Workforce Bulletin

Connecticut Public Act 26-1 (Sections 50-57) requires specified employers who employ, directly or indirectly through a third party, workers at a warehouse distribution center to provide employees with written notice of work production quotas by August 1, 2026. After that date, covered employers will be required to provide these written notices to new employees upon hire. While this new law affects only a specific set of Connecticut employers, the obligations for those employers are significant. This law makes Connecticut the sixth state to impose special requirements on employers to protect warehouse workers.[1]

[1] The others are California, New York, Minnesota, Washington and Oregon. Additionally, on July 13, 2026, Rhode Island enacted such a law, taking effect January 1, 2027.

What employers should know about key developments this week:

• Agencies Lose Their Independence: In Trump v. Slaughter, the U.S. Supreme Court held that federal agencies such as the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) are not “independent.” The NLRB’s Board members and General Counsel serve at the President’s pleasure and can be removed at any time, for any reason—or for no reason.
• The Ripple Effect on the NLRB: Although the Slaughter ruling doesn’t affect other positions at the NLRB, it has the potential to have a significant trickle-down effect on those who report to the NLRB’s Board members or General Counsel. This will likely be compounded by the administration’s efforts to remove civil service protections for many positions at the NLRB as well as other agencies.
• A New Circuit Split on the Standard for Section 10(j) Injunctions: Applying the traditional four-part test for the first time since the Supreme Court’s decision in Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit declined to accept an NLRB Regional Director’s contention that irreparable harm would result from an employer’s refusal to bargain, splitting with the Ninth and Fourth Circuits over the standard for granting injunctive relief under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act.

The Chicago Department of Business Affairs and Consumer Protection (BACP) Office of Labor Standards (OLS) adopted new rules for administering Chicago’s Fair Workweek and Paid Leave and Paid Sick and Safe Leave Ordinances. The new rules were published on May 18, 2026, and went into effect on June 1, 2026. A separate blog post addressing the new rules to the Fair Workweek Ordinance can be found here. Without re-hashing all the details about compliance obligations under the Paid Leave and Paid Sick and Safe Leave Ordinance, here’s a summary of what’s important to know as these rules go into force.

Employers in Chicago: new rules may require your attention, especially if you employ workers in cooperation with another employer or operate within any of the industries covered by the city’s Fair Workweek Ordinance.

What employers should know about key developments this week:

• NLRB Nomination Signals Shifting Board Majority: The nomination of James Macy—packaged with the renomination of Democratic Member David Prouty—could give the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) a three-person Republican majority, providing the votes needed to overturn Biden-era precedents.
• Quorum Pressure Drives Confirmation Timeline: The Senate must confirm at least one nominee before Member Prouty’s term expires in August to preserve the Board’s quorum, making a swift confirmation process likely.
• Key Precedents on the Chopping Block: With a third Republican vote, the Board is expected to revisit the captive audience meeting rule, the Cemex bargaining order decision, Thryv’s expanded remedies, and standards for evaluating employer work rules.

In this episode of Employment Law This Week^®, Epstein Becker Green attorney Michael S. Ferrell discusses what a three-person Republican majority on the NLRB would mean for employers and which Biden-era precedents are most likely to be reconsidered.

What employers should know about key developments this week:

• DOL Proposes Opening 401(k) Investments: The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) proposed a rule establishing a process-based safe harbor for fiduciaries under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, opening the door to alternative assets—including cryptocurrency, private equity, and real estate—in 401(k) plans.
• NLRB Wants Its Removal Protections Stripped: The National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) asked a federal court to declare unconstitutional the statutory provisions limiting the U.S. president's ability to remove members of the NLRB and administrative law judges—marking the first time the Board itself has taken this position.
• Compliance with Military Leave Requests: Amid ongoing global conflicts, employers should prepare for an influx of military leave requests and review their obligations under the federal Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, as well as any applicable state law.

What employers should know about key developments this week:

• Sixth Circuit Rejects Cemex Bargaining Order: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit refused to enforce a bargaining order issued under the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB’s) 2023 Cemex standard.
• Cemex Remains in Effect Outside the Sixth Circuit: The NLRB continues to treat Cemex as binding policy in all other jurisdictions, leaving employers outside the Sixth Circuit’s reach exposed to bargaining orders under the standard.
• A Formal Reversal May Be Coming: With its current composition, the NLRB is widely expected to reject Cemex outright when the appropriate case arises—thereby restoring the long-standing framework requiring unions to win a representation election before gaining recognition.

In this episode of Employment Law This Week^®, Epstein Becker Green attorney Steven M. Swirsky provides insights on the Sixth Circuit's decision and what it means for employers navigating union recognition demands.

A Case Study of Missouri v. Starbucks Corp. and the Compliance Challenges Ahead

The Missouri Attorney General’s (AG’s) Office recently learned this lesson in Missouri v. Starbucks Corp., when its Title VII anti-diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) case against Starbucks was dismissed by a federal district court judge.

What employers should know about key developments this week:

• National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) Sets New Enforcement Priorities: NLRB General Counsel Crystal Carey directed regional offices to prioritize the resolution of current cases over initiating new enforcement actions.
• Department of Labor (DOL) Targets Non-Union Workplaces: In an internal memo, DOL Solicitor of Labor Jonathan Berry emphasized that enforcement would focus on non-unionized environments, noting that unions were better equipped to address issues in unionized workplaces.
• Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Cracks Down on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Policies: EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas issued a warning that preference-based diversity policies may violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and signaled a return to systemic investigations and large-scale litigation.

On March 6, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a significant decision clarifying how discrimination claims brought by majority-group plaintiffs should be analyzed under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD). In Massey v. Borough of Bergenfield, the court concluded that majority-group plaintiffs should not be required to satisfy the “background circumstances” rule—a doctrine that imposed a heightened burden on plaintiffs alleging discrimination against majority groups. In reaching that conclusion, the court, predicting that the New Jersey Supreme Court would do the same, relied on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, which rejected the background circumstances rule in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) cases. Massey marks the first federal appellate decision to apply Ames to state law.

On February 26, 2026, Andrea Lucas, Chair of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), sent a pointed letter to Fortune 500 CEOs, General Counsels, and Board Chairs, to remind them of their obligations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

New York City employers are facing significant new compliance obligations with the newly effective amendments to the Earned Safe and Sick Time Act (ESSTA) now mandating 32 hours of unpaid leave in addition to existing paid leave entitlements, as explained in detail by our colleagues here.

