Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives

EMPLOYMENT DECISIONS

Vance v. Ball State University: Narrow Definition of Supervisor in Harassment Suits
In Vance, the Supreme Court announced a narrow standard for determining which employees constitute “supervisors” for purposes of establishing vicarious liability under Title VII. In a 5-4 decision, the Court decided that a supervisor is a person authorized to take “tangible employment actions,” such as hiring, firing, promoting, demoting or reassigning employees to significantly different responsibilities. The majority opinion rejected the EEOC’s ...

Now that summer is here and the interns have arrived, it is important to consider whether your interns should be paid.  A New York District Court has recently issued a decision highlighting this concern in its ruling against unpaid internships.  In Glatt v. Fox Searchlight Pictures Inc. interns who worked on the set of Black Swan brought suit alleging that Fox Searchlight Pictures Inc. and Fox Entertainment Group, Inc. violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and the New York Labor Laws (“NYLL”) by classifying them as unpaid interns rather than employees.  11 Civ 6784 (WHP) (S.D.N.Y. June 11, 2013).

Last week, in American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, the United States Supreme Court, in a 5-3 ruling, reversed the Second Circuit and held that a contractual waiver of class arbitration is enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) even if the cost of proving an individual claim in arbitration exceeds the potential recovery.  In holding that a class action waiver in an arbitration agreement is enforceable, even as to federal anti-trust claims, this decision builds upon the trend set in Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int'l Corp., 559 U.S. 662 (2010), AT & T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011), and CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood, 132 S. Ct. 665 (2012) – that arbitration agreements should be enforced according to their terms even for claims under federal statutes.

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday granted certiorari in two high profile labor cases, setting up what promises to be a compelling October 2013 term for labor practitioners.

A new case under the amended American with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) may add to employers’ confusion over how to handle medical and disability issues.   Butler v. Louisiana Dep’t of Pub. Safety & Corr., No. 3:12-cv-000420 (M.D. La. 2013).  In Butler, a state trooper alleged he was “regarded as” disabled by his employer, who allegedly thought he had obsessive compulsive disorder and germaphobia.  He claimed he was placed on involuntary leave, subjected to an excessive fitness-for-duty exam, and denied overtime opportunities.  The defendant employer denied the allegations and asserted the “direct threat” defense.  It sought discovery of the plaintiff’s psychiatric records and moved to compel production when the employee objected to the requests.  The court denied the motion to compel and made several interesting pronouncements.

In Weiss v. DHL Express, Inc., the First Circuit held that the employee was not entitled to a bonus based on the language of the company’s bonus plan and the bonus plan committee’s determination that the employee had been terminated for good cause.  The Court also held that the employee had no recourse under the Massachusetts Wage Act because his bonus did not qualify as wages under the Act.  Nos. 12-1853 and 12-1864 (1st Cir. June 3, 2013).

The Supreme Court has unanimously upheld an arbitrator’s ruling that a contract that required arbitration of “any dispute” constituted an agreement to class-wide arbitration. The Court’s narrow ruling turns on the parties’ express agreement to allow the arbitrator to decide whether their contract, which contained an arbitration provision but did not mention class proceedings, authorized class arbitration. However, the opinion has significant implications for companies desiring to avoid class arbitration—and class actions generally—through provisions ...

In an article to be published this month in the Seton Hall University Law Review, Hunton & Williams partners, Terry Connor and Kevin White have challenged the authority of the EEOC to publish its April 2012 Guidance.  That Guidance interprets Title VII to impose disparate impact liability on employers who consider the criminal background of applicants for employment as a criterion for selection.

On Friday, May 31, 2013, Hunton & Williams partner Michael Shebelskie argued on behalf of Big Ridge Inc. in Big Ridge Inc. v. NLRB, the lead case pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in which an employer has challenged the constitutionality of President Obama’s January 4, 2012 recess appointments to the NLRB.  Mr. Shebelskie and Hunton & Williams also argued against the validity of the President’s recess appointments before the Fourth Circuit earlier this year in Huntington Ingalls Incorporated v. NLRB.  Argument in the Big Ridge case comes hot on the heels of ...

In a departure from its previous guidance, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) recently released an interpretation letter that could potentially open the door to union organizing activity on employer property during OSHA inspections.  The new guidance authorizes non-unionized employees to select union agents as representatives and has been widely interpreted by unions to facilitate the use of OSHA inspections as an organizing tool.