Michael Lotito says OLMS’s exploration of ‘split income reporting’ should begin with a review of the SCOTUS decision reversing Chevron.

Bloomberg Law

View (Subscription required)

Alexander T. MacDonald and Joy C. Rosenquist discuss California’s Proposition 22 and a recent California Supreme Court decision that upheld the voter-approved law allowing app-based drivers to work as independent contractors.

Westlaw Today

View (Subscription required)

Rhonda Levy and Douglas Sanderson discuss a recent court decision in Canada that sheds light on how best to deal with accommodation requests.

Human Resources Director Canada

View (Subscription required.)

Barry Kuretzky discusses a recent Ontario Superior Court decision that punished an employer for trying to intimidate an employee through what the judge determined was a meritless counter claim.

Human Resources Director Canada

View (Subscription required.) 

Alexander Thomas MacDonald discusses an upcoming Supreme Court case that may determine how much power the National Labor Relations Board should have. 

The Federalist Society

View

On November 30, 2023, the Colorado Court of Appeals in Tender Care v.

Alexander MacDonald comments on the implications of SpaceX’s lawsuit against the NLRB, which alleges that the board violates constitutional separation of powers and due process protections by wielding different types of authority in the same case.

Bloomberg Law

View (Subscription required.)

On February 26, 2024, the California Supreme Court issued its opinion in Tricoast Builders, Inc. v. Fonnegra, No. S273368 (Cal. Feb. 26, 2024). For employers, the most important takeaway from this case is that the court held a litigant’s waiver of the right to a jury trial can be conclusive if a party seeking reversal of the waiver cannot demonstrate it caused prejudice to the party. The decision makes it more difficult for a party to convince a court to let it back out of a jury trial waiver in a civil case.

Background

In London District Catholic School Board v.

Alyesha Asghar said the Supreme Court’s decision in Muldrow v. St. Louis, which will make it easier for employees to pursue discrimination claims over job transfers, does not mean an end to IE&D.

The Washington Post

View (Subscription required.)

Alyesha Asghar discusses the potential impact for employers after the Supreme Court’s decision regarding Title VII in Muldrow v. St Louis.

Law360 Employment Authority

View (Subscription required.)

In a favorable ruling for employers defending against wage statement compliance claims, the California Supreme Court in Naranjo v. Spectrum Services Inc. (Naranjo) settled an age-old dispute by determining that an employer that reasonably and in good faith believed it was providing a complete and accurate wage statement has a viable defense to a claim for penalties under the California wage statement statute.

Background

As the Supreme Court mulls the Chevron decision, Michael Lotito says whatever the court decides, it’s likely little will change at the ground level of day-to-day enforcement activities.

Law.com

View (Subscription required.)

On August 6, 2019, New Jersey’s wage and hour laws were amended to include liquidated damages on some claims, a new retaliation cause of action, and expansion of the statute of limitations from two to six years (the “2019 amendments”).  Since then, litigants in New Jersey have struggled with the effect those amendments have had on their lawsuits.  One of the main points of confusion centered around whether the 2019 amendments applied retroactively to violations prior to August 6, 2019, or whether the changes applied prospectively only.  A significant conflict developed between federal and

In Ruiz Mattei v. Commercial Equipment Finance, Inc.,¹ the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico determined that claims under the Unjustified Dismissal Act² and the Workplace Discrimination Act³ are transferable to the employee’s heirs following the employee’s death.

In a recent case issued by the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico (“the Court”), the Court addressed the standard and level of proof that must be presented by employers when raising as an affirmative defense a corporate reorganization. In Segarra Rivera vs. International Shipping Agency, 2022 T.S.P.R. 33, 208 D.P.R. ____ (Mar.

In Pham v.

The Colorado Court of Appeals recently decided an issue of first impression regarding the Employee Retirement Income Security Act’s (ERISA) preemptive power over Colorado’s divorce-revocation statute. The decision in Ragan v. Ragan, 2021 COA 75, settled an open question in Colorado regarding whether ERISA preempts “post-distribution” lawsuits under Colorado’s divorce-revocation statute. Specifically, the court held that ERISA preempts lawsuits against a former spouse to recover plan benefits that were distributed to the former spouse as the named beneficiary.

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the Second Circuit’s decision in Laurent v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, which held that retirees could receive money damages in the form of recalculated benefits in a class action over how the company’s cash balance pension plan calculated lump-sum benefits.

On Monday, January 24, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion in a case of critical interest to employers offering 401(k) or other defined-contribution retirement plans.  In Hughes v. Northwestern University, Case No. 19-1401, the Court voted unanimously to vacate a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, temporarily reinstating allegations by employees of Northwestern University that the fiduciaries of Northwestern’s retirement plans had violated the duty of prudence required by ERISA.

Fiduciaries of retirement plans continue to be plagued by class actions brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) challenging their fiduciary management of investment options and participant fees. A recent federal court decision, however, shows that fiduciaries of ERISA retirement plans may be able to attack and defeat complaints alleging breaches of ERISA fiduciary duties at the pleading stage if the right arguments are made and if certain fact patterns are present. 

Employers that rely on non-compete agreements to protect their trade secrets and other legitimate business interests got some welcome news on August 20.

On September 18, 2024, at the request of the State of Michigan and its attorney general, the Michigan Supreme Court clarified issues relating to future minimum wage rates and minimum cash wage rates for tip-credit employees stemming from an earlier opinion.

UPDATE: On August 21, 2024, the Attorney General and State of Michigan asked the Michigan Supreme Court to clarify – no later than September 15, 2024 – various rulings in its July 31, 2024 decision, e.g.: 1) How the state should calculate CPI adjustments for the preset minimum wage rates in 2025 through 2028; 2) Whether, aside from in 2025, future minimum wage rates will take effect on February 21 or January 1; and 3) Whether the court intended to have the minimum cash wage increase from 80% (2028) to 100% (2029) rather than 80% (2028), 90%

Ole Kristian Olsby and Nina Elisabeth Thjømøe clarify how to actively prevent sexual harassment and unwanted attention in the workplace through a recent Supreme Court ruling.

International Law Office (ILO)

View Article (Subscription required.)

An employer pays its managers an annual salary and in addition provides monthly advances based on an estimate of the incentive bonus the employee appears likely to have earned by the end of the year. However, if the employee's performance declines over time so that the earned bonus ends up being less than the amounts advanced over the course of the year, it seems obvious that the employer should be able to deduct the overpayments from future paychecks.

The Virginia Supreme Court has spoken again on the calculation of damages in a complex employment contract case. In Online Resources Corp. v. Lawlor, No. 120208 (Va. Jan. 10, 2013), the court addressed the expert qualifications required for the valuation of equity following the termination of the chairman and chief executive officer (CEO) ("executive") of a publicly-traded company, as well as the applicability of Delaware Corporations Law to related change in control (CIC) provisions. 

Background