On January 20, 2026, two job applicants filed a class action lawsuit against Eightfold AI Inc. (“Eightfold”) alleging that Eightfold, an AI-driven hiring platform used by major employers, violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) and California’s Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (“ICRAA”) by secretly generating AI-driven applicant “likelihood of success” scores based on a 0-5 scale and dossiers functions as illegal, undisclosed consumer reports.

Employers offering or considering tuition reimbursement plans are facing significant regulatory changes in both California and New York. Tuition reimbursement plans are offered by employers as a fringe benefit that reimburses employees who want to continue their education in a degree program or receive certain certifications. Many employers impose certain conditions for receiving reimbursement, including staying on the job and requiring employees to repay the employer if they terminate employment within a specified period of time. Recent changes to state laws governing employer recoupment rights and repayment agreements require review of the administration and documentation of employer’s tuition reimbursement plans. Like many workforce-facing benefits, tuition reimbursement is no longer just an HR perk, it is a compliance issue. While California and New York requirements are very similar, there are important differences.

[Update (2/17/26): New York’s Trapped at Work Act—Governor Signs Amendment into Law]

On January 6, 2026, the New York Assembly introduced bill A9452 (Amendment), which would substantially amend the “Trapped at Work Act” (TAWA). As we explained here, TAWA prohibits all employers—including subsidiaries and contractors—from requiring current or prospective workers to sign employment-related promissory notes as a condition of employment.

As another busy year for our Employment, Labor & Workforce Management clients came to a close, we asked our attorneys what issues were top of mind for our nationwide clients in 2025.

The results of this informal survey provide the opportunity not only to reflect on the challenges confronted by the global organizations we are privileged to represent, but also to prepare for what the legal landscape might hold in 2026. 

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we explore the top legal trends shaping the workplace in 2026.

Employers face a rapidly evolving legal landscape in 2026. In this episode of Employment Law This Week®, Epstein Becker Green attorneys share their insights on the key challenges and opportunities businesses should prepare for in the year ahead.

Discover more predictions and practical guidance—watch the full episode now.

New York is once again updating its New York Paid Family Leave (PFL) program – the state managed insurance program that provides partial wage replacement for eligible employees who take time off to:

• bond with a child,
• care for a family member with a serious health condition, or
• deal with the deployment or active duty of a family member in military service.

On November 19, 2025, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued a press release announcing a new one-page technical assistance “Fact Sheet” regarding national origin discrimination. The EEOC also updated its national origin discrimination guidance page, which provides information about “what national origin discrimination can look like in the workplace” and how employees may obtain EEOC assistance if they feel they have been the victim of discrimination. The new guidance makes good on EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas’  February announcement vowing to protect American workers from “Anti-American bias.” As part of that announcement, Lucas asserted that “[m]any employers have policies and practices preferring illegal aliens, migrant workers, and visa holders or other legal immigrants over American workers—in direct violation of federal employment law prohibiting national origin discrimination.”

On October 8, 2025, the Mayor of Philadelphia signed into law amendments (“Amendments”) to the city’s Fair Criminal Record Screening Standards Ordinance, commonly known as Philadelphia’s Fair Chance law. The Amendments will take effect on January 6, 2026.

On November 20, 2025, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced that it was asking a federal court to compel a private employer to disclose details about its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies, pursuant to an administrative subpoena the agency had issued. This is the first known instance of EEOC issuing a subpoena in an investigation of a charge alleging illegal DEI activities.

Columbus has expanded its pay equity law, adding new transparency requirements to a salary history ban that took effect in March 2024. On November 3, 2025, the Columbus City Council approved Ordinance 2898-2025 (the “Amendment”), amending Chapter 2335 of the Columbus City Code. Mayor Andrew Ginther signed the Amendment into law the next day.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we examine what employers should anticipate as the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)—which currently has only one active member, a Democrat, and four vacancies—moves closer to regaining a quorum and resuming full operations.

For the first time in more than 10 months, the NLRB may soon have three members, reestablishing a quorum and potentially impacting employers significantly.

Epstein Becker Green attorney Corey P. Argust discusses the implications as the NLRB moves toward full operations.

On September 29, 2025, Ohio joined 13 other states with its adoption of a “mini-WARN” Act (“Ohio WARN”), which will supplement federal WARN notice requirements for employers anticipating mass layoff events. Enacted at Ohio Revised Code Section 4113.31, Ohio WARN largely tracks federal WARN standards, however, there are notable differences from federal WARN of which Ohio employers should be aware. In addition, the Ohio WARN statutory language contains a few key ambiguities that may complicate employer compliance with the law until these points are addressed in either a statutory amendment, regulations, or official guidance.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we discuss highlights from Epstein Becker Green’s 44th Annual Workforce Management Briefing, which covered some of the most pressing issues for employers today.

Epstein Becker Green attorneys and clients from across the nation gathered in New York City this past week to share their insights on the latest developments in labor and employment law.

In this episode of Employment Law This Week, we hear from a few of the briefing’s panelists about the critical issues their clients are currently facing.

Key Topics of Discussion:

• Navigating Workplace Compliance and Litigation Risks: Panelists spoke about handling accommodation requests, defending class and collective claims, and refining termination strategies across varied regulatory landscapes.
• Adapting to Evolving Workforce Dynamics: Speakers explored managing diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives; return-to-office mandates; and the rise in union activity.
• Governing AI and Technology: Panelists talked about ensuring responsible artificial intelligence (AI) adoption while addressing data privacy, liability, and ethical considerations.

In a letter notifying the City Council of his disapproval of the bills, Mayor Adams noted the “serious operational concerns” that could arise for the agency designated to enforce the pay data reporting law and expressed doubts about the bill’s clarity regarding which City businesses it covers. He also raised reservations about allowing businesses to report anonymously under the law, writing that the anonymity would “[disincentivize] respondents from providing accurate information while also stymieing any effort by the City to address potentially illegal pay practices.” The Mayor concluded by asserting that the “costs to the City and businesses operating here . . . outweigh any potential benefit this law may create.”

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we’re covering an uptick in state-level employment law activity, federal court decisions on “captive audience” bans, and Rhode Island's new menopause accommodation requirements.

