated anger and overreacted when the plaintiff went over his head.
  • The supervisor allegedly made a temporary change to the plaintiff’s schedule.
  • The supervisor allegedly told the plaintiff to pull down his pants when the plaintiff said he had a skin condition.
  • The supervisor and two coworkers allegedly called the plaintiff a “cry baby.”
  • When the plaintiff took a medical leave but did not provide the required medical documentation, his leave was converted to paid vacation.

In the Seventh Circuit case, that court held the following was insufficient to prove an adverse employment action:

  • The plaintiff’s request for medical leave was, allegedly, originally misclassified as paid sick leave not FMLA leave.
  • A psychological examination had, allegedly, been requested of him in circumstances where the evidence such a request was “not unusual” (the plaintiff was a police officer and the psychological exam was requested as part of his clearance to return to duty).
  • Approval of his request to work a secondary job had allegedly been delayed for three months.

As the First Circuit noted, the adverse employment action requirement may seem harsh, but it remains the well established threshold that a plaintiff must cross to warrant court litigation.

Today’s opinion is a lesson straight out of the school of hard knocks. No matter how sympathetic the plaintiff or how harrowing his plights, the law is the law and sometimes it’s just not on his side. See Medina-Rivera v. MVM, Inc., 713 F.3d 132, 138 (1st Cir. 2013) (quoting Turner v. Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co., 292 F.2d 586, 589 (5th Cir. 1961) (Wisdom, J.) (“[H]ard as our sympathies may pull us, our duty to maintain the integrity of the substantive law pulls harder.”)

Source: Freelain v. Village of Oak Park, case no. 16-4074 (7th Cir. 4/30/18); Sepulveda-Vargas v. Caribbean Restaurants, LLC, case no. 16-2451 (1st Cir. 4/30/18).

/1 Comment/by

California adopts ABC Test for gauging independent contractor classification

The California Supreme Court announced a new test for determining whether a worker is truly an independent contractor or an employee under California’s wage orders (regulating wages, hours and working conditions).

(I)n determining whether, under the suffer or permit to work definition, a worker is properly considered the type of independent contractor to whom the wage order does not apply, it is appropriate to look to a standard, commonly referred to as the “ABC” test, that is utilized in other jurisdictions in a variety of contexts to distinguish employees from independent contractors. Under this test, a worker is properly considered an independent contractor to whom a wage order does not apply only if the hiring entity establishes:

(A) that the worker is free from the control and direction of the hirer in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of such work and in fact;

(B) that the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business; and

(C) that the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed for the hiring entity.

This new test continues California’s approach to scrutinizing whether the relationship includes a right to control and direct the work (test A) and whether the worker is engaged in an independent trade (test C), but adds a focus on whether the worker is doing “work that is outside the usual course” of the company’s own business (test B).

Companies that use independent contractors to do work that is within the company’s own “usual course” of work, much less that is being done by its own employees, should take special care to review this new test and determine if they are in compliance.

Source: Dynamex Operations v. Superior Court, case no. S222732 (Cal. 4/30/18).

/0 Comments/by

Tune in tomorrow 7:50 AM MT @KOANewsRadio I’ll be discussing today’s @Scotus blockbuster re arbitration agreements in the workplace.

Here’s a preview.

/0 Comments/by

Supreme Court upholds mandatory pre-dispute arbitration agreements, even when they bar class/collective actions

In a 5-4 decision the Supreme Court may have given employers — at least in some states — to block class and collective actions. The Court ruled that mandatory pre-dispute arbitration agreements are enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), even in employment cases, and even as a block against class/collective actions. The Court had previously so ruled in the context of consumer contracts. In this case, the Supreme Court extended that ruling to employment agreements.

This ruling means companies can now lawfully require — at least under federal law — both consumers (as a condition of buying their product or service) and now employees (as a condition of working for the company) to agree,

  • Before any dispute ever arises,
  • To submit any future possible disputes to arbitration,
  • Instead of litigating them in court, and
  • Unless otherwise spelled out in the arbitration agreement, to waive any future rights to participate in class or collective actions.

In extending its ruling to employment cases, the Court rejected the argument that the National Labor Relations Act protects an employee’s right to join class/collective actions.

Perhaps of greatest importance the Court signaled a sharp curtailing of precedent holding that courts must defer to administrative agencies. That principle is called Chevron deference (after the Supreme Court’s 1984 decision in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.). Chevron deference has become highly controversial and is seen by conservative legal theorists as the chief vehicle for creation of the so-called administrative state. Here the issue of Chevron deference was raised because the National Labor Relations Board had held that the statute it oversees, the National Labor Relations Act, does include protection for class/collective actions and therefore should have rendered illegal the agreement at-issue. Over a heated dissent, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that the Board’s interpretation of the NLRA was entitled to deference. Whether this portends an end to Chevron deference or will prove an isolated ruling remains to be seen.

A “collective” action is like a class action. Some laws, notably, some wage-hour laws (such as minimum wage and overtime laws) permit “collective” actions instead of class actions. Simply put, the difference is that in a class action, the judge declares the existence of a class, and class members opt out of the class if they do not wish to participate; whereas, in a collective action, members must opt in to join the class.

Employers that have previously been concerned about stepping into the waters of mandatory pre-dispute arbitration agreements may now wish to consult with counsel about doing so. Employers should remember that, although this is a strong case for employers, it does not necessarily apply to claims brought under state laws, and some states, notably both New York and California, have taken strong positions against this type of agreement.

