EPL CORNER
NINTH CIRCUIT UPHOLDS EMPLOYER’S GOOD FAITH DEFENSE IN MISCLASSIFICATION DISPUTE
Bijon Hill v. Walmart Inc., No. 21-15180 (9th Cir. Apr. 26, 2022)
This case arose after a clothing model brought various wage and hour claims against a retail giant in relation to several photo shoots for the company in which the model had appeared. The model alleged that the various shoots, which took place on nonconsecutive days over a thirteen-month period, all constituted different instances of employment with the retailer and that she was “discharged” after each shoot.
According to the complaint, the retailer failed to pay the model all wages within thirty days of discharging her employment, in violation of California Labor Code.
The retailer argued it was not obligated to pay the model immediately after each photo shoot, as it had a good faith belief that she was an independent contractor, rather than an employee. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, upholding a lower court’s ruling and concluding the retailer had a reasonable basis to have considered the model an independent contractor, regardless of whether the classification was correct. In ruling as such, the Ninth Circuit relied on the “limited and irregular nature of [the model’s] work,” which occurred in one- to two-day increments.
INDIVIDUAL ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS NOT BINDING FOR ERISA SUIT
Hawkins v. Cintas Corp. No. 21-2156, __ F.4d __ (6th Cir. Apr. 27, 2022)
Former employees of a business services company brought an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) suit on behalf of the company’s retirement plan, alleging the company, its board of directors, and its investment committee breached their fiduciary duties in their management of the plan.
The company attempted to compel arbitration on the basis that the employment agreements entered into by the former employees contained an arbitration clause that covered ERISA claims. The court, however, declined to compel arbitration, ruling that claims brought on behalf of the retirement plan were not bound by individual arbitration agreements.
In affirming the lower court’s ruling, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals noted that the plan itself had not consented to arbitration. “Because the arbitration provisions only establish the [former employees’] consent to arbitration, the employment agreements do not subject these claims to arbitration,” the court said. The Sixth Circuit noted, however, that it “has not yet determined whether statutory ERISA claims are subject to arbitration,” while also acknowledging the fact that “‘every other circuit to consider the issue’ has held that ‘ERISA claims are generally arbitrable,’”
JUDICIAL EMPLOYEE’S HARASSMENT CLAIM UNDER EMPLOYEE DISPUTE REOLUTION PLAN MOVES FORWARD
Strickland v. U.S. et al., No. 21-1346 (4th Cir. Apr. 26, 2022)
A former employee of the federal judiciary was recently allowed to proceed with her claim alleging, among other things, sexual harassment and a deprivation of due process during the judiciary employees’ grievance process.
Importantly, the court found that the Employee Dispute Resolution (“EDR”) plan for judicial employees deprived the employee of her property interest in the right to a remedy for her injuries, and she was therefore entitled to due process protections regarding those rights. The court also acknowledged that the employee had an equal protection right to be free from sexual harassment in the workplace, and that “federal judiciary employees who occupy supervisory roles and/or who are charged with enforcing an EDR plan can … be held liable under the Fifth Amendment for their deliberate indifference to sexual harassment committed by a federal judiciary employee or supervisor against another federal judiciary employee.” However, the employee was only able to proceed on her equal protection claims to the extent she sought equitable relief, rather than monetary damages.