State Legislative Activity Increases

California has introduced new laws on paid sick leave, artificial intelligence, pay equity, and protections for tipped workers. Meanwhile, other states are also rolling out new laws impacting employment practices.

Courts Clash Over “Captive Audience” Bans

Federal courts have issued conflicting rulings on state restrictions regarding employer-mandated meetings related to union organizing.

Rhode Island Enacts First-Ever Menopause Law

Through a new amendment to its Fair Employment Practices Act, Rhode Island has become the first state in the country to require employers with four or more employees to accommodate menopause symptoms.

On August 4, 2025, Plaintiff Arshon Harper (“Harper”) filed a class action complaint in the Eastern District of Michigan against Sirius XM Radio, LLC (“Sirius”) asserting claims of both unintentional and intentional racial discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Harper alleges that Sirius’ use of a commercial AI hiring tool that screens and analyzes resumes resulted in racial discrimination against him and other similarly situated African American applicants.

Recent amendments to the Illinois Workplace Transparency Act (WTA) (HB 3638) require changes to Illinois employment agreements and separation agreements, beginning as of January 1, 2026.

The WTA, first enacted in response to the #MeToo movement, imposes certain procedural requirements on employment-related contracts for Illinois employees. These amendments impose additional restrictions, the most significant of which involves confidentiality clauses in separation agreements.

On September 19, 2025, President Trump signed a presidential proclamation titled Restriction on Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers. The proclamation took effect at 12:01 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time on September 21, 2025, and is slated to remain in force for 12 months (until September 21, 2026), unless extended. The core of the proclamation is the imposition of a $100,000 supplemental fee on new H-1B petitions (i.e., petitions “submitted after” the effective date).

However, the proclamation is not yet a complete, fully operational rule. Many specifics remain ambiguous. Below is a breakdown of what is known, what is uncertain, and what stakeholders should plan.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we’re covering four key employer-focused developments:

• a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit challenging the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB’s) authority,
• another Fifth Circuit decision restoring pregnant worker protections,
• the White House’s reversal of a key non-compete executive order, and
• a court ruling against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC’s) early right-to-sue policy.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we look at the potential restoration of a quorum at the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”), the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL’s) deregulatory initiatives, and lessons from a high-profile workplace incident at a Coldplay concert.

On July 17, 2025, President Trump announced that he was nominating Scott Mayer and James R. Murphy, both Republicans, to serve as Members of the National Labor Relations Board. Mayer is presently the Chief Labor Counsel at The Boeing Corporation and James R. Murphy is a career NLRB attorney who has served as the Chief Counsel for several prior Board Members. The Board presently has two members: Republican Chairman Marvin Kaplan, and Democratic member David Prouty.  Kaplan’s term is set to expire in August 2025, and it has been reported that Kaplan does not wish to be nominated for another term. If both Mayer and Murphy are confirmed after August 2025, the Board would have three-member quorum, including a Republican majority, and would be expected to begin to issue decisions. The fifth seat on the Board would remain vacant.

The President’s nominee for General Counsel, Crystal Carey, a management-side labor attorney, is currently pending before the Senate.  She appeared before the Senate Health, Labor and Pensions Committee on July 16, 2025.  At this time William Cowen continues to serve as the agency’s Acting General Counsel at this time.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we're covering the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL’s) decision to halt enforcement of the Biden-era independent contractor rule, the upcoming EEO-1 reporting season (starting on May 20), and New York State’s new labor law amendment, reducing damages for first-time frequency-of-pay violations.­

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we’re bringing you a special episode on the first 100 days of the Trump administration, in which we highlight sweeping policy shifts, battles at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB); revisions to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs; the rapid evolution of artificial intelligence (AI) in the workplace; and more.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, by the full court, has ordered that the stay of National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) Member Gwynne Wilcox’s reinstatement to her seat on the Board be dissolved and that Wilcox, for the second time, be returned to her seat. This action by the D.C. Circuit means that the NLRB once again has three members and a “quorum,” as that term is defined in the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

Back and Forth and Back Again

As we previously reported, on February 3, President Trump fired Wilcox from her seat on the Board, leaving only two of the Board’s five seats filled and stripping the NLRB of the quorum required by the NLRA for the Board to issue decisions, make rules, and fulfill other statutory duties.

On March 28, 2025, a divided three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that President Donald Trump likely has the authority to remove National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) member Gwynne Wilcox, as well as Merit Systems Protections Board (MSPB) member Cathy Harris, without cause. In granting the Government’s motion for an emergency stay of the reinstatement orders of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, the appeals court has once again left the NLRB without a quorum.

The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) has begun to significantly curtail services as the agency moves to implement a March 14 Executive Order, Continuing the Reduction of the Federal Bureaucracy, that directs FMCS and other agencies to “reduce the performance of statutory functions and associated personnel to a minimum presence and function required by law.” In response to this Executive Order, FMCS anticipated implementing the agency’s contingency plan, issued in December 2020 in preparation for the potential of a budget-based disruption of agency operations.

As a result, and as noted in a statement FMCS released on March 19th, the agency announced it would examine how to apply the Executive Order in practice moving forward, specifically by ensuring “a coordinated approach to efficiency, optimization, and mission focus.” Among the immediate effects is that, on March 26, most, if not all of FMCS mediators were placed on administrative leave pending layoff, according to multiple news sources.

What Does This Mean For Employers?

To say that the past fifty days have been a period of significant changes at the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) is surely an understatement. On January 27^th, the President terminated Biden appointee Jennifer Abruzzo from her role as the Board’s General Counsel and on February 3^rd appointed William Cowen, a career Board lawyer, to serve as Acting General Counsel.   

That same day, the President fired Gwynne Wilcox from her position as a Member of the Board. The firing of Wilcox left the Board without a quorum, which it must have to issue decisions and engage in rulemaking. Wilcox brought a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging her termination and seeking a declaratory judgment holding that the President could not terminate a Board Member other than for cause as defined in the National Labor Relations Act (the “Act”) and seeking her immediate reinstatement to her seat on the Board. On March 6, 2025, U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell granted Wilcox summary judgment and ordered Board Chair Marvin Kaplan to reinstate her for the remainder of five-year term which is set to expire on August 27, 2028. So where does this leave employers, unions and anyone else who has business before the Board?

