This week, we're analyzing how the upcoming Trump administration may affect National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) policies and enforcement priorities promoting union activity, recent court decisions on union protections, and high-profile strikes and evolving worker demands.

NLRB Limits Employer Statements on Union Impact

The Biden administration and the NLRB have been aggressive in pursuing policies and enforcement priorities that promote activity. Just last week, in a case involving Starbucks, the NLRB overturned a 40-year precedent to restrict employers’ ability to describe the consequences of unionization to employees. The incoming administration can make some immediate changes here, such as replacing the NLRB General Counsel, but replacing board members takes more time, and other factors beyond executive policy impact the organizing environment. 

Courts Limit and Expand Protections

The courts have both limited and expanded protections for union organizing. For example, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit revived a pilot union lawsuit for retaliation against union activity based on recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent. On the other hand, several  cases challenging the way NLRB members are appointed are working their way through the courts, setting up the possibility that President Trump could have a more immediate policy impact.

Boeing Strike Highlights New Union Demands

High-profile strikes and work stoppages could also impact future union activity, such as the recent Boeing strike. These labor actions could continue during the new administration as workers push for more benefits and protections.

Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw368

Subscribe to #WorkforceWednesday: https://www.ebglaw.com/subscribe/

Visit http://www.EmploymentLawThisWeek.com

This podcast is presented by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights are reserved. This audio recording includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances, and these materials are not a substitute for the advice of competent counsel. The content reflects the personal views and opinions of the participants. No attorney-client relationship has been created by this audio recording. This audio recording may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.

Both political parties have called this the most consequential election in recent history, which means that this morning in your workplace, some employees are celebrating, and others might be feeling hurt, disappointed, or maybe even fearful. What can employers do to help?

Epstein Becker Green attorneys Susan Gross Sholinsky and Michael S. Ferrell outline proactive strategies employers can adopt to prevent potential workplace incidents and describe protections surrounding political speech, as governed by laws like the National Labor Relations Act.

Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw367

Subscribe to #WorkforceWednesday: https://www.ebglaw.com/subscribe/

Visit http://www.EmploymentLawThisWeek.com

This podcast is presented by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights are reserved. This audio recording includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances, and these materials are not a substitute for the advice of competent counsel. The content reflects the personal views and opinions of the participants. No attorney-client relationship has been created by this audio recording. This audio recording may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.

Prepare to be spellbound this Halloween as we cast a magical twist on the realm of trade secrets and restrictive covenants! Whether you're a Gryffindor at heart or more of a Slytherin, there's something for every magical mind seeking to safeguard their organization’s trade secrets.

In this episode of Spilling Secrets, Epstein Becker Green attorneys A. Millie Warner, Jill K. Bigler, and Aime Dempsey team up with Kristen O’Connor—Senior Assistant General Counsel, Employment at Marsh & McLennan Companies—to wave their legal wands over topics such as Professor Snape’s secret potion book, Hermione’s clever jinxes, and much more. 

Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw366

Subscribe - https://www.ebglaw.com/subscribe/.

Visit http://www.EmploymentLawThisWeek.com.

This podcast is presented by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights are reserved. This audio recording includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances, and these materials are not a substitute for the advice of competent counsel. The content reflects the personal views and opinions of the participants. No attorney-client relationship has been created by this audio recording. This audio recording may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.

This week, we’re examining the final mental health parity rules, a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) memo on restrictive covenant limitations, and New York State’s recently enacted workplace violence prevention law.

Final Mental Health Parity Rules Released

The U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and the Treasury recently issued final rules implementing new requirements and amending existing regulations under the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA). The new rules further MHPAEA’s goal of ensuring equal benefits for mental and physical treatment.

NLRB General Counsel Seeks to Expand Limits on Restrictive Covenants

NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo released a memo earlier this month focused on further limits to restrictive covenants. According to the memo, the NLRB will seek expanded make-whole remedies for workers who allegedly miss job opportunities due to noncompete agreements they were required to sign. Abruzzo also condemned so-called “stay-or-pay” agreements.

New York Enacts Workplace Violence Prevention Law

New York State recently enacted the Retail Worker Safety Act, requiring retail employers to adopt a workplace violence prevention policy, implement workplace violence training for employees, and more.

Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw365

Subscribe to #WorkforceWednesday: https://www.ebglaw.com/subscribe/

Visit http://www.EmploymentLawThisWeek.com

This podcast is presented by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights are reserved. This audio recording includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances, and these materials are not a substitute for the advice of competent counsel. The content reflects the personal views and opinions of the participants. No attorney-client relationship has been created by this audio recording. This audio recording may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.

The NLRB is facing significant legal challenges from employers after a series of controversial rulings. Could the NLRB’s structure be at risk?

Epstein Becker Green attorneys Stuart M. Gerson and Laura H. Schuman discuss how the NLRB’s broad interpretation of their enforcement authority under the National Labor Relations Act has invited legal challenges. Additionally, they examine how the U.S. Supreme Court’s Loper Bright decision is perceived to create a more favorable environment for contesting the NLRB’s authority.

Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw364

Subscribe to #WorkforceWednesday: https://www.ebglaw.com/subscribe/

Visit http://www.EmploymentLawThisWeek.com

This podcast is presented by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights are reserved. This audio recording includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances, and these materials are not a substitute for the advice of competent counsel. The content reflects the personal views and opinions of the participants. No attorney-client relationship has been created by this audio recording. This audio recording may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.

This week, we’re spotlighting the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) decision to withdraw from a federal labor pact; the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC’s) report on alleged underrepresentation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)-related jobs; and an appellate court’s affirmation of the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB’s) McLaren Macomb decision. 

