Compliance Stuff

On March 3, 2026, Administrative Law Judge Robert A. Giannasi held that employer Valley Radiology violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act (the “Act”) by offering an employee a severance agreement with overbroad non-disparagement and confidentiality provisions, adopting the National Labor Relations Board’s (the “Board”) 2023 reasoning in McLaren Macomb. The Prior McLaren Macomb Decision Section 7 of the Act guarantees employees the right to “self-organization, to form, join or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.” Section 8(a)(1) prohibits an employer from interfering with, restraining, or coercing employees in the exercise of their Section 7 rights. In the McLaren Macomb decision, the Board held that the non-disparagement and confidentiality clauses in an employer’s severance agreemen...

The National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or “Board”) has resumed operations after a prolonged period without a quorum, restoring its ability to decide cases and issue precedent . Yet the Board’s narrow composition, looming vacancies, and ongoing constitutional challenges mean that its renewed activity will emphasize case management and enforcement strategy rather than sweeping doctrinal change. A Quorum Restored, Temporarily For most of 2025, the NLRB lacked a quorum and was u nable to decide cases arising under the National Labor Relations Act . That changed on January 7, 2026, when President Trump’s nominees, James Murphy and Scott Mayer, were sworn in following Senate confirmation. They join Member David Prouty, a Biden appointee. The Board’s restored quorum, however, is short-lived. Member Prouty’s term expires in August 2026, after which the Board will again fall below the quorum required to issue decisions unless additional members are confirmed. Clearing the Backlog, Not Rewri...

A video game developer needs to hope that the Force is with it as it squares off with a union over the use of artificial intelligence in the workplace. SAG-AFTRA just filed an unfair labor practice (ULP) charge against Epic Games over the use of an AI-generated Darth Vader voice in the video game  Fortnite , accusing the gaming giant’s subsidiary, Llama Productions, of unlawfully replacing union voice actors without bargaining. The May 19 charge has ignited a high-profile clash over AI and labor rights – and serves as a warning for any employer eyeing AI as a cost-cutting replacement for human work. What Happened? On May 19, SAG-AFTRA filed a ULP charge against Llama Productions, a subsidiary of Epic Games, after the popular video game  Fortnite  unveiled an AI-generated version of Darth Vader using the iconic voice of James Earl Jones. While the employer says it received the approval of the late actor’s estate, the ULP alleges that Epic Games failed to consult with the ...

  The Board has a quorum again . . . for now. In one of his first acts after taking office, President Trump fired Gwynne Wilcox, a Democratic member of the National Labor Relations Board and former Chairman. I wrote about the Wilcox termination  here  and questioned whether it was valid. Well, according to Judge Beryl Howell of the District of Columbia (an Obama appointee), it isn't. Ms. Wilcox sued the Trump Administration after her termination and moved for summary judgment. In a  decision  issued earlier today, Judge Howell granted Ms. Wilcox's motion and  ordered  that she continues* to be a Member of the Board . *This is not a typo. Judge Howell is saying that Ms. Wilcox never stopped being a Member of the NLRB because her termination was not valid. The judge also denied a motion for summary judgment filed by the Administration and enjoined the Administration from terminating Ms. Wilcox or interfering in the performance of her duties in any way. T...

 The U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision directing district courts to use the traditional four-part test when evaluating whether a preliminary injunction should issue at the request of the National Labor Relations Board pending litigation of a complaint under the  National Labor Relations Act. No. 23-367 (June 13, 2024). The decision settles the split among the federal circuit courts over the standard that should be applied when the Board files a motion for a “10(j)” injunction, named for the section of the Act that authorizes the Board to seek injunctive relief. Circuit courts were split on which test should apply: the traditional four-part test, a more lenient two-part test, or a hybrid of the two. The Court’s decision raises the bar for the Board, requiring it to meet each prong of the four-part test for a court to grant an injunction . In particular, it will be more difficult for the Board to establish it is “likely to succeed on the merits,” as opposed to the more leni...