Dallas Paid Sick Leave Ordinance Enjoined on Eve of Enforcement

The Dallas paid sick leave ordinance was enjoined less than two days before the City of Dallas was set to begin full enforcement. U.S. District Judge Sean Jordan enjoined the ordinance on March 30, 2020.

The ordinance, which took effect on August 1, 2019, required employers to provide paid sick leave to employees working at least 80 hours per year in the City of Dallas up to a total of 64 hours per year. The City of Dallas then announced that it would not begin enforcing the ordinance, except for instances of retaliation, until April 1, 2020.

Meanwhile, on July 30, 2019, the Texas Public Policy Foundation on behalf of two Collin County employers filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas seeking to enjoin the ordinance. The plaintiffs alleged that the ordinance was unconstitutional under Texas law and was preempted by the Texas Minimum Wage Act. The plaintiffs also claimed the ordinance violated the freedom of association under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

The plaintiffs, who were joined by the State of Texas, filed a motion for preliminary injunction, asking the court to issue an injunction to halt the enforcement of the ordinance during the pendency of the litigation and until an ultimate ruling on the merits of the plaintiffs’ case was made. In a 63-page opinion, Judge Jordan issued the injunction, concluding that the ordinance was unconstitutional:

Whether or not paid sick leave requirements should be imposed by government on private employers is an important public policy issue, made even more significant under the challenging circumstances faced by our Nation at this moment. The State of Texas, through its constitutional structure and statutory law, has committed that public policy decision to the Texas legislature. The Court’s decision to grant a preliminary injunction upholds the state constitution and statutory provisions preempting and rendering unenforceable the City’s paid sick leave ordinance.

In light of the court’s ruling, employers are no longer required to comply with the ordinance.

The City of Austin was the first Texas city to pass a paid sick leave ordinance. The Third Court of Appeals in Austin, Texas enjoined that ordinance as being unconstitutional in November 2018, and the City of Austin appealed to the Supreme Court of Texas. That case remains pending. The City of San Antonio also enacted a paid sick leave ordinance in 2019, which a Bexar County judge enjoined just prior to its December 1, 2019, effective date. The City of San Antonio appealed to the Fourth Court of Appeals, but that court refused to reverse the lower court’s ruling. Thus, at this time, the paid sick leave ordinances in Austin and San Antonio remain enjoined, such that employers are not currently required to comply with those ordinances either.

Current Status of EU Data Transfers and Recommended Next Steps for Former Safe Harbor Companies

On October 6, 2015, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) issued its much-anticipated decision in Schrems v. Data Protection Commissioner, Case C-362/14 invalidating European Commission’s Decision 2000/520, which previously held that the Safe Harbor principles provided adequate protection for personal data transferred from the European Union (EU) to the United States. While the ECJ did not go as far as invalidating the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework itself, it ruled that data protection authorities in each EU country were no longer bound by Decision 2000/520 and had the power to review the adequacy of the Safe Harbor principles under their national data protection laws. Further, the ECJ decision did not address the viability of other EU-approved methods of transferring personal data, such as standard contract clauses and binding corporate rules, but the rationale underpinning the ECJ’s decision, i.e., the ability of U.S. surveillance agencies to access personal data transferred from the EU, is equally applicable to a determination of whether other EU-approved data transfer methods provide adequate protection under EU data protection laws.

LIRC’s View of the ‘Substantially Related’ Defense to Arrest and Conviction Record Discrimination Claims: Will Recent Events in Waukesha Prompt Change?

Wisconsin is one of a limited number of states that prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of arrest or conviction records. The Wisconsin Fair Employment Act (WFEA) protects “properly qualified individuals” from unlawful discrimination “by reason of their … arrest record[s] [or] conviction record[s].” Employers defending against claims of arrest- or conviction-record discrimination under the WFEA may raise a defense to liability that asks whether an employee’s or applicant’s charge or conviction “substantially relate[s] to the circumstances of the particular job[.]” That is, the WFEA provides that an employer is not prohibited from suspending an employee who is charged with a felony, misdemeanor, or other offense, or from refusing to employ an individual who is convicted of a crime that is substantially related to his or her position.

Dallas Paid Sick Leave Ordinance Enjoined on Eve of Enforcement

Recommended Reading

Current Status of EU Data Transfers and Recommended Next Steps for Former Safe Harbor Companies

LIRC’s View of the ‘Substantially Related’ Defense to Arrest and Conviction Record Discrimination Claims: Will Recent Events in Waukesha Prompt Change?

USCIS Announces FY 2023 H-1B Cap Reached