Published: October 17, 2019

Employers frequently face a rash of absences and call-offs in the wake of a natural disaster. Generally, whether a business is required to pay an employee who misses work depends on whether the employee is exempt or non-exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). If an exempt employee misses work for personal reasons, but the business remains open, the employer may deduct a full day’s salary. This includes absences due to transportation problems caused by weather. Likewise, a business is not required to pay a non-exempt employee for time not worked. If a business is closed due to a storm, the employer is obligated to pay exempt employees their normal salary, as long as the shutdown lasts less than a week.

. . . . . .

Published: October 14, 2019

Following on the heels of a much publicized incident in high school athletics, the New Jersey Division of Rights ("DCR") issued enforcement guidance ("Guidance") clarifying and explaining discrimination based on hairstyles, "with a particular focus on hairstyles closely associated with Black people." The Guidance follows an incident where a high school African-American wrestler was told by a referee that he must choose between cutting his dreadlocks or forfeiting the match.

. . . . . .

Published: October 11, 2019

On September 20, 2019, the Tenth Circuit held that cannabis industry employers are subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Defendant contended that because the employer’s employment activities are in violation of the Controlled Substances Act, the FLSA’s protections to do not apply to its workers.  This argument was soundly rejected by the Tenth Circuit – putting cannabis industry employers on notice that the FLSA and most likely other federal workplace protections apply to workers in the cannabis space.    

. . . . . .

Published: October 9, 2019

On October 2, 2019, the Supreme Court declined to review a 9th Circuit decision in a website accessibility lawsuit, Robles v. Domino’s. The 9th Circuit decision had reversed a grant of summary judgment and held that ADA Title III did potentially require that services of a place of public accommodations offered through websites and mobile apps, such as ordering pizza for delivery, be accessible, and remanded the case. Domino’s, supported by many major business groups, asked the Supreme Court to take the case and to provide direction on the application of the ADA to websites and other digital platforms. Many major news outlets are reporting this as a major victory for disability rights. That is overstated. There was no opinion, only a denial of a cert. petition. The 9th Circuit decision stands (for now) and lower courts will continue to struggle with these issues, as they have for years. The publicity may do more to increase litigation than the decision. The Supreme Court will eventually need to weigh in on this issue, but not now. Read a full analysis of this decision, here. 

. . . . . .

Published: September 20, 2019

On August 23, 2019, the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB") determined that property owners may prohibit non-employees from accessing their premises to engage in conduct that could be protected by federal labor law. This ruling is consistent with other decisions recently issued by the NLRB, which have overturned longstanding precedent in favor of more employer-friendly standards.

. . . . . .

Published: September 16, 2019

Please join us as the Firm’s Labor & Employment Practice hosts our Executive Series, "Federal and State Employment Law Update" on Tuesday, Oct. 15, 2019. This program will be live streamed from our Philadelphia office to each of the following Firm offices. (When registering, please be sure to indicate your choice of location).

. . . . . .