Unions to the rescue in Flint, Michigan. A year ago Flint residents discovered that their drinking water supply had been contaminated by lead. Now, CNN reports that the Union Labor Life Insurance Company and American Federation of Teachers are investing $25 million in union pension funds to save the small city. The city’s “Fast-Start” program will use the $25 million to make low-cost loans available to the initiative, which plans to pull the lead-contaminated pipes throughout the city’s water grid. The union’s contribution will be instrumental to replacing the lead lines as it constitutes almost half of the funding earmarked for the $55 million “Fast Track” initiative.
In other union news, Elizabeth Crowley, a pro-labor New York City Councilwoman, has come under fire for introducing and supporting a bill that will expand prevailing wage requirements for construction projects over $1 million. According to Politico, Crowley’s critics claim that she is simply “doing the bidding of unions” that have “contribute[d] heavily” to her campaigns. Crowley, a former member of a painter’s union, has outright dismissed the reproach. “I . . . have never hid the fact that I am a card-carrying member of DC9,” a painter’s union. The criticism is just a “short-sighted suggestion of special interests involved in pushing an agenda that supports substandard wages.”
Great news for discrimination plaintiffs in Florida, Georgia, and Alabama. Lexology reports that the Eleventh Circuit has declared a new test for cases where the employer has both discriminatory and legitimate business reasons for taking adverse action against an employee. Now, per Quigg v. Thomas, et al., No. 14-14530 (Feb. 22, 2016), if an employee claims that the employer’s motives were mixed the analysis will deviate from the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. In the case of mixed motives, says the court, the employee “need only produce evidence sufficient to convince a jury that: (1) the defendant took an adverse employment action against the plaintiff; and (2) [a protected characteristic] was a motivating factor for the defendant’s employment action.” Put another way, employees in the Eleventh Circuit now do not have to demonstrate that the employer’s reason was pretext, or false, but only that that it was a reason for the adverse action.
Daily News & Commentary
Start your day with our roundup of the latest labor developments. See all
July 11
Regional director orders election without Board quorum; 9th Circuit pauses injunction on Executive Order; Driverless car legislation in Massachusetts
July 10
Wisconsin Supreme Court holds UW Health nurses are not covered by Wisconsin’s Labor Peace Act; a district judge denies the request to stay an injunction pending appeal; the NFLPA appeals an arbitration decision.
July 9
the Supreme Court allows Trump to proceed with mass firings; Secretary of Agriculture suggests Medicaid recipients replace deported migrant farmworkers; DHS ends TPS for Nicaragua and Honduras
July 8
In today’s news and commentary, Apple wins at the Fifth Circuit against the NLRB, Florida enacts a noncompete-friendly law, and complications with the No Tax on Tips in the Big Beautiful Bill. Apple won an appeal overturning a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) decision that the company violated labor law by coercively questioning an employee […]
July 7
LA economy deals with fallout from ICE raids; a new appeal challenges the NCAA antitrust settlement; and the EPA places dissenting employees on leave.
July 6
Municipal workers in Philadelphia continue to strike; Zohran Mamdani collects union endorsements; UFCW grocery workers in California and Colorado reach tentative agreements.