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we’re covering significant updates shaping workplace policies, including shifts in regulations and enforcement related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI); evolving approaches to Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) compliance; and recent changes in National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) guidance.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we examine how the loss of a quorum at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), along with the rollback of affirmative action requirements for federal contractors, are creating significant hurdles for employers.

The regulatory environment for employers is undergoing significant changes. President Trump’s removal of an NLRB member, the NLRB’s general counsel, and two EEOC commissioners has left those agencies without a quorum, delaying decisions and creating uncertainty for employers. Meanwhile, the repeal of Executive Order 11246 has ended affirmative action requirements for federal contractors and grantees.

In this week’s episode, Epstein Becker Green attorneys Erin E. Schaefer and Courtney McFate provide clarity amid these shifts. Employers should prepare for procedural delays from both agencies and reassess their compliance obligations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and state or municipal contracts in light of reduced affirmative action requirements.

As expected, the Trump administration has shifted the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) into a new era marked by notable changes that will reshape the Board. The first and most significant of these changes is the termination of Board Member Gwynne Wilcox. The second is the termination of General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo. The removal of Wilcox leaves the NLRB down to two Members, a Democrat and a Republican, and without a quorum for decision making and other actions until the President fills at least one of the three current vacancies. These changes raise many questions as to what is in store for the NLRB and its ability to perform its main functions.

As discussed further below, employers should consider the impact of these decisions on pending cases before the Board, consider asserting affirmative and procedural defenses early and often, and stay aware of rapidly developing changes expected to take effect over the coming months.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, while recognizing that it’s far from “business as usual” in California and keeping our friends and clients in mind, we look at a new ruling in California regarding Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) arbitrations.

We also examine a federal appeals court decision limiting the authority of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the flurry of new employment laws taking effect in 2025.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, a few of our labor and employment attorneys share their insights on the key issues and emerging trends shaping the employment law landscape as we move into 2025.

Employment Law in 2025: A Look Ahead

Happy New Year! As we kick off 2025, we’re exploring key legal trends for employers, with a focus on the implications of the incoming Trump administration.

In this episode, attorneys from Epstein Becker Green's Employment, Labor & Workforce Management practice discuss their predictions on how these changes could shape the employment law landscape in the year ahead.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we asked a few of our labor and employment attorneys to recap the most significant challenges their clients faced in 2024.

It has been a pivotal year for employers, marked by challenges to federal agency authority, sweeping state-level regulatory changes, and the looming impact of a presidential election poised to reshape labor laws nationwide.

In this episode, attorneys from Epstein Becker Green's Employment, Labor & Workforce Management practice reflect on these challenges, address key client pain points, and share their insights on what the future may bring.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we're highlighting several last-minute changes from federal agencies before the Trump administration takes office.

These changes include the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB’s) recent ban on captive audience meetings, a federal judge's decision to vacate the Department of Labor's (DOL’s) overtime rule, and the return of Wage and Hour Division opinion letters.

Just hours after it became clear that Donald Trump would be returning to the White House, the majority Democratic National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) showed no signs of slowing down its efforts to implement the Biden Administration’s pro-labor agenda before January 20. In its latest decision the Board severely curtailed what types of statements employers can make to employees when pointing out the legal and practical effects of unionization.

On November 8, 2024, the NLRB issued a decision in Siren Retail Corp. d/b/a Starbucks, 373 NLRB No. 135, which overturned long-standing case law Tri-Cast, Inc., 274 NLRB 377 (1985). Under Tri-Cast, the Board held that it was lawful for employers to accurately explain that a union’s certification as the collective bargaining representative of employees would change the relationship between the employer and its employees, holding that, “there is no threat, either explicit or implicit, in a statement which explains to employees that, when they select a union to represent them, the relationship that existed between the employees and employer will not be as before,” regardless of “the truth or falsity of the parties campaign statements.” Tri-Cast, 274 NLRB 377, 378 (quoting Midland National Life Insurance Co., 263 NLRB 127, 133 (1982)).

New Jersey has joined the growing ranks of jurisdictions that have enacted pay transparency laws. Senate Bill 2310 (“the Law”) was enacted on November 10, 2024, and approved on November 18, 2024 as Public Law 2024, chapter 91. The Law will take effect on June 1, 2025, i.e., “the first day of the seventh month next following the date of enactment,” and will require most New Jersey employers to disclose a wage or salary range and a general description of benefits and other compensation programs in their job postings and advertisements. The Law also will require covered employers to make “reasonable efforts to announce, post, or otherwise make known opportunities for promotion” to current employees, a feature that is not common in similar laws enacted by other jurisdictions.

Covered Employers

The Law applies to any employer that has 10 or more employees over 20 calendar weeks and does business, employs persons, or takes applications for employment within the state.

Note that employers in Jersey City with five or more employees within Jersey City are already required to comply with that city’s ordinance mandating the disclosure of salary information in postings. This ordinance remains in effect, which means that Jersey City employers with five to nine employees that will be exempt from the state’s law must still comply with the city’s law.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we're analyzing how the upcoming Trump administration may affect National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) policies and enforcement priorities promoting union activity, recent court decisions on union protections, and high-profile strikes and evolving worker demands.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we’re examining the final mental health parity rules, a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) memo on restrictive covenant limitations, and New York State’s recently enacted workplace violence prevention law.

National Labor Relations Board (“Board”) General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo (“Abruzzo”) issued a General Counsel Memo (Memo GC 25-01) last week signaling that employers could face civil prosecution and significant monetary remedies for using non-compete and so-called “stay-or-pay” provisions in agreements with their employees.The new memo, issued on October 7, 2024, builds on Abruzzo’s earlier General Counsel Memo issued in May 2023, where, as we reported, she outlined her belief that nearly all post-employment non-competes violate employees’ rights under the National Labor Relations Act (the “Act”).

Since Abruzzo’s May 2023 memo, employers have witnessed a number of significant developments in this space, including the Federal Trade Commission’s (“FTC”) issuance of a rule in April 2024 banning the use of most non-competes and a subsequent decision by a Texas federal judge blocking that FTC rule. In June 2024, an NLRB Administrative Law Judge issued a ruling in a case involving an Indiana HVAC company finding that non-competes and non-solicitation clauses violate the Act, a decision currently being appealed to the Board.

