United Nurses Association of California v. National Labor Relations Board

No due process violation or bias can be inferred from an administrative law judge's adverse credibility determinations of an employer's witnesses, evidentiary rulings unfavorable to an employer, questioning of an employer's witnesses, and alleged expressions of impatience or anger. An employer impermissibly fired an employee for engaging in union organizing where the employer fired the worker after expressly authorizing him to engage in the conduct for which it fired him. It did not follow its own internal policies in terminating the worker, and it did not subject other workers to the same level of discipline for similar conduct. An employer cannot retroactively strip a worker of the protections of the National Labor Relations Act by promoting him to a supervisor position and then firing him for past protected activity done as an employee. An employer violated the NLRA by serving subpoenas on employees and their union seeking, confidential information about union activities, including communications with union representatives and signed authorization cards. The Noerr-Pennington doctrine did not shield an employer from liability for an unfair labor practice under the NLRA because its demands for employees' confidential information are not direct petitioning, and because its discovery requests were unlawful.

United Nurses Association of California v. National Labor Relations Board - filed Sept. 11, 2017
Cite as 2017 S.O.S. 15-70920

For more information visit us at:
http://beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com/

California Correction Peace Officers Association v. Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

A grievance alleging a violation of a correctional officer's reemployment rights under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act does not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the State Personnel Board because it is not a merit-based grievance. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation forfeited any claim that the improper grievance procedure was used by acquiescing to the procedure.

California Correction Peace Officers Association v. Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation - filed Sept. 8, 2017, Third District
Cite as 2017 S.O.S. 4564

For more information visit us at:
http://beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com/

King v. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Illinois

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act, as amended by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, does not ban lifetime benefit maximums for certain retiree-only plans. A summary plan description violates ERISA's statutory and regulatory disclosure requirements if it does not reasonably apprise the average plan participant that the lifetime benefit maximum continues to apply to the retiree.

King v. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Illinois - filed Sept. 8, 2017
Cite as 2017 S.O.S. 15-55880

For more information contact us at:
http://beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com/

Marsh v. Alexander's LLC

The Department of Labor's interpretation of the dual jobs regulation--29 C.F.R. Sec. 531.56(e)--does not merit controlling deference because it was inconsistent with the language of the regulation and it was an impermissible attempt to create de facto a new regulation. The DOL does not have authority to require employers to engage in time tracking and accounting for minutes spent in diverse tasks before claiming a tip credit. A worker cannot state a viable minimum wage claim under 29 U.S.C. Sec. 206(a) by alleging that discrete "related" tasks or duties, which were performed intermittently over the course of the day and were intermingled with his duties directed at generating tips, comprise a dual job when aggregated together over the course of a workweek. He also cannot state a claim by alleging the performance of "unrelated" duties that were similarly dispersed and generally assigned.

Marsh v. Alexander's LLC - filed Sept. 6, 2017
Cite as 2017 S.O.S. 15-15791

For more information visit us at:
http://beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com/

Henson v. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

An order staying proceedings and compelling arbitration is not a final decision that is subject to ordinary appeal. A litigant bringing a putative class action suffers prejudice that will not be correctable on appeal if he cannot arbitrate his dispute in a representative capacity or on behalf of a class. A district court judge erred in applying New York law pursuant to a choice-of-law provision in a dispute where one of the parties was not a signatory to the contract containing the provision. California law permits non-signatories to invoke arbitration agreements in limited circumstances under the doctrine of equitable estoppel--but absent evidence of reliance on the terms of the contract or collusion between the non-signatory and a signatory, equitable estoppel will not apply.

Henson v. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Turn, Inc.) - filed Sept. 5, 2017
Cite as 2017 S.O.S. 16-71818

For More information contact us at:
http://beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com/

Airline Service Providers Association v. Los Angeles World Airports

Air transport trade associations had associational standing to sue a city over a licensing scheme which obligates airport businesses to enter into a "labor peace agreement" with any employee organization that requests one. City was acting as a market participant in imposing this scheme, which served the limited purpose of minimizing service disruptions at the city's airport. The National Labor Relations Act, the Railway Labor Act, and the Airline Deregulation Act do not preempt actions taken by states and local governments in their capacity as market participants.

Airline Service Providers Association v. Los Angeles World Airports - filed Aug. 23, 2017
Cite as 2017 S.O.S. 15-55571

For More Information Contact us at:
http://beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com/

Murray v. Southern Route Maritime SA

A vessel owner's turnover duty to ensure the ship and its equipment are in a reasonably safe condition is owed stevedores and longshoremen. An expert's theory of injury satisfied the Daubert standard for admissibility where the theory had peer-reviewed, published, and generally credited by the relevant scientific community.

Murray v. Southern Route Maritime SA - filed Aug. 31, 2017
Cite as 2017 S.O.S. 14-36056

For more information contact us at:
http://beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com/