Tag Archive for L & I seattle lawyer

Jennifer Atkinson | January 6, 2012
No comments

New Washington State Minimum Wage Goes Into Effect

Washington State’s minimum wage has been the highest in the U.S. for the past decade, and now labor advocates can claim another small victory: the minimum wage just rose 37 cents to $9.04 per hour. Washington’s minimum wage applies to workers in all industries and across every sector; however, 14 and 15 year-olds may be paid at a lower rate ($7.68 per hour), which is 85% of the adult wage rate.

The Department of Labor & Industries re-adjusts the state minimum wage every September, as mandated by the voter-approved Initiative 688.  That initiative went into effect in 1998, and requires the state to adjust its minimum wage according to changes in the federal CPI-W, a national index of the cost of goods and services necessary for daily living. The index increased 4.3% over this past year.

L&I provides employers with poster announcements of the new 2012 minimum wage; these can be printed and displayed as needed. The announcement is offered as a convenience only; neither L&I nor Washington State law requires businesses to display these. However, employers do need to post the “Your Rights as a Worker” poster, which gives general information regarding the minimum wage and other related topics.  These workplace posters are available free of charge from any L&I office, and can be downloaded from the L&I website.

Does the Minimum Wage Increase Unemployment?

Some economic theorists argue that a minimum wage set above a so-called “natural market wage” produces higher unemployment – especially for unskilled workers or others who might be considered a “risk” to employ. However, experts hotly debate this question using a wide variety of data, economic theory, and historical cases.

Seattle Times editorialist Bruce Ramsey cautiously suggests that higher unemployment could result from higher wages. He bases his misgivings about the new minimum wage on comparative state figures for the number of workers experiencing underemployment (defined as officially unemployed — not working and looking for work), workers employed part-time but seeking full-time work, “other marginally attached” workers, and individuals who want a job but are discouraged from looking. In light of these figures, Ramsey offers the following account:

“Combined, these ‘underemployed’ were the biggest problem in Oregon, Alaska, Washington, Michigan and California, in that order. This was not for one year, but was an average of 2003 to 2010, which includes boom years and recession years. Notable was that every one of the five states with the worst underemployment has a state minimum wage higher than the federal minimum of $7.25: Oregon is at $8.80, Alaska $7.75, Washington $9.04, Michigan $7.40 and California $8.00. (The listdoes not include the changes since 2003.) The five states with the lowest underemployment from 2003 to 2010 were Nebraska, Delaware, New Hampshire, South Dakota and Virginia. None has a state minimum higher than $7.25. If you start with the states with the highest minimum and see where they fall, there is less correlation. Still, Washington and Oregon have the highest state minimums, and in the period of 2003-2010 they were third and first, respectively, in rates of underemployment. That is not proof of economic theory–there are lots of reasons why a state will do well or poorly–but it is suggestive.”

However, other experts refute these implications, citing studies that suggest a zero (or near-zero) net job loss resulting from higher minimum wage rates. In an interview with NPR, David Cooper, an analyst with the pro-labor Economic Policy Institute, argues the minimum wage is especially important to America’s struggling workforce now:

“When you have lines of the unemployed around the corner looking for jobs, there’s no real pressure for employers to raise wages,” Cooper says.

And in this age of Occupy Wall Street, Cooper says, pushing up that wage floor is one way to address growing income inequality.

“Increases in the minimum wage are essentially a shift from corporate profits to low-wage employees,” he says. “And we know that low-wage employees spend more of their money. They’re going to spend essentially every penny they get, so that increased demand is going to result in more economic activity and potentially more jobs.”

If you are involved in a wage or hour dispute with your employer, contact a Seattle Employment Attorney or Wage & Hour Violation Attorney to represent your case.

Category: Department of Labor and Industries, Employment Attorney, L&I, Labor and Industries | Tags: , , , ,
Jennifer Atkinson | October 13, 2011
No comments

Toxic Travel Alert: Boeing Settles Workers’ Compensation Suit

Boeing AircraftBoeing Corporation recently settled a suit by a former American Airlines worker who claimed she has suffered from multiple complications after being exposed to toxic fumes in the cabin.  Terry Williams now suffers from a range of symptoms, from memory loss to sever headaches.  What is particularly troubling is that her experience was not an isolated incident and that design flaws in the very construction of jet liners might lead to toxic substances entering the air circulation system.

While the conditions of the settlement were not made public, the success of the suit has stirred debate about this health hazard that may be more common than most realize.

Judith Murawski, an industrial hygienist for the Association of Flight Attendants, told msnbc.com, “The issue is really heating up now.”  She added that she handles sometimes twelve new cases a month of flight crew employees reporting exposure to toxic fumes.  In fact, these injuries are often reported as employees are en route to medical care.

