Labor & Employment Law Update

In a rare win for employers, on March 23, 2023 the Illinois Supreme Court issued its decision in Walton v. Roosevelt University, affirming dismissal of claims brought under the Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) by a union worker trying to pursue a class action lawsuit against his prior employer due to the employer requiring employees to enroll a scan of their hand geometry onto a biometric timekeeping device in order to clock in and out for work. Specifically, the Court held that federal labor law -- Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA) -- preempts BIPA claims brought by union workers where their underlying collective bargaining agreement (CBA) contains a broad management rights provision. The ruling requires workers, whose employment is controlled by a CBA containing a broad management rights clause (which is common), to proceed with BIPA claims through the collective bargaining process; not through the courts. This decision serves as a major blow to those pursuing class action BIPA lawsuits where a union contract is in place. To be more clear, this decision can effectively shut down and close out BIPA lawsuits and the dreaded class action lawsuit.

Check out some of the most recent local employment law updates in Illinois, Colorado, Maryland, Michigan, New York and Pennsylvania regarding wages and paid leave.

On February 9, 2023 the Wage and Hour Division of the United States Department of Labor (WHD) issued a Field Assistance Bulletin (FAB) providing guidance to WHD field staff regarding proper compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and proper leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), for employees who telework or work away from an employer’s facility.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) voted to extend the public comment period for its proposed new rule that would ban certain employee non-competes. The new deadline for public comments on the proposed rule is April 19, 2023. The previous deadline was March 20^th. 

Most employers with 50+ employees are aware that under the federal FMLA, eligible employees may, for qualifying reasons, take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave during a 12-month period. Employers are also aware that employees can, under certain circumstances, take this leave on an “intermittent” or “reduced schedule” basis. For instance, an eligible employee might work four rather than eight hours per day for many weeks or months for FMLA-qualifying reasons. In those cases, an employer might believe that since 12 weeks multiplied by 40 hours per week equals 480 hours, the maximum amount of FMLA leave any employee can take in a 12-month period is 480 hours.

Although the Wisconsin Fair Employment Act (WFEA) has included arrest and conviction record as a category protected from discrimination since 1977, a decision of the Wisconsin Supreme Court last year demonstrates that the contours of protection under the law are still being developed. In general, the law requires any Wisconsin employer (with some limited exceptions such as schools dealing with unpardoned felons) to establish that a “substantial relationship” exists between the circumstances of the arrest or charge (in order to suspend an employee) or the conviction (to refuse hiring or terminate employment).

It is almost certain that Governor Pritzker will sign the Paid Leave for All Workers Act (Act) passed on January 10, 2023. The Act is littered with potential pitfalls for employer policies and practices regarding attendance, evaluations/reviews and discipline.

Dust off your severance agreement template, again. This applies to all private employers – whether you have a unionized workforce or not. 

Right on the heels of the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision in Tims, the Court delivered yet another crushing blow to Illinois businesses in Cothron v. White Castle System, Inc. Answering the crucial question of when a Biometric Information Privacy Act, 740 ILCS 14/1, et seq. (BIPA), claim accrues for the collection and disclosure of biometric “identifiers,” the razor thin majority found that a separate claim accrues “each time a private entity scans or transmits” an individual’s biometrics.

On February 15, 2023, in Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America et al. v. Bonta et al., a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) preempts a state rule that discriminates against the formation of an arbitration agreement, even if that agreement is ultimately enforceable. The law at issue, California Assembly Bill 51 (“AB 51”), made it a criminal offense for an employer to require an existing employee or an applicant for employment to consent to arbitrate specified claims as a condition of employment.  The court concluded that because the FAA preempts AB 51, AB 51 cannot be enforced.