Gross Goes Ledbetter

Capitoldome It now appears that the Gross ADEA decision might be going the way of the Ledbetter pay discrimination Title VII decision.  From CQ Politics:

A trio of top Democrats from both chambers plan legislation aimed at rolling back a Supreme Court ruling they say makes it harder for plaintiffs to win age discrimination suits.

Tom Harkin , D-Iowa, chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, and Patrick J. Leahy , D-Vt., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Tuesday they will introduce a bill to restore a less-demanding burden of proof for plaintiffs in age discrimination suits. Rep. George Miller , D-Calif., chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, said he intends to introduce a similar measure.

The proposed legislation is a response to the Supreme Court’s June 2009 ruling in Gross v. FBL Financial Services that plaintiffs claiming disparate treatment under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act must show that age was the determining factor in the alleged discrimination, rather than just one of several factors . . . .

Under the proposed legislation, the burden would be on the employer to show it complied with the law once a plaintiff shows age discrimination was a “motivating factor” behind an employment decision.

What I particularly like about the Congressional response is that in announcing the legislation, Sen. Leahy quite rightly referred to the Supreme Court’s decision as an activist decision by conservative justices.

Of courses when I say that “Gross Goes Ledbetter,” I refer to the fact that President Obama signed into law the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act making it easier for workers to challenge wage discrimination, responding to the restrictive 2007 Supreme Court ruling in Ledbetter.

Continue ReadingGross Goes Ledbetter

The Starbucks at the Milwaukee Hilton: Unit Clarification Story

Starbucks-logo

It is so rare that I actually get to write a post about traditional labor law that I usually jump at the chance.   Especially when the labor law concerns a local Milwaukee institution that most of us are aware of.

What you might not have know is that Hilton food and beverage employees are represented by a union.  Recently, the Starbucks located inside the Hilton became unionized as well. The question became whether the Starbucks employees could just join the Hilton union.

Even though the local regional director in Milwaukee ruled that such a combination was lawful, the National Labor Relations Board (in a 2-0 decision) reversed because (according to BNA) (subscription required):

Chairman Wilma B. Liebman and Member Peter C. Schaumber found that the baristas, who are employed by Milwaukee City Center LLC, have a separate identity from the bargaining unit and constitute a separate appropriate unit and that the two groups do not share an overwhelming community of interest.

The board emphasized the lack of interchange between Starbucks baristas and food/beverage employees in the bargaining unit and the absence of common supervision of the two groups.

Actually, not much controversy here. Just wanted the Marquette Faculty Law Blog readers to have a taste of what goes on in labor law once in a while.

Continue ReadingThe Starbucks at the Milwaukee Hilton: Unit Clarification Story

Baucus Healthcare Bill Falls Short on Public Option, Employer Mandates, and the Effective Date for the Legislation

Capitoldome In what will certainly be the news of the day, the Senate Finance Committee Chairman, Max Baucus (D-MT), released his version of the national health care reform bill.

Although there are many interesting provisions in the Baucus Bill, including a requirement that individuals have health insurance coverage, the establishment of a health care exchange, proposed reforms for the private insurance system including not allowing exclusions for preexisting coverage, and expansion of the Medicaid program for the poor, I want to focus on three parts that trouble me that directly deal with current employee benefits law. 

Continue ReadingBaucus Healthcare Bill Falls Short on Public Option, Employer Mandates, and the Effective Date for the Legislation