Two recent disputes involving healthcare entities demonstrate some of the legal risks associated with contract clauses that require employees to reimburse their employer for the cost of job-related training if employees leave or are terminated before a specified period, often referred to as training repayment agreements (TRAs).
The National Football League (NFL) is in the spotlight this season, not because of any certain game on the field, but for a legal battle off it. Last week, the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that a NFL coach could bring his race discrimination claims against the NFL and several NFL teams in court although he had signed an arbitration agreement.
On August 11, 2025, the California Supreme Court issued a decision in the matter of Dana Hohenshelt v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles, ruling that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) does not preempt the California Arbitration Act (“CAA”) provisions that require the drafter of the arbitration agreement to pay arbitration fees within thirty days of the due date in employment and consumer arbitration matters or face the loss of the right to compel arbitration. Furthermore, the Supreme Court concluded that a party’s failure to timely pay arbitration fees is subject to analysis by the fact finder on whether an untimely payment of arbitration fees was the result of willful, grossly negligent, or fraudulent conduct, or merely inadvertence or mistake.
On July 1, 2025, Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti announced the launch of the Civil Rights Enforcement Division (CRED), a newly established unit within the Attorney General’s Office. This significant structural change follows the Tennessee General Assembly’s decision to dissolve the Tennessee Human Rights Commission (THRC) and transfer its responsibilities to the Attorney General’s Office. CRED is now the primary body responsible for enforcing the Tennessee Human Rights Act and Tennessee Disability Act and accepts discrimination complaints in employment, housing, public accommodation, and education.
Below, we summarize the key changes, discuss the impact on employers, outline the new charge process, and preview the potential of similar trends in other states.
On January 15, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a rare unanimous decision in EMD Sales Inc. v. Carrera, addressing the standard of proof employers must meet to establish that an employee is exempt from the minimum wage and overtime requirements under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Court held employers need only prove employees meet an FLSA exemption by a preponderance of the evidence (more likely true than not), rejecting the Fourth Circuit’s use of the higher “clear-and-convincing-evidence” standard. This ruling carries significant implications for employers in the context of employee classification and defending against unpaid overtime claims.
High winds and drought conditions have fueled severe wildfires, devastating communities around Los Angeles, California. The fires have destroyed thousands of homes and businesses, while firefighters are working tirelessly to gain control. On January 8, 2025, President Biden approved a “Major Disaster Declaration” for California.
Colorado recently became the first state to regulate the use of high-risk artificial intelligence (AI) systems to prevent algorithmic discrimination by developers and deployers of AI systems. The Colorado AI Act is broad in scope and will apply to businesses using AI for certain employment purposes, imposing numerous compliance obligations and potential liability for algorithmic discrimination.
Two recent decisions by the Minnesota Court of Appeals will impact Minnesota businesses facing potential discrimination claims under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA).
While in session, New York state legislators introduce all kinds of bills, most of which do not become laws, or at least not right away. But even unsuccessful bills can clue us in on what lawmakers are thinking, what policies might be trending, and what changes future laws might bring. New York businesses can stay ahead of the game—and avoid ugly surprises—by identifying those employment-related bills that could signal important changes to come. Here are a few proposed laws introduced by the New York Assembly since the beginning of 2024. While none of these have passed, and they may not pass this year, prudent businesses will keep themselves apprised of what legislators are focused on in this ever-changing landscape.
In 2021, there was a mass shooting at a high school in Michigan in which four students were killed. As a result of this shooting, not only was the shooter prosecuted, but the parents of the shooter were charged with criminal liability by their failure to take ordinary care to act appropriately, and are, therefore, being tried for four counts of involuntary manslaughter. The mother was recently convicted.
Other parents in the last few months have pled guilty to charges of reckless conduct or neglect in these situations. Given this pattern, it is reasonably foreseeable that employers—if such shootings take place in the workplace—may also be prosecuted or subject to stiff personal injury claims due to shootings in the workplace, if they do not follow at least the minimum standards as set out in state law regarding restrictions on weapons in the workplace.