by Tina M. Aiken The United States Supreme Court issued a decision

by Matthew W. Lynch The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has been

by Jillian Barron and Nate Bailey On March 25, the U.S. Supreme

Many employers assume that if they fire an employee for what they consider misconduct, the employee will not be entitled to unemployment benefits. As the Washington Court of Appeals has explained in three recent cases, that may not be the case: it depends on the circumstances.

As is commonly known, over the last several decades an epidemic of “lifestyle diseases” has developed in the United States. Certain unhealthy lifestyle activities—such as inactivity, poor nutrition, tobacco use, and frequent alcohol consumption—have caused a sharp increase in the prevalence of chronic disease, such as diabetes, heart disease, and chronic pulmonary conditions. Out of a direct concern for the impact of chronic disease on employee health and well-being—as well the cost of health care coverage and employee productivity—employers have increasingly begun implementing health promotion and disease prevention policies, commonly referred to as workplace “wellness programs.”

Each year the United States Supreme Court reviews a select number of lower court decisions. Between October and June, the Court hears oral argument and issues decisions in less than 100 of the more than 7,000 petitions for review filed each year. This year, the Court granted certiorari (review) in a handful of cases involving labor and employment issues.

NLRB Takes Exceptional Year-End Steps to Encourage & Support Union Organizing

The Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) may require employers to allow disabled employees well more than six months of unpaid leave as a reasonable accommodation, according to a federal district court in western Washington. There is no doubt that unpaid leave beyond the three months guaranteed by the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) can be a reasonable accommodation under the ADA. But the district court’s October 23 decision in Casteel v. Charter Commc’ns. Inc. suggests that such a reasonable accommodation might include unpaid leave of surprising length.

When employees take leave to care for their own or a family member’s serious medical condition, they are often entitled to the protection of the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA” or “Act”). But what if an FMLA-eligible employee expressly declines to use FMLA leave? The Ninth Circuit recently answered that question in Escriba v. Foster Farms Poultry, Inc., 743 F.3d 1236 (9th Cir. 2014) and held that employees are free to decline FMLA leave, but if they do so they are not entitled to the protections of the Act.

This summer has been one of the warmest and sunniest in recent memory. But while the rest of the Northwest has been enjoying the weather, local courts have been busy deciding employment law issues. So as summer turns to fall, we reflect on four noteworthy cases decided by Washington courts and the Ninth Circuit.

Washington courts have long recognized that employee handbook provisions may form the basis for unilateral contracts between employers and employees. The Washington Supreme Court’s recent decision in Storti v. Univ. of Wash., No. 88323-8, 2014 Wash. LEXIS 570 (2014) serves as an important reminder for employers to pay close attention when drafting employee handbooks, and also offers valuable guidance on how, if necessary, employers can preserve the right to modify handbook language construed as a promise.

Arbitration provides an alternative to the expense of formal litigation, but in January 2012, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) appeared to limit the efficacy of employment arbitration agreements when it held that arbitration agreements containing class-action waivers violate the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). D.R. Horton Inc. & Cuda, 357 N.L.R.B. No. 184 (2012). In labor and employment litigation, class-action lawsuits give employees tremendous leverage by exponentially increasing the risk of employer liability and the cost of litigation.