U.S. Supreme Court Partially Punts in Electronic Monitoring Case

We posted about Quon v. Arch Wireless here when it was just a Ninth Circuit case. There, the court of appeals held that a deputy sheriff had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his text messages sent on an employer-provided PDA.

On review, the U.S. Supreme Court ducked on the reasonable expectation of privacy issue that the courts below focussed on. The Supreme Court is concerned that the use of electronic data in the workplace and in society is still in flux and it does not want to pass judgment too soon on how privacy is maintained and expected in electronic communications. So we won't know about what policies are valid, whether a supervisor's oral statement could modify a written policy, and whether employers can destroy an expectation of privacy merely by furnishing the equipment. Another day, perhaps.

Instead, the court did hold that the City of Ontario was within its rights to look at Quon's text messages to see if he was using too much bandwidth for personal use. The court assumed there was a sufficient expectation of privacy without deciding the issue, and simply held that the search was "reasonable."

Because the search was motivated by a legitimate work related purpose, and because it was not excessive in scope, the search was reasonable under the approach of the O’Connor plurality. 480 U. S., at 726. For these same reasons—that the employer had a legitimate reason for the search, and that the search was not excessively intrusive in light of that justification—the Court also concludes that the search would be “regarded as reasonable and normal in the private-employer context” and would satisfy the approach of JUSTICE SCALIA’s concurrence. Id., at 732. The search was reasonable, and the Court of Appeals erred by holding to the contrary. Petitioners did not violate Quon’s Fourth Amendment rights.

Bottom line - this case would have more relevance to private sector employers in California if the Court had addressed the "reasonable expectation of privacy" issue. However, the court's discussion also concludes that employee monitoring is "regarded as reasonable and normal in the private-employer context."

For public sector employers, this case is significant because it clarifies the standard for the government-as-employer performing workplace monitoring even where employees have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The case is City of Ontario v. Quon and the opinion is here.

U.S. Supreme Court: NLRB Must Have 3 Members to Rule

So, what are we going to do about the over-500 - count 'em - NLRB decisions issued by the 2-member panels??

The NLRB normally has 5 members. At the end of 2007, the Board had 4 members, and anticipated the terms of 2 recess appointments would expire shortly. So, the 4 members "delegated" its powers to a three-member panel.

Then, one of the panel members left because his term expired. That left just two - a quorum of the panel of three...right?

Well no. Several litigants challenged the Board's power to function as a two member panel. The Courts of Appeals split on the issue. The Supreme Court ruled today that the two-member decisions were improper:

we find that the Board quorum requirement and the three-member delegation clause should not be read as easily surmounted technical obstacles of little to no import. Our reading of the statute gives effect to those pro-visions without rendering any other provision of the statute superfluous: The delegation clause still operates to allow the Board to act in panels of three, and the group quorum provision still operates to allow any panel to issue a decision by only two members if one member is disqualified. Our construction is also consistent with the Board’s longstanding practice with respect to delegee groups. We thus hold that the delegation clause requires that a delegee group maintain a membership of three in order to exercise the delegated authority of the Board.

So, what happens to the 500+ decisions issued by the 2-member panel? We'll see how many of the litigants attempt to challenge them. Or, perhaps the Board, which has been staffed by 4 members since March 2010, will find some way to re-affirm the decisions. We shall see.

The case is New Process Steel LP v. NLRB and the opinion is here.

DGV

US DOL Issues New Adminstrator Interpretation

The U.S. Department of Labor is not waiting around for employers and employees to request informal opinion letters. The administrator is busy reviewing its previous letters and issuing new Administrator Interpretations. These are not the same as official regulations, but they give you an idea of how the department will enforce its laws.

The department issued its second such letter yesterday. This one addresses "donning and doffing" - basically whether changing at the beginning and end of the shift constitutes "preliminary" or "postliminary" activity (non-compensable under federal law) or compensable work time.

The issue arises under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, as modified by the Portal-to-Portal Act:

Section 3(o) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) provides that time spent “changing clothes or washing at the beginning or end of each workday” is excluded from compensable time under the FLSA if the time is excluded from compensable time pursuant to “the express terms or by custom or practice” under a collective bargaining agreement. 29 U.S.C. § 203(o).

In 1997, the DOL issued an opinion letter saying that meat packing employees' putting on "protective" clothing or gear, such as smocks, arm guards, belly guards, gloves, etc. was compensable time because these items were not considered "clothes." In 2002 and 2007, the DOL retreated from this position and held that donning/doffing "protective clothing" could be considered "clothes," excluded from work time.

