Case law related to the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (“EFAA”) continues to develop. In late 2024, the Third Circuit seemed poised to bring further clarity as to which claims fall within the EFAA and, therefore, are shielded from pre-dispute arbitration agreements. On April 6, 2025, the Court provided guidance related to the timing of “disputes” as used in the statutory text, but remanded for further consideration of whether an arbitration agreement existed at all under New Jersey law. Cornelius v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., 2025 WL 980309 (3d Cir. Apr. 2, 2025).
Cornelius was a longtime CVS employee who alleged that she experienced discrimination from her male supervisor. After Cornelius filed numerous internal complaints, CVS terminated her employment in November 2021. She brought a Charge to the EEOC, received a right-to-sue letter, and filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. CVS moved to compel arbitration pursuant to its “Arbitration Policy.” Plaintiff opposed, arguing that the EFAA rendered the arbitration agreement unenforceable as to her claims. The District Court disagreed, ruling that the EFAA did not apply to Cornelius’s claims because “her claims did not constitute a ‘sexual harassment dispute’” within the meaning of the statute, and compelled arbitration. Id. at *2.
As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we’re discussing the state-level, employment-related artificial intelligence (AI) laws and regulations sweeping the nation:
State laws are rapidly stepping in to regulate AI in the absence of federal legislation, with at least 45 states introducing AI-related bills this year.
Hear from Epstein Becker Green attorney Frances M. Green as she outlines how employers can navigate this evolving landscape by developing governance policies and providing clear training and guidelines to ensure the safe, transparent, and accountable use of AI tools.
As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we highlight new guidance from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and Department of Justice (DOJ) on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI)-related discrimination.
We also examine the Acting EEOC Chair’s letters to 20 law firms regarding their DEI practices, as well as the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) Director’s orders to retroactively investigate affirmative action plans.
On Thursday, March 26, 2025, a federal judge for the Northern District of Illinois issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) prohibiting enforcement of portions of Executive Order 14151 (“the J20 EO”) and Executive Order 14173 (“the J21 EO”), two of President Trump’s first directives seeking to eliminate Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), previously explained here. This order has implications for federal contractors and grant recipients nationwide, at least for now.
The Case
The case, Chicago Women in Trades v. Trump et. al., was brought by a Chicago-based association, Chicago Women in Trades (CWIT), that advocates for women with careers in construction industry trades. Federal funding has constituted forty percent of CWIT’s budget. After the issuance of the J20 and J21 EOs, CWIT received an email from the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) Women’s Bureau stating that recipients of financial assistance were “directed to cease all activities related to ‘diversity, equity and inclusion’ (DEI) or ‘diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility’ (DEIA).” Similarly, one of its subcontractors emailed CWIT to immediately pause all activities directly tied to its federally funded work related to DEI or DEIA. CWIT brought the action against President Trump, the DOL, and other agencies alleging, among other things, that its Constitutional rights were violated by various provisions in both EOs. For example, CWIT argued that the J20 EO targeted “DEI,” “DEIA,” “environmental justice,” “equity,” and “equity action plans” without defining any such terms. This lack of definition, according to CWIT, makes it difficult to understand what conduct is permissible and what is not.
On March 4, 2025, the New York Senate passed Senate Bill S372 (the “No Severance Ultimatums Act” or “S372”). If enacted, S372 would add a new section to the New York Labor Law requiring New York employers to provide for a 21-business day review period and a seven-day revocation period in all severance agreements. Currently, similar protections are afforded to employees who are over the age of 40 pursuant to the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA), which amends the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Similar protections are also available to New York employees who enter into agreements settling claims of discrimination, harassment, or retaliation, but only if the agreement contains a non-disclosure provision relating to those claims.
Specific Requirements Under Consideration
Under the terms of S372, any severance agreement offered to an employee or former employee will need to:
- contain a notice advising the employee of their right to consult an attorney regarding the agreement;
- provide at least 21 business days for review of the agreement; and,
- acknowledge a seven-day period within which the employee may revoke the agreement.
As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we’re focused on federal contractors and the effects that the reinstatement of Executive Orders 14151 and 14173 will have on employers.
President Trump’s executive orders against diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) are back in effect after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit stayed a nationwide injunction, posing new compliance challenges for federal contractors.
