Yesterday, a federal court in Texas issued a nationwide injunction preventing the Federal Trade Commission’s rule banning nearly all employee non-compete agreements from taking effect on September 4, 2024. The case, Ryan LLC et al. v. Federal Trade Commission, Case No. 3:24-cv-00986 (N.D. Tex.), was brought by a Texas tax preparation company and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. This ruling was widely expected because the court issued an order in July 2024 that blocked the FTC from applying the rule as to the plaintiff, but signaled that it would decide whether to issue a broader injunction before the FTC rule took effect. It followed through, and you can read the court’s opinion here.Continue Reading Federal Court Blocks FTC Rule Banning Employee Non-Competes
Employers Take Note: Michigan Supreme Court Imposes a February 2025 Deadline to Drastically Overhaul Key Employment Policies Statewide
On Wednesday, July 31, 2024, the Michigan Supreme Court handed down its opinion in Mothering Justice et al. v. Attorney General et al. In this case, community organizations challenged the State Attorney General’s determination that the Michigan Legislature could adopt a citizen initiative ballot proposal and later amend it in the same legislative session. The two laws at issue, the Improved Workforce Opportunity Wage Act (the Wage Act) and the Earned Sick Time Act (the ESTA), were contained in ballot initiatives which were adopted by the Michigan Legislature in September of 2018. The Legislature’s adoption precluded the initiatives from appearing on the November 2018 ballot. The following December, however, the Legislature significantly amended the adopted proposals, including extending the time a new state minimum wage requirement would increase to $12 per hour and reinstating the tip credit at 38 percent of the regular minimum wage.Continue Reading Employers Take Note: Michigan Supreme Court Imposes a February 2025 Deadline to Drastically Overhaul Key Employment Policies Statewide
Judge Preliminarily Pauses FTC Noncompete Ban as Applied to the Texas Challengers; Ruling on the Merits Expected in August
On July 3, 2024, Judge Ada E. Brown of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas issued a preliminary injunction in Ryan et al. v. Federal Trade Commission, preventing the FTC’s rule banning most noncompetes from going into effect, but only for the party who brought the litigation challenging the rule, Ryan, Inc. The Court promised that it would enter a final ruling on the merits of the action by August 30, 2024—just days before the FTC rule is set to go into effect. That final ruling likely will have implications for the rule’s enforceability throughout the nation.Continue Reading Judge Preliminarily Pauses FTC Noncompete Ban as Applied to the Texas Challengers; Ruling on the Merits Expected in August
Federal Trade Commission Approves Final Rule Banning Nearly All Worker Non-Competes
In an open commission meeting on Tuesday, April 23, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) voted 3-to-2 to ban nearly all non-compete agreements between employers and workers (broadly defined to include employees, independent contractors, and others, whether paid or unpaid). The effective date of the final rule could be on or about August 23, 2024, depending on the success of legal challenges, which have already commenced. Continue Reading Federal Trade Commission Approves Final Rule Banning Nearly All Worker Non-Competes
Supreme Court Issues Landmark Decision Rejecting “Significant Harm” Requirement in Title VII Cases – Opening the Door to More Employment Discrimination Claims
On April 17, 2024, the United States Supreme Court delivered a pivotal ruling in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, fundamentally reshaping the landscape of Title VII litigation. This landmark decision dismantled the longstanding requirement, upheld by several Circuit Courts, requiring plaintiffs to demonstrate “significant harm” to seek recourse for alleged discriminatory acts by their employers. In doing so, the Court obliterated a barrier to litigation, enabling employees to challenge any job action, regardless of its magnitude, if perceived to stem from discriminatory motives as long as it inflicts some injury, no matter how slight. This development underscores the need for employers to exercise heightened vigilance lack any semblance of discriminatory intent.Continue Reading Supreme Court Issues Landmark Decision Rejecting “Significant Harm” Requirement in Title VII Cases – Opening the Door to More Employment Discrimination Claims
DOL Proposes New White Collar Exemption Regulations – Legal Issues Abound!
On August 30, 2023, the U.S. Department of Labor announced its proposed new regulations on who can be treated as exempt from overtime pay. These proposals have been in the pipeline for nearly two years, with many in the business community anxious about what to expect. Some of that anxiety was somewhat undeserved, but some fears have been realized.Continue Reading DOL Proposes New White Collar Exemption Regulations – Legal Issues Abound!
Religious Accommodation Standard Under Title VII Reformed by U.S. Supreme Court Ruling in Groff v. DeJoy
The United States Supreme Court issued an opinion in Groff v. DeJoy, clarifying its earlier opinion in Trans World Airlines v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63 (1977) that described an employer’s obligation to an employee seeking an accommodation based upon their religious beliefs. The Plaintiff in the case, Gerald Groff, worked for the U.S. Postal Service as a rural carrier associate, covering for full-time workers who were absent. Groff was a long-time Evangelical Christian who, for religious reasons, believes that Sundays should be devoted exclusively to worship and rest, not secular labor, and could therefore not work on Sundays.Continue Reading Religious Accommodation Standard Under Title VII Reformed by U.S. Supreme Court Ruling in Groff v. DeJoy
Court of Claims Reversed; Earned Sick Time Act and Original IWOWA Will Not Go Into Effect On February 20, 2023
Employers in Michigan can breathe a sigh of relief in the wake of today’s opinion from the Michigan Court of Appeals ruling that the Michigan Legislature acted appropriately when it followed an “amend and adopt” strategy. Prior to that ruling, Michigan employers were faced with a February 20, 2023 deadline by which they would have to offer employees onerous earned sick time, as well as a higher minimum wage, as a result of an initiative that was adopted in 2018. The initiative-led legislation was amended by the legislature in a lame-duck session that resulted in a paid leave law and a minimum wage that were much less hostile to employers.Continue Reading Court of Claims Reversed; Earned Sick Time Act and Original IWOWA Will Not Go Into Effect On February 20, 2023
Michigan Supreme Court Recognizes Protection Under State Law Against Discrimination Based on Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation
On Thursday, July 28, 2022, the Michigan Supreme Court issued its opinion in Rouch World, LLC v. Department of Civil Rights, finding in a 5-2 decision that Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (“ELCRA”) protects against discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation. While so holding, the Court overturned precedent set nearly 30 years ago by the Michigan Court of Appeals in Barbour v. Department of Social Services. That court had relied upon then analogous federal precedent in holding that the same statute did not extend protection on the basis of sexual orientation, as “sex” in the context of ELCRA meant only “gender discrimination, not discrimination based on sexual orientation.”
Continue Reading Michigan Supreme Court Recognizes Protection Under State Law Against Discrimination Based on Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation
EEOC Limits Permissible Workplace COVID Testing In Its Most Recent Guidance
As infections during the worldwide COVID pandemic have waxed and waned, and as vaccinations and new treatments for COVID infection have been introduced, employers have begun to see a substantial increase in the number of employees that have returned to work. That, in turn, has caused many employers to re-evaluate their COVID testing protocols to determine who may return to the office and when.
Continue Reading EEOC Limits Permissible Workplace COVID Testing In Its Most Recent Guidance