On July 3, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas issued a preliminary injunction against the Federal Trade Commission’s (“FTC”) “Non-Compete Rule.” As we discussed in our April 24, 2024 E-Lert, on April 23, 2024, the FTC issued the Non-Compete Rule, banning nearly all non-compete provisions between employers and employees. Two of the five FTC Commissioners voted against issuing the Non-Compete Rule and offered dissenting views as to why the Commission should not have issued the Rule. Almost immediately, litigation was commenced by private parties to block the Non-Compete Rule from coming into effect on September 5, 2024.Continue Reading Another Day, Another Limited Preliminary Injunction – This Time on the FTC’s Non-Compete Ban

In Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, the Supreme Court held that a more stringent test applied to lawsuits filed by the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) that seek injunctions to halt serious labor violations.  While the decision directs district courts to adopt the tightened standard, several circuits, including the Fourth Circuit, have already been consistently applying the higher standard.   Continue Reading NLRB Injunctions Are Now More Difficult to Obtain, At Least in Some Jurisdictions

As most employers (hopefully) know, the U.S. Department of Labor issued a final rule that will significantly increase the salary threshold for the exemptions from the Fair Labor Standard Act’s minimum wage and overtime requirements, as discussed in our April 24, 2024 E-lert. Consistent with the now-standard practice in response to pretty much any regulation issued by any federal workforce agency, three lawsuits have been filed to enjoin the rule from taking effect on the scheduled date of July 1, 2024. In Texas, of course. Because those Texas federal courts have been notoriously unfriendly to federal agency actions. But those three lawsuits are pending before three different judges…Continue Reading Three Overtime Rule Lawsuits, Three Judges – What Now?

Many companies treat the annual EEO-1 filing requirement with, let’s say, some lack of urgency and, historically, there has been little to no consequence for failing to file the EEO-1 form. But a recent press release from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission makes clear that those days may be over, as the agency announced that it has filed suit against fifteen companies across a wide range of industries for failing to file those mandatory reports in 2021 and 2022! Continue Reading Wait – the EEOC Is Really Serious About the EEO-1 Filing Requirement!

On April 8, National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo issued GC Memo 24-04, providing yet another memorandum broadening remedies for employees that have been wrongfully discharged for engaging in union or other protected concerted activity.  In this memo, GC Abruzzo encouraged Regions to pursue make-whole remedies for all employees, including those not identified in an unfair labor practice investigation, allegedly harmed by the unlawful rules or contract terms. Continue Reading General Counsel Abruzzo’s Latest Memorandum Encourages a Further Expansion of Remedies for Employees

Last month, many of us took a few moments out of our day to view the solar eclipse (with the proper eyewear, of course – which made me wonder about the workers’ compensation liability for eye injuries incurred from deficient protection during “watch parties” at work – but I digress). As you’ve no doubt heard, there are even some folks who will travel in order to experience “totality.” I’m sure work productivity across the nation took a bit of a hit that day. But what is not ok is to totally blow off a deposition in order to chase the eclipse – which is what happened in a discrimination case.Continue Reading No, the Solar Eclipse Is Not a Good Reason to Skip a Deposition

On April 29, 2024, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued its long-promised Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace. The document updates and replaces existing EEOC resources on workplace harassment and unsurprisingly (under this pro-worker administration) takes a very broad approach to the topic. Of particular interest to employers, the EEOC also provides specific direction on what it would consider to be best practices for employers in preventing and addressing workplace harassment, including as to policies, training and investigations.Continue Reading The EEOC’s New Harassment Guidance: What Employers Need to Know

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, has ruled that adverse employment actions need not be “significant” in order to constitute a violation of Title VII’s prohibition against discrimination. This ruling undercuts decades of court decisions that applied a heightened standard of harm, although recent federal appellate court rulings already showed a trend away from that standard.Continue Reading Supreme Court Lowers the Bar for Title VII Discrimination Claims

According to some courts, no. According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and other courts, yes. And the EEOC is being the squeaky wheel regarding its position, as evidenced by a recent settlement announcement. Continue Reading Are Reasonable Accommodations Required for an Employee’s Commute?

Last year, in our October 2023 E-Update, we wrote about an employer who destroyed evidence that could have proved his new employee stole source code from his former employer that was used to create a “functionally equivalent” product by the new employer. Because of this bad behavior, a federal trial court entered a default judgment against the new employer (meaning that the employer lost the case without any consideration of the merits). But our admonition against destroying (bad) evidence goes both ways – as shown in a recent case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.Continue Reading You Know That Destroying Evidence Can Get You in Trouble, Right?