Pamela Reynolds’ article discusses whether employers can enforce arbitration of breach of fiduciary duty claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Section 502(a)(2).

Benefits Pro

View (Subscription required.)

Libby Henninger weighs in on several wage and hour bills that will be prevalent in the next six months.

Law360 Employment Authority

View (Subscription required.)

Jim Paretti offers his opinion on how things have gone in interactions with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission during the pandemic.

Law360 Employment Authority

View (Subscription required.)

Michael Lotito writes about unions and their allies’ attempts to sneak parts of the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act into the budget bill.

The Wall Street Journal

View (Subscription required.)

George Vassos explains new rules that broaden and clarify British Columbia’s ability to investigate employment compliance matters and tighten rules for hiring children younger than 16 years old.

SHRM Online

View (Subscription required.) 

Keith A. Jacoby explains what makes Mark Rudy a good mediator.

Daily Journal

View (Subscription required.)

In Aponte Valentín v. Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, CC-2018-748,¹ the Puerto Rico Supreme Court reinforced the strong public policy favoring arbitration agreements in Puerto Rico, validating continued employment as implicit consent for such agreements.

On November 9, 2021, in United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Canada Local 333 v.

Rhonda B. Levy and Douglas Sanderson examine Northern Regional Health Authority v. Horrocks, in which the Supreme Court of Canada decided that in Manitoba, human rights disputes arising from the interpretation, application or alleged violation of a collective agreement fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of a labour arbitrator.

Human Resources Director Canada

View 

On April 4, 2022, in Fraser Health Authority v British Columbia General Employees’ Union, 2022 CanLII 25560, Arbitrator Koml Kandola of the British Columbia Labour Relations Board dismissed the union’s grievance respecting the dismissal of the grievor because she was ineligible to work under the order issued b

Since late fall 2021, we have seen a steady flow of arbitration awards emerge in Ontario and British Columbia that consider issues relating to mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policies in the unionized workplace. In this Insight, we provide an overview of key trends in these awards.

Rhonda B. Levy and Barry Kuretzky provide an overview of key trends in arbitration awards in Ontario and British Columbia since fall 2021 that have considered issues relating to mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policies in the unionized workplace.

Human Resources Director Canada

View (Subscription required.)

On May 12, 2022, the “Employee and Retiree Access to Justice Act” was introduced in the House of Representatives by Mark DeSaulnier (D-CA).  Senator Tina Smith (D-MN) introduced a companion bill in the Senate. The bill seeks to ban arbitration and discretionary clauses in employer-sponsored benefit plans governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

The United States Supreme Court’s decision in Viking River Cruises v. Moriana will dramatically impact employers’ rights to enforce arbitration agreements related to claims under California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA).¹  This decision, which is a significant win for employers with interests in California, will allow employers to compel arbitration of a PAGA plaintiff’s individual PAGA claims.

The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario recently held a preliminary hearing to determine whether allegations made under the Human Rights Code (Code) fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of a labour arbitrator, or whether the Tribunal had concurrent jurisdiction over employment-related human rights matters in a unionized workplace.  

This Littler Lightbulb highlights some recent labor and employment law developments at the U.S. Supreme Court and federal courts of appeal.

This Littler Lightbulb highlights some of the more significant employment law developments at the U.S. Supreme Court and federal courts of appeal in the last month.

In light of President Biden signing the Speak Out Act, Elizabeth A. Lalik, Lauren M. Bridenbaugh and Jim Paretti say this is a good time for employers to review their policies and practices for handling sexual harassment incidents that fall under all applicable federal and state statutes.

EHS Today

View

This Littler Lightbulb highlights some of the more significant employment and labor law developments at the U.S. Supreme Court and federal courts of appeal over the last month.

At the Supreme Court

Angel Valverde presents issues for development of international arbitration in the U.S., as there are no visas that specifically allow a foreign national to be employed as an arbitrator, attorney or expert witness in an arbitration proceeding.

International Law Quarterly

View

This Littler Lightbulb highlights some of the more significant employment law developments at the U.S. Supreme Court and federal courts of appeal in the last month.

At the Supreme Court

Rhonda B. Levy and Barry Kuretzky discuss a case in which an arbitrator issued the first award in Ontario to address and uphold the reasonableness of a hospital vaccination policy that allows employers to terminate employees for non-compliance.

Human Resources Director Canada

View (Subscription required.)

On June 28, 2023, the California Second District Court of Appeal issued a decision interpreting the scope of California Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.98(a)(1), a recently amended California statute that requires employers to pay all arbitration costs and fees within 30 days of the due date, or risk being in material breach of the arbitration agreement.  In Cvejic v. Skyview Capital, the court held that an arbitrator cannot cure a missed or late arbitration fee payment.

California’s legislature covered a wide array of labor and employment law topics this legislative session. The laws discussed below were signed into law by Governor Newsom and will become effective on January 1, 2024 unless otherwise noted.  This Insight includes highlights of new laws affecting employers and is not intended to cover every new state and local law that was enacted this session.

Employers should begin reviewing these requirements to help ensure compliance with these new laws. Time to update those Employee Handbooks and train the management team!

This Littler Lightbulb highlights some of the more significant employment law developments at the U.S. Supreme Court and federal courts of appeal in the last month.