In her October 7, 2024 memo, Abruzzo again urges the Board to find non-competes with all employees who are subject to the Act’s jurisdiction (nonmanagerial and nonsupervisory employees) to violate the Act except in a few limited circumstances, arguing that such provisions are frequently “self-enforcing” and deter employee mobility. She also advocates for “make whole” remedies where employers are found to have continued to maintain unlawful non-competes. Specifically, the memo argues that merely voiding such provisions is insufficient and that employees should be afforded the right to seek compensatory relief for the “ill effects” that flow from complying with “unlawful non-compete provisions.”

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we’re examining how recent employer-initiated challenges to the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB’s) structure have arisen due to the agency’s broad interpretation of its enforcement authority, leading to significant legal obstacles.

The NLRB is facing significant legal challenges from employers after a series of controversial rulings. Could the NLRB’s structure be at risk?

Epstein Becker Green attorneys Stuart M. Gerson and Laura H. Schuman discuss how the NLRB’s broad interpretation of their enforcement authority under the National Labor Relations Act has invited legal challenges. Additionally, they examine how the U.S. Supreme Court’s Loper Bright decision is perceived to create a more favorable environment for contesting the NLRB’s authority.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday®: This week, we’re spotlighting the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) decision to withdraw from a federal labor pact; the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC’s) report on alleged underrepresentation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)-related jobs; and an appellate court’s affirmation of the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB’s) McLaren Macomb decision.

In a win for businesses, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) has ruled that individuals in true franchisor-franchisee relationships are independent contractors. In Patel v. 7-Eleven, Inc., the SJC found that defendant franchisor 7-Eleven, Inc. (“7-Eleven”) did not misclassify certain franchisees in violation of the Commonwealth’s independent contractor statute, M.G.L. c. 149, § 148B, which presumptively considers an individual “performing any service” for a putative employer to be an employee of said putative employer, rather than an independent contractor, unless: (1) the individual is free from control and direction in connection with the performance of the service; (2) the service is performed outside the usual course of the business of the employer; and (3) the individual is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession or business of the same nature at that involved in the service performed.

In a long saga to determine whether 7-Eleven properly classified certain franchisees as independent contractors, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (“First Circuit”) certified two questions to the SJC. On the first question back in 2022, the SJC ruled that where a franchisee is an “individual performing any service” for a franchisor, the independent contractor statute applies to the relationship between the franchisor and the franchisee. The decision here involved a second question that the First Circuit certified to the SJC related to the threshold determination of the independent contractor statute:

Do the plaintiffs perform any service for 7-Eleven within the meaning of the independent contractor statute, where, as here, they perform various contractual obligations under the Franchise Agreement and 7-Eleven receives a percentage of the franchise’s gross profits?

On September 12, 2024, the Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board’s (“NLRB”) Region 22 in Newark, New Jersey, issued an unfair labor practice complaint against a New Jersey building services company, alleging that employee non-hire (or “no poach”) provisions in the company’s contracts with its building clients violate the National Labor Relations Act (the “Act”).

According to the NLRB’s news release, the complaint alleges that Planned Companies D/B/A Planned Building Services, which is a janitorial, building maintenance, and concierge services provider, “has maintained provisions in its contracts with its client buildings that interfere with, and are inherently destructive of, workers’ rights under Sections 8(a)(1) and (3) of the National Labor Relations Act.”  It further alleges that “Planned Companies restricts its client buildings from soliciting its employees to work for them in a similar job classification for a period of six months after the agreement is terminated, or from hiring employees after they leave Planned Companies’ employment. Any entity retained by the client building to replace Planned Companies is also bound by the hiring restriction.” 

A hearing before an NLRB Administrative Law Judge has been set for November 12, 2024.

In an action brought by Space Exploration Technologies Corporation, commonly known as SpaceX, a U.S. District Court Judge in the Western District of Texas, Waco Division, has declared that the structure of the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or the “Board”) is unconstitutional.

The determination is the basis for an Order granting SpaceX’s motion for a preliminary injunction and enjoining the NLRB General Counsel, as well as the presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed Board Members and NLRB staff, from proceeding with a scheduled unfair labor practice ...

The Supreme Court’s June 28 decision to overrule the 40-year-old case of Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council should not be cause for alarm. It is, however, likely to have implications for employers that are subject to the myriad of workplace laws administered by the United States Department of Labor, the National Labor Relations Board and other executive branch bodies.

Why the Buzz About Chevron?

For decades, courts have relied on the so-called Chevron doctrine—a mandate by which judges were required to defer to agency expertise when handling controversies surrounding Executive Branch policy, but that rule ended with Loper Bright Enterprises et al., v. Raimondo. While the categorical rejection of Chevron—as inconsistent with the responsibility of courts defined in the APA—went farther than most analysts expected, it should be noted, as Justice Neil Gorsuch’s concurrence makes clear, that the Supreme Court hasn’t decided a case on the basis of Chevron since 2016.

The Supreme Court’s June 28 decision to overrule the 40-year-old case of Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council should not be cause for alarm. It is, however, likely to have implications for employers that are subject to the myriad of workplace laws administered by the United States Department of Labor, the National Labor Relations Board and other executive branch bodies.

Why the Buzz About Chevron?

For decades, courts have relied on the so-called Chevron doctrine—a mandate by which judges were required to defer to agency expertise when handling controversies surrounding Executive Branch policy, but that rule ended with Loper Bright Enterprises et al., v. Raimondo. While the categorical rejection of Chevron—as inconsistent with the responsibility of courts defined in the APA—went farther than most analysts expected, it should be noted, as Justice Neil Gorsuch’s concurrence makes clear, that the Supreme Court hasn’t decided a case on the basis of Chevron since 2016.

Today, we’re bringing you a special breaking news episode on the recent U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruling in the Starbucks v. McKinney case, which effectively raises the standard for federal courts issuing injunctions under section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act.

This ruling is a significant blow to the National Labor Relations Board’s enforcement priorities. In the video below, Epstein Becker Green attorney Steve Swirsky tells us more.

In Starbucks v. McKinney, the Supreme Court of the United States clarified the standard for injunctive relief under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA or the “Act”). The 9-0 decision,  authored  by Justice Thomas, with Justice Jackson concurring in the judgment and dissenting in part, held that appropriate standard is the four-part test for preliminary injunctive relief articulated in Winter v Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. 555 U.S. 7 (2008). That test requires the party seeking the injunction to show “[1] he is likely to succeed on the merits, [2] that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, [3] that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and [4] that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter, 555 U. S., at 20, 22. This represents a significant change and one that is likely to make it more difficult for the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or the “Board”) to obtain injunctive relief while an unfair labor practice claim is being litigated.