In this week’s episode, Epstein Becker Green attorneys Nathaniel M. Glasser and Frank C. Morris, Jr., outline the implications for employers, focusing on the False Claims Act, whistleblower risks, and the need for certification of compliance with anti-discrimination laws. Tune in to learn what steps your organization can take to mitigate potential penalties and retaliation claims.
Addressing whistleblower claims is one of the most sensitive and complex issues employers face. It becomes especially challenging when the claims involve compliance officers, risk officers, or even lawyers tasked with identifying potential problems.
In this one-on-one interview, Epstein Becker Green attorney Alex Barnard sits down with George Whipple to explore the unique challenges whistleblower allegations present within organizations. Alex explains how courts distinguish between performing one's job duties and raising legitimate whistleblower concerns, particularly when internal experts are involved. He also outlines key strategies for investigating claims fairly, avoiding retaliation, and navigating the fine line between good-faith and bad-faith whistleblowing.
As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we’re covering a change in leadership at the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), the reinstatement of National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) member Gwynne Wilcox (restoring a crucial quorum), and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC’s) focus on new enforcement priorities.
On Friday, March 14, 2025, ruling on a Government motion for a stay pending appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an Order staying a preliminary injunction that was issued in National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education (NADOHE) et al. v. Trump three weeks prior. The unanimous ruling by a three-judge panel allows for full enforcement of two Executive Orders (EOs) regarding “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” (DEI), lifting the nationwide injunction against specific provisions that we explained here.
The Fourth Circuit panel issued its decision shortly after a District Court hearing on an emergency motion filed by the plaintiffs, who requested a status conference to review the U.S. Department of Justice’s alleged refusal to comply with the preliminary injunction. Four days earlier, on March 10, 2025, the District Court had issued a Clarified Preliminary Injunction along with a Memorandum Opinion, explaining that the February 21st ruling did not apply to the President, but applied to all federal executive branch agencies, departments, and commissions, and their heads, officers, agents, and subdivisions.
Beginning April 9, 2025, Ohio employers will be legally required to give employees access to their paystubs. Citing transparency, accountability, and fairness in the workplace, the Ohio General Assembly unanimously passed the the Paystub Protection Act (PPA), which requires Ohio employers to issue paystubs, either electronically or via hard copy, to all employees on regular paydays that include the:
- Names of the employee and employer;
- Employee’s address;
- Employee’s total gross wages during the pay period;
- Employee’s total net wages during the pay period;
- Amount and purpose of each addition or deduction to wages; and
- Dates of the pay period.
For hourly employees, the following three additional items are required:
- Total hours worked;
- Hourly rate; and
- Hours worked in excess of 40 hours in one workweek.
As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we examine the risks tied to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives that employers face due to the Trump administration’s executive orders and the ensuing scrutiny from federal agencies, including the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).
President Trump’s two anti-DEI executive orders are temporarily blocked, but some employers are adjusting policies and shifting the way they collect workforce data. While critical obligations, such as EEO-1 reporting, remain in place, the EEOC’s acting chair has indicated the agency will prioritize addressing race and gender discrimination and bias.
In this week’s episode, Epstein Becker Green attorneys Jill K. Bigler and Briar L. McNutt discuss how employers can balance compliance with federal, state, and international regulations while effectively mitigating risks.
While much attention has been given to the Trump Administration’s early federal policy objectives to increase immigration enforcement, clients should also be aware of similar increased enforcement policies at the state level.
Last month, Tennessee Governor Bill Lee signed into law a bill passed by the state legislature during a recent special legislative session. The new Tennessee law attempts to strengthen immigration enforcement in Tennessee with the following measures:
- Creates a Centralized Immigration Enforcement Division at the state level, to be led by a Chief Immigration Enforcement Officer (“CIEO”) appointed by the Governor. The CIEO will coordinate directly with the Trump Administration on federal immigration policies and implementation.
As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we’re covering significant updates shaping workplace policies, including shifts in regulations and enforcement related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI); evolving approaches to Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) compliance; and recent changes in National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) guidance.
As featured in #WorkforceWednesday: This week, on our Spilling Secrets podcast series, our panelists dig into trade secrets lessons employers can learn from hit movies.
