Workforce Bulletin

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we're highlighting several last-minute changes from federal agencies before the Trump administration takes office.

These changes include the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB’s) recent ban on captive audience meetings, a federal judge's decision to vacate the Department of Labor's (DOL’s) overtime rule, and the return of Wage and Hour Division opinion letters.

For business leaders and in-house counsel, establishing clear investigation protocols is vital for protecting corporate integrity and managing risks related to whistleblowing and retaliation.

Epstein Becker Green (EBG) attorney Greg Keating brings over 25 years of experience in litigation and employment law to this compelling one-on-one interview. Known for his pivotal contributions to developing effective investigation protocols, Greg recently led the formation of EBG’s cross-disciplinary Workplace Investigations practice group, which now includes nearly 70 attorneys across the firm’s expansive network.

Whether addressing a minor complaint or responding to a media storm stirred by an ambitious reporter, your whistleblowing investigations can significantly benefit from proactive measures and protocols.

Tune in as Greg is interviewed by fellow EBG attorney George Whipple, to share real-world examples of proactive measures and tactical steps to safeguard corporate reputation—strategies that could mean the difference between effective damage control and long-term duress.

On November 21, 2024, legislation will take effect in South Carolina, making that state the latest jurisdiction to regulate earned wage access (EWA) programs. EWA programs are generally targeted towards lower-wage earners, allowing employees to obtain a portion of their paycheck before the employer’s scheduled payday. While EWA can be a lifeline for employees living paycheck to paycheck, consumer advocates worry that hidden and not-so-hidden fees associated with such programs could increase users’ aggregated debt, to the detriment of their long-term financial well-being.

To combat such concerns, states have begun to implement rules requiring employers and third parties offering EWA programs to abide by certain standards. States differ, however, on whether payroll advances though EWA programs should be treated as loans. Categorizing EWA advances in this way obligates employers and third-party providers to abide by a complex set of banking regulations. Thus, it is important for employers that offer or are considering an EWA program to understand the implications, which vary depending on the states where the employer does business.

How EWA Programs Work

Advances under EWA programs are either provided directly by employers as a benefit to employees or by third-party providers directly to consumers. If an employee opts to advance a portion of their paycheck through an employer-provided program, the employer or payroll provider reduces the subsequent paycheck amount on payday to recover the advance. If an employee enrolls in an EWA through a third-party provider, the provider removes the advanced amount from the employee’s direct deposit account on payday.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday: This week, on our Spilling Secrets podcast series, our panelists outline the benefits of intellectual property (IP) audits and trade secret assessments for employers and organizations looking to safeguard their assets.

Beyond Non-Competes: IP and Trade Secret Assessment Strategies for Employers

With non-compete agreements facing continual legal pressure, what are some other ways employers can protect their trade secrets and IP?

In this episode of Spilling Secrets, Epstein Becker Green attorneys Daniel R. Levy, Gregory J. Krabacher, and Hemant Gupta describe how IP audits and trade secret assessments can offer a uniquely targeted approach to protecting sensitive information, ensuring a company has a grasp of the full scope of their assets.

New Jersey has joined the growing ranks of jurisdictions that have enacted pay transparency laws. Senate Bill 2310 (“the Law”) was enacted on November 10, 2024, and approved on November 18, 2024 as Public Law 2024, chapter 91. The Law will take effect on June 1, 2025, i.e., “the first day of the seventh month next following the date of enactment,” and will require most New Jersey employers to disclose a wage or salary range and a general description of benefits and other compensation programs in their job postings and advertisements. The Law also will require covered employers to make “reasonable efforts to announce, post, or otherwise make known opportunities for promotion” to current employees, a feature that is not common in similar laws enacted by other jurisdictions.

Covered Employers

The Law applies to any employer that has 10 or more employees over 20 calendar weeks and does business, employs persons, or takes applications for employment within the state.

Note that employers in Jersey City with five or more employees within Jersey City are already required to comply with that city’s ordinance mandating the disclosure of salary information in postings. This ordinance remains in effect, which means that Jersey City employers with five to nine employees that will be exempt from the state’s law must still comply with the city’s law.

With 2024 winding down, New York employers should be aware of the updates to the New York State Paid Family Leave (PFL) program that take effect in 2025.

As a reminder, PFL allows eligible employees to take up to 12 weeks of job-protected, partially paid time off within a 52-week period for permitted reasons, such as to bond with a newborn, care for a family member with a serious health condition or assist when a family member is deployed abroad on active military service.

As we noted in a bulletin post last year, New York has modified its program several times since establishing PFL in 2018. While PFL’s changes for 2025, as explained below, are ministerial, it should be noted that New York recently expanded other mandatory benefits, including the provision of paid lactation breaks and the addition of paid leave for prenatal care under the New York paid sick leave program. 

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we're analyzing how the upcoming Trump administration may affect National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) policies and enforcement priorities promoting union activity, recent court decisions on union protections, and high-profile strikes and evolving worker demands.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we’re underlining the importance of managing election-related tensions in the workplace.

Both political parties have called this the most consequential election in recent history, which means that this morning in your workplace, some employees are celebrating, and others might be feeling hurt, disappointed, or maybe even fearful. What can employers do to help?

Epstein Becker Green attorneys Susan Gross Sholinsky and Michael S. Ferrell outline proactive strategies employers can adopt to prevent potential workplace incidents and describe protections surrounding political speech, as governed by laws like the National Labor Relations Act.

California continues to be the birthplace of ideas that complicate employment laws. True to form, it is the first state to adopt the concept of intersectionality in its anti-discrimination statutes.

On September 27, 2024, Governor Newsom signed Senate Bill 1137 (SB 1137) into law. This legislation amends several provisions of existing California law to clarify that unlawful discriminatory practices may include “any combination” of protected characteristics or traits – not just a single one. 

Of particular importance to companies: SB 1137 thus modifies  the Unruh Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination by business establishments, and California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), which prohibits harassment and discrimination in employment. The updates to these laws will take effect on January 1, 2025.

Lam v. University of Hawaii

While SB 1137 is the first statutory law of its kind, the concept of intersectional discrimination is not new. Thirty years ago, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addressed this challenge. In Lam v. University of Hawaii, a woman of Vietnamese descent filed a lawsuit against the University of Hawaii Richardson School of Law, alleging that the law school violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by discriminating against her on the bases of her race, sex, and national origin. Lam had applied but was twice rejected from the law school’s Pacific Asian Legal Studies Program.

Election Day is Tuesday, November 5. During this election season, employers may question whether the law requires them to allow employees time off to vote, often referred to as “voting leave”, and if so, whether such leave is paid. Perhaps just as urgently, employers may need to manage workplace political talk and potential consequences.

