In House: HR & Employment Law Archives
In House - The FindLaw Corporate Counsel Blog

Recently in HR & Employment Law Category

The U.S. Department of Labor has settled allegations that a Silicon Valley company, Electronics for Imaging, paid temp workers from India as little as $1.21 an hour to install networking infrastructure at its new headquarters in Fremont, California.

EFI, which makes digital printing software and hardware, apparently flew network technicians from Bangalore, India, to the San Francisco Bay Area in late 2013, working them as many as 122 hours a week and paying them in Indian rupees.

National Flex Day: It has (nearly) nothing to do with fitness.

What is National Flex Day? It's a day meant to encourage employers to recognize and consider flexible working arrangements, such as telecommuting, flex time (instead of 9-to-5, employees choose their own start and end times), or compressed work weeks (more hours per day, but fewer days).

Why is flex important? And why should your company encourage it?

When the story of the guy who was fired from PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) after complaining about his Comcast service first broke, his finger-pointing at the cable company sounded to me like insane rambling paranoia. It might be, but not only has Conal O'Rourke provided a lot of documentation to the media to back his claims, but he's now filed suit against Comcast.

True or false, we may know soon: The conversations seem to have been recorded, reports Ars Technica, and while Comcast is keeping them under wraps because of the ongoing litigation, this should be a fun case to watch.

What's the weirdest employee perk you can think of? Tech companies are known for them: keg parties, entire cafeterias, day trips to wineries, on-site laundry, and more. But freezing a female employee's eggs for purposes of future fertility is a new one. According to NBC News, Apple and Facebook are the first two major employers to offer this perk for non-medical reasons.

But the perk isn't without controversy. While some might see companies doing what they can to empower women to choose to have a high-powered career now, and a family later than what otherwise might be possible naturally, others see an ulterior motive: squeezing more work out of women now, while providing a fertility treatment that may or may not work down the line.

You may want to eat at Jimmy John's, but would you want to work there? The Huffington Post recently reported on a Jimmy John's franchisee's "oppressive" noncompetition agreement, which was disclosed as part of a lawsuit by employees. (For the uninitiated, Jimmy John's is a national chain of bro-tastic sub sandwich shops, usually found in college towns.)

The Content of the Noncompete Clause

The Jimmy John's franchisee's noncompetition agreement purports to bind the employee for two years after his termination "for any reason," and forbids the employee from having any interest or providing any services for any business that derives more than 10 percent of its revenues from sub sandwiches within 3 miles of any Jimmy John's sandwich shop. It also prevents an employee from being affiliated with any other Jimmy John's for a year after termination "for any reason."

According to Kathleen Chavez, who's representing the plaintiffs in the class action suit, "the effective blackout area for a former Jimmy John's worker would cover 6,000 square miles in 44 states and the District of Columbia."

FedEx is quickly becoming the go-to company when a labor law complaint absolutely, positively has to be written about overnight. Great for those of us who have to write about it, not so good for FedEx.

This time, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is going after FedEx for "discriminating against a large class of deaf and hard-of-hearing package handlers and job applicants for years," according to an EEOC press release.

Before they leave for the day, Amazon's warehouse employees are required to go through a security screening -- basically to make sure they haven't stolen anything. In addition to presuming that their employees may be thieves, Amazon doesn't pay employees for the time they spend waiting to be searched.

The actual search is fairly brief, but employees spend up to 25 minutes waiting in line, and it's this waiting period that's at issue in Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk. On October 8, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case.

Back in 2012, we wrote about a Seventh Circuit case in which FedEx drivers claimed they were entitled to the same benefits as non-drivers, but FedEx claimed they were independent contractors. The case encompassed different lawsuits in different states. The Seventh Circuit decided to certify a question to the Kansas Supreme Court.

In the meantime, the Ninth Circuit had independently determined that FedEx drivers were employees under either an Oregon test or a California test. Last week, the Kansas Supreme Court finally answered the Seventh Circuit's certified question -- FedEx drivers are employees.

This discussion rears its head every now and then: Should companies let employees know how much money other employees make?

The question came up most recently in a Slate piece about the website Buffer. Apparently, Buffer posted a Google spreadsheet on its website disclosing the salary of everyone in the company. Is that a wise decision? Well, that depends on who's doing the asking.

Full disclosure: I am a Kansas City Chiefs fan. So it was with constant, uninterrupted joy that I watched Monday's molly-whopping of the New England Patriots by my hometown team.

Uninterrupted, at least, until a wee little mistake by the referees in the fourth quarter. After the Chiefs' Husain Abdullah snagged an interception and ran it for a touchdown, he immediately slid to the ground and prayed to Allah. A yellow penalty flag flew, giving the Patriots 15 yards on the ensuing possession. The subsequent touchdown made no difference -- the final score was 41-14 -- but it was worrisome that a player was penalized for praying on both knees (as Muslims do) while Christian players often drop to a knee in prayer without penalty.

However, the National Football League did the right thing and rescinded the call Tuesday morning, the closest thing to an apology a player will get from the league.