Photo of Erik Eisenmann

Erik Eisenmann

Subscribe to Erik Eisenmann's Posts

Erik Eisenmann is a business lawyer and partner at Husch Blackwell who represents employers in all aspects of labor and employment law, from counseling to litigation. He frequently defends clients throughout the country that are under investigation by, or have received citations from, OSHA and MSHA.

Contact:Read more about Erik Eisenmann

In our ever-evolving world, fostering cultural sensitivity is paramount for creating inclusive and respectful work environments and minimizing legal risks. Language plays a crucial role in shaping our perceptions, and unfortunately, some words used in everyday conversation may perpetuate stereotypes and contribute to cultural insensitivity. This Native American Heritage Month, employers should consider abandoning the following words and phrases, and encourage their employees to do the same, in an effort to embrace more inclusive work environments, and mitigate the risk of discrimination claims brought by indigenous members of their workforce.

Late yesterday, August 20, 2024, a Federal Court in Texas issued a decision which enjoins – on a nationwide basis – the FTC’s final rule which would effectively ban all non-competes with limited exceptions. While we expect the FTC to appeal this decision, the rule will not go into effect on September 4, 2024, or…

A whopping 7 in 10 Americans favor the legalization of cannabis, according to Gallup, as more states are slated to legalize adult use cannabis, or at least decriminalize it, this year. Indigenous nations, such as Wisconsin’s Ho-Chunk, are following suit. As of April 30, the Ho-Chunk tribal legislature voted to decriminalize cannabis on its tribal lands. Yet, as the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) advances the rescheduling of cannabis under the Controlled Substances Act, complex jurisdictional questions remain regarding the enforcement of cannabis laws at the tribal and state levels. Among them, as of 2024, can tribes legalize cannabis use and sale on their own lands?

From Congress’ recently proposed “Dismantle DEI Act of 2024” to the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit’s decision permitting mandatory diversity training by employers, diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”) programs remain a contentious issue in U.S. politics. In June 2024, attorneys general from 40 states joined one of two dueling letters, reflecting the inconsistent sentiments on this topic across state lines.

While properly implemented DEI programs remain permissible under Title VII and other applicable laws, recent legislation proposed by Senate and House Republicans would seek to eliminate any such programs sponsored or supported by the federal government. On June 12, 2024, twenty-two members of Congress, led by Ohio Senator J.D. Vance (Donald Trump’s vice-presidential candidate in the 2024 election) introduced the Dismantle DEI Act of 2024 (the “Act”). With respect to the Act, Senator Vance stated, “The DEI agenda is a destructive ideology that breeds hatred and racial division. It has no place in our federal government or anywhere else in our society.” The proposed legislation seeks to eliminate all federal DEI programs and funding for federal agencies, contractors which receive federal funding, organizations which receive federal grants, and educational accreditation agencies. Although the Act would not apply to the private sector, the federal government remains the nation’s largest employer and the Act would impact a workforce of over four million employees.

On May 24, 2024, in Thryv, Inc. v. NLRB, No. 23-60132,  (5th Cir. May 24, 2024), a unanimous three judge panel for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a National Labor Relations Board order finding that the Employer violated the Act when it laid off employees pursuant to the terms of a last best final offer while the parties were bargaining for a successor contract. However, the court declined to rule on whether the Board had authority to issue its new consequential damages remedy – a primary reason this case was being closely watched as it moved through the appeal process.   

The Division of Advice (the “Division”) of the National Labor Relations Board (the “NLRB”) recently released an advice memorandum examining the lawfulness of various key provisions – including non-solicitation, non-disclosure, and return of property provisions – contained in an employer’s standard employment agreement. The Division’s approach in this particular case serves as a helpful guide for how the agency will likely assess other similar agreements in the future. 

Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, there has been in increase in litigation challenging employers’ Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion policies and practices. In one recent example, however, a conversative panel of judges in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected an argument that a mandatory diversity training constituted unlawful discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

In the complex tapestry of workplace dynamics, there exists an often unspoken advantage known as the beauty premium or “pretty privilege.” This phenomenon refers to the societal bias toward individuals who are perceived as conventionally attractive. Over twenty years of scholarly articles show an unconscious preference to interact with people we may find attractive, even in the employment context during the hiring process and throughout employment. While it may seem superficial, pretty privilege can significantly impact one’s career trajectory, opportunities, and overall experience in the professional world.