Articles Posted in Employee Rights

In October, the Biden Administration issued a highly anticipated proposal on how it will approach independent contractor status under federal wage law. The proposal, released by the US Labor Department, clarifies when workers should be classified as independent contractors or be classified as employees who are afforded many more rights, such as full minimum wage, overtime, and other protections provided under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

This is a potential game changer for millions of gig workers, who are often classified as independent contractors. This includes the quintessential Uber drivers and food delivery app drivers, but construction and agriculture have some of the largest representation of independent contractors in the country.

When this was announced, gig companies such as Uber Technologies Inc. and Lyft Inc. worried about what this will do for their company, as stock prices took a tumble after the announcement. These businesses say their operating costs would skyrocket if they were broadly required to reclassify their independent contractors as employees, due to the tax liabilities and minimum wage, labor, safety, and other legal requirements that apply to employees.

During the holiday season around my college campus, there was “common knowledge” that one of the biggest benefits of working retail on holidays like Black Friday was that you’d be entitled to time and a half solely because you worked on that day. Cut to becoming an employment lawyer and it’s time to debunk that myth. There are a few things that factor into working during the holiday season, which traditionally kicks off with Thanksgiving and more importantly, Black Friday. The first is whether a non-exempt employee can be forced to work on a holiday, then whether there are any additional benefits to working on a holiday that may make it worth it, and finally whether an exempt employee has access to these same considerations.

For starters, when I use the phrase “non-exempt” and “exempt” I am referring to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) denotation for employees who are entitled to overtime (and therefore “non-exempt”) and employees who are not entitled to overtime (and therefore “exempt.”) We are going to focus on non-exempt employees because that’s where the myth of extra pay originates. Turning to whether non-exempt employees can be required to work on a holiday like Thanksgiving or a federally recognized holiday, the short answer is: unfortunately, yes. The FLSA does not require employers to give employees days off even on a federally recognized holiday. Individual employers, of course, can decide to have truncated days or allow employees to request those days off, but there is no law requiring them to do so. There are a few exceptions to that rule, and they mostly involve employees that are allowed to have days off because of a different allowance like observing a religious holiday or where there is a collective bargaining agreement (union contract with employer) that allows those days off. Without an exception, the non-exempt employees are at the mercy of their employers. (There’s also that meme that says requests for days off are simply polite notices of non-attendance, but I would not recommend that strategy.)

Next, we turn to the myth that started it all: employees get paid extra to work on holidays. This myth is both true and false like all good myths. The true part is that if working on Black Friday pushes non-exempt employees over the 40-hour threshold, employers are then required to pay time and a half like any regular overtime. The false part is that there is no requirement under the FLSA that says employers must pay workers time and a half simply for working on a holiday if those hours do not count for over 40 hours. Therefore, it can be beneficial for employees to work on holidays because the hours are longer and more likely to net overtime pay, but there is no benefit just by working on a holiday. 

Twitter’s new CEO, Elon Musk, cannot stay out of the courtroom. Just a few months ago, Twitter sued Mr. Musk after he attempted to walk away from purchasing the company despite the parties reaching an agreement. The court set Twitter’s lawsuit for trial in October 2022. Weeks prior to the trial, Mr. Musk unexpectedly agreed to proceed with his original offer to purchase Twitter.

When Mr. Musk officially acquired Twitter, he immediately terminated the company’s top executives. Mr. Musk did not stop there; subsequently, he randomly laid off several employees without notice. As a result, these employees are suing Twitter for not giving proper notice regarding their layoff. Less than a month into Mr. Musk’s leadership of Twitter, Mr. Musk and his company are back in the courtroom. One would think that an experienced executive would consult an attorney prior to unreasonably exposing his company to potential liability, but not Mr. Musk who seems to make impulsive decisions.

The employees’ lawsuit alleges that Twitter violated the WARN Act when Mr. Musk announced that he would be reducing Twitter’s global workforce. It was speculated that the layoff could affect 50% of Twitter’s workforce. Since this lawsuit, Twitter has taken measures to reduce its potential liability under the WARN Act.

Have you heard it’s “taboo” to talk about your salary? Us too. Well, that is out the window now. Welcome to the era of salary transparency. Yes, we know it can be awkward to talk about salary, but with new laws on the horizon, it may be a little easier to figure out how much your co-workers are getting paid. 

 Recently, the New York City Council passed a law requiring employers in New York City with four or more employees to list the minimum and maximum salary on all job posting including ads, promotions, and transfer opportunities. This law applies to any position that can or will be performed, in whole or in part, in New York City. This affects remote listings, meaning any job that could conceivably be done in New York City must follow this. 

 So why did the New York City Council deem this necessary? They passed this law to try and fight against big pay gaps, specifically between genders as well as between majority and minority racial groups. Let’s be honest, pay matters. It affects where you work and how long you decide to stay there.  

Summary: This article discusses some strategies, including different contract clauses, that employers might use to try to control where you can sue them, or to try to sue you in a far-away place. 

If you are in a legal dispute with your employer, where the lawsuit is filed can make a big difference.  That affects who the judge is or who might be on the jury.  Exactly where a lawsuit can be filed depends on the nature of the legal claims in it.  However, two basic principles generally apply.  If there are multiple permissible options of where to file suit, the party filing suit gets to choose where to file suit.  However, the location must be somewhere that has “personal jurisdiction” over the defendant—i.e., the defendant has to have sufficient connections to the location for it to be legally “fair” to sue them there.  This article, however, explores ways that employers may try to get around these basic principles through contracts containing “forum selection” or “venue selection” clauses.