In this episode, Epstein Becker Green attorneys Daniel R. Levy, Aime Dempsey, and George Carroll Whipple, III, explore trade secrets through the lens of Oscar-nominated films, offering insights into protecting sensitive information in today’s competitive landscape.
Whether looking at a magical spellbook from Wicked or groundbreaking architectural designs in The Brutalist, the discussion underscores how trade secrets intertwine with innovation, employee training, and organizational culture. Discover how Hollywood’s biggest stories offer practical lessons for safeguarding your business’s most valuable assets.
On Friday, February 21, 2025, a federal judge issued a Preliminary Injunction in National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, et al. v. Trump, blocking significant portions of two Executive Orders (EOs) issued by President Donald Trump. The decision, which will be appealed, creates more uncertainty for employers with programs that may fall under the broad umbrella of “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” (DEI) or “Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility” (DEIA) in light of the Trump administration’s efforts to eliminate DEI programs within federal agencies and impose restrictions on private sector DEI initiatives. For now, the court’s order blocks most – but not all – of the provisions in the two EOs.
Background
The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland addressed a motion seeking relief from EO 14151 (“Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing,” which the court labeled “J20 Order”) and EO 14173 (“Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” referred to by the court as the “J21 Order”). Epstein Becker Green has published several advisories explaining these EOs and how they may affect federal contractors and other federal funding recipients (see here and here) as well as other public and private employers (see here).
Both EOs were challenged by a group of plaintiffs that includes the City of Baltimore, the American Association of University Professors, and National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education. In brief, the plaintiffs argued that:
A reduction in force (RIF) is a complex process that demands more than just operational adjustments. It requires meticulous planning to align business objectives with legal compliance, sound decision-making, and thorough risk mitigation.
In this one-on-one interview, Epstein Becker Green attorney Ann Knuckles Mahoney joins George Whipple to unpack the intricate legal considerations that come with workforce reductions. Ann walks through the critical aspects of adhering to the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act and the challenges posed by the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, especially for employers handling layoffs across multiple jurisdictions.
On February 21, 2025, Governor Gretchen Whitmer signed into law two bills amending the state’s Wage Act and Earned Sick Time Act (ESTA). As we previously explained, absent those amendments, February 21 would have been the effective date for those laws as ordered by the Michigan Supreme Court. Below, we share highlights of the new bills as preliminary guidance.
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 wage-hour app, which is regularly updated to reflect those developments.
Even before the 2024 presidential election and the recent wave of executive orders, employers were evaluating their positions on various social issues. Whether taking a formal stand, abstaining from a position, or landing somewhere in between, employers often consider external stakeholders and the court of public opinion. But they frequently forget about a critical and impactful audience—their employees.
Below are a few key areas where evolving social policies intersect with employee considerations.
- Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) Policies: Regulations around diversity, equity, and inclusion; sustainability; the environment; and financial investments can differ across federal, state, and local jurisdictions, and certain rules apply only to government contractors. Aside from legal concerns, employers may face public and private questions about their actions or policies from employees. As such, employers should make sure that their ESG policies are current, thoughtful, and well communicated, especially in light of changing public sentiment, regulations, and legislation.
As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we’re highlighting notable employment law updates from federal agencies and the courts, including the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the Department of Labor (DOL), and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we examine how the loss of a quorum at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), along with the rollback of affirmative action requirements for federal contractors, are creating significant hurdles for employers.
The regulatory environment for employers is undergoing significant changes. President Trump’s removal of an NLRB member, the NLRB’s general counsel, and two EEOC commissioners has left those agencies without a quorum, delaying decisions and creating uncertainty for employers. Meanwhile, the repeal of Executive Order 11246 has ended affirmative action requirements for federal contractors and grantees.
In this week’s episode, Epstein Becker Green attorneys Erin E. Schaefer and Courtney McFate provide clarity amid these shifts. Employers should prepare for procedural delays from both agencies and reassess their compliance obligations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and state or municipal contracts in light of reduced affirmative action requirements.