In its Administrative Interpretation, No. 2010-2, the DOL returns to its 1997 interpretation. After reviewing the legislative history and court decisions, the DOL says:

the § 203(o) exemption does not extend to protective equipment worn by employees that is required by law, by the employer, or due to the nature of the job. This interpretation reaffirms the interpretations set out in the 1997, 1998 and 2001 opinion letters and is consistent with the “plain meaning” analysis of the Ninth Circuit in Alvarez. Those portions of the 2002 opinion letter that address the phrase “changing clothes” and the 2007 opinion letter in its entirety, which are inconsistent with this interpretation, should no longer be relied upon.

The DOL then went a step further. The DOL opined that changing clothes, even if not compensable, may constitute a "principal activity" where changing is integral to the job. When changing is considered a "principal activity," it starts the work day. The activities that follow are part of the work day and compensable, even if they would not be compensable by themselves. So, if changing clothes is a "principal activity," then walking from the locker to the work area is also compensable under the "continuous workday" doctrine:

it is the Administrator’s interpretation that clothes changing covered by § 203(o) may be a principal activity. Where that is the case, subsequent activities, including walking and waiting, are compensable. The Administrator issues this interpretation to assist employees and employers in all industries to better understand the scope of the § 203(o) exemption.

This interpretation is highly significant in industries where employees change clothes at the beginning and end of the shift, even when they do not necessarily wear "protective clothing" or equipment. That is because time that otherwise would not be compensable may become so if the clothes changing is considered a "principal activity."

The Obama administration's DOL, run by former California legislature member Hilda Solis, is awake. Employers should not ignore the federal agency, even in California.
The new interpretation is posted here.

U.S. Supreme Court to Review California Arbitration

So, I asked in this post whether the California Supreme Court's jurisprudence on class action waivers in arbitration would survive the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Stoltt-Nielsen v. AnimalFeeds. There, the SCOTUS held that the Federal Arbitration Act does not authorized arbitrators to require class action arbitration when an arbitration agreement is silent.
The California Supreme Court, on the other hand, say that arbitration agreements cannot preclude class-wide arbitration.

Looks like we're going to find out. The U.S. Supremes just granted review of a 9th Circuit decision in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion. There, the Ninth Circuit held that a class action waiver was "unconscionable" under California law and that the FAA does not preempt California's unconscionability jurisprudence. Ross Runkel's arbitration blog posts the details here. This case will be argued next term, which begins in October 2010.

U.S. Supreme Court on Attorney's Fees in ERISA cases

The Supreme Court unanimously held that a court may award attorneys fees in ERISA benefits denial cases to any party without proving it is a "prevailing" party:

a fees claimant must show "some degree of success on the merits" before a court may award attorney’s fees under §1132(g)(1), id., at 694. A claimant does not satisfy that requirement by achieving "trivial success on the merits" or a "purely procedural victor[y]," but does satisfy it if the court can fairly call the outcome of the litigation some success on the merits without conducting a "lengthy inquir[y] into the question whether a particular party’s success was ‘substantial’ or occurred on a ‘central issue.’"

The ERISA attorney's fees statute awards fees to "any" party in the district court's discretion. Courts had read into that statute the requirement that a litigant be deemed the "prevailing" party. Under case law, a "prevailing" party has to demonstrate certain characteristics, like monetary gain, etc. The Supreme Court held that as a matter of statutory construction, courts could not simply add a prevailing party requirement.

So, in ERISA benefits denial cases, it will be easier for litigants to claim attorney's fees, even if they simply win a remand by the district court to the insurance plan administrator, rather than total victory.

Justice Stevens concurred in most of the opinion and in the judgment. The decision otherwise was unanimous.

The case is Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Co. and the opinion is here.

U.S. Supreme Court on Timeliness of Disparate Impact Claims

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that disparate impact claims were timely even though the plaintiffs did not challenge the original implementation of the alleged discriminatory practice. Justice Scalia wrote the opinion. So there, Scalia haters.

The City of Chicago conducted an examination for firefighters in 1995. It announced it would begin selecting from among the highest scorers, called "well-qualified." The middle tier was called "qualified." Applicants who scored in this range would be kept on an eligibility list. No one brought suit attacking the examination at the time it was given.

Over time, the city exhausted the "well-qualified" list. On March 31, 1997, some African-American applicants filed a charge with the EEOC. They claimed the use of the "well qualified" score had a disparate impact on black applicants - i.e., it resulted in exclusion of a disproportionate number of black applicants. After receiving right to sue letters, they brought a class action on behalf of 6,000 "qualified" applicants.

