PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Benefits Companion - Cost, Care and Captives: A Mid-Size Employer’s Guide to Benefit Trends
Is the Four-Day Workweek Really a Benefit? What’s the Tea in L&E?
Work this Way: An Employment Law Video Podcast | Episode 50: Creating a Competitive Advantage Through Employee Benefits with Connor Shaw of Gallagher
Work this Way: An Employment Law Video Podcast | Episode 49: Building Culture by Investing in People with Silvia King of Southern First Bank
Crafting Effective Flexible Leave Policies for Employers
How Modern Workplaces Navigate Generational Shifts: One-on-One with Jeff Landes
Work This Way: A Labor & Employment Law Podcast | Episode 46: The 2025 Greenville SHRM Conference with Tyler Clark and Brittany Goforth of GSHRM
(Podcast) California Employment News: Back to the Basics of Employee Pay Days
California Employment News: Back to the Basics of Employee Pay Days
Business Better Podcast Episode: Bridging Campuses: Legal Insights on Education Industry Consolidation – Labor, Employment, and Benefits
Ensuring Success with Executive Agreements
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Benefits Companion - Big Changes to Catch-Up Contributions in 2025
OK at Work: Navigating Snow Days, Office Closures, and Remote Work Planning
5 Key Takeaways | IRS Final RMD Rules & Proposed Regulations to Address SECURE 2.0 Act Issues
Holiday Headaches: Avoiding Legal Risks with PTO, Overtime, and Workplace Festivities
Employer Obligations to Accommodate Before Employees Arrive to Work
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Benefits Companion - New IRS Guidance on SECURE 2.0 Act Student Loan Employer Contributions
Current Executive Compensation Trends in Private Equity Transactions — Troutman Pepper Podcast
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Benefits Companion - ERISA Forfeiture Litigation
Johnson Case’s Potential Impact on Colleges, NIL, and College Athletics — Highway to NIL
The wait is over. On June 6, 2025, Judge Claudia Wilken of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California approved the $2.576 billion class action settlement in House v. NCAA....more
On June 6, 2025, Judge Claudia Wilken of the Northern District of California granted final approval of the landmark House v. NCAA settlement, clearing the way for NCAA Division I schools to directly compensate...more
On May 7, the parties in House v. NCAA submitted supplemental briefs in response to U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken’s April 23 order requiring both parties to address her concerns over the issue of roster limits. These...more
Recently, the University of Kentucky took an interesting step in the context of collegiate athletics by converting its athletic department into a limited liability company (LLC), named Champions Blue LLC. This structure makes...more
On April 23, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a significant order in House v. NCAA and two related antitrust class actions (collectively known as In re College Athlete NIL...more
On April 23, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken temporarily rejected the terms of the settlement in House v. NCAA, effectively issuing an ultimatum to the parties: fix the roster limits issue or risk blowing up the...more
The National Collegiate Athletic Association’s (NCAA) name, image, and likeness (NIL) recruiting restrictions, referred to as the “NIL recruiting ban,” are about to become a thing of the past....more
How NCAA Division I conferences choose to deal with the implications of the House, et al., v. NCAA, et al. settlement, and in particular the revenue-sharing mechanism known as the “pool,” has been the subject of much...more
Texas’s biennial legislature is in session, and revamping Texas’ name, image, and likeness (NIL) laws to keep up with the developments across the U.S. seems to be a hot topic. As of the date of this post, state...more
Executive Order 2024-08D, now codified, unequivocally asserts that the State of Ohio boasts the best postsecondary educational institutions and intercollegiate student-athletes in the country. The Ohio State University...more
The Highway to NIL Podcast analyzes the legal landscape concerning college athletics and the regulation of name, image, and likeness (NIL) rights of student athletes. The podcast provides key insights into the current state...more
On July 26, the plaintiffs in In Re: College Athlete NIL Litigation (a/k/a the House litigation) filed formal settlement documents (i.e., the proposed settlement) with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of...more
On December 5, 2023, recently installed NCAA President Charlie Baker sent a letter to at least 350 NCAA member schools in which he proposed numerous “fundamental changes” to college athletics, including two proposed changes...more
Allowing college athletes to be paid for their name, image, and likeness (NIL) has changed college sports, but several decisions that are due in the coming months could make college sports unrecognizable. First, several...more
On December 13, a West Virginia federal judge placed a temporary hold on an NCAA rule (NCAA Division I Bylaw 14.5.5.1) requiring certain student-athletes who transferred schools to wait a year before competing in games. This...more
Montana Senate Bill 248 went into effect on June 1, 2023. This law allows student-athletes to earn compensation from Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) endorsement deals and is part of a trend of NIL legislation being passed by...more
Earlier this year, we blogged about the NLRB’s aggressive moves to try to make revenue-generating college athletes employees, at least for purposes of the National Labor Relations Act. Earlier this month, the California...more
On May 18, 2023, the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) regional office in Los Angeles filed a complaint against the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), Pac-12 Conference, and the University of Southern...more
As pending legislation works through the Rhode Island General Assembly, the off seasons for NCAA Football and Basketball have drawn further attention to the constantly evolving Name, Image and Likeness (“NIL”) landscape in...more
While NCAA rules that prohibit pay-for-play serve a procompetitive purpose by preserving consumer demand for college sports, national limits on education-related benefits violate antitrust law. The National Collegiate...more