The State of Illinois has enacted new laws and amendments that create new requirements and obligations for Illinois employers. Some of them go into effect at the end of this month. All of these will likely require changes to existing policies and procedures at all stages of the employment life cycle, as well as training, existing employment agreements, and separation agreements. Employers should consider retaining legal counsel to assist with ensuring compliance now. Salary History Ban and Other Amendments to Equal Pay Act (effective September 29, 2019) Illinois enacted amendments to the Equal ..read more

The National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) continued its recent wave of significant decisions on September 10, 2019, when it adopted a new standard for analyzing whether an employer’s unilateral change to terms of employment violates the National Labor Relations Act (“Act”). M.V. Transportation, Inc., 368 NLRB No. 66 (Sep. 10, 2019). The NLRB abandoned its “clear and unmistakable waiver” standard and replaced it with a “contract coverage” standard. Under its former “clear and unmistakable” standard, a unionized employer violated the Act if it made a unilateral change to working conditions unl ..read more

On September 9, 2019, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) continued its recent wave of activity in Boeing, 368 NLRB No. 67 (Sep. 9, 2019), by reaffirming its December 2017 decision in PCC Structurals, 355 NLRB No. 160 (2017) (see prior alert here) that outlined when a micro-unit could be appropriate. Under PCC Structurals, the Board found that workers in a proposed micro unit must share a community of interest with each other that is meaningfully distinct from the employees excluded from the proposed micro unit. That decision overturned the Obama-era Specialty Healthcare decision that ..read more

Authors: Adam Primm, Eric Baisden On Friday, September 6, 2019, the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) issued its third decision of the summer regarding employers’ ability to restrict access by nonemployees to its property (see prior analysis: Board Restricts Non-Employee Access to Public Spaces and Board Restricts Access of Off-Duty Contractors). In Kroger Mid-Atlantic, 368 NLRB No. 64 (Sep. 6, 2019), the Board determined that an employer can bar nonemployees from protesting against the employer on the employer’s property while still allowing nonprotest activities such a ..read more

A property owner generally has the right to control access to its property, including the rights to restrict hours of access, to prohibit certain activities when access is granted, and exclude or prevent access. These rights were affirmed by the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) in a recent decision Friday. Bexar County Performing Arts Center Foundation, 3668 NLRB 46 (2019). Generally, the property owner must balance its managerial interests with its own employees’ Section 7 rights under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). However, access by nonemployees involves a different analy ..read more

On July 31, 2019, Governor J.B. Pritzker signed a bill amending the Equal Pay Act of 2003 (“Act”). The amendments to the Act prohibit Illinois employers and employment agencies from asking job applicants or their prior employers about an applicant’s salary history. The amendments are effective as of September 29, 2019. As a result, by the end of next month, Illinois employers and employment agencies will be banned from screening applicants based on their current or prior salaries. Salary history information may not be requested at any stage during the hiring process, including the applicati ..read more

Authors: W. Eric Baisden, Adam Primm On April 1, 2019, employers received good news with the Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) proposed regulation limiting joint employer liability. As expected (see prior alert regarding NLRB rulemaking), the proposed rule narrows when companies can be considered a joint employer. The main takeaway from the proposal is that the joint employer test will again reinstitute the requirement that the alleged joint employer exert actual control over the workers in question. The DOL now proposes focusing on a four-factor balancing test to determine whether someone that w ..read more

Authors: Eric Baisden and Adam Primm Last month, a California Court of Appeal reaffirmed that California’s Private Attorney General Act (“PAGA”) is outside the scope of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) and the Supreme Court’s 2018 opinion in Epic Systems v. Lewis (click to see our summary of Epic Systems), confirming what many practitioners already believed. In 2014, the California Supreme Court in Iskanian v. CLS Transportation, while upholding the general enforceability of class waivers in mandatory employment arbitration agreements, exempted PAGA actions from the actions subject to such ..read more