As further implementation of the January 20, 2025 Executive Orders, DHS recently published an interim final rule regarding the requirement that certain non-citizens register with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The new rule went into effect on April 11, 2025.Continue Reading What Do Employers Need to Know About the New DHS Alien Registration Requirement?
Two bills recently introduced in New York’s legislature could have a major impact on New York employers seeking to enter into employment-related agreements with employees.Continue Reading New York Legislature’s Proposed Amendments Would Impact Employment Agreements
On January 7, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded a district court’s dismissal of a plaintiff’s Title VII religious bias suit—holding the case was sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss at the pleading stage. The matter, Barnett v. Inova Health Care Services, provides key insights and reminders for employers attempting to balance workplace policies with employees’ religious beliefs.Continue Reading Vax On: Fourth Circuit Reinstates Plaintiff’s Religious Bias Suit in COVID Vaccine Mandate Case
From smart watches to exoskeletons, wearable technologies are quickly changing the landscape of the American workplace. Several states and administrative agencies have responded to this shift by enacting new laws and issuing regulatory guidance concerning the use of such technologies. The latest of these responses includes a fact sheet issued by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) titled “Wearables in the Workplace: Using Wearable Technologies Under Federal Employment Discrimination Laws.” The fact sheet provides guidance on how employers can use wearable technologies while maintaining compliance with various federal employment laws. More broadly, the fact sheet signals growing concern over the use of employee-monitoring technologies. Continue Reading Wearable Technologies and Employment Risks – EEOC Issues New Guidance
On January 21, 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order titled “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity.” This Executive Order is a major pivot in federal policy regarding affirmative action and diversity initiatives, which have been in place for decades, particularly within federal contracting. The implications of this Executive Order are far-reaching, affecting both federal contractors and private employers across the United States.Continue Reading Analyzing President Trump’s Latest Executive Order Titled “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity”
On January 1, 2025, the statewide minimum wage increased to $16.50 per hour. With the change in the statewide minimum wage, the minimum exempt salary for California employees rose from $66,560 to $68,640 per year.Continue Reading California Minimum Wage Increases
California’s Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA)[1] allows “aggrieved employees” to sue their employers for Labor Code violations to collect civil penalties “on behalf of himself or herself and other current or former employees.” The issue of how to resolve PAGA claims where the employee and employer are subject to a binding arbitration agreement has been hotly contested over the last several years, as reported many times in this blog [see here, here, and here].Continue Reading PAGA Plaintiffs Cannot Avoid Arbitration by Bringing a “Headless PAGA Lawsuit”
Cell phone and laptop searches do happen but they are relatively rare. Although the Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures is drastically reduced at a port of entry, as are expectations of privacy, U.S. Customs & Border Protection (“CBP”) has internal protocols requiring Officers to have some basis for the search. Below, we dive into the CBP protocols and what to expect if one of your employees is selected for a search. Continue Reading Will CBP Search Your Employee’s Laptop and Cell Phone at the Port of Entry?
On October 11, 2024, in the matter of Ephriam Rodriquez v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (“SEPTA”), the Third Circuit Court of Appeals addressed the legal standards for establishing a “serious health condition” under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”). This decision highlights what constitutes a “serious health condition” under the FMLA, and the standards that should be applied in assessing such claims.Continue Reading What a Headache: The Third Circuit Finds That a Plaintiff’s Migraines Were Not a Serious Health Condition Under the FMLA
On November 2, 2023, the New York City Council passed a bill[1] requiring the New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (“DCWP”), in coordination with the Mayor’s Office of Immigrant Affairs (“MOIA”), the New York City Commission on Human Rights (“NYCCHR”), and community and labor organizations, to create and publish a workers’ bill of rights.Continue Reading New York City Employers Must Display Workers’ Bill of Rights Poster Beginning July 1, 2024
On May 10, 2024, the Ninth Circuit decided Yuriria Diaz v. Macy’s West Stores, after the employer appealed the district court’s decision ordering arbitration of both an employee’s individual and non-individual claims under the California Private Attorney Generals Act (PAGA). The Ninth Circuit held that even though the arbitration agreement made no mention of PAGA, an employee’s individual PAGA claim was still subject to arbitration because the parties’ intended to arbitrate all employment disputes between them. However the non-individual PAGA claims were not arbitrable, because the parties did not consent to arbitration of those claims. Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Rules That Only Individual PAGA Claims Can Be Compelled to Arbitration