While Texas is an at-will state and sometimes you may have next to nothing in writing from your employer that controls the terms and conditions of your employment, your employer might force you to sign things like a non-compete or an arbitration agreement as a condition of employment.  Those may contain language trying to force any disputes to be heard somewhere specific to get around the usual rules for where they should be heard.[1]  This can potentially result in situations where you, a Texas employee, are either sued or have your lawsuit moved to a location far from you or even out of state.  This might also result in non-Texas employees being sued or forced to only sue in Texas.

Searching for a job in today’s job market can be a tedious and competitive process. Employers are adding more requisites and qualifications to job postings in an attempt to attract the best candidate. That, in turn, requires candidates to find ways to better market themselves, including sometimes exaggerating their skills and qualifications on their resume and application or misrepresenting why they left their last employer. Let me warn you—don’t misrepresent your qualifications or the reason you left your employer. If a job is meant for you, the job will be for you.

How can a misstatement on an application affect you in an employment case?

For purposes of this article, employers will use any information that will undermine the employee’s credibility. Put simply, one of the employer’s objectives is to show that employee is not trustworthy. One way to do that is by looking to an employee’s application to determine if the employee misrepresented his or her experiences, qualifications, or previous job history. If you intentionally mispresent information on your application or your resume, the company will also use your misrepresentation against you as an after-acquired evidence defense. The best way to avoid helping an employer build one of its defenses is by being truthful.

The newest shockwave to hit employment customs is the murmurs of a four-day workweek. In fact, Iceland recently declared their experiment with the four-day workweek a success. Belgian workers won the right to a four-day workweek in February, and the United Kingdom has set up a trial run that began this month with about 70 companies volunteering. Further, other countries are looking at the European peninsula to see how their experiment goes to consider instituting the shortened workweek. So, how could we get a four-day workweek in the United States? 

The first way is obvious but unlikely. Either the House or Senate would have to draft a bill that mandated a four-day workweek for all businesses. Then, the bill would go to the opposite chamber of Congress before a final agreed upon draft was sent and signed by the President. The chance of a bill of this magnitude, with the potential to cause ripples throughout all levels of industry and business, wading through the stagnant pond of Congress is low, so we turn to a second method.

The second method has a greater likelihood, and it involves rallying all your coworkers during lunch to discuss how much you want to only work for four days. If multiple people agree, then you can be designated as a spokesperson for the group and approach your boss on their behalf to ask that a four-day workweek be considered for multiple reasons like everyone hates Monday anyways, Tuesday is the new Monday, and no one actually works on Friday. Be sure to also mention that a four-day workweek has been linked to boosted worker morale and productivity in the workplace, which would in turn help businesses. The positive of this method is that under Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act, approaching your boss like this is considered protected speech about the terms and conditions of employment.

Summary: This article touches on some of the complex issues surrounding the apparent boom in unionization—will this be a sea change or just temporary? What are the implications of recent union victories in major multinational companies? 

There have been high-profile union victories in the news lately for the employees of major multinational companies, particularly Amazon and Starbucks.  The National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”), which oversees union elections and investigates “unfair labor practice” claims, has also gone to bat recently against those same companies for numerous allegedly unlawful tactics they engaged in during union elections.  It could be that unions are on the verge of a renaissance in the face of the “great resignation” causing a shift in the power dynamics between employees and employers.  Indeed, unions are more popular with the public now than they have been in generations.  

Is 2022 just a blip, or the sign of something more? What are the implications of, and obstacles to, an increase in unionization? This article will briefly touch on these complex topics.  

Earlier this month, Sheryl Sandberg announced her resignation from Facebook parent Meta Platforms, Inc. Her departure was a surprise to many people. Ms. Sandberg was the Chief Operating Officer of one of the biggest and most powerful companies in the world. She was the primary reason why Facebook scaled from a company with $153 million in revenue and 500 employees in 2007 to its current size, with more than 77,000 employees.

This past week, the Wall Street Journal reported that Ms. Sandberg decided to leave Meta after a years-long process of battling job burnout. She felt like she had become a punching bag for the company’s problems and that she was targeted in a way that would not happen to a man, according to the Journal. This caused Ms. Sandberg to become disconnected from the business and less visible publicly.

In a way, Ms. Sandberg’s departure shouldn’t have been surprising. The writing was on the wall. Job burnout is real and it’s becoming more prevalent. It can happen to anyone at any level, like Ms. Sandberg, who earned $35.2 million in 2021 and has a net worth of $1.6 billion.

This article gives a brief overview of when and to whom a duty to preserve evidence applies under Texas law, and discusses why it is usually important to clearly put your employer on notice as soon as possible if you have a legal claim against it. 

Many times when someone first hires a lawyer to pursue an employment claim, they ask about getting information or evidence from the employer.  Despite how the media present things, there generally is no legal requirement for an employer to turn over any information whatsoever to a current or former employee, even under threat of a lawsuit.  Texas rules generally allows so-called “pre-suit discovery” in limited circumstances, like to preserve information or testimony that might otherwise be lost (for example, by the death of a witness).   

Usually then, an employee has to file suit and then conduct formal discovery to actually get information from their employer related to their claims.  If, by that time, that evidence is conveniently gone, what a plaintiff might be left with is only seeking remedies after the fact for “spoliation,” or the unlawful destruction of evidence.  Courts may penalize a party that destroys evidence in various ways, such as by instructing a jury to conclude that the destroyed evidence was exactly what the other party says it was, assessing monetary penalties, or even dismissing legal claims brought by the responsible party. Generally, the more unreasonably the party that destroyed evidence behaved, the worse the penalties.  

Contact Information