Source: Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, case no. 16-285 (5/21/18)

/0 Comments/by

“Spiritual coercion,” “volunteers” and children under federal wage laws

Two recent decisions by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals address the applicability of federal labor laws to church volunteers. The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) is the nation’s leading wage-hour law. FLSA requires a minimum wage, overtime pay and prohibits child labor. FLSA applies only to “employees.” Volunteers are generally not considered to be “employees;” therefore, FLSA generally does not apply to volunteers. These two recent cases addressed these concepts in the context of church volunteers.

One case was decided by the Sixth Circuit, Acosta v. Cathedral Buffet, Inc. It involved a restaurant, operated by a church, on the church’s campus, that was open to the public and staffed in part by church volunteers.

The other case was decided by the Tenth Circuit, Acosta v. Paragon Contractors Corp. It involved a pecan ranch, at which church members, including children, harvested pecans.

In both cases, the Courts held the businesses were commercial enterprises subject to FLSA, and that the church members were doing work. Thus both courts were called to decide if the church members were truly volunteering their time, such that FLSA did not apply to their work. Both courts looked to a 1985 Supreme Court decision, Alamo Foundation, where the Supreme Court held that a volunteer is, among other things, someone who works “without promise or expectation of compensation” and “for his own personal purpose or pleasure.” And, there, the Courts split. The Sixth Circuit held that the church members were volunteers, and the Tenth Circuit held they were not.

Why did the Courts split? The Sixth Circuit decided its case after the Tenth Circuit, and it held that the difference was because (a) the Tenth Circuit case involved children and (b) the Tenth Circuit case involved more than “spiritual coercion.”

Under Alamo Foundation, a worker cannot be held a “volunteer” if his work is coerced. A person who is coerced into working is not working purely “for his own personal purpose or pleasure.” The Sixth Circuit held that, in the Cathedral Buffet case, the workers, who were adults, were working because they felt it was expected of them to be “faithful stewards of God’s grace in its various forms.” The Sixth Circuit held that, even if such religious dogma was considered to be coercive, it is “spiritual coercion,” and as such insufficient to transform a volunteer into an “employee” under FLSA. However, the Court held that in the Tenth Circuit’s case, the workers were children and, further, in its own case, the Tenth Circuit highlighted facts suggesting more than mere spiritual coercion. For example, the Tenth Circuit pointed to evidence, including “one child (who) stated that if she had not worked, she would have lost her family and been kicked out of the community.”

Non-profits that benefit from the work of volunteers, especially church-related non-profits, should carefully review these two new cases.

Source: Acosta v. Cathedral Buffet, Inc., case no. 17–3427 (6th Cir. 4/16/18); Acosta v. Paragon Contractors Corp., case no. 17-4025 (10th Cir. 5/13/18).

/0 Comments/by

Individual liability possible for wage claims, in Colorado

In a 2003 decision, Leonard v. McMorris, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that the Colorado Wage Claim Act does not itself create statutory liability for individuals who own or manage a company. But what about other theories?

In a recent decision, Paradine v. Goei, the Colorado Court of Appeals held that Leonard does not foreclose personal liability. Rather, it simply held that the Colorado Wage Claim Act itself cannot be a vehicle for imposing personal liability. The Colorado Court of Appeals held in this case that there are, at least, two other “well-established” theories for holding an individual liable for the acts of a company: “peircing the corporate veil, and when an officer acts on behalf of an undisclosed principal.” Oversimplifying these two principles, (1) the first allows a person to be held liable for the acts of his entity if, in running that entity, he has not obeyed corporate formalities and ignored the distinction between the entity and himself; (2) the latter allows a person to be held liable when he seems to have acted on his own behalf but later wishes to claim, unbeknownst to the plaintiff, that he was actually acting behind an entity.

In this case the Court of Appeals held the plaintiff had adequately pled a case to pierce the corporate veil and was, therefore, entitled to seek discovery in pursuit of his allegations. In particular the court noted the plaintiff alleged that the individual collected the company’s money to be used to pay wages, used the company’s revenues for “his own personal use” and “diverted corporate funds” to pay his own expenses, including his “apartment lease” and “vehicle payments,” treating the company as his “alter ego” while commingling bank accounts and credit cards.”

Paradine will no doubt stimulate the filing of individual liability claims in Colorado wage cases.

Source: Paradine v. Goei, case no. 16CA1909 (Colo.App. 4/19/18).

/0 Comments/by

Obama-era Executive Order 13673 (entitled Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces”) repealed

Congress has repealed regulations implementing President Obama’s 2014 Executive Order 13673, titled the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces Act, and, as he signed that Congressional Resolution into effect, President Trump signed his own Executive Order repealing President Obama’s Executive Order itself.

This brings an end to Executive Order 13673 in its entirety. The executive order had been highly controversial. On one hand its proponents praised it as a means of protecting civil rights for workers at government contractors; on the other its critics called it unclear, impractical, ineffectual and harmful. Worse for the order, parts were quickly blocked by the courts as an unconstitutional Presidential overreach in violation of the Constitution’s separation of powers and speech principles.

The Executive Order’s now-defunct provisions had included a requirement that government contractors self-disclose labor and employment violations and a prohibition against government contractors entering into mandatory pre-dispute arbitration agreements.

Source: House Joint Resolution 37 and Executive Order dated 3/27/18.

/0 Comments/by