The Supreme Court of the United States recently settled a circuit split on the standard of proof required to classify employees as exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act’s (FLSA) minimum wage and overtime pay provisions. In a unanimous opinion, SCOTUS held in EMD Sales, Inc. v. Carrera that the “preponderance of the evidence” standard–and
From the requirement of pay scales and benefits in job postings to new protected classes under the Illinois Human Rights Act, 2025 promises to be yet another year of significant change for Illinois employers. While you determine how to navigate the new Illinois employment laws taking effect this year (and next!), review this checklist and
As we enter 2025, it is crucial for employers to review the numerous changes in labor laws across Latin America from 2024 and to anticipate the trends that will shape the coming year. In this blog, we provide a comprehensive overview of the key updates, reforms, and new regulations that have impacted the labor landscape in various LATAM countries in 2024, and what to expect in 2025.
Continue Reading Latin America Employment & Compensation: 2024 Recap and 2025 Trends
Even employee claims of sexual harassment that occurred before the effective date of the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (EFAA) may end up in court. In Olivieri v. Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that acts occurring before the effective date of the EFAA can be deemed to be part and parcel with acts occurring after the effective date–so that all of the claims accrue as of the later date and are subject to the EFAA.
Patricia Olivieri filed suit against her employer Stifel, Nicolaus & Co. (Stifel) and several coworkers in 2021 alleging gender-based discrimination, hostile work environment and retaliation claims under Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHL). Olivieri alleged her manager sexually assaulted and repeatedly sexually harassed her, and that after she reported her manager to the company, the defendants allegedly subjected her to a hostile work environment characterized by discrimination and retaliation.
Stifel moved to compel arbitration of Olivieri’s claims based on an arbitration clause in the plaintiff’s employment agreement. The US District Court for the Eastern District of New York initially granted Stifel’s motion to compel in late March 2022, not having been made aware of the enactment of the EFAA on March 3, 2022 by any party. (The EFAA allows a plaintiff alleging sexual harassment or sexual assault to void a pre-dispute arbitration agreement at their discretion. Claims under the EFAA accrue “on or after” March 3, 2022.) In light of the EFAA, Olivieri subsequently moved for reconsideration of the district court’s order requiring her to arbitrate her claims, and the district court turned course, vacating its prior decision and denying the employer’s motion to compel arbitration. The district court concluded that the plaintiff’s hostile work environment claims–which alleged a hostile work environment and retaliation both before and after the effective date of the EFAA–were subject to the continuing violation doctrine of accrual and accrued after the EFAA’s effective date. Therefore, the EFAA applied to allow the plaintiff to void her pre-dispute arbitration agreement. On appeal, a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit unanimously affirmed.Continue Reading Before, After, or Both? Second Circuit Rules Pre-EFAA Activity Can Go to Court Instead of Arbitration
On the eve of the Fourth of July, the FTC rule banning most noncompetes is going up in smoke after a federal court in Texas held the US Chamber of Commerce and a tax firm are likely to prevail on their argument that the agency overstepped its authority to adopt the nationwide prohibition.
The decision, on the heels of the US Supreme Court’s ruling reining in federal agency power under the Chevron doctrine, demonstrates the challenge the FTC faces in promulgating substantive regulations dealing with competition in the economy.Continue Reading Red, White and Blocked: Federal Judge Pauses FTC’s Ban on Employment Noncompetes
New York employers now have a big “to do” item for 2025. Starting January 1, 2025, New York employers will be required to provide employees with 20 hours of paid prenatal personal leave (PPPL) during any 52‑week calendar period in addition to paid sick and safe leave (PSSL). New York is the first state in the US to require employers to provide such leave.
The new obligation results from Governor Hochul’s FY 2025 executive budget bill (A 8805), which passed April 20, 2024 and (among other things) amends New York Labor Law § 196-b (New York state’s paid sick and safe leave law). The new law does not change an employee’s entitlement to other leaves such as PSSL (which is 40 or 56 hours per year, depending on the size of the employer) and New York Paid Family Leave (which provides eligible employees job-protected, paid time off for reasons including to bond with a newborn, adopted or fostered child).
