#WorkforceWednesday: New Jersey's WARN Act to Become Strictest in Nation - Employment Law This Week®
#WorkforceWednesday: EEOC Targets Abortion Travel, Midterm Results, and SCOTUS Declines COVID-19 WARN Act Case - Employment Law This Week®
WARNing Signs When Building Your Post-Pandemic Workforce
COVID-19 in the Workplace - PPP Update, COVID Plans from the Biden Transition Team, Higher Education Relief Package Provision, COVID WARN Act Developments
#WorkforceWednesday: CDC Permits Shortened Quarantine Periods, CAL/OSHA COVID-19 Regulations, NY Amends WARN Act - Employment Law This Week®
Williams Mullen's COVID-19 Comeback Plan: Conducting Reductions in Force Post COVID-19
#WorkforceWednesday: Providing Answers to Your Global Workforce Questions, Executive Compensation and COVID-19, WARN Act - Employment Law This Week®
Employment Law Now IV-60- WARN Act Considerations With The Coronavirus Pandemic
The Year Ahead in Caffeinated Organizing- With a White House and National Labor Relations Board that are more pro-labor than most recent past administrations, a “labor renaissance” will be the overarching theme of 2023....more
This week, we break down the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC’s) recent commissioner charges surrounding abortion travel benefits, potential changes to employer policies due to midterm election results, and the...more
Takeaways - Litigants will ask the Court to rule on an array of matters growing out of the COVID-19 pandemic, beyond challenges to Biden administration’s vaccine policies. The preemption of state employment laws by...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: As the Supreme Court prepares to hear oral arguments on a key case that could have major ramifications on the scope of ERISA preemption, two recent case developments show just how important the high court’s...more
It’s hard to keep up with all the recent changes to labor and employment law. While the law always seems to evolve at a rapid pace, there have been an unprecedented number of changes for the past few years—and this past month...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
The 2016-17 Supreme Court term was truly a mixed bag for employers. The Court limited presidential power, reined in the appellate courts’ authority to review and overturn trial court decisions regarding EEOC subpoenas,...more
In Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., 137 S. Ct. 973 (2017), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a bankruptcy court was not authorized to approve a structured dismissal of a Chapter 11 case that violated the absolute priority...more
In one of the first of many cases to determine the scope of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Jevic, the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee denied a proposed settlement by the Debtor that the court...more
The Bankruptcy Code contemplates that a Chapter 11 bankruptcy case will be concluded in one of three ways: a confirmed Chapter 11 plan, a conversion to Chapter 7 for liquidation of remaining estate assets, or a dismissal of...more
On March 22, 2017, the United States Supreme Court (the Supreme Court) in In re Jevic Holdings Corp. held that a final disposition of estate funds cannot violate the Bankruptcy Code’s priority system by distributing value to...more
In 2015, Distressing Matters reported on the Third Circuit’s decision in In re Jevic Holding Corp., wherein that panel ruled that, in rare circumstances, bankruptcy courts may approve the distribution of settlement proceeds...more
It’s hard to keep up with all the recent changes to labor and employment law. While it always seems to evolve at a rapid pace, the last few months have seen an unprecedented number of changes. March 2017 was another month...more
On March 22, 2017 in Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp. (SCOTUS Case no. 15-649), the Supreme Court of the United States held that a bankruptcy court was not authorized to approve a structured dismissal of a Chapter 11 case...more
The United States Supreme Court recently decided a case that impacts lenders and other creditors in Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. The Supreme Court held that a bankruptcy court may not approve a “structured dismissal” of...more
In a 6-2 decision on March 22, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that bankruptcy courts may not approve a structured dismissal of a Chapter 11 case that provided for distributions of estate funds that do not follow...more
On March 22, 2017 the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited ruling regarding the legality of structured dismissals of Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases that would make final distributions of estate assets to creditors in a manner...more
A potential threat to the Code’s priority scheme is the allowance of “structured dismissals,” which include a settlement as part of the dismissal of the chapter 11 case that would distribute estate assets in a manner that...more
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on March 22, 2017, in Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., that without the consent of affected creditors, bankruptcy courts may not approve "structured dismissals" providing for distributions that...more
In a highly anticipated bankruptcy opinion, the United States Supreme Court, in Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., held that courts may not approve structured dismissals providing for distributions that deviate from the...more
In a much anticipated decision issued on March 22, 2017, the United States Supreme Court determined in Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp. (“Jevic”) that a “structured dismissal” of a bankruptcy case cannot include a...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: A bankruptcy court overseeing an employer’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding allowed the employer to pay certain unsecured creditors before paying Worker Adjustment And Retraining Notification Act (“WARN”)...more
The U.S. Supreme Court held today in a 6 to 2 decision that “structured dismissals” resolving Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings cannot deviate from the Bankruptcy Code’s priority scheme without the consent of the affected...more
Shortly after the Supreme Court’s decisions in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (2011) and AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 321 (2011), I appeared before a federal district judge on a motion to dismiss...more
In This Issue: - US Supreme Court Rules on Donning and Doffing Issue - NLRB Judge Invalidates Arbitration Agreement Without Class Action Waiver - Second Circuit Rules on Single Employer Liability Under the WARN...more