Time 3 Minute Read

On December 6, 2023, the US Supreme Court heard arguments for Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, which may have significant implications for discrimination cases under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Specifically, the Supreme Court in this case could clarify whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act requires a clear showing of significant disadvantage or tangible harm to have an actionable claim.

Time 2 Minute Read

As we previously reported here, the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) upended years of settled law in Tesla, Inc., 370 NLRB No. 131 (2022), when it held that employers cannot restrict employees from displaying union insignia (e.g., buttons, clothing, pins, and stickers) on their clothing at work, absent a showing of “special circumstances”—a nearly impossible standard for employers to meet.

Time 2 Minute Read

If you are a New Jersey employer with remote employees in New York, Alabama, Delaware, or Nebraska, you should review New Jersey’s newly introduced Convenience of the Employer Rule to ensure you are properly withholding state income and payroll taxes for those remote employees.

Time 2 Minute Read

Please join Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP for a complimentary webinar:

Union Organizing and the Potential for Disruption to the Financial Industry

Monday, December 18, 2023
11:00 am–12:00 pm ET
10:00–11:00 am CT
8:00–9:00 am PT

Time 5 Minute Read

Tyson Foods, Inc. (“Tyson”) is no stranger to religious accommodation lawsuits over the impact of its COVID-19 vaccine mandate given its continued efforts to operate through the height of the pandemic in 2021—but the battle just heated up with a proposed class action complaint filed in the Eastern District of Arkansas.

Time 2 Minute Read

This fall, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) published its case processing data for Fiscal Year 2023 (FY2023) – revealing a significant uptick in Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) Charge filings and union petitions since FY2022. Specifically, the NLRB saw a 10% increase in ULP Charges filed since FY2022. This year over year increase is significant, as there was a 19% increase in ULP Charges in FY2022 itself. The agency received just 15,082 ULP Charges in FY2021 while in FY2023, employees filed nearly 20,000 ULP Charges. This surge in ULP Charges during the last few years illustrates the increased scrutiny on employers’ compliance with the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).

Time 1 Minute Read

Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP is pleased to announce that labor and employment partner Julia Trankiem was recently honored as a 2023 Diversity & Inclusion Visionary in The Los Angeles Times’ third annual Diversity, Equity, Inclusion & Accessibility magazine.

Time 3 Minute Read

In the wake of the #MeToo movement, New York, like other states, enacted legislation aimed at limiting employers’ use of non-disclosure provisions in settlement agreements to resolve claims of workplace discrimination. Recently, Governor Kathy Hochul signed legislation that amends those existing laws to further strengthen the restrictions on non-disclosure provisions in settlement agreements for discrimination, harassment, and retaliation claims. The legislation also extends the statute of limitations for filing such claims with the state enforcement agency. 

Time 2 Minute Read

Please join Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP for a complimentary webinar:

Understanding AI and Addressing Potential Bias in AI-Driven Employment Decisions

Thursday, December 7, 2023
1:00–2:00 pm ET
12:00–1:00 pm CT
10:00–11:00 am PT

Time 4 Minute Read

The Texas Supreme Court has issued an opinion holding that “third-party testing entities hired by an employer do not owe a common-law negligence duty to their clients’ employees.”  Houston Area Safety Council, Inc, v. Mendez, 671 S.W.3d 580, 590 (Tex. 2023) (“Mendez”).  In a positive development for employers that drug test their employees, the Mendez opinion also supports prior Texas Supreme Court precedent that employers who conduct in-house drug testing do not owe a duty to employees.  Mission Petroleum Carriers, Inc. v. Solomon, 106 S.W.3d 705 (Tex. 2003) (“Solomon”).  In other words, it logically follows that if an employer does not owe a duty to employees for results of drug tests administered in-house, a third-party tester hired by that employer does not owe a legal duty to employees for drug tests. 

Search

Subscribe Arrow

Recent Posts

Categories

Tags

Authors

Archives

Jump to Page