by Stephen D. Hans | Sep 11, 2014 | Court Decisions, Employment Defense Attorney
Author: Stephen D. Hans Business Employment Attorney in Queens, NY Many employers are interested to know about cases that affect the power of unions. For decades, unions have challenged employers through disputes or ongoing negotiations over employment terms and other issues. This summer the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in a particular case may influence how unions operate nationwide, potentially limiting their ability to gather revenue from certain non-union members. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the case Harris v. Quinn on June 30, by a narrow five to four decision, that the union could not deduct union fees from government checks that provided for homecare by personal assistants. Factors in the Harris v. Quinn case involved the role of Medicaid recipients and the State of Illinois, which shared a joint role in determining the employment relationship of personal assistants (PAs). PAs are workers who provide homecare services for recipients in need of institutional care. The State compensates PAs, and customers propose a Service Plan that establishes guidelines for the PA’s duties. PAs were allowed under executive order to join a labor union that would engage in collective bargaining on their behalves under the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act. Service Employees International Union Healthcare Illinois & Indiana (SEIU-HII) became the exclusive union for rehabilitation program employees. The issue in the case was that the SEIU-HII required all workers who did not wish to join the union to pay a union fee. A group of Rehabilitation Program PA’s brought a class action lawsuit against the SEIU-HII, alleging that the required fee violated their First Amendment rights. In many instances, the individuals...
by Stephen D. Hans | Jul 24, 2014 | Court Decisions, Employment Law
Awhile back we published a blog post that discussed New York City’s ban on soda sizes that were 16 ounces or greater. Former Mayor, Michael Bloomberg proposed the ban to the City Council and sent it to the Board of Health, which unanimously approved the ban in September 2012. However, the ban subsequently became subject to litigation when theaters, restaurant owners and beverage companies brought lawsuits. The lawsuits went through several judicial levels before arriving at the NY State Supreme Court. According to Bloomberg News, the New York State Supreme Court recently struck down the rule, adjudicating that it was “arbitrary and capricious.” The highest court in the state found that the only body with authority to engage in policy-making was the state legislature and it had not legislated such a rule. The Board of Health overstepped its authority, which is to regulate and not engage in policy-making. It derives its authority from the state legislature, not the New York City Council. In terms of public survey, Rasmussen Reports indicated that 63 percent of adults surveyed opposed the local soda ban and 19 percent supported it and 19 percent were undecided. The New York Post reported on the issue as well and stated that after New York City passed the ban, beverage companies began releasing smaller cans of beverages that were 7.5 ounces to give the public a greater freedom of choice. Stephan Hans & Associates is a long-established employment litigation firm located in Long Island City, Queens that has served clients for more than three decades in the New York City area, including Manhattan, Brooklyn, the Bronx, Long...
by Stephen D. Hans | Jan 13, 2012 | Court Decisions
Author: Hans & Associates, P.C. The separation of church and state under the First Amendment of the Constitution met another recent challenge. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) brought a discrimination case on behalf of a minister/teacher against the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, the second largest Lutheran denomination in the United States. The teacher Cheryl Perich claimed she was fired based on a disability, narcolepsy. However, the church claimed it fired her based on ministerial reasons, and that her claim violated the church’s First Amendment right. The case went to the U.S. Supreme Court which ruled that churches and other religious groups have a ministerial exception to employment and discrimination laws. In this particular case, Hosanna-Tabor Church v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission the teacher was also an ordained minister. This fact was pivotal in the Supreme Court’s decision where it affirmed a church’s or religious group’s freedom to select or dismiss its own ministers without government interference. While the Supreme Court did not establish a specific formula for determining employee qualifications for ministerial positions, it did establish that the ministerial exception did not only apply to heads of religious congregations. Based on this determination, the ministerial exception may encompass various types of religious workers. Protect against discrimination claims As a business, whether a non-profit organization or traditional business model, it is important to understand your rights and protect against discrimination claims. An experienced New York employment law attorney can provide employer defense and counseling to help a small or mid-sized business deal with discrimination issues. Many cases can be resolved through negotiated settlements, arbitration, or in hearings before the...
by Stephen D. Hans | Jul 1, 2011 | Court Decisions, Employment Law
U.S. Supreme Court │ Wal-Mart │ Class Action Lawsuit │ Employment Law The United States Supreme Court’s recent decision disallowing the nation’s largest ever employment-based class action lawsuit has received significant attention in the press —and with good reason. The decision, in the case of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, prohibits several Wal-Mart workers from representing a nationwide class of approximately 1.5 million current and former female Wal-Mart employees. As expected, much of the press coverage thus far has focused on the expected impact the decision will have on “big business” in America by making it more difficult for employees to bring large-scale class actions against their national or international corporate employers. However, we would like to highlight the potential beneficial impact that the case could also have on small and mid-sized businesses. In denying the employees class action certification, the Court found that they could not establish that every potential class member was subjected to the same discriminatory employment practice by Wal-Mart. The female employees alleged that the company’s managers disproportionately favored male employees when exercising their discretion over pay and promotion decisions. Because Wal-Mart delegated such decisions to each of its local store managers, the employees could not prove that there was a general policy of discrimination that was applied to every aggrieved female employee nationwide. The same reasoning could apply with equal force to employers of any size. For instance, a local retail or restaurant business with only a handful of locations could be similarly protected from a company-wide workplace discrimination class action if the employer could prove that employment decisions were delegated to managers at...