The short answer about voting leave is the same lawyers often give: it depends! Most states and many local jurisdictions have their own laws addressing voting leave and related rights. This article is not a comprehensive, state-by-state guide, and employers should check applicable laws in their jurisdictions when in doubt. Instead, this overview is a reminder of potential issues and best practices to ensure a safe and legally sound workplace in the days before and after Election Day.

Voting Leave

State and local laws on voting leave impose varying obligations on employers. Employers should review the applicable state laws and regulations of every jurisdiction in which they have employees. To highlight a few:

• California: if an employee doesn’t have sufficient time outside of working hours to vote, the employee may take off enough working time that, when added to the voting time available outside of working hours, will enable the employee to vote. Up to two hours of working time off must be without loss of pay. The time off can be at the start or end of the working shift. If the employee knows in advance that time off will be necessary to vote, the employee must give the employer at least two working days’ notice. Note that the law requires employers to post a notice to employees advising them of their rights regarding voting leave.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday: This week, on our Spilling Secrets podcast series, our panelists connect the enchantment of Harry Potter with the intricacies of trade secrets and restrictive covenants:

Prepare to be spellbound this Halloween as we cast a magical twist on the realm of trade secrets and restrictive covenants! Whether you're a Gryffindor at heart or more of a Slytherin, there's something for every magical mind seeking to safeguard their organization’s trade secrets.

Epstein Becker Green attorneys A. Millie Warner, Jill K. Bigler, and Aime Dempsey team up with Kristen O’Connor—Senior Assistant General Counsel, Employment at Marsh & McLennan Companies—to wave their legal wands over topics such as Professor Snape’s secret potion book, Hermione’s clever jinxes, and much more.

On October 3, 2024, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia’s Opinion and Order in Mark C. Savignac and Julia Sheketoff v. Jones Day, et al., 19-cv-02443-RDM, addressed Title VII’s “participation clause,” in granting in part and denying in part, the law firm’s motion for summary judgment.

The court further denied plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs, a married couple who were both formerly employed as attorneys (she resigned in 2018, he was terminated in 2019), alleged federal and state discrimination and retaliation claims based on their objections to Jones Day’s unequal parental leave policies. In the latter part of the opinion, the Court analyzed whether Savignac engaged in protected activity under the participation clause of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”).

In addition to prohibiting discrimination, Title VII’s provisions protect a covered individual from employer retaliation when the individual participates in an investigation or opposes covered unlawful conduct. These provisions—commonly referred to as the “participation clause” and “opposition clause”—are intended to encourage employees to report, and employers to address, discrimination in the workplace. 

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we’re examining the final mental health parity rules, a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) memo on restrictive covenant limitations, and New York State’s recently enacted workplace violence prevention law.

On September 24, 2024, the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”), collaborating with the Partnership on Employment & Accessible Technology (“PEAT”), a non-governmental organization the DOL funds and supports, announced the publication of the “AI & Inclusive Hiring Framework,” (“the DOL’s Framework”). The DOL’s Framework, created in response to the Biden-Harris Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence, helps employers create and maintain non-discriminatory artificial intelligence (“AI”) hiring procedures for job seekers with disabilities. (For more information on the Biden-Harris Executive Order, see our Workforce Bulletin.)

Establishing these procedures has become a top priority for employers as nearly 1 in 4 organizations have implemented AI tools in human resource departments, according to new research from SHRM.

AI-powered recruitment and selection tools can streamline the hiring process by identifying potential candidates or screening applicant resumes, but employers must ensure their AI hiring tools do not intentionally or unintentionally perpetuate discriminatory practices or create barriers for job seekers with disabilities. Employers may rely on the DOL’s Framework as a useful starting point when implementing AI hiring tools.  Employers that have already implemented such tools should review the DOL’s Framework to ensure their practices do not create unwanted liability.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we’re examining how recent employer-initiated challenges to the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB’s) structure have arisen due to the agency’s broad interpretation of its enforcement authority, leading to significant legal obstacles.

The NLRB is facing significant legal challenges from employers after a series of controversial rulings. Could the NLRB’s structure be at risk?

Epstein Becker Green attorneys Stuart M. Gerson and Laura H. Schuman discuss how the NLRB’s broad interpretation of their enforcement authority under the National Labor Relations Act has invited legal challenges. Additionally, they examine how the U.S. Supreme Court’s Loper Bright decision is perceived to create a more favorable environment for contesting the NLRB’s authority.

We previously reported that the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development (“NJDOL”) issued proposed regulations to implement New Jersey’s Temporary Workers’ Bill of Rights (the “Act”), including its pay equity requirement. On September 16, 2024, the NJDOL adopted N.J.A.C. 12:72 (the “Regulations”) implementing sections 1 through 7, and 10 of the Act, pertaining to “workplace protections, as well as temporary help service firm and third-party client responsibilities.” The key provisions are summarized below.

Pay Equity Requirement

Significantly, the Regulations provide a formula for calculating the minimum hourly rate of pay for temporary workers, which under the Act is determined by “the average rate of pay and average cost of benefits” of comparator employees, i.e., employees of the third-party client who perform:

the same or substantially similar work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions for the third-party client at the time the temporary laborer is assigned to work at the third-party client.

As more organizations across industry sectors store personal data with cloud storage vendors— including the three largest vendors in the world, Amazon Web Services (AWS), Microsoft Azure, and Google Cloud Platform—federal regulatory agencies are increasing their scrutiny of data control efforts and vetting the data privacy and security protocols of third-party vendors. AT&T’s recent settlement with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) serves as a cautionary tale.

What Is the Cloud?

In case your cloud knowledge is, well, nebulous, cloud data storage allows user organizations to store data on remote servers that are maintained by a third party and are located off site. Users then access the data via the internet. This enables seamless collaboration and accessibility by users in disparate locations, without the burden of physical infrastructure.

According to Precedence Research, the cloud computing market will continue to rise, with the global market predicted to surpass $1 trillion by 2028. A 2023 survey of  hospital and health system leaders conducted by Global Healthcare Exchange (GBX) found “cloud-based solutions are quickly becoming a new standard within hospitals and health systems and impact nearly every domain, including supply chain, clinical, finance, and HR teams.” The survey revealed that nearly 70 percent of all hospitals and health systems are likely to adopt a cloud-based approach by 2026.

