Tennessee AG Opinion: Employers Must Pay Jury Duty Travel Time
In October, the Tennessee Attorney General released an opinion addressing the following question:
Does Tennessee Code Annotated § 22-4-106(b) require an employer to compensate an employee for travel time to and from jury duty when the employee is not compensated for travel as a part of the employee’s usual compensation?
Jury Duty Travel Time, Opinion No. 11-72 (2011). The short answer: yes, employers must provide that compensation. Id.
The pertinent section of the statute provides that, in addition to being given an excused absence from work to serve as a juror, “the employee shall be entitled to the employee’s usual compensation received from such employment.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 22-4-106(b). It goes on to say that “no employer shall be required to compensate an employee for more time than was actually spent serving and traveling to and from jury duty.” Id. (emphasis added). In light of this statutory language, “and the legislative intent to protect workers from the loss of benefits when called to jury service,” the Office of the Attorney General concluded that the statute “is properly construed as providing that travel time to and from jury duty is compensable as part of jury service.” Opinion No, 11-72 at 3. Accordingly, the opinion explains, if an employee has actual jury duty for four hours one day and spends two hours driving to and from the courthouse, he or she would be entitled to six hours of usual compensation under the law. Id.
For a complete version of the opinion, please visit: http://www.tn.gov/attorneygeneral/op/2011/op11-72.pdf.
By Volunteer Employees: Sixth Circuit Says It Could Happen
Earlier this month, the Sixth Circuit issued a decision that could convert unpaid volunteers into employees. In Bryson v. Middlefield Volunteer Fire. Dept., Inc., the Court held that, under Title VII, there is no requirement that a worker receive “significant renumeration” before being considered an employee. — F.3d. —, 2011 WL 3873789, *5-6 (6th Cir. Sept. 2, 2011). Instead, compensation is only one of a number of factors that should inform that determination. Id.
Summary Judgment Is Revived in Tennessee
Last month, Governor Haslam signed into law two bills that have returned Tennessee summary judgment jurisprudence back to the federal standard. These laws overruled two landmark decisions by the Tennessee Supreme Court - Hannan v. Alltel Publishing Co., 270 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2008), and Gossett v. Tractor Supply Co., Inc., 320 S.W.3d 777 (Tenn. 2010) - which created a significantly different standard for summary judgment motions in Tennessee.
More Relevant Than You Think: The EEOC’s Request for Hiring Materials Is Enforced on a Discharge Claim
At the end of last month, the Seventh Circuit enforced a subpoena issued by the EEOC, seeking an employer’s hiring materials in connection with the Commission’s investigation of a discriminatory discharge claim. EEOC v. Konica Minolta Bus. Solutions U.S.A., Inc., 2011 WL 1602064 (7th Cir. Apr. 29, 2011). The employee alleged that he was disciplined and ultimately terminated because he was African-American, and during the EEOC’s investigation of his claim, the Commission learned a number of facts that generated cause for concern. Indeed, the EEOC discovered that only 6 of the defendant’s 120 sales employees were African-American, and all were assigned to the same territory in a predominantly black neighborhood. Id. at *1. This led the Commission to subpoena certain specified information about the employer’s hiring practices, designed to verify whether it intentionally limited African-American job opportunities to that particular area. The company refused to provide the information, saying it was irrelevant to the employee’s charge because he had only challenged the circumstances of his termination, not his hiring.
Older Entries