Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives

In an amicus brief filed before the Third Circuit, the EEOC has taken the position that claims of harassment based on gender identity and sexual orientation fall within the scope of the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (“EFASASHA”).

The Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy (“Jarkesy”) was predicted to spur a wave of litigation challenging the constitutionality of various administrative agency’s civil enforcement powers. In our previous article, we noted that the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (“OFCCP”) may be an agency that faces such a challenge. A complaint filed in the Southern District of Texas by ABM Industry Groups (“ABM”) does just that.

On July 26, 2024, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (“OFCCP”) released directive 2024-01 , which outlines updated procedures for expedited pre-enforcement conciliation. The directive provides guidance consistent with the OFCCP’s final rule titled Pre-Enforcement Notice and Conciliation Procedures which went into effect in September of 2023 (You can read our previous article regarding this final rule here).

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (the “CFPB”) has added itself to the list of agencies that view broad confidentiality agreements given to employees with scepticism. In a Circular published on July 24, 2024, the CFPB stated that requiring employees to sign a broad confidentiality agreement could violate Section 1057 of the Consumer Financial Protection Act (the “CFPA").

On June 27, 2024, the Supreme Court released its opinion in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy, which weakens the enforcement power of administrative agencies to adjudicate certain matters within the agency itself.

On June 13, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Starbucks v. McKinney and, in doing so, clarified the standard applicable to the National Labor Relations Board’s (the “Board”) requests for preliminary injunctions under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act (the “Act”).

On April 23, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, a case which examines what test the federal courts should apply when considering whether to grant preliminary injunctions under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act. Here’s what employers need to know while waiting for the Court to issue their opinion.

Update: On March 8, 2024, the Eastern District of Texas granted summary judgment in favor of the Chamber of Commerce and struck down the NLRB’s new final joint employer rule. The opinion conducts a thorough review of the history of the joint employer standard and ultimately concludes that the Final Rule is contrary to the common law. The opinion critiques the Board’s rulemaking stating they failed to adequately address the disruptive effects of the new rule, resolve ambiguities, or explain how it will not cause piece-meal bargaining.  The opinion then leaves the previous rule from ...

The NRLB has hit another roadblock in its implementation of a new final joint employer rule (the “Final Rule”) as a Texas federal judge delayed its implementation until March 11. The Final Rule, which was supposed to take effect on February 26, would have made organizations liable for violations of the NLRA if they had direct or indirect control over the terms and conditions of employment of another firm’s employees. This change increases the potential of liability from franchising or contracting with third parties. To see more information on the implications of the Final Rule, see our previous articles here and here.

Washington, D.C. is the latest in a growing list of jurisdictions to require employers to have “pay transparency” in job postings. Starting in June of 2024, Washington, D.C. will require all employers with at least one employee in the District to post the minimum and maximum projected salary in all job listings or advertisements. The salary projections must be the lowest and highest salary or hourly pay the employer “in good faith believes” it would pay for the role.