CLOSE X
RSS Feed LinkedIn Instagram Twitter Facebook
Search:
FMG Law Blog Line

Posts Tagged ‘Illinois’

Connecticut Governor Signs Anti-Indemnity Law for Snow and Ice Management Contracts

Posted on: July 23rd, 2019

By: Marc Finkel

Connecticut recently became the third state, joining Illinois and Colorado, to pass legislation prohibiting certain indemnity and hold harmless clauses within snow and ice management services contracts.  An Act Concerning Snow and Ice Control Services Contracts (“the Act”) was signed into law by Governor Ned Lamont on July 12, 2019.  The Act forbids a service receiver from including provisions within snow and ice removal contracts that: (1) requires a service provider to indemnify a service receiver for acts not required under the terms of a snow and ice removal contract; or (2) requires a service provider to hold a service receiver harmless for the acts or omissions of the service receiver or its agents or employees.

The Accredited Snow Contractors Association has championed the passage of this legislation and has advocated for the passage of similar legislation throughout the United States.  Anti-indemnity legislation, such as the Act, has the anticipated benefit of ensuring that property owners and/or managers maintain adequate treatment for their roadways and sidewalks following a snow or ice event by forbidding the transfer of contractual defense and indemnity for the property owner or manager’s own negligence.  Additionally, the Act could also help to lower insurance premiums for snow and ice removal contractors by limiting tenders of contractual defense and indemnity by property owners and/or management companies.

Josh Ferguson and Marc Finkel of Freeman Mathis and Gary will join Kevin Gilbride of the Accredited Snow Contractors Association to discuss the Act at ASCA Snow Academy: Operating Under the New Law on August 20, 2019 at the Hartford/Windsor Marriott Airport Hotel in Windsor, CT. We look forward to seeing you there.

For further information on the Act or for inquiries involving hospitality or premises liability law, please contact Marc Finkel at [email protected].

Supreme Court Ends Compulsory Union Payments for Government Employees – So What’s Next?

Posted on: July 5th, 2018

By: Brad Adler & Matt Weiss

On Wednesday June 27, the United States Supreme Court reached a landmark 5-4 decision in Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees Council 31 wherein it ruled that the Constitution’s First Amendment prohibits public sector unions from collecting fees from non-union members.   While the scope of the impact of this ruling will be unknown for years, there is no doubt that Janus weakens the ability of public sector unions to raise money.

In Janus, an employee with the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services sued the American Federation of State County, and Municipal Employees Council 31 (“AFSCME”) to challenge an “agency fee” that he was required to pay to the union under the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act.  The Act provided that, if a majority of employees in a bargaining unit voted to be represented by a union, the union was designated as the exclusive representative of all employees and, even though employees were not obligated to join the union, they were required to pay the agency fee, a percentage of union dues for “chargeable expenditures,” i.e., the portion of union dues attributable to activities germane to the union’s duties as a collective bargaining representative.  The agency fee excluded “nonchargeable expenditures,” which funded the union’s political and ideological projects.  This distinction between chargeable and nonchargeable expenditures was the framework created by the Supreme Court in its 1977 decision Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209.

The Supreme Court elected to use Janus as a vehicle to overturn Abood and hold that the Illinois law that required nonunion public employees to pay an agency fee to a public union constituted a violation of their First Amendment right to free speech, even if the fees only consisted of chargeable expenditures.  The Court assessed the agency fees under an exacting standard, which required a showing that “a compelled subsidy must serve a compelling state interest that cannot be achieved through means significantly less restrictive of associational freedoms.”  Applying the standard, the Court declined to identify a “compelling state interest” and found that public-sector unions could no longer extract agency fees from nonconsenting employees.

The Court’s ruling in Janus very likely will have a direct effect on 5 million public employees in 22 states, including California, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania, who are no longer required to pay agency fees for a union in which they are not a member.  However, the impact of this decision is less direct in states where agency fees and, in some cases, public sector collective bargaining, are either non-existent or prohibited.  Nonetheless, even in these states, the Supreme Court’s basic holding in Janus, that the government cannot compel its employees to make payments for causes with which they disagree, could be applied in a variety of other contexts such as mandatory contributions to government pension funds.

Whether the Supreme Court will expand on this newly identified First Amendment right of government employees and non-union members remains to be seen, especially in light of Justice Kennedy’s retirement announcement.  The one certainty is that public unions in cities and counties in nearly half the states in the country will no longer be able to require non-union employees to contribute union fees.  And very few doubt that this new legal reality will reduce (in some capacity) the power of public unions by shrinking their financial base of support and by potentially reducing their membership.

But lawmakers in some states already are rallying to pass statutes that will allow unions to limit the services they provide to only those employees that pay union dues.  As a result, it is important for employers to keep informed on any new Janus-induced union laws in states in which they operate.  In fact, in anticipation of an adverse ruling, on April 12, New York passed legislation that relieved unions from representing the interests of non-members in different areas.

The Janus decision is only the latest chapter in a long and unfinished story written about the constitutionality of certain activities of public sector unions.  More to come in the years ahead. . .

If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Brad Adler at [email protected] or Matt Weiss at [email protected].