The benefits of cloud storage include scalability, cost efficiencies, increased user accessibility, and improved operational resiliency. Cloud technology can even lead to increased cybersecurity. Yet the GBX study still emphasizes the importance of selecting the “right cloud partner” to achieve the best outcome and stronger data security.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we’re spotlighting the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) decision to withdraw from a federal labor pact; the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC’s) report on alleged underrepresentation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)-related jobs; and an appellate court’s affirmation of the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB’s) McLaren Macomb decision.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we’re interpreting the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL’s) recently updated cybersecurity guidance for all employee benefit plans covered under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

The DOL recently clarified that its 2021 cybersecurity guidance applies to all ERISA-covered employee benefit plans, including health and welfare plans. This clarification raises important questions for employers regarding compliance and security.

Epstein Becker Green attorneys Brian G. Cesaratto and Samuel C. Nolan provide their analysis of the key cybersecurity considerations and best practices for risk mitigation that employers should consider in light of the updated guidance.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we take a closer look at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s decision to strike down the Department of Labor’s (DOL’s) tip credit rule but to uphold the agency’s authority to set a minimum salary threshold for overtime exemptions.

The Fifth Circuit recently struck down the DOL’s tip credit rule, finding that the agency had exceeded its authority under the Fair Labor Standards Act. However, that same court later upheld the DOL’s authority to set a minimum salary threshold for overtime exemptions.

Epstein Becker Green attorney Paul DeCamp, who represented the restaurant plaintiffs in the tip credit case alongside Kathleen Barrett, offers his interpretation of these significant court decisions and what they mean for employers.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday: This week, on our Spilling Secrets podcast series, our panelists delve into the implications for employers following the recent blockage of the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) non-compete ban.

On August 20, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas invalidated the FTC’s non-compete ban, deeming it arbitrary and capricious and beyond the scope of the agency’s statutory authority.

In this episode of Spilling Secrets, Epstein Becker Green attorneys Peter A. Steinmeyer, Erik W. Weibust, and Paul DeCamp tell us more about the court’s decision to block the ban, what legal challenges remain, and the key considerations for employers moving forward. 

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we’re highlighting a few state-level employment issues, including the legal challenges faced by Staples Inc. regarding the Massachusetts lie detector ban; New Jersey’s implementation of a gender-neutral dress code for businesses; and the varying voting leave policies across states in preparation for the November election.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we’re examining the repercussions for employers of a recent court decision that set aside the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) nationwide non-compete ban:

On August 20, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas blocked the FTC’s ban on non-compete agreements nationwide. What does this mean for employers?

Epstein Becker Green attorney Peter A. Steinmeyer tells us what employers should be doing now and outlines the implications of this decision on existing and future non-compete agreements.

A growing number of states and municipalities have passed “fair chance” laws that, to varying degrees, prohibit employers from inquiring into a job applicant’s criminal background during the hiring process or restrict employers from using certain criminal conviction information in connection with their hiring decisions. Recently, Los Angeles County joined this group and New York City is posed to again amend the rules for its existing law. The Los Angeles developments create new intricacies for employers, while the New York actions may be best understood as clarification of existing law. In either case, keeping up with the changes is important for employers who are hiring in those locations. 

Los Angeles County’s New Law

The Los Angeles County Fair Chance Ordinance for Employers (“FCO”) was adopted by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors on February 7, 2024, and becomes operative on September 3, 2024. The FCO was designed to complement California’s “Ban-the Box” law, called the Fair Chance Act (“FCA”), and introduces additional compliance requirements for covered employers, including, but not limited to, mandatory language for job postings and solicitations, and written notice requirements in connection with the extension of a conditional offer of employment.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we’re analyzing the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ’s) new Corporate Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program and its impact on employers:

The DOJ’s new Corporate Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program introduces significant changes for employers, particularly those in private health care and financial institutions. So, what details do employers need to be aware of?

Epstein Becker Green attorney Gregory Keating describes how employers can protect their businesses and stay ahead of potential legal challenges.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we’re looking at recent state-level changes and legal trends that have varying degrees of impact on employers.

The Michigan Supreme Court has written the latest, and perhaps last, chapter of an ongoing saga affecting most Michigan employers. In Mothering Justice v. Attorney General, the Michigan Supreme Court fully restored sweeping minimum wage and paid sick leave laws, bringing finality to a legal controversy that has been churning since the laws were first proposed in 2018. Pursuant to that decision, the laws will take full effect in their original form, about six months from now, on February 21, 2025.

How We Got Here

In 2018, labor advocacy groups presented the Michigan legislature with two voter initiatives related to minimum wage (the Improved Workforce Opportunity Wage Act (IWOWA)) and paid sick leave (the Earned Sick Time Act (ESTA)) through the state’s citizen initiative process. Michigan’s constitution allows voter initiatives to propose legislation, and the legislature may take one of these three actions: (1) adopt “without change or amendment”; (2) reject and place the proposed legislation on the ballot; or (3) reject and propose an amendment, placing both on the ballot. As we previously explained, the Legislature quickly enacted amended versions of the IWOWA (2018 PA 368) and the ESTA, which was renamed the Paid Medical Leave Act (PMLA) (2018 PA 369), with significant changes. As we detailed here, the amended versions of these laws were less burdensome to employers.

The legislature’s actions led the initiatives’ advocates to file a legal action challenging the lawmakers’ authority to modify a voter initiative so quickly and dramatically through a process labeled “adopt and amend.”  That lawsuit has wended its way through Michigan’s courts, with the final outcome decided on July 31, 2024, echoing that of the initial holding issued in 2022: the Michigan legislature’s adoption-and-amendment of the two initiatives violated the State constitution’s provision on voter initiatives. Hence, those amendments are void as unconstitutional and the laws as originally conceived should take effect.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday: This week, on our Spilling Secrets podcast series, our panelists discuss the ongoing legal challenges to the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) nationwide non-compete ban and what the future may hold for employers:

On July 23, 2024, a federal judge in Pennsylvania denied a motion to enjoin the FTC’s non-compete ban. This ruling is in direct opposition to one by a district court in Texas that enjoined the ban in early July.

In this episode of Spilling Secrets, Epstein Becker Green attorneys Peter A. Steinmeyer, A. Millie Warner, and Paul DeCamp look into their crystal ball and make their own predictions for how the FTC’s non-compete ban may or may not survive in the courts.

The New York City Council recently amended Sections 8-109 and 8-502 of the New York City Administrative Code, directly affecting employment agreements.  

Under the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL), employees have one year to file a complaint or claim with the New York City Commission on Human Rights (NYCCHR) for unlawful discriminatory practices or acts of discriminatory harassment or violence. Employees have three years to file a claim of gender-based harassment. The statute of limitations for commencing a civil action under the NYCHRL is three years.

