Takeaways

  • The Supreme Court declined to create a bright-line rule that automatically exempts transportation workers from the Federal Arbitration Act.
  • The decision leaves several important questions unresolved, including how the exemption applies in certain business-to-business delivery relationships.
  • Despite early headlines, Flowers Foods does not broadly eliminate arbitration for transportation workers and instead reinforces the need for careful, fact-specific analysis.

On May 28, 2026, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion in Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock, 146 S. Ct. 1358 (2026). The Court held that workers transporting goods within a state’s borders, as part of an “intrastate” journey, could qualify for the exemption in the Federal Arbitration Act for workers engaged in “interstate commerce.” Many news outlets and Plaintiffs’ firms stated that the Flowers opinion was a big win for transportation workers, who may now pursue their claims in court instead of being compelled to arbitrate under the FAA. However, a nuanced review of the unanimous opinion, written by Justice Gorsuch, shows the Court’s refusal to adopt any bright-line rules regarding the exemption is good news for employers with transportation workers.

Continue Reading Supreme Court’s Flowers Foods Decision: Why Employers Still Have Strong Arguments for Enforcing Arbitration Agreements

The Current Landscape

Generative artificial intelligence (“AI”) tools are now widely used across the workforce, and the use is dual track, meaning employees are using AI to perform work, while employers are deploying AI-enabled tools to manage and make decisions about their workforce. This creates a recurring tension between efficiency gains and the need for control, accuracy, and fairness, particularly because law and organizational governance often evolve more slowly than technology itself. A practical challenge is and will be that many employers do not fully understand how (or how often) employees are using AI tools in day-to-day work.

Continue Reading AI in the Workplace: Legal Risks and Practical Realities

Takeaways

  • The current federal salary threshold for most white-collar overtime exemptions remains $684 per week ($35,568 annually) under the reinstated 2019 rule.
  • Employers should immediately review exempt employee classifications and compensation practices to ensure compliance with the restored Part 541 framework and applicable state laws.
  • Because state salary thresholds and exemption requirements may exceed federal standards, multi-state employers should confirm compliance under both federal and state wage-and-hour laws.

On April 26, 2024, the Department of Labor issued a final rule raising the earnings thresholds for entitlement to overtime under the FLSA in the Code of Federal Regulations, 29 C.F.R. Part 541. In November 2024, however, a federal court vacated and set aside the that Final Rule on a nationwide basis. As a result: (1) the increase in overtime threshold scheduled to become effective January 1, 2025 did not go into effect; (2) the July 1, 2024 increase that previously went into effect was nullified; and (3) the final rule’s automatic “escalator” provision, which would have increased the threshold every three years going forward, was also found to be unlawful.

Continue Reading Department of Labor Issues Technical Amendment Restoring Pre-2024 Part 541 Regulatory Overtime Exemption Framework

The Department of Labor announced, April 22, 2026, a new Proposed Rule on who can be a joint employer under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (MSPA). Concerns over who may be deemed a joint employer—and thereby liable for the wrongs of either party to the joint employer relationship—typically arise in franchisor/franchisee or contractor/subcontractor relationships. In 2020, the DOL finalized a similar rule, but that rule was rejected by a court. The Proposed Rule attempts to conform to that court’s concerns. It also offers a uniform standard for assessing joint employer status under these three statutes.

This article provides a brief overview of the Proposed Rule’s key provisions and what employers need to know as the Proposed Rule moves through the public comment period.

Continue Reading The Latest Attempt by the DOL To Adopt Standards on Determining Joint Employer Status Under the FLSA, FMLA, and MSPA

Despite a relatively high-profile pivot away from a Biden-era rule ostensibly banning non-competition agreements nationwide last year, the Federal Trade Commission recently threatened to come down hard on a large employer in the pest control industry that was indiscriminately requiring the majority of its over 18,000 employees to sign stringent non-competition agreements. The company, Rollins, Inc., which is responsible for the pest control brands Orkin, Critter Control, and HomeTeam, agreed to end its blanket non-compete policy by way of a consent order entered into with the FTC.

Continue Reading Federal Trade Commission Flexes Its Muscles On Non-Competition Agreements

On March 19, 2026, the Illinois Supreme Court clarified that the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (“IMWL”) does not incorporate the Fair Labor Standards Act’s (“FLSA”) exclusions for pre- and post-shift work. The Court’s ruling in Johnson v. Amazon.com Services, LLC, 2026 IL 132016, will significantly expand the compensability of pre-shift work under Illinois law, even if such work would otherwise not be compensable under the FLSA. This distinction significantly increases the importance of state-specific wage compliance for Illinois employers.

Continue Reading Illinois Supreme Court Rules That Amazon’s Pre-Shift COVID Tests Are Compensable Under Illinois Wage Law

The Sixth Circuit’s recent decision in Bruce v. Adams & Reese, LLP (No. 25-5210) provides critical guidance on the application of the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (EFAA). This case clarifies the pleading standards for hostile work environment claims under Title VII, but also, and more importantly, establishes a significant precedent regarding the scope of the EFAA’s arbitration bar.

Continue Reading Understanding the Sixth Circuit’s Decision in Bruce v. Adams & Reese, LLP: A Landmark Interpretation of the EFAA

Takeaways

  • The National Labor Relations Board has reinstated its 2020 joint employer standard, requiring substantial direct and immediate control over essential terms and conditions of employment to establish joint employer status.
  • The U.S. Department of Labor has proposed rescinding its 2024 independent contractor rule and returning to a Trump-era “economic reality” framework.
  • Employers should proactively reassess joint employer relationships and independent contractor classifications in light of these regulatory shifts and the DOL’s anticipated final rule later this spring.

NLRB Returns to 2020 Joint Employer Status Test

On February 26, 2026, the National Labor Relations Board announced a return to the joint employer status test in effect during President Trump’s first administration. The final rule replaces a 2023 Biden-era test that was vacated by an order from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on March 8, 2024. The Board explained that its final rule replaces the vacated regulatory text with the previous version of its rules that remain in effect after the Texas Order.

Continue Reading Flip-Flop: Feds Announce a Final Rule on Joint Employer Status and a Proposed Rule on Independent Contractor Status

Takeaways

  • Employers that include unambiguous contractual language regarding integration and modification in employment agreements must ensure that the agreement contains all relevant terms and conditions of employment.
  • Careless drafting or inconsistent onboarding documents can eliminate otherwise enforceable employer protections.

The Michigan Court of Appeals recently provided employers with an important reminder about the interplay between employment applications and employment agreements in Mayberry v. Acrisure Wallstreet Partners, LLC. In that case, the Plaintiff signed both an employment application and a separate employment agreement at the time he was hired. The application included a shortened limitations period that required her to bring any claim against the Company within six months of the events underlying the claim. The employment agreement, signed later in the day, contained no such shortened limitations period.

Continue Reading Michigan Court of Appeals Reminds Employers of the Importance of Carefully Drafting Employment Agreements and Onboarding Documents

On February 18, 2026, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a lawsuit against Coca-Cola Beverages Northeast, Inc., alleging sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The suit centers on an employer-sponsored event held in September 2024 that was attended exclusively by female employees and from which male employees were excluded. The EEOC contends that privately inviting female employees and furnishing additional paid time off to attend the event, while excluding male employees, constituted an unlawful employment practice. This litigation underscores the Commission’s evolving enforcement in contexts that may not immediately resemble traditional hiring or promotion disputes.

Continue Reading DEI in the Crosshairs: EEOC Enforcement and Texas AG Scrutiny Signal Heightened Risk for Employers