As featured in #WorkforceWednesday: This week, we’re focused on how the U.S. Supreme Court’s Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) ruling could impact workplace diversity efforts:
Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) investment has been a strong strategy for success for many employers, but after the Supreme Court’s SFFA ruling, the outlook for employment DEI is unclear.
What’s next? Epstein Becker Green attorneys Carter M. DeLorme and Shawndra G. Jones tell us more.
Podcast: Amazon Music / Audible, Apple ...
As featured in #WorkforceWednesday: This week, we look at two U.S. Supreme Court decisions and legislation in California with major implications for employers and health care providers.
The United States Supreme Court (“SCOTUS”), in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, has held that there is no constitutional right to abortion, overruling Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood.
Employment issues to consider while awaiting decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization
The United States Supreme Court (“SCOTUS”) will imminently release its decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization, and if the final ruling is consistent with the recently-leaked draft opinion (overturning Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey), employers may soon need to contend with a variety of novel employment and benefits related issues. Some employers have already begun to consider and plan for a post-Roe workplace. Those who have not would be wise to do so now, to best ensure a well-coordinated and thoughtful approach.
For example, some employers have publicly announced plans to provide expanded healthcare benefits, travel, lodging and other benefits to employees who may seek abortion-related services in states where those medical services will be prohibited or limited. These benefits raise complex legal issues applicable to employers’ group health plans and fringe benefit plans, including conflicts between federal and state law, federal ERISA preemption and potential employer civil and/or criminal liability for providing these benefits.
As featured in #WorkforceWednesday: This week, we look at how state and local COVID-19 requirements and new COVID-19 benefits are shifting employers’ policies once again.
As explained in greater detail by our colleague Stuart M. Gerson, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down two major, and quickly decided, rulings on January 13, 2022. After hearing oral arguments only six days earlier, the Court issued two unsigned decisions per curiam. A 5-4 decision in Biden v. Missouri dissolved a preliminary injunction against enforcement of an interim final rule (“Rule”) promulgated by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), requiring recipients of federal Medicare and Medicaid funding to ensure that their employees are vaccinated against COVID-19.
But the Biden administration’s effort to promote universal vaccination with a more sweeping rule—an Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and directed at all U.S. employers with at least 100 employees—was blocked by the high court. A 6-3 decision reversed the action taken by U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in December, and reimposed a stay of the ETS, meaning that OSHA may not enforce the mandate pending the outcome of further litigation.
On the evening of Wednesday, December 22, 2021, the Supreme Court of the United States announced that it will hold a special session on January 7, 2022, to hear oral argument in cases concerning whether two Biden administration vaccine mandates should be stayed. One is an interim final rule promulgated by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”); the other is an Emergency Temporary Standard (“ETS”) issued by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”). The CMS interim final rule, presently stayed in 24 states, would require COVID-19 vaccination for staff employed at Medicare and Medicaid certified providers and suppliers. The OSHA ETS, which requires businesses with 100 or more employees to ensure that workers are vaccinated against the coronavirus or otherwise to undergo weekly COVID-19 testing, was allowed to take effect when a divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, to which the consolidated challenges had been assigned by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, issued a ruling on December 17, 2021, lifting a stay that had been previously entered by the Fifth Circuit. Multiple private sector litigants and states immediately challenged the decision.
As featured in #WorkforceWednesday: While some might expect U.S. Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett to be a pro-employer judge, her record on labor and employment decisions could tell a different story. Attorney David Garland discusses Judge Barrett’s record and what it could mean for employers should she be confirmed to the High Court. Read more about Judge Barrett’s record (subscription required).
Video: YouTube, Vimeo, MP4, Instagram.
* * * *
If you have questions, please reach out to the author(s).
The Workforce Bulletin blog is currently edited by Adam S. Forman, Greta Ravitsky, Elizabeth S. Torkelsen, and Jennifer Stefanick Barna.
As featured on #WorkforceWednesday: Like many of you, this week, we are honoring Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and reflecting on her employment law legacy. See the video below.
Video: YouTube, Vimeo, MP4, Instagram.
* * * *
If you have questions, please reach out to the author(s).
The Workforce Bulletin blog is currently edited by Adam S. Forman, Greta Ravitsky, Elizabeth S. Torkelsen, and Jennifer Stefanick Barna.
As featured in #WorkforceWednesday: This week, we saw a landmark employment law decision and received clarifications on return-to-work issues involving older workers.
