Category Archives: United States Supreme Court

Recalling the Forgotten Provision of the ‘Grand Bargain’

Posted on by

grand-bargainThe Oklahoma and Florida supreme courts both overturned anti-worker changes to their state workers’ compensation laws based in whole or in part on their state constitutions. Workers’ compensation laws, for the most part, are state laws. This post seeks to explain why workers’ compensation laws are state laws and what that could mean for workers’ compensation laws in the future.

The vast majority of workers’ compensation attorneys and industry observers know the term “Grand Bargain.” In the “Grand Bargain,” employees gave up the right to sue their employers in tort for work injuries in exchange for defined benefits regardless of fault.

Workers’ compensation laws emerged roughly a century ago. However, Congress did not have the power to enact the “Grand Bargain” because of how the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted the Commerce Clause. In 1895, the court held in United States v. E.C. Knight that manufacturing was not commerce. In 1918, the court overturned a law prohibiting child labor on similar grounds and additionally held that the effects of child labor did not have enough of an impact on interstate commerce to justify regulation.

The Supreme Court did uphold the constitutionality of workers’ compensation laws in the case of New York Central Railroad v. White. However, the court upheld workers’ compensation laws based on a state’s so-called “police powers” under the 10th Amendment.

During the New Deal era in the 1930s, the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the interstate commerce clause changed so that workers’ compensation laws could have been enacted by the federal government. But by then, most states had workers’ compensation laws, so a general federal workers’ compensation law was unnecessary.

‘Federalization’ in the Post-New Deal Era

In the 1970s, Congress passed laws regarding occupational safety (Occupational Safety and Health Act) and employee benefits (Employee Retirement Income Security Act) under its authority granted by the interstate commerce clause. But neither OSHA nor ERISA were intended to interfere with state workers’ compensation laws.

The 1970s also saw an ultimately failed effort to impose federal minimum standards on state workers’ compensation. It was in this era that the term “federalization” and the concerns about the impact of federal laws on state workers’ compensation systems emerged.

Federalization re-emerged as an issue in the 2000s when concerns arose that the costs of workers’ compensation injuries were being shifted onto Medicare, and the federal government tried to fashion remedies to shift the cost back onto the workers’ compensation system. The effect of the Affordable Care Act on workers’ compensation was another federal issue that was hotly debated in workers’ compensation circles.

Finally in President Obama’s second term, OSHA issued many rules about medical care and drug testing  that could have affected workers’ compensation laws. Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders and other elected leaders also wrote a letter to the Secretary of Labor pointing out the failure of state-based workers’ compensation systems.

Conventional wisdom is that the election of Donald Trump paired with a Republican Congress will end the Obama era efforts at federalization of the workers’ compensation system. There is probably a fair amount of truth to this idea, but the Trump era may not spell the end of federalization of workers’ compensation.

In the 2010s “sharing economy,” companies such as Uber and Lyft emerged. The business model of these companies is premised on workers being independent contractors. However, this has created litigation and uncertainty for these companies. In 2015, the Democratic-aligned Brookings Institute hosted a discussion about the “reforming” labor laws for companies like Uber. Though workers’ compensation laws are traditionally state-based laws, there is no constitutional prohibition on designing workers’ compensation systems at a federal level. Unfortunately, it seems as some Democrats could find common ground with Donald Trump and House Speaker Ryan to amend ERISA and the Fair Labor Standards Act to exempt Uber drivers and other sharing economy workers from laws such as workers’ compensation.

The offices of Rehm, Bennett, Moore & Rehm, which also sponsors the Trucker Lawyers website, are located in Lincoln and Omaha, Nebraska. Five attorneys represent plaintiffs in workers’ compensation, personal injury, employment and Social Security disability claims. The firm’s lawyers have combined experience of more than 95 years of practice representing injured workers and truck drivers in Nebraska, Iowa and other states with Nebraska and Iowa jurisdiction. The lawyers regularly represent hurt truck drivers and often sue Crete Carrier Corporation, K&B Trucking, Werner Enterprises, UPS, and FedEx. Lawyers in the firm hold licenses in Nebraska and Iowa and are active in groups such as the College of Workers’ Compensation Lawyers, Workers' Injury Law & Advocacy Group (WILG), American Association for Justice (AAJ), the Nebraska Association of Trial Attorneys (NATA), and the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA). We have the knowledge, experience and toughness to win rightful compensation for people who have been injured or mistreated.

