Law and the Workplace

Tag Archives: supreme court

SCOTUS:  Daily Rate Doesn’t Satisfy FLSA’s Salary Basis Test for Exemption, Even If It’s Huge!

By Allan Bloom on Posted in Wage and Hour
It’s always exciting when the Supreme Court takes up a wage and hour issue—at least for us.  Earlier this week, in Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. v. Hewitt, the court tackled the question of whether a daily rate can satisfy the “salary basis” test for exemption under the Fair Labor Standards Act as an executive, … Continue Reading

U.S. Supreme Court Stays OSHA Vaccine/Testing Mandate for Employers with 100 or More Employees

By Evandro Gigante, Mark Harris, Lexie Reynolds and Raymond Arroyo on Posted in Biden Administration Coverage, Coronavirus, Workplace Safety
UPDATE: On January 25, 2022, OSHA filed a notice withdrawing the Emergency Temporary Standard apart from the extent it serves as a proposed rule under the OSH Act.  For more details, click here. On January 13, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a per curiam opinion, stayed OSHA’s Emergency Temporary Standard (“ETS”) mandating that employers … Continue Reading

Sixth Circuit Panel Dissolves Stay of OSHA Vaccine/Testing Mandate

By Evandro Gigante, Guy Brenner, Laura M. Fant, Lexie Reynolds and Raymond Arroyo on Posted in Biden Administration Coverage, Coronavirus, Workplace Safety
UPDATE: On January 13, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court granted applications to stay OSHA’s Emergency Temporary Standard pending review on the merits by the Sixth Circuit, and if writs of certiorari are subsequently sought to the U.S. Supreme Court, pending the Court’s disposition of such writs.  Click here to read more about the Court’s decision.  On … Continue Reading

U.S. Supreme Court Holds That Title VII Prohibits Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity

By Arielle E. Kobetz, Alex Downie and Steven Hurd on Posted in Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation
In a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Gorsuch on June 15, 2020, the United States Supreme Court held that Title VII’s prohibition on discrimination “because of…sex” includes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Bostock v. Clayton County, No. 17-1618 (590 U.S. ___ (2020). In doing so, the Court made clear that … Continue Reading

U. S. Supreme Court Holds that Third-Party Defendants to Counterclaims Cannot Remove Class Actions to Federal Court

By Elise M. Bloom and Noa Baddish on Posted in Appeals, Class/Collective Action
In a 5-4 decision in Home Depot U.S.A. Inc., v. Jackson, 587 U.S. __ (2019), the United States Supreme Court held that a third-party counterclaim defendant does not qualify as a “defendant” under the general removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) or under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”) and therefore cannot remove … Continue Reading

SCOTUS to Decide Whether Title VII Protects Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity

By Arielle E. Kobetz, Evandro Gigante and Tony S. Martinez on Posted in Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation
On April 22, 2019, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in three cases that raise the question of whether Title VII prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.  In two of the cases, Altitude Express v. Zarda and Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, the Court will consider whether Title VII’s prohibition on … Continue Reading

United States Supreme Court Says that Equitable Tolling Cannot Extend Deadline to Appeal Class Certification Decisions Under Rule 23(f)

By Elise M. Bloom, Mark W. Batten and Noa Baddish on Posted in Appeals, Class/Collective Action
In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Sotomayor on February 26, 2019, the Supreme Court held that the 14-day deadline to seek permission to appeal a decision granting or denying class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) cannot be extended through the doctrine of equitable tolling. Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert, No. 17-1094, 586 … Continue Reading

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Employers in Upholding Arbitration Agreements Containing Class Action Waivers

By Allan Bloom, Mark W. Batten and Travis Hall on Posted in Class/Collective Action, Litigation and Arbitration
On May 21, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis that employers can require employees to arbitrate disputes with the employer individually and waive their right to pursue or participate in class or collective actions against their employer. Ruling 5-4 in favor of an employer’s right to … Continue Reading

SCOTUS:  Employers Can Compel Individual Arbitration of Wage and Hour Claims

By Allan Bloom and Mark W. Batten on Posted in Wage and Hour
  In its eagerly-awaited opinion in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, the U.S. Supreme Court held on May 21 that class action waivers in arbitration agreements between employers and employees do not violate the National Labor Relations Act.  The opinion resolves a split among federal circuits, and reiterates—once again—the strong federal policy favoring arbitration. While … Continue Reading

[Podcast]: The Proskauer Brief: The Challenges and Pitfalls Surrounding Requests for Multiple Medical Leaves of Absence

By Harris Mufson and Laura Fant on Posted in The Proskauer Brief Podcast
In this edition of The Proskauer Brief, senior counsel Harris Mufson and associate Laura Fant discuss the challenges and pitfalls surrounding requests for multiple medical leaves of absence. We will talk about the obligation of employers to provide reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act and related laws. We will also discuss a recent decision from the Seventh … Continue Reading

Seventh Circuit Limits Ability to Moot Claims of Class Representative in the Wake of Campbell-Ewald

By Edward Young and Steven J. Pearlman on Posted in Class/Collective Action
On June 20, 2017, the Seventh Circuit ruled that a defendant cannot moot the individual claims of a putative class representative by depositing an unaccepted settlement offer with the court covering all relief purportedly owed to that representative. Fulton Dental, LLC, v. Bisco, Inc., No. 16-cv-3574 (7th Cir.). Plaintiff brought a putative class action lawsuit … Continue Reading

Supreme Court Takes Away a Class Action Defense Tool That We Couldn’t Really Use Anyway

By Elise M. Bloom and Mark W. Batten on Posted in Class/Collective Action
Yesterday, the Supreme Court held in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, No. 14-857 (U.S. Jan. 20, 2016), that when a defendant makes an offer to resolve the named plaintiff’s claim for full value, but the plaintiff turns it down, the case is not moot, and simply proceeds. Campbell-Ewald had argued that since it had offered to … Continue Reading