Who does this apply to?
All employers in New York are required to provide PPPL to all pregnant employees.
What type of leave is covered by PPPL?
PPPL is leave taken for health care services received by an employee during their pregnancy or related to such pregnancy, including
Does PPPL have to accrue before employees can take PPPL?
No. Eligible employees can take all 20 hours of PPPL they are entitled to for the 52-week period starting the effective date of the new law–without waiting for PPPL to accrue.
Are there certain increments for taking leave?
Employees are permitted to take PPPL in hourly increments.
How is PPPL paid?
PPPL must be paid in hourly installments. Employers must pay employees for PPPL at the employee’s regular rate of pay, or the applicable minimum wage–whichever is greater.Continue Reading New York Employers’ New “To Do” Item for 2025: Provide Paid Prenatal Personal Leave Starting January 1
Employers have been eagerly awaiting the EEOC’s Final Rule to implement the Pregnant Worker Fairness Act, and it’s (finally!) here. On April 15, the EEOC issued the Final Rule, which largely follows the proposed rule (we blogged about the proposed rule here, and about the PWFA here). The Final Rule was published in the Federal Register on April 19, 2024 and will take effect on June 18, 2024. There are no major surprises for employers, but the Final Rule has arrived with a bit of controversy.Continue Reading Special Delivery: The PWFA Final Rule Has Arrived
On April 23, the Federal Trade Commission voted 3-2 to issue its final rule on noncompetes, imposing a near-total ban on all employer-employee noncompetes in the US. Barring challenges (the first lawsuits have already been filed), the rule would become effective 120 days from publication.
The rule will be a game-changer for companies operating in the US if it takes effect as issued.
With only a few exceptions, the FTC’s now-final rule declares employer-employee noncompete clauses an “unfair method of competition,” and a violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act. The rule targets both formal noncompete clauses and “functional noncompete” clauses that have the effect of prohibiting the worker from seeking or accepting employment with a person or operating a business after the conclusion of the worker’s employment with the employer. This can include broad nondisclosure agreements that have the effect of precluding workers from seeking employment opportunities in the same field.Continue Reading Breaking News: The FTC Bans Nearly All Employer-Employee Noncompetes Except Those Given as Part of a ‘Bona Fide’ Sale of Business
Last week, a unanimous US Supreme Court held that an employee need only show “some harm” from a change in the terms and conditions of employment, rather than a “significant” employment disadvantage, to assert a claim for discrimination under Title VII. The decision resolves a circuit split over the showing required for discrimination claims based on changes less drastic than demotions, terminations, or pay reductions, and underscores the continued importance of taking a thoughtful approach to any change in the terms and conditions of an employee’s employment.Continue Reading Less is More: SCOTUS Shifts Title VII Threshold to “Some” Harm (Though Plaintiffs Must Still Show Discriminatory Intent)
The Department of Labor’s “new” rule for classifying workers as employees or independent contractors under the Fair Labor Standards Act took effect March 11, 2024. The DOL’s Final Rule returns employers to a familiar pre-Trump administration totality of the circumstances test that focuses on the “economic realities” of the worker’s situation. The practical impact is that it is now harder for businesses to classify workers as independent contractors, and it will likely increase federal wage and hour claims.
There are mounting legal challenges to the Final Rule contesting the DOL’s rulemaking authority. However, to date, none of the suits have been successful at blocking implementation of the Final Rule. So, for now, it stands.
Employers new to the US are often baffled to learn that no single test exists to evaluate independent contractor status for all purposes. This means compliance is complicated since different tests may apply depending on the context. And yes, this also means that it’s feasible for a worker to be an independent contractor for some purposes and an employee for others (such as under state and federal law, for example). Continue reading for a summary of the key tests that come up most often for US multinationals.Continue Reading New DOL Rule Makes it Harder to Classify Workers as Independent Contractors (Plus a Quick Recap of the Key Misclassification Standards Across the US)
