The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently vacated a trial court's injunction granted to enforce various noncompete, non-solicitation, and confidentiality provisions in a mortgage lender's employment agreement with a loan officer.
Posts tagged as “Employment Law”
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that a trial court erred in its amount in controversy analysis in determining jurisdiction under the federal Class Action Fairness Act.
In a “hybrid wage-and-hour” action brought by mortgage loan officers (MLOs), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently: 1) reiterated its prior holding that “an FLSA opt-in collective action is not, by its nature, incompatible with a parallel state law Rule 23 opt-out class action”, and 2) held that the trial court should not have required a trial in the FLSA opt-in collective action before deciding Rule 23 class certification on the parallel state-law claims.
The Court of Appeal of California, Second District, recently denied a petition for writ of mandate on the merits, concluding that California Labor Code section 229 did not exempt the plaintiff loan processor's wage claim from arbitration.
Florida’s Workers’ Comp Law Is Disrupting Medical Debt Collection – What Hospitals, Medical Providers and Debt Collectors Need To Know
The State of Florida, like many states, maintains a robust workers’ compensation statute geared toward insulating employees injured on the job from associated medical services. Now, lawsuits continue to be filed against debt collectors, hospitals and other medical providers alleging that under a novel interpretation of Florida’s workers’ compensation law, it is unlawful to attempt to collect medical debt arising from work-related injuries directly from consumers.
In a putative class action against a bank for alleged underpayment of overtime wages, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held the use of a potentially improper pay structure was not evidence of harm in every instance, and thus the predominance requirement provided for in Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 23(b)(3) necessary to certify a class action was not met.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently dismissed as moot an employee’s appeal of a trial court’s ruling denying class certification after he reached an individual settlement with his employer as to his claims for workplace meal break violations.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently affirmed a trial court’s order compelling the arbitration of an employee’s federal age discrimination claim against a financial institution employer, holding that the trial court correctly found that there was a meeting of the minds between the employee and the employer as required to form the arbitration agreement.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently vacated an order sua sponte remanding to state court a putative class action removed under the federal Class Action Fairness Act. In so ruling, the Ninth Circuit held: When a notice of removal plausibly alleges a basis for federal court jurisdiction, a federal trial court may not remand the case back to state court without giving the defendants an opportunity to demonstrate that the jurisdictional requirements were satisfied; The amount in controversy may be based on reasonable assumptions tied to the allegations in the complaint; When a statute or contract…
The Court of Appeal for the Second District of California affirmed an order denying class certification in a wage and hour litigation, holding that the plaintiffs’ proposed anonymous, double-blind survey and statistical sampling failed to address individualized issues for liability and damages. In so ruling, the Appellate Court held that the plaintiffs’ trial plan was unmanageable and unfair because, among other things, the proposed survey deprived the defendants of the ability to cross-examine the witnesses and to assert defenses. A copy of the opinion in McCleery v. Allstate Insurance Company is available at: Link to Opinion. In this putative class…
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that mortgage underwriters were not exempt under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and were therefore entitled to overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 per week. After analyzing the specific details of the underwriters’ responsibilities, the Ninth Circuit panel concluded that, because the underwriters’ primary job duty did not relate to their employer bank’s management or general business operations, the administrative employee exemption to the FLSA’s overtime requirements did not apply. Recognizing that there was a split between the Second Circuit and Sixth Circuit as…
DC Cir. Denies Lender’s Challenge to NLRB’s Ruling as to Lender’s Confidentiality, Non-Disparagement Employee Rules
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recently denied a mortgage company’s petition for review and granted the National Labor Relations Board’s cross-petition for enforcement, holding that the NLRB correctly determined that the mortgage company’s workplace rules unreasonably burdened its employees’ ability to discuss legitimate employment matters, protest employer practices and organize in violation of section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act. A copy of the opinion in Quicken Loans, Inc. v. NLRB is available at: Link to Opinion. A loan officer began working in the mortgage company’s Scottsdale, Arizona office and signed an employment agreement…