Compliance Stuff

Today’s constitutional challenges to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (OSHRC) converge on three fronts: Article II of the U.S. Constitution for-cause removal protections for administrative officials, the nondelegation doctrine, and Article III/Seventh Amendment adjudication constraints. The Supreme Court of the United States has not overruled  Humphrey’s Executor v. United States  (examined in  Part I of our series ), but decisions such as  Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board  and  Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau  treat it as a narrow exception, signaling that agencies must closely resemble the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in design and function to retain for-cause removal protections. For OSHRC, that means its multimember, adjudicatory character remains relevant but not determinative; any exercise of substantial executive...

At a Glance The Third Circuit affirmed the NLRB’s application of a totality of the evidence test and overruling of  Alstate Maintenance LLC  in finding that a single employee’s conduct was protected concerted activity (PCA). While the Third Circuit found the PCA to be a motivating factor in the employee’s dismissal, the court determined that the administrative law judge and Board failed to analyze certain evidence bearing on the employer’s affirmative defense that it would have taken the same action absent the employee’s PCA. On June 23, 2025, in  Miller Plastic Products Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board , the Third Circuit ruled that substantial evidence supported the Board’s determination that a single employee’s conduct was protected concerted activity (PCA) and a motivating factor for his termination . In doing so, the court affirmed the Biden Board’s overruling of  Alstate Maintenance LLC  and expansion of the analysis of whether a single employee’s co...

At a Glance Connecticut Supreme Court holds that Workers’ Compensation Act does not require conversion of temporary benefits to permanent benefits after a claimant has reached maximum medical improvement. Administrative law judges can continue temporary disability benefits in lieu of awarding permanent disability benefits. Employer groups call upon the legislature to override the decision, which they claim could have a devastating impact on insurance rates.  The Connecticut Supreme Court recently ruled in  Gardner v. Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services 1  that workers’ compensation a dministrative law judges (ALJs) can award ongoing temporary partial disability (TPD) benefits to claimants who reach maximum medical improvement (MMI), rather than require conversion of TPD benefits to permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits. The ruling upends decades of decisions to the contrary and significantly shifts the interplay between temporary and permanent workers...

A series of game-changing moves from the White House have left employers struggling to understand the lay of the land when it comes to the nation’s labor law. Even though it might feel like we’re entering unchartered territory, the thought leaders in FP’s Labor Relations Practice Group have a pretty good sense of what’s in store for employers in the short term and the long term – especially when it comes to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). This Insight will capture the current state of affairs and provide an analysis of what you might expect in the coming weeks and months. Overview of the NLRB The NLRB is an independent federal agency established in 1935 under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Its primary role is to enforce labor laws related to union activities and collective bargaining by investigating and prosecuting unfair labor practices in the private sector. In addition, the NLRB oversees representation elections seeking to certify or decertify unions as the r...

During the Obama administration, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or the Board) stringently reviewed employee handbooks of nonunionized employers to determine whether particular policies infringed on employees’ rights to engage in concerted activity protected by Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA or the Act). While the Trump Board relaxed such scrutiny, the Biden Board has returned to the approach taken Obama era with a vengeance. A recent decision from an administrative law judge (ALJ) for the Board highlights the NLRB’s aggressive stance of invalidating employers’ workplace rules if they result in any potential infringement on an employee’s concerted activity. Starbucks Corp. v. Workers United, Case 28-CA-289622, slip op. (ALJ June 7, 2024) , arises out of a union’s attempt to organize Starbucks employees and the company’s termination of several employees and other alleged unfair labor practices occurring at several Phoenix-area stores in order to curb union ...