Source: https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/laborprof_blog/labor_and_employment_news/index.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 10:39:36+00:00

Document:
First were the adjuncts at Duke. An now, adjunct faculty at Elon joined in the act by voting for union representation--112 to 68 in favor of representation by the SEIU. It's not clear whether the University will file election objections, although they have already noted that this is an option. However, given that some of the issues driving support for the union seem relatively easy to address (e.g., not allowing adjuncts to apply for full-time job openings), one has to wonder if it wouldn't make more sense at this point to simply deal with those issues and move on. But we shall see . . . .
This goes to show that even in a state that regularly vies for the lowest union density in the country, there is still labor activity going on.
In the lawsuit, the women claim that in 2016, U.S. Soccer made more than $17 million in unexpected profits thanks largely to the women’s team, while paying the women players substantially less than their male counterparts. According to the lawsuit, a comparison of pay schedules for the two teams shows that if each team played 20 exhibition games in one year, members of the men’s team could earn an average of $263,320 each, while women’s players could earn a maximum of $99,000.
The lawsuit also highlights differences in World Cup bonuses for the two teams. After 2014 World Cup, U.S. Soccer paid out a total of $5.375 million in bonuses to the men’s team, which lost in the round of 16. In 2015, U.S.Soccer paid out $1.725 million in bonuses to the women, who won their World Cup, the lawsuit states.
One interesting element is that many of these conditions are rooted in a 2017 collective-bargaining agreement, which U.S. Soccer is sure to cite. However, traditionally, there was an expectation that unions can't waive Title VII and similar rights. Of course, there also used to be the same expectation when it came to mandatory arbitration clauses covering Title VII and similar claims, which the Court later abandoned. So stay tuned.
Yesterday, the Department of Labor announced its much anticipated proposed new overtime regulation. This goes to whether employees can be considered exempt from overtime as administrative, executive, or professional employees. The only real change is to the minimum salary threshold required to count an employee as exempt from overtime (that is, no matter what employees' duties are, if they don't make the minimum, they must get overtime if they are otherwise qualified). As readers will remember, the Obama DOL increased the salary threshold to about $47,000 a year initially, and added a measure that would have it change automatically based on average wage increases; this rule was then put on hold by a district court, largely based on a holding that the DOL relied to much on salary and not enough on employees' duties.
The new proposed rule increases the minimum salary, but only to $35,308 per year (up from the current, Bush II-era $23,660 per year that is in place after the decision striking down the previous increase). It also raised the "highly-compensated employee" rule, which makes it easier to exempt employees making over a certain amount, from $100,000 a year to $147,414. The DOL did not propose an automatic increase to these salary levels, but committed to reviewing them regularly (I'll believe that when I see it). Moreover, it left the duties test untouched.
As is the usual practice, this announcement kicks off the comment period, after which the DOL will produce a final rule. And, as is also the norm these days, there will be lawsuits. Some will argue that the increase in salary goes to far, while others will argue that the rule still makes it too easy to exempt employees. Expect mixed messages from the district courts, which parties will handpick to try to get more favorable rulings. The key, therefore, will be to wait for the appeals courts to step in. So, we should see something of a final word on the final rule in, I'd guess, a couple of years from now.
Minor league players earn salaries that amount to less than minimum wage for up to seven years on their first pro contracts, and the rigorous spring-training schedule doesn’t exactly allow time for moonlighting.
After a lobbying effort by MLB, last year’s $1.3 trillion congressional spending bill — signed into law by Donald Trump in March — included an amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act to exempt minor-league baseball players from federal minimum-wage protection. The so-called Save America’s Pastime Act, originally introduced in 2016 by a pair of congresspersons who received campaign donations from MLB’s PAC, appeared on page 1,967 of the 2,232 omnibus 2018 spending bill.
Even if you're not a sports fan, this issue is a good reminder that wage and classifications issues didn't start with Uber. In fact, I see a lot of parallels with other industries that manage to dangle low probability/high reward opportunities in front of individuals who will work for nothing, whether as an apprentice, volunteer, or intern (I'm looking at you, fashion and entertainment industries).
