Labor & Employment Law Update

On May 1, 2023, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) issued a decision, Lion Elastomers LLC, that provides employees with extensive cover for inappropriate workplace behavior under the guise of the National Labor Relations Act (the “Act”). Moving forward, employers must carefully scrutinize the environment and circumstances under which bad employee behavior occurs and analyze whether levying consequences for such behavior could land it in hot water under the Act.

Last month, the Illinois Department of Labor (“IDOL”) fairly quietly released amended regulations affecting the interpretation and enforcement of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (“IWPCA”). A complete listing of the amendments appears on the Illinois Secretary of State website. (starting at p.5406).

There seems to be an almost daily litany of layoffs by large corporations that instantly become media fodder. For example, McDonald’s recent layoff, widely reported to have impacted hundreds of white collar employees, comes on the heels of mass layoffs by Amazon, Meta, and Disney. Given this climate, it is best for employers to take a look at their policies and procedures for terminating employees, whether individually or as part of a larger reduction in force to ensure compliance with state and federal law.

The National Labor Relations Board, as currently constituted, continues its efforts to kneecap employers who dare to resist unionization efforts. We have already seen NLRB General Counsel, Jennifer Abruzzo’s, scorched-earth approach to promote unionization through enforcement activities targeting employer conduct that for decades has been perfectly lawful, and then suddenly finding the same conduct to be unlawful and unfair labor practices (including attempting to remove employers’ rights to require a secret-ballot election, instead of accepting authorization cards, to determine union support by a majority of employees; and making it unlawful for employers to hold group meetings with employees during union organizing campaigns to educate employees about the union and the collective bargaining process). Now, not only is conduct that previously has been considered lawful been deemed unlawful, the NLRB is promoting enhanced penalties and damages for employers who commit unfair labor practices.

Proactive employers are well-versed in safeguarding against workplace discrimination based on race, gender, religion, age, or disability. But, what about lesser known forms of prohibited workplace discrimination like genetic information discrimination? The Federal Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) and its Illinois counterpart, Genetic Information Protection Act (GIPA), both prohibit employers from disclosing genetic information or basing any employment decision on an employee’s genetic information. Both statutes contain private rights of action for violations. GIPA, however, contains a statutory damages provision that provides for penalties of $2,500 for each negligent violation, and $15,000 for each intentional or reckless violation. With these severe consequences for non-compliance in mind, we answer some questions on these statutes.

A prior article reviewed a decision of the Wisconsin Supreme Court which dealt with the relationship between the workplace and an applicant’s prior domestic violence convictions (Cree, Inc., v. LIRC).  This article will discuss a case which followed later in 2022, a decision of the Wisconsin Court of Appeals in Vega v. LIRC, et al.,  2021 AP 24, Petition for Review Denied, which dealt with whether an employee’s admission to his employer of the facts underlying two felony deferred prosecution agreements for sexual assault could serve as an independent basis to terminate the employment of the employee.

In a rare win for employers, on March 23, 2023 the Illinois Supreme Court issued its decision in Walton v. Roosevelt University, affirming dismissal of claims brought under the Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) by a union worker trying to pursue a class action lawsuit against his prior employer due to the employer requiring employees to enroll a scan of their hand geometry onto a biometric timekeeping device in order to clock in and out for work. Specifically, the Court held that federal labor law -- Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) -- preempts BIPA claims brought by union workers where their underlying collective bargaining agreement (CBA) contains a broad management rights provision. The ruling requires workers, whose employment is controlled by a CBA containing a broad management rights clause (which is common), to proceed with BIPA claims through the collective bargaining process; not through the courts. This decision serves as a major blow to those pursuing class action BIPA lawsuits where a union contract is in place. To be more clear, this decision can effectively shut down and close out BIPA lawsuits and the dreaded class action lawsuit.

Check out some of the most recent local employment law updates in Illinois, Colorado, Maryland, Michigan, New York and Pennsylvania regarding wages and paid leave.

On February 9, 2023 the Wage and Hour Division of the United States Department of Labor (WHD) issued a Field Assistance Bulletin (FAB) providing guidance to WHD field staff regarding proper compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and proper leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), for employees who telework or work away from an employer’s facility.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) voted to extend the public comment period for its proposed new rule that would ban certain employee non-competes. The new deadline for public comments on the proposed rule is April 19, 2023. The previous deadline was March 20^th.