Industry officials say that on at least one domestically registered jetliner per day, all aboard are exposed to toxic fumes or even smoke.  However, these are only the documented exposures.  Fumes can include a number of chemical and carcinogenic compounds, including carbon monoxide and tricresyl phosphates (TCPs).

So…how do toxic fumes get into an air conditioning system built for human respiration?

On many jetliners, and on most Boeing commercial jetliners, cabin air is pumped from the engine itself.  Boeing insists that any leaks into this system are rare and such slight exposures ultimately pose no health risk.  Boeing released a statement saying it “still contends that cabin air is safe to breath and studies by independent researchers have consistently shown that existing systems for providing cabin air to passengers and crew meet applicable health and safety standards.”

Airline workers counter that “bleeding” air from engines into air conditioning systems have caused problems going back nearly half a century.  Some argue that it is the very location of intake – the engine – that is the root of the problem and that this antiquated design is ultimately faulty.

Flight Attendant Terry Williams argues a single exposure to toxic fumes led to her disabling symptoms.  Her workplace injuries include memory loss, asthma, tremors, speech impairment and loss of balance.   Workers’ Compensation physicians determined that she was suffering from a neurotoxic disorder due to her workplace environment.

The Airlines themselves are predictably fighting back by claiming that the issue is exaggerated and “emotional” for flight attendants.

If you are the victim of a workplace accident, be sure to first seek medical care.  Next, contact an experienced Seattle Workers’ Compensation Attorney before you initiate the claims process.  The attorneys at Emery Reddy are standing by to help you with your claim.

 

Category: Uncategorized, Worker Injury, workers compensation, Workplace Accident | Tags: , , , , , , ,
Jennifer Atkinson | July 27, 2011
No comments

New York Lumber Mill Cited for Worker Safety Violations

A New York Lumber Mill was cited by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration for 35 violations of safety standards after the tragic death of a worker last February.

This incident sheds light on what happens when mandated safety procedures are ignored and the citations reveal a larger government interest in protecting worker safety.

According to media sources, a worker was changing the blades on a saw was killed when another worker, who had disregarded government established procedure, started the saw without warning.  The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requires a “lockout/tagout” procedure whereby workers alert each other that machines have been shut down and power sources have been locked out before maintenance can begin.

The police identified the worker as Thomas O. Pelton.

Not surprisingly, OSHA discovered many other hazardous conditions at the mill.  These violations included hazardous conditions relating to machine guarding, electrical, ladder use, and protective use hazards.  Such common overlooked hazards could lead to a number of injuries including, but not limited to, electrocution, amputation, lacerations, and even being caught in parts of a moving machine. B&B Lumber faces a total of $152,100 in proposed fines for these conditions.

B&B Lumber faces fines totaling over $150,000 due to these conditions.

Key to this incident is the Occupational and Safety and Health Act of 1970, which holds that employers are responsible for providing safe work conditions for their employees.  Workers should look to OSHA to safeguard their welfare if they feel they are laboring in an environment that disregards basic work safety procedures.

If you are a Washington or Seattle worker who suspects that they are working in an unsafe work situation, they should contact OSHA immediately with their concerns.

If you are an injured worker, you should immediately seek out medical assistance.  If you require compensation, you should contact an experienced Washington Workers’ Compensation Lawyer to fight for your rights.  The Washington Workers Compensation Attorneys at Emery Reddy are prepared to advise you.

Category: Retaliatory Termination, Uncategorized, Worker Injury, Worker Rights, workers compensation | Tags: , , , , , , ,
Jennifer Atkinson | July 8, 2011
No comments

Medical Leaves of Absence: Disabilities and “Reasonable Accomodation”

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission held a public meeting in June focused on the use of medical leaves of absence as “reasonable accommodation” for employees’ disabilities.  Two representatives from the EEOC, two advocates for disabled workers, and two panelists representing the business community made up the six member panel.

Clearly, the issue of how to allot medical leave to disabled persons is a sticky issue that sometimes causes anxiety and confusion between employers and employees, and one of the aims of the panel was to clear up ambiguities in application of the law.  Christopher Kuczynski, Assistant Legal Councel for the EEOC, acknowledged this confusion then turned to describing in detail the position the EEOC has taken on theses issues.

Mr. Kuczynski noted the EEOC asserts that in some cases the use of accrued paid leave and additional unpaid leave might be a form of “reasonable accommodation” under the Americans with Disabilities Act.  Yet, things become sticky when a business applies a uniform “no fault” leave policy that requires automatic termination after a certain period of time.  He noted this does not necessarily represent a violation the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Still, he quoted the EEOC’s official position in literature saying “where an employee needs more leave than is allowed under a ‘no-fault’ leave policy because of a disability, and employer must ‘modify its policy to provide the employee with the additional leave,’ unless there is another effective accommodation or modifying the policy would result in undue hardship.”

