State Laws on Screening and Federal Preemption – Where Are We Now and Where Are We Heading? — FCRA Focus Podcast
#WorkforceWednesday: Preparing for Biden's Vaccine Mandate, Mandate Pushback Begins, NLRA's Reach Expected to Expand - Employment Law This Week®
Williams Mullen Manufacturing Edge Video Series - Episode 1
Revisiting McGirt: New Legal Developments Challenge Oklahoma’s Landmark Ruling
Edible Bites Episode 8: Impact of Cannabis Legalization on Government Contractors
The Immediate and Lasting Impacts of McGirt: A Novel Ruling for Oklahoma
Podcast: Federal and State Cannabis Rules Are Moving in Different Directions - Diagnosing Health Care
Part 1 of 2: The Impact of Marijuana for Employers
In a workplace safety whistleblower lawsuit recently filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, an air conditioning technician claims he was fired by his employer, HT Airsystems of Florida, LLC, in...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: Does Pennsylvania law permit the fluctuating workweek (“FWW”) method of paying overtime? The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has answered that question with a resounding “No, but…”...more
The fluctuating workweek (FWW) pay method allows employers to pay salaried, nonexempt employees a fixed salary, regardless of the number of hours worked per week. Under the FWW method, employees who work more than 40-hours...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: The United States Department of Labor (DOL) released its final overtime rule on Tuesday, September 24, 2019, increasing the minimum salary level for exempt status to $35,568 per year for a full-time...more
UberX and UberBLACK Drivers Are Not Employees for Purposes of the NLRA - According to the NLRB General Counsel’s Division of Advice (GC), Uber’s UberX and UberBLACK drivers are independent contractors exempt from the...more
On June 10, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously ruled that state wage and hour laws do not apply to offshore drilling workers where federal law addresses the relevant issue. In Parker Drilling Management...more
In a rare decision applying the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. §1331 et seq.(“OCSLA”), the United States Supreme Court has clarified, re-affirmed and perhaps (given the breadth of its opinion) expanded the...more
U.S. Supreme Court reaffirms primacy of federal law on Outer Continental Shelf holding state law may not be adopted where federal law already addresses the issue. In Parker Drilling Management Services Ltd. v. Newton, 587...more
Workers on oil drilling platforms off the coast of California are covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), not California’s overtime and wage laws, the U.S. Supreme Court has held unanimously. Parker Drilling...more
On June 10, 2019, the United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled that state wage and hour laws do not apply to certain drilling rig employees working off the California coast. The rig workers argued that California law...more
By a unanimous 9-0 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday declined to extend California’s wage-and-hour laws to employees working on offshore drilling platforms subject to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (Parker...more
On June 10, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Parker Drilling Management Services, Ltd. v. Newton, No. 18-389, holding that state law does not apply to the Outer Continental Shelf when federal law addresses...more
On May 8, 2019, Massachusetts’ highest court held that retail salespersons who are paid entirely on a commission or draw basis, may nevertheless be entitled to additional overtime or pay for work on Sundays. The Supreme...more
On March 15, 2019, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that the “agricultural” exemption to the Massachusetts Overtime Law, M.G.L. c. 151, § 1A, does not apply to workers who perform post-harvesting activities. ...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: Agricultural employers have a hard row to hoe with the latest crop of legislation affecting overtime requirements in California....more
Last Thursday, July 26, the California Supreme Court issued an opinion concluding that coffee retailer Starbucks must pay its employees for off-the-clock duties that take several minutes per shift. In issuing its opinion, the...more
The California Supreme Court issued an opinion on July 26, 2018, and found that the federal Fair Labor Standards Act’s de minimis doctrine does not apply to claims for unpaid wages under the California Labor Code. Federal...more
Douglas Troester v. Starbucks Corporation (July 26, 2018) - On July 26, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued a decision entitled Douglas Troester v. Starbucks Corporation, No. S234969, which should be of concern to...more
The California Supreme Court has rejected the federal Fair Labor Standards Act’s de minimis doctrine and put the burden on employers to account for “all hours worked.” Our Labor & Employment Group explains the court’s ruling...more
On July 26, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued its long-awaited opinion in Troester v. Starbucks Corp., __ P.3d __ (2018). In the days that have followed, legal headlines have lamented the presumed “death” of the de...more
On August 6, 2012, Douglas Troester, a former shift supervisor at a Starbucks location, filed a lawsuit against Starbucks in state court in Los Angeles, California. Mr. Troester filed his lawsuit on behalf of himself and a...more
Last week, in Troester v. Starbucks, a unanimous California Supreme Court held that California labor statutes and wage orders do not incorporate federal de minimis work exceptions. Yet, the Court declined to define when, if...more
In a long-awaited decision, the California Supreme Court rejected the federal de minimis doctrine, making clear that in any instance in which employees perform “minutes of work,” before or after their shifts, that time must...more
Last week, the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of a former Starbucks employee seeking compensation for time spent closing the store after clocking out. This decision in Troester v. Starbucks may limit the ability of...more
On July 26, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued its long awaited decision in Troester v. Starbucks Corporation (S234969) on whether California wage and hour law recognizes the de minimis doctrine established by the...more