The Court framed this issue like this:

We consider whether a plaintiff who does not file a timely charge challenging
the adoption of a practice—here, an employer’s decision to exclude employment
applicants who did not achieve a certain score on an examination—may assert
a disparate-impact claim in a timely charge challenging the employer’s later
application of that practice.

The city argued the charges were untimely and that the scoring was justified by business necessity. The city lost at trial. The district court rejected the business necessity of the test as a justification for the admittedly "severe" disparate impact.

Regarding timeliness, the plaintiffs were timely regarding the city's more recent selections of well-qualified applicants, but were untimely regarding the city's initial classification of qualified and well qualified persons.

The Supreme Court decided that the city's use, rather than adoption, of the practice was the discriminatory act. Therefore, the decision that the City's selection of well-qualified applicants within the limitations period was sufficient to establish a disparate impact claim.

The issue in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U. S. 618 (2007), in contrast, was whether a plaintiff could allege disparate treatment - intentional discrimination - based on time-barred past decisions. The court distinguished Ledbetter because the disparate impact claim is based on the use of neutral, but discriminatory, criteria, without the need to prove intent. So, Ledbetter is not in conflict with this decision.

The case is Lewis v. City of Chicago and the opinion is here.

California Supreme Court Defines "Employer" in Wage Hour Cases

In 2005, the California Supreme Court held in Reynolds v. Bement (2005) 36 Cal.4th 1075, that individual agents / managers cannot be held liable as "employers" under California wage-hour law. In Martinez v. Combs, opinion here, the court similarly held that investors / business partners could not be held liable as "employers" either.

To get there, the Court engaged in a rigorous, painstaking (euphemisms for tedious) analysis of the history of California wage-hour laws, all the way back to the Magna Carta, or so it seemed.

But the Court did something that had not been done before. It came up with a framework for deciding just what entity can be held liable for unpaid wages.

This case arises because Munoz, the employer that hired, supervised, and (previously) paid its farm workers, went bankrupt. So, the case has relevance during these troubled times. Munoz operated a strawberry harvesting operation. Because of lower strawberry prices and financial reverses, Munoz could not pay its workers and then declared bankruptcy.

Unable to recover from Munoz, the employees sued: "two of the produce merchants through whom Munoz sold strawberries: Apio, Inc. (Apio), and Combs Distribution Co., together with its principals, Corky and Larry Combs, and its field representative Juan Ruiz (collectively Combs). Plaintiffs’ separate action against a third merchant, Frozsun, Inc. (Frozsun), has been stayed pending the outcome of this action."

The Labor Code does not specify who is liable for unpaid wages under Lab. Code Section 1194:

Notwithstanding any agreement to work for a lesser wage, any employee receiving
less than the legal minimum wage or the legal overtime compensation applicable to the employee is entitled to recover in a civil action the unpaid balance of the full amount of this minimum wage or overtime compensation, including interest thereon, reasonable attorney’s fees, and costs of suit.

The Court first decided that liability under Section 1194 is limited to an "employer" under the Industrial Welfare Commission's Wage Orders. The Wage Orders do define "employer." As the Court related:

Employ’ means to engage, suffer, or permit to work,” and “ ‘[e]mployer’ means any person as defined in Section 18 of the Labor Code, who directly or indirectly, or through an agent or any other person, employs or exercises control over the wages, hours, or working conditions of any person.”

So, who is an employer? The Court said that under the IWC's definition, one can become an employer in one of three ways:

To employ, then, under the IWC’s definition, has three alternative definitions. It means: (a) to exercise control over the wages, hours or working conditions, or (b) to suffer or permit to work, or (c) to engage, thereby creating a common law employment relationship.

Suffer or permit - The Court clarified that to "suffer or permit" someone to work results in a finding of employer only when the person permitting the work has the power to stop it. The vendors / defendants could not stop or prevent the work. Munoz had all the power to hire or fire his own workers.

Regarding the "control over the wages hours and working conditions," the Court rejected the claim that the vendors' financial relationships with Munoz resulted in de facto control over the plaintiffs' working conditions.

Finally, "to engage" means that the employer hires the employees to work, which is the straightforward way of establishing an employment relationship. There was no such evidence in this case.

So, this test will be used to define who is liable under California law as an "employer," with the exception of the employer's agents / employees. The employer's own agents and employees are not liable under Reynolds v. Bement, cited above. If the IWC changes the definition of "employer," then this case may be superseded. But the Legislator has all but abolished the IWC. So, the Legislature will have to define the employment relationship or reconstitute the IWC to change the effect of this case.

The opinion in Martinez v. Combs is here.