The Chartwell Chronicles: Employment Law
Managing the Size and Structure of Your Post-Pandemic Workforce
#WorkforceWednesday: OSHA ETS on Hold, Retaliation Claims Increase, "Vaccination Ambassadors" - Employment Law This Week®
On June 13, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt a blow to the National Labor Relations Board’s (“NLRB” or the “Board”) ability to seek injunctive relief during the pendency of an unfair labor practice proceeding. In a near...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
On December 13, 2023, an Eleventh Circuit panel firmly established “but-for” causation as the Circuit’s causation standard for Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) retaliation claims. Courts across the nation have adopted...more
In an 8-1 decision, the United States Supreme Court recently held in Badgerow v. Walters that federal courts may not examine the substance of arbitration disputes to establish federal question jurisdiction under Sections 9...more
Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court provided very helpful instruction on how to enforce arbitration agreements under the Federal Arbitration Act. Short answer: most of the time, arbitrations will get enforced in state court,...more
On March 31, 2022, the US Supreme Court issued a significant decision in Badgerow v. Walters, No. 20-1143, ending a circuit split about when federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction to review domestic arbitration...more
Thursday delivered some welcome good news in the slow push for a labor market recovery. The Labor Department reported that new jobless benefits claims “fell to their lowest weekly level in the last year, a sign that the...more
Key Points •The ministerial exception protects religious employers from government interference in internal employment disputes involving the selection, supervision, and removal of individuals who play an important role...more
On July 8, 2020, in a 7–2 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court in Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru expanded the “ministerial exception,” which allows religious organizations to avoid federal anti-discrimination...more
In Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru, 591 U.S. ___, 2020 WL 3808420 (2020) (“Morrissey-Berru”), the United States Supreme Court provided further guidance on the application of the “ministerial exception,” which...more
October 7, 2019 marked the beginning of a new U.S. Supreme Court term. One significant employment law matter the Court is expected to rule on has to do with lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (“LGBT”) rights. In a trio of...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: On October 8th, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in a trio of cases that may decide whether Title VII prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. In much of the...more
This month's key California employment law cases involve EEOC charges, disability discrimination, and meal breaks....more
Last month the U.S. Supreme Court simultaneously resolved a long-running dispute about procedure under Title VII and sent a message to employers that it is important to pay attention and act promptly when faced with a Title...more
Before initiating a lawsuit under Title VII, a complainant must first file a charge of discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) within 180 days of the alleged act of discrimination....more
In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Title VII’s charge-filing precondition to suit is not a jurisdictional requirement and is instead a procedural prescription that is subject to forfeiture, refusing to...more
The Situation: The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that filing a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") is not a jurisdictional prerequisite to bringing a Title VII lawsuit. The...more
On June 3, 2019, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis, resolving a circuit split regarding whether Title VII’s charge-filing requirement with the Equal Employment Opportunity...more
In Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis (U.S. June 3, 2019), the U.S. Supreme Court (Court) held that the charge-filing requirement under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) is not jurisdictional. The case...more
On June 3, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously resolved a split among federal appellate courts dealing with the question of whether Title VII’s requirement that plaintiffs file an administrative charge with the Equal...more
Recently, in Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis, the U.S. Supreme Court was faced with a jurisdictional question: If a plaintiff fails to exhaust her remedies by first filing an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”)...more
The U.S. Supreme Court recently clarified that the requirement that a plaintiff exhaust his/her administrative remedies before filing a discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act is a mandatory...more
Welcome to June! As we head into the summer, the employment law world continues to heat up! We have rounded up the most recent developments impacting employers for your summer reading pleasure here....more
Seyfarth Synopsis: New decision from the Supreme Court ruled that Title VII’s requirement that plaintiffs file with the EEOC or other state agencies is a non-jurisdictional claim-processing rule, which means it can be...more
The Supreme Court held in Fort Bend County v. Davis that the charge-filing precondition to suit of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a mandatory claim-processing rule subject to waiver, not a jurisdictional bar to...more