On Oct. 4, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to hear Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services –a reverse discrimination case from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The question before the Supreme Court is whether the heightened “background circumstances” rule adopted by the Sixth Circuit for reverse discrimination cases is discriminatory and runs afoul of Title VII. The “background circumstances” rule is an additional requirement imposed by certain circuits for proving discrimination in cases involving members of majority groups – so-called reverse discrimination cases. A plaintiff typically satisfies the “background circumstances” by presenting evidence that a member of the relevant minority group made the employment decision at issue, or with statistical evidence showing a pattern of discrimination by the employer against members of the majority group. Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Servs., 87 F.4th 822, 825 (6th Cir. 2023)
This summer, eyes were focused on the Federal Trade Commission and its announced rule seeking to invalidate millions of non-compete agreements across the country. That rule was ultimately struck down in the Court, but federal efforts to invalidate non-compete agreements have continued. As previously covered by this blog, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) took aim at non-compete agreements in May of 2023, announcing her opinion that such agreements could restrict employees’ Section 7 rights under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). At that time, the General Counsel directed NLRB field offices to submit cases involving non-compete agreements for further investigation.
After a summer of speculation, businesses and individuals across the country were provided some clarity as the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) rule invalidating millions of non-compete agreements was struck down by a federal district court. The FTC’s rule—which largely invalidated non-compete agreements—was announced in April and set to take effect on September 4, 2024. Since that announcement, however, multiple lawsuits have been filed against the FTC, challenging its rulemaking authority to impose this sweeping new rule. In the months that followed, all eyes have been on the courts to see whether the rule would take effect as scheduled.
The Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) push to invalidate non-compete agreements for millions of workers gained steam today, courtesy of a ruling out of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. As noted by this blog, in April of 2024 the FTC announced a final Rule largely invalidating non-compete agreements across the country. In the aftermath of that announcement multiple lawsuits were filed against the FTC, seeking to enjoin enforcement of this Rule.
Earlier this month, opponents of the FTC’s Rule were offered a glimmer of hope when the U.S. District Court for the Northern ...
Yesterday, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) announced its long-anticipated final rule finding that the vast majority of non-compete agreements constitute unfair methods of competition, and are thus invalid. An estimated 30 million employees are covered by non-compete agreements, representing nearly one in five U.S. workers. Thus, this announced rule has the potential to significantly impact the labor market, as well as cause a shift in employers’ business strategies.
On April 15, 2024 the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced its finalized regulations of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA). Effective last year, the PWFA requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to employees and applicants with known physical limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. But while the law went into effect on June 27, 2023, the EEOC is just now announcing its final rule providing guidance as to how this law will be interpreted and administered.
Terminating an employee is often a long process involving warnings and documentation of performance issues. However, there are several scenarios that may call for immediate termination of employment. Employers often view these scenarios as safe from an employment law perspective but there can be hidden risks.
In this new podcast episode, recent cases and news from the world of Labor & Employment Law will be discussed.
Many employees today use a phone in connection with their work. Some employers provide employees with phones and others allow or require their employees to use a personal phone. In either case, employee phone use creates a host of potential issues for employers. In this episode, 5 issues related to employee phone use will be considered.
In this new podcast episode, recent cases and news from the world of Labor & Employment Law will be discussed.
Topics/Tags
Select- Labor & Employment Law
- Employment Law
- Department of Labor
- Coronavirus
- Discrimination
- Labor Law
- Non-Compete Agreements
- FLSA
- Overtime Pay
- National Labor Relations Board
- Wage & Hour
- Federal Trade Commission
- Privacy
- Reasonable Accommodation
- NLRB
- Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation
- Workplace Accommodations
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- FMLA
- Arbitration
- Employment Litigation
- Workplace Violence
- Religion Discrimination
- Medical Marijuana
- IRS
- Litigation
- Social Media
- Employer Policies
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Disability Discrimination
- Retirement
- National Labor Relations Act
- Medical Cannabis Dispensaries
- Accommodation
- Sexual Orientation Discrimination
- Race Discrimination
- OSHA
- Employer Handbook
- ERISA
- Whistleblower
- EEOC
- ADAAA
- United States Supreme Court
- ACA
- Affordable Car Act
- Unions
- Title VII
- Employer Rules
- Sexual Harassment
- Technology
- Federal Arbitration Act
- NLRA
- Transgender Issues
- Disability
- 401(k)
- Employment Settlement Agreements
- Sixth Circuit
- Fair Labor Standards Act
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- Paycheck Protection Program
- Benefits
- Gender Identity Discrimination
- Posting Requirements
- Class Action Litigation
- Disability Law
- Securities Law
- E-Discovery
- Evidence
- Health Savings Account
- Preventive Care Benefits
- SECURE Act
- Family and Medical Leave Act
- US Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration
- Environmental Law
- Privacy Laws
- Representative Election Regulations
- Department of Justice
- Healthcare Reform
- Older Workers' Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA)
- Affirmative Action
- Electronically Stored Information
- Equal Opportunity Clause
- Telecommuting
- Compensable Time
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration
- Security Screening
- Supreme Court
- E-Discovery Case Law
- Electronic Data Discovery
- ESI
- Unemployment Insurance Integrity Act
- American Medical Association
- Attendance Policy
- Return to Work
- Seniority Rights
- Classification
- Confidentiality
- Disability Leave
- Equal Pay
- Fair Minimum Wage
- Federal Minimum Wage
- Genetic Information Discrimination
- Media Policy
- Misclassification
- National Origin Discrimination
- Retaliation
- Social Media Content
- State Minimum Wage
- Wage Increase
- Employment Incentives
- HIRE Act
- Social Security Tax
- Taxation
- Antitrust
Recent Posts
- Federal Court Overturns Expansion of Overtime Requirements
- U.S. Supreme Court to Review Title VII Reverse Discrimination Case
- NLRB General Counsel Expands Focus on Non-Compete Agreements and Stay-Or-Pay Agreements
- FTC's Non-Compete Rule Struck Down
- District Court Finds in Favor of FTC, Declines to Issue Injunction
- DOL Increases Compensation Threshold for Exemption Eligibility
- Federal Trade Commission Announces New Rule Invalidating Non-Compete Agreements
- EEOC Announces Final Rule Providing Guidelines under the PWFA
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Immediate Termination
- The Practical Employment Law Podcast: Labor & Employment Law Update February 2024