Labor & Employment Developments Blog

The recently released 2012 EEOC enforcement statistics indicated an overall decrease in charges and increase in damages paid by employers.  Notably, for the second consecutive year, the EEOC reduced its pending inventory of private sector charges by 10% from fiscal year 2011, bringing inventory to 70,312.  However, the EEOC obtained the largest amount of monetary recovery in 2012, totaling $365.4 million.  Leading the states in originating charges was Texas at 9.0% of charges filed nationally, followed by Florida (8.0%) and California (7.4%).   

As the FMLA celebrates its 20^th birthday this February, social media continues to be an increasingly important resource for employers in combating frivolous FMLA interference and retaliation charges by former employees. 

The D.C. Circuit holds that President Obama’s January 2012 recess appointments to the NLRB were unconstitutional, arguably undermining the precedential value of controversial decisions  of 2012. (Noel Canning v. NLRB, January 25, 2013.)   

There have been a couple of interesting developments this week in labor and employment law.  First, some may recall that I posted earlier this summer about the employment practice of refusing to consider the unemployed for open positions.  I mentioned at the time that a bill had been introduced, the Fair Employment Act of 2011 (H.R. 1113), that would amend Title VII to add “unemployment status” to the list of protected classes.  Employment Law Matters reports that the effort to pass such a law continues:

Those of you who follow such things have no doubt enjoyed the recent federal court decisions taking the EEOC to task for its “sue first, ask questions later” approach to class action litigation.  As one commentator has noted:

Perhaps the most notable of these recent cases is EEOC v. CRST Van Expedited, Inc., in which the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa dismissed a sexual harassment case filed by the EEOC on behalf of 67 women, and awarded CRST more than $4 million in attorneys’ fees. The district court, in finding the EEOC’s prosecution of the case to be frivolous, unreasonable and without foundation, sharply criticized the EEOC’s litigation strategy as one of “sue first, ask questions later.” Here, the district court found that the EEOC failed to investigate the specific allegations of the 67 class members until after the civil action was commenced. In fact, the EEOC had not interviewed any of the women who were supposedly sexually harassed and did not subpoena any documents to determine if the allegations were true. Before filing suit, the EEOC also did not identify any of the 67 female class members and did not attempt to conciliate the allegations of those women. In the end, the district court found that the EEOC had not complied with its own administrative requirements and dismissed the case due to the jurisdictional defects. 

As some readers may have noticed, I have been on a brief hiatus from blogging.  This was primarily due to my real job, practicing labor and employment law, and a much needed vacation.  I am back now and offer you some interesting reading that I came across recently: 

I ran across an interesting debate in a recent issue of the USA Today over the issue of job postings.  Apparently, some employers have been posting jobs with a statement that the unemployed need not apply. 

In a story widely reported in the news last year, the EEOC sued Kaplan Higher Education Corporation, a nationwide provider of postsecondary education, alleging that it engaged in a pattern or practice of unlawful discrimination by refusing to hire a class of black job applicants nationwide.  The suit was based on the allegation that since at least 2008, Kaplan had rejected job applicants based on their credit history and that the practice had an unlawful discriminatory impact because of race.  One issue that arose in the case was the proper scope of the class of claimants in pattern or practice suits brought by the EEOC.  Specifically, whether individuals claiming to aggrieved more than 300 days before the filing of the charge that triggered the EEOC’s investigation could be included in the class.  This week, the Court answered that question in the negative, holding that the plain language of Title VII does not carve out an exception for the EEOC to bring untimely claims. 

The NLRB’s interest in social media has been in the news recently and I have commented on it here and here.  The assault on employers’ efforts to manage their employees use of social media as it pertains to the workplace continued this month with two new cases.

The fast food chain Carl’s Jr. was sued this week in a class action brought by California managers who claim they were not paid for expenses incurred while driving for work-related purposes.  The lead plaintiff claims that she regularly drove her personal vehicle to meetings, other restaurants and banks but was not reimbursed for mileage or other expenses.