Definitely read the article, as it provides a lot of detail about what's going on and the severe disparities that exist on the same field.
As a reminder, or introduction, unions' ability to require nonmembers to pay dues (where they can require them to pay any dues at all--i.e., private-sector employers in non-right-to-work states) is based on where those dues are going. The Supreme Court (in Beck, among other cases) has divided union activities into two categories: chargeable (which unions can require nonmembers to contribute to) and nonchargeable (nonmembers can choose not to contribute). Some activities are easy to classify. For instance, expenses related to negotiating and implementing a collective-bargaining agreement are clearly chargeable; political activity such as working to elect a candidate is clearly not. Kent Hospital deals with an activity in middle: lobbying. The key line usually used for distinguishing the two classifications is that unions can only require contributions for activities "necessary to ‘performing the duties of an exclusive representative of the employees in dealing with the employer on labor-management issues.’” (Beck, Ellis).
In Kent Hospital, local nurses unions are part of a regional union (UNAP), and each local contributes a per capita amount of funds to UNAP. In turn, UNAP uses these funds for various activities, including lobbying for certain bills in states in which it operates. The bills at issue in the case were those addressed to: hospital regulation (including mergers), public employee retirement system, hospital funding, safe patient handling programs, mandatory hospital overtime, and mental health care funding. In other words, bills that would obviously impact and be of concern to nurses, albeit not always in a direct way. The ALJ found that the hospital merger, hospital funding, and mental health funding were chargeable because they would affect UNAP's ability to represent its members. The Board disagreed, concluding broadly that lobbying activities are never chargeable, because they are is not part of unions' statutory collective-bargaining obligations. This is true, according to the Board, even if targeted to matters that may be subject to collective bargaining (e.g., workplace changes related to patient safety).
Whatever one thinks about the bills here, the Board seems to have painted with too broad a brush. There is a wide range of legislation, some of which may well be directly related to unions' collective-bargaining obligations. Among many examples she uses in her dissent to criticize the majority's categorical "lobbying is nonchargeable" rule, Member McFerran cites a bill that would change terms in a collective-bargaining agreement. The dissent is well worth the read, as it does a good job undercutting the majority's categorical approach.
Finally, the Board addressed the union's failure to provide objectors an audit verification letter, which the union possessed but didn't provide to nonmember objectors because it didn't think it was legally required to. An audit verification letter is what it sounds like: something from an auditor stating that the union's classification of expenses is appropriate. Following the Ninth Circuit, the Board concluded that unions must provide objectors the audit verification letter, rather than the mere assurance that the auditor agreed to the classification as occurred in Kent Hospital. Member McFerran agreed, although dissented to applying this new rule retroactively.
Give domestic workers and farmworkers collective-bargaining rights.
Give independent contractors collective rights.
Regulate pre-employment mandatory arbitration agreements.
Re-establish the State Joint Legislative Committee on Labor and Industrial Conditions.
The Denver teachers strike ends after three days. Looks like the deal will significantly increase salaries and the .parties agree to study the bonus scheme that helped precipitate the strike. As an aside, this year seems to be one of more traditional, union teacher strikes, as opposed to the previous years' non-union teacher protests and strikes. I'm not sure if it's just coincidence or something else (e.g., state politicians did more to pacify teachers prior to the November elections), but it's worth watching.
The Seventh Circuit just held en banc that the ADEA does not permit disparate impact claims by applicants. This issue has Supreme Court review written all over it. I'm not sure when, as there's some question whether there's an active circuit split (the 7th & 11th have held the same; to the best of my knowledge, all the circuits going the other way did so before the Smith v. Jackson case from the Supreme Court that clarified the ADEA's disparate impact analysis). In the meantime, it's a great teaching case because it's going some good statutory interpretation aspects, weaving a tension of textual factors, past Court precedent, and statutory purpose.
