Oyez oyez.
The New Joisy Supreme Court just fashioned a test to determine whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor for purposes of resolving a wage-payment or wage-and-hour claim. And, shockingly, it doesn’t involve jughandles, diners, or Taylor Ham.
(I live in NJ now, so I can say that stuff and get away with it).
I’ve got all the details after the jump…
In an announcement made late in the day yesterday on LinkedIn, Valerie Jarrett, Senior Advisor to President Barack Obama, posted that President Obama will call upon Congress today to pass the Healthy Families Act.
More on this push from the President and what it will mean for American business, after the jump…
You know all that stuff you read on the internet about employees who can badmouth their boss on the internet, all in the name of free speech, and not get fired for it….
Yeah, about that…
[More after the jump…]
About a year ago, I blogged here about a dreadful Sixth Circuit opinion, in which the court concluded that the plaintiff may have a discrimination claim for receiving the specific transfer he requested (after having interviewed for the position).
Now, if you read the comments on my post, you’ll see that some of my readers took issue with my analysis of the case.
Well, I see your comments and raise you a scathing Justice Alito dissent from the United States Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari:
Over the weekend, I joined a Facebook thread discussing a recent federal court complaint filed in Texas by a former Saks employee, Leyth O. Jamal. Ms. Jamal claims that Saks violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act by discriminating against her because she is transsexual.
Saks claims (here) that the complaint lacks merit because Title VII doesn’t prohibit discrimination against transgender employees.
Writing for Slate.com, Mark Joseph Stern calls out Saks’ “trans-bashing legal strategy” as “legally untenable.” Underscoring the Supreme Court’s decision in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, Mr. Stern notes that Title VII forbids sexual stereotyping. For example, in Price Waterhouse, the company allegedly treated Ms. Hopkins differently because she was “macho,” was “tough talking” and used “foul language.” That is, she didn’t conform to the company’s expectations of how a woman should act in the workplace.
Over the past few days, there’s been a lot of buzz going around the HR-interwebz a/k/a the hella-best part of the ‘net. The buzz was that The Employer Handbook went back-to-back and claimed the 2014 ABA Blawg100 honors by getting the most readers votes as top labor and employment law blog. For example…
Congratulations to @eric_b_meyer: And The ABA 2014 LawBlawg Employment Category Winner Is….. http://t.co/s1ADIKNajq
— Donna Ballman (@EmployeeAtty) January 8, 2015
Another bartender decided to liken beer to domestic violence. It was all captured on social media. [CBS Chicago]
An employee’s caustic Facebook post about a police shooting earned her a termination…and unemployment compensation benefits. [Technology & Marketing Law Blog]
Social media users did not respond well to the Undercover Boss episode about the owner who fired a bikini bartender for not wearing a bikini. [Jezebel]
And by bearded dragon, I mean, well, bearded dragon.
This warning holds true even if you operate a reptile store. Chris Joseph of the Broward/Palm Beach New Times reports (here) that a Florida reptile store owner was “arrested on battery and cruelty to animal charges on Friday after he allegedly hit some of his employees with a live lizard multiple times.”
It’s all in this police report. Additionally, according to Joseph article, the same store previously had “hosted a roach-eating contest that ended up killing contestant after he choked on the dozens of roaches and worms during the contest.”
It’s on now!
Late yesterday afternoon, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce issued a press release in which it announced that it had filed this complaint in federal court against the National Labor Relations Board to strike the Board’s election rules, passed last month, which would create faster union elections.
More on this lawsuit, after the jump…
* * *
Or, at least, when you honestly believe that one of your employees is masturbating in the parking lot.
(Unless, of course, you’re like by buddy Fred, who operates Parking Lot Self-Gratification, LLC).
Let’s just pretend that parenthetical remained in my head, ok?
After the jump, it’s a lesson on the law of retaliation involving the case of a school district employee who was fired for allegedly masturbating in a car…in the school parking lot…during school hours. And he claimed that his firing was retaliatory in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Allow that to sink in for a sec, then hit jump while I kiss the head of my golden blogging statuette and rub her belly…
The Employer Handbook Blog