Asking “Wouldn’t it be better, as a general rule, if judges who meet regularly with prosecutors in advance of a cascade of high-profile indictments didn’t hear the cases that follow?,” Slate court-watcher Emily Bazelon recently discussed the petition for certiorari currently pending before the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of the kosher meatpacking facility manager convicted of bank fraud and sentenced to 27 years, essentially a life term for the 50-year-old defendant from Iowa. Rubashkin v. United States, No. 11-1203 (petition for cert. filed April 2, 2012). Mostly on procedural grounds, a federal appeals court rejected the defendant’s claims that the judge should have recused herself because she participated extensively with prosecutors in activities that led to an immigration raid on the facility, the detention and deportation of hundreds of workers, and charges of harboring illegal immigrants, child labor law violations and bank fraud. Bazelon suggests that the Court…
Tag Archives labor
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that Starbucks Corp. did not violate federal labor law by adopting a dress code which limits the number of pro-union buttons its employees can wear on their uniforms. NLRB v. Starbucks Corp., Nos. 10-3511, 10-3783 (2d Cir., decided May 10, 2012). The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) had ruled that multiple pro-union buttons, at one-inch in diameter, “did not seriously harm Starbucks’s legitimate interest in employee image because ‘the Company not only countenanced but encouraged employees to wear multiple buttons as part of that image.’ These other buttons, the Board found, were not immediately recognizable by customers as company-sponsored, and the pro-union pins at issue were ‘no more conspicuous than the panoply of other buttons employees displayed.’” Reversing this part of NLRB’s determination, the appeals court said that it had gone too far. “Starbucks is clearly entitled to oblige its employees to wear…
A New Jersey resident from Scotland, who began working in 2000 for seafood company North Landing Ltd. at the invitation of its former owner, has filed a wrongful discharge suit against the company, its new owners and a supervisor claiming that her concerns over the company’s purportedly illegal practices, when brought to the attention of her supervisor, resulted in him verbally berating and slapping her, thus creating a hostile work environment that she could no longer tolerate. Chadwick v. North Landing Ltd., No. L1776-12 (N.J. Super. Ct., Passaic Cty., filed April 26, 2012). Among other matters, the plaintiff alleges that the company processed and sold farm-raised salmon treated for sea lice with Salmosan, a chemical that she claims the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not approved. She contends that when she brought this to her supervisor’s attention, he told her to “delete computer records showing the fish having been…
In response to “thousands of comments expressing concerns about the effect of the proposed rules on small family-owned farms,” the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has withdrawn a proposal intended to reduce injuries among children working on farms by, among other matters, prohibiting them from using certain equipment. Instead, the Departments of Labor and Agriculture “will work with rural stakeholders—such as the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Farmers Union, the Future Farmers of America, and 4-H—to develop an educational program to reduce accidents to young workers and promote safer agricultural working practices.” Information about the proposed rule and a proposed “parental exemption,” that did not apparently satisfy critics, appears in Issue 425 of this Update. See DOL News Release, April 26, 2012.
