The gig economy has had a substantial impact on employment nationwide, and Minnesota is no different. Minneapolis in particular has been a hotbed for disputes between rideshare companies and local lawmakers trying to increase pay for their drivers. National rideshare companies recently threatened to pull out of Minneapolis entirely after the city council mandated pay increases that the companies said went further than necessary to meet the city’s minimum wage standards. Implementation of the new ordinance, and the threatened exodus by rideshare employers, have been delayed while the state legislature works on passing new regulations for the industry that would apply across Minnesota.

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.

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.

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.

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

For the past year, businesses and attorneys alike have been impatiently awaiting the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on whether a “tester” plaintiff – a person with a disability who examines compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) – has standing to bring a lawsuit when a place of public accommodation is allegedly out of compliance with the ADA. Unfortunately, the unanimous opinion issued by the Court on December 5, 2023 kicked the can down the road on this critical issue, leaving us longing for more.