U.S. Department of Labor Important Office of the Solicitor Briefs Update - November 2020

New Brief Subscription Newsletter You are subscribed to Important Briefs for the U.S. Department of Labor Office of the Solicitor. This page has recently been updated. The following new briefs have been posted to the DOL/SOL Website: Division of Fair Labor Standards: Jamek Engineering Services., Inc, Response Brief Description: The Board should affirm the ALJ's conclusions that Jamek violated DBRA labor standards by failing to pay prevailing wages and fringe benefits, and the Board should either modify the ALJ's back wage award or remand this matter to the ALJ for a proper calculation of back wages owed. The Board also should affirm the ALJ's conclusion that Jamek violated the Copeland Act by failing to file timely, accurate payrolls and by deducting union initiation fees from employees' paychecks. Finally, the Board should affirm the ALJ's determination that Jamek's violations warrant a three-year debarment under 29 C.F.R. 5.12(a)(1). Scalia v. Timberline South LLC, Response Brief Description: Brief urging Court to affirm the district court's back pay damages award and its award of an equal amount in liquidated damages. Yowell v. Administrative Review Board, U.S. Department of Labor, Response Brief Description: The ARB correctly concluded that a bare chain of events between a late injury report and discipline imposed for reporting the injury late does not satisfy the contributing factor standard, and that the carrier proved its same-action defense by clear and convincing evidence. Administrator, Wage & Hour Division v. CTO/CHF Partnership dba Cider Hill Farm, Response Brief Description: In her Opening Brief, the WHD Administrator argued that the Administrative Law Judge erred in holding that corresponding employment under the Department's H-2A regulations is limited to "U.S. workers" because the plain language and structure of the statute and its implementing regulations include within corresponding employment any worker who is not an H-2A worker and is performing the requisite work for an H-2A employer. In its Response Brief, Respondent argues that the H-2A program's corresponding employment requirements apply only to U.S. workers under the plain language of the regulations, that this reading is the only interpretation that is consistent with the program's central purpose of protecting U.S. workers, and that it has been adopted by the Department itself. Respondent also argues that a finding that its J-1 visa holders were engaged in corresponding employment would be inconsistent with the J-1 visa program's requirements, and that the Government has other available remedies to address alleged J-1 visa program abuses. Respondent's position is flawed, as it relies on the unwarranted inference that the only means to achieve the statute's goal of preventing adverse effects on U.S. workers is to limit corresponding employment to U.S. workers only. Respondent's arguments also contravene the plain language and structure of the H-2A regulations, misread Departmental guidance as limiting corresponding employment to only U.S. workers, and unduly attempt to expand the issues and authorities relevant to this appeal. Thorstenson v. Dep't of Labor, Response Brief Description: The ARB correctly affirmed the ALJ's holding that BNSF proved by clear and convincing evidence that it would have taken the adverse actions in the absence of the protected activity. Additionally, it was not error for the ARB to find that Thorstenson did not meet his burden under the contributing factor standard, and to vacate the ALJ's cease and desist order regarding BNSF's disciplinary review period policy. Denneny v. MBDA, Inc., et al., Amicus Brief Description: This case concerns the scope of contractor coverage under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act ("SOX"). The Solicitor's brief argues that SOX prohibits a contractor from retaliating against its employees where the case concerns the contractor's actions in fulfilling its role as a contractor to a public company. Applying that rule, Denneny did not raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether MBDA was a SOX-covered contractor or as to whether he engaged in protected activity. To view the complete list of SOL Briefs posted online, go to: https://www.dol.gov/agencies/sol/briefs. Briefs posted prior to January 1st 2014 are presented in both HTML and PDF formats. Effective January 1st 2014, only Section 508 compliant PDF version of the briefs are available. This message may contain information that is privileged or otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Do not disclose without consulting the Office of the Solicitor. If you think you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately. Questions? Contact Us   STAY CONNECTED:   SUBSCRIBER SERVICES: Manage Preferences  |  Unsubscribe  |  Help Got this as a forward? Sign up to receive our future emails. This email was sent to stevenmagallanes520.nims@blogger.com using GovDelivery Communications Cloud on behalf of: United States Department of Labor · 200 Constitution Ave NW · Washington, DC 20210 · 1-866-4-USA-DOL (1-866-487-2365)