At the Supreme Court

Theodora Lee said overall case filings in the San Francisco state trial court have been down significantly compared to pre-pandemic levels, but she’s seeing an uptick in labor and employment law cases.

The Recorder

View (Subscription required.)

Alexander MacDonald explains when California employers’ employment agreements are subject to state law and AB 51 may apply. 

XpertHR

View

Rhonda Levy, Adrian Jakibchuk, Barry Kuretzky and George Vassos comment on an arbitrator’s ruling that federal employers can count employees’ sick leave credits as paid medical leave days under the Canada Labour Code (CLC) if their own program provides “a more favourable benefit” to workers.

Human Resources Director Canada

View

Alexander MacDonald discusses a case in which the ACLU, sharp critic of arbitration, is arguing that individual arbitration plays a “fundamental role” in protecting labor rights.

The Federalist Society

View

On April 12, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed whether the Federal Arbitration Act’s (FAA) transportation exemption—meaning the FAA would not apply—only relates to workers within the transportation industry. In Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC,¹ the Supreme Court unanimously held Section 1 of the FAA exempts classes of workers who are actively engaged in interstate transportation, even if the individuals are not employed by a company in the transportation industry (the “Transportation Exemption”).

Two days before the United States Supreme Court ruled in Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC,¹ that the Federal Arbitration Act’s (FAA) transportation worker exemption (meaning the FAA would not apply) extends beyond the transportation industry, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addressed whether the exemption applies to “contracts of employment” between business entities. In Fli-Lo Falcon, LLC v.

This Littler Lightbulb highlights some of the more significant employment law developments at the U.S. Supreme Court and federal courts of appeal in the last month.

At the Supreme Court

On May 3, Governor Ron DeSantis signed into law SB 2006 (codified as Section 381.00316, Florida Statutes).  The law prevents business entities from requiring that patrons or customers provide documentation certifying COVID-19 vaccination or post-infection recovery to enter or obtain service from a business in Florida. It also prohibits educational institutions from requiring students or residents, and governmental entities from requiring persons, to provide vaccination passports or proof of post-infection recovery.

William H. Foster and Katie E. Towery examine the impact President Biden’s “America’s Jobs Plan” might have on South Carolina’s growing businesses and workforce. 

Association of Corporate Counsel South Carolina

View 

On July 22, 2021 the Puerto Rico Department of Health (PRDOH) issued Administrative Order No. 2021-509 (AO) providing that, in order to physically attend school, post-school educational institutions, or universities, personnel and students age 12 and older must be vaccinated against COVID-19. According to the PRDOH, the vaccination requirement for in-person school attendance will play an essential role in controlling the pandemic and providing a safer educational environment for students.

On August 2, 2021, Denver, Colorado Mayor Michael B. Hancock announced that all city employees, as well as private-sector workers in certain “high-risk” settings, must be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 by September 30, 2021. After September 30, unvaccinated individuals covered by this mandate will not be permitted to work onsite or in the field. In order to meet this September 30 deadline, employees covered by this requirement must receive their final doses of the vaccine by September 15.

Who is Affected by the Vaccine Mandate?

David Gartenberg and Danielle Van Katwyk examine a new vaccine mandate in Denver and explain what it means for Colorado employers.

SHRM Online

View (Subscription required.)

On September 29, 2021, National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) General Counsel (GC) Jennifer A. Abruzzo released a nine-page memorandum taking the unequivocal position that “certain Players at Academic Institutions” are employees under Section 2(3) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).  Refusing to call such players “student athletes,” Abruzzo asserts in the memorandum (GC 21-08) that:

Puerto Rico Governor Pedro R. Pierluisi recently issued back-to-back executive orders (EO) regarding COVID-19. It appears that the third EO was stuck in holiday traffic. This latest EO, like her sisters, amends November’s EO-2021-075 to curtail COVID-19 infections.

Anabel Rodríguez-Alonso and José L. Maymí-González examine Puerto Rico’s new back-to-back executive orders regarding COVID-19.

SHRM Online

View (Subscription required.)

In the midst of declining infection rates and increasing debate over mask and vaccine mandates, on February 7, 2022, Sangamon County Circuit Court Judge Raylene DeWitte Grischow temporarily enjoined COVID-19 mitigation measure mandates that had been imposed by order of Governor Pritzker and related administrative agency rules, affecting nearly 170 school districts. Echoing the concern expressed by the Eleventh Circuit, in its December 2021 Georgia v.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) requires recipient institutions—i.e., any entity receiving funding from the NIH—to have policies that foster a harassment-free environment.

In celebration of the 50th anniversary of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX), on June 23, 2022, the U.S.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) recently issued new guidance regarding name, image, and likeness (NIL) endorsement deals with college athletes. The NCAA’s most recent guidance aims to provide clarity on NIL rules and is important for all businesses entering NIL deals with collegiate athletes, as well as colleges and universities subject to NCAA rules.   

The NCAA’s Past Guidance

Alyesha Dotson says the Supreme Court’s upcoming decision on whether to overrule a 2003 decision that upheld affirmative action in student admissions won’t set new precedent for employers, but may have repercussions in how diversity, equity and inclusion programming is conducted moving forward.

Law360 Employment Authority

View (Subscription required.)