News and Articles

Legal Update - October 2017 Newsletter

Yogi Patel - Tuesday, October 10, 2017

Dear valued clients and supporters: This month's newsletter will focus on three significant employment law cases that are expected to be decided by the United States Supreme Court this term. The cases will address: (1) the enforceability of mandatory class-action waivers against employees; (2) the constitutionality of mandatory public-sector union fees; and (3) whether or not car service advisors are exempt employees under federal law.

Mandatory Class Action Waivers

 It has become increasingly common for employers to require employees to sign arbitration agreements as a condition of their employment. Such agreements seek not only to require the employees to seek any redress via arbitration, but also to prohibit the employees from bringing their claims together in a class action. Presently, in three separate but related cases, the Supreme Court will decide whether these employee arbitration agreements are enforceable because they require employees to waive their collective bargaining rights. While similar agreements have been upheld in the consumer context, Circuit Courts across the country have reached different conclusions as to whether employee arbitration agreements are enforceable, thus requiring the Supreme Court to settle the debate. As the Supreme Court's decision will have significant ramifications either on employees' rights to take collective action or on the enforceability of employment agreements, both employers and employees are advised to monitor the outcome of this decision.

Public-Sector Union Fees

 In another case on the current docket, the Supreme Court will address whether requiring public-sector employees to pay certain union fees violates their constitutional rights. Dating back to 1977, in the case Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, the Supreme Court has held that compulsory union dues were not unconstitutional so long as they were used for actions such as collective bargaining and grievance procedures and not for political activity. Recently, the Supreme Court was asked to reconsider the constitutionality of all mandatory union dues for public-sector employees, but Justice Antonin Scalia passed away before a decision was reached, leaving the Court deadlocked at a 4-4 vote. Now, with nine members again presiding, it appears the Court is now poised to issue a decisive ruling on this issue. Unions in particular have a strong interest in this case as it could result in the depletion of a significant source of revenue for them.

Car Service Employee Overtime Exemptions

 Finally, the Supreme Court is expected to resolve the question as to whether or not car dealership service providers are exempt from mandatory overtime requirements. The case is significant not only because of the narrow issue it will resolve regarding the exemption status of certain workers, but also in that it may provide additional guidance as to how much weight courts should give to the statements and opinions of agencies, such as the Department of Labor ("DOL"). The history of the service advisor exemption is essential to appreciating the significance of the current case. In 1966, Congress enacted an overtime exemption for car salesman and related employees, though service advisors were excluded by regulation. Courts later rejected this regulation and the DOL issued an opinion letter agreeing that service advisors could be exempt from mandatory overtime. Then, in 2011, almost 50 years later, the DOL reversed its position and stated that service advisors were not exempt. In 2012, five service advisors from California filed suit against their employer for failing to pay them overtime, a claim which was upheld by the Circuit Court. The Supreme Court then vacated the decision on the basis that the DOL's reversal of its position meant that courts should not rely on it. The case was sent down to the lower courts, made its way back up to the Circuit Court, which again concluded that the workers were nonexempt. Now the Supreme Court will rule again. Most experts expect that the Court will not only rule definitively as to whether or not service providers are exempt from overtime requirements, but also when Courts should rely on agency opinions more broadly.


Readers are encouraged to follow us on Twitter (@lloydpatelllp) and Facebook to receive updates on these and other issues throughout the month.

Recent Posts


Illegal rentals Pregnancy Overtime Exemptions Overtime Rules Real Estate Law Start-up Ventures Prenup EEOC Filing Requirement Fair Chance Act Westchester Safe and Sick Time Laws Arbitration Agreements Divorce Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council Glatt v. Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc. National Labor Relations Board New York Earned Sick Time Act Newsletter Executive Negotiation Nobel Prize federal Department of Labor NLRB Worker's Rights Trademark licensing Employment Law Unions commuter benefits Womens Rights NYC Human Right's Law's Employee Salary Histories $15 Minimum Wage sexual harassment training Wage Theft Protection Act Hairstyle Discrimination NY payroll law Sexual Harassment policy U.S. Department of Labor Trade Secrets Federal Contractors Sexual Harassment Household Employees Federal Overtime Law Selling Business Domain Name AirBnB Internet Law Housing Law Immigration Status Tax-Deferred Savings Technology Right to Unionize Nanny Audit Payroll Scams Transgender protections Employment Offer/Agreement Fair Play to Pay Act marijuana usage Fair Workweek Law Affordable Care Act Credit Checks Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) ACA Web Domains Employer Mandate Business Law employment discrimination lawsuits New Address Employment Contracts stocks New York City Human Rights Law workplace discrimination Freelance Isn't Free Attracting Investment Interns as Employees Firm Announcements #meToo NQSO Facebook Privacy and Litigation Criminal Record Fair Work Week Legislation National Labor Relations Act I-9 Verification Security entrepreneur Corporate Law Alter-Ego Doctrine Fair Labor Standards Act Executive Severance Credit History Joint-Employer Relationship Department of Labor NYC Sexual harrassment law Westchester County implementing new leave laws Privacy Trademark Law Fair Pay and Safe Workplace Executive Order graduate students Trade Secrets Act Human Rights Law Public-Sector Union Fees Interns Apple vs. FBI LinkedIn Minimum wage Business Postnup Browning-Ferris Case Landlord-Tenant Law Paid Family Leave Credit drug testing Workplace Requirements Glatt v. Fox Searchlight Pictures NYC Salary History Law Health Care Intellectual Property Unionization Independent Contractor Mandatory Class Action Waivers Non-Qualified Stock Options Ban the Box Lactation Law Interview Series Negotiating


EDIT - blog-container - This controls the styles for the headings

EDIT - BlogTagCloud - Font style


  • EDIT  - post-body - Font style

EDIT - side-panel - This is the colour of the sidebar headings

Snap | BC Module - Blog - Blog Description

Snap | BC Module - Blog - Blog Title

EDIT - Snap | BC Module - Blog - Date - This is the date box style

EDIT - Snap | BC Module - Blog - Post Content - Font style

EDIT - Snap | BC Module - Blog - Post Title - Heading style

EDIT  - Snap | BC Module - Blog - Sidebar Content - Font style

EDIT - Snap | BC Module - Blog - Sidebar Title - Heading style

latest blog title snap text


Disclaimer: Nothing on this website is or should be construed as legal advice.
An attorney-client relationship does not exist with our firm unless a signed
retainer agreement is executed, and we do not offer legal advice through
this site or any of the content located on it. For legal advice for your
particular circumstances, please contact us directly.