While four circuits – the Fourth, Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth – already followed the four-factor preliminary injunction test, five other circuits – the Second, Third, Fifth, Tenth and Eleventh, and the Sixth Circuit, where Starbucks v. McKinney originated – had applied a less demanding standard that only required the NLRB to demonstrate that the Board’s Regional Director had concluded that “there is reasonable cause to believe that unfair labor practices have occurred,” and whether injunctive relief is “just and proper.” This two-factor test versus the four-factor test was seen by many to be a lower barrier to injunctive relief.

On Friday, March 29, 2024, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued a final rule, effective May 31, that permits non-employees to accompany and advise OSHA officials during workplace safety and health inspections. The new rule (the “Walkaround Rule”) will authorize workers to designate or select another employee or a non-employee to act as their representative during OSHA safety inspections.

What the New Rule Says

The Walkaround Rule modifies part of an existing standard that governs who may be authorized to join an OSHA inspector during a ...

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday: This week, we’re learning more about the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA’s) final rule on safety inspections, new COVID-19 guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and minimum wage updates from California (CA), New York City (NYC), and Virginia (VA).

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday: This week, we’re running down the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL’s) recently released final rule on worker classification under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the challenges faced by the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB’s) joint-employer rule, and SpaceX’s groundbreaking suit against the NLRB.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday: This week, we’re detailing the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB’s) request for Starbucks to reopen shuttered stores; how big tech is retreating from diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs; and why employers may start scrapping college requirements for certain positions in 2024.

After a flurry of pro-employee National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) decisions, the Fifth Circuit gave employers a glimmer of hope, rejecting the Board’s recent rule issued in Tesla, Inc., 371 NLRB No. 131 (2022) that effectively put every employer’s appearance, dress code and uniform policy in jeopardy of violating Board law if it could be read to limit employees’ ability to wear union apparel or insignia in any way unless the employer is able to meet the high burden of demonstrating that “special circumstances” existed to justify the policy.

The Tesla, Inc ...

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday:  This week, we’re elaborating on the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB’s) controversial joint-employer rule:

The joint-employer rule published by the NLRB on October 26 expanded the definition of the rule in ways that will likely have a major impact on the workplace. However, a recent postponement means that the rule will not take effect until February 26, 2024.

Epstein Becker Green attorneys Steven M. Swirsky and Erin E. Schaefer tell us the implications this rule may have for employers and how a flurry of legal challenges ...

On September 6, 2023, Governor Kathy Hochul signed into law Senate Bill 4982 and Assembly Bill 6604, which amends Section 201-D of the New York Labor Law to prohibit most employers from requiring non-managerial and non-supervisory employees to attend employer-sponsored meetings where the primary purpose is to communicate the employer’s opinions on religious or political matters. The amendment took immediate effect and makes New York the latest state to ban so-called “captive audience meetings,” following the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) General Counsel’s ...

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday: This week, we’re detailing the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB’s) expanded “joint employer” definition, the recent confirmations of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC’s) General Counsel and the Department of Labor’s (DOL’s) Wage and Hour Administrator, and President Biden’s executive order on artificial intelligence (AI).

NLRB Expands Definition of “Joint Employer" 

The NLRB recently published its long-awaited final rule, setting a new test for determining joint-employer ...

The United States Department of Labor Office of Labor-Management Standards (“OLMS”) recently signaled an alarming willingness to use its broad subpoena powers under Section 601 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 521 (“LMRDA” or “Act”), to examine records of explicitly lawful conduct by employers whose employees may be seeking to unionize. This effort maybe a precursor to OLMS’s plan to significantly expand employer reporting and disclosure obligations under Section 203 of the Act which requires employers and ...

On October 26, 2023, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or “Board”) issued its Final Rule (the “Rule”) on Joint-Employer status under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Slated to take effect on December 26, 2023, the Rule returns to and expands on the Obama era Browning-Ferris test, scrapping the NLRB’s 2020 Joint Employer test and setting up a potential showdown with the Supreme Court over the “major questions” doctrine and the scope of the NLRB’s administrative authority.

The Final Rule Summarized

 Under the new Rule, any entity that shares or ...

On October 26, 2023, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or “Board”) issued its Final Rule (the “Rule”) on Joint-Employer status under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Slated to take effect on December 26, 2023, the Rule returns to and expands on the Obama era Browning-Ferris test, scrapping the NLRB’s 2020 Joint Employer test for the sole reason that the current Board disagrees with the 2020 test, and setting up a potential showdown with the Supreme Court over the “major questions” doctrine and the scope of the NLRB’s administrative authority.

The ...

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday:  This week, we’re breaking down recent actions by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) that are impacting both union and non-union employers:

The NLRB is continuing its labor-friendly push with increased protections for unions, new limitations on employer rights, and significant changes that are likely to make it easier for unions to secure bargaining rights. Epstein Becker Green attorneys Steven M. Swirsky and Erin E. Schaefer tell us more about the current labor landscape and how the NLRB’s actions apply to more ...

It has been a decision-packed summer at the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”), and the last weeks of summer were especially active, with a number of significant decisions released at the end of August that could affect employers with non-unionized as well as unionized workforces. The following is a roundup of significant developments, in order of recency:

Board Membership Update: Member Wilcox Confirmed for a Second Term – One Vacancy Remains

On Wednesday, September 6, 2023, the Senate confirmed President Biden’s nomination of Gwynne Wilcox for a ...

As a result of a recent Fifth Circuit decision, some employers in Texas will now face a tougher hurdle when defending against Title VII disparate treatment discrimination claims in federal court. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently held that in order to establish an actionable claim for disparate treatment discrimination under Title VII, plaintiffs need not plead an “ultimate employment decision” related to hiring, granting leave, terminations, promotions, or pay. In a significant departure from decades-old precedent, the Fifth Circuit held ...

The National Labor Relations Board (“Board”) published its final rule (“2023 Rule”) on Friday, August 25, amending the representation election procedures that it previously proposed in 2019 and finalized, after some additional revisions, in 2020 (“2019 Rule”).  Recall that the 2019 Rule had already experienced a significant setback earlier this year.  In January 2023, the D.C. Circuit vacated three substantive changes that the 2019 Rule would have made to the election procedures adopted by the Board in 2014 (“2014 Rule”) while keeping the ...