Effective May 11, 2024, the amendments to Sections 8-109 and 8-502 of the NYCHRL prohibit provisions in employment agreements that shorten these statutory periods for filing complaints or claims with the NYCCHR or commencing civil actions under the NYCHRL. Below we outline the key implications of this new law for employers.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we’re examining a Texas court's recent decision that questions the constitutional authority of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB):

Last week, a Texas district judge challenged the constitutionality of the NLRB’s structure. Judge Albright of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas issued a preliminary injunction in favor of SpaceX, suggesting that the president’s inability to dismiss NLRB administrative law judges and board members could be unconstitutional. Epstein Becker Green attorneys Steve Swirsky and Erin Schaefer provide their analysis of this ruling, its implications for employers, and the potential for similar challenges to arise across other jurisdictions.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday: This week, on our Spilling Secrets podcast series, our panelists discuss the current state of the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) nationwide non-compete ban amid ongoing legal challenges:

The FTC’s ban on non-competes will go into effect on September 4, 2024, but legal challenges remain. So, how can employers prepare?

In this episode of Spilling Secrets, Epstein Becker Green attorneys Peter A. Steinmeyer, Erik W. Weibust, and Paul DeCamp tell us more about how the U.S. Supreme Court’s overruling of the Chevron doctrine might affect the FTC’s ability to regulate non-competes. They also discuss a Texas court’s preliminary injunction against the FTC’s non-compete ban* and how various legal challenges have led to a somewhat anticlimactic atmosphere in the employment landscape related to the ban.

*On Tuesday, July 23, after this episode was recorded, a federal judge in Pennsylvania reached the opposite conclusion and declined to temporarily halt the FTC’s non-compete ban.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we’re delving into the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent overturning of the Chevron doctrine and how this landmark decision is opening the floodgates for challenges against federal agencies.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we’re examining California Governor Gavin Newsom’s new deal that was brokered to amend the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA).  

Last week, Governor Newsom announced that California’s business and labor groups had come to an agreement to reform PAGA. Two legislative bills encompassing the agreed-upon PAGA reforms (AB 2288 and SB 92) were signed into law by Governor Newsom on July 1, 2024. Epstein Becker Green attorney Kevin Sullivan tells us more about the PAGA reforms, their potential impact on California employers, and who the likely winners and losers are.

New York State has long required employers to support working mothers by providing certain accommodations for nursing employees. Last year, the State imposed a written lactation accommodation policy requirement on all employers, following the lead of New York City and California (among other jurisdictions) [see our Insight on the lactation accommodation legislation here]. As of June 19, 2024, employers’ obligations have again expanded: all New York State employers must provide 30 minutes of paid break time for employees to express breast milk for their nursing child for up to three years following the child’s birth.

The obligations are prescribed by an amendment to the State’s breastmilk expression law, New York Labor Law § 206-C (the “Law”), which was enacted as part of a package of legislation accompanying the New York State Budget for Fiscal Year 2024-2025, signed into law on April 20, 2024 by New York Governor Kathy Hochul. Shortly before the Law took effect, the New York State Department of Labor (NYSDOL) published new materials under the headline “Breast Milk Expression in the Workplace,” including general information about the Law, a policy statement, information sheets for employees and employers, and frequently asked questions (FAQs).

The Supreme Court’s June 28 decision to overrule the 40-year-old case of Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council should not be cause for alarm. It is, however, likely to have implications for employers that are subject to the myriad of workplace laws administered by the United States Department of Labor, the National Labor Relations Board and other executive branch bodies.

Why the Buzz About Chevron?

For decades, courts have relied on the so-called Chevron doctrine—a mandate by which judges were required to defer to agency expertise when handling controversies surrounding Executive Branch policy, but that rule ended with Loper Bright Enterprises et al., v. Raimondo. While the categorical rejection of Chevron—as inconsistent with the responsibility of courts defined in the APA—went farther than most analysts expected, it should be noted, as Justice Neil Gorsuch’s concurrence makes clear, that the Supreme Court hasn’t decided a case on the basis of Chevron since 2016.

Recently, in Lewis v. Crochet et al., the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit rejected an attempt by a plaintiff to use the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege to compel two lawyers’ production of attorney-client privileged documents and information, which they obtained during the course of an investigation they conducted for Louisiana State University in 2013.

Lewis arose out of a lawsuit filed by the plaintiff, an African American woman formerly employed as an assistant athletic director for LSU, claiming that LSU and individual LSU board members discriminated and retaliated against her after she experienced and witnessed numerous instances of racist and sexist misconduct from LSU’s then-head football coach. The privilege dispute came to a head when plaintiff sought to compel LSU’s production of information from the 2013 Title IX investigation into sexual harassment allegations by LSU students against the then-head coach. Those documents remained in the possession of the law firm that conducted the investigation. Attempting to overcome LSU’s assertion of the attorney-client privilege, plaintiff invoked the crime-fraud exception arguing that LSU sought to use its lawyers to fraudulently conceal the documents in violation of Louisiana law prohibiting, among other things, the concealment of public records. The trial court agreed and ordered disclosure, but on an appeal filed by the two lawyers that conducted the 2013 investigation, the Fifth Circuit reversed.

The Massachusetts appellate court decision in Tran v. Jennings Road Management, Corp., et al, gave the green light to an employee to pursue class action claims against her direct employer as well as a separate management company based on a finding that the two entities were “joint” employers. This decision, together with the 2021 Supreme Judicial Court case on which the appellate court relied, serves as a warning to employers that sharing administrative and human resources duties with “outside” consultants or other companies may expose both companies to unforeseen liability.

After granting the parties’ request to decide the sole issue of whether the management company could face potential liability, the trial court concluded that the plaintiff, Sakiroh Tran, was jointly employed by Herb Chambers BMW car dealership, her direct employer, as well as Jennings Road Management Corp., a management company owned and controlled by Herb Chambers himself. Late last week, the Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed the trial court’s decision citing the “totality of the circumstances” test set forth in Jinks v. Credico (USA) LLC, 488 Mass. 691, 692 (2021). This ruling paves the way for plaintiff to litigate her class action claims against multiple defendants.

For employers doing business in New York, the “Freelance Isn’t Free” Act (the “Act”) signed into law by Governor Kathy Hochul in March of this year may have stirred up memories of the New York City ordinance enacted just a few years ago by the same name. Both laws establish protections for freelance workers that aim to ensure that they receive timely compensation for all services performed. The namesake state law, however, does not impose obligations identical to those required by the city-level ordinance. Moreover, some not well-publicized legislative shuffling has caused confusion about the Act and its applicability statewide.

Wait, Didn’t This Happen Already?

Earlier this year, we wrote about the Act, anticipating an effective date of May 20, 2024. However, two days after our publication, the New York State Senate took up a bill to amend the Act by removing its provisions from the New York Labor Law— which is enforced by the New York State Department of Labor (“NYSDOL”)—and codifying it instead as Article 44-A of the New York General Business Law—which is enforced by the state’s Attorney General. The governor signed this legislation on March 1, thereby bumping the Act’s effective date to August 28, 2024.