John Hendrickson, a Regional EEOC, then described several cases that ended with settlements against major corporations like Sears Roebuck and Jewel Foods.  He used these cases to establish some parameters that businesses and disabled workers should keep in mind:

  • Set periods of leave, even if generous, may not be sufficient to meet the employer’s duty of reasonable accommodation.
  • Appropriate leave under the ADA must be subject to individual analysis–even if the fixed leave policy is expansive.
  • Employers should be weary about separating administration of workers’ compensation benefits or disability benefits from ADA administration.
  • Employers need to keep clear lines of communication open between employees, health care providers, and managers.
  • Ultimately, the EEOC “occupies a unique role in litigating these case.”

Understandably, witnesses for disabled workers described an issue of bigger dimensions and urgency than the business community would acknowledge.  The everyday challenges encountered by disabled workers form ongoing, tangible obstacles to each work shift.  However, with proper adherence to the ADA, workers are better positioned to gainfully contribute to the workplace.

Businesses are becoming increasingly aware and compliant with workers’ needs, most usually through litigation.  In early June, the EEOC alleged that Target Corporation violated the ADA by denying “reasonable accommodation” to a disabled employee and reducing his work hours. According to the complaint, Target reduced the work hours of an employee with cerebral palsy and suffering from seizures to sometimes one-third the time worked by other employees.  Target payed $160,000 in a settlement.  Still, what is optimistic in this case is that Target agreed to designate an ADA coordinator in its corporate-level human resources department and launch a corporate-wite policy regarding “reasonable accommodation.”

If you are a worker who feels they may not be receiving reasonable accommodation as lawfully spelled out in the Americans with Disabilities Act, you need to immediately contact an experienced Washington Workers’ Compensation Attorney to seek advice.  Emery Reddy has an expert Washington Labor & Industries Lawyer standing by to be your advocate and fight for your rights.

.

Category: Employment Discrimination, Retaliatory Termination, Worker Rights | Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Jennifer Atkinson | June 20, 2011
No comments

Supreme Court Rules For Wal-Mart in Sex Discrimination Case

Gender discrimination on the job continues to be an issue that affects women across the country.  Although women have made great strides in achieving workplace equality, wage discrimination still exists.

We reported in this blog recently on the struggle of former female Wal-Mart workers to form a massive class action law suit against the retailer.  The workers claimed sex bias in management and hiring decisions on an institutional scale, and as such, sought the novel strategy of forming a class based on gender.  The backers of the suit argued that consolidation on this novel scale was the only effective way to confront such a large, powerful corporation as Wal-Mart.  Woman’s Rights activists were hopeful that this suit was a first step to redressing historic wrongs directed toward women in the workplace that continue to effect female workers’ wages and chances of promotion.

This morning, the Supreme Court put a halt to this opportunity to bring a powerful class action suit against the retailer.

The court ruled unanimously that the up to 1.6 million women could not form a class action against Wal-Mart, effectively reversing a lower court decision that said the class could move forward.  The women do have the option to move forward with individual lawsuits.  However, singular suits brought individually have the flavor of David vs. Goliath.  After all, the one of the points of a class action is to leverage group power against large, well-funded institutions that would normally be immune to such claims.

The unanimous decision cited Wal-Mart’s argument that the female employees performed different jobs in thousands of stores with many different supervisors did not have enough in common to form a cohesive class.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion, noting “Respondents wish to sue for millions of employment decisions at once. Without some glue holding together the alleged reasons for those decisions, it will be impossible to say that examination of all the class members’ claims will produce a common answer to the crucial discrimination question.”

Further, the Court was skeptical of the expert testimony given on behalf of the wronged workers.  Scalia asserted, “Respondents’ only evidence of a general discrimination policy was a sociologist’s analysis asserting that Wal-Mart’s corporate culture made it vulnerable to gender bias. But because he could not estimate what percent of Wal-Mart employment decisions might be determined by stereotypical thinking, his testimony was worlds away from ‘significant proof’ that Wal-Mart ‘operated under a general policy of discrimination.’ ”

Labor Rights activists count this ruling as a defeat in the battle against what they view as continued and systematic gender discrimination in many major corporations across the country.  Observers note the women can continue their suit on an individual basis and that they should not be cowed by this move.

Despite this ruling, workers who believe they have been victim of employment discrimination should not hesitate to contact an expert Washington Labor & Industries attorney who can advise them as to the strength of their claim.  Concerned workers should contact a Seattle L & I lawyer at Emery Reddy today.

Category: Employment Discrimination, Retaliatory Termination, Uncategorized, Unfair Pay Practices, Worker Rights | Tags: , , , , , , ,
« Older Entries