FTC Exits Federal Labor Pact

On September 27, 2024, the FTC announced its decision to withdraw from the antitrust merger agreement with three other federal agencies that it had signed in August.

EEOC Alleges Significant Underrepresentation in High-Tech Sector 

The EEOC recently issued a report that purports to show substantial underrepresentation of Black, Hispanic, and female workers across 56 STEM-related jobs. 

Sixth Circuit Enforces NLRB Ruling on Severance Agreements

In a per curiam ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has affirmed the NLRB’s controversial McLaren Macomb decision. 

Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw363

Subscribe to #WorkforceWednesday: https://www.ebglaw.com/subscribe/

Visit http://www.EmploymentLawThisWeek.com

This podcast is presented by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights are reserved. This audio recording includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances, and these materials are not a substitute for the advice of competent counsel. The content reflects the personal views and opinions of the participants. No attorney-client relationship has been created by this audio recording. This audio recording may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.

The DOL recently clarified that its 2021 cybersecurity guidance applies to all ERISA-covered employee benefit plans, including health and welfare plans. This clarification raises important questions for employers regarding compliance and security.

Epstein Becker Green attorneys Brian G. Cesaratto and Samuel C. Nolan provide their analysis of the key cybersecurity considerations and best practices for risk mitigation that employers should consider in light of the updated guidance.

Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw362

Subscribe to #WorkforceWednesday: https://www.ebglaw.com/subscribe/

Visit http://www.EmploymentLawThisWeek.com

This podcast is presented by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights are reserved. This audio recording includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances, and these materials are not a substitute for the advice of competent counsel. The content reflects the personal views and opinions of the participants. No attorney-client relationship has been created by this audio recording. This audio recording may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.

The Fifth Circuit recently struck down the DOL’s tip credit rule, finding that the agency had exceeded its authority under the Fair Labor Standards Act. However, that same court later upheld the DOL’s authority to set a minimum salary threshold for overtime exemption.

Epstein Becker Green attorney Paul DeCamp, who represented the restaurant plaintiffs in the tip credit case alongside Kathleen Barrett, offers his interpretation of these significant court decisions and what they mean for employers.

Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw361

Subscribe to #WorkforceWednesday: https://www.ebglaw.com/subscribe/

Visit http://www.EmploymentLawThisWeek.com

This podcast is presented by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights are reserved. This audio recording includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances, and these materials are not a substitute for the advice of competent counsel. The content reflects the personal views and opinions of the participants. No attorney-client relationship has been created by this audio recording. This audio recording may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.

On August 20, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas invalidated the FTC’s non-compete ban, deeming it arbitrary and capricious and beyond the scope of the agency’s statutory authority.

In this episode of Spilling Secrets, Epstein Becker Green attorneys Peter A. Steinmeyer, Erik W. Weibust, and Paul DeCamp tell us more about the court’s decision to block the ban, what legal challenges remain, and the key considerations for employers moving forward. 

Download Our Free Survey on Non-Compete Laws Across All 50 States: https://www.ebglaw.com/50state

Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw360

Subscribe - https://www.ebglaw.com/subscribe/.

Visit http://www.EmploymentLawThisWeek.com.

This podcast is presented by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights are reserved. This audio recording includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances, and these materials are not a substitute for the advice of competent counsel. The content reflects the personal views and opinions of the participants. No attorney-client relationship has been created by this audio recording. This audio recording may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.

This week, we’re highlighting a few state-level employment issues, including the legal challenges faced by Staples, Inc., regarding the Massachusetts lie detector ban; New Jersey’s implementation of a gender-neutral dress code for businesses; and the varying voting leave policies across states in preparation for the November election.

Staples Sued Over Massachusetts’s Lie Detector Notice

In Massachusetts, the Staples office supply chain has been sued for allegedly violating the state’s lie detector ban, which, among other things, requires employers to include information about the ban on job applications.

New Jersey’s Gender-Neutral Dress Code 

Businesses in New Jersey are now required to adopt a gender-neutral dress code for both patrons and employees. The state attorney general announced this new mandate after a restaurant was found to have violated New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination when it required a nonbinary customer to follow the men’s dress code.

Employers Must Prepare Voting Leave Policies Ahead of 2024 Election

With the U.S. presidential election little more than 50 days away, employees are beginning to make voting plans. Now is the time for employers to check relevant laws in their state and review their policies.

Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw359

Subscribe to #WorkforceWednesday: https://www.ebglaw.com/subscribe/

Visit http://www.EmploymentLawThisWeek.com

This podcast is presented by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights are reserved. This audio recording includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances, and these materials are not a substitute for the advice of competent counsel. The content reflects the personal views and opinions of the participants. No attorney-client relationship has been created by this audio recording. This audio recording may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.

On August 20, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas blocked the FTC’s ban on non-compete agreements nationwide. What does this mean for employers?

Epstein Becker Green attorney Peter A. Steinmeyer tells us what employers should be doing now and outlines the implications of this decision on existing and future non-compete agreements.

As non-compete laws rapidly evolve, it’s crucial for businesses and human resources professionals to stay informed. Our survey summarizes key points about non-compete laws for each state and the District of Columbia.

Download Here

Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw358

Subscribe to #WorkforceWednesday: https://www.ebglaw.com/subscribe/

Visit http://www.EmploymentLawThisWeek.com

This podcast is presented by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights are reserved. This audio recording includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances, and these materials are not a substitute for the advice of competent counsel. The content reflects the personal views and opinions of the participants. No attorney-client relationship has been created by this audio recording. This audio recording may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.