On June 3, 2024, the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights proposed new regulations addressing Disparate Impact Discrimination, N.J.A.C. 13:16 (the Proposed Rules) under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD).

The Proposed Rules clarify that in addition to the LAD’s prohibition against conduct that treats people differently because of their membership in a protected class, the law also prohibits practices and policies, in employment, housing, public accommodation, credit, and contracting, that have a disproportionately negative effect on members of a protected class, unless the practice or policy is necessary to achieve a “substantial, legitimate, nondiscriminatory interest and there is no less discriminatory, equally effective alternative that would achieve the same interest.”

The Proposed Rules, which largely codify state and federal case law, provide the legal standard and burdens of proof for determining whether a policy or practice has discriminatory effect, and give examples of practices or policies that may result in disparate impact on a protected class.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday: This week, on our Spilling Secrets podcast series, we underscore the importance of e-discovery in trade secret and restrictive covenant cases and look at how employers can use electronically stored information (ESI) to protect proprietary information:

There’s a common misperception that ESI just means emails, but it’s much more than that. ESI encompasses anything in digital or electronic form. The departure of an employee is at the root of most trade secret and restrictive covenant litigation. Therefore, when an employee departs, the timely preservation of ESI must be a standard operating procedure.

In this episode of Spilling Secrets, Epstein Becker Green attorneys A. Millie Warner and Elizabeth S. Torkelsen and special guest James Vaughn, Managing Director of iDiscovery Solutions, discuss the complicated field of digital forensics and how employers can effectively manage ESI.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) has now joined the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) in taking a stand against broad non-disclosure provisions in employment agreements. Last week, the CFTC announced a settlement with Trafigura Trading LLC, in which the company agreed to pay a $55 million penalty, in part because it required employees to sign agreements that impeded voluntary communications with the CFTC.

The Fourth Circuit recently reaffirmed that not all forms of opposition constitute protected activity. In Bills v. WVNH EMP, LLC, the Fourth Circuit unanimously affirmed the Southern District of West Virginia’s Order granting Defendants WVNH EMP, LLC, and Lanette Kuhnash’s (“Defendants”) motion for summary judgment on plaintiff Dorothy Bills’ (“Bills”) wrongful termination action under the West Virginia Human Rights Act (“WVHRA”). The sole issue was whether Bills engaged in protected activity under the WVHRA when she opposed sexual harassment by hitting a patient to stop him from groping her. Both courts agreed that Bills’ conduct was not protected by the WVHRA.

Today, we’re bringing you a special breaking news episode on the recent U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruling in the Starbucks v. McKinney case, which effectively raises the standard for federal courts issuing injunctions under section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act.

This ruling is a significant blow to the National Labor Relations Board’s enforcement priorities. In the video below, Epstein Becker Green attorney Steve Swirsky tells us more.

New York City employers, time is running out to update your bulletin boards. Local Law No. 161, which took effect January 2, 2024, requires New York City employers to display and distribute to each employee a multilingual “Know Your Rights at Work” poster (the “Poster”) by no later than July 1, 2024. The Poster’s main feature – a QR code – directs employees to the Workers’ Bill of Rights website created by the New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCWP) to summarize protections available under federal, state, and local laws.

Specifically, Local Law No. 161 requires New York City employers to:

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we’re recapping recent U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decisions and their impact on employers across the country.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday: This week, we’re focused on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC’s) filing requirements for the EEO-1 Component 1 data:

The EEOC requires private employers with 100 or more employees, as well as certain federal contractors, to submit EEO-1 reports annually. Yesterday, June 4, 2024, was the deadline for employers to file EEO-1 Component 1 data.

Epstein Becker Green attorneys Dean R. Singewald II and Marissa Vitolo discuss what to do if you missed it, as well as coming changes and how to prepare for next year.

In line with the mandates of President Biden’s Executive Order 14110, entitled “The Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence,” and its call for a coordinated U.S. government approach to ensure responsible and safe development and use of artificial intelligence (AI) systems, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) has published a Guide addressing federal contractors’ use of AI in the context of Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO).

As discussed below, the Guide comprises a set of common questions and answers about the intersection of AI and EEO, as well as so-called “promising practices” federal contractors should consider implementing in the development and deployment of AI in the EEO context. In addition, the new OFCCP “landing page” in which the new Guide appears includes a Joint Statement signed by nine other federal agencies and the OFCCP articulating their joint commitment to protect the public from unlawful bias in the use of AI and automated systems.

In response to President Biden’s Executive Order 14110 calling for a coordinated U.S. government approach to ensuring the responsible and safe development and use of AI, the U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division (WHD) issued Field Assistance Bulletin No. 2024-1 (the “Bulletin”). This Bulletin, published on April 29, 2024, provides guidance on the application of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and other federal labor standards in the context of increasing use of artificial intelligence (AI) and automated systems in the workplace.

Importantly, reinforcing the DOL’s position expressed in the Joint Statement on Enforcement of Civil Rights, Fair Competition, Consumer Protection, and Equal Opportunity Laws in Automated Systems, the WHD confirms that the historical federal laws enforced by the WHD will continue to apply to new technological innovations, such as workplace AI.  The WHD also notes that, although AI and automated systems may streamline tasks for employers, improve workplace efficiency and safety, and enhance workforce accountability, implementation of such tools without responsible human oversight may pose potential compliance challenges.

The Bulletin discusses multiple ways in which AI interacts with the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), the Providing Urgent Maternal Protections for Nursing Mothers Act (“PUMP Act”), and the Employee Polygraph Protection Act (“EPPA”). The Bulletin makes the following pronouncements regarding the potential compliance issues that may arise due to the use of AI to perform wage-and-hour tasks:

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday: This week, we’re highlighting recent updates across the state and federal employment landscapes, including the New Jersey Supreme Court’s non-disparagement ruling, the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL’s) new artificial intelligence (AI) guidelines, and the DOL’s restructuring of Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA’s) regional operations.

On May 14, 2024, New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin and the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights (“DCR”) released Guidance on Discrimination and Out-of-State Remote Workers (“the Guidance”), explaining the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination’s (NJLAD) application to remote employees. Noting the rise of telework following the COVID-19 pandemic, the Guidance states that the NJLAD is not limited to protecting only New Jersey-based employees but takes the position that it protects aggrieved employees of New Jersey employers “regardless of their ...

On May 17, 2024, Colorado Governor Jared Polis signed into law SB 24-205—concerning consumer protections in interactions with artificial intelligence systems—after the Senate passed the bill on May 3, and the House of Representatives passed the bill on May 8.  In a letter to the Colorado General Assembly, Governor Polis noted that he signed the bill into law with reservations, hoping to further the conversation on artificial intelligence (AI) and urging lawmakers to “significantly improve” on the law before it takes effect.