In other Seventh Circuit news, the court just ruled on Scabby the Rat (who seems to be going out of his way to define the modern labor movement). It held that a town ordinance prohibiting Scabby did not violate the union's First Amendment rights because the ordinance was content neutral and wasn't enforced in a discriminatory fashion. At the same time, the NLRB's General Counsel has indicated a desire to go after the use of Scabby and other inflatables (which employers really hate, thereby showing their effectiveness). So expect Scabby to stay in the news.
The NLRB has invited briefs regarding whether it should decline jurisdiction over charter schools. Note this would be a decision to voluntarily decline jurisdiction, not a ruling that the Board lacks jurisdiction (like the Northwestern college football case). I'm not a huge fan of this tactic, especially in a case like charter schools where you lack the conflict in public and private teams playing each other. But note that if the NLRB follows through, they're not going to be able to totally avoid the issue because employees could still bring individual complaints alleging ULPs.
I'm writing to ask if you might consider signing a legal academic letter of support for non-tenure-track faculty who are organizing a union at Elon University. Throughout the process, administrators have argued that the adjuncts are managers excluded from the NLRA. While the Region recently rejected this claim and scheduled an election for next week, the local (Workers United Southern Region) and the International (SEIU) fear that the University will appeal to the Board. This would not only delay the process at Elon, it would endanger one of the most successful and inspiring unionization trends of the past few years.
The campaign is hoping to finalize the letter by COB Saturday; here's the sign-on page.
The American Federation of Government Employees has initiated a suit on behalf on of two federal corrections officers who have not received earned overtime pay. The class is likely to grow substantially if the shutdown continues past Jan. 5, as that's the next regularly scheduled payday. Indeed, it is estimated that over 400,000 employees have been deemed essential and are required to continue working during the shutdown.
Like a similar suit brought during the 2013 shutdown by the same law firm--Kalijarvi, Chuzi, Newman & Fitch--the employees are claiming FLSA violations. What I hadn't realized is that despite a win in the 2013 suit, 25,000 employees still haven't received damages (they were awarded liquidated/double damages). If anyone knows why, I'd love to hear it. In any event, the prospect of double damages for over 400,000 employees for heaven knows how many hours of work would, I hope, give politicians extra incentive to get this resolved. That said, no matter how big an FLSA award might be, it still pales in comparison to a $5 billion wall . . . .
The D.C. Circuit has just ruled on the NLRB's Browning-Ferris joint-employer test, largely approving the standard that made many on the employer-side of things apoplectic. In Browning-Ferris v. NLRB, the court approved of the joint-employer rule, but remanded because it held that the Board didn't apply part of the rule correctly. This issue is becoming increasingly convoluted, so let me break down some of what's going on.
Why did the court decide this case in the first place? As we've been following, the Board has already reversed the Browning-Ferris test once, which they had to vacate because of a recusal issue. They are now in the process of reversing course via rulemaking. Despite that, the Board asked the court to decide the case, which the majority readily agreed to do, over a dissent. The reason the court did this brings me to the second point.
De novo review for the joint-employer test. The court emphasized that determination of the Board's joint-employer rule is reviewed de novo. Because the joint-employer standard is based in common law, according to the court, no deference to the agency is required (as opposed to application of the standard, which is a mixed question of law and fact). And because the court wasn't giving the Board any deference, the court determined that there was no need to wait for the Board's new rule. Note that this is not good news for the Board's draft joint-employer rule, although may be good news for those who prefer a more consistent rule over the long-term.
Reserved and indirect control is relevant to joint employment. As a reminder, the big argument is whether and to what extent the joint-employer test should consider reserved and indirect control. Browning Ferris said that actual and direct control is not required; the current Board disagrees. In this case, the court was crystal clear that the argument made by the employer and dissenters in Browning-Ferris that joint employment can be based only on exercised control and direct and immediate control are wrong. Full stop. As the court noted, the common law is riddled with examples and statements that reserved control and indirect control are relevant to joint employer determinations. So this extreme view--that joint employers must have actual and direct control--is currently dead in the D.C. Circuit. But there's a middle ground that may still available, which I'll get to in a moment. But first . . .
