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
On August 11, the California Supreme Court issued a significant decision in Hohenshelt v. Superior Court addressing the interplay between the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and California’s statutory requirements for timely...more
While much of the world came to a halt in response to the coronavirus pandemic, the California Courts of Appeal were busy issuing important decisions on the enforceability of arbitration clauses. As the economy starts to...more
If your business operates in California, you need to be aware of AB 51, a law that will take effect January 1, 2020. AB 51 precludes employers from requiring any applicant or employee, as a condition of employment, continued...more
On June 28, 2019, the Ninth Circuit held in three separate cases that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) does not preempt the California Supreme Court’s holding in McGill v. Citibank, N.A., 2 Cal.5th 945 (2017) — otherwise...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
On September 27, 2018, the Kentucky Supreme Court in Northern Kentucky Area Development District v. Snyder held that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) does not preempt a Kentucky statute, KRS § 336.070(2), barring employers...more