On March 25, 2015 the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Young v. United States Parcel Service. This is an important case because it clarifies what constitutes unlawful discrimination under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (“PDA”). Employers should carefully review this case and ensure that they are not inadvertently discriminating against pregnant employees by refusing to accommodate their temporary physical restrictions.
The U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) new rule broadening the definition “spouse” under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to provide legally married same-sex couples the same rights under the law as married opposite-sex couples becomes effective on March 27, 2015.
Last week, the Supreme Court of the United States held that Interpretive Rules issued by administrative agencies do not have to undergo the notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) even if they contradict or substantially change previously issued Interpretive Rules. Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association, et al., —S.Ct.—, 2015 WL 998535 (Mar. 9, 2015). Specifically, the Court held that the Department of Labor was allowed to change its position on whether mortgage-loan officers were exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA even though (1) it did not follow the APA’s notice-and-comment rules prior to changing its position and (2) it had taken the exact opposite position just four year earlier.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) will celebrate 2015 by implementing new regulations relating to an employer’s duty to report work-related fatalities, injuries, and illnesses. The new regulations go into effect on January 1, 2015 for all workplaces that fall under federal OSHA jurisdiction.
In their dissent to the National Labor Relations Board’s Register-Guard decision, Board Members Liebman and Walsh classically stated that “the NLRB has become the ‘Rip Van Winkle of administrative agencies. Only a Board that has been asleep for the past 20 years could . . . contend, as the majority does, that an e-mail system is a piece of communications equipment to be treated just as the law treats bulletin boards, telephones, and pieces of scrap paper.” See 351 NLRB 1110, 1121 (2007). After a seven year slumber, the Board has awoken and is attempting to get with the times. See Purple Commc’ns, Inc., 361 NLRB No. 126 (2014). A 3-2 majority of the Board adopted the logic of Liebman and Walsh’s dissent and overruled what many believed to be a canonical case on the balance between employees’ Section 7 rights and employers’ property rights.
The Supreme Court’s pro-arbitration and pro-alternative dispute resolution jurisprudence is being met with opposition from administrative agencies, especially the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). As a result, common employment practices, such as mandatory arbitration provisions and severance agreements, are being subject to intense legal scrutiny.