Video: YouTube, Vimeo, MP4, Instagram.
* * * *
If you have questions, please reach out to the author(s).
The Workforce Bulletin blog is currently edited by Adam S. Forman, Greta Ravitsky, Elizabeth S. Torkelsen, and Jennifer Stefanick Barna.
Resolving a split between circuits, this week the United States Supreme Court, in CNH Industrial v. Reese rejected what has come to be known as the Yard-Man standard, and reaffirmed that collective bargaining agreements must be interpreted according ordinary contract principles. Although the Supreme Court has long held ordinary cannons of contract construction apply to collective bargaining agreements, some federal courts developed a specialized set of inferences, known as the Yard-Man inferences, which allowed them to read beyond the actual contract terms, to reach what ...
On March 21, 2017, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the National Labor Relations Board’s former Acting General Counsel Lafe Solomon served in violation of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 3345, et seq. (“FVRA”) when he continued in that position after President Barack Obama nominated him for a full term as General Counsel.
By a 6 to 2 vote, the Justices affirmed an August 2015 decision by the D.C. Circuit, which found that Solomon improperly served as Acting General Counsel during the almost three-year period between January 2011 and late 2013 while his ...
On March 22, 2016, the United States Supreme Court issued its much anticipated decision in Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, a donning and doffing case in which a class of employees had been awarded $2.9 million following a 2011 jury trial that relied on statistical evidence. (A subsequent liquidated damages award brought the total to $5.8 million.)
In a 6-2 opinion, the Supreme Court affirmed that award. While the Supreme Court’s decision may not have been the outcome many were expecting, the Court did not issue a broad ruling regarding the use of statistical evidence in class ...
Regarding the Supreme Court’s Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk opinion, issued yesterday, our colleague Michael Kun at Epstein Becker Green has posted “Supreme Court Holds That Time Spent in Security Screening Is Not Compensable Time” on one of our sister blogs, Wage & Hour Defense.
Following is an excerpt:
In order to prevent employee theft, some employers require their employees to undergo security screenings before leaving the employers’ facilities. That is particularly so with employers involved in manufacturing and retail sales, who must be concerned with ...
Regarding the Supreme Court’s Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk opinion, issued today, our colleague Michael Kun at Epstein Becker Green has posted “Supreme Court Holds That Time Spent in Security Screening Is Not Compensable Time” on one of our sister blogs, Wage & Hour Defense.
Following is an excerpt:
In order to prevent employee theft, some employers require their employees to undergo security screenings before leaving the employers’ facilities. That is particularly so with employers involved in manufacturing and retail sales, who must be concerned with ...
In order to prevent employee theft, some employers require their employees to undergo security screenings before leaving the employers’ facilities. That is particularly so with employers involved in manufacturing and retail sales, who must be concerned with valuable merchandise being removed in bags, purses or jacket pockets.
Often in the context of high-stakes class actions and collective actions, parties have litigated whether time spent undergoing a security screening must be compensated under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). On December 9, 2014, a unanimous ...
Regarding the Supreme Court’s Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk opinion, issued today, our colleague Michael Kun at Epstein Becker Green has posted “Supreme Court Holds That Time Spent in Security Screening Is Not Compensable Time” on one of our sister blogs, Wage & Hour Defense.
Following is an excerpt:
In order to prevent employee theft, some employers require their employees to undergo security screenings before leaving the employers’ facilities. That is particularly so with employers involved in manufacturing and retail sales, who must be concerned with ...
by Michael Kun
In 2005, Congress passed the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”) to ensure that large, interstate class actions could be heard in federal courts. Under CAFA, federal courts have been given original jurisdiction over those class actions in which at least one party is diverse and the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million once all of the putative class members’ claims have been aggregated.
Likely before CAFA had even gone into effect, some plaintiffs’ lawyers devised a strategy to try to escape federal jurisdiction under CAFA – stipulating that they would ...
Recent Updates
- Watch: Change Is Coming from the EEOC—but When? - Employment Law This Week
- The EEOC Moves to End EEO Reporting – Comments Invited Through August 24
- Watch: New York Employers Face New Restrictions on Severance, Tuition Repayment, and Sick Time - Employment Law This Week
- Attention Connecticut Warehouse Employers: Deadline for New Quota Notices Approaching
- New Jersey Department of Labor’s Guidance Clarifies Expanded Job Protected Leave Rights for Employees