Earlier today the Supreme Court announced its decision in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, holding in a 5-4 split that arbitration agreements providing for individualized proceedings must be enforced. Arbitration provisions in employment contracts are quite common and often include language specifically limiting employees to individualized arbitration proceedings as opposed to class action proceedings or joint-arbitration.
NLRB axes Lutheran Heritage Standard
In a 3-2 decision, the NLRB overruled its prior decision regarding how it analyzes whether a facially neutral workplace rule, policy or employee handbook provision interferes with the exercise of rights protected by the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”).
The new term of the Supreme Court began last Monday, October 2, and the first case up has the potential to affect millions of employers and employees across the country. The case, Epic Systems Corp v. Lewis (which was consolidated with two other cases, Ernst & Young LLP v. Morris and National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA) examines whether employment agreements requiring employers and employees to resolve employment-related disputes through individual arbitration and waive class and collective proceedings are enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), notwithstanding the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
On December 24, 2015, the NLRB ruled that an employer’s policy prohibiting employees from recording images or verbal exchanges in the workplace was unlawful.
In a reversal of precedent, a divided National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) held yesterday that employees have a right to use their employers’ email systems for non-business purposes, including statutorily protected communications regarding the terms and conditions of their employment and regarding union organizing efforts. See Purple Communications, Inc., 361 NLRB No. 126 (December 11, 2014). The NLRB’s ruling stemmed from a case brought by the Communications Workers of America union after it unsuccessfully attempted to organize employees of Purple Communications, Inc., a company that provides interpreting services for the deaf and hearing-impaired. The union argued that prohibiting the company’s workers from using the company’s email system for non-business purposes and on behalf of organizations not associated with the company interfered with the CWA’s organizing efforts.
Demonstrating the NLRB’s increased focus on limiting employer confidentiality rules, a three member panel of the NLRB recently ruled in DirecTV U.S. DirecTV Holdings LLC, 359 NLRB No. 4 (January 25, 2013) that four work rules maintained by DirecTV were unlawful restrictions on employees’ Section 7 rights and that the employer did not repudiate the rules.
Topics/Tags
Select- Labor & Employment Law
- Coronavirus
- Employment Law
- Department of Labor
- Discrimination
- Arbitration
- Labor Law
- Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation
- Religion Discrimination
- Disability Discrimination
- IRS
- NLRB
- Race Discrimination
- Litigation
- Employer Policies
- OSHA
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Social Media
- Retirement
- Sexual Orientation Discrimination
- Accommodation
- National Labor Relations Act
- National Labor Relations Board
- ERISA
- Employer Handbook
- Employment Litigation
- Reasonable Accommodation
- Wage & Hour
- EEOC
- ACA
- Affordable Car Act
- ADAAA
- NLRA
- Title VII
- Unions
- Employer Rules
- Federal Arbitration Act
- Sexual Harassment
- Technology
- Privacy
- 401(k)
- Transgender Issues
- FMLA
- Workplace Accommodations
- Disability
- Workplace Violence
- Employment Settlement Agreements
- Sixth Circuit
- Fair Labor Standards Act
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- Paycheck Protection Program
- Securities Law
- Preventive Care Benefits
- Health Savings Account
- SECURE Act
- US Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration
- Gender Identity Discrimination
- Posting Requirements
- Class Action Litigation
- Disability Law
- Benefits
- E-Discovery
- Evidence
- Family and Medical Leave Act
- Environmental Law
- Overtime Pay
- Privacy Laws
- Representative Election Regulations
- Department of Justice
- Healthcare Reform
- Older Workers' Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA)
- Electronically Stored Information
- Telecommuting
- Affirmative Action
- Compensable Time
- Equal Opportunity Clause
- Security Screening
- Supreme Court
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- E-Discovery Case Law
- Electronic Data Discovery
- ESI
- Unemployment Insurance Integrity Act
- American Medical Association
- Attendance Policy
- Return to Work
- Seniority Rights
- Classification
- Confidentiality
- Fair Minimum Wage
- Federal Minimum Wage
- Media Policy
- Misclassification
- State Minimum Wage
- Wage Increase
- Disability Leave
- Equal Pay
- Genetic Information Discrimination
- National Origin Discrimination
- Retaliation
- Social Media Content
- Taxation
- Antitrust
- Employment Incentives
- HIRE Act
- Social Security Tax
Recent Posts
- The Practical Employment Law Podcat: Labor & Employment Law Update Week of 1/23/23
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: The Obligatory New Year's Episode
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: The Obligatory Holiday Party Episode
- Independent Contractor Classification - Deadline to Submit Comments on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is Approaching
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Thanksgiving for Plaintiffs' Attorneys
- Why Every Employer Including Those Outside NYC Should Stay Abreast of the NYC Pay Transparency Law
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Interview with Author and Lawyer Steven Mitchell Sack
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Are You Caught in a TRAP?
- California New Pay Transparency Law
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: The Controversial Episode