Compliance Stuff

In assessing whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor, the Eleventh Circuit recently re-confirmed that it “does not care about the label put on the relationship by the parties.”  Galarza v. One Call Claims, LLC  involved three insurance adjusters who worked for Texas Windstorm Insurance Association (TWIA). TWIA engaged the services of One Call Claims, LLC (OCC), a business that staffed insurance companies with adjusters. The plaintiffs, who had all entered into written independent contractor agreements with OCC, sued, alleging that both companies had misclassified them and failed to pay them overtime wages they were entitled to as “employees” under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The plaintiffs handled claims for TWIA on a full-time basis for approximately two years. During that time, they could not work for other carriers without terminating their contractual relationship with TWIA. They used their own phones and cars, and maintained their own profes...

On September 9, 2025, in  Anna Lange v. Houston County, Georgia, et. al ., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the denial of coverage for gender-affirming surgery was not discriminatory. This decision directly departed from the court’s 2-1 ruling by a three-member panel in 2024, which held that such an exclusion was, on its face, a form of sex discrimination prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 .    It also conflicted with other recent federal court opinions that have construed the exclusion of gender affirming care as unlawful. 1 Background The plaintiff, a transgender woman, has served as a deputy with the Houston County Sheriff’s Office in Georgia since 2006. In 2017, the plaintiff began openly presenting as female in the workplace. As an employee of the Sheriff’s Office, the plaintiff was enrolled in the County’s health insurance plan. As part of her gender-affirming treatment, the plaintiff underwent hormone therapy, consu...

Fearless Fund , which seeks to invest “in women of color-led businesses” and “bridge the gap in venture capital funding for women of color,” offered a contest to provide four businesses with $20,000 in funding and mentorship support. According to the Eleventh Circuit decision, the contest was only open to “‘black females who are  … legal U.S. residents’” or businesses that are at least 51 percent Black women-owned. Further, applicants had to agree to allow Fearless Fund to use their names, images, likenesses, and business ideas for promotional purposes and agree to arbitration, among other matters.  The American Alliance for Equal Rights (Alliance) filed a lawsuit alleging that it is a contract covered by  Section 1981 and that the contest, by its terms, violates Section 1981 because it excludes non-Black applicants based on their race. The case reached the Eleventh Circuit after a federal district court ruled that the Alliance had standing to bring suit but declined to ...