SB 24-205 will become effective on February 1 ...

Less than one week after the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC” or the “Commission”) published its final rule (“Final Rule”) and interpretive guidance to implement the  Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), seventeen states jointly filed a complaint seeking to enjoin and set aside the portions of the Final Rule providing for abortion-related accommodations. And just a few weeks later, two more states filed suit on the same grounds.

As discussed in more depth here, the PWFA requires covered entities to reasonably accommodate qualified employees ...

In 2019, in response to the “#MeToo” movement, the New Jersey Legislature enacted a law that made any “non-disclosure provision” in an employment contract or settlement agreement unenforceable against the employee, if the provision had “the purpose or effect of concealing the details relating to a claim of discrimination, retaliation, or harassment.”  N.J.S.A. § 10:5-12.8(a) (the “Law”).  The Law left unanswered whether it applied to “non-disparagement” provisions that are common in agreements settling employment disputes. 

On May 7, 2024, the New Jersey ...

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday: This week, we’re detailing for employers the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL’s) expansion of overtime salary limits, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC’s) recently released sexual harassment guidance, and New York State’s unprecedented mandatory paid prenatal leave.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday: On April 23, 2024, the FTC announced its final rule banning virtually all non-compete agreements nationwide. Employers across the nation are looking for answers.

In this episode of Spilling Secrets, Epstein Becker Green attorneys Peter A. Steinmeyer and Erik W. Weibust lay out the details of the ban, the legal challenges already underway,* and the actions employers should be taking.

*EBG is representing amici in one legal challenge: the U.S. Chamber of Commerce litigation.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday: This week, we’re diving into arbitration agreements and learning some best practices for employers when crafting these agreements:

Employers often include arbitration agreements in their onboarding and other employee materials. Arbitration agreements are an important tool for employers due to the relative speed and lower costs associated with arbitration compared to litigation. However, these agreements are subject to increasing scrutiny and require careful consideration from employers.

Epstein Becker Green attorneys Victoria Sloan Lin and Andrew Lichtenstein highlight some hidden elements that can impact the effectiveness of arbitration agreements.

Is the developer of an AI resume-screening tool an “employment agency” or “agent” subject to liability under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act for its customers’ allegedly discriminatory employment decisions? According to the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), the answer is yes. On April 9, 2024, the EEOC filed a motion for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae, together with a brief, in Mobley v. Workday, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-00770-RFL, to support plaintiff Derek Mobley’s (“Mobley”) motion to dismiss.

The EEOC’s action is ...

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday: This week, we’re breaking down the U.S. Supreme Court’s (SCOTUS’s) new workplace discrimination decision, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC’s) final rule on the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), and how recent artificial intelligence (AI) hiring tools have violated federal anti-bias laws.

On April 19, 2024, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or the “Commission”) published its final rule (“Final Rule”) and interpretive guidance to implement the  Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA). The Final Rule will take effect on June 18, 2024.

Although the PWFA borrows language and concepts that employers are already familiar with from existing federal protections, the Commission’s proposed rule to implement the PWFA (“Proposed Rule”), issued in August 2023, emphasized that the PWFA’s protections are broader and intended to cover ...

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday: Health care employers face unique challenges and considerations when deciding whether to litigate non-compete agreements with physicians. However, in such a quickly evolving legal landscape, the decision to take the matter to court is not always clear.

In this episode of Spilling Secrets, Epstein Becker Green attorneys Katherine G. Rigby, Erik W. Weibust, Daniel L. Fahey, and Jill K. Bigler discuss the unique challenges involved in litigating physician non-competes.

[Update: On April 25, 2024, Maryland Governor Wes Moore signed this bill into law.]

Maryland is poised to join the growing list of jurisdictions that have enacted pay transparency requirements for job postings, which includes jurisdictions such as California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New York, Washington State, and Washington D.C. House Bill 649 was passed by the General Assembly earlier this month, and if signed by the Governor, will take effect on October 1, 2024.

Maryland’s Current Pay Transparency Law

Maryland’s current wage history and wage range law that went into ...

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday: This week, we’re learning more about the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA’s) final rule on safety inspections, new COVID-19 guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and minimum wage updates from California (CA), New York City (NYC), and Virginia (VA).

Recently, the Sixth Circuit found that the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) preempted a former employee’s state law defamation claim against his former employer.  While the FCRA can impose burdensome requirements on the entities that fall within its scope, including consumer reporting agencies (“CRAs”), furnishers, or users of consumer reports, the FCRA can also serve as a shield against certain state law tort claims.

In McKenna v. Dillion Transportation, LLC,  plaintiff, a truck driver named Frank McKenna, sued his former employer, Dillon Transportation, LLC, for ...

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday: This week, we’re taking a look at the Department of Labor’s (DOL’s) new white-collar overtime exemption and worker classification rules and the U.S. government’s updated race and ethnicity categorizations.

New York City’s salary transparency law, which officially took effect in November 2022, requires “an employment agency, employer, or employee or agent thereof” to include a “good faith” salary or hourly wage range for every job, promotion, or transfer opportunity advertised for positions within New York City or involving work to be performed within its jurisdiction. Employers beware: New York City is now actively enforcing this salary transparency law through enforcement actions. 

Between October and December 2023, the New York City Commission on Human Rights ...

In an earlier article (found here), we discussed how a federal district court’s decision that mere 501(c)(3) status can trigger obligations under Title IX created shock waves throughout the private independent school community. A recent ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has reversed that decision, holding that tax-exempt status is not federal financial assistance for Title IX purposes.

The plaintiff in Buettner-Hartsoe v. Baltimore Lutheran High Sch. Ass’n (4^th Cir., Mar. 27, 2024) was a student who alleged that she was sexually harassed at ...

The California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) has issued its anticipated model Workplace Violence Prevention Plan (for non-health care settings). As we previously noted here, SB 553 added  California Labor Code Section 6401.9, which requires virtually all California employers to have a written Workplace Violence Prevention Plan (WVPP) in place by July 1, 2024, either as a stand-alone section in their Injury and Illness Prevention Program (IIPP) or as a separate document.

Among other things, Cal/OSHA’s model WVPP provides some concrete examples of ...

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday: Efforts to address pay disparities have led to an increase in pay equity legislation that shows no signs of slowing down.

In this episode, Epstein Becker Green attorneys Kimberly Carter and Ann Knuckles Mahoney shed light on the dynamic shifts in pay equity laws across the nation.

From emerging trends to pivotal developments, discover how certain states are spearheading efforts to champion equal pay and enforce stringent pay data reporting requirements.