President Donald Trump has made several significant and sudden changes at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC” or “the Commission”), the agency responsible for enforcing Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. First, he appointed current Commissioner Republican Andrea Lucas as new Acting Chair and then removed Karla Gilbride (a nominee of former President Biden) from her role as EEOC General Counsel. Both of these decisions were routine and unsurprising for the start of a new presidential administration. President Trump then removed Commissioners Jocelyn Samuels and Charlotte Burrows, two of the three Democratic commissioners. This move was far from routine and is likely to be challenged in court.
These sweeping changes initiated by President Trump at the EEOC should be seen as a critical element of an ever-expanding goal of government-wide elimination, not just of DEI, but of all forms of affirmative action. This remaking of the EEOC should be viewed in parallel with Trump’s firing of two Democratic Members and the General Counsel at the National Labor Relations Board, revocation of Executive Order 11246, which contractually required covered federal government contractors and subcontractors to meet certain affirmative action obligations, and the possible elimination of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (“OFCCP”).
Strategic ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act) plan design and administration require more than just technical compliance—they call for foresight into how plans will hold up under legal scrutiny.
In this one-on-one interview, Epstein Becker Green attorney Jeb Gerth, an experienced litigator in ERISA cases, joins George Whipple to explore the critical role a litigator plays in reinforcing plan integrity. Jeb explains how incorporating a litigation perspective into the planning and administration process acts as a "stress test," helping to identify areas that might attract legal challenges or class action claims. He also discusses key vulnerabilities in ERISA plans, such as discretionary decision-making and inadequate documentation, and how addressing them proactively can reduce the risk of costly disputes.
With class actions often resulting in significant judgments and additional exposure through fee-shifting structures, Jeb provides practical, real-world guidance on preparing plans to withstand these challenges. From uncovering hidden risks during early plan administration to enhancing fairness and clarity in plan documents for both participants and courts, this conversation offers essential strategies for leaders looking to protect their organizations from potential litigation while fostering trust and compliance.
As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we are focused on the immediate impact employers face from the rush of Trump administration executive orders, memos, and proclamations.
On January 20, 2025, President Trump began his second term. On his first day back, he signed a record-breaking number of executive orders, many of which have a direct impact on both public- and private-sector employers.
In this week’s episode, we turn to Epstein Becker Green attorney Paul DeCamp to help clients make sense of this flurry of activity. Tune in as Paul outlines what employers can anticipate from Trump 2.0 in the months ahead.
As the Southern California wildfires rage on with devastating consequences, employers may be grappling to formulate an appropriate response. Employers may have specific legal obligations as well as optional ways to provide assistance to affected employees. This publication addresses applicable employment laws that implicate pay, leaves, and other aspects of employment that may be impacted by the wildfires. Employers should also review our publication on special benefits they may wish to provide.
Employer Obligations
Notice Requirement for New Hires
California law requires employers to provide non-exempt employees with a wage theft notice upon hire. Among other requirements, employers must notify employees if there is a state or federal emergency or disaster declaration applicable to the county or counties where the employee will work issued within 30 days before the employee’s first day of employment that may affect their health and safety. Accordingly, employers in Los Angeles and Ventura counties will need to notify non-exempt employees starting employment within thirty days after January 7, 2025 that the Governor issued an Emergency Proclamation related to the wildfires if the emergency may affect their health and safety during their employment.
As featured in #WorkforceWednesday: This week, on our Spilling Secrets podcast series, our panelists discuss how to navigate “group lift-outs,” in which one company hires multiple employees from another company at or about the same time.
Group lift-outs are among the most challenging circumstances to navigate in the trade secrets and non-compete space. While possible in virtually every industry, they have become increasingly common in industries such as financial services, insurance, technology, and even design and apparel.
In this episode of Spilling Secrets, Epstein Becker Green attorneys Peter A. Steinmeyer, A. Millie Warner, Alexander C.B. Barnard, and Haley Morrison explain the myriad of complications that can arise in these scenarios, ranging from trade secret and non-compete violations to work-related emotional and abandonment issues.
As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, while recognizing that it’s far from “business as usual” in California and keeping our friends and clients in mind, we look at a new ruling in California regarding Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) arbitrations.
We also examine a federal appeals court decision limiting the authority of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the flurry of new employment laws taking effect in 2025.
Don’t finalize your 2025 handbooks just yet! On January 2, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated a permanent injunction, which had blocked a requirement that New York employers with employee handbooks include a notice against discrimination based on reproductive health care choices. As a result, handbooks covering New York employees must again include such notices.
