About Us  |  About Cheetah®  |  Contact Us

News

Subscribe to the Employment Law Daily RSS Subscribe

Transgender applicant failed to show Phillips 66 discriminated in revoking job offer

February 11th, 2019

By Kathleen Kapusta, J.D.
“It took an act of Congress to prohibit race and sex discrimination in private employment nationwide,” wrote Judge Ho; “So too it will take an act of Congress if the people wish to prohibit transgender and sexual orientation discrimination across the country as well.”
After clarifying that Blum v. Gulf Oil Corp., its [Read more...]


Washington State employers strictly liable for sexual harassment of members of the public by their employees

February 11th, 2019

By Ronald Miller, J.D.
In declining to use the framework for analyzing sex discrimination in the employment context, the court noted the WLAD treats employment discrimination claims differently from public accommodation claims.
In an en banc decision, a divided Washington Supreme Court, in a 7-2 split, held that under the plain language of the Washington Law Against [Read more...]


Common-law agency test adopted by CA-9 for ‘joint employment’ in Title VII; EEOC claims against fruit growers revived

February 8th, 2019

By Lorene D. Park, J.D.
Under the common-law agency test and through the operation of H-2A regulations, fruit growers had enough control to plausibly be liable as ‘joint employers’ for Thai workers’ abysmal living conditions.
Though a labor contract between two fruit growers and a recruiter delegated responsibility for housing, food, transportation, and wages to the recruiter, [Read more...]


Employer’s on-call scheduling practice triggered California ‘reporting time pay’ requirements

February 8th, 2019

By Ronald Miller, J.D.

An employee’s physical presence at work at the start of a shift is not required by the phrase “report for work” as used in Wage Order 7. Telephonic call-in requirements trigger reporting time pay because on-call shifts limit the ability to earn income, go to school, or enjoy leisure time.
An employer’s [Read more...]


Primary beneficiary test applies to vocational training; cosmetology students not covered as employees

February 7th, 2019

By Lisa Milam, J.D.
The Second Circuit’s “primary beneficiary” test, set forth in the context of college interns, also applies to vocational students who perform productive work as part of their training. Cosmetology students were not statutory employees under the FLSA or NYLL.
The “primary beneficiary” test of employee vs. trainee status, first introduced amid a spate [Read more...]