As discussed in our previous article, the Federal Trade Commission’s (“FTC”) newly enacted Non-Compete Clause Rule (“Rule”) is set to go into effect on September 4, 2024, by its own terms. The Rule would virtually ban all non-compete agreements for nearly all workers of for-profit employers.
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.
The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has issued several significant decisions that employers doing business in Minnesota should be aware of. Here are a few highlights of recent Eight Circuit Decisions that have addressed important topics in employment law.
On August 11, 2023, Governor J.B. Pritzker signed an amendment to the Illinois Equal Pay Act that mandates new pay transparency requirements for most Illinois employers.
New Pay Transparency Requirements
Effective January 1, 2025, the amendment requires all public and private employers in Illinois with 15 or more employees to provide pay scale and benefits information in all open job postings. This means that covered employees must provide the following information for each posted position:
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.
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 beginning of a new year, or new fiscal year, can often bring changes to a company’s workforce. Many businesses will perform or complete performance reviews and implement compensation changes based on the prior year. The new year can also be a time when employees make moves of their own – new year, new job.
All of this activity can create some thorny questions about a company’s obligations to a departing employee. Let’s say an employee receives a glowing performance review that merits a bonus and a raise for the following year. They are paid the bonus on February 15th and given the raise with an effective date retroactive to January 1st. In the following March, the employee submits notice of their resignation, announcing that their family has decided to move, and they have accepted a new job out of state. Their last day will be April 30th. Can the employer claw back the bonus that was just paid? What about the salary increase?
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.
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.