Virginia’s Whistleblower Protection Law (“VWPL”) offers strong protections for Virginia workers who report unlawful practices or refuse an employer’s order to engage in unlawful practices. The law protects a wider range of conduct than that protected under Virginia’s Bowman claim jurisprudence. It covers both internal and external whistleblower activities. It allows courts to award aggrieved employees injunctive relief and reinstatement, compensation for lost wages, benefits, and other remune...
In Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006), the Supreme Court reaffirmed its prior decisions that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects government employees from retaliation for speaking out as private citizens on matters of public concern. But when public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, they are not speaking as private citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not protect their communications from employer discipline.
Virginia’s misclassification of workers statute allows workers to file suit against their employers who have misclassified them as independent contractors. If the worker prevails, the court may award the worker any wages, employment benefits, or other compensation lost as a result of the employer improperly classifying the worker as an independent contractor.
In the oldie-but-goldie decision of Steiner v. Mitchell, 350 U.S. 247 (1956), the Supreme Court held that time workers spend on activities performed before or after regular working hours is compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act, if the activities are “integral and indispensable parts of the principal activity” of the worker’s employment.
Charlottesville attorney Tim Coffield explores new Virginia employee protections in the Virginia Values Act.
Charlottesville attorney Tim Coffield discusses the case of Bostock v. Clayton County, a landmark case for LGBTQ employee protections.
The Fair Labor Standards Act requires covered employers to pay minimum wages and overtime compensation to certain categories of employees. However, the law contains several exceptions or “exemptions” from these requirements, most of which turn on a combination of the employees’ pay and the nature of their job duties. For example, Section 13(a)(1) of the FLSA, a.k.a. 29 U.S.C. § 213(a)(1), provides an “exemption” from both minimum wage and overtime pay for certain categories of so-called “whit...
In Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 136 S.Ct. 1036 (2016), the Supreme Court held that representative proof from a sample, based on an expert witness’s estimation of average time that employees spent donning and doffing protective gear, could be used to show predominance of common questions of law or fact for purposes of class certification. The Court also reaffirmed the long-held FLSA principle that where an employer fails to keep accurate time records, an employee can meet her burden by pro...
Charlottesville attorney Tim Coffield explores FLSA exemptions for executive employees.
Charlottesville attorney Tim Coffield explores the case of Babb v. Wilkie and its relationship to age discrimination law.
Tim Coffield, a Charlottesville-based attorney, writes about the Principal Activities Law in the case of Integrity Staffing v. Busk.
Tim Coffield, a Charlottesville-based attorney, explores the Law of Economic Realities.
Tim Coffield, Attorney, explores the case of IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez and the Law of Compensation for Waiting.
Can federal employment laws require an employer to change an employee’s job duties, as an accommodation for a disability? The answer is sometimes, depending on the circumstances. The analysis often turns on whether the duties at issue are “essential functions” of the employee’s job, and whether co-workers are available to take on the duties (in exchange for the disabled employee taking on some of their duties).
Both Title I of Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504(a) of Rehabilitati...