As we have highlighted previously on this blog, employers have faced an onslaught of wage-and-hour litigation in recent years. Many of those cases have been filed as class or collective actions on behalf of hundreds and even thousands of plaintiff-employees. Most of these cases allege that employees have not been compensated for overtime hours worked as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).
The practice of allowing employees to work from home – telecommuting – is a growing trend. After all, today’s technology allows employees to work from almost anywhere, and telecommuting can be beneficial for both employers and employees. For employers, telecommunicating can be a less expensive alternative to traditional brick and mortar locations. Employees like telecommuting because of the flexibility it provides.
The West Virginia Legislature’s 2014 regular session concluded last month. Like in many states, the West Virginia Legislature passed a bill to increase the state minimum wage this year. In addition, following the lead of several other state legislatures, the West Virginia Legislature also passed a bill relating to pregnant employees. Both laws have significant implications for West Virginia employers.
As we have reported on this blog before, there has been a trend among employers to adopt mandatory arbitration agreements. For many employers, arbitration is preferred to civil litigation because the process is usually faster and, as a result, tends to be less expensive. In part, this increased use of mandatory arbitration agreements can be attributed to a series of recent decisions by the United States Supreme Court that have reaffirmed the validity of arbitration agreements. West Virginia courts have not always been receptive to arbitration agreements and have found them to be invalid in a variety of contexts, including the employment context. However, this month the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia has issued two important decisions that found arbitration agreements to be valid. The Court’s decision in New v. GameStop, Inc. d/b/a GameStop, No. 12-1371, which upheld an arbitration agreement in the employment context, has important ramifications for all West Virginia employers that use or plan to use arbitration agreements.
Regular readers of the Employment Essentials blog know that we frequently post articles about the interplay between the workplace and social media. Most of our social media posts relate to the National Labor Relations Board’s (“NLRB”) frequent examination of the topic. In fact, two years ago this month, I posted an article about a decision from an Administrative Law Judge with the NLRB Division of Judges who found that Facebook postings constituted protected activity under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”).
This shouldn’t be a newsflash, but employers have been performing background checks as part of the hiring process for quite a long time. Lately, the practice has become even more common, since information is more readily available in the internet age. Most employers use these checks to help ensure they hire the best qualified employees; some employers are required to use them under federal or state regulations governing their industries.
For a long time now, employers have engaged in the practice of entering into arbitration agreements with their employees to arbitrate disputes that may arise during the employment relationship, including wrongful discharge claims stemming from the end of an employment relationship. Although several state courts continue to be hostile towards arbitration agreements, the Supreme Court of the United States has issued a handful of significant decisions in the last few years reminding the states that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) “declares a national policy favoring arbitration” which will preempt state laws inconsistent with this policy.