Federal Court Denies Preliminary Injunction in Lawsuit Challenging Florida's Stop WOKE Act

On April 22, 2022, Governor DeSantis signed into law the Individual Freedom Act—otherwise known as the "Stop WOKE Act"—which set to amend several statutes relating to education and employee rights. Scheduled to go into effect on July 1, 2022, the Stop WOKE Act prohibits employers from mandating employees to attend trainings that endorse certain topics regarding race, color, sex, and/or national origin. We previously wrote a byline which explained in further detail what the Stop WOKE Act specifically prohibits. More ›

US Supreme Court Ruling Allows California Employers to Enforce Arbitration Agreements and Limit PAGA Claims

The United States Supreme Court's recent decision in Viking River Cruises v. Moriana, No. 20–1573 (June 15, 2022) benefits California employers as it will make it easier for them to enforce arbitration agreements related to claims under California's Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) and limit class actions and quasi-class actions. More ›

Third Circuit Ruling Helps Clarify Reasonableness of Accommodations in Resolving Conflict Between Work Requirements and Employee Religious Beliefs or Practices

It just got harder to get out of working on the Sabbath on the basis of religion. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently issued its opinion in Groff v. Dejoy, rejecting a mail carrier's repeated attempts to avoid working on Sundays due to his religious beliefs. The Court's opinion centered on the reasonableness of accommodations that would adjust an employee's work schedule for religious reasons and ultimately concluded that granting Groff's request for a blanket exemption from Sunday work would have placed an undue hardship on the United States Postal Service. More ›

General Counsel of NLRB Seeks to Revoke Right of Employers to Recognize a Union on a Voluntarily Basis and Insist on a Private Ballot Election

Voluntary recognition of a union as the exclusive bargaining representative for employees within an identified bargaining unit of the employer can have potentially game-changing consequences for an employer. However, if the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) agrees to adopt the position of its General Counsel in a brief filed on April 11th in Cemex Construction Materials Pacific, LLC, No. 28-CA-230115., the landscape regarding union representation of employees in the workplace will change dramatically. It will become much easier for unions to organize and more difficult for employers to insist upon a private ballot election. Employees also will lose the right to vote in a private ballot election in many situations. More ›

U.S. Supreme Court Removes Prejudice Requirement From Arbitration Waiver Test

In deciding Morgan v. Sundance, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court has resolved a circuit split, answering the question of whether a party must show prejudice when arguing that the opposing party waived its right to compel arbitration. Previously, all federal circuit courts except the Seventh and D.C. Circuits used an arbitration-specific waiver rule that requires a showing of prejudice. The Supreme Court has now eliminated this requirement. More ›

New York City Salary Transparency Law Receives Clarification and Subsequent Amendment

The pending Salary Transparency Law (the Law)—which requires New York City employers to disclose the minimum and maximum salary when posting an advertisement for a job, promotion, or transfer opportunity—was  further clarified by the New York City Commission on Human Rights and subsequently amended by the New York City Council. More ›

New Amendment to New York Civil Rights Law Requires Employers to Provide Notice to Employees of Electronic Monitoring

A previously enacted amendment to the New York Civil Rights Law, effective May 7, 2022, requires employers to provide written or electronic notice to newly hired employees if the employer intends to monitor or intercept telephone conversations, email, or internet access or usage. The amendment also requires employers to obtain an employee's written or electronic acknowledgment before monitoring them. In addition, the employer must post notice of the electronic monitoring in a "conspicuous place," which is readily accessible to the employees who are subject to electronic monitoring to view. More ›

FMLA Case Demonstrates that Employees Cannot Use Protected Leave as a Shield Against Warranted Discipline, Even Discharge

The intersection between an employer's obligations under the Family & Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and its enforcement of performance standards sometimes feels fraught with fear. However, nothing in the FMLA prohibits an employer from taking action against an employee for legitimate reasons, even when that employee is on or returns from a protected leave. Those were the issues before the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Anderson v. Nations Lending Corporation decided on March 9, 2022. More ›

Useful Road Map for Employers to Conduct Direct Threat Analysis Under the ADA

Most employers are familiar with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and its requirement  to provide reasonable accommodations to qualified individuals with disabilities. There is less certainty about the extent of this obligation. For example, what if no reasonable accommodation could eliminate the danger—the "direct threat"—the individual poses in the workplace? More ›

California Supreme Court Expands Protections for Employees Claiming to be "Whistleblowers"

On January 27, 2022, the California Supreme Court issued its Opinion in Lawson v. PPG Architectural Finishes, No. S266001, __  Cal. 5th ___, 2022 Cal. Lexis 312 (Jan. 27, 2022) regarding the proof paradigm in California "whistleblower" retaliation cases. This decision increases the evidentiary burden on defendants seeking summary judgment. It also clarifies that the proof paradigm in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), does not apply to California whistleblower claims. McDonnell Douglas established a three-step burden-shifting framework in discrimination cases. The California Supreme Court took the opportunity to clarify the evidentiary burdens and noted that section 1102.6 of the California Labor Code already provides a complete description of the evidentiary burden in a whistleblower case. More ›