This entry was posted in Legislation, OSHA, United States Supreme Court, Workers' Comp Basics, Workers' Compensation, Workers' Compensation Reform and tagged , , , , , .

How the Supreme Court Decision on Same-sex Marriage Applies in the Workplace, Part 2: Family and Medical Leave Act

Posted on by

Another consequence of the decision legalizing same-sex marriage is that same-sex spouses are eligible for FMLA leave to take care of a spouse with a serious health condition. This raises some difficult practical questions, such as how FMLA leave works for same-sex couples that include: 

Can an employer ask for a marriage certificate when an employee asks for leave to take care of a same-sex spouse? 

The answer to this question is probably yes. The U.S. Department of Labor states that an employer can ask for a verification of marriage so long as they don’t discriminate in the requirement. An employee with a newly legally recognized same-sex marriage may feel inconvenienced that they have to prove their marital status to get FMLA leave. They might also feel they are being discriminated against because heterosexual individuals aren’t asked to provide a marriage certificate when they take FMLA leave to take care of their spouse. However, if an employer requires heterosexual couples to verify marriage through a producing a marriage certificate for insurance purposes, it could make sense that a heterosexual person is not asked to produce a marriage certificate to take family leave, if they have already done so for insurance purposes. 

Taking family leave can be stressful, and I am sure there are some human-resources officials who hold anti-LGBT attitudes. But even if an employer doesn’t request a marriage certificate for heterosexual couples to verify FMLA leave, employees should assume that the request is made in good faith. Courts favor individuals who comply with the requests of their employers, even if those requests aren’t made within the letter of the law. 

In states where marriage was same sex marriage was legalized by Obergefell, when do FMLA protections start?

In states like Nebraska, where the Obergefell decision legalized same-sex marriage, an interesting question is whether an employer is required to retroactively count family leave as FMLA if the leave started before the marriage was formally legalized in that state but the individual’s same-sex marriage was recognized in another state. This is a pertinent issue in Nebraska, since many same sex-couples were married in nearby Iowa, which has recognized same-sex marriage since 2009. The U.S. Department of Labor would likely argue that if you married your same-sex partner in Iowa that you would have had FMLA protections in Nebraska to take care of your spouse even if Nebraska didn’t recognized same marriage until June 26, 2015. But courts may not give much weight to the opinion of the U.S. Department of Labor. This issue is a legal toss-up. The best thing that same-sex couples can do to protect their rights to FMLA leave is to not give their employer any valid excuses for terminating them for taking FMLA leave. 

Please click here to read part one of this series. Feel free to contact our office if you have questions about the issues raised in these two posts.

The offices of Rehm, Bennett, Moore & Rehm, which also sponsors the Trucker Lawyers website, are located in Lincoln and Omaha, Nebraska. Five attorneys represent plaintiffs in workers’ compensation, personal injury, employment and Social Security disability claims. The firm’s lawyers have combined experience of more than 95 years of practice representing injured workers and truck drivers in Nebraska, Iowa and other states with Nebraska and Iowa jurisdiction. The lawyers regularly represent hurt truck drivers and often sue Crete Carrier Corporation, K&B Trucking, Werner Enterprises, UPS, and FedEx. Lawyers in the firm hold licenses in Nebraska and Iowa and are active in groups such as the College of Workers’ Compensation Lawyers, Workers' Injury Law & Advocacy Group (WILG), American Association for Justice (AAJ), the Nebraska Association of Trial Attorneys (NATA), and the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA). We have the knowledge, experience and toughness to win rightful compensation for people who have been injured or mistreated.

This entry was posted in employment law, United States Supreme Court and tagged , , , , .

