Printable Version   Labor and Employment Breakfast Briefing  Thursday, June 7, 9 - 11:30 a.m. Topics: • Fire At Will or Fire At Your Own Risk? A discussion of the current state of employment-at-will. • Avoiding Immigration Potholes: I-9s, "No-Match" letters and staying on the right side of Homeland Security. Invitation and details to follow.

Welcome to the most recent Labor and Employment Update. A printable, full-article version of the update is available here. If you have any questions or comments, please contact any member of Schiff Hardin's Labor and Employment Group.

The Illinois Supreme Court has expanded the liability that parent companies may face when an employee of a subsidiary is injured or killed at work. In Forsythe v. Clark USA, the court established that parent companies may be subject to "direct participant liability" and held that a corporate parent may not be protected by the Worker's Compensation Act's exclusivity provisions. This determination will open the door to suits by injured employees against parent companies and could result in liability for a parent that is far beyond that which the subsidiary would have faced.
[Full Story]

The Employee Free Choice Act, which has been passed by the United States House of Representatives and is currently pending before the Senate, is widely regarded as the most sweeping labor relations proposal in decades. The primary significance of this proposed legislation is its impact on the way that employees decide whether to accept or reject union representation.

Currently, if 30% or more of the employees within a potential bargaining unit sign union authorization cards, the National Labor Relations Board conducts a secret ballot election to determine whether a majority of the employees want a union. This election process — long considered the primary vehicle for employees to make union membership determinations — ensures that an employee's vote on union membership is private.
[Full Story]

A recent decision from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals serves as an important reminder to companies considering the sale or purchase of an entity that their obligations under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988 ("WARN") may be greater than expected. WARN requires, among other things, that companies with 100 or more workers at any location provide at least 60 days' notice before subjecting 50 or more workers to an "employment loss." The Seventh Circuit's March 15 decision in Phason v. Meridian Rail Corp. underscores that this obligation exists if there will be any break between the employee's termination by the seller and hiring by the buyer.
[Full Story]

The prosecution of both illegal immigrants (charged with violating immigration laws) and executives of companies (charged with knowingly hiring illegal workers) are making front page headlines. In addition, legal employees are filing civil lawsuits against their employers alleging Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") violations for conspiring to keep wages low by hiring illegal workers. The frequency of these news reports has gained the attention of employers across the country who want to know how they can protect themselves against such charges and lawsuits and maintain a legal workforce. While Congress works on a solution to the growing illegal immigration problem, employers should be aware of their obligations under the law.
[Full Story]

Catherine Hobart Thompson, "Immigration Law for the Construction Industry," Atlanta Electrical Contractors Association, Atlanta, Ga. (May 3, 2007)

Arizona District Court holds that indefinite administrative leave is an adverse employment action under the FMLA

Realities - not titles - determine independent contractor status