Compliance Stuff

  The U.S. Supreme Court is poised to decide a landmark case that could significantly limit the ability of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions – a move that could have a profound impact on the workplace. Injunctions are court orders that tell the parties to either start or stop doing something, and when issued nationwide, they have stalled employment policy for both Republican and Democrat administrations over the last decade . While the underlying case concerns the Trump administration’s move to eliminate the Fourteenth Amendment right to birthright citizenship, the Supreme Court has been asked to decide only whether federal district courts have the power to issue nationwide injunctions blocking the executive order while the lawsuits are pending . The ruling could carry broad implications, especially for employers who’ve been caught in the crossfire of sweeping federal policies halted (or enforced) through coast-to-coast injunctions over the past decade. Here’s what yo...

  The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Jan. 13, 2025, in   Stanley v. City of Sanford  (No. 23-997), which addresses whether former employees have a right to sue their former employer under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for discrimination relating to receipt of post-employment fringe benefits. Factual Background Karyn Sanford is a former firefighter for the City of Sanford, Florida. In 2016, Sanford was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease. Two years later, in 2018, she retired from the fire department as a result of her condition. During her employment with the City, the City’s benefit policy provided a health insurance subsidy to employees until the age of 65 who had retired after 25 years of service or because of a disability. In 2003, the City’s policy was amended to provide this subsidy until the age of 65 only to employees who retire after 25 years of service . The policy was further changed to provide the subsidy to those who retire as a result...

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises et al. v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, Nos. 21-5166/22-1219, (June 28, 2024) overturning the Chevron doctrine left open the future scope of judicial deference to National Labor Relations Board decisions. On July 5, 2024, in Hotel De La Concepcion v. NLRB, No. 22-01272, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued a ruling that minimizes the impact of Loper Bright on Board decisions. The Court of Appeals Decision In Hotel De La Concepcion, the employer sought review of a Board decision finding it violated the National Labor Relations Act by, among other actions, unilaterally reducing work schedules and temporarily closing a department. The employer claimed it had the right to act unilaterally under its collective bargaining agreement with the union representing its employees. The Board rejected the employer’s contention. The employer appealed the decision to the D.C. Circuit, but the Court...

 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...