Jackson Lewis Files Amicus Brief with NLRB

Jackson Lewis LLP, on behalf of the Retail Litigation Center, Inc., the legal arm of the Retail Industry Leaders Association (“RILA”), has filed with the National Labor Relations Board a “friend-of-the-court” brief urging the Board to limit non-employee union agents’ right of access to store property to communicate to shoppers the union's disagreement with the way the retailer is operating.  The brief asks the NLRB to limit such access only to cases where the employer has allowed like conduct by other individuals and groups, so that the union has been singled out for adverse treatment. 

The action came in a case involving Roundy’s, Inc., a supermarket operator in Wisconsin and Minnesota. The retail chain had sought to prevent a carpenters union from handbilling shoppers on store grounds to protest the supermarket’s use of a non-un ion contractor paying less than “area-standard” wages to perform renovations and asking the public not to shop at the store.  The Board had invited interested parties to submit briefs in the matter.

 

Almost two decades ago, the Supreme Court reaffirmed a retailer’s right to exclude unwanted intruders from its property, subject only to certain limited exceptions.  Jackson Lewis’ amicus curiae brief for the retail industry advocates argues that the 2007 Board decision in Register-Guard presents the best way to analyze the "discrimination exception" raised in Roundy's. The brief says the Board’s earlier decision enables retail employers to control over access to their property by non-employee union agents.  It also may have the best chance of assuring protection for employers in contexts other than "area standards" protests, such as union organizing.

 

RILA is an association of America’s retail leaders, including nine of the nation’s ten top retailers.  Members collaborate to achieve excellence within their own enterprises and to pursue positive change for the industry at large.  Among other things, RILA serves the retail industry as an advocate in legislative and other matters. The Retail Litigation Center engages in legal proceedings affecting the retail industry.  By participating in selected federal and state cases, the Center gives the retail industry an opportunity to be heard on important legal questions and help inform the courts and administrative agencies of the potential effects of their decisions on the industry. 

 

Michael J. Lotito, a partner in Jackson Lewis and one of the authors of the Firm’s brief said, “We are indeed gratified that the Retail Litigation Center has given us the chance to present the views of our country’s leading retailers on the important questions raised in this case. Retailers should not be made to choose between allowing groups onto their property that help attract customers to the stores, build strong community ties, and assist worthwhile charities, and suffering the presence of groups that seek to discredit them and drive customers to competitors. We hope our brief helps the Board reach a decision that gives proper regard to retailers’ property rights.”

 

The Board’s decision is expected this Spring.

Ninth Circuit Finds That Vision Impairment That Affects Commuting Is A Disability

In Livingston v. Fred Meyer Stores, Inc., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 15044 (9th Cir. 2010), the plaintiff was discharged after she refused to work her scheduled shift, claiming her vision impairment affected her ability to commute to and from work and therefore required accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA").  The District Court found that the plaintiff did not have a disability because her vision impairment did not limit any major life activity.  The District Court also held that the company was not obligated to grant her request for a modified work schedule because the duty to accommodate does not extend to limitations related to commuting.

The Ninth Circuit disagreed.  In concluding that the plaintiff did have a disability, the Ninth Circuit cited the EEOC’s Regulations and case law holding that seeing is a major life activity..  In addition, even though plaintiff’s disability did not affect her ability to function effectively, the Ninth Circuit found that the company still had a duty to accommodate her inability to finish her scheduled shift.

                This case underscores the impact of the amendments to the ADA which expand the definition of what is considered to be a major life activity.  Although commuting to and from work may seem to be an activity incidental to performing ones’ job functions, the clear trend is to interpret the ADA's protections in an employee-friendly manner.