BigLaw Partner's 10 Tips on Business Casual Attire
In February 2021, we wrote about Kinzer, et al. v. Whole Foods Market, Inc., a case pending in Massachusetts federal court in which multiple employees alleged that they had been terminated by Whole Foods for wearing Black...more
This month's key California employment law cases involve payment of wages, workplace conditions, public employment issues, and civil procedure....more
The National Labor Relations Board released a series of advice memoranda this week, two of which applied the new Boeing test to determine if a company rule or policy unlawfully restricts employees’ Section 7 right to engage...more
Remember NBC’s The Office? I think some lawyers used to blog about it. Anyhow, one of my favorite episodes was “Costume Contest” where the Scranton employees threw a Halloween party at the branch office. The costumes in...more
How would you feel if a telephone or cable repair person showed up at your residence wearing a t-shirt that said “Inmate”? In Southern New England Telephone Company v. National Labor Relations Board the United States Court...more
It was probably not that surprising that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reversed the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) decision in Southern New England Telephone Company, 1356 NLRB No. 118...more
Eschewing legal niceties in favor of common sense, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recently ruled that AT&T did not violate federal labor law when it prohibited its employees from wearing...more
Many retailers consider the professional appearance of their staff to be a significant aspect of their customers’ shopping experience. Unkempt, unclean, and unfriendly employees create negative impressions that injure the...more
While we may not think that spring is ever going to arrive, it is bound to show up eventually and with it we will dust off our spring wardrobe – or as many employers fear – the lack thereof....more
In early March, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) released guidance clarifying employer responsibilities in the areas of accommodating religious beliefs and utilizing background checks. ...more
In Sandifer v. U.S. Steel Corp., the U.S. Supreme Court held that the FLSA does not require unionized employers to compensate employees for time spent putting on and taking off certain protective clothing if they have a...more
On January 27, 2014, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court interpreted the meaning of the term “changing clothes” found in the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA or Act), specifically at 29 U.S.C. § 203(o). This case is significant for...more
Religious discrimination charges filed with the EEOC have increased over the years, rising to 3,721 private sector discrimination charges in fiscal year 2013. An EEOC religious discrimination charge resulted in the United...more
On March 6, 2014, in an effort to answer questions about how federal employment discrimination law applies to religious dress and grooming practices, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued a...more
Last week, the EEOC issued specific guidance for employers regarding religious accommodation under Title VII. Entitled "Religious Garb and Grooming in the Workplace: Rights and Responsibilities," the guidance focuses on the...more
On March 6, 2014, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") released a new question-and-answer guide and accompanying fact sheet on religious dress and grooming in the workplace, under Title VII of the Civil Rights...more
We’re excited to welcome back to the blog Desiree Moore with Part 2 of ”How to Dress Your Best for Catapult 2014.” Desiree is from House of Marbury, a fashion and style blog for women lawyers. Welcome back, Desiree!...more
The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Sandifer v. United States Steel Corp., No. 12-417 (January 27, 2014) should serve as an impetus for all employers to review their pay practices with respect to paying employees for...more
One question that is often on the mind of law students and young lawyers is what to wear to professional legal events. Today we welcome Desiree Moore from House of Marbury, a fashion and style blog for lawyers. In this post,...more
In Sandifer et al. v. United States Steel Corp., a unanimous Supreme Court clarified the meaning of "changing clothes" found in Section 203(o) of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA" or "Act"), holding that "changing clothes"...more
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) recently deemed a car dealership’s prohibition on “pins, insignias, or other message clothing which are not provided to them by the company” overly restrictive and a violation of the...more
Last week, the Supreme Court decided the case of Sandifer v. United States Steel Corp., Case No. 12-417 (Jan. 27, 2014), addressing donning and doffing claims in the context of a unionized steel mill. That case not only...more
Based upon a unanimous ruling from the United States Supreme Court and comments from President Barack Obama during his State of the Union address, wage and hour issues are front and center for 2014. Under the wage and hour...more
Employees who spend time putting on and taking off protective clothes, including flame-retardant outerwear, gloves, boot and hardhats, do not have to be paid for that time when it occurs before and after the work day, the...more
Updating a case we discussed last month, in Sandifer v. United States Steel Corp., No. 12-417 (January 27, 2014), the United States Supreme Court last week clarified the scope of Section 203(o) of the FLSA concerning which...more