Employment Litigation - Page 11 of 15

As Fall Approaches, WARN Act Lawsuits Likely to Heat Up

The global COVID-19 pandemic continues to impact businesses with no clear end in sight. While the prospect of a functioning vaccine may have a while to go, a spike in Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act litigation may be on the horizon. Furloughs and workforce reductions have been prevalent since mid-March, leaving millions of employees without jobs or on extended leaves while they wait (and hope) to be recalled to work. While only about a dozen WARN Act lawsuits have been filed to date, as layoffs extend beyond six months, new workforce reductions occur, and more plaintiffs’ attorneys shift their attention to WARN Act claims, the remainder of 2020 may become a hurricane season of sorts as WARN Act litigation could flood the courts. And as the days and weeks go by, an employer’s ability to successfully assert the “unforeseeable business circumstances” defense to providing less than 60 days’ notice of a “mass layoff” or “plant closing” has diminished and will only become more challenging for employers to assert.

Continue reading “As Fall Approaches, WARN Act Lawsuits Likely to Heat Up”

Ninth Circuit Rules Amazon Drivers Fall Within FAA’s Transportation Worker Exemption

On August 19, the Ninth Circuit delivered the latest guidance in the long-running debate over the Federal Arbitration Act’s (FAA) scope. It held that Amazon delivery drivers can move forward with a nationwide class action — in court, not arbitration — because they fall within the FAA’s transportation worker exemption.

The case, Bernadean Rittmann v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al, Case No. 19-35381, dealt with a “last mile” delivery driver through Amazon’s app-based delivery program, Amazon Flex (AmFlex), who occasionally crossed state lines, but completed most deliveries intrastate. Upon starting work, the driver signed an agreement requiring him to bring claims against Amazon in arbitration.

Continue reading “Ninth Circuit Rules Amazon Drivers Fall Within FAA’s Transportation Worker Exemption”

Tenth Circuit Ruling Shows Bostock’s Impact on Title VII Employment Litigation

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, which extended federal statutory protections to the LGBT community, many have wondered how that decision might impact other employment litigation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Tenth Circuit’s recent decision in Frappied v. Affinity Gaming Black Hawk, LLC, No. 19-1063 (10th Cir. 2020), suggests that, following Bostock, courts may begin to recognize new claims or even reconsider prior limitations on Title VII’s scope.

For the full alert, visit the Faegre Drinker website.

U.K. Employment Law Update: Confidentiality Breaches, Anonymous Witnesses and the ‘Last Straw’ Doctrine

Breach of Confidentiality Term in a COT3 Settlement Agreement

In the case of Duchy Farm Kennels v. Steels, the High Court considered whether a term of confidentiality in a COT3 settlement agreement was a condition of the agreement, in which case a former employee’s breach of that term would have entitled the employer to withhold payments due under the agreement. Continue reading “U.K. Employment Law Update: Confidentiality Breaches, Anonymous Witnesses and the ‘Last Straw’ Doctrine”

With Pennsylvania Non-Competes, As in Life, Timing is Everything

In Pennsylvania, it has long been known that waiting until after the start of employment to have an employee sign a non-competition agreement comes with the real risk that the agreement will be unenforceable for lack of consideration. Last week, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court provided definitive guidance on the issue in Rullex Co., LLC v. Tel-Stream, Inc., et al., holding that a non-competition agreement entered into after an employee commences employment fails for lack of consideration unless the essential provisions of those restrictions were agreed to before the employee started work.

Continue reading “With Pennsylvania Non-Competes, As in Life, Timing is Everything”

Supreme Court Decides Bostock v. Clayton County, Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda, and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. v. EEOC

On June 15, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court decided three cases, holding that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2, bars discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and transgender identity.

In each of the three cases, an employee was fired shortly after revealing that he or she was homosexual or transgender. Each plaintiff brought suit under Title VII, alleging unlawful discrimination on the basis of sex. The Eleventh Circuit held that Title VII does not protect against discrimination in employment on the basis of sexual orientation, while the Second Circuit held that it did. The Sixth Circuit held that Title VII protects against discrimination on the basis of transgender identity.

For the full alert, visit the Faegre Drinker website.