As reported by our sister blog, ADR: Advice from the Trenches, the Northern District of Illinois recently issued an unusual decision. After finding that both plaintiffs were bound by arbitration agreements with the defendant and after finding that the plaintiffs’ claims were within the scope of the arbitration clauses, it denied defendant’s motion to compel arbitration. See Zoller v. UBS Secs. LLC, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44170 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 9, 2018).
Natalie is an Associate in the firm’s Boston office. Her practice focuses on litigating a wide variety of labor and employment disputes and counseling clients on workplace and employee issues. She represents clients in disputes about non-competition and non-solicitation agreements, discrimination and harassment claims, and wage and hour compliance in state and federal courts, as well as before administrative agencies. She also advises clients on workplace policies, employment agreements, employee classifications and internal workplace investigations.
In a March 30, 2018 Bloomberg BNA article, Mintz Levin Employment, Labor and Benefits attorney Gauri Punjabi discusses Massachusetts’ new protections for pregnant workers and compares them with the existing federal requirements. For the full story, click here. This is an important development in Massachusetts, and one that we expect to expand to other jurisdictions. We’ve written on it here and will continue to track its development for our readers.
Mintz Levin Benefits attorney Patricia Moran recently published an article in SHRM describing the cybersecurity risks involved with 401(k) Plan sponsorship. The article is a great resource for employers who sponsor 401(k) or other retirement plans, especially those who share employees’ sensitive information with third party administrators. For the full story, click here.
As reported by our sister blog, ADR: Advice from the Trenches, a federal district court in New York held that an arbitrator could not certify a “class” that included non-appearing members. While neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor various Courts of Appeal have grappled with the viability of a class arbitration award, courts in the Second Circuit are taking the lead in addressing such issues.
Now that January has come to an end, and we’ve navigated compliance with our own resolutions and employment obligations (as discussed on our latest post on The Bubbler), we’re going to take a look at a few topics of legislation that are brewing on the state and local level. While federal law does not govern these areas, the activity within state and local governments should catch all of our attention, particularly as employers with operations in multiple states deal with the overlapping (and, at times, seemingly in conflict) provisions of these various laws. These will, quite undoubtedly, continue to expand.
As reported by our sister blog, ADR: Advice from the Trenches, the Sixth Circuit determined that an employer’s notice of its mandatory arbitration policy — without more to secure the employee’s knowing assent to this employment term — is not enough to compel arbitration. While this only applies in the Sixth Circuit (for now), it’s an important development in this area of the law.
On December 1, 2017, two weeks after being sworn in, NLRB General Counsel Peter Robb issued his first GC Memorandum. When the General Counsel’s office changes hands from one party to the other, some disruption is expected. Here, Mr. Robb made quite clear that his agenda would not support many of the Obama-era initiatives. In fact, he called into question fifteen significant legal issues that will now be subject to “alternative analysis” (i.e., seeking reversal of earlier precedents that Mr. Robb deems to be wrongly decided), rescinded seven memoranda, and revoked five initiatives.
As Mr. Robb’s agenda continues to unfold, we will track significant developments to explain how these decisions will impact employers. Here is the list of his actions so far plus an added bonus – NLRB decisions overruling Obama-era NLRB rulings:
As reported by our sister blog, Privacy and Security Matters, the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is a game changer, and it is likely to impact US based companies who do business in the EU, even if they don’t have a office or employees located there. We will present an in-person seminar in Boston (November 28), New York (November 29) and Washington, DC (November 30) to address GDPR compliance. You can register here.