Agency Guidance May Not Be Enough: Keeping Workers Safe and Avoiding Employer Workplace Liability During the COVID-19 Pandemic

SAMUEL ESTREICHER, ELISABETH CAMPBELL

NYU law professor Samuel Estreicher and 2L Elisabeth H. Campbell describe the wide array of laws that will need to come into play to keep workers safe and avoid employer liability as workplaces consider reopening amid the COVID-19 pandemic, cautioning that compliance will not necessarily relieve employers of the risk of litigation and liability. Estreicher and Campbell discuss applicable recommendations, guidelines, and requirements set forth by such agencies as the U.S. Department of Labor, which is responsible for administering the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (EEOC).

Read More

Scalia v. Paragon Contractors

Docket: 19-4097

Opinion Date: May 1, 2020

Judge: Paul Joseph Kelly, Jr.

Areas of Law: Business Law, Government & Administrative Law, Labor & Employment Law

Defendants-Appellants Paragon Contractors Corporation and Brian Jessop (Paragon) appealed a district court’s order, findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the calculation of back wages. Plaintiff-Appellee United States Secretary of Labor (Secretary) sought to compel Paragon to replenish a fund established to compensate children employed without pay in violation of both the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and an injunction. Paragon had previously been held in contempt for violating the injunction. On appeal, Paragon contended the district court failed to adhere to the elements of a back wage reconstruction case under Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680 (1946). Specifically, Paragon argued the district court erred in: (1) concluding that the Secretary established a prima facie case; (2) imposing an improperly high burden for rebutting the inferences arising from that case and holding that Paragon failed to rebut certain inferences; and (3) declining to apply a statutory exemption. Finding no reversible error, the Tenth Circuit affirmed.

United States v. Neugin

Docket: 19-7043

Opinion Date: May 1, 2020

Judge: Scott Milne Matheson, Jr.

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Jack Neugin pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and ammunition on the condition that he could appeal the district court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence of the ammunition and firearm police found in the bed of his pickup truck. Officers responded to a reported verbal altercation between Neugin and his girlfriend. One of the officers saw ammunition in the back of the truck after he lifted the truck's camper lit do allow the girlfriend to retrieve her belongings. Neugin argued the officers discovered the evidence during an unconstitutional search; the district court concluded the officer was acting "in a lawful position" as "community caretaker," and found no Fourth Amendment violation. The Tenth Circuit reversed, finding that : (1) the officer conducted the without a warrant or probable cause, (2) the community caretaking exception to the warrant requirement does not apply, and (3) the inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule does not apply. The evidence seized should have been suppressed.

United States v. Ramon

Docket: 19-1221

Opinion Date: May 1, 2020

Judge: Gregory Alan Phillips

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

In 2016, after serving a federal prison sentence for having possessed a firearm after a felony conviction, Charles Ramon III began serving a mandatory term of supervised release. Before Ramon completed the term, his probation officer filed a petition, soon followed by two superseding petitions, to revoke Ramon’s supervised release. At the revocation hearing, the district court found three violations—two for possessing a controlled substance and one for again illegally possessing a firearm. Of these, the most serious was Ramon’s illegal possession of a firearm—a Grade B violation. For this, the court imposed the statutory maximum sentence of twenty-four months in prison. During the revocation hearing, the government mentioned that it might seek to indict Ramon for illegally possessing a firearm (the conduct in part underlying the revocation). Mindful of this, the district court ordered that Ramon’s twenty-four-month sentence run “consecutively to any sentences imposed previously or prospectively in federal or state court.” At the hearing, Ramon did not object to the district court’s running his sentence consecutively to future federal sentences. On appeal, Ramon argued that the district court exceeded its sentencing authority under 18 U.S.C. 3584(a) by ordering that Ramon’s sentence run consecutively to future federal sentences. By the terms of 18 U.S.C. 3584(a), the Tenth Circuit determined the district court did err. But Ramon failed to object to this at trial, and on appeal, failed to show that the error was plain, thus, judgment was affirmed.