NLRB Expands Test for Joint Employment

By
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) announced in an August 27, 2015 decision that it was changing the test to determine whether two related businesses are "joint employers." In sum, the federal position announced in the NLRB decision is that many more businesses, like franchisors-franchisees, manufacturers-distributors, and staffing agencies and their clients can be held jointly liable for employment claims (wage and hour violations, discrimination and harassment, etc.) and could more easily organized by labor unions. This new legal test will be a major change for many businesses if it survives the expected court challenge. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

OSHA’s New Rule on Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination Is Back in Force (For Now)

By
  In the ongoing legal battle over the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s emergency temporary standard on COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing (the “ETS”), a federal appeals court has given OSHA authority—for now—to move forward with enforcement.  The core of the ETS is the requirement that employers with more than 100 employees must implement and enforce a policy that mandates that employees be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 by January 4, 2022 or to submit to weekly COVID-19 testing and wear a mask.   However, in light of the numerous legal challenges and the uncertainties caused by the conflicting decisions in federal court, OSHA has stated that it will exercise its “enforcement discretion” to give employers some additional time to comply with deadlines published in the original ETS.  OSHA states that it will not issue any citations for non-compliance with ETS requirements before January 10, 2022, and will not issue citations before February 9, 2022 for failing to enforce
Read more

Governement Agency Scruntizes Confidentiality Agreements

By
The Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") recently announced that it had opened an enforcement action against a company based on a confidentiality agreement that the SEC claimed interfered with the rights of would-be whistleblowers.  According to the SEC, the confidentiality agreement was presented to employees during workplace investigations, and prohibited the employees from speaking about the investigation with anyone unless the company granted permission.  The SEC claimed that such a provision violated the whistleblower protections of Rule 21F-17 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which prohibits actions that impede whistleblowers from reporting possible securities law violations to the SEC.  Our colleague Morgan Curry has offered a solid analysis of the SEC's action here .  As a result, businesses are well advised to take a look at their confidentiality provisions, especially those in employment and severance agreements, to consider whether an update of t
Read more

Supreme Court Decision in Groff v. DeJoy Increases Burden on Employers Under Title VII for Denying Religious Accommodations

By
Employers will now have to show a higher degree of hardship to deny employee requests for religious accommodation. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 29 C.F.R. § 1605.2(b)(1), employers are required to grant employee requests for religious accommodation “unless the employer demonstrates that [the requested] accommodation would result in undue hardship on the conduct of its business.” On July 29, 2023,  the United States Supreme Court unanimously clarified  in  Groff v. DeJoy  that a religious accommodation only results in “undue hardship” when “the burden of granting [the] accommodation would result in  substantial  increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.”  The “substantial increased cost” standard is a departure from the lower “more than a  de minimis  cost” standard that has prevailed since 1975. For the last 48 years, employers could deny religious accommodations for causing “undue hardship” if the accommodation would impose “more than
Read more