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday:  This week, we’re analyzing the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB’s) recent Stericycle decision, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC’s) proposed rule on pregnant workers’ rights, and the EEOC’s first-ever artificial intelligence (AI) anti-discrimination lawsuit settlement.

On August 2, 2023, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) announced a long-anticipated Decision that will affect how employers craft, apply and enforce workplace policies in almost all workplaces, regardless of whether employees are represented by a union. As we anticipated several years ago, the current Board, with a majority of members nominated by President Biden, has now rejected the agency’s 2017 decision in The Boeing Company, in which it adopted a balancing test to evaluate facially neutral employer rules and handbook provisions by examining the nature and extent of their potential impact on employee rights under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA” or the “Act”) against legitimate justification(s) for the policies.

The majority opinion in Stericycle Inc. substantively revives the NLRB’s stance on workplace rules as established in the 2004 Lutheran Heritage decision.Under this new framework, any employer’s rule, policy, or handbook provision that  has a “reasonable tendency to chill employees from exercising their Section 7 rights” may be deemed to constitute an unfair labor practice and to be unlawful in violation of the NLRA.

The nationwide growth of the “gig economy” has provoked the enactment of laws aimed at providing economic protection to freelance workers. In May 2023, the Columbus  City Council joined this national trend by amending the City’s “wage theft”  Ordinance to add obligations upon a “hiring party” that engages a “freelance worker.”  

The Ordinance broadly defines a “hiring party” to be “any person, including the City of Columbus, who retains a freelance worker to provide any service” and excludes only governmental entities other than Columbus. A “freelance worker” is an individual, whether or not the person has incorporated or is using a trade name.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday:  This week, we bring you our special Spilling Secrets podcast series on the future of non-compete and trade secrets law:

On May 31, 2023, National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo issued a memo stating her position that non-compete agreements violate the National Labor Relations Act. So, what does this mean for employers?

Shocking few NLRB observers, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), in The Atlanta Opera, Inc., Case 10-RC-276292, a 3-1 decision issued June 13, 2023, announced its modified standard for analyzing whether  workers are employees or independent contractors of an employer, returning to the test last articulated by the Obama era Board in FedEx II, 362 NLRB 610 (2014), and overruling the Trump era SuperShuttle DFW, Inc., 367 NLRB No. 75 (2019). The new standard is likely to result in findings that more workers unions are seeking to organize and represent are employees and not independent contractors which they would have been found to be under SuperShuttle.

Michigan is the latest state to expand its legal definition of race as a protected class to include hairstyle descriptors. As we recently explained, legislation with the acronym for “Creating a Respectful and Open Work for Natural Hair” is intended to protect from discrimination individuals with hairstyles often associated with race.

On June 15, 2023, Governor Gretchen Whitmer signed Michigan’s version of the CROWN Act – S.B. 90 – into law, once again amending the state’s increasingly broad anti-discrimination statute, the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (“ELCRA”). The Michigan CROWN Act represents the third amendment to ELCRA this year: prohibitions on discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression were added in March, and protections for individuals who have an abortion were provided by amendments enacted in May.

Management-side attorneys and the businesses that they represent will be pleased with the Supreme Court’s holding in Glacier Northwest, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters.

The case concerned the issue of whether the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 151–169 (“NLRA” or the “Act”), preempted a state tort claim seeking damages for harm suffered by their employer, caused by employees’ inaction in failing to deliver concrete that had already been loaded into the employer’s trucks or otherwise taking action to prevent the hardening concrete from damaging the trucks, thus intentionally destroying property owned by Glacier. Notably, the striking employees and their union knew that the trucks had been loaded when they began their strike. An eight-justice majority held that the union and its members were, on the facts of the case, not engaged in protected conduct as that term is defined under the NLRA. Justice Barrett delivered the opinion of the Court, in which the Chief Justice and Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Kavanaugh joined. Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito concurred. As against this jurisprudentially diverse array, Justice Jackson was the only dissenter.

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has found its first target under recent guidance issued in a memo from its General Counsel claiming that noncompete agreements may violate the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). According to Bloomberg Law, “[t]he NLRB’s first enforcement action against an employer’s noncompete agreement targeted a Michigan cannabis processor and ended with a recent private settlement resolving the alleged labor law violations.” (The enforcement action predates the guidance memo). Bloomberg obtained redacted documents from the case via a Freedom of Information Act request.

Employers subject to the City of Chicago’s Sexual Harassment Ordinance must comply with the updated training requirements by June 30th or risk penalty.  As we previously advised, the amended Chicago Human Rights Ordinance requires all employers with at least one employee working within the geographical boundaries of the City of Chicago to provide the following annual training:

The National Labor Relations Board’s top lawyer, Jennifer Abruzzo, issued  a General Counsel memo today instructing the Labor Board’s Regional Directors of her position  that noncompete clauses for employees protected by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) (i.e., nonmanagerial and nonsupervisory employees) in employment contracts and severance agreements violate federal labor law except in limited circumstances. The memo, while not law, outlines her legal theory which she will present to the National Labor Relations Board, which makes law primarily through adjudication of unfair labor practice cases.  The memo instructs the agency’s field offices of the position that the General Counsel is instructing them to take when investigating unfair labor practice charges claiming that such clauses interfere with employees’ rights under the NLRA.

On April 24, 2023, just ten days after Rutgers University faculty ended their week-long strike, Governor Murphy signed bill A4772/S3215 providing workers with increased access to unemployment insurance benefits during labor disputes. The provisions of the bill include:

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday:  This week, we recap the continued rise in unfair labor practice (ULP) charge filings reported by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB); New York City’s new prohibitions against size discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations; and Florida’s forthcoming E-Verify requirements for public and private employers with 25 or more employees.

On Monday, the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board” or “NLRB”), with a majority of appointees by President Biden, i.e., “the Biden-Board,” reversed the short-lived General Motors LLC, 369 NLRB No. 127 (2020) decision and reinstated the Atlantic Steel test for analyzing whether an employee’s grossly unprofessional conduct when engaging in union or other protected concerted activity loses the protection of the National Labor Relations Act (“Act”). The Board issued Lion Elastomers, LLC, 372 NLRB No. 83 (2023) and reinstated Atlantic Steel 245 NLRB 814 (1979) and its progeny, making it more difficult for employers to discipline employees who engage in outrageous, otherwise inappropriate, speech and/or actions in the course of engaging in union or other protected concerted activity.