In a recent decision affirming summary judgment in favor of defendant Human Resources Agency of New Britain, Inc. (the “Agency”), the Connecticut Appellate Court (decision.pdf) provided employers with useful guidance about managing disabled employees who are also qualified medical marijuana users, and appropriately requiring reasonable suspicion drug testing.

Background

In early 2018, the Agency hired Alyssa Bartolotta (“Bartolotta”) as a teaching assistant in its early childhood division.  As part of her onboarding, Bartolotta acknowledged receipt of an ...

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday: As college basketball madness sweeps across the nation this March, we’re seizing the opportunity to explore the intriguing intersection of trade secrets law and the sports world.

In this episode of Spilling Secrets, Epstein Becker Green attorneys Peter A. Steinmeyer, James P. Flynn, Daniel R. Levy, and Susan Gross Sholinsky appeal to both sports fans and lawyers alike to examine the strategic use of non-compete agreements across various sports. From scrutinizing non-competes in football and dissecting no-poaching arrangements in golf to unraveling compelling trade secrets in boxing, the team embarks on an examination of the legal dynamics shaping competitive sports.

This springtime, Washington, D.C. employers may want to spruce up their compliance checklists to stay ahead of new pay transparency obligations. On January 12, 2024, Mayor Bowser signed the Wage Transparency Omnibus Amendment Act of 2023 (the “Act”), which modifies the Wage Transparency Act of 2014. The Act imposes new pay disclosure requirements for job postings, prohibits employer inquiries into an applicant’s wage history, and directs employers to post a new notice in their workplaces. Like most legislation in D.C., the Act was subject to review for a period of 30 ...

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday: With virtual terminations on the rise, what steps should employers take to ensure they are prepared and compliant if an employee secretly records their termination?

Epstein Becker Green attorneys Marc A. Mandelman and Lauri F. Rasnick tell us more about the current landscape.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday: This week, we’re concentrating on the flurry of challenges that federal agencies—such as the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), the National Labor Relations Board, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)—have recently faced in the courts. We’ll also discuss potential changes to the U.S. Supreme Court’s (SCOTUS’s) controversial Chevron deference doctrine.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday: Restrictive covenants are evolving at a record pace right now at both the federal and state levels. Employers are struggling to keep up, and that’s especially true in the health care industry.

In this episode of Spilling Secrets, our podcast series on the future of non-compete and trade secrets law, Epstein Becker Green attorneys Katherine G. Rigby, Erik W. Weibust, Glenn P. Prives, and Denise Merna Dadika discuss restrictive covenants in relation to physician groups and other health care organizations employing direct care ...

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday: The SECURE 2.0 Act revolutionized retirement planning by simplifying and expanding retirement and health plan benefits.

Over a year after the legislation became law, provisions are still rolling out. So, what’s new in 2024?

Epstein Becker Green attorneys Cassandra Labbees and Mason Gardner tell us more about the recent updates and guidance on the SECURE 2.0 Act.

More than a decade ago, Epstein Becker Green (EBG) created its complimentary wage-hour app, putting federal, state, and local wage-hour laws at employers’ fingertips.

The app provides important information about overtime, overtime exemptions, minimum wages, meal periods, rest periods, on-call time, and travel time, as well as tips that employers can use to remain compliant with the law and, hopefully, avoid class action, representative action, and collective action lawsuits and government investigations. 

As the laws have changed over the years, so too has EBG’s free ...

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday: This week, we present a California labor and employment update featuring the upcoming deadline for non-compete notice rules, workplace violence regulations by the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA), and the recent Estrada decision's implications for the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA).

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday: This week, we’re running down the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL’s) recently released final rule on worker classification under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the challenges faced by the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB’s) joint-employer rule, and SpaceX’s groundbreaking suit against the NLRB.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday: On an employee’s first day, employers can begin protecting trade secrets by ensuring they maintain ownership over all intellectual property (IP) that the employee will create.

In this episode of Spilling Secrets, our special podcast series on the future of non-compete and trade secrets law, Epstein Becker Green attorneys A. Millie Warner, James P. Flynn, Hemant Gupta, and Adelee Traylor dive into the key steps employers can take to maintain IP ownership, including using the right verb tense in employee IP provisions.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday: This week, we’re breaking down the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) Board’s new regulations impacting employers:

Last month, the CPPA Board met to discuss several new regulations that could impact employers in California and beyond. Among them were draft regulations for automated decision-making technology, an initiative that’s part of a larger trend across the country to regulate the use of technology in the workplace. Additionally, new cybersecurity audit regulations were discussed. Epstein Becker Green attorneys Nathaniel Glasser and Brian G. Cesaratto explain these new draft regulations and the potential impacts on employers.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday: This week, we’re detailing the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB’s) request for Starbucks to reopen shuttered stores; how big tech is retreating from diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs; and why employers may start scrapping college requirements for certain positions in 2024.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday: With such a tumultuous year of labor and employment updates behind us, it begs the question, “What lies ahead in 2024?”

In this special New Year's episode, Epstein Becker Green attorneys share insights and predictions for the 2024 labor and employment space, addressing important topics such as maintaining compliance, promoting mental health, navigating protected concerted activity policies, and staying abreast of the latest developments in artificial intelligence and non-compete guidance.

In this special year-end episode of Employment Law This Week, recorded live from our 42nd Annual Workforce Management Briefing in New York City, Epstein Becker Green attorneys discuss the biggest employment law trends and crucial workforce changes in 2023, covering everything from non-competes and National Labor Relations Board actions to union dynamics, cybersecurity, and the impacts of artificial intelligence.

Video: YouTube, Vimeo.

Podcast: Amazon Music, Apple Podcasts, Audacy, Audible, Deezer, Goodpods, iHeartRadio, Overcast, Pandora, Player FM, Pocket Casts, Spotify, YouTube Music.

***

Employment Law This Week^® gives a rundown of the top developments in employment and ...

On November 10, 2023, Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed into law Senate Bill 7, which prohibits private employers in Texas from imposing vaccine mandates that require employees and/or contractors to obtain a COVID-19 vaccine. The law, which takes effect on February 7, 2024, is similar, though not identical to Florida laws passed in 2021, and amended in 2023, also limiting employers from requiring vaccination against COVID-19, as a condition of employment.

Texas’ Ban on Employer-Mandated Vaccines

Texas’ new law will prohibit employers from adopting or enforcing a ...

With the potential “tendency of many to ‘overshare,’ documenting everything from their breakfast to their favorite Marvel™ villain” on social media, as recognized in at least one court opinion[1], perhaps unsurprisingly, some employers might consider social media to be a valuable source for insight about applicants or employees.  Assembly Bill A836/Senate Bill S2518A (the “Personal Accounts Law”), signed into law by Governor Kathy Hochul on September 14, 2023, however, will soon place new limits on New York employers that seek access to an employee’s or ...

