Printable Version   Schiff Hardin's Labor and Employment Breakfast Briefing, Thursday, February 8, 2007, at 9:00 a.m.   This free seminar will include presentations on the following three topics: Handling the Departing Employee — Choosing Employees for Layoff and Preparing Releases; Navigating the Regulations on Intermittent Leave Under the Family and Medical Leave Act; and What Every Employer Should Know about California Employment Laws. An emailed invitation and more information on the Breakfast Briefing will follow.   Illinois minimum wage increase effective July 1, 2007 Effective July 1, 2007, the minimum wage in Illinois will increase to $7.50 per hour. The minimum wage will continue to increase by 25 cents per year until the wage reaches $8.25 per hour on July 1, 2010. Employers may continue to pay employees under the age of 18 up to 50 cents per hour less than the adult minimum wage.

Schiff Hardin LLP continues on its path as an emerging national law firm by joining forces with San Francisco-based Morgenstein & Jubelirer LLP, effective January 1, 2007. We are excited to welcome the following 7 attorneys to the Schiff Hardin Labor and Employment Group: Wendi J. Berkowitz, William J. Carroll, Katharine Demgen, Stephen M. Hankins, Bita A. Karabian, Kathleen A. Stimeling, and Bruce A. Wagman.

A federal district court in Arizona has determined that an employer's decision to put an employee on an indefinite, paid administrative leave constituted an adverse employment action. This decision is notable because it applies the standards for "adverse employment action" set forth in the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision Burlington Northern v. White, to a paid administrative leave. (The Burlington decision is discussed in depth in our June 23, 2006 Labor and Employment Alert). The Burlington Court held that a plaintiff seeking to establish an adverse employment action in a retaliation case must show that the challenged action might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from engaging in protected activity. Grasping on the Burlington decision, the Arizona District Court held in Foraker v. Apollo Group that a public employer's decision to place an employee on paid administrative leave constituted an adverse employment action under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).
[Full Story]

In a stark illustration of how courts and administrative agencies look to the realities of a relationship instead of the title given to it to determine whether an individual is an "employee" or "independent contractor," the Massachusetts Supreme Court recently found in Coverall North America, Inc. v. Commissioner of the Division of Unemployment Assistance that a franchisor was liable for contributions to the state's unemployment fund for the reported earnings of a franchisee who claimed that she was an "employee" of the franchisor. While the court's determination turned upon the particular nature of the relationship at issue in the case, it does serve as an important reminder that an "independent contractor" or "franchisee" label does not insulate an employer from liability under statutes designed to protect or benefit "employees."
[Full Story]

Catherine Hobart Thompson, "Immigration Law for the Construction Industry," Lorman Education Services, Charlotte, N.C. (March 6, 2007) [Link]; Atlanta Electrical Contractors Association, Atlanta, Ga. (May 3, 2007)

Henry W. Sledz Jr., "2006-07 Developments in Labor and Employment Law," Food & Dairy Human Resources Conference, La Quinta, Calif. (March 6, 2007)

Ralph A. Morris, "How Far Can (Or Should) You Go? Pushing the Ethical Envelope," American Bar Association Section of Labor and Employment Law Midwinter Meeting, New Orleans, La. (March 31, 2007) [Link]

Avoiding a Holly, Jolly Lawsuit

NLRB Clarifies "Supervisor" Definition