JONES DAY TALKS®: Women in IP: 2020 in Review and a Look Toward 2021
Jones Day Talks: Women in IP: The Supreme Court's "Copyright Day"
Bill on Bankruptcy: Lawyers Easily Make Simple Words Complicated
Bill on Bankruptcy: ResCap Report, a Bargain at $83 Million
As Expected, Noel Canning v. NLRB Headed to the Supreme Court
Bill on Bankruptcy: How Purchasers of AMR Stock Made a Killing
The United States Supreme Court recently settled a circuit split concerning when an involuntary lateral transfer may violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Court’s opinion in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis...more
On June 17, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera, adding it to their docket for the 2024-2025 term. This case will finally resolve a split between the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal...more
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX) both act to prevent discrimination. While Title VII governs employment relationships; Title IX applies in...more
On April 17, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, a closely watched employment discrimination case. In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Kagan, the Court reversed the Eighth...more
On April 17, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States held that an employee challenging a job transfer in an unlawful employment discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 must show that the...more
On January 18, 2024, the California Supreme Court issued its long-awaited opinion in Jorge Luis Estrada et al. v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc., resolving a court of appeal split between the Second District (Wesson v. Staples...more
On 18 January 2024, the Supreme Court of California (Court) unanimously held that trial courts lack inherent authority to dismiss with prejudice claims brought under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA)...more
Now That California Courts Have Been Stripped of Authority to Dismiss Unmanageable PAGA Claims, How Will Employers Manage PAGA Litigation? The California Supreme Court, on Jan. 18, issued its decision in Estrada v. Royalty...more
The boiling dispute over the unionization of baristas is heading to the Supreme Court. Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act authorizes federal courts to issue preliminary injunctions against employers that are...more
Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), “[n]o covered entity shall discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of disability in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge...more
Summary - Where an employer can and does track the exact time in minutes that its employees work each shift, and those records show that employees were not paid for all the time they worked, neutral time rounding is not a...more
On May 23, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, decided Morgan v. Sundance, Inc., No. 21-328, in favor of an employee who sued her employer, a Taco Bell franchisee, for wage theft. The Court concluded that...more
On March 23, 2022, the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth District in Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc., ruled that courts do not have authority to strike a claim under the Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”)...more
On March 23, 2022, in Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc., the California Court of Appeal, held that “a court cannot strike a PAGA claim based on manageability.” This decision creates a split of authority with Wesson v....more
In a decision that will impact pay practices in the oil and gas and many other industries in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and beyond, the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed on Sept. 9, 2021, that...more
Over a vigorous dissent last week, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit vacated a ruling from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan and held the False Claims Act’s anti-retaliation...more
This 26th edition of Unprecedented, our weekly update on COVID-19-related litigation, sees us returning to now-familiar topics involving liability protection for businesses, wrongful death lawsuits (particularly those...more
In Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, the United States Supreme Court held that “an employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII.” With its decision, however, the Supreme Court...more
This seventh edition of Unprecedented, our weekly update on COVID-19-related litigation, sees a continuation of the trend we identified last week: shutdown challenges, workers' compensation claims, and wrongful death lawsuits...more
On March 30, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a decision from the Seventh Circuit in Leeper v. Hamilton County Coal, LLC, No. 19-1109, which held that a layoff was temporary, and thus did not trigger the 60-day...more
A growing number of state and local governments across the country are enacting laws that limit employers’ ability to ask about or consider applicants’ salary history. These laws are part of a nationwide effort to reduce pay...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 Chambers and Jennifer Polcer. In today’s edition, they...more
On February 6, 2020, in a 2-1 decision, the California Court of Appeal (Fourth District, Division Two) held that an employee's settlement agreement with a staffing agency on a wage-and-hour claim does not necessarily preclude...more
Despite political and economic uncertainties, markets and deal activity were resilient in 2019, and strong fundamentals remain in place heading into 2020. Companies continue to face a challenging litigation and enforcement...more
Following a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court several months ago allowing a former employee to pursue a religious discrimination claim, a Texas federal jury recently ordered her former employer to pay her $350,000. The...more