BCLP At Work

BCLP At Work

Other Posts

Main Content

Supreme Court Strikes Down Union-Shop Provisions in Public Sector, Unlikely to Follow Suit in Private Sector

June 27, 2018

Categories

On June 27, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled a 41-year-old legal precedent to hold that states may not compel public employees to contribute any money to the labor union that represents them.  In Janus v. AFSCME, Council 31, the Court held that public employees have a First Amendment right not to contribute money to a labor union and that states have no compelling interest sufficient to overcome that free speech right.

The plaintiff in that case was an Illinois state employee represented by the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 31.  He refused to join that union because he opposed many of the positions that the union advocated, including positions that the union took in collective bargaining.  But Illinois, like many states, requires public employees represented by a union to pay an “agency fee” consisting of the portion of union dues (in this case 78%) that

Impending Changes to the Illinois Human Rights Act: What Every Employer Needs to Know

Responding in part to the #MeToo movement, state and local governments have begun expanding protections for those alleging discrimination and harassment in the workplace.  Last month, the Illinois General Assembly passed a series of amendments to the Illinois Human Rights Act (“the IHRA”) that may have a significant impact on employers if they are signed into law by Governor Bruce Rauner.

  • House Bill 4572: Currently, the IHRA applies to employers who employ 15 or more employees within Illinois for at least 20 weeks per year.  HB 4572 would essentially cover all Illinois employers—any employer who employs one or more employee for at least 20 weeks per year.
  • Senate Bill 20: SB 20 makes several changes to the procedures of the Illinois Department of Human Rights (“IDHR”) and the Human Rights Commission (“the Commission”). Among other things, SB 20 would:
    • Extend the charge-filing period from 180 days

NLRB Update: Trump Board Wastes No Time Overturning Obama-Era Precedent

December 26, 2017

Categories

With two appointments by President Trump, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) had a Republican majority for several months in 2017, for the first time in ten years.  The “Trump Board” wasted no time overturning Obama-era precedents – and has signaled that there is much more to come.

Harder for Employers to be Declared “Joint Employers”

In Hy-Brand Industrial Contractors, Ltd., 365 NLRB No. 156 (Dec. 15, 2017), the Board overruled the joint-employer test announced in Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc., 362 NLRB No. 186 (2015).  In Browning-Ferris, the Obama Board had departed from decades of precedent to declare that two unrelated employers would be deemed “joint employers” for purposes of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) if one had reserved the right to exercise direct or indirect control over the employees of the other, even if that control was never actually exercised, and even if the control was

Temps in Tenth Circuit Face Stricter Scrutiny When Seeking Time Off as Reasonable Accommodation

On July 6, 2017, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reiterated that physical attendance in the workplace is an essential function of most jobs and emphasized this is particularly true for temporary workers filling short-term vacancies.

In Punt v. Kelly Services, the plaintiff, Kristin Punt, was a temporary worker assigned to work for GE Controls Solutions (“GE”) as a receptionist.  The essential functions of that job included being “physically present at the lobby/reception desk during business hours.”  However, during her six weeks in the position, Ms. Punt was absent or tardy on multiple occasions, often due to medical appointments related to a recent diagnosis of breast cancer.  GE terminated her assignment after she informed GE on a Monday morning that she planned to be absent the entire week and would need unspecified additional time off for “some appointments and tests” and “five

Other Perspectives on Trends in Employee Noncompetition Agreements

In mid-May, the New York Times published a long article reporting a national trend that employers are expanding both the number of employees who are required to sign non-competition agreements and the types of employees required to sign these agreements.  The article emphasized stories of low-paid, low-level employees who could not find a new job, or had to take a lower paying job, because they signed a non-competition agreement.  The Times ran an editorial that urged legislatures to prohibit employers from restricting the employment opportunities of lower paid employees.

What is missing from this picture?

While the Times article mentioned states vary in enforcement of non-competition restrictions, noting that California prohibits all restrictions on employees moving to new jobs, it did not explain the important differences in how states other than California enforce non-competition restrictions.  The Times article also did not report the damage to a business that may

The attorneys of Bryan Cave LLP make this site available to you only for the educational purposes of imparting general information and a general understanding of the law. This site does not offer specific legal advice. Your use of this site does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Bryan Cave LLP or any of its attorneys. Do not use this site as a substitute for specific legal advice from a licensed attorney. Much of the information on this site is based upon preliminary discussions in the absence of definitive advice or policy statements and therefore may change as soon as more definitive advice is available. Please review our full disclaimer.