Remand. Despite uphold the Browning-Ferris test, the court held that the Board mis-stepped in this case. In particular, when applying the new rule in this case, the Board didn't make clear whether it relied on evidence on indirect control over essential terms and conditions of work (which is relevant) versus indirect control over "routine parameters of company-to-company contracting," like a cost-plus contract or advance description of tasks (which is not relevant). Thus, the court remanded to the Board to clarify whether there is enough relevant evidence to support a joint-employment finding.
Meaningful collective bargaining. The court also tacitly approved the Board's inquiry into whether a putative joint employer controls enough essential terms and conditions of employment to permit meaningful collective bargaining, but wanted the Board to define terms of that inquiry more in a case, unlike here, when the Board actually applies invokes that question. That's good news for folks, like yours truly, who have argued for a more collective-bargaining focused joint employer test.
Finally, the money question: What next? I was talking this morning to Robert Iofalla at Bloomberg News (I will link to his article when it comes out), who is exploring this question. One option is that the Board will press an extreme position during its rulemaking and thumb its nose at the court's admonition that reserved and indirect control is relevant (which could then lead to the Board's nonacquiescence policy, possible circuit split, and cert. petition). But my guess--and I stress guess--is that the Republican majority of the Board will go as far as it can without directly conflicting with the court's decision. In other words, as it did in Hy-Brand, the Board could acknowledge that evidence of reserved or indirect control can be relevant. And, then, it can answer the questions that the court expressly left open: whether only indirect and/or reserved control is enough to find joint employment. The current Board will obviously say "no," which will leave us with basically the same test we had before Bronwing-Ferris. The Board could still lose when the D.C. Circuit or another court takes up that question, but this seems to be a lower risk strategy than going the extreme route. The "relevant-but-not-sufficient" strategy still leaves plenty of room for a narrow joint employer test, especially when a Trump Board is applying it, while avoiding the time-consuming litigation that would result from defying the D.C. Circuit and seeking a circuit split. Avoiding these types of risks are especially important when the Board is doing something it rarely does by engaging in substantive, formal rulemaking.
Still plenty more to come, so stay tuned.
John Guido and Dennis Rankin filed suit, alleging that the Mount Lemmon Fire District, a political subdivision in Arizona, terminated their employment as firefighters in violation of the Age Discrimina- tion in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA). The Fire District responded that it was too small to qualify as an “employer” under the ADEA, which provides: “The term ‘employer’ means a person engaged in an industry affecting commerce who has twenty or more employees . . . . The term also means (1) any agent of such a person, and (2) a State or political subdivision of a State . . . .” 29 U. S. C. §630(b).
Initially, both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the ADEA applied solely to private sector employers. In 1974, Congress amended the ADEA to cover state and local governments. A previ- ous, 1972, amendment to Title VII added States and their subdivi- sions to the definition of “person[s],” specifying that those entities are engaged in an industry affecting commerce. The Title VII amend- ment thus subjected States and their subdivisions to liability only if they employ a threshold number of workers, currently 15. By con- trast, the 1974 ADEA amendment added state and local governments directly to the definition of “employer.” The same 1974 enactment al- so amended the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), on which many aspects of the ADEA are based, to reach all government employers regardless of their size. 29 U. S. C. §203(d), (x).
The words “also means” in §630(b) add new categories of employers to the ADEA’s reach. First and foremost, the ordinary meaning of “also means” is additive rather than clarifying. See 859 F. 3d 1168, 1171 (case below) (quoting Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary 34). The words “also means” occur dozens of times throughout the U. S. Code, typically carrying an additive meaning. E.g., 12 U. S. C. §1715z–1(i)(4). Furthermore, the second sentence of the ADEA’s definitional provision, §630(b), pairs States and their political subdivi- sions with agents, a discrete category that carries no numerical limitation.
