Labor Law

  • November 28, 2016

    *This piece was originally posted on Medium

    by Adam Shah, Senior Policy Analyst at Jobs With Justice

    On Nov. 22, a Texas federal blocked the U.S. Department of Labor from implementing its revised regulations governing overtime pay. The updated rules were set to go into effect on Dec. 1 and would have helped millions of people either get paid for their extra work or earn more of their time back.

    The Obama administration sought to significantly raise the maximum wage at which workers would still be eligible to receive overtime pay. The update was long overdue, as the original overtime rules had eroded due to inflation and corporations’ increasing attempts to misclassify workers to exempt them from overtime protection. The rule would have directly impacted at least 4.2 million working people, many of whom work in jobs that once would have had overtime protection but no longer do, for the reasons stated above.

    The judge’s decision also calls into question more than seven decades of Department of Labor regulations, which have consistently stated that “working people who receive a weekly salary below a certain threshold are not considered executive, administrative, or professional employees, no matter how a corporation classifies them.”

    The Obama administration does have the option of filing an emergency appeal of the decision in its short time remaining in office, but that court may not be very open to the administration’s arguments.

  • August 17, 2016

    By Kevin Battersby Witenoff

    In The Hill, Melissa Boteach and Rebecca Vallas advocate to reform TANF and expound upon the necessity to improve other social welfare programs.

    The ACLU has filed a lawsuit against the Florida Department of Corrections on behalf of transgender woman, Reiyn Keohane. The ACLU and Keohane are alleging the DOC has infringed upon her Eighth Amendment rights by disallowing hormone therapy treatment, reports Andrew V. Pestano of UPI.

    The Huffington Post published an op-ed by Jason Steed in which he explains why it may be in Republican Senators' best interest to reconsider a hearing for Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland.

    Annalyn Kurtz in The New York Times highlights the challenges faced by new mothers in a male-dominated field that are representative of the struggles females encounter in the workplace across the country.  

  • May 20, 2016
    Guest Post

    by Herman N. (Rusty) Johnson, Jr., Associate Professor of Law, Samford University Cumberland School of Law

    May 18, 2016, is a momentous day for U.S. workers. The U.S. Department of Labor released new overtime rules that restore the New Deal-era promise of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by increasing the salary level required to exempt certain employees from overtime pay. The new rules will be a boon for working and middle class Americans, as it will increase their pay, provide them more time to spend with their families, lead to improvements in health and productivity, and create jobs.

    The FLSA, originally enacted in 1938, assures overtime premium pay of time-and-a-half for employees who work more than 40 hours per week. However, the FLSA exempts some types of employees from the overtime protection, in particular white collar workers classified as executive, administrative, professional, outside sales, and computer employees. Congress delegated authority to the Secretary of Labor to define the exemptions, and generally, employers must satisfy three requirements to properly classify employees as exempt pursuant to a white collar category: 1) the employees must be paid a fixed salary, 2) the employees must be paid at least a specific salary amount, and 3) the employees’ primary duties must involve one of the enumerated exemptions.

    Currently, the DOL’s regulations set the salary level at $455 per week, which is $23,660 on an annual basis. The rigors of inflation and inattention have eroded the FLSA’s overtime protection at this level. The designated amount is less than the poverty line for a family of four and only 1.6 times the federal minimum wage of $7.25. Furthermore, at present, a mere seven percent of salaried workers receive overtime protection, whereas 62 percent did so in 1975.

    The new DOL regulations increase the salary level required to trigger the white collar exemptions. The revised rule, which takes effect December 1 of this year, sets the salary level at $913 per week, or $47,476 annually, which equates to the 40th percentile of earnings of full-time salaried workers in the lowest-wage Census region (currently the South). The new rule also creates an updating mechanism which benchmarks the salary level every three years to the same metric.

  • May 19, 2016

    by Alan B. Morrison, Lerner Family Associate Dean for Public Interest & Public Service Law, The George Washington University Law School

    The founders of Uber had a great idea. We know that because millions of Americans use its service daily. We also know it because hundreds of thousands of individuals have signed up to drive for Uber, and many of them love the opportunities it presents: make a little extra cash, control your working hours, and make money from a car that sits idle much of the time.

    On the negative side, Uber treats drivers as independent contractors, not employees, and that means that the drivers pay the employer’s as well as the worker’s share of Social Security and Medicare taxes, they get no vacation or sick pay, and if they are thinking about saving for retirement, they have to kick in 100 percent. In addition, some drivers are unhappy because Uber is able to unilaterally change the conditions under which its drivers work, generally to the detriment of the driver. Some drivers have taken Uber to court or to the National Labor Relations Board, claiming that they are being improperly classified as independent contractors, not employees under state and federal laws. Some of those cases may result in favorable rulings several years from now, but given the fact that many drivers work for Uber only a few hours a week or no more than half time, there is a real likelihood that many of them will be found to be properly classified as independent contractors.

    The leadership in Teamster Local 117 in Seattle had a different idea. They decided to seek legislation that would entitle Uber drivers (and others working for other companies, including taxi companies) to engage in collective bargaining as a means of gaining some leverage with Uber. Under current law, the right to engage in collective bargaining is limited to “employees,” and the idea was to create a comparable right for Uber drivers. The union convinced the Seattle City Council, led by Mike O’Brien, to enact such a law. There was considerable opposition to the law from Uber and its competitors, as well as the business community generally. Mayor Ed Murray declined to sign the law because of his concerns of the burdens that it would place on the City to implement it, but he did not veto it, and so the law became effective on December 23, 2015.

  • May 11, 2016
    Guest Post

    by Ruben J. Garcia. Ruben Garcia is Professor of Law at UNLV William S. Boyd School of Law, where he teaches Labor Law and Professional Responsibility. He can be reached at [email protected].

    We are looking at another hot summer of litigation over the Obama Administration’s attempts to bring a modicum of regulation to the workplace. Currently, the Department of Labor’s Persuader Rule, enacted pursuant to federal labor law, is being reviewed in three different district courts and in Congress. Since 1959, the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) has required employers to disclose certain expenditures used to persuade employees in their choice of a bargaining representative. Once the DOL’s final revised rule implementing the mandate of the statute was published, employers and their law firms quickly brought suit to block the rule. The House Committee on Education and the Workforce held a hearing on April 27 which included three witnesses opposed to the rule, and one supporting it. Republicans in the House have introduced a Congressional resolution challenging the revised Rule as well.

    Federal courts in three different states will soon decide whether the revised rule should be enjoined because it exceeds the DOL’s authority or violates the U.S. Constitution. Apart from the merits of these challenges, there have been several complaints about how the revised rule’s requirement to report arrangements to provide “indirect persuasion” might cause attorneys to violate their ethical duty of confidentiality. The former president of the American Bar Association testified at the April 27 hearing that the revise Persuader Rule would “undermine the confidential attorney-client relationship.” The problem with these concerns, as I and numerous other labor law and legal ethics professors have written in a letter to the Committee, is that the revised Persuader Rule can coexist comfortably with the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct.