Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives

The class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act arguably is the employer’s most dreaded legal claim.  In April 2011, the United States Supreme Court provided a potential escape hatch for employers.  In AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, the Supreme Court seemed to signal -- “seemed” being the operative word -- that employers need only enter into arbitration agreements in which employees disclaim their ability to file an FLSA class action (or, as it’s actually called in the FLSA, a “collective” action).

On June 24, 2011, the Texas Supreme Court wrote the next chapter concerning the enforceability of non-compete agreements in Texas.  A company’s provision of stock options to employees was deemed satisfactory consideration for a non-compete agreement in Marsh USA Inc. and Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. v. Cook, --- S.W.3d ----, 2011 WL 2517019 (Tex., 2011).  The Court declared that stock options are reasonably related to the protection of a company’s goodwill, a business interest worthy of protection under the Covenants Not to Compete Act (CNCA).  Although goodwill is intangible, Texas law has long recognized that it is “a property and integral part of [a] business just as its physical assets are.” Marsh USA, Inc., 2011 WL 2517019 * 11. 

The National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) handed down an opinion last month, in Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local 15 (Brandon Regional Medical Center), 361 NLRB No. 162 (2011), that constitutes a victory for union members and giant inflatable rats everywhere.  Inflatable rats have been used by unions to protest employers’ use of non-union (or “rat”) workers since as early as 1991.  Giant inflatable rats have been the subject of lawsuits in the past, and a previous case has made it all the way to the Supreme Court of New Jersey.  See State v. DeAngelo, 197 N.J. 478 (2009).  The inflatable rat in question was 16 feet tall and 12 feet wide.  It was located 100 feet from the entrance of a hospital, run by a neutral company, whose independent contractor subcontracted work to a company which utilized non-union workers. 

Section 203 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act requires employers to annually report via Form LM-10 any agreement or arrangement with a third-party consultant to persuade employees as to collective bargaining rights, or to obtain certain information about the activities of employees or a labor organization involved in a labor dispute with the employer. The retained consultant must also file a report concerning the agreement or arrangement (Form LM-20). However, one statutory exception in section 203(c) provides that no report need be filed when the consultant gives “advice” to the employer.

This week, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in what has been called the “most important class action case in more than a decade.”  In Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, et al., No. 10-277, 564 U.S. ___ (June 20, 2010), the plaintiffs, current and former employees of the Nation’s largest private employer, Wal-Mart, sought judgment against the company for injunctive and declaratory relief, punitive damages, and backpay, on behalf of themselves and a nationwide class of some 1.5 million female employees, alleging sex discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

In October 2010, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) raised the eyebrows of employers and observers when its Hartford, Connecticut Regional Office issued an unfair labor practice complaint against an employer after it allegedly terminated an employee for posting unflattering statements about her supervisor on Facebook.  The NLRB and the company settled the complaint in February 2011, on condition that the company revise its rules so they do not improperly restrict employees from discussing their wages, hours and working conditions with coworkers and others while not at work.  The employer also agreed that it would not discipline or discharge employees for engaging in such discussions.

The United States Department of Labor (“DOL”) has announced the launch of its first application, or “app,” for smartphones to “help employees independently track the hours they work and determine the wages they are owed” in accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). The application is available in both English and Spanish and allows employees to privately record regular work hours, break and meal times, and any overtime hours. The free app is currently compatible only with iPhone and iPod Touch; however, the DOL is exploring updates for compatibility with other smart phones such as Android and Blackberry phones.

By proposing to amend its Scheduling Letter and Itemized Listing, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (“OFCCP”) is at it again, imposing greater burdens on federal contractors.  Following its recent proposal to strengthen contractors’ affirmative action efforts for veterans, the OFCCP has now issued a proposal to modify its Scheduling Letter and Itemized Listing used in compliance reviews and compliance checks.  On May 12, 2011, the OFCCP published Notice in the Federal Registry requesting comments on its proposed changes.  The current Scheduling Letter and Itemized Listing are set to expire on September 30, 2011.  Comments on the proposed changes must be submitted by July 11, 2011.

The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (“OFCCP”) has issued a proposed rule to strengthen the current regulations that require federal contractors and subcontractors to engage in affirmative action efforts for veterans. The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on April 26, 2011. Fed. Reg. 23,358 (Apr. 26, 2011). Public comments regarding the rule are due by June 27, 2011.

The OFCCP’s proposed rule would revise the regulations that implement the Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistant Act (“VEVRAA”), 41 CFR Parts 60-250 and 60-300, which have generally remained unchanged since 1976. VEVRAA, its amendments and regulations prohibit contractors from discriminating against protected veterans and additionally require contractors to take affirmative action to recruit, employ, and advance the employment of protected veterans. VEVRAA also requires certain contractors to maintain a written Affirmative Action Plan.

A recent Tenth Circuit decision sends a strong message that the court takes seriously the jurisdictional prerequisite that plaintiffs exhaust their administrative remedies in a Title VII claim prior to taking a claim to court.  The process to do so is well-known -- before an employee can file a lawsuit alleging discrimination against his or her employer, he or she must file a charge with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”).  Requiring individuals to exhaust their administrative remedies prior to filing a lawsuit serves, hopefully, to eliminate facially meritless charges, facilitate internal resolution, and help avoid litigation.  This is often the case, as many charges filed with the EEOC never end up on a court’s docket.  But what happens if the parties are already enmeshed in litigation and the plaintiff claims that the defendant’s conduct during the course of that litigation is retaliatory?  Can the plaintiff amend his or her complaint to include that allegation?  Or must he or she go back to the EEOC and file a charge for that claim?  In McDonald-Cuba v. Santa Fe Protective Services, Inc., the Tenth Circuit held that the latter is true.  No. 10-2151 (10th Cir. May 9, 2011).  The Fourth came down the other way in a similar case.