6th Circuit holds that an employee cannot contractually shorten Title VII’s statute of limitations

In Thurman v. Daimler Chrysler, the 6th Circuit agreed that the following agreement between an employer and an employee shortening the time in which an employee has to file a lawsuit was lawful.

READ CAREFULLY BEFORE SIGNING I agree that any claim or lawsuit relating to my service with Chrysler Corporation or any of its subsidiaries must be filed no more than six (6) months after the date of the employment action that is the subject of the claim or lawsuit. I waive any statute of limitations to the contrary.

I’ve long argued that because of Thurman, employers should consider having all employees agree to a shortened statute of limitations to limit the duration of their potential exposure to employment claims. Yesterday, however, the same court punched big hole in this litigation avoidance strategy.

DOL announces new salary threshold for white collar exemptions

Yesterday, the Department of Labor announced that effective January 1, 2020, the salary threshold for an employee to be exempt from overtime under the administrative, executive, professional, and computer exemptions will increase from $455 per week to $684 per week (or $35,568 per year). For employers, this new threshold means that employees who are currently exempt and earn a salary of less than $684 per week will, in most cases, become non-exempt. The change is expected to impact an estimated 1.2 million workers.

Girl Scouts good / union organizers bad

What rights do you have to ban union organizers from your property? A lot. Your property is your property.

What if, however, you allow your employee’s daughter’s Girl Scout troop to set up a table outside and sell cookies? Have you just opened yourself to an argument that allowing cookie sales unlawfully discriminates against the banned union organizers?

No-fault attendance policies offer no cover when the ADA or FMLA are involved

An employee suffering from epilepsy, migraines, and heart condition asks (with a medical note) for two unpaid days off from work unpaid to treat symptoms related to her disabilities. Instead of granting the leave, the employer assigns the employee points under its no-fault attendance policy and fires her for exceeding the allowable number of attendance points. The EEOC has sued the employer, alleging disability discrimination.

WIRTW #569 (the “get by with a little help” edition)

I bet you can’t find someone having a better time than this guy.

I hope you have something in your life that brings you this much joy.

Here’s what I read this week.

Accommodating pregnant employees is a legal floor, not a ceiling

UPS has agreed to pay $2.25 million to settle a pregnancy discrimination charge investigated by the EEOC. The agency was to consider whether UPS’s policy of providing light duty as an accommodation to employees injured on the job, but not to pregnant employees, violated Title VII. The policy the agency was investigating appears to predate the Supreme Court’s 2015 decision in Young v. UPS.

When investigating misconduct, you don’t have to overturn every stone, but you also can’t ignore the obvious ones

Unless you're a wine nerd, you likely haven't heard about the cheating scandal that has rocked the Court of Master Sommeliers, the nonprofit governing body that administers the group’s exams.

For the uninitiated, the Master Sommelier diploma is the highest distinction a fine wine and beverage service professional can attain. To obtain the diploma, one must pass a three-part exam that includes an oral theory examination, a deductive blind tasting of six wines, and a practical wine service examination. The exam is so hard that there are only 262 professionals worldwide who have ever passed.

The Court of Master Sommeliers invalided 2018's Master Sommelier exam in its entirety after it was discovered that someone gave answers to the blind tasting portion of the test to at least one candidate. The board of the Court of Master Sommeliers conducted its own internal investigation of the allegations of cheating, issued a highly redacted report of its finding, and considers the matter closed after invalidating the entire exam.