Employment & Labor (U.S.)

Subscribe to Employment & Labor (U.S.)

Since Pennsylvania legalized medical marijuana in 2016, employers navigated the murky waters of drug testing applicants and employees who hold medical marijuana cards amid a lack of clarity in the law regarding these issues.

On September 24, 2024, a new law went into effect in the City of Pittsburgh that provides a guiding beacon for employers in this area. The law protects individuals holding medical marijuana cards from employment discrimination in the workplace based on their cannabis use for medically approved purposes. In other words, the law makes medical marijuana cardholders a protected class under local law.Continue Reading Rolling out new rights: Pittsburgh’s bold move on medical marijuana in the workplace

The government’s plans for unfair dismissal to become a day-one right (subject to reasonable use of probationary periods) create an uncertain time for employers, particularly those currently taking on new hires or entering into fixed term contracts. While we await detail of the government’s plans, we take a brief look at the history of the qualifying period and the transitional arrangements which have applied, the latter potentially indicative of what the arrangements will be this time around.

The right not to be unfairly dismissed has been part of established UK employment law since 1971 and is currently legislated for in the Employment Rights Act 1996. Although there are some exceptions, the right has always been subject to a qualifying period of service, i.e., that the employee must have been working for their employer for a prescribed period of time before they have unfair dismissal rights.Continue Reading Transition arrangements for a change in unfair dismissal qualification

The most significant UK employment law reform for 30 years includes radical plans for unfair dismissal rights to be available from day one of employment. When this was announced before the election, the government indicated that this would not prevent the “fair and transparent” use of probationary periods to assess new hires, and the Financial Times reported last week that employers will be able to engage new staff on probationary periods of up to six months, allowing them to be dismissed more easily in this time. 

This, naturally, raises the question as to how a six-month probationary period will sit alongside a day-one right. The answer to that question remains unclear. Continue Reading Day-one unfair dismissal rights and a six-month probationary period – how will that work?

In a challenge to the Department of Labor’s (DOL) 2019 overtime rule, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the DOL’s authority to use a salary threshold requirement to define the executive, administrative, and professional (EAP) exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). See Mayfield, et al. v. U.S. Department of Labor, et al., No. 23-50724 (5th Cir. Sept. 11, 2024). This decision is a victory for the DOL as it currently defends challenges to its 2024 overtime rule that raised the minimum salary thresholds for the EAP exemptions.Continue Reading Fifth Circuit upholds DOL’s 2019 salary threshold amid ongoing 2024 threshold challenges

With the 2024 election in full swing in the U.S., employers should anticipate political discussions and activity in the workplace. From employees taking time off from work to vote to expressing their political opinions during work, employers should remember a few key points related to their employees’ rights to eliminate potential issues in the workplace.Continue Reading Election season: Key reminders for employers

During vacation periods or times of high project workloads and tight deadlines, working overtime may be necessary to cover for absent colleagues or manage increased workload. These situations can lead to legal challenges, especially when disputes arise regarding overtime performance and compensation. Such conflicts are often the result of uncertainties in employment contracts.Continue Reading Overtime compensation in Germany: Staying compliant to avoid legal challenges

In July of this year, a Texas federal district court judge denied the state of Texas’ request to vacate the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) most recent guidance relating to gender identity discrimination. In doing so, the federal court held that the state could not bring the challenge in a previously filed lawsuit regarding prior EEOC guidance but, instead, must file a new lawsuit.

The state of Texas first took issue with the EEOC’s 2021 guidance, which required bathroom, dress code, and pronoun accommodations for employees based on gender identity. Texas filed suit against the EEOC in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, requesting the court vacate the 2021 guidance (2021 Lawsuit). On October 1, 2022, the court vacated the 2021 guidance and issued a declaratory judgment that the guidance was unlawful on several grounds, holding that it: (1) was contrary to law because Title VII, even after the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, does not require employers to provide accommodations regarding bathrooms, dress codes, or pronoun usage based on gender identity; and (2) unlawfully extended Bostock’s “non-discrimination holding” beyond statutory limits imposed by Congress. The EEOC did not appeal the district court’s judgment.Continue Reading Federal judge requires state of Texas to file new lawsuit to challenge recent EEOC guidance on gender identity discrimination

Earlier this month, the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) updated its warning notice on the appropriate use of non-disclosure agreements (NDA), creating increased regulatory obligations for lawyers advising on, drafting and negotiating settlement agreements.

The updated warning notice reflects principles set out in existing Acas guidance which applies to anyone involved in settlement agreements. Whilst the warning notice only applies to those regulated by the SRA, i.e., law firms and lawyers (including in-house lawyers), it will be interesting to see whether the changes, which effectively give teeth to certain principles in the guidance as they apply to lawyers, have a wider impact on market practice approach to NDAs in settlement agreements. Failure by lawyers to comply with the SRA warning notice can result in them facing disciplinary action by the SRA for breach of their regulatory obligations.Continue Reading New SRA requirements for dealing with NDAs: Impact on settlement agreements

As the use of artificial intelligence (AI) systems rapidly spreads throughout society, legislators across the U.S. are hustling to try and ensure that these systems are created and implemented in a safe and fair manner everywhere they are being used. The workplace is one such area that is starting to gain interest in this regard.

Legislators have begun considering, and in a few cases even passed, bills aimed at preventing so-called “algorithmic discrimination” in the workplace. This refers to biased outcomes that can happen when employers use AI systems, or “automated decision tools” (ADTs), as a substantial factor in making consequential decisions such as whether to hire, promote, or discipline. According to the White House, “Algorithmic discrimination occurs when automated systems contribute to unjustified different treatment or impacts disfavoring people based on their race, color, ethnicity, sex (including pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions, gender identity, intersex status, and sexual orientation), religion, age, national origin, disability, veteran status, genetic information, or any other classification protected by law.”

We will summarize the status, applicability, and provisions of various U.S. state- and local-level bills proposing to regulate algorithmic discrimination that are actively pending or passed as of the date of this article’s publication below.Continue Reading Employers beware: AI-based workplace discrimination laws are coming to the U.S.

On August 20, 2024, Northern District of Texas Judge Ada Brown barred the U.S. Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) rule banning non-competes from taking effect. The rule, which proposed to ban virtually all existing and future non-compete agreements across the U.S., and was scheduled to go into effect on September 4, 2024, is now effectively blocked.

Judge Brown reasoned that the FTC’s non-compete ban constituted an unlawful agency action, stating that the FTC lacks the authority to ban practices it deems unfair methods of competition by adopting substantive rules. Specifically, Judge Brown concluded that:

the FTC lacks statutory authority to promulgate the Non-Compete Rule, and that the Rule is arbitrary and capricious. Thus, the FTC’s promulgation of the Rule is an unlawful agency action . . .[The rule] is hereby SET ASIDE and shall not be enforced or otherwise take effect on September 4, 2024, or thereafter.”

Continue Reading Texas federal court strikes down FTC non-compete rule