How Gays and Lesbians Can Protect Their Civil Rights in the Workplace, Part 1

Posted on by

The recent Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage marks a major expansion of civil rights in this country. The decision will also give some additional legal protections to gay, lesbian and transgender individuals in the workplace. In the wake of the decision, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that sexual orientation is covered by federal anti-discrimination laws. So what do these developments mean, and how can gay and lesbian individuals protect their newly won civil rights?

What does the EEOC ruling mean to gays and lesbians in the workplace?

The EEOC ruling means that the EEOC will investigate charges of sexual-orientation discrimination. This is important because filing a charge with the EEOC or a fair-employment agency is a requirement for filing a lawsuit. To file with the EEOC, an employee must file within 180 days of the last act of discrimination. They may have longer if a state or local law recognizes that type of discrimination and has a longer time for filing. In a state like Nebraska, where sexual orientation isn’t recognized by our anti-discrimination laws, it is a much safer route to file with the EEOC within 180 days. Check with your state or local equal-opportunity commission to see if they will also file your charge with the EEOC, even if they don’t recognize sexual orientation as a class. Again, beware of deadlines. Nebraska normally allows 300 days for a charge of discrimination, but it is safer to assume you only have 180 days to file a charge based on sexual orientation. Remember that filing a charge means that an investigator has written out your charge and that you have signed and notarized the charge. This takes time, so if you want to file a discrimination charge, you need to move quickly.

What does the same-sex marriage decision mean for gays and lesbians in the workplace?

The decision should grant anti-discrimination protections in the workplace to gays and lesbians in same-sex marriages based on the family status under Title VII and likely under similar state and local laws. The decision doesn’t change the fact that many federal courts hold that discrimination against gay, lesbian and transgender individuals is a form of unlawful sex discrimination. If your sexual-orientation discrimination decision involves your marital status, be sure to add that into your charge. If you are past the 180-day EEOC deadline, you may be able to still meet a longer state deadline. The same could also be said of filing a sexual-orientation discrimination complaint as a sex- or gender-discrimination complaint.

What the Supreme Court and EEOC decisions don’t mean

Ultimately gays, lesbians and transgender individuals will only get the full protections of anti-discrimination laws in the workplace when either courts and or legislative bodies explicitly expand those protections to them. The Obergefell decision didn’t do that. The EEOC doesn’t make law, and its interpretations of the law aren’t binding like those of a court decision. Furthermore, federal courts are giving increasingly less deference to the opinions of agencies like the EEOC and increasingly willing to second guess how the EEOC operates. Unless you live in the District of Columbia or one of the 22 states, such as Iowa, or a city such as Omaha that prohibit sexual orientation discrimination in the workplace, then your road to the courthouse in a discrimination claim is unclear. However, in states like Nebraska that don’t explicitly ban sexual-orientation discrimination under state law, the road to workplace justice for gays and lesbians has gotten easier in the last few weeks.

In addition, the Equality Act was recently introduced in Congress. “The law, whose language was provided to the Advocate, would amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act and other federal law to protect LGBT people from discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations and other arenas,” according to an article in Politico.

The offices of Rehm, Bennett, Moore & Rehm, which also sponsors the Trucker Lawyers website, are located in Lincoln and Omaha, Nebraska. Five attorneys represent plaintiffs in workers’ compensation, personal injury, employment and Social Security disability claims. The firm’s lawyers have combined experience of more than 95 years of practice representing injured workers and truck drivers in Nebraska, Iowa and other states with Nebraska and Iowa jurisdiction. The lawyers regularly represent hurt truck drivers and often sue Crete Carrier Corporation, K&B Trucking, Werner Enterprises, UPS, and FedEx. Lawyers in the firm hold licenses in Nebraska and Iowa and are active in groups such as the College of Workers’ Compensation Lawyers, Workers' Injury Law & Advocacy Group (WILG), American Association for Justice (AAJ), the Nebraska Association of Trial Attorneys (NATA), and the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA). We have the knowledge, experience and toughness to win rightful compensation for people who have been injured or mistreated.

This entry was posted in employment law, United States Supreme Court and tagged , , , , .