Business Better Podcast Episode: Bridging Campuses: Legal Insights on Education Industry Consolidation – Labor, Employment, and Benefits
Employee Rights in Non-Unionized Workplaces: What's the Tea in L&E?
The Labor Law Insider: How Unions Are Navigating Trump 2.0, Part II
The Labor Law Insider - How Unions Are Navigating Trump 2.0, Part I
Stumbling Your Way Into a Union: Key Advice for Employers: What’s the Tea in L&E?
The Labor Law Insider: What's Next for Labor Law Under the Trump Administration, Part II
The Labor Law Insider: What's Next for Labor Law Under the Trump Administration, Part I
The Burr Broadcast: Captive Audience Meetings
The Labor Law Insider - Elections Have Consequences: Labor Law Changes Anticipated Under Trump Administration, Part II
#WorkforceWednesday®: Biden’s Final Labor Moves - Employment Law This Week®
The Labor Law Insider - Elections Have Consequences: Labor Law Changes Anticipated Under Trump Administration, Part I
#WorkforceWednesday®: What a Trump Win Means for Unions - Employment Law This Week®
What's the Tea in L&E? "If You Don't Like It Here, You Can Leave!"
Work This Way: A Labor & Employment Law Podcast - Episode 35: Navigating Union Campaigns with Armando Llorente of Llorente HR Consulting
The Labor Law Insider - Whistleblower Breaks Details of NLRB Mail Ballot Election Abuse – Part II
The Labor Law Insider: Whistleblower Breaks Details of NLRB Mail Ballot Election Abuse - Part I
Labor Law Insider - Collective Bargaining: Ins and Outs, Nuts and Bolts, Part II
The Labor Law Insider - Collective Bargaining: Ins and Outs, Nuts and Bolts, Part I
The Labor Law Insider - NLRB Remedies: “Draconian” Says the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in Thryv, Part II
The Labor Law Insider—Dartmouth Men's Basketball Team Unionizes: Air Ball or Nothing But Net?
As we reported here, California’s Senate Bill (S.B.) 399, took effect on January 1, 2025. This law prohibits employers from requiring employees to attend meetings about the company’s opinions on political or religious...more
On January 1, 2025, Senate (SB) Bill 399, officially went into effect in California. California joined other states, including Illinois, Connecticut, Hawaii, New York, and Oregon, in enacting statutes that prohibit “captive...more
For the third time in eight years, both the National Labor Relations Board’s (“NLRB”) prosecutorial and adjudicative arms face a pending partisan overhaul after President-elect Trump’s inauguration on January 20, 2025....more
On June 13, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued Starbucks v. McKinney,1 which clarifies the legal standard governing temporary injunctions sought by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) against employers alleged...more
In a 9-0 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court recently sided with Starbucks Corp. over the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in a decision that would severely delay the process for the NLRB to obtain preliminary injunctions...more
In an eight-to-one decision this month, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Starbucks in Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, involving a longstanding legal battle against the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The NLRB was...more
Four months ago, we told you about a brewing labor law issue – whether the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) must satisfy the traditional preliminary injunction standard to secure an injunction against an...more
The Supreme Court of the United States recently unanimously ruled against the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) in Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney. The decision reversed the NLRB’s attempt to change the standard for...more
The US Supreme Court, in an 8-1 decision in Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, ruled that federal district courts must apply a traditional four-factor test when evaluating requests for injunctive relief brought by the National...more
In unusual circumstances arising during unionization campaigns, the National Labor Relations Board can seek a so-called Section 10(j) injunction to immediately order the employer or union to cease illegal acts associated with...more
On June 13, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney (National Labor Relations Board), No. 23-367, rejected the arguments of the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) to relax the standard that a...more
In an 8-1 decision involving Starbucks, the Supreme Court last week held that district courts must apply the traditional four-factor test for preliminary injunctions to injunctions sought by the National Labor Relations Board...more
In an opinion drafted by Justice Thomas and joined by seven other Justices, on June 13, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals’ affirmation of an injunction issued under Section 10(j) of the...more
On June 13, the United States Supreme Court issued its long-awaited ruling in Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney. In Starbucks, the Supreme Court clarified that the traditional four-factor test courts apply to requests for...more
On June 13, 2024, the United States Supreme Court held in Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, No. 23-367, that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) must satisfy the Winter test to secure a preliminary injunction. The Winter...more
Earlier this week, in Starbucks v. McKinney, 602 U.S. ____ _2024), the Supreme Court resolved a disagreement among federal appeals courts on how requests for injunctive relief under Section 10(j) of the National Labor...more
Executive Summary: On June 13, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled in favor of Starbucks, and employers alike, holding that when district courts consider a request for preliminary injunction under...more
In Starbucks v. McKinney, the Supreme Court of the United States clarified the standard for injunctive relief under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA or the “Act”)....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
The Supreme Court just sided with Starbucks in a case where the Labor Board tried to force the company to temporarily reinstate workers who were fired for hosting media interviews afterhours in a closed store. Starbucks said...more
It is time to take stock of where we are with potential new employment-related laws now that we have passed the first major deadline in California’s legislative calendar. May 24 marked the deadline for pending legislation to...more
On May 14, 2024, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted a petition for interim injunctive relief under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) that was filed by the...more
On April 26, 2024, Ctrl Alt Destroy, Inc. (“CAD”), a California Corporation and cannabis licensee filed a lawsuit against Nicole Elliott in her official capacity as Director of the State of California’s Department of Cannabis...more
We have reported extensively over the last few years regarding the many pro-labor decisions issued by the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”), which largely align with General Counsel (“GC”) Jennifer Abruzzo’s expansive...more
On Friday, January 12, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal from Starbucks on a case involving the termination of seven Memphis, Tennessee employees....more