Employment Flash - December 2014

In This Issue:

- Supreme Court Rejects Security Screening Time Pay

- NLRB Finalizes Union Election Rule

- NLRB Reverses Employers’ Ability To Ban Employee Nonwork Email Use

- EEOC Challenges Employer Wellness Programs

- Minimum Wage Increases In NY, CT, NJ and for Federal Contractors

- New York Job Protections for Ebola Health Care Workers.

- New York Emergency Responder Leave Law Takes Effect

- NLRB Affirms Ruling Prohibiting Class Arbitration Waiver

- California Bill Limits Arbitration Agreements

- California Federal District Courts Uphold Arbitration PAGA Waivers

- California Courts Disagree on Who Decides Class Arbitrability

- EEOC Files First Sex Discrimination Suits For Transgender Employees

- NLRB Approves Social Media Disclaimer

- Federal Contactor LGBT and Veteran Developments

- New York City Earned Sick Time Rules

- California Imposes Joint Liability for Labor Contractors

- President Obama Announces Immigration Actions

- Germany Implements Minimum Wage Act

- United Kingdom Holiday Pay Entitlements

- United Kingdom Shared Parental Leave Law

- Excerpt from Supreme Court Rejects Security Screening Time Pay:

On December 9, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that employees need not be paid for time spent undergoing an employer’s security screening at the end of a work shift. Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk. The case involved hourly warehouse workers who retrieve and package products for delivery to Amazon.com customers. The employees alleged they spent roughly 25 minutes at the end of each day waiting for and undergoing security screening before leaving the warehouse and that such time should be compensated under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The decision turned on the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947, which amended the FLSA to exclude from compensation activities that are “preliminary” or “postliminary” to an employee’s “principal activities.” The court held that security screenings were not compensable as postliminary activities because they were not “integral and indispensable” to the principal activities the employees were employed to perform. The court reasoned that the employees were employed to retrieve and ship products, not to pass through security screenings, and such screenings were neither integral nor indispensable because if the employer eliminated the screening, the employees’ ability to do their jobs would not be compromised...

Please see full publication below for more information.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
Contact
more
less

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide