On August 30, 2007, the California Supreme Court issued its much-awaited decision in Gentry v. Superior Court, a case addressing the enforceability of a class action waiver contained in a pre-dispute employment arbitration agreement. In a split decision, a majority of the Court effectively invalidates the use of such waivers in overtime cases alleging violations of California's Labor Code.

In 1995, while employed by Circuit City, Gentry received an "Associate Issue Resolution Package" and a copy of the company's "Dispute Resolution Rules and Procedures" setting forth various procedures for resolving employment-related disputes. The documents contained an arbitration agreement that included a class action waiver provision. The company provided each employee with 30 days to opt out of the arbitration agreement, but Gentry did not do so. Gentry later filed a lawsuit in California state court seeking recovery of overtime on behalf of himself and a purported class of similarly-situated Circuit City employees. Circuit City moved to compel arbitration. The trial court compelled arbitration, subject to the class action waiver. The appellate court affirmed, and in a 4-3 decision, the California Supreme Court reversed, issuing a decision which will come as welcome news to plaintiff's class action lawyers in California.
[Full Story]

On August 30, 2007, a lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California by the AFL-CIO, the National Immigration Law Center and the American Civil Liberties Union to enjoin the Social Security Administration (SSA) from sending out its no-match letters to employers. (See Schiff Hardin Labor and Employment Update issued August 17, 2007 [Link]). These organizations argued that the SSA lacks the authority to use tax data to enforce immigration laws. On August 31, 2007, the Court issued a temporary restraining order to prevent the SSA from sending out its no-match letters. This order will delay implementation of the revised regulations initially scheduled to go into effect on September 14, 2007. The Court has set an October 1st hearing date on the Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

Disagreeing with recent rulings from at least two federal district courts, the Illinois Court of Appeals recently ruled that Illinois' Whistleblower Act did not repeal by implication the state's long-recognized common law retaliatory discharge tort action for whistleblowing activities — at least in situations where employees allege that they were discharged in retaliation for reporting illegal activities to their supervisors, as opposed to outside law enforcement or government agencies.
[Full Story]

This past July, Illinois joined the ranks of 21 other states in enacting a ban on smoking in all enclosed public places and places of employment. Effective January 1, 2008, the Smoke Free Illinois Act mandates that all Illinois employers, with a few exceptions, prohibit smoking indoors and within 15 feet of any entrance, exit, window that opens, or ventilation intake that serves enclosed areas. It also mandates that employers post "No Smoking" signs or the international "No Smoking" symbol (i.e., a picture of a burning cigarette with a red bar across it) in a conspicuous place in their facility and at every entrance, and allows employers to designate other non-enclosed areas, including outside areas, as "non-smoking." The law provides the Illinois Department of Public Health, local public health departments, and local law enforcement agencies with authority to enforce these prohibitions, and provides for penalties against employers who violate the Act, including fines of at least $250.00 for the first violation, $500.00 for the second violation within a year, and $2500.00 for the third violation within a year.

Patricia Costello Slovak, "Work Life Balance Success: Defining the Environments that Strengthen the Success of Women and All Attorneys Alike," LexisNexis® Women in the Legal Profession Summit Conference, Philadelphia, Penn. (September 25, 2007) [Link]