Photo of Jordan Faykus

On June 10, 2019, the United States Supreme Court unanimously held that state law does not apply to the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) in situations when federal law addresses the relevant issue at hand.

In Parker Drilling Management Services, Ltd. v. Newton, the Supreme Court declined to extend California’s wage and hour laws to employees working on offshore drilling platforms subject to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.

The OCSLA extends federal law to the subsoil and seabed of the outer continental shelf and to all structures permanently or temporarily attached to the seabed for the purpose of developing, producing or exploring for oil. Under the OCSLA, the laws of an adjacent state only apply to the OCS to the extent “they are applicable and not inconsistent with” federal law.

Here, the US Supreme Court ruled that because the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) addressed the relevant issues, the adjacent state law was inapplicable.


Continue Reading

But Are They Right for Your Workforce?

The US Supreme Court issued a highly anticipated decision on May 21, 2018 in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, holding that class action waivers in arbitration agreements are fully enforceable, notwithstanding the right to engage in concerted activity under the National Labor Relations Act.

Although employers now

Welcome news for employers: companies can require their workers go through arbitration to pursue any legal claims against their employers, rather than go to court or join together in class lawsuits or grievances, the US Supreme Court held today in a 5-4 vote.

Writing for the majority in three consolidated cases (Epic Systems

As we previously posted, on January 5, 2018, the Department of Labor did away with its previous six-factor test and announced a new “primary beneficiary” test to determine whether interns and students working for “for-profit” employers are entitled to minimum wages and overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act. See our previous post HERE

On December 22, 2017, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was signed into law bringing significant changes to US tax law. One provision of the Act may further incentivize individuals to work as independent contractors instead of as traditional employees.

The new provision allows for independent contractors, and for service providers structured as a partnership or other flow-through entities, the potential to deduct up to 20% of their revenue from their taxable income. And while some companies might view the opportunity to re-classify individuals from employees to independent contractors as a “win–win” scenario, it could create substantial legal exposure for employers.


Continue Reading

Many of the NLRB initiatives established during the previous administration could soon be no more.

On December 1, 2017, the new NLRB General Counsel, Peter Robb, issued a memorandum that rescinded numerous memorandums and initiatives of his predecessor, and set forth the types of future charges that should be submitted to his office for advice. Highlighting the list of the seven expressly-rescinded memorandums are:

  • GC 11-04 (Default Language). This 2011 memo instructed all NLRB Regional Offices to include certain “default language” in all informal and compliance settlement agreements that provided that if the Charged Party/Respondent failed to comply with the terms of the settlement agreement, the underlying complaint would be re-issued and summary judgment would be entered in favor of the GC. The only issue that could be raised to the Board is whether the Charged Party/Respondent, in fact, defaulted on the terms of the settlement agreement.
  • GC 12-01 (Guideline Memorandum Concerning Collyer Deferral). This 2012 memo changed the previous deferral policy, directing NLRB Regional Offices to stop deferring Section 8(a)(1) and (3) cases where arbitration will not be completed within a year. If the grievance arbitration was not likely to be completed within one year and deferral was deemed inappropriate, the Region was instructed to conduct a full investigation on the merits of the charge.


Continue Reading

Last week, we discussed 5 executive agreement provisions to consider now to help avoid future risk. This week, we are back with our second installment.

As with the previous 5 provisions, companies should pay close attention when drafting the following executive agreement terms so as to best position itself in the event of future disputes.

6.  Trade Secret – Last year, the Defend Trade Secrets Act was passed and created a federal cause of action for misappropriation of trade secrets. However, to recover exemplary damages and/or attorneys’ fees under the Act, companies must provide explicit notice to employees that identifies the Act’s immunity provisions for certain types of trade secret disclosure, such as when a trade secret is disclosed through the reporting of a violation of law to federal, state, or local government officials. To maximize their recovery potential, companies should include the relevant notice in their executive agreements.

7.  Tax Code § 409A – The Internal Revenue Code includes significant tax penalties for certain deferred compensation arrangements. Under IRC Section 409A, there could be penalties if an executive agreement allows for payments to be made to the executive more than 2.5 months after the tax year in which the executive acquires a legal right to the compensation. This could apply to contract provisions regarding bonuses, severance payments, equity payments, change in control, terminations, and other compensation and benefits provisions. Given the intricacies surrounding these rules and exceptions, companies should engage in a specific review of all executive agreements for compliance to avoid these risks. For more information and updates on 409A in light of recent US tax reform, visit The Compensation Connection.


Continue Reading

In recent years, disputes surrounding executive employment agreements have increased significantly.

This is no surprise given the amounts at stake, whether it is the compensation and incentives arguably owed to the executive, or threats to the company’s business itself through unlawful competition, trade secret theft, or unauthorized use of confidential information.

While impossible to safeguard against all risk of course, pay close attention to the following provisions when drafting executive employment agreements. By doing so, the company will be better prepared to defend itself in future litigation, if necessary.


Continue Reading

On Monday, September 26, the U.S. Senate voted and confirmed William Emanuel as the newest member of the National Labor Relations Board.  Emanuel is a long-time management-side labor and employment attorney, who was nominated by President Trump in June to fill the vacant NLRB seat.  With Emanuel’s confirmation, the NLRB has a Republican majority for

U.S. Secretary of Labor Alexander Acosta announced in a June 7, 2017 press release that the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has withdrawn two of its recent administrator’s interpretations. One of the administrator’s interpretations, issued in 2015, focused on the misclassification of employees as independent contractors under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and indicated