Reading the ADEA’s definitional provision, §630(b), as written to apply to States and political subdivisions regardless of size may give the ADEA a broader reach than Title VII, but this disparity is a consequence of the different language Congress chose to employ. The better comparator for the ADEA is the FLSA, which also ranks States and political subdivisions as employers regardless of the num- ber of employees they have. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has, for 30 years, interpreted the ADEA to cover political subdivisions regardless of size, and a majority of the States impose age discrimination proscriptions on political subdivisions with no numerical threshold. Pp. 4–6.
In short, if you're an employee plaintiff, it really helps to have a strong textual argument.
Wages look like they're finally rising in a significant way. A DOL report showed an almost 3% increase in wages for this time last year, which outpaces inflation and is the highest increase in a decade.
A couple of joint-employer items. First, the NLRB has extended the time to comment on a proposed new rule to Dec. 13. Also, the tussle between Congressional Democrats and the Board over the proposed change continues. As this Bloomberg Law (subscription required) article details, the Democrats want evidence supporting the claim that the current, broader joint-employer test is causing the problems that critics claim. This touches on a broader area--the NLRB is really bad at using actual evidence to support its policy views. Some of this is the legacy of the ban on economic analysis (which is so stupid--why in the name of all that is rational can't we have a bipartisan agreement that analysis is useful for labor law, like, say, the rest of the government?). But some of this, frankly, is just lazy. There's nothing stopping the Board from citing others' studies, which it does far less that it could. And this is an equal-opportunity offense. Although some members have been better on this, Board from both parties tend to be woefully inadequate on this score.
As is the case when the White House changes parties, the DOL has been adjusting how it regulates union finance requirements. Unsurprisingly, they're ratcheting up the requirements by increasing the number of entities covered and expanding what covered entities need to provide. This is shades of the Bush II administration, where the changes were challenged in court. Expect the same here.
The General Counsel has announced that it's changing its approach to allegations of union negligence. In contrast to the long-standing deferential approach the Board has taken, the GC says he will now prosecute unions for negligence under Section 8(b)(1)(A) (for failure of the duty of fair representation) when it does things like lose a complaint or fails to return a call.
Amazon has long been known as a high-tech Moneyball employer, striving to make data-driven decision when possible. But this week shows that there are limits to that approach. After working since 2014 to develop AI-driven hiring algorithms, Amazon recently abandoned that approach. The reason? The algorithms were biased against women. This is an issue that several folks, including Rick Bales, have been talking about (and is a small part of a larger tech project I'm working on), and isn't a surprise given the dearth of women in the tech industry. This is the classic garbage-in-garbage-out issue. Amazon was training its algorithms based on resumes it has received, and because men disproportionally applied to the company, the algorithms were spitting out decisions that undervalued women; indeed, they were specifically penalizing resumes that included references to women. If Amazon or other companies want to use AI (really Machine Learning) for hiring, they should first use the technology to analyze its current hiring practices to try to root out pre-existing bias. Only once that's addressed does AI have even the hope of being effective.
To be clear: Amazon says that it never actually used the algorithms for actual hiring decisions. It wasn't for a lack of trying though. Amazon realized what was going on in 2015, but didn't disband the program until the start of last year. In other words, despite working for quite a while to eliminate the bias, they couldn't do it to their satisfaction. That a company like Amazon couldn't pull this off should serve as a strong warning to everyone about the limits of AI. I'm actually more optimistic on AI's eventual potential to reduce employment discrimination than many, but I am still extremely cautious about the technology. There's definitely a right way and wrong way to use it and, as Amazon shows, the right way can be really hard. As a result, I think the greatest risk of AI in personnel decisions is its misuse by companies that are too lazy, cheap, or blinded by the shiny object that is AI to realize that is is only a tool and, like other tools, can be used the wrong way.

References: v. 
 v. 
 §630
 §203
 §630
 §1715
 §630
 §630