Proof in Trial: University of Louisville
2021 Bid Protest Decisions with Far-Reaching Impacts for Government Contractors
#WorkforceWednesday: CA Whistleblower Retaliation Cases, NYC Pay Transparency Law, Biden’s Labor Agenda - Employment Law This Week®
Secondary Considerations of Non-Obviousness - Patents: Post-Grant Podcast
The Risk of Personal Injury Claims from COVID-19 and What to Do About It
Navigating the New Normal: Risk Management and Legal Considerations for Real Estate Companies
VIDEO: Will Pending Federal Covid-19 Legislation Preempt Longstanding State Laws Regarding the Burden of Proof in Workers’ Compensation Claims?
Podcast: IP Life Sciences Landscape: Aiding Orange and Purple Book Patent Owners in Developing PTAB Survival Skills
II-31- The Changing 9 to 5 From 1980 to Today
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently weighed in on the circuit-splitting debate over the proper causation standard for Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) retaliation claims. In a win for employers,...more
Recently, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a decision in Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC holding that whistleblowers are not required to prove their employer acted with “retaliatory intent” to be protected under...more
In Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, 601 U. S. ____, 2024 WL 478566 (2024), the United States Supreme Court (Sotomayor, J.) held that whistleblowers do not need to prove their employer acted with “retaliatory intent” to be...more
The Background: In August 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held in Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC., et al. ("Murray") that an employee suing his employer under the anti-retaliation provisions of...more
A newly enacted, under-the-radar statute in California could undermine efforts by employers to challenge the expert opinion testimony regarding alleged emotional distress offered by employees at trial. In many if not most...more
The U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide whether a whistleblower must prove that an employer acted with “retaliatory intent” to be protected under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. In doing so, the Court will resolve a circuit split,...more
In the spirit of the season, we are using our annual "12 days of the holidays" blog series to address new California laws and their impact on California employers. On the sixth day of the holidays, my labor and employment...more
The Minnesota Supreme Court recently reaffirmed the use of the familiar McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework to analyze claims of retaliation under Minnesota law, despite the ask by the plaintiff-appellant and amici to...more
On Jan. 27, 2022, the Supreme Court of California issued Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc., No. S266001, ___ Cal. 5th ____, a decision that decisively changed the burden for employers in defending against claims...more
California employers can expect to see an uptick in whistleblower claims as a result of a recent California Supreme Court ruling that increases the burden on employers to prove that adverse employment actions are based on...more
This week, we’re recapping major items shifting at the state, local, and federal levels, including whistleblower retaliation case law, pay transparency rules, and federal labor policies. California Supreme Court Specifies...more
What Happened? Before last week, some courts had applied the standard in California Labor Code section 1102.6 to resolve whistleblower claims under California Labor Code section 1102.5, while other courts had applied the...more
The California Supreme Court set a new, more employee-friendly, evidentiary standard for whistleblower retaliation claims. In Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, Inc., the Court held Labor Code section 1102.6, not the...more
The California Supreme Court just made things a bit more difficult for employers by lowering the bar and making it easier for disgruntled employees and ex-employees to bring state whistleblower claims against businesses. The...more
The California Supreme Court, in a critical decision, has answered a key question regarding whistleblower retaliation claims. Last year, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals certified an important question to the Court...more
In response to a certified question posed by the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit, the California Supreme Court on Jan. 27, 2022, resolved a years-long split among California courts by confirming that an...more
On April 6, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court held that federal-sector plaintiffs in age discrimination cases brought under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) need not show that negative consideration of age is a...more
What does an age discrimination plaintiff have to prove to succeed? Federal employees may have an easier path for proving an age discrimination claim, if we are reading the tea leaves correctly on the Supreme Court’s oral...more
This month's key California employment law cases involve disability discrimination, wage and hour, and arbitration agreements enforcement. Doe v. Dept. of Corrections & Rehabilitation, No. E071224, 2019 WL 6907515 (Cal....more
In a 2-1 decision issued on August 2, 2019, the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) in Electrolux Home Products, Inc., 368 NLRB No. 34 (2019) reversed an Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) decision, and held that...more
The U.S. Court of Appeals in the Seventh Circuit has recently decided a case involving an extremely obese bus driver and denied his claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101–12213, as...more
Seyfarth Synopis: Employers may face liability for retaliation charges from employees who report food safety issues under the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). Employers in the food industry have a new headache to...more
It’s been a while since we’ve had an employment law quiz, so let’s do it! This one is on retaliation. As always, the answers will be provided after each question — you have our “no-pressure” guarantee....more
The Missouri Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that plaintiffs claiming workers' compensation retaliation need only prove that their workers' compensation claims were a "contributing factor" to any adverse employment action. The...more
On February 7, 2013, the California Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Harris v. City of Santa Monica. The California high court upheld the “mixed-motive” defense in cases brought under California’s Fair Employment...more