Welcome back for this month’s edition of the Bubbler!  There’s plenty to talk about, so let’s jump right in.

The California Supreme Court issued an important decision this week addressing the test for whether a worker is an independent contractor or an employee.  The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a Seventh Circuit decision upholding an employer’s rule that a months-long leave of absence was not a reasonable accommodation. The Ninth Circuit held that employers are prohibited from using an employee’s past salary as a legitimate “factor other than sex” for purposes of defeating a Fair Pay Act claim, emphasizing that allowing the inclusion of prior salaries would only perpetuate gender pay disparity. The Fifth Circuit downsized ERISA fiduciary standards in a ruling that invalidated a set of seven expansive fiduciary rules. The Northern District of Illinois issued an unusual ruling, holding that two plaintiffs’ claims were subject to an enforceable arbitration agreement, yet refused to compel arbitration. The DOJ challenged a set of competitors’ no-poaching agreements as per se violations of the Sherman Act, which regulates concerted anti-competitive action. Finally, in the wake of the #MeToo movement, New York (state and city) have passed new laws concerning workplace sexual harassment.

As always, stay tuned for more employment matters updates!

Mull v. Motion Picture Ind. Health Plan educates employers on the basics of the requirements of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) governing plan documents and summary plan descriptions. The lessons are sobering, particularly as they relate to group health plans. Although compliance with these requirements is neither difficult nor expensive, many employers nevertheless ignore them. The decision in this case might—and, in our view, should—encourage them to reconsider.

Continue Reading The Ninth Circuit Weighs in on ERISA’s Plan Document and Summary Plan Description Requirements: Mull v. Motion Picture Ind. Health Plan

With the 9th Circuit’s late summer anti-class action waiver decision, the circuit split widened over the issue of whether employers can require employees, through an arbitration agreement, to waive their rights to bring class or collective actions against their employer.  This issue will almost certainly reach the Supreme Court given the deepening divide and the Court’s previous apparent interest in addressing issues surrounding class action waivers and arbitration agreements.

Continue Reading Where Are We With the Enforceability of Class Action Waivers in Arbitration Agreements?

Does this sound familiar: employee disregards a non-compete and joins a competitor; former company calls foul and initiates a lawsuit; parties fight it out, but by the time litigation has run its course, the non-compete period in the underlying contract has expired.  The dispute is moot, right?  Not necessarily according to the Ninth Circuit in Ocean Beauty Seafoods v. Pacific Seafood Acquisition Company.  There, the Court applied the doctrine of equitable extension to tack on a non-compete period to an agreement after the original period had run.

Continue Reading Pescetarian’s Delight: Ninth Circuit Extends Non-Compete Term Beyond Contractual Period

The Uber saga continues in O’Connor v. Uber Technologies, Inc. – a closely watched case that will impact the future of the gig economy.  Last time we visited this case, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals had declined to review the district court’s class certification decision, which certified a class of thousands of Uber drivers.  This time around, the District Court issued an order that expanded the original class.  But Uber has already countered with a move of its own in response to this latest decision.  We discuss the latest below.

Continue Reading Uber Class Action Update: Court Finds Arbitration Agreement Unenforceable and Broadens Class of Drivers