State Laws on Screening and Federal Preemption – Where Are We Now and Where Are We Heading? — FCRA Focus Podcast
#WorkforceWednesday: Preparing for Biden's Vaccine Mandate, Mandate Pushback Begins, NLRA's Reach Expected to Expand - Employment Law This Week®
Williams Mullen Manufacturing Edge Video Series - Episode 1
Revisiting McGirt: New Legal Developments Challenge Oklahoma’s Landmark Ruling
Edible Bites Episode 8: Impact of Cannabis Legalization on Government Contractors
The Immediate and Lasting Impacts of McGirt: A Novel Ruling for Oklahoma
Podcast: Federal and State Cannabis Rules Are Moving in Different Directions - Diagnosing Health Care
Part 1 of 2: The Impact of Marijuana for Employers
Derivatives exchange and prediction market KalshiEX LLC (Kalshi) was handed a litigation setback in defending its sports event contract offerings in federal court against claims brought by the State of Maryland. The District...more
In a significant ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a consumer’s state law claims against a federal credit union on federal preemption grounds. The putative class action...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
November 22, 2019, San Antonio Judge Peter Sakai granted a temporary injunction preventing the City’s Sick and Safe Leave Ordinance from taking effect. The Ordinance’s December 1, 2019, effective date has been indefinitely...more
Add the Fifth Circuit to the growing list of Federal Circuit Courts that have decided that “class arbitrability” is a gateway question for a court, rather than an arbitrator, to decide in the first instance, absent the...more
Express Consent Required for Class Arbitration - A recent Supreme Court decision has—for the most part— signaled the end to an era of class arbitration proceedings. In Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, 139 S. Ct. 1407 (2019),...more
On June 10, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously ruled that state wage and hour laws do not apply to offshore drilling workers where federal law addresses the relevant issue. In Parker Drilling Management...more
In a rare decision applying the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. §1331 et seq.(“OCSLA”), the United States Supreme Court has clarified, re-affirmed and perhaps (given the breadth of its opinion) expanded the...more
U.S. Supreme Court reaffirms primacy of federal law on Outer Continental Shelf holding state law may not be adopted where federal law already addresses the issue. In Parker Drilling Management Services Ltd. v. Newton, 587...more
Workers on oil drilling platforms off the coast of California are covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), not California’s overtime and wage laws, the U.S. Supreme Court has held unanimously. Parker Drilling...more
The U.S. Supreme Court issued two 5-4 decisions in as many months regarding class procedures. Lamp Plus, Inc. v. Varela, 587 U. S. ____ (2019) was favorable to corporate defendants by limiting the availability of class...more
On June 10, 2019, the United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled that state wage and hour laws do not apply to certain drilling rig employees working off the California coast. The rig workers argued that California law...more
By a unanimous 9-0 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday declined to extend California’s wage-and-hour laws to employees working on offshore drilling platforms subject to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (Parker...more
On June 10, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Parker Drilling Management Services, Ltd. v. Newton, No. 18-389, holding that state law does not apply to the Outer Continental Shelf when federal law addresses...more
On April 24, 2019, in a 5-4 decision split along ideological lines, the Supreme Court held in Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela that class arbitration is not available where arbitration agreements are unclear about whether the...more
We have good news from the U.S. Supreme Court for creditors who use arbitration agreements. On April 24, 2019, in Lamps Plus v. Varela, the Supreme Court held in a 5-4 decision that courts may no longer infer from an...more
Last year, the United States Supreme Court ruled that class action waivers in employment arbitration agreements are enforceable. But, the ruling did not address an agreement that is silent or ambiguous regarding the intent to...more
On April 24, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its 5–4 opinion in Lamps Plus, Inc., et al. v. Varela holding that class arbitration is only allowed when the parties’ agreement explicitly allows for it. In other words, when...more
In a case with important implications for employers, Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, the United States Supreme Court held that class-wide arbitration may not be compelled pursuant to an arbitration agreement that is ambiguous as...more
On April 24, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that an ambiguous arbitration agreement does not provide a sufficient basis to conclude that parties agreed to class arbitration....more
In the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s decision in Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varella, No. 17-988, 2019 WL 1780275 (U.S. Apr. 24, 2019), a lot of ink has been spilled on the issue of class arbitration. The Lamps Plus majority,...more
In 2016, a hacker tricked an employee of petitioner Lamps Plus Inc. into disclosing tax information of about 1,300 company employees. ...more
In last year’s Epic Systems decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) allows mandatory arbitration agreements that preclude class or collective action claims. In other words, a party to the...more
If you’re waiting for a reversal of the trend at the Supreme Court to limit employers’ ability to insist on arbitration instead of litigation, or of the trend limiting class claims, keep waiting. The Supreme Court...more
Intro - Last week, the Supreme Court may have put the final nail in the class arbitration coffin in Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela. ...more