The Dallas Hospitality Employment Lawyer Blog

In a decision issued on Monday, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled that a number of an employer's handbook policies violated Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (the "Act").   See Hoot Winc, LLC, NLRB ALJ , No. 31-CA, 104872 (May 19, 2014). The underlying dispute involved the termination of employees who were allegedly involved in, among other things, a dispute about a bikini contest.  In a lengthy ruling in favor of the employee, the ALJ found that a number of the employer's policies violated the Act, including those prohibiting: employees from discussing tips with other employees or guests. insubordination to a manager or lack of respect or cooperation with fellow employees or guests. disrespect to a guest , including profanity or negative comments or actions. the unauthorized dispersal of sensitive company operating materials. actions or activities the complaints believes represent a threat to the smooth operation, goodwill, or profitabil

Arbitration agreements aren't right for every employer, but if you utilize one, now is a good time to determine if it is as comprehensive as it could be.  When reviewing your existing arbitration agreement, ask yourself these questions: Does it require the arbitration of all employment-related claims, and exclude claims for, by way of example only, workers' compensation and unemployment benefits, administrative charges, and claims for declaratory and/or injunctive relief?   Is it mutual, meaning it equally binds both employer and employee? Have you reviewed your handbook language to ensure that there are no conflicts between the handbook language and the arbitration agreement? Does it indicate which party or parties is responsible for arbitration filing and other costs? Do you ensure each employee signs a copy of the arbitration agreement upon hire, and retain that copy in the personnel file? Does it specify that the arbitrator can award all relief that could be awarded

The 2009 amendments to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) left no doubt that Congress intended to expand the ADA's scope, but is this pendulum swinging too far?  In a recent decision, a Missouri court refused to grant an employer's motion to dismiss a plaintiff's disability discrimination claim where the alleged disability is obesity.   See Whittaker v. America's Car-Mart, Inc ., Case No. 1:13CV108SNLJ, in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri, Southeastern District. In that case, the plaintiff contends he was discharged based on his severe obesity.  The employer moved to dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds that obesity is not a disability unless it is related to an underlying physical or psychological disorder or condition.  Denying the motion to strike, the court noted that with the 2009 amendments, Congress mandated that the definition of "disability" be construed in favor of "broad coverage."  Although