National Labor Relations Board General Counsel (“GC”) Jennifer Abruzzo recently issued Memorandum GC 25-01 (“Memorandum”), suggesting new remedies for non-competes found to violate the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) and proposing that the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) presume “stay-or-pay” provisions to be unlawful. Although the Memorandum is not binding law, employers should expect GC
Latest from Inside Jobs
Is Your Workplace Election Ready? Voting Leave Laws Across the States
With Election Day just weeks away, employers should quickly brush up on laws that permit employees to take time off to vote. There is no federal law permitting time off to vote, but a majority of states and the District of Columbia have some form of voting leave law, with variations regarding the amount of…
California Joins Growing List of States Prohibiting Employer Action Against Employees Who Refuse Political or Religious Communications
On Friday, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed SB 399, the “California Worker Freedom from Employer Intimidation Act” (the “Act”) that should be of interest to any company with employees in the state. The Act, which takes effect on January 1, 2025, adds a new section to the California Labor Code to prohibit employers from…
SEC Enforcement Sweep Reaffirms Focus on Anti-Whistleblower Provisions in Employee Agreements
On September 9, 2024, the SEC announced settled enforcement actions against seven companies for violating the SEC’s whistleblower rules.[1] Specifically, the SEC alleged that the companies had provisions in various kinds of agreements with employees, including employment, separation, and settlement agreements, that purport to restrict, and thereby could potentially discourage, employees and other signatories from reporting…
Texas District Court Prohibits the FTC from Enforcing Its Non-Compete Ban Nationwide
Nationwide Injunction
On August 20, 2024, Judge Ada Brown of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs in Ryan LLC v. FTC, preventing the FTC from enforcing its proposed rule banning almost all non-compete clauses in employer agreements. (Click here for the opinion.) The rationale for…
EEOC Issues New Guidance on Workplace Harassment
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in April 2024 issued new enforcement guidance on harassment in the workplace, its first guidance on this subject in 25 years, superseding five earlier documents from the 1980s and 1990s. The new guidance accounts for the changing times, including the #MeToo and Black Lives Matter movements, the Supreme…
DOL Issues Final Rule Expanding Overtime Eligibility
On April 23, 2024, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) announced a final rule that increases the salary thresholds required to classify certain employees as exempt from overtime pay requirements under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The final rule, applicable to employees who otherwise satisfy the “white-collar” (bona fide executive, administrative, and professional) and…
Changes to WA’s Non-Compete Law Require Employers to Take Action
Since 2020, with the adoption of Washington state’s non-compete statute (Chapter 49.62 of the Revised Code of Washington (“RCW 49.62”)), Washington has imposed significant restrictions on employer use of non-compete agreements with employees and independent contractors, permitting such agreements only subject to certain statutory and common-law requirements, including without limitation, a minimum annual earnings threshold…
California’s New Workplace Violence Prevention Plan and Training Requirements Take Effect on July 1, 2024; How to Get Ready
As previewed in our prior post regarding new California employment laws from the 2023 legislative session, employers must implement a comprehensive workplace violence prevention plan (WVPP) and provide employee training on the WVPP by this coming July 1, 2024. The WVPP requirement (under new California Labor Code Section 6401.9), augments the existing obligation for…
The Supreme Court Keeps Status Quo for SOX Whistleblower Retaliation Claims
In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected an argument that would have made it harder for whistleblowers to prevail on retaliation claims under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (“SOX”). The decision, Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, No. 22-660, may be welcome news to whistleblowers, but as a practical matter, employers will likely not see…