Epstein Becker Green and The ERISA Industry Committee (ERIC) have released a new issue of the Benefits Litigation Update.
Featured articles include:
Recent Supreme Court Decisions Revise Rules for Stock Drop Cases
By: Debra Davis, The ERISA Industry Committee
Hobby Lobby and the Questions Left Unanswered
By: John Houston Pope
Post-Amara Landscape Continues to Evolve
By: Scott J. Macey, The ERISA Industry Committee
Supreme Court to Decide Whether A Failed Class Action May Extend
Deadline to Bring Follow-on Claims By Individual Plaintiffs
By: John Houston Pope and Debra Davis
Epstein Becker Green and The ERISA Industry Committee (ERIC) have released a new issue of the Benefits Litigation Update.
Featured articles include:
Recent Supreme Court Decisions Revise Rules for Stock Drop Cases
By: Debra Davis, The ERISA Industry Committee
Hobby Lobby and the Questions Left Unanswered
By: John Houston Pope
Post-Amara Landscape Continues to Evolve
By: Scott J. Macey, The ERISA Industry Committee
Supreme Court to Decide Whether A Failed Class Action May Extend
Deadline to Bring Follow-on Claims By Individual Plaintiffs
By: John Houston Pope and Debra Davis
By: Christopher M. Farella, Jennifer L. Nutter, and Margaret C. Thering
Whitney Wolfe, former marketing vice president and co-founder of the company responsible for the popular mobile dating app, Tinder®, recently filed suit in California state court alleging sexual harassment and discrimination surrounding her experience and eventual departure from the company. Tinder Inc.'s parent companies, IAC and Match.com, are also named as defendants. While the complaint is only one side of the story, the exhibits attached to the complaint, which contain text messages between ...
By: Barry Guryan and Jeff Ruzal
In a highly publicized March 23, 2010 decision, Awuah v. Coverall N. Am., Inc., 707 F.Supp.2d 80 (D. Mass. 2010), U.S. District Judge William Young for the District of Massachusetts rocked the Massachusetts business community by ruling that a group of janitorial franchisees were improperly classified as independent contractors, and that they were instead “employees” of commercial cleaning franchisor Coverall who are entitled to statutory protection under Massachusetts’ Wage laws including, among others, minimum wage, overtime pay, meal ...
On Epstein Becker Green’s OSHA Law Update blog, Eric Conn reviews the agreement between the NLRB and OSHA, which allows employees to file out-of-date safety related whistleblower claims to be filed with the NLRB.
Following is an excerpt from the blog post:
On May 21, 2014, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) published a memorandum discussing a new agreement between NLRB and OSHA regarding a backdoor route for employees to file safety related whistleblower claims that are too stale to be filed with OSHA. The NLRB memo directs OSHA representatives to “notify all complainants ...
On Epstein Becker Green’s OSHA Law Update blog, Eric Conn reviews the agreement between the NLRB and OSHA, which allows employees to file out-of-date safety related whistleblower claims to be filed with the NLRB.
Following is an excerpt from the blog post:
On May 21, 2014, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) published a memorandum discussing a new agreement between NLRB and OSHA regarding a backdoor route for employees to file safety related whistleblower claims that are too stale to be filed with OSHA. The NLRB memo directs OSHA representatives to “notify all complainants ...
On Epstein Becker Green’s OSHA Law Update blog, Eric Conn reviews the agreement between the NLRB and OSHA, which allows employees to file out-of-date safety related whistleblower claims to be filed with the NLRB.
Following is an excerpt from the blog post:
On May 21, 2014, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) published a memorandum discussing a new agreement between NLRB and OSHA regarding a backdoor route for employees to file safety related whistleblower claims that are too stale to be filed with OSHA. The NLRB memo directs OSHA representatives to “notify all complainants ...
On May 21, 2014, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) published a memorandum discussing a new agreement between NLRB and OSHA regarding a backdoor route for employees to file safety related whistleblower claims that are too stale to be filed with OSHA. The NLRB memo directs OSHA representatives to “notify all complainants who file an untimely [OSHA] whistleblower charge of their right to file a charge with the NLRB.” As a result of this agreement, employers should expect an increase in the number of unfair labor practice claims filed by employees alleging retaliation for protected safety related whistleblower activity.
