In Razak v. Uber Technologies, Inc., a Pennsylvania federal judge ruled last week that drivers for UberBLACK, the company’s higher-end limousine service, are properly classified as independent contractors. In granting Uber’s motion for summary judgment, this court was the first federal court to determine whether drivers for UberBLACK are employees or independent contractors under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and similar Pennsylvania state laws.
Although California legalized medical marijuana use in 1996 and recreational use in 2016, California employers have always been free to maintain zero-tolerance policies against all users. That could change soon as a result of Assembly Bill 2069 (“AB 2069”), which would amend the California Fair Employment and Housing Act to create a new class of protected persons: medical marijuana cardholders.
Just in time for Equal Pay Day (April 10), in its en banc opinion in Rizo v. Yovino, Fresno County Superintendent of Schools, the Ninth Circuit held earlier this week that prior salary alone, or in combination with other factors, cannot justify a wage differential between male and female employees under the Equal Pay Act (“EPA”). In reaching this holding, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of summary judgment to Fresno County and overruled a prior Ninth Circuit decision, Kouba v. Allstate Insurance Co., 691 F. 2d 873 (9th Cir. 1982). The court in Rizo also took a view of available EPA affirmative defenses which conflicts with the views held by other circuits and the EEOC.
On March 30, 2018, Judge Analisa Torres of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York partially certified a class in Chen-Oster v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., a gender discrimination class action against Goldman, Sachs & Co. (“Goldman Sachs”). In so doing, Judge Torres not only departed from the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge James C. Francis, but also extended beyond the U.S. Supreme Court’s reasoning in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011).
Last week, a California state court in San Francisco ruled that a California Equal Pay Act class action against Google Inc. has survived the pleading stage. The California Equal Pay Act currently requires equal pay for employees who perform “substantially similar work” when viewed as a composite of skill, effort and responsibility. The 2016 amendment to the Equal Pay Act also prohibits employers from relying on the employee’s prior salary to justify a sex-based difference in salary. Plaintiffs allege in their amended complaint that Google relies on gender stereotypes and has a company-wide policy of relying on former salary history in setting pay and assigning jobs. These allegations were critical to the court’s decision to allow the case to proceed as a class action.
If you’ve ever purchased an automobile, you know that haggling for a good deal is either the best, or the worst, part of the car-buying experience. That new car smell is pretty memorable too. No matter the aroma or the final purchase price, however, in order to drive home in that shiny new vehicle, you ultimately must agree to give the dealership a certain amount of money, known in legal terms as “consideration.” This concept of consideration is equally important in the non-compete world, as explored in this twelfth article in The Restricting Covenant Series, through the lens of a hypothetical car salesman.