A National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) administrative law judge has determined that the owner of 10 Jimmy John’s fast-food restaurants in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area violated federal law during a labor dispute by, among other matters, posting a pro-union employee’s phone number on its Facebook® page and suggesting that members text the employee to “let him know how they feel.” Miklin Enters., Inc. d/b/a Jimmy John’s and IWW, Nos. 18-CA-19707, -19727, -19760 (N.L.R.B., Div. of Judges, decided April 20, 2012). According to the judge, the assistant manager’s posts encouraged other employees and managers to “harass” the employee “for activities that were protected, as well as some that were arguably unprotected.” A co-owner’s subsequent Facebook® posts disparaging the employee further “condoned such harassment.” The employer terminated the pro-union employee and several others for posting flyers on restaurant bulletin boards and in areas near the restaurants suggesting that public health could be…
According to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the owner and operator of a long-term residential treatment facility for chemically dependent women and their children has agreed to pay $125,000 to the estate of an employee allegedly terminated from her position because she was severely obese. EEOC v. Res. for Human Dev., Inc., No. 10-03322 (E.D. La., consent decree entered April 10, 2012). Additional information about the court decision denying the employer’s motions for summary judgment and recognizing obesity as a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) appears in Issue 421 of this Update. EEOC also indicated that under the consent decree, the employer will “provide annual training on federal disability law to all human resources personnel and corporate directors of RHD [Resources for Human Development] nationwide.” The agreement further requires the company to report to EEOC “for three years on all complaints of disability discrimination and…
Citizens Medical Center, located in Victoria, Texas, has reportedly instituted a prohibition on hiring any employee with a body mass index (BMI) higher than 35, or 210 pounds for an individual 5 feet, 5 inches tall or 245 pounds for someone 5-foot-10. Apparently, the hiring policy is not based on the expense of health care for the obese or purported increased absenteeism, but linked to physical appearance. The center’s chief executive officer reportedly said in an interview, “The majority of our patients are over 65, and they have expectations that cannot be ignored in terms of personal appearance.” Because weight is not a protected category in Texas, some believe the policy is not illegal, but others claim the weight-based discrimination violates the Americans with Disabilities Act. In either event, while smokers have been subject to similar policies for some time, weight restrictions are apparently virtually unknown in the medical field. The…
Two California men who allegedly worked as cooks at a Riverside County Olive Garden have filed a putative class action as private attorneys general under the California Labor Code, claiming that they performed off-the-clock work, were not provided meal or rest breaks as required by law or paid overtime, and had the cost of shoes deducted from their paychecks. Romo v. GMRI, Inc., No. RIC1203891 (Cal. Super. Ct., Riverside Cty., filed March 19, 2012). They also claim that their employer failed to pay them promptly as required by law when they left their jobs. They seek to represent all non-exempt or hourly paid Olive Garden employees in the state. According to the complaint, the off-the-clock and overtime work the plaintiffs performed was necessitated due to the volume of work and frequent understaffing. Claiming unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum wages, non-compliant wage statements, unlawful deductions, and wages not timely paid upon termination,…
Restaurateurs Mario Batali and Joseph Bastianich have apparently agreed to settle for $5.25 million wage-related claims in a class action filed by waitstaff at their New York City restaurants including Babbo, Bar Jamon, Casa Mono, Del Posto, Esca, Lupa, Otto, and Tarry Lodge. Capsolas v. Pasta Resources Inc., No. 10-5595 (S.D.N.Y., motion for preliminary approval of settlement filed March 5, 2012). Additional information about the suit appears in Issue 361 of this Update. If approved, the settlement would cover attorney’s fees (one-third of the total) and costs, class members’ awards, service payments to the named plaintiffs, and the claim administrator’s fees. The class, consisting of captains, servers, waiters, bussers, runners, back waiters, bartenders, and/or barbacks, will receive a proportional share of the settlement fund “based on the number of hours they worked, the Restaurant at which they worked, the percentage of total tips received during their employment, and whether they opted…
A federal court in Arkansas has reportedly certified a class of poultry-processing plant workers who allege that the company has violated federal and state employment laws by failing to compensate them for the time they spend donning, doffing and sanitizing required gear and equipment, as well as walking to and from the production floor and performing other job-related duties. Garner v. Butterball, LLC, No. 10 01025 (E.D. Ark., decided February 22, 2012). The plaintiffs apparently demonstrated that their claims met all of the class certification requirements, although the court modified the class definition to account for statutes of limitations applicable to claims filed under the Federal Labor Standards Act and Arkansas Minimum Wage Act. Thus, the class has been defined as hourly production employees who worked at two Butterball plants “at any time since October 1, 2006, through the date of final judgment in this action.” Meanwhile, the U.S. Supreme Court…
