Eric Epstein Employment And Labor Case Law Update: What Arbitrators And Practitioners

Eric Epstein reviews recent case law developments in the area of employment and labor law.

Checkout this video:

Eric Epstein Employment And Labor Case Law Update

Eric Epstein Employment And Labor Case Law Update: What Arbitrators And Practitioners Need To Know – New York, NY – Hosted by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C., the “Eric Epstein Employment and Labor Case Law Update” will provide attendees with a comprehensive review of recent arbitration and labor law cases, trends, and developments.

What Arbitrators And Practitioners Need To Know

As we start off the new year, it is always a good time for practitioners to take stock of recent developments in the law governing employment and labor relations. This update will focus on four key areas: (1) recent developments affecting the use of arbitration to resolve employment disputes; (2) the National Labor Relations Board’s return to more traditional views of “joint employer” status; (3) new state laws limiting an employer’s ability to obtain employees’ credit information; and (4) an update on the #MeToo movement’s impact on workplace policies and procedures.

The Impact Of Recent Case Law On Arbitration

The impact of recent case law on arbitration has been significant. In particular, the Supreme Court’s decision in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612 (2018), has had a significant impact on the way that arbitrators and practitioners approach employment disputes.

Epic Systems involved a challenge to the validity of an arbitration clause in an employment contract that required employees to resolve all disputes through individual arbitration. The Supreme Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) requires courts to enforce such clauses, and that the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) does not preclude enforcement of such clauses.

Since Epic Systems was decided, there have been a number of other important cases decided by lower courts that have further clarified the law in this area. These cases have addressed a variety of issues, including the impact of Epic Systems on class and collective actions, the scope of arbitral authority, and the standard of review for arbitral awards.

Collectively, these cases have had a significant impact on the way that arbitrators and practitioners approach employment disputes. Here are some key takeaways from these cases:

-Class and collective actions: In light of Epic Systems, it is clear that arbitration clauses requiring employees to resolve disputes individually are enforceable. This means that employees who sign such contracts are generally precluded from bringing class or collective actions against their employers.

-Scope of arbitral authority: Another issue that has been addressed by recent case law is the scope of authority vested in arbitrators. In particular, courts have considered whether arbitrators have authority to award damages for violations of federal statutes, such as the NLRA or Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The consensus appears to be that arbitrators do have such authority, although there is some disagreement among courts on this issue.

-Standard of review: Finally, recent case law has also addressed the standard of review for arbitral awards. In particular, courts have considered whether an award should be reviewed de novo or for clear error only. The consensus appears to be that de novo review is appropriate in most cases, although there is some disagreement among courts on this issue as well.

The Impact Of Recent Case Law On Employment Law

labour law
In recent years, there have been a number of significant court decisions that have had a profound impact on Canadian labour and employment law. Here is a brief overview of some of the most noteworthy cases.

The first case is Wilkinson v. Lowe’s Canada Inc., in which the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld an arbitration decision that had found that an employee who was fired for just cause was not entitled to severance pay. The court held that the notwithstanding clause in the contract between the parties did not entitle the employee to severance pay, as it was not expressly stated in the clause.

The second case is Lavoie v. Canada (Attorney General), in which the Federal Court of Appeal upheld an arbitration award granting a group of employees who had been wrongly dismissed from their job with Air Canada nearly $6 million in damages. The court held that the employees were entitled to damages for lost wages and benefits, as well as for mental anguish and suffering.

The third case is Dagg v. Ontario (Human Rights Commission), in which the Supreme Court of Canada upheld a human rights tribunal decision ordering an employer to pay $50,000 to an employee who had been subjected to sexual harassment. The court held that the employer was liable for the actions of its employees, even if it was unaware of them, and that it had failed to take reasonable steps to prevent such harassment from occurring.

These are just a few examples of how recent case law has shaped Canadian labour and employment law. For more information on this topic, please contact our office.

The Impact Of Recent Case Law On Labor Law

In the past year, courts have issued several decisions that have had a significant impact on labor law. These include decisions regarding the National Labor Relations Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Here is a summary of some of the most important cases:

National Labor Relations Act
The National Labor Relations Board has issued a number of decisions that have made it easier for employees to unionize. In particular, the Board has ruled that employers cannot require employees to sign agreements that waive their right to unionize, and that employers cannot retaliated against employees who engage in union organizing activity.

Fair Labor Standards Act
The Supreme Court has issued two decisions that have had a major impact on the application of the Fair Labor Standards Act. First, in Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., the Court held that an employer can be liable for back pay even if it did not know that its employees were working overtime hours. Second, in Reiter v. Sonotone Corp., the Court held that an employer’s failure to pay overtime wages is not excused simply because it was unaware of its obligations under the FLSA.