On Thursday, April 20, 2023, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) released a decision in Noah’s Ark Processors, LLC d/b/a WR Reserve, 372 NLRB No. 80, in which it laid out sweeping remedies the Board will consider imposing in cases involving so-called “repeat offenders” of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA” or the “Act”).

In Noah’s Ark, the Board affirmed findings made by an NLRB Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) that the employer bargained in bad faith with the union representing its employees, implemented its final offer without achieving overall impasse, engaged in regressive bargaining and other impermissible bargaining tactics, and threatened and interrogated employees because of their protected activity, all of which came on the heels of the employer defying a previous federal court injunction related to earlier bad faith bargaining and other unfair labor practice allegations. The Board not only upheld the make-whole remedies ordered by the ALJ, but also announced “the potential remedies the Board will consider in cases involving [employers] who have shown a proclivity to violate the Act or who have engaged in egregious or widespread misconduct.” In doing so, the Board ordered remedies beyond those imposed by the ALJ, noting that the Board “[has] broad discretion to exercise [its] remedial authority under Section 10(c) of the Act even when no party has taken issue with the judge’s recommended remedies or requested additional forms of relief.”

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday:  This week, we examine how several recent pronouncements and actions by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and its General Counsel’s office are creating new challenges for employers, both union and non-union.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday:  This week, we’re showcasing the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) General Counsel’s memo on non-disparagement and confidentiality provisions in severance agreements, Illinois’ new law permitting Illinois employees to take paid leave “for any reason,” and New Jersey’s upcoming implementation of the “Temporary Workers’ Bill of Rights.”

Approximately a month after the Board issued McLaren Macomb, 372 NLRB No. 58, which left employers scrambling to decipher its unclear impact on both unionized and non-unionized workplaces, Jennifer Abruzzo, the General Counsel (“GC”) of the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) released guidance outlining her views on the decision’s implications and meaning in Memorandum GC 23-05 on March 22, 2023. The GC’s Memo contains an FAQ in response to inquiries the NLRB has received about the McLaren Macomb decision and outlines Abruzzo’s plans for enforcement of the decision.

The General Counsel (“GC”) of the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”), Jennifer Abruzzo, has opened the vault and released previously unseen Advice Memoranda from her Obama-era predecessor General Counsel Richard Griffin, in her bid to continue to upend long-standing Board law.  Abruzzo, who was Deputy General Counsel under Griffin, and who now heads the Office of the General Counsel, has released a slew of historic Advice Memoranda that shed light on her legal theory to limit employer’s free speech rights and their ability to communicate with employees about the real-world consequences of unionization on the workplace and the employer-employee relationship.

Approximately a month after the Board issued McLaren Macomb, 372 NLRB No. 58, which left employers scrambling to decipher its unclear impact on both unionized and non-unionized workplaces, Jennifer Abruzzo, the General Counsel (“GC”) of the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) released guidance outlining her views on the decision’s implications and meaning in Memorandum GC 23-05 on March 22, 2023. The GC’s Memo contains an FAQ in response to inquiries the NLRB has received about the McLaren Macomb decision and outlines Abruzzo’s plans for enforcement of the decision.

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) recently published new resources regarding the Providing Urgent Maternal Protections for Nursing Mothers Act (PUMP Act). As we previously explained in detail, the PUMP Act amended the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to mandate that, unless an employer is specifically exempted under the law, the employer must provide reasonable break time to allow an employee to express breast milk, and must permit the employee to do so in a reasonably private location other than a bathroom.

As featured in #WorkforceWednesday:  This week, we’re highlighting the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB’s) crackdown on confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions in severance agreements, a U.S. Supreme Court decision opening overtime to high-earning daily-rate workers, and a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decision in favor of mandatory arbitration in California.

As we previously reported, the US Department of Labor, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (“OFCCP”) announced back in August 2022, that it had received a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request from the Center for Investigative Reporting (“CIR”), for any and all Type 2 Consolidated EEO-1 Reports for 2016-2020 (“Consolidated Reports”) filed by federal contractors (“Covered Contractors”).  In response to the request, OFCCP has provided Covered Contractors with the opportunity to object to the release of the Reports and on February 15 extended the deadline for objections to March 3, 2023.  

On February 21, 2023, the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) continued its aggressive application of the National Labor Relations Act (“Act” or “NLRA”) to workplaces without union representation and lessened the value of severance agreements for all employers by finding it unlawful for an employer to merely proffer a severance agreement that includes broad non-disparagement and confidentiality provisions to an employee. In McLaren Macomb, the Board held that a severance agreement that contains a confidentiality clause and a non-disparagement clause was unlawful because, in the Board’s view, these provisions impermissibly infringe on employees’ rights under the Act. Specifically, the Board found that these two provisions limit employees’ ability to discuss their wages, hours, and working conditions (which could include disparaging remarks) with other employees, prevent employees from assisting other employees seeking assistance, and hinder employees themselves from seeking assistance from the NLRB, unions, and other outside organizations.

On January 17, 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit partially reversed and partially upheld a District Court decision that enjoined five rules promulgated by the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) in 2019 by the Trump-era Board (“2019 Rule”) to modify the Board’s representation election procedures.  The 2019 Rule attempted to ease some of the “quickie election” rules established in 2014 by the Obama-era Board (“2014 Rule”).  For a further discussion of the 2019 Rule, see “NLRB Issues Proposed Rule to Scale Back 2014 Expedited Election Rules.”

The D.C. Circuit held that because the Trump-era Board did not seek public notice and comment as required under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) when issuing the 2019 Rule, “substantive” rule changes could not take effect, but “procedural” rule changes were valid under the procedural exception to the APA’s requirement for notice and comment.

The General Counsel (“GC”) of the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) is urging the Board to upend nearly 60 years of precedent and adopt a new legal standard that significantly limits employers’ ability to hire permanent replacements for striking employees. Under current law, employers have a general right to permanently replace workers who go on strike to obtain economic concessions from their employer, so long as an employer does not hire the replacements for an “independent unlawful purpose.” In an Advice Memorandum released on December 30, 2022, the GC confirmed her intention to push for the Board to impose a more restrictive standard that would require employers to show specific business reasons justifying the decision to replace strikers.