Off the Clock, On the Radar: Managing Off-Duty Conduct and Workplace Impact
Daily Compliance News: July 22, 2025, The I-9 Hell Edition
Blowing the Whistle: What Employers Should Know About DEI & the False Claims Act
(Podcast) California Employment News: Creating the Report for a Workplace Investigation – Part 4 (Featured)
California Employment News: Creating the Report for a Workplace Investigation – Part 4 (Featured)
Essential Steps to Sell Your Business
Workplace Risks Meet Holistic Legal Solutions: One-on-One with Adam Tomiak
Legal Shifts in 2025 Put Employer Non-Compete Strategies at Risk - Employment Law This Week® - Spilling Secrets Podcast
Podcast - How Do You Define Success?
Hiring Smarter: Best Practices for Interviews: What's the Tea in L&E?
New Executive Order Targets Disparate Impact Claims Nationwide - #WorkforceWednesday® - Employment Law This Week®
Podcast - The Law as a Force for Change
Strategic HR Insights with Kelly Mitchell
Work This Way: A Labor & Employment Law Podcast - Episode 41: Employment & Labor Law Issues for Construction Companies with Bridget Blinn-Spears of Maynard Nexsen
Stumbling Your Way Into a Union: Key Advice for Employers: What’s the Tea in L&E?
California Employment News: Taking Advantage of the PAGA Reform – How Employers Can Lower Their Risk of PAGA Liability
(Podcast) California Employment News: Taking Advantage of the PAGA Reform – How Employers Can Lower Their Risk of PAGA Liability
AI in Employment: Navigating the Legal Landscape with Lessons from I, Robot — Hiring to Firing Podcast
Constangy Clips Ep. 9 - The Penalty Playbook: 3 Pointers for Employee Discipline
Work This Way: A Labor & Employment Law Podcast - Episode 39: Best Practices for Conducting RIFs and Layoffs with Jennifer Wheeler of Maynard Nexsen
In a significant decision issued on June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court of Texas reversed a jury verdict awarding over $89 million in damages in favor of the plaintiffs in Werner Enterprises, Inc. v. Blake, holding that the...more
A recent Supreme Court decision clarified that discrimination claims brought by members of majority groups in so-called “reverse discrimination” cases cannot be subject to a heightened evidentiary burden. In Ames v. Ohio...more
On Thursday, June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the notion that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) imposes special requirements on a “majority-group” plaintiff trying to make an initial...more
In a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court of the United States announced that Title VII’s protections against discrimination do not require majority group individuals (including white people, men, and heterosexuals) to...more
On May 29, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held in Oldham v. Pennsylvania State Univ., No. 22-2056 (3d Cir. May 29, 2025) that Title IX may allow for claims by non-students and non-employees. In the...more
In a unanimous decision issued June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services vacated a Sixth Circuit ruling that imposed a higher evidentiary burden on majority-group plaintiffs in Title...more
On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services in which the Plaintiff alleged reverse discrimination based on sexual orientation. Marlean Ames was hired in 2004 as an...more
A recent Texas Supreme Court decision fully overturned a jury’s finding that a franchisor was liable for the criminal actions of a franchisee’s employee. This decision underscores the importance of a franchisor having clearly...more
While legal analysts focus on landmark Supreme Court decisions each term, equally significant are the cases the Court declines to hear. These certiorari denials often reveal critical jurisprudential trends that shape...more
We saw a flurry of activity this week from the Supreme Court, with rulings that employers and educational institutions should be aware of. Specifically, the Supreme Court ruled in the Trump Administrations’ favor on several...more
In a unanimous opinion decided January 15, 2025, E.M.D. Sales, Inc., v. Carrerra et al., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the less stringent preponderance of evidence standard, instead of the clear and convincing evidence...more
Last month the United States Supreme Court (“SCOTUS”) delivered a pro-employer ruling on the standard of proof required under certain provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). In E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera, the...more
In IUOE, Local 39 v. National Labor Relations Board, No. 23-124, No. 23-150, 23-188, a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit panel issued a 2-1 ruling on January 21, 2025, enforcing a National Labor Relations Board...more
Employers confronted with individual or class action lawsuits or government investigations under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) have the burden to prove that employees are exempt from the law’s minimum wage and...more
The US Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision on January 15, 2025 in EMD Sales Inc. v. Carrera clarifying the evidentiary standard employers must meet to show that an employee is exempt from overtime and minimum wage...more
On January 15, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the Fourth Circuit’s attempt to require an employer to meet a higher evidentiary standard to establish that its workers fell under one of the Fair Labor Standards Act...more
In a win for employers, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled this week in E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera that employers need only prove an exemption from overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by a “preponderance of the...more
Today, in the matter of E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera, the United States Supreme Court held that employers must not meet a heightened standard of proof when defending claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). The...more
On January 13, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to grant certiorari in the case of Gauthier vs. Total Quality Logistics, leaving the decision of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals intact. This means that freight...more
If an employer or coworker persistently uses a transgender worker’s wrong name or identified pronoun, can that constitute a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII? In Copeland v. Georgia Department of Corrections,...more
This Littler Lightbulb highlights some of the more significant employment law developments at the U.S. Supreme Court and federal courts of appeal in the last month....more
On Friday, January 12, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal from Starbucks on a case involving the termination of seven Memphis, Tennessee employees....more
On October 10, 2023, California Governor Newsom signed into law S.B. 365, a bill that amends California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1294. The new law provides that when a party appeals an order denying a motion to compel...more
The California Supreme Court issued a much-anticipated Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) decision in Adolph v. Uber Technologies, Inc. in July, departing from the United States Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in Viking River...more