Photo of Erik Eisenmann

Erik Eisenmann

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

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.

U.S. Supreme Court, in Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana

In a strongly worded and unanimous opinion, a panel of judges from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals determined that Florida’s STOP W.O.K.E. Act[1] is unconstitutional. The court noted that Florida’s defense of the law’s validity represented “clever framing rather than lawful restriction.”

Enacted in 2022, the STOP W.O.K.E. Act forbids employers from mandating…

Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), employers must provide overtime pay to employees at one and one-half times an employee’s regular pay rate for every hour the employee works beyond 40 hours in a workweek, unless the employee falls within a specified exemption. Under current U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) regulations, exempt employees include executive, administrative, professional, and computer employees who perform certain duties, and earn at least $684 per week ($35,568 annually). Highly compensated employees who perform office or nonmanual work and are paid a total annual compensation of $107,432 are also exempt.

Democrats and Republicans within the House Committee on Education and the Workforce have recently expressed bipartisan interest in raising or eliminating the statutory caps on damages for claims brought under Title VII and the ADA. While the plan is still in its very early stages, any revisions to statutory damages caps would have significant implications for employers.

In our ever-evolving world, fostering cultural sensitivity is paramount for minimizing legal risks and creating inclusive, respectful work environments. 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. As employers gear up for the new year, they should consider abandoning the following words and phrases. Encouraging their employees to do the same will help create more inclusive work environments and mitigate the risk of discrimination claims brought by members of their workforce.

On the heels of the United States Supreme Court’s decision limiting affirmative action in college admissions, we have seen an increase in workers who do not belong to historically underrepresented demographic groups filing lawsuits challenging their employers’ diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs.[1] As a result, some businesses may wonder: Are our DEI efforts worth the legal risk? For most businesses, the consensus answer appears to be “yes.”

Husch Blackwell’s Technology, Manufacturing & Transportation group has published its second-annual Legal Insights for Manufacturing report, covering the top challenges facing U.S.-based manufacturers and including a section on labor and employment law concerns. Per the usual, labor and employment challenges rank at the very top of the list of corporate concerns and will likely continue…