Managing Employee Compliance in Highly Regulated Industries — Hiring to Firing Podcast
The Labor Law Insider: Recent U.S. Supreme Court, NLRB Decisions Highlight Labor Issues in Higher Education
Podcast - The Latest on Antitrust and Non-Compete Agreements in Healthcare
Protecting Trade Secrets When Facing Lawsuits or Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures
Episode 138 -- Employee Relations and Engagement in the COVID-19 Pandemic Era
Day 19 of One Month to More Effective Continuous Improvement-Use of Social Media for Continuous Improvement
On June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, Secretary of Commerce and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce (Loper Bright), overturning Chevron U.S.A. Inc v. Natural...more
In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and subsequent state abortion bans, the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued a...more
July 29, 2024 Welcome to the seventh issue of The Academic Advisor – our e-newsletter focused on education law insights. In this final summer edition, we look ahead to the new academic year and cover the following...more
The DE OFCCP Week in Review (WIR) is a simple, fast and direct summary of relevant happenings in the OFCCP regulatory environment, authored by experts John C. Fox, Candee J. Chambers and Cynthia L. Hackerott. In today’s...more
Three things became almost immediately apparent following the U.S. Supreme Court’s (“SCOTUS”) retirement 10 days ago of its 40-year-old fling with the so-called “Chevron Doctrine.”...more
On April 29, 2024, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued its new Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace (the Guidance), the first update to its Guidance in over 20 years. Among the many...more
A unanimous decision from the United States Supreme Court, issued on June 13, 2024, settles the split among the circuit courts concerning the factors to be considered by a court in considering a request by the National Labor...more
Is the exemption from coverage under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) for any “class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce” limited to workers whose employers are in the transportation industry? ...more
The United States Supreme Court unanimously held that when a district court compels claims to arbitration, the district court must stay – rather than dismiss – the district court case. In Smith v. Spizzirri, the Supreme...more
Our April 9 blog post highlighted several issues to watch during 2024, one of which was gender-affirming care considerations. Just over a month later, there have now been three key developments with respect to that issue:...more
“The rock and the hard place.” How often do employers find themselves here? If employers have LGBTQ employees in certain states, they are now bumping up against the “rock” of federal laws, like Title VII and Title IX, and the...more
If an employer or coworker persistently uses a transgender worker’s wrong name or identified pronoun, can that constitute a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII? In Copeland v. Georgia Department of Corrections,...more
Almost seven months after seeking public comment on an initial proposed version, and more than seven years after first attempting to update its guidance on the issue, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued on...more
On April 29, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), after nearly seven years of effort, released updated guidance concerning harassment in the workplace. The updated guidance reflects three key developments...more
In a recent decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a lateral job transfer can – in certain circumstances – be an illegal adverse action and support a claim for a lawsuit for unlawful discrimination. This...more
On April 17, 2024, the Supreme Court held in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis that an employee alleging a discriminatory job transfer need only show “some injury” respecting their employment terms or conditions, rather than a...more
Welcome to our first SuperVision e-newsletter of 2024. Although we are only four months into 2024, it has already been an incredibly active year on the labor and employment front. On Wednesday, the Federal Trade Commission...more
In Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, the U.S. Supreme Court considered what protections Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides to employees who claim they were the victims of a discriminatory transfer....more
On April 12, 2024, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision that answers the question of whether the Federal Arbitration Act’s (FAA) exemption from arbitration for any “class of workers engaged in foreign or...more
On April 12, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed whether the Federal Arbitration Act’s (FAA) transportation exemption—meaning the FAA would not apply—only relates to workers within the transportation industry....more
On April 12, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC, 601 U.S. __ (2024). It unanimously held that the exception to arbitration under Section 1 of the Federal Arbitration...more
After the U.S. Supreme Court held that Harvard University engaged in unlawful racial discrimination against Asian Americans in its efforts to achieve student body diversity, businesses have rightly sought legal guidance on...more
In this issue of Employment Flash: the new DOL rule on independent contractors, SCOTUS’s unanimous Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower ruling, plus labor law developments in California, Delaware, D.C., New York, the EU, Germany and...more
Thanks to two cases about federally mandated observers on fishing boats, judicial deference to agencies is likely to soon get weaker – and more unpredictable – with wide-ranging impacts for employee benefits. Less deference...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