Former St. John’s University men’s basketball coach, Mike Anderson, is suing the university for $45.6 million, alleging that the university fired him on false grounds. Specifically, he is suing for $11.4 million for the amount remaining on his deal before his termination and $34.2 million in punitive damages.
On Monday, May 5, in Borodaenko v. Twitter, Inc. (“Borodaenko”), a California federal judge mostly dismissed a putative class action alleging Twitter, Inc. of discriminating against employees with disabilities by requiring them to report to the office, put in long hours, and work at high intensity after the mass layoffs in November 2022. One plaintiff’s claims were dismissed, while the other plaintiff’s claims were sent to arbitration.
The Biden Administration has announced that it will be ending most federally mandated COVID-19 vaccination mandates on Thursday, May 11, 2023. Included in the Administration’s vaccine-mandate rollback is the Administration’s much-maligned mandate for federal contractors, which has been subject to challenges in federal court.
This year, in Basith v. Lithia Motors, Inc. (“Basith”) and Fuentes v. Empire Nissan, Inc. (“Fuentes”), the Second Appellate District of the California Court of Appeal (the “Court”) set forth the difference between procedural and substantive unconscionability as the basis for invalidating arbitration agreements. Procedural unconscionability focuses on the fairness of the process leading to the formation of the agreements, while substantive unconscionability focuses on whether the terms of the agreements are so one-sided that it unfairly benefits one of the parties to the agreement. The cases affirm the long-standing rule in California that both procedural and substantive unconscionability must be present to invalidate an arbitration agreement.
Last Tuesday, the US Supreme Court heard an oral argument in Groff v. DeJoy, a case in which the Court is considering whether to overturn decades of precedent established in the 1977 case of TWA v. Hardison (“Hardison”). Hardison established that an employer is not obligated to accommodate an employee’s religion if the accommodation would create more than a “de minimis” burden on the employer’s operations, or an “undue hardship.”
Last month, US Senator Sherrod Brown introduced the Restoring Overtime Pay Act of 2023 (“ROP Act”) in Congress, a bill that seeks to increase the exempt salary threshold, thereby providing overtime protections to many more employees who are currently classified as exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). If passed, the bill would update the FLSA, which was first enacted in 1938 and has not been significantly amended with respect to minimum wage and overtime exemptions since 2004.
While California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act generally holds employers strictly liable for harassment by a supervisor, the recent decision in Atalla v. Rite Aid Corporation from the Court of Appeal establishes an important limitation for personal relationships between employees.
On February 17, 2023, the California State Senate introduced Senate Bill 809, which would ban criminal background checks by most private sector employers. SB 809 is currently pending review by the Senate Judiciary Committee and contains eight sections.
Jennifer Abruzzo, the general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”), has released a guidance memorandum that provides further information on the NLRB’s decision in McLaren Macomb. The memorandum offers guidance on the decision’s practical impact, including its scope, retroactivity, lawful severance agreements, and confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses.
National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) issued a decision in McLaren Macomb (“McLaren”), holding that the mere offer of a severance agreement with broad confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions violated the National Labor Relations Act.
