• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

North Carolina Personal Injury & Workers Compensation Attorneys

  • facebook
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • linkedin

Call Us 919-240-4054

Main navigation

  • Workers’ Comp
    • Durham, NC
      • Brain Injury Lawyer
      • Burns and Explosions Lawyer
      • Chemical Exposure Lawyer
      • Construction Accident Lawyer
      • Durham Back Injury Lawyer
      • Healthcare Workers and COVID-19 Lawyer
      • Occupational Disease Lawyer
      • Union Member Lawyer
      • Workplace Violence Lawyer
    • Charlotte, NC
  • Bicycle Crashes
    • Charlotte, NC
  • Personal Injury
    • Durham, NC
      • Burn Injury Lawyer
      • College Campus Injury Lawyer
      • Car Accident Lawyer
      • Catastrophic Injury Lawyer
      • Motorcycle Accident Lawyer
      • Premises Liability Lawyer
      • Product Liability Lawyer
      • Truck Accident Lawyer
    • Charlotte, NC
      • Brain Injury Lawyer
      • Burn Injury Lawyer
      • Car Accident Lawyer
      • Catastrophic Injury Lawyer
      • Premises Liability Lawyer
      • Motorcycle Accident Lawyer
      • Product Liability Lawyer
      • Truck Accident Lawyer
  • Wrongful Death
    • Durham, NC
    • Charlotte, NC
  • Our Lawyers
    • Ann Groninger
    • Valerie Johnson
    • Drew Culler
    • Jennifer Segnere
    • Request a Speaking Engagement
  • Resources
    • Law Blog
    • Our Community
  • Contact Us
  • Español

January 17, 2010 By nicole

Recent Fourth Circuit labor and employment decisions

The Fourth Circuit has published opinions in three labor and employment cases in recent weeks. The first case, Sepulveda v. Allen Family Foods, Inc., concerned a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action that was brought on behalf of a class of current and former employees of a chicken processing plant. The employees claimed, among other things, that the company had violated the FLSA by not compensating them for time spent donning and doffing their protective gear before and after their shifts. There is a specific exception in FLSA for cases regarding compensable time for “changing clothes” when the employees are represented by a union that has negotiated a collective bargaining unit. The Court held that putting on and taking off protecting gear was “changing clothes,” so the exception applied because these plaintiffs had a union, and so judgment was rightly granted to the employer.

In the second case, Stone v. Instrumentation Labratory Company, the Court clarified how employees may pursue retaliation claims under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act provides employees of publicly traded companies with whistleblower protection, prohibiting employers from terminating, or otherwise retaliating against, such employees when they report “potentially unlawful conduct” that has occurred or is in progress. The unlawful conduct is often securities fraud or other types of fraud, including making misrepresentations to shareholders.  To pursue a retaliation claim, a plaintiff must first file a complaint with the Department of Labor (which is handled by its OSHA office), and if no final decision is issued in 180 days, the plaintiff may file an action in federal district court. The Court reaffirmed this procedure, and held that the district court improperly failed to hear a properly filed retaliation action.

In the third case, Alton H. Piester, LLC v. NLRB, the Court upheld the NLRB’s determination that the employer had committed unfair labor practices by (1) impliedly threatening to discharge its employees if they continued to engage in protected, concerted activity — objecting as a group to a change in pay policies — and (2) by impliedly threatening to discharge and then actually discharging an employee for continuing to engage in similar protected, concerted activity.  The majority of the Court concluded that the Board’s decision on both unfair labor practices was supported by substantial evidence.

Related posts:

  1. Valerie speaks at 2008 AFL-CIO LCC conference on protecting injured workers
  2. Study shows that low wage workers are subject to a host of employment and labor law violations
  3. Fourth Circuit finds for plaintiff in FLSA overtime case
  4. Magistrate judge concludes that Smithfield wage and hour collective action should proceed

Filed Under: In the News, Work Injury, Workers' Compensation Tagged With: Case Commentary, Collective Action, Concerted Activity, FLSA, Fourth Circuit, NLRB, Retaliation, Sarbanes-Oxley Act, Union, Wage and Hour

Primary Sidebar

Primary Sidebar

Contact us

Occupation

  • Bus Drivers
  • Construction Workers
  • First Responders
  • Police Officers
  • Truck Drivers
  • State Employees Workers’ Compensation Lawyers in Charlotte
  • Experienced Union Members Attorneys in North Carolina

Injury

  • Asbestos Exposure
  • Durham Back Injury Lawyers
  • Burns and explosions
  • Chemical Exposure
  • COVID-19 and Healthcare Workers
  • Occupational Diseases
  • Workplace Violence

Free Legal Resources

  • Workers’ Compensation 101
  • 8 Questions to Answer Before You Are Ever in a Wreck
  • Essentials for Workers’ Comp Success
  • Help for Families of North Carolina Burn Victims

Locations

Durham Office

300 Blackwell St. #101,
Durham, NC 27701

Phone: (919) 240-4054

Fax: (888) 412-0421

Charlotte Office

1018 East Blvd. #6
Charlotte, NC 28203

Phone: (704) 200-2009

Fax : (888) 412-0421

Practice Areas

Workers Compensation | Bicycle Crashes | Personal Injury

OTHER PRACTICE AREAS

Crisis Management | Employment Law | Mass Torts | Camp Lejeune Water Contamination | Vaccine Injury | Resort & Recreational Activity Injuries | Workers Comp Wage & Hours Disputes | College Campus Injuries | Drunk Driving Injury victim | Industrial Accidents | Inadequate Security Claims | Workplace Injuries | Covid 19 – Business Interruption | Workplace Injury 3rd Party Claims

Copyright Johnson & Groninger PLLC