News

The question of whether drivers for the popular mobile ride-share service Uber are employees or independent contractors has been hotly contested since the founding of Uber in 2009. Uber has consistently characterized its business as a platform that connects people seeking rides with independent contractors. This arrangement is very valuable to Uber, if not necessary for its survival, because the company is not required to comply with complicated regulations in place for taxi services. Uber also avoids substantial expense for Social Security, Workers’ Compensation, unemployment insurance, and other employment related expenses. A California Uber driver alleged that the company violated California labor regulations by not paying for miles driven during work in accordance with the 2014 IRS mileage rate and not reimbursing toll expenses during employment. Uber maintained that such requirements did not apply because the driver was an independent [...]

In Federal Insurance Co. v. Fredericks, an Ohio Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of claims for intangible economic losses, such as lost profits, brought by related, unnamed parties to a construction subcontract. The Court applied the economic loss rule, which prevents recovery in tort of damages for purely economic loss. The case involved a set of several companies (including Pasco, Carter Express, and Carter Logistics) owned by the same parent company (J.P. Holding Co). The sister companies were wholly owned subsidiaries of the parent company, all sharing the same company president. The president of the companies established a hand shake agreement with the head of Fredericks Construction to build a facility. Fredericks then entered into a written subcontract with Skiles, in which it identified Fredricks as the contractor, Skiles as the subcontractor, and Pasco as the property owner. The [...]

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court of the United States issued an opinion on March 25, 2015, reviving a former UPS driver’s pregnancy discrimination suit against her former employer, UPS. In Young v. United Parcel Services, the Court vacated the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision granting judgment to UPS, and has potentially made it easier for all plaintiffs to prevail on pregnancy discrimination claims against their employers going forward. In 2006, UPS denied light duty accommodations to a pregnant employee, Peggy Young, citing their policy of only extending light duty or reassignments to employees who were injured on the job or to employees qualifying as disabled within the meaning of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Young brought suit, alleging the policy resulted in disparate treatment for pregnant workers compared to other employees who were similarly situated in their [...]

Employer policies can impact an employee’s Family Medical Leave (FMLA) eligibility. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently reversed summary judgment for an employer based on the employer’s policy that indicated the employee was eligible for FMLA leave. Tilley v. Kalamazoo Cty. Road Comm., 2015 WL 304190 (6th Cir. 2015). An employee of the Kalamazoo Road Commission was subject to a written reprimand requiring him to submit three separate assignments by deadlines set by his supervisor. On the morning of his final assignment, August 1, the employee complained of chest pain, presented symptoms of a heart attack and was taken to the hospital. He was discharged from the hospital the following day and informed the Road Commission that he would not return to work until August 5. He did not submit the final assignment. On August 9, an employer representative [...]

The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard arguments in a religious discrimination suit brought by the EEOC against clothing retailer, Abercrombie & Fitch. This case arose from an Abercrombie & Fitch applicant who wore a hijab, or headscarf, during her interview and was subsequently not hired. Abercrombie & Fitch has a strict “Look Policy,” which requires employees to dress in clothing consistent with the store’s brand. These requirements include no black clothing and no “caps.” The policy does not define “caps.” The applicant in this case was a Muslim woman who wears a headscarf for religious purposes. The applicant was offered an opportunity to interview for a position on the sale’s floor. The store manager was familiar with the applicant, as she had seen her in the store talking with another Abercrombie employee. The manager had previously seen the applicant wearing [...]