The Supreme Court clarified that employees who are paid a daily rate likely do not qualify for the executive exemption under the FLSA.
Continue Reading Supreme Court Clarifies the “Salary Basis” Test Under the FLSA for Highly Compensated Executives
Breaking News – Premium Pay Constitutes Wages!
We previously advised employers that the California Supreme Court agreed to review the Court of Appeal decision Gustavo Naranjo v Spectrum Security Services, Inc. (“Naranjo”), decided by the Second Appellate District in 2019. On May 23, 2022, the California Supreme Court issued its decision, which has significant and immediate impacts on California employers. The key takeaways are:
Continue Reading Breaking News – Premium Pay Constitutes Wages!
The U.S. Supreme Court Stays Enforcement of OSHA’s Nationwide Vaccine Mandate Because It Exceeds OSHA’s Authority
As Lizbeth West and James Kachmar wrote in previous blogs, here and here, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the stay of OSHA’s vaccine-or-test mandate that applies to employers with more than 100 employees. Challengers of the mandate sought immediate review by the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court held oral arguments in the matter on an expedited basis on January 7, 2022, and just published an opinion today lambasting OSHA’s vaccine mandate and staying its enforcement.
Continue Reading The U.S. Supreme Court Stays Enforcement of OSHA’s Nationwide Vaccine Mandate Because It Exceeds OSHA’s Authority
Supreme Court Issues its Decision in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores Answering the Question: When Does an Employer Have to Accommodate an Applicant’s Religious Practices?
Abercrombie & Fitch (AF) refused to hire Samantha Elauf, a practicing Muslim, on the basis that the headscarf she wore during her interview conflicted with AF’s “Look Policy” which prohibits employees from wearing “caps” (a term that the Policy did not define). The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed suit on Elauf’s behalf, alleging a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which, inter alia, prohibits a prospective employer from refusing to hire an applicant because of the applicant’s religious practice when the practice could be accommodated without undue hardship. Elauf wore the headscarf as part of her religious practice as a Muslim but she did not communicate this to the manager who interviewed her nor did she ask for an accommodation in order to wear the headscarf.
Continue Reading Supreme Court Issues its Decision in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores Answering the Question: When Does an Employer Have to Accommodate an Applicant’s Religious Practices?
The Impact of U.S. Supreme Court’s DOMA Decision on FMLA
As widely reported, and as discussed in our blog post “Supreme Court Rules DOMA Section 3 Unconstitutional”, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which had defined marriage as a legal union only between one man and one woman. The Court’s 5-4 vote in U.S. v. Windsor means that same-sex couples who are legally married now must be treated in the same manner under federal law as married opposite-sex couples.Continue Reading The Impact of U.S. Supreme Court’s DOMA Decision on FMLA