Pay Data Requirement for EEO-1 Form Stayed
Earlier this week, the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) initiated an immediate stay of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s revamped Employer Information Report, or EEO-1. As discussed here, an expanded EEO-1 was issued in September 2016, and required employers to submit information on employee pay and hours by job category, in addition to demographic information. The new EEO-1 requirement was to take effect beginning with the next EEO-1 date of March 31, 2018 (changed from previous September 30 submission deadlines.) Continue Reading Important EEO-1 and I-9 Updates

In a major victory for the business community, Judge Sam R. Cummings of the U. S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas issued a permanent nationwide injunction blocking the Department of Labor (DOL) from enforcing its new “persuader” rule. National Federation of Independent Business, et al. v. Perez, et al., Case No. 5:16-cv-00066. The rule attempted to expand disclosure requirements by employers and their consultants (including attorneys) related to union-organizing campaigns. Continue Reading Judge Not Persuaded, Permanently Enjoins DOL’s New Reporting Rule

Last week, the EEOC issued its final rule regarding pay data to be collected with the annual EEO-1 reports. Covered employers will now need to submit pay data sorted by job group and demographic data in their annual EEO-1 reports. The final rule was implemented with no material changes from the proposed rule first issued earlier this year, despite significant response and feedback from industry and employer groups citing concerns. For more information on the rule, see You Pay Your Employees What??? Employers Might Have to Share Hours and Pay Data in Proposed EEO-1 FormThe new EEO-1 form can be found here. Continue Reading EEOC and DOL Active Last Week: EEO-1 Pay Data Rule and Federal Contractor Paid Sick Leave Rule to Take Effect

Another federal court of appeals has weighed in on the question of whether requiring employees to waive the right to bring a class action against their employer in arbitration or court as a condition of employment violates employees’ rights under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Continue Reading Is the Tide Turning Against Class Action Waivers in Arbitration Agreements?

The current National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) has done it again, once more overturning existing precedent. In a decision issued July 11, 2016, the Board abandoned its 2004 Oakwood Care Center decision (343 NLRB 659) which stood for the proposition that a unit comprising the employees of a “supplier” employer (such as a leasing or temporary agency) and those of a “user” employer was not an appropriate unit for collective bargaining purposes, absent the consent of both employers. Miller & Anderson, Inc. and Tradesman International and Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local Union No. 19, AFL-CIO, 364 NLRB No. 39. Continue Reading Temporary Employees—Or Long-Term Bargaining Obligation?

Employers and their attorneys can breathe a collective sigh of relief, at least for the time being. On Monday, a Texas judge issued a nationwide injunction against the Department of Labor (DOL), preventing it from enforcing its new Persuader Rule after finding that the rule was “defective to its core.” Continue Reading Business Groups Persuade Texas Judge to Issue Nationwide Injunction Against Enforcement of DOL “Persuader” Rule

In a decision that creates a split with the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, the 7th Circuit on May 26, 2016 adopted the National Labor Relations Board’s D.R. Horton rationale and held that a condition of employment requiring employees to waive the right to bring class or collective actions either in arbitration or in judicial forums runs afoul of Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, and is unenforceable as illegal.  Lewis v. Epic Systems Corporation, No.15-2997 (7th Cir. 2016). Continue Reading 7th Circuit Holds Mandatory Waiver of Class Claims Unlawful; Creates Circuit Court Split

Thinking about running an anti-union campaign or consulting an attorney about your company’s non-union preferences? You may want to get started now, because the game is changing. In a move widely-believed by the business community to be political payback to labor unions, the Department of Labor (DOL) on Wednesday published a new final rule that closes perceived loopholes in Section 203 of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) and greatly expands reporting requirements for employers and labor consultants alike. Under the old rule, reporting of persuader activity by a labor relations consultant (including attorneys) was not required unless the consultant had direct contact with employees. Under the new rule, which goes into effect July 1, 2016, disclosure of even indirect contact with employees will be required. Continue Reading Closing the Loophole: Department of Labor Issues Final “Persuader” Rule

There’s no dissent here.  Justice Scalia’s unexpected passing presents a potential blow to employers in two ways.  First, the Supreme Court lost one of its most staunchly conservative justices, who often sided with management in key employment-related decisions.  Second, his death has left the Supreme Court without a clear majority and no easy mechanism to reverse appellate court decisions favoring employees.  With the 2016 elections nearly eight months away, and the likelihood of a replacement shrinking with each news cycle, 4-4 decisions are probably the new norm until a replacement is confirmed after the election. Continue Reading It’s Unanimous: Employers Face an Uncertain Future After Justice Scalia’s Death