OVERVIEW OF EMPLOYMENT LAW

© 2019 Cengage. All rights reserved.

CHAPTER 1

OVERVIEW OF EMPLOYMENT LAW

OUTLINE

Heard at the Staff Meeting Clippings

U.S. Employment Law is a Fragmented “Work in Progress”

Sources of Employment Law Constitutions Statutes Executive Orders Regulations, Guidelines, and Administrative Decisions Common Law

Substantive Rights under Employment Law Nondiscrimination and Equal Employment Opportunity Freedom to Engage in Concerted Activity and Collective Bargaining Terms and Conditions of Employment That Meet Minimum Standards Protection of Fundamental Rights Compensation for Certain Types of Harm Dukowitz v. Hannan Security Services

Determining Which Employment Laws Apply Public or Private Sector Employment Unionized or Nonunion Workplace Employer Size Table 1.1 Employment Size of Firms (2011) Geographic Location Government Contracts Industry and Occupation

Historical Development of U.S. Employment Law Figure 1.1 Timeline of Major U.S. Employment Laws

Procedures for Enforcing Employment Laws What Does an Employee Decide to Do When She Believes That Her Rights Were Violated?How Long Does the Employee Have to Bring a Case?(Employment Law for Human Resource Practice, 6e David Walsh) (Solution Manual all Chapters) 1 / 4

© 2019 Cengage. All rights reserved.

Just the Facts Can a Lawsuit be Brought? By Whom?Class-Action Lawsuits Is There an Administrative Prerequisite to a Lawsuit?Must the Employee Exhaust Internal Dispute Resolution Mechanisms Before Proceeding?

The Changing Workplace: Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures

Enforceability of Arbitration Agreements Clippings Chavarria v. Ralph’s Grocery Company Clippings Just the Facts

Remedies for Violations of Employment Laws EEOC v. AutoZone Clippings

The Role of Managers in Legal Compliance Just the Facts

KEY TERMS

CHAPTER SUMMARY

PRACTICAL ADVICE SUMMARY

CHAPTER QUESTIONS

• / 4

© 2019 Cengage. All rights reserved.

CASE QUESTIONS

Dukowitz v. Hannon Security Services, 841 N.W.2d 137 (2014) Hannon hired Dukowitz as a security officer in November 2005 and assigned her to an evening position. In July 2008, Dukowitz learned about a temporary daytime position that would be available for the holiday season. Dukowitz’s supervisor offered her the position, but required Dukowitz to sign a document acknowledging the possibility that the position would be unavailable beyond the holiday season. Dukowitz switched to the daytime position in September 2008. In early December, Dukowitz’s supervisor informed her that the position would no longer be available after the end of December and that Hannon did not have any hours available for Dukowitz in the ensuing months.Dukowitz claims that she told her direct supervisor that she would need to apply for unemployment benefits “to make ends meet.” According to Dukowitz, her supervisor then turned to another supervisor and asked, “Should we term her?” In other words, terminate her employment. Dukowitz claims that she begged her supervisor not to terminate her and asked that Hannon place her on a “floating shift” so that she could work when shifts became available.

Dukowitz was terminated from her employment in March, 2009 (the parties dispute the reasons why), and sued for wrongful termination, asserting a violation of public policy because the firm fired her for exercising her right to apply for unemployment benefits.The Minnesota public policy exception to employment at will applies only to a demand by the employer for the employee to commit an illegal act, which does not apply to this case. The Minnesota Supreme Court declined to create a new cause of action under

these circumstances for two reasons: First, the court was reluctant to extend

legislatively declared public policy, since it believed the job was usually better performed by the legislature. Second, the court declined to expand the public-policy exception to the employment at will rule because the legislature had already delineated the consequences for an employer that interferes with an employee’s application for unemployment benefits (the firm is guilty of a misdemeanor).

• What was the legal issue in this case? What did the Minnesota Supreme Court

decide?

The legal issue was whether the state’s public policy exception to the general rule of employment at will applied to plaintiff’s case regarding her termination allegedly in retaliation for applying for partial unemployment benefits.

• What is “employment at will”? What role does it play in this case?

The doctrine of employment at will gives the employer the right to fire any employee unless the firing is prohibited by law. Unless the firing is prohibited in the circumstances, the employer may fire the employee for any reason or no reason at all. 3 / 4

© 2019 Cengage. All rights reserved.

• Why does this court rule for the employer? Why does the dissenting judge (Justice

Wright) believe that the employee should have been allowed to go to trial?

The court rules for the employer in this case because it believes that plaintiff’s case does not fit within the public policy exception set by the state legislature, and that it should not expand that exception, as that is a job for the legislature. The stated public policy exception applies only to cases in which the employee has been asked to do something illegal, and refuses. Justice Wright does not believe that only the legislature has the responsibility to set public policy, but that judges also have that responsibility when deciding cases based on the common law. He argued that common law is not a fixed set of rules, and that as a society changes over time, the common law must also change.

• Do you agree with the court’s decision in this case? Why or why not?

Students may agree or disagree with the decision in this case. This question provides a first opportunity for students to consider and debate the merits of employment at will, in this case, with the added factor of Dukowitz’s allegation that she was terminated for the lawful act of applying for unemployment benefits.

Chavarria v. Ralph’s Grocery Company 773 F.3d 916 (9th Cir. 2013) Plaintiff was an employee of Ralph’s Grocery Company who brought a class action suit on behalf of herself and other similarly situated, alleging violations of California law. The employer moved to compel arbitration pursuant to the employment application provision providing arbitration as the exclusive remedy, a provision which all applicants must sign when applying for work. Plaintiffs contended the provision was unconscionable.

• What was the legal issue in this case? What did the Appeals Court decide?

The legal issue was whether the arbitration agreement contained in the employment application was unconscionable, and whether the Federal Arbitration Act applied to bar Plaintiffs’ cause of action.

• What does it mean for a contract to be “unconscionable?” “Procedurally

unconscionable?” “Substantively unconscionable?”

Agreements are unconscionable when there is an absence of meaningful choice on the part of one of the parties together with contract terms which are unreasonably favorable to the other party. In order to conclude that an agreement is unconscionable,

• / 4