Photo of Jonathan Clark

Jonathan Clark

Subscribe to Jonathan Clark's Posts

Jonathan Clark is a partner in the Labor and Employment Practice Group in the firm's Dallas office.

Contact:Read more about Jonathan Clark

On May 1, 2025, the United States Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) Wage and Hour Division announced it would not enforce or apply the Biden-era 2024 Final Rule regarding independent contractor classification (“2024 Rule”). Specifically, the DOL directed its investigators “not to apply the 2024 Rule’s analysis” in enforcement matters. The DOL’s announcement will undoubtedly make it easier to classify workers as independent contractors at the federal level—and continues a seesaw of regulatory pull-back from Biden-era directives. While the 2024 Rule does remain in effect for private litigation and certain state-specific tests still impose higher worker classification standards than the current federal guidelines, the DOL’s announcement is a win for employers seeking to classify workers as contractors.Continue Reading DOL Retracts Biden-Era Independent Contractor Classification Rule

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

Today, in the matter of E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera, the United States Supreme Court held that employers must not meet a heightened standard of proof when defending claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). The decision is a victory for employers defending FLSA actions across the country.Continue Reading SCOTUS Hands Big Win to Employers Defending FLSA Claims

On November 15th, Judge Sean Jordan of the Eastern District of Texas halted a 2024 Department of Labor (“DOL”) Final Rule (“2024 Rule”) that massively increased salary requirements for employees classified as “exempt” from the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). If implemented, the 2024 Rule would have reclassified untold millions of employees as “non-exempt” from the FLSA—making them eligible for overtime pay. Judge Jordan’s sweeping, 62-page ruling vacated the 2024 Rule nationally for all employers. While the DOL may appeal, it is unlikely the forthcoming Trump administration will defend the 2024 Rule. Judge Jordan’s ruling is a massive win for employers everywhere and leaves questions about the scope of the DOL’s authority to increase salary thresholds for FLSA exemptions moving forward.Continue Reading It’s Over for Overtime Expansion: Texas Court Axes DOL Rule That Would Have Reclassified Millions of Employees as Overtime Eligible

The election is over and a second Trump administration will begin in January 2025 (“Trump Administration”). Numerous changes to the employment law landscape will come with it. And if past is prologue, many of these changes will roll back various Biden-era initiatives and priorities at the various federal agencies tasked with implementing and administering federal law governing the employer/employee relationship. Below is a summary of just some of the changes employers could expect at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC” or “Commission”), Department of Labor (“DOL”), and National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) during the Trump Administration, as well as what employers could expect to see with respect to the federal government’s efforts to prohibit certain restrictive covenants.Continue Reading In With the “Old,” Out With the “New”: Second Trump Administration Will Usher in Significant Changes at the EEOC, DOL and NLRB

On July 3, 2024, Judge Ada Brown of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas entered a limited, preliminary injunction barring the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) from enforcing its controversial Final Rule (“Rule”) which purports to ban almost all non-compete agreements. Importantly, Judge Brown’s preliminary order only enjoined enforcement of the Final Rule against the named plaintiffs who opposed it. On August 20, 2024 – just two weeks before the Rule’s effective date – Judge Brown greatly expanded the scope of her initial ruling by granting summary judgment for the plaintiffs and ordering the Rule be completely “set aside” and “not be enforced or otherwise take effect on September 4, 2024[.]” Judge Brown’s order may be the fatal blow for the Rule, and should end a months-long saga of uncertainty for employers.Continue Reading Final Word on Final Rule? Texas District Court Eviscerates FTC’s Non-Compete Ban

On July 3, District Judge Ada Brown of the Northern District of Texas issued an order enjoining the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) from enforcing its “Final Rule” against plaintiffs Ryan, LLC (“Ryan”) and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (the “Chamber”). If implemented, the Final Rule would effectively render nearly all non-compete agreements unlawful. Accordingly, this opinion was one of the most highly anticipated judicial decisions in antitrust and labor and employment law in recent memory.Continue Reading Not So “Final”? Texas Federal Court Enjoins Enforcement of FTC’s Noncompete Ban, Leaving Future of Commission’s Rule in Doubt

The Supreme Court will soon hear a wage and hour case with massive implications for employers defending claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). Depending on the outcome, the high court’s decision could make it far more difficult for employers to prove a plaintiff/employee is exempt from the FLSA’s minimum wage and overtime requirements. Continue Reading New SCOTUS Case Could Make Fair Labor Standards Act Claims More Difficult for Employers to Defend

On April 23, 2024, the Federal Trade Commission (the “FTC”) voted 3-2 to issue its final rule (“Final Rule”) banning employers from imposing noncompete clauses on their workers, approving the final rule in a special Open Commission Meeting. Continue Reading FTC Votes to Ban Noncompete Agreements

On April 17, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court resolved a decades-old circuit split regarding what amount of harm a plaintiff must demonstrate to bring an employment discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (“Title VII”). In Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, a unified Court ruled that a plaintiff need only show “some”—and not “significant”—harm from an employment decision to plead and prove employment discrimination under Title VII. Before Muldrow, a number of appellate courts dismissed transfer-based Title VII claims unless the plaintiff could show that the transfer resulted in “significant” harm. The Supreme Court rejected that standard in Muldrow, holding that a plaintiff need only show that the transfer resulted in “some harm” with respect to an identifiable term or condition of employment. The Supreme Court’s new standard raises fresh considerations for employers making transfer decisions, and may have broader implications beyond the transfer context.Continue Reading Supreme Court Eases Burden for Title VII Plaintiffs Challenging Transfer Decisions

Last week, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upended longstanding, employer-friendly precedent in cases brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. For decades, an employment discrimination plaintiff in the Fifth Circuit had to demonstrate the “adverse employment action” forming the basis of their complaint constituted an “ultimate employment decision”—which the Court of Appeals effectively limited to hiring, firing, promotion, or compensation. No longer. In a move sure to surprise some, the traditionally employer-friendly Court broadened the scope of cognizable discrimination claims in the Fifth Circuit.Continue Reading Fifth Circuit Upends 30 Years of Title VII Precedent, Making it Easier for Employees to Bring Discrimination Claims