In its August 23, 2016 decision in Columbia Univ., 364 N.L.R.B. No. 90 (2016), the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) ruled that graduate students working as teaching and research assistants at private universities qualify as employees for collective bargaining purposes under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) and thereby paved the way for graduate students to join or form unions. Depending on the size of the academic institution, the unionization of graduate employees could pose not only a significant financial burden but also a disruption to the completion of academic programs. This type of student union may be one that not all campuses are ready for.
Companies should consider examining the extent to which there may be pay disparities in their workforce. Current events and the EEOC’s revised EEO-1 Rule suggests that all regulatory agencies will be taking a much closer look at corporate pay practices in an attempt to try and root out unintentional bias that is identifiable through inexplicable differences in pay between men and women (as well as between other protected categories).
On June 20, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) 2011 regulation classifying “service advisors” as eligible for overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) was not enforceable.
On May 12, 2016, OSHA published the final version of new reporting rules intended to “Improve Tracking of Workplace Injuries and Illnesses.”
In March of this year, the Office of Labor-Management Standards (“OLMS”) issued new regulations regarding the Persuader Rule. See 29 CFR Parts 405 and 406. The new regulations, which become fully effective on July 1, 2016, require employers and their law firms or consultants to comply with federal reporting and disclosure requirements if they engage in certain labor relations advisory activities.
The long anticipated DOL overtime rules have been issued. On May 18, 2016, the Department of Labor released the Final Rule governing the “white-collar exemptions” to the Fair Labor Standards Act’s (“FLSA”) overtime pay requirements. These long-awaited regulations will have substantial implications for most employers. The final rule is set to become effective on December 1, 2016.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) requires that, before a class is certified, a district court must find that questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over questions affecting only individual members.” In a recent decision by the Supreme Court, the majority explained that “[i]n a case where representative evidence is relevant in proving a plaintiff’s individual claim, that evidence cannot be deemed improper because the claim is brought on behalf of a class.” Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, et al., No. 14-1146, 2016 WL 1092414 (S. Ct. 2016).
When an employee or former employee files a charge of discrimination against their employer, the EEOC has the authority to investigate. As part of the investigation, the EEOC asks the employer to submit a position statement explaining its side of the story.
In a nutshell – Last week, the EEOC unveiled its proposal to seek increased amounts of data from large employers in a stated effort to “combat the persistent gender gap in employee compensation.” Practically, the proposal revises the EEO-1 form. The EEOC’s proposed changes to the EEO-1 form will require all employers with 100 or more employees to submit the new EEO-1 form and provide substantial information regarding pay ranges and hours worked as well as salary data by race, gender and ethnicity.
On Wednesday, January 20, 2016, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) released an administrator’s interpretation that is intended to provide guidance to employers on the WHD’s position on the joint-employer standard under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act.