The Americans with Disabilities Act at 25 Years: A Look Back and What’s Ahead

By Allan Weitzman and Laura Fant on Posted in Accessibility & Accommodation
This Sunday marked the 25th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), which was signed into law by President George H.W. Bush on July 26, 1990. The enactment of the ADA represented a bipartisan commitment to fight discrimination against individuals with disabilities in many aspects of everyday life, including in the workplace and in … Continue Reading

Supreme Court Concludes That EEOC Conciliation Efforts Are Reviewable by Courts

By Amanda Wiley, Katharine Parker and Steven J. Pearlman on Posted in Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation, Workplace Policies and Procedures
On April 29, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously concluded that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) efforts to conciliate a matter before filing suit—a statutory requirement of Title VII—can be reviewed by the courts. Mach Mining, LLC. v. EEOC, No. 13-1019 (April 29, 2015). The Court reversed a Seventh Circuit ruling that the EEOC … Continue Reading

NJ Supreme Court Hears Argument on Whether Disgorgement of Employee’s Salary Requires Economic Damages

By Daniel Saperstein, Ian Plummer and Joseph O’Keefe on Posted in Litigation and Arbitration, Wage and Hour
In Kaye v. Rosefielde, a case alleging fraud and malpractice against a former general counsel, the New Jersey Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments on whether the Appellate Division erred in affirming that economic damages are a necessary prerequisite for disgorgement of the general counsel’s salary.  The appellants have argued to the contrary that disgorgement … Continue Reading

Supreme Court Finds Severance Payments are Subject to FICA

By Elizabeth M. Mills, Nathan Bentley and Robert Projansky on Posted in Performance Management, Discipline & Termination, Workplace Policies and Procedures
On March 25, 2014, in a decision highly anticipated by employers, the U.S. Supreme Court held unanimously that certain severance payments paid to employees who were involuntarily terminated were taxable wages for purposes of the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA). United States v. Quality Stores, Inc., et al., No. 12-1408 (U.S. Mar. 25, 2014). The … Continue Reading

U.S. Supreme Court Extends SOX’s Whistleblower Protection To Employees of Publicly Traded Company’s Contractors

By Connie Bertram and Lloyd B. Chinn on Posted in Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation, Litigation and Arbitration, Workplace Policies and Procedures
The U.S. Supreme Court held that Sarbanes-Oxley Act’s whistleblower protection extends to employees of a publicly traded company’s contractors and subcontractors in its March 14, 2014 decision in the case of Lawson v. FMR LLC. This alert provides background and analysis of this first case decided by the Supreme Court under Section 806 of SOX. … Continue Reading

No Longer a “Motivating Factor”: E.D.N.Y. Rules New “But-For” Causation Standard for Retaliation Retroactive

By Keisha-Ann Gray on Posted in Litigation and Arbitration, Workplace Policies and Procedures
Employers who have recently suffered defeats on Title VII retaliation claims now have reason to ask for reconsideration under applicable rules.  The Eastern District of New York, in Sass v. MTA Bus Co.,   ruled that existing cases should no longer be subject to a “motivating factor” analysis, but rather, are retroactively subject to the “but-for” … Continue Reading

Supreme Court’s Sandifer Decision Is Not Just About Changing Clothes

By Allan Weitzman, Fredric Leffler, Jenna Hayes, Katharine Parker and Marc A. Mandelman on Posted in Workplace Policies and Procedures
In Sandifer et al. v. United States Steel Corp., a unanimous Supreme Court clarified the meaning of “changing clothes” found in Section 203(o) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA” or “Act”), holding that “changing clothes” includes putting on (donning) and taking off (doffing) protective gear. Section 203(o) of the FLSA allows employers and unions … Continue Reading

United States State Department Announces Visas for Same-Sex Spouses Are Now Available

By David Grunblatt on Posted in Immigration
On Friday, August 2nd, the U.S. Department of State announced its implementation of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Windsor decision, confirming that effective immediately “U.S. Embassies and Consulates will adjudicate visa applications that are based on a same-sex marriage in the same way that we adjudicate applications for opposite gender spouses.” This alert addresses this important … Continue Reading

DOMA Overruled: Milestone for Applicants of Immigration Benefits

By David Grunblatt on Posted in Immigration, Litigation and Arbitration, Workplace Policies and Procedures
On June 26, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Windsor struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as unconstitutional, allowing for the recognition of same-sex marriages and making way for same-sex married couples to receive benefits under federal law. This alert looks at the immigration law implications of … Continue Reading

Supreme Court’s DOMA Decision Affects Employers’ Obligations Under the FMLA

By Allan Weitzman, Fredric Leffler, Katharine Parker and Marc A. Mandelman on Posted in Accessibility & Accommodation, Workplace Policies and Procedures
In the recent decision in United States v. Windsor, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the federal law that defined “marriage” as a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and “spouse” as a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife. These definitions, codified in … Continue Reading

Special Alert for Employers and Other Benefit Plan Sponsors: How Will the Supreme Court’s DOMA Decision Impact Your Employee Benefit Plans?

By Lisa A. Berkowitz Herrnson, Paul M. Hamburger, Roberta Chevlowe and Tzvia Feiertag on Posted in Litigation and Arbitration, Workplace Policies and Procedures
The U.S. Supreme Court decision in United States v. Windsor, holding that Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional, will affect virtually all employers across the country. While the Court’s decision means that the federal government will generally recognize same-sex spouses as married for purposes of federal laws, protections and … Continue Reading
LexBlog

This website uses third party cookies, over which we have no control. To deactivate the use of third party advertising cookies, you should alter the settings in your browser.

OK