As previously noted, the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) has invited a great deal of litigation, often resulting in interpretations favorable toward plaintiffs. As a result, we advise employers who use biometric technology in Illinois workplaces to adhere carefully to their obligations under BIPA. While that advice won’t change, employers operating in the health care sector can take some – though not too much – comfort in a recent ruling that limits their exposure under this law.

In Mosby v. Ingalls Memorial Hospital, the Illinois Supreme Court delved ...

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday: The year 2023 was significant for trade secret and non-compete law, full of enforcement actions and rulemaking on the federal level and legislation in the states.

In this episode of Spilling Secrets, Epstein Becker Green attorneys Peter A. Steinmeyer, Katherine Rigby, A. Millie Warner, and Erik W. Weibust present their lineup for the “top 10” trade secret and non-compete developments of 2023.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday: This week, we’re getting up close and personal with the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) and the contentious new rules that it is rushing to put into effect:

The DOL is racing ahead with its agenda, with several rules that could change the landscape for employers, such as new workplace inspection policies and requirements for determining fiduciary status.

Epstein Becker Green attorney Paul DeCamp tells us more about the recent pushback against the DOL and recounts his testimony to the U.S. House Subcommittee on Workforce Protections ...

On October 11, 2023, the Fifth Circuit issued the first decision applying its broadened standard for Title VII claims in Narayanann v. Midwestern State University. The unanimous three judge panel ruled that a Malaysian professor could pursue his race-based case against a Texas university when his request to teach summer courses was rejected. 

Under the Fifth Circuit’s new standard, a plaintiff’s Title VII claim can survive a motion to dismiss by pleading adverse actions with respect to the “terms, conditions, or privileges of employment” without showing that their ...

On November 17, 2023, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed Senate Bill 3255 (the “Act”) into law. The Act amends Section 297-5 of the New York Executive Law (“Section 297-5”) by extending the statute of limitations for filing unlawful discrimination complaints with the New York State Division of Human Rights (the “Division”) from one to three years. According to the Act’s Sponsor Memo, the Legislature recognized that the prior time frame for victims of unlawful discriminatory practices to file administrative complaints with the Division was insufficient ...

On November 13, 2023, in USA ex rel, Morgan-Lee, et al. v. The Whittier Health Network, LLC, et al., a Massachusetts federal district judge concluded that although the plaintiff engaged in protected activity when she raised suspicions about billing fraud under the False Claims Act, her termination was not retaliatory where she engaged in erratic, confrontational, and insubordinate communication exchanges with superiors and colleagues. Morgan-Lee is a positive development for employers because it reinforces that engaging in protected activity does not shield an employee ...

As we reported in the first installment of our series on pay transparency, pay equity legislation continues to trend nationwide. While Part I focused on salary range disclosure legislation, in Part II, we highlight mandatory pay data reporting requirements that are being considered in Massachusetts.

What is Mandatory Pay Data Reporting?

Pay data reporting laws require covered employers to submit detailed compensation data reports, often broken down by race and gender, to state-designated agencies. To date, California and Illinois have adopted such laws. Under California law ...

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday:  This week, we’re elaborating on the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB’s) controversial joint-employer rule:

The joint-employer rule published by the NLRB on October 26 expanded the definition of the rule in ways that will likely have a major impact on the workplace. However, a recent postponement means that the rule will not take effect until February 26, 2024.

Epstein Becker Green attorneys Steven M. Swirsky and Erin E. Schaefer tell us the implications this rule may have for employers and how a flurry of legal challenges ...

On November 7, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts’ dismissal of a teacher’s suit against her former employer, Austin Preparatory School (“Austin Prep”), in which she claimed the school fired her for requesting extended leave as an accommodation following multiple surgeries. In Der Sarkisian v. Austin Preparatory School, the First Circuit held that Nancy Der Sarkisian’s request for extended leave, with no end date, was unreasonable considering the circumstances ...

On November 14, 2023, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) announced its enforcement results for fiscal year 2023, boasting increases in enforcement and financial remedies across all of its programs. The SEC filed a staggering 784 enforcement actions, obtained orders for nearly $5 billion in financial remedies, and distributed nearly $1 billion to harmed investors.

The SEC’s most notable results, however, came from its Whistleblower Program: In fiscal year 2023, the SEC issued whistleblower awards totaling nearly $600 million, the most ever awarded in one ...

With the holidays right around the corner, and local governments grinding to a halt during the holiday season, the City of Evanston, Illinois recently announced that it will postpone enforcement of its Fair Workweek Ordinance (the “Ordinance”) from September 1, 2023 until January 1, 2024. Although directly affecting just a relatively small number of employers that have a presence in Chicago’s neighboring municipality, the Ordinance is complex and notable for a novel hazard pay mandate.

The Ordinance Untangled

In May of 2023, Evanston’s City Council approved ...

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday: Restrictive covenants, such as non-compete and non-solicitation agreements, are regulated differently worldwide. In this episode of Spilling Secrets, Epstein Becker Green attorneys Peter A. Steinmeyer, A. Millie Warner, and Susan Gross Sholinsky take a trip around the world with Andrew Lilley, Head of Employment Law at Deloitte Legal, to highlight some of these unique distinctions and discuss how global employers can navigate these differences.

[UPDATE: The New York State Department of Labor has now published an updated Form IA 12.3 (Record of Employment), which employers should use to comply with their notice obligations under S 4878A beginning November 13, 2023.]

For New York employers, fall has brought with it more than just cooler temperatures, thanks to a wave of activity from Governor Kathy Hochul’s desk (after a busy legislative summer). Below, we highlight six significant employment bills that the Governor recently signed into law, as well as key pieces of legislation that continue to await her review.

Employee ...

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday: This week, we’re detailing the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB’s) expanded “joint employer” definition, the recent confirmations of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC’s) General Counsel and the Department of Labor’s (DOL’s) Wage and Hour Administrator, and President Biden’s executive order on artificial intelligence (AI).

NLRB Expands Definition of “Joint Employer" 

The NLRB recently published its long-awaited final rule, setting a new test for determining joint-employer ...

As we previously reported, this summer, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced significant updates to enhance the employment verification process. In addition to an alternative procedure for qualified E-Verify employers to virtually inspect employee documents,  the USCIS and DHS released a new Form I-9. Employers have been able to voluntarily use the new Form I-9 since August 1, 2023, but as of November 1, 2023, such use is now mandatory.  Failure to use the correct edition of the Form I-9 at the time of hire is a ...