Section 11(c) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (Section 11(c)) requires employees to file complaints alleging retaliation for protected safety related whistleblower activities within thirty days of the triggering adverse employment action. The Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA, Dr. David Michaels, recently testified before the Senate, Labor and Pensions Subcommittee on Employee and Workplace Safety about OSHA’s whistleblower program. One of the key points of his testimony was that between 300 and 600 Section 11(c) complaints per year (roughly 10%) were filed beyond the 30-day deadline. Dr. Michaels added that at least 100 of these complaints barely missed the deadline -- by less than a month.
The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), on the other hand, addresses different types of claims and also provides for a much longer statute of limitations. Section 7 of the NLRA provide: “Employees shall have the right to. . . engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual air or protection.” Section 8 prohibits unfair labor practices that “interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in Section 7.” The NLRA has a 6-month statute of limitations for claims of unfair labor practices.
Because the NLRA’s statute of limitations is six months longer than the OSH Act’s, OSHA agents will now advise employees who file an untimely Section 11(c) claim that their claims may qualify as unfair labor practices under the NLRA, and explain their rights to file such claims with the NLRB, where their claims could be timely. For a claim to qualify for protection as an unfair labor practice, however, the claim must involve “concerted activities.” Thus, not every employee who was unable to file a timely Section 11(c) complaint will have a viable unfair labor practice claim, even if it would be timely under the NLRA.
The NLRB has provided a set of talking points to OSHA to help the OHSA agents discuss these rights with employees:
- OSHA recommends that you contact the NLRB as soon as possible, to inquire about filing a charge
alleging unfair labor practices. - The time limit to file a charge with the NLRB is 6 months from the unfair labor practice.
- The NLRB is responsible for enforcing employee rights under the NLRA. The NLRA protects employee rights to act together to try to improve working conditions, including safety and health conditions, even if the employees aren't in a union.
- OSHA may not determine whether you are covered by the NLRA. Please contact the NLRB to discuss your rights under the NLRA.
OSHA also plans to include this information when it sends letters alerting employees that their 11(c) claims are being closed as untimely.
Neither the NLRB nor OSHA has addressed the legal issues posed by this agreement. Congress intended that employees must file safety related whistleblower complaints very quickly, which is why it set such a short limitations period. The short deadline for such claims makes sense because safety and health issues pose special risks; i.e., it is not a matter of fairness at stake, it is potentially a matter of life and death, where delays in reporting such issues could have grave consequences. Creating a loophole or backdoor to extend the filing deadline for claims that could have been timely pursued as 11(c) claims by treating them as NLRA violations could discourage timely reporting under the OSH Act.
Kara Maciel, a Member of the Firm in the Labor and Employment, Litigation, and Health Care and Life Sciences practices, in the Washington, DC, office, was quoted in an article titled “For Fine Dining Sector, Tip Pools Can Be Legal Trap.” (Read the full version – subscription required.)
Following is an excerpt:
As a wave of lawsuits hits restaurants over tip pool violations, fine dining establishments packed with sommeliers, mixologists and other high-end specialists that tend to take on some managerial duties face the greatest risks of becoming targets for litigation or ...
By Marisa S. Ratinoff and Amy B. Messigian
One of the main battlegrounds between employers and employees relates to the ability of employers to preclude class actions by way of arbitration agreements containing class action waivers. In California, the seminal case of Gentry v. Superior Court (“Gentry”) has had the practical effect of invalidating class action waivers in employment arbitration agreements since 2007. Gentry held that an employment class action waiver was unenforceable as a matter of California public policy if the class action waiver would “undermine the ...
Blog Editors
Recent Updates
- Video: FTC Exits Labor Pact, EEOC Alleges Significant Underrepresentation in Tech, Sixth Circuit Affirms NLRB Ruling - Employment Law This Week
- Massachusetts High Court Rules That Franchisees Are Independent Contractors
- Video: New DOL Guidance - ERISA Plan Cybersecurity Update - Employment Law This Week
- Video: DOL Authority Challenged - Key Rulings on Overtime and Tip Credit - Employment Law This Week
- Deepfakes: Why Executive Teams Should Prepare for the Cybersecurity and Fraud Risks