Workforce Bulletin

By William Stein

In rolling out arbitration policies, retail employers should heed the recent California Court of Appeal decision Gorlach v. The Sports Club Co. That case gives employers reason to be cautious when asking employees to sign agreements requiring them to arbitrate any disputes arising out of their employment.  In that case, the trial court found the former Director of Human Resources, who was responsible for obtaining employees’ signatures on a mutual agreement to arbitrate claims, intentionally misled the company into believing that had signed the agreement ...

By Steven M. Swirsky

On Friday, November 16, I participated in a free 75-minute webinar discussion with Lafe E. Solomon, Acting General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board.  The webinar was moderated by Terence H. McGuire of the Practical Law Company.  We discussed:

• Factors that the NLRB considers when deciding whether to prosecute unfair labor practices based on these employment practices.
• Legal considerations surrounding these employment practices besides compliance with the National Labor Relations Act.
• The NLRB’s stance on what is and is not a lawful at will ...

By Amy Messigian

On September 8, 2012, California Governor Jerry Brown signed the Workplace Religious Freedom Act into law.  The law, which becomes effective on January 1, 2013, amends the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (the “Act”) to include a religious dress practice or a religious grooming practice as a belief or observance covered under the Act’s protections against religious discrimination.

The new law also specifies that it is not reasonable to segregate an employee from the public or other employees as an accommodation of the individual’s religious ...

By Michael Kun

Employers with operations in California have become aware in recent years of an obscure provision in California Wage Orders that requires “suitable seating” for some employees. Not surprisingly, many became aware of this provision through the great many class action lawsuits filed by plaintiffs’ counsel who also just discovered the provision. The law on this issue is scant. However, at least two pending cases should clarify whether and when employers must provide seats – a case against Bank of America that is currently before the Ninth Circuit Court of ...

By Amy Messigian

On October 11, 2012, the California Supreme Court granted review of Patterson v. Domino's Pizza to address the circumstances in which a defendant franchisor may be held vicariously liable for tortious conduct by a supervising employee of a franchisee.

Like many fast food chains, Domino’s Pizza (“Domino’s”) is a franchising operation in which individual franchisees operate storefronts under the Domino’s name.

In Patterson, the plaintiff, a sixteen-year-old employee of a Sui Juris, a Domino’s Pizza franchisee (“Sui Juris”), alleged that she ...

By Paul H. Burmeister

The Site-Specific Targeting Program (SST) is OSHA’s primary “programmed” inspection plan for non-construction workplaces.  The SST Program is geared to address OSHA’s goal of reducing the number of injuries and illnesses that occur at individual workplaces, by directing enforcement resources to those workplaces where the highest rate of injuries and illness have occurred.

The SST is driven by data received from the prior year’s OSHA Data Initiative Survey.  Using the data from this annual survey, and criteria that change every year, such as ...

By: Michael S. Kun, as appeared on the Wage & Hour Defense blog

Employers with operations in California have become aware in recent years of an obscure provision in California Wage Orders that requires “suitable seating” for some employees. Not surprisingly, many became aware of this provision through the great many class action lawsuits filed by plaintiffs’ counsel who also just discovered the provision. The law on this issue is scant. However, at least two pending cases should clarify whether and when employers must provide seats – a case against Bank of America that is ...

We are pleased to announce today that the Employer Defense Law Blog has a new look and a more focused approach.   The Employer Defense Law Blog will now be known as the Retail Labor and Employment Law Blog, which  will provide insights, news, updates, and commentary on labor and employment law developments affecting employers in the retail industry.

For more than three decades, Epstein Becker Green attorneys have been advising and representing retail clients on a wide array of matters that impact their businesses. Our services have included, among other things, drafting worldwide ...

By Michael Kun and Aaron Olsen

Following up on the California Supreme Court’s recent decision in See’s Candy v. Superior Court, a California federal court has now dismissed a time-rounding class action against H.J. Heinz Company. And, once again, the court has relied upon the decision in our case Alonzo v. Maximus.

This, of course, is more good news for employers with operations in California. Between See’s Candy and Maximus, it will be exceedingly hard for plaintiffs to proceed with time-rounding class actions against employers who have even-handed time-rounding policies ...