In its last term, the United States Supreme Court began revamping employee arbitration rights, particularly with respect to class actions. With the current term under way, the Supreme Court has cases in front of it that could further alter these rights.
On April 30, 2018, the California Supreme Court upended the state's independent contractor market with its decision in Dynamex Operations West v. Superior Court. The Court's ruling changed the way the law will determine whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor. The case discards the decades-old test of S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (Borello) and replaces it with a new "ABC Test." We initially discussed the difference between these cases in a May 2018 post.
The U.S. Supreme Court's latest employment litigation decision requires employees to focus on all the terms of the employment contracts they sign with their employers.
Truly, how complicated and dynamic is labor law?
For those who are new to running a business, you should know that there are going to be decisions that you will need to make that will not only affect your business but your employees as well. These decisions may be as grand as deciding to merge with another company to something as simple as offering a benefits package to your employees.
The conduct of an employee while they are with a business and after they leave the business can have some rather significant effects on the business as a whole. This is one of the reasons why business owners often put a great deal of time and energy into the content of their contractual agreements with employees. There are many types of agreements a business owner might ask an employee to sign when the employee starts with the business, such as an employment contract, non-compete agreements and confidentiality agreements.
In a blog post last week, we talked with our readers about non-compete clauses and the legal issues they could create for businesses who try to enforce them in states, such as California, where such covenants are considered void. We brought up the topic because of the national sandwich chain Jimmy John's, which has fallen under scrutiny for its use of such restrictive employment clauses.