The ABC test is used in some states to determine whether a person is an employee or an independent contractor for the purpose of determining state unemployment tax. Some courts using this test look at whether a worker meets three separate criteria to be considered an independent contractor:
Administrative law judges (ALJ) (not administrative judges) are executive judges for official and unofficial hearings of administrative disputes in the Federal government.
Affirmative action is defined as a set of procedures designed to eliminate unlawful discrimination among applicants, remedy the results of such prior discrimination, and prevent such discrimination in the future. Applicants may be seeking admission to an educational program or looking for professional employment.
Whether a defect in a claim as to the nature of “employment” under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination by employers with fifteen or more employees, limits the subject-matter jurisdiction of the Federal courts in hearing Title VII claims, as held by the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits, or if it only raises an issue going to the merits of the claim, as held by the Second, Seventh, and Federal Circuits?
In November of 2001, Jenifer Arbaugh brought suit against her former employer, Y & H Corporation under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, alleging that she was discriminated against because of her sex, and was forced to resign her position as a bartender and waitress. Y & H admitted to the questions of jurisdiction and its status as an employer under Title VII. In a district court trial, a jury found for Arbaugh. Y & H then advanced the claim that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to hear Arbaugh’s claim because Y & H did not have fifteen full-time employees at the time of the incident, and thus did not actually qualify as an “employer” under § 2000e(b) of Title VII. If an employer’s status is a question of subject-matter jurisdiction, as Y & H proposes, then Arbaugh’s suit would have to be dismissed even though a verdict had already been passed because jurisdiction cannot be admitted to or waived by a defendant, and a challenge to jurisdiction may be brought up at any point in the litigation, even after a verdict has been given. Arbaugh responded that the definition of “employer” is a question of merit and not of subject-matter jurisdiction. As such Y & H could have and did indeed waive the matter in its admission. The district court, after a lengthy determination of whether Y & H did qualify as an employer, ruled in favor of Y & H, and dismissed Arbaugh’s case. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling, holding that the so-called “employee-numerosity” issue is a jurisdictional question. The Supreme Court’s decision is expected to definitively determine whether the employment status of a Title VII defendant is a jurisdictional matter or one going to the merits of the case to be decided by the trier of fact. The Supreme Court will also resolve existing conflicts between and within the various circuits as to this question, and will hopefully establish a uniform standard for all plaintiffs and defendants in Title VII employment claims.
Section 701(b) of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act applies the Title VII prohibition against employment discrimination to employers with fifteen or more employees. Does this provision limit the subject-matter jurisdiction of the Federal courts, or does it only raise an issue going to the merits of a Title VII claim?
Plaintiff-Petitioner Jenifer Arbaugh (“Arbaugh”) was employed by Defendant-Respondent Y & H Corporation (“Y & H”) as a bartender in Louisiana from May 2000 until February 2001. Arbaugh sued Y & H in November 2001 in Federal district court, claiming that Y & H subjected her to a “sexually hostile environment” during the time she was employed. Arbaugh v.
A bona fide occupational qualification or BFOQ is an affirmative defense to discrimination prima facie. Bona fide occupational qualifications can be made for national origin, religion, and sex.
The California state legislature passed an act, AB 1889, which bars private employers receiving state funds from using the funds to assist, promote, or deter union organizing. AB 1889 also prohibits private employers who participate in state programs and who receive state funds from using those funds for the purpose of promoting or hindering union organization. The United States Chamber of Commerce claims that this statute is preempted by the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA"). A finding for the Chamber of Commerce would protect employer free speech over attempts by states to define neutrality between management and labor. Conversely, a finding for California would provide unions potential safeguards in their struggle against employers seeking to stave off union organizing while furthering the overall policy of California of remaining neutral in the struggle between management and labor.
The employment-at-will doctrine is an employment law practice in which an employer and employee agree there is no set period of employment. Additionally, the employment may be terminated either by employer or employee at any time and for almost any reason.
Are individuals who are employed as “service advisors” at car dealerships subject to federal law governing over-time pay?
This case asks the Supreme Court to clarify whether automotive “service advisors” qualify for the Fair Labor Standards Act’s (“FLSA”) mandatory overtime pay requirements. Encino Motorcars, LLC, a Mercedes-Benz dealership in California, contends that these employees are primarily “servicem[e]n . . . engaged in . . . servicing automobiles” and thus they are clearly captured within the law’s exceptions. Similarly, Encino argues that even if the statute is sufficiently ambiguous on the matter, the Department of Labor’s interpretation of the statute is unreasonable and unentitled to judicial deference. Hector Navarro and other employees assert that construing the statute’s exception to include service advisors would violate the text, spirit, and purpose of the FLSA. Relatedly, they maintain that the Department’s interpretation is entirely reasonable and thereby warrants deference from the Court. The Supreme Court’s resolution of this case could affect the terms of employment between America’s 45,000 service advisors and their employers.
Are “service advisors” at car dealerships exempt under 29 U.S.C. § 213(b)(10)(A) from the FLSA’s overtime-pay requirements?
Congress enacted the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) in 1938, seeking to remedy perceived shortcomings in the national labor market and to provide a minimum standard of acceptable working conditions for all employees. See Brief for Petitioner, Encino Motorcars, LLC at 4–5. One provision of t
Health maintenance organizations (HMO) are a popular type of medical insurance provider, characterized by their limited costs and eligible service provider system. HMOs provide medical insurance with low periodic premiums in exchange for only covering work performed from medical professionals within their network. HMOs also tend to charge low or no deductibles and limited copays.
