OnLabor

Law. Workers. Organizing.

epic systems

The Department of Justice May Be Reevaluating Its Stance in Class Action Waiver Cases

Melissa Greenberg

Melissa Greenberg is a student at Harvard Law School.

This post is part of OnLabor’s continuing analysis of National Labor Relations Board v. Murphy Oil USA.

Although opening briefs in the consolidated cases of Murphy Oil, Ernst & Young, and Epic Systems were due on April 28th, last week, the Supreme Court extended the briefing schedule following a request from the Acting Solicitor General.  The due date for opening briefs is now June 9th.  An article from the National Law Review suggests that the Justice Department might be reconsidering its stance in these cases.  Writing to request an extension, the Acting Solicitor General stated, “‘[T]he current briefing schedule is no longer adequate for the government [because] . . . [t]he Acting Solicitor General is engaged in a process of reviewing the position of the United States in these cases’ and that he ‘must . . . consult with new leadership within the government.’”

More in Epic Systems

Browse all

Collective Action Notice Requirements: The Next Hurdle in the Arbitration Fight

Daily News & Commentary

Start your day with our roundup of the latest labor developments. See all

OnLabor In The News

Browse all

More From OnLabor

See more

Tracking Attacks on the NLRB: Fifth Circuit Finds NLRB Removal Protections Unconstitutional

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has ruled that removal protections for NLRB Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) and Board Members are unconstitutional. This ruling affirmed district court injunctions that halted unfair labor practice proceedings against three companies: SpaceX, Energy Transfer, and Findhelp. The Fifth Circuit held that being subject to an unconstitutional […]

Ruelas v. County of Alameda — California Pretrial Detainees Denied Minimum Wage for Corporate Labor (Part 3)

In Ruelas v. County of Alameda, the Supreme Court of California denied pretrial detainees’ state minimum wage claim, reasoning that section 4019.3 of the state’s Penal Code — capping jail laborers’ wages at two dollars per day — instead governed.  The first part of this three-part series discussed the California Supreme Court’s holding and reasoning.  The second part gave a history of California’s constitution and jail labor in the state, concluding that the two-dollar daily wage cap could not have applied to plaintiffs, who were pretrial detainees performing unpaid labor for a corporation.  

Ruelas v. County of Alameda — California Pretrial Detainees Denied Minimum Wage for Corporate Labor (Part 2)

In Ruelas v. County of Alameda, the Supreme Court of California held that pretrial detainees forced to labor for a corporation are ineligible for a minimum wage under the state’s Labor Code.  The court construed Penal Code section 4019.3 broadly, interpreting it as incompatible with California’s Labor Code. The court concluded that the Penal Code prevents pretrial detainees from earning more than two dollars per day for their labor, absent a local ordinance.  

How Three Simple Labor Laws Helped Unions Organize Amazon and UBER in Canada

In early July,  the British Columbia Labour Relations Board (BCLRB) certified UFCW-Canada as the bargaining representative for over 500 UBER drivers in the province’s capital city of Victoria.  A few days later, the BCLRB issued another decision that certified the union Unifor (formerly the Canadian Auto Workers) for a bargaining unit of hundreds of employees employed at an Amazon distribution centre […]

Ruelas v. County of Alameda — California Pretrial Detainees Denied Minimum Wage for Corporate Labor (Part 1)

Pretrial detainees in Santa Rita Jail are forced to labor for Aramark, a food-preparation company that provides meals to third parties outside of the jail. Neither Aramark nor the county pays detainees for their labor.  In 1990, California amended its constitution to allow companies to contract with prisons — facilities run by the state or federal government that detain convicted offenders — for labor, so long as prisoners were paid comparable wages to non-inmate laborers.  

Enjoy OnLabor’s fresh takes on the day’s labor news, right in your inbox.

Sections

Connect