Mid-Year Labor & Employment Law Update: Key Developments and Compliance Strategies
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Benefits Companion - Gag Clause Prohibitions
DOL Restructures: OFCCP on the Chopping Block as Opinion Letters Expand - #WorkforceWednesday® - Employment Law This Week®
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Benefits Companion - Forfeitures Under Fire
Independent Contractor Rule, EEO-1 Reporting, and New York Labor Law Amendment - #WorkforceWednesday® - Employment Law This Week®
Navigating Contractor vs. Employee Classification
Work This Way: A Labor & Employment Law Podcast | Episode 45: New Leadership at Employment-Related Federal Agencies with David Dubberly of Maynard Nexsen
Multijurisdictional Employers, Part 1: Independent Contractors vs. Employees
Non-Competes Eased, Anti-DEI Rule Blocked, Contractor Rule in Limbo - Employment Law This Week® - #WorkforceWednesday®
#WorkforceWednesday®: New DOL Leadership, NLRB Quorum, EEOC Enforcement Priorities - Employment Law This Week®
The Labor Law Insider: What's Next for Labor Law Under the Trump Administration, Part I
The Implications of President Trump's EO on Gender Ideology: What's the Tea in L&E?
#WorkforceWednesday®: Federal Agencies Begin Compliance Efforts Under Trump Administration - Employment Law This Week®
Fostering Teamwork: Lessons From the Dynamic Duo of Monsters, Inc. — Hiring to Firing Podcast
#WorkforceWednesday®: Employment Law Changes Under President Trump - Employment Law This Week®
Employment Law Now VIII-158 - DEI Developments and Executive Coaching
Now Is the Time to Conduct I-9 Audits: What's the Tea in L&E?
Employment Law Now VIII-157 - Top 5 L&E Issues to Watch in 2025
Constangy Clips Ep. 6 - Federal Court Blocks DOL Rule: What Employers Need to Know
The Labor Law Insider - Elections Have Consequences: Labor Law Changes Anticipated Under Trump Administration, Part II
On July 22, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, which dismissed an amended complaint brought by...more
In a recent win for health care providers, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has affirmed a lower court’s decision to vacate key portions of regulations issued by the U.S. Departments of Treasury,...more
In response to Braidwood Mgmt. Inc. v. Becerra, a recent case striking down part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) preventive services mandate, the US Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and the Treasury...more
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas recently vacated a portion of the Requirements Related to Surprise Billing, Part II, Interim Final Rule (the “Rule”) regarding the independent dispute resolution (IDR)...more
On July 8, 2020, the United States Supreme Court decided two cases addressing employers’ religious freedoms in very different contexts: one concerning whether religious school teachers could challenge adverse employment...more
On July 8, 2020, in the consolidated cases of Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania et al. and Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. Pennsylvania et al., the U.S. Supreme...more
On Wednesday, July 8, 2020, the Supreme Court weighed in on whether religious employers are required to offer their employees health plans that include contraceptive coverage. In its opinion in Little Sisters of the Poor v....more
The Supreme Court just upheld two Trump-era rules expanding religious and moral exemptions to the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) contraceptive mandate. The July 8 decision in Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania is just...more
In Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court this week upheld regulations issued by the U.S. Departments of Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services (the Departments) that...more
On July 8, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two 7-2 decisions involving religious exemptions to federal employment and benefits laws....more
This week, the Supreme Court ruled that employers may exclude coverage for birth control from their health plans based upon moral or religious objections to contraception. ...more
Until this week, federal law required most insurance plans to cover the cost of birth control without a copay. However, the history behind this issue can be traced back much further....more
On July 8, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania and Trump v. Pennsylvania, holding that the Department of Health and Human Services validly created...more