Arbitration Agreement Litigation Wins Continue to Fall Like Dominoes for Pizza Hut

Posted on: June 26th, 2018

By: Tim Holdsworth

Following the Supreme Court’s opinion in Epic Systems that class and collective actions waivers in arbitration agreements are enforceable, a federal court recently granted a motion to compel arbitration to one of the nation’s largest Pizza Hut franchisees in a lawsuit in Illinois.

In Collins et al. v. NPC International Inc., case number 3:17-cv-00312, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, drivers from Illinois, Florida, and Missouri filed a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act asserting that their employer had failed to reimburse them for vehicle expenses. In May 2017, the judge stayed the franchisee’s motion to compel individual arbitration pending the Supreme Court’s ruling in Epic Systems. The franchisee renewed that motion after the Supreme Court’s ruling, and the judge granted it.

The drivers will now have to bring their claims individually against the franchisee in arbitration, likely saving the franchisee expenses and time.

Epic Systems gave credence to arbitration agreements containing class and collective action waivers, and employers using them continue to reap the benefits. If you have any questions about the issues above or want to learn more about implementing arbitration agreements, please contact me at [email protected], or any of Freeman, Mathis & Gary’s experienced labor and employment law attorneys.

Employers Beware: Use Of Biometric Technology Can Expose You To Troublesome Lawsuits (Especially In Illinois)

Posted on: November 6th, 2017

By: William E. Collins, Jr.

The recent spike in claims against employers involving employee biometric data is a reminder that employers across the country should use caution before implementing technology utilizing employee biometric information.

How and Why Employers Use Biometric Technology
Employers are increasingly turning to technology utilizing biometric verification to ensure accurate time records and increase security. Biometric verification uses one or more unique identifiers from a person to verify their identity. These biometric identifiers include the use of fingerprints, finger geometry, and hand, face, or body scans. Employers use this technology to ensure accurate time records and increase security. Biometric verification combats “buddy punching”—where co-workers clock in or out for a fellow employee—and inaccurate time records because it requires the employee to be present in the workplace when the entry is made. By requiring the employee be physically present, the employer increases accuracy, security, and can restrict employee access to specified areas in the workplace. While this technology certainly has its advantages, it is not without risks to employers.

Flurry of Cases in Illinois
Since September of 2017, there have been more than 25 new lawsuits in Illinois State Court that allege violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy (“BIPA”), which requires employers provide employees notice, obtain their consent, and clearly outline retention policies if using biometric identifiers.

Hyatt, Roundy’s, Zayo Group, Speedway, and Kimpton’s Hotels are a few targets of the most recent BIPA lawsuits. These companies allegedly violated BIPA where they required employees provide a fingerprint or finger geometry to clock in and clock out or to access company facilities without obtaining employee approval or outlining the scope and duration of use of the employee’s information.

The law imposes steep penalties for even unsuspecting employers where the liquidated damage provision of the statute is $1,000 per occurrence if the employer is merely negligent. And when the acts are willful or reckless, the damage is $5,000 per act. As you can imagine, this represents significant liability for employers and that potential liability quickly escalates when faced with the prospect of class action litigation. It was recently estimated that one company embroiled in one of the Illinois biometric fights faces the prospect of damages reaching $10 million.

Statutes Across the Country
While Illinois is the only state with a private right of action, several states place restrictions on an employer’s use of certain biometric information. For example, similar to Illinois, both Texas and Washington require that employers provide notice and obtain consent from employees prior to capturing biometric identifiers. In other states, certain actions involving biometric information are prohibited. In New York, most employers are prohibited from requiring fingerprinting as a condition of securing or continuing employment. While in California, employers are prohibited from sharing biometric data with third parties.

Even if your state does not regulate biometric information, you should be prepared because state legislatures are very active in this area. In 2017 alone, new legislation regulating biometrics was proposed in Alaska, New Hampshire, Connecticut, and Washington. Much of this legislation mirrored the statutes in effect in Illinois and Texas.

Federal Employment Laws are Implicated
Employers also must be cautious when implementing technology that utilizes biometric information because federal employment statutes may be implicated. Consider EEOC v. Consol Energy, Inc., where the EEOC brought a religious discrimination claim against an employer who implemented hand-scanning technology. There, the EEOC prevailed on behalf an employee who was declined accommodation for his religious belief that the hand-scanner used to clock in and clock out would provide information that could be used by the “Antichrist” to identify those with the “Mark of the Beast.”

In other instances, because eye, hand, or fingerprint scans potentially give medical information to the employer that alone, or through further analysis, could provide an employer information that they might otherwise not know, the use of biometric identifiers could bring ADA or GINA claims. For example, eye scans could reveal undisclosed eye disorders and diseases, finger print scans might reveal burns or tissue disorders, and hand-scans could reveal arthritis, scar tissue, or temperature distribution issues. As a result, employers implementing these programs must be careful to narrowly tailor their programs so that the information does not impact participation in benefit programs or that it does not otherwise lead to discrimination based on a disability.

The Bottom Line

Employers should be thoughtful and diligent when deciding to implement technology utilizing biometric identifiers as liability lurks for employers under both state and federal laws. Ultimately, employers should:

1. Carefully evaluate the decision to implement biometric verification technology and consult with legal counsel to better understand their obligations under state and federal law.
2. Develop a written policy and obtain written consent from employees when deciding to implement this technology.
3. Narrowly tailor what information is captured, how the information is stored, and who the information is shared with.

If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact William Collins at [email protected].