Chapters 1-3 Flashcards
Traditional view of employment law…
Traditionally, the law considered employment to be a matter of private contract between the employer and employee.
Bammert v. Don’s Super Valu, Inc. (2002)
Holding: “We decline to recognize a cause of action for wrongful discharge under public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine for terminations in retaliation for the conduct of a non-employee spouce,” (p.12).
Significance: No expansion of public policy to include police officers.
View of employment law in the US…
In the US, the employment relationship was one which pertained between equals: the employee was free to quit to seek alternative employment whenever he or she wanted, and the employer was free to fire the employee at any time.
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
In 1938, Congress enacted the Fair Labor Standards Act, which provides minimum wage protection and premium pay for overtime.
The first efforts to regulate the employment relationship appeared at the end of the nineteenth century due to…
Growing awareness of the hazards associated with certain occupations and industries and the inherent inequality of bargaining power between employer and employee. Most were struck down as unconstitutional infringements on the freedom of contract.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Prohibited all discrimination in employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.
Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)
In 1967, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act prohibited discrimination on the basis of age.
At-Will Employees are…
…terminable at will for any reason, without cause and with no judicial remedy.
Wrongful Discharge/Bammert/Brockmeyer/Exception to rule
Rule: To state a claim of wrongful discharge under Brockmeyer, a plaintiff must identify a constitutional, statutory, or administrative provision that clearly articulates a fundamental and well defined public policy.
Exception to rule: “…public policy exception to the long standing employment at-will doctrine which allows an at will employee to sue for wrongful discharge ‘when the discharge is contrary to a fundamental and well-defined public policy as evidenced by existing law.’ Brockmeyer noted that ordinarily an employer may discharge an employee ‘for good cause, for no cause, or even for cause morally wrong, without thereby guilty of legal wrong.’”
Richard Wolfe Article: it is the end of the notion that a better future is the reward for hard work for the following reasons… (4)
4 developments since the 1970s are the cause:
(1) Increasing use of computers which made it possible for employers to reduce their number of workers.
(2) Employers moved production to other parts of the world where wages were lower.
(3) Women joined the paid workforce in large numbers and stayed.
(4) Large wave of immigrants entered the workforce
= no labor shortage anymore
Richard Wolfe Article: our current crisis started because…
No shortage of labor –> employers stopped giving out raises to attract and retain employees –> employees are working longer hours today to deliver a better life for their families –> public encouraged to keep consumption rising by advertisements (media are cheerleaders of captialism) that reflect a materialistic culture that embodies what it means to be “successful” –> American working class takes on more debt by buying on credit –> 1970s wages flattened out and profits soared while Americans accumulated debt –> effects of debt were postponed by buying on credit until 2007 when level of debt became unstable (people couldn’t make payments) = capitalism is unstable.
Letterman v. A.T. Williams Oil Co. (1986)
Holding: Shane was an employee of A.T. Williams Oil Co.
Rule: Workmen’s Compensation Act - Superior Court has no jurisdiction regarding these cases. Includes illegally employed minors. Affords remedies to employees who sue their employers.
Reasoning: Shane performed odd jobs around the compnay. Store manager, Schneiderman paid Shane $1 regularly for his work out of his own pocket. Shane & mother expected Shane to be paid. Payment was voluntary; not required. Schneiderman hired Shane and Shane was injured while performing his given duties. Schneiderman had the authority to hire employees. = Shane was an employee of A.T. Williams Oil Co.
Schneiderman argued that he did not follow required procedures for hiring employees (e.g. not reporting Shane to Worker’s Comp, etc.). He failed to complete administrative formalities.
Campbell v. General Dynamics Government Systems Corp. (2005)
Arbitration issue
Holding: General Dynamics did not give sufficient notice of the policy (emailed to employees) that forced all employee-related claims to go to arbitration. Campbell’s case will not have to go to arbitration.
Reasoning: No record kept by General Dynamics of employees viewing the policy and opening the two links containing details about the policy, e-mail was not a traditional method of communicating new policies, contractually binding terms, nor employee’s legal rights, e-mail did not raise enough notice to employees = no minimally sufficient notice.
Americans with Disabilities Act
No discrimination in employment on the basis of someone’s disability.
Arbitration
An alternative dispute resolution.
Increasing in use
Arbitrator makes a decision for two conflicting parties. The arbitrator has a bar license and is usually an expert in the field related to the case. It’s an alternative to going to court. Arbitrators act as judges. Contract disputes are common.
Stages: (1) Resolution –> No? –> (2) Mediation –> No resolution? –> (3) Arbitration –> (4) very limited right to judicial review.
History: In 2001, the USSC ruled that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) applies to employment.
Arbitration advantages
Cheaper than going to court
Arbitrator is an expert in the field as opposed to judges who have limited knowledge about the subject related to the case.
Arbitration disadvantages
Arbitrators who are hired by the company may have the company’s interest in mind. Biased. They desire continued business with the company. They might sway their decisions to benefit the company.
Contract of adhesion
When one party is more powerful than the other, a fair contract cannot be made.
Starbucks Corp. v. Superior Court (2008)
Holding: No standing because no injury in fact required to receive damages. Appellate court granted summary judgement. Employers are not allowed to ask you about your prior marijuana convictions over two years old.
Summary Judgement
Motion for summary judgement - there is not enough triable issues of fact for the jury to decide.
EEOC v. Consolidated Service Systems (1993)
Hiring of mostly Korean employees.
Issue: is it discrimination?
Holding: No; it is not discrimination.
Reasoning: There is no evidence that Hwang is biased in favor of Koreans or prejudiced against any group underrepresented in his work force. The passive stance is the cheapest method of recruitment. It may also be highly effective in producing a good work force. Word of mouth recruitment in effect enlists existing employees to help screen new applicants conscientiously and does not compel an inference of intentional discrimination. It is not discrimination, and it is certainly not active discrimination, for an employer to sit back and wait for people willing to work for low wages to apply to him. The fact that they are ethnically or racially uniform does not impose upon him a duty to spend money advertising in the help-wanted columns of the newspaper. Small businesses are, for many immigrant groups, the first rung on the latter of American success.
Immigration Reform Control Act (1986) IRCA
The Immigration Reform Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) seeks to decrease illegal immigration by prohibiting employers from hiring undocumented aliens.
Aramark Facility Services v. Service Employees International Union (2008)
Issue: Whether the Social Security Administration (SAA)’s no-match letter–and the fired employees’ responses–put Aramark on constructive notice that it was employing undocumented workers.
Holding: Given the extremely short time that Aramark gave its employees to return with further documents and the arbitrator’s finding that Aramark had no “convincing information” of immigration violations, the employees’ failure to meet the deadline simply is not probative enough of their immigration status to indicate that public policy would be violated if they were reinstated and given backpay.
Judgment: Therefore the district court erred and the award must be confirmed.
Reyes & CA Labor Code Sec. 1171.5
Court of appeals reversed. Ruled in favor of the employer. Still have to pay for services rendered regardless of legal/illegal immigrant status.