The notice requirement originates from a series of legislation intended to protect reproductive health rights enacted on November 8, 2019. As we previously reported, one of the bills (A584/S660) added Section 203-e to the New York labor law, which prohibits employers from discriminating against employees based on an employee’s or their dependents’ sexual and reproductive health choices, including their choice to use or access a particular drug, device, or medical service. The law also prohibits employers from accessing such information without prior consent, and directed New York employers with employee handbooks to include a notice of employee rights and remedies. Although the law took effect immediately upon passage, a second bill (S4413) delayed the effective date of the notice requirement until January 2020.
As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, a few of our labor and employment attorneys share their insights on the key issues and emerging trends shaping the employment law landscape as we move into 2025.
Employment Law in 2025: A Look Ahead
Happy New Year! As we kick off 2025, we’re exploring key legal trends for employers, with a focus on the implications of the incoming Trump administration.
In this episode, attorneys from Epstein Becker Green's Employment, Labor & Workforce Management practice discuss their predictions on how these changes could shape the employment law landscape in the year ahead.
On December 23, 2024, President Biden signed two bills intended to ease the burden of reporting under the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) for health plan sponsors and health insurance providers. The new laws also give employers more time to respond to proposed penalty assessments for ACA coverage failures, and establish a statute of limitations for the IRS to make such assessments.
As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we asked a few of our labor and employment attorneys to recap the most significant challenges their clients faced in 2024.
It has been a pivotal year for employers, marked by challenges to federal agency authority, sweeping state-level regulatory changes, and the looming impact of a presidential election poised to reshape labor laws nationwide.
In this episode, attorneys from Epstein Becker Green's Employment, Labor & Workforce Management practice reflect on these challenges, address key client pain points, and share their insights on what the future may bring.
In its first merits decision this term, the Supreme Court provided a straightforward application of textualism to demonstrate that in cases challenging administrative action under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), Congress’s delegation of authority to the agency must be clear. Only in this case, Congress got it right. In future challenges to agency action, counsel and affected parties should take into account the ability of Congress to limit those challenges.
A Unanimous SCOTUS Analysis
As we summarized previously, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court (per Jackson, J.) held in Bouarfa v. Mayorkas that the revocation of an approved visa petition under 8 U.S.C. §1155 by the Secretary of Homeland Security (the “Secretary”) is the kind of discretionary decision that falls within the agency’s purview pursuant to authority that is delegated by Congress. In this case, the Secretary revoked a visa based on a sham-marriage determination, relying on the language of Section 1155 that grants broad authority to the Secretary to revoke an approved visa petition at any time, for “what he deems to be good and sufficient cause.” The revocation was challenged through the agency and then federal courts. At each turn, the agency’s determination was upheld, with the District Court and the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit both holding that, in the context of enacted legislation outlining the agency’s powers, courts are precluded from reviewing the Secretary’s decision.
As featured in #WorkforceWednesday: This week, on our Spilling Secrets podcast series, our panelists look back on the top trade secrets and non-compete stories of the year:
This year has been a rollercoaster for trade secrets and non-compete law. We’ve seen major legal battles at both the federal and state levels impacting employers across the nation.
In this episode, Epstein Becker Green attorneys Peter A. Steinmeyer, Daniel R. Levy, Katherine G. Rigby, A. Millie Warner, and Erik W. Weibust recap 2024’s most significant updates, including the Federal Trade Commission’s non-compete ban, the National Labor Relations Board’s general counsel memo, state-level trends, and much more.
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 (4th 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 ...
Blog Editors
Recent Updates
- The Third Circuit Orders Another Review in Cornelius v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.—Resolution Will Wait for Another Day in New Jersey Federal Court, but Not Because of the EFAA
- Video: Artificial Intelligence Regulations for Employers - Employment Law This Week
- Video: EEOC/DOJ Joint DEI Guidance, EEOC Letters to Law Firms, OFCCP Retroactive DEI Enforcement - Employment Law This Week
- Another Court Partly Blocks DEI-Related Executive Orders; U.S. Government Continues to Stay Its Course
- No Ultimatums: New York State Lawmakers Contemplate New Mandatory Provisions for Severance Agreements