Age Discrimination in Employment Act
In Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, the Supreme Court held that an employee who is terminated because of his or her age may sue for damages under the ADEA even if he or she is not replaced by a younger worker. This decision significantly expands the protections provided by the ADEA.

The Impact Of Recent Case Law On Workers’ Compensation

Recent case law has had a significant impact on workers’ compensation. In particular, the Supreme Court’s decision in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612 (2018), has led to a circuits split on the question of whether workers’ compensation arbitration agreements are enforceable. This Update will discuss the recent case law and its implications for workers’ compensation practitioners.

The Impact Of Recent Case Law On Discrimination

Recent case law has had a significant impact on discrimination law. In particular, the Supreme Court’s decisions in Ricci v. DeStefano and Landgraf v. USI Film Products have changed the landscape of discrimination law.

Ricci v. DeStefano addressed the issue of whether or not employers can consider race when making employment decisions. The Court held that, in some circumstances, employers can consider race when making employment decisions. This decision has had a profound impact on discrimination law, as it has opened the door for employers to consider race in a way that they could not before.

Landgraf v. USI Film Products addressed the issue of whether or not employees can bring claims for emotional distress under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Court held that, in some circumstances, employees can bring claims for emotional distress under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This decision has had a significant impact on discrimination law, as it has expanded the types of claims that employees can bring under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The Impact Of Recent Case Law On Harassment

Recent case law has had a significant impact on the way that harassment is addressed in the workplace. In particular, there have been a number of decisions that have clarified the standard for what constitutes actionable harassment. As a result of these decisions, employers and employees alike have a better understanding of what does and does not constitute unlawful harassment.

One of the most important decisions in this area was the Supreme Court’s decision in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White, which established that an employer can be liable for harassment if it is aware of the harassment and fails to take reasonable steps to address it. This case made it clear that employers must take prompt and effective action to address harassing behavior in the workplace.

Another significant decision was the Ninth Circuit’s decision in EEOC v. Select Pizza dba Domino’s Pizza, which held that an employer can be liable for creating a hostile work environment even if the harasser is not an employee of the company. This case expanded the reach of employer liability for workplace harassment and made it clear that employers must take steps to prevent non-employees from engaging in harassing behavior in the workplace.

These decisions have had a profound impact on the way that employers and employees deal with harassment in the workplace. By clarifying the standard for what constitutes actionable harassment, they have helped to create a safer and more productive work environment for everyone involved.

The Impact Of Recent Case Law On Retaliation

Recent case law has had a dramatic impact on the way employers and practitioners approach retaliation cases. Here are some key points to keep in mind:

1. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Burlington Northern v. White transformed the legal landscape on retaliation claims.

2. The Court held that an employee who engages in “protected activity” is protected from retaliation even if the employer did not know about the activity at the time of the retaliatory action.

3. The Court also held that an employee does not need to show that the employer’s retaliatory action was the “but for” cause of any adverse employment action in order to succeed on a retaliation claim.

4. In addition, the Court held that an employee can be protected from retaliation even if the retaliatory action is taken against someone other than the employee who engage in protected activity.

5. The Court’s ruling in Burlington Northern has had a profound impact on the way courts and practitioners handle retaliation cases, and has resulted in a significant increase in the number of such cases being filed nationwide.

The Impact Of Recent Case Law On Whistleblowing

Recent case law has had a significant impact on the way that arbitration clauses are interpreted by courts, and this has had a knock-on effect on the way that cases involving whistleblowing are adjudicated. In this article, we will take a look at some of the most important recent cases and how they have affected the landscape of employment law.

In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled in American Express v. Italian Colors Restaurant that an arbitration clause in an employment contract could not be enforced if it would prevent the employee from bringing a class action lawsuit. This was a significant blow to employers, who often include arbitration clauses in contracts in order to avoid costly and time-consuming litigation.

Since then, there have been a number of lower court decisions which have attempted to interpret and apply the Supreme Court’s ruling. In 2015, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Patel v. Atlantic Richfield Co. that an arbitration clause could not be enforced if it would prevent an employee from bringing a whistleblower claim under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX).

This was a significant victory for employees and whistleblowers, as it meant that they could still bring claims under SOX even if their employment contract included an arbitration clause. However, the Ninth Circuit’s decision was overturned by the Supreme Court in 2016, in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis. The Supreme Court held that arbitration clauses could be enforced even if they prevented employees from bringing class action lawsuits or whistleblower claims.

This was a setback for employees and whistleblowers, as it meant that they would no longer be able to rely on the protections afforded by SOX if their employers had included an arbitration clause in their contracts. However, there is still some hope for employees and whistleblowers who wish to bring claims under SOX; in 2018, Congress passed the Arbitration Fairness Act, which exempts SOX claims from mandatory arbitration clauses. This means that employees can still bring whistleblower claims under SOX, even if their employer has included an arbitration clause in their contract.