An arbitrator could bind absent class members to a Title VII and Equal Pay Act (EPA) class action where the plaintiffs all signed arbitration agreements that consented to the arbitrator’s authority, the U.S. Court of Appeals has ruled.
Advocating for nonemployees does not qualify for protection under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), a three-member panel of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) recently determined.
What were the five biggest employment law developments in 2019?
A California federal court decertified a class of millions of Walmart employees after concluding that the named plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to bring their challenge to the employer’s use of background checks.
The diminution of an employee’s duties can constitute an adverse employment action in violation of Title VII, a New York federal court recently held in a case involving an African-American medical doctor.
Agreeing with a trial court that the arbitration agreements at issue were both procedurally and substantively unconscionable, a California appellate panel denied the employer’s motion to compel arbitration.
In a potentially beneficial decision for employers, a California appellate panel ruled that the term “wage and hour … law” in an insurance policy’s exclusion was limited to laws “concerning duration worked and/or remuneration received in exchange for work.”
The 2019-2020 U.S. Supreme Court term could have a significant impact on the employment law area, with three major issues already on the docket for the justices to consider.
After several years—and significant changes to the plans—the Department of Labor (DOL) finalized the new minimum annual salary requirement for exempt executive, administrative and professional employees.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that McDonald’s is not a joint employer with a franchisee under the definitions found in California Wage Order 5-2001, as it did not have direct control over the store employees or “suffer or permit” them to work.