Want this news delivered to your inbox? Click here to subscribe and receive updates.
Looking for Lawrence & Bundy making news?
Click to view our most recent media coverage.
Click to view our most recent media coverage.
Authored by Allegra Lawrence-Hardy and Maia Cogen. Reprinted with permission from the April 19, 2024 edition of the Daily Report from Law.com | ALM Media Properties, LLC. Further duplication without permission is prohibited. All rights reserved. The key outcomes of this year’s Georgia legislative session have implications for companies doing business in Georgia and for everyone interested in the outcome of the next presidential election. In the 2024 legislative session, Georgia’s General Assembly debated hotly contested laws that affect education, tort reform, health care, DEI and ballot access in Georgia. Gov. Brian Kemp will have until May 7 to sign bills that passed both chambers. This session’s highs and lows, against the backdrop of the evolving political and regulatory landscape, affect Georgians, businesses in the state marketplace, and all citizens concerned about the next presidential election.
The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) voted today by a 3-2 margin to issue its final rule[1] imposing a nationwide ban on employers from entering, enforcing, or representing that employees are subject to noncompetes. The broad rule applies to virtually all workers and employers in the U.S. other than to existing, but not future, noncompetes with narrowly defined senior executives. The final rule represents a seismic shift in noncompete law, and employers will have to comply 120 days after publication of the rule in the federal register, including providing notice of the rule to current and former employees subject to noncompetes. Given the sweeping changes in noncompete law, and the position stated by two Commissioners during the vote that the FTC does not have authority to make the rule, prompt legal challenges are likely.
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, unanimously holding that job transfers may give rise to a claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) where the transfer results in some harm, even if the transfer does not result in “significant” harm. This decision resolves a federal circuit court split of authority. Some appellate courts have not required employees to show significant harm, while others have found that harm resulting from job transfers is too trivial to amount to an adverse action.
Allegra Lawrence-Hardy has been named to the inaugural 2024 Forbes America’s Top 200 Lawyers list, a distinction that recognizes the finest practitioners in the profession, those who have broken barriers to emerge as leaders in their fields, and attorneys most respected by peers and clients. Lawyers selected by Forbes for inclusion on the list share reputations for integrity, possess records of excellence, and have been involved in the most consequential cases and legal trends in recent years.
Lisa Haldar has been invited to join the Litigation Counsel of America as a fellow. The LCA is an invitation-only trial lawyer honorary society that is limited to less than one-half of one percent of lawyers in the country, each of whom has been vetted for skills, expertise, and service. Lisa joins Allegra Lawrence-Hardy, who has been a senior fellow of LCA for many years, and Maia Cogen, who recently became an associate fellow. Allegra and Lisa are both experienced labor and employment trial attorneys with extensive experience in resolving high-profile, highly sensitive management-side employment litigation cases. Skilled at crisis management and drilling down to the core issues, clients rely on Allegra and Lisa to take the lead in finding legal solutions that effectively address the situation at hand while taking business, media, and reputational implications into consideration. By Jessica L. Mazzeo and Lovita Tandy
This article originally appeared in the March 8, 2024 issue of The Legal Intelligencer–ALM/Law.com In the last year, we have seen many attacks on DEI efforts within educational institutions, corporate America, and beyond. This resistance is nothing new as there has always been pushback when trying to make room at the table for everyone. In these last 12 months, we have seen a significant rise in attempts to eliminate DEI with attacks on affirmative action, lawsuits aimed at diversity initiatives within corporations and law firms, and even some states removing elimination of bias CLE requirements. While opponents of DEI focus mainly on race and gender, as has been discussed before in “More Than Meets the Eye: Tackling Deep Level Diversity in the Law,” true diversity runs far deeper. This still-evolving diversity challenge provides our profession with something of a second bite at the apple. We are honored to announce that Allegra Lawrence-Hardy, Leslie Bryan, Rod Ganske, and Maia Cogen have been named to Georgia Super Lawyers for another consecutive year, earning recognition in the areas of Labor & Employment and Business Litigation.
The firm wishes to thank the clients and colleagues who voted in the 2024 selection. The annual Super Lawyers recognition is one of numerous accolades received by Lawrence & Bundy attorneys, who have also been recognized for many years in Chambers USA, Best Lawyers®, Top 100 National Black Lawyers, and Benchmark Litigation. Yesterday, in Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, the Supreme Court unanimously held that whistleblowers pursuing claims under the anti-retaliation provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. § 1514A (SOX) do not need to prove retaliatory intent to prevail. The decision resolves a federal circuit court split of authority. The United States Courts of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (in 2010) and for the Fifth Circuit (in 2014) had held that retaliatory intent was not an element of a SOX anti-retaliation claim. In 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit disagreed, and its decision was the subject of yesterday’s case.
District Court Expresses Concern Over Mass Voter Challenges, Declines To Find Unlawful Intimidation1/4/2024
This week, the Honorable Steve C. Jones entered an opinion in the Fair Fight, Inc. v. True the Vote case, in which he declined to find—despite expressing very real concerns about defendants’ voter challenges—defendants committed voter intimidation in violation of Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act, 52 U.S.C. § 10301, et seq. In so ruling, the Court noted the tension between Georgia’s mass voter challenge law and federal law, as well as the role of Georgia’s General Assembly in legislating to prohibit mass challenges in the manner carried out by Defendants.
This article was written by Allegra Lawrence-Hardy and Lisa Haldar and originally appeared in Law 360
The landscape for employers remains transformed by the changes of the past few years. As employers have grappled with what "business as usual" looks like going forward, emerging changes in law and technology demand swift and agile responses. Lawrence & Bundy is honored to be selected for the seventh year in a row for inclusion in the U.S. News – Best Lawyers® 2024 edition of “Best Law Firms.” We are especially grateful to our clients for sharing their experiences working with our firm and taking the time to highlight our agility, expertise, and ability to find creative solutions to resolve complex employment and commercial litigation matters.
|
We contribute to the legal field by sharing our experience and insights in the form of articles and presentations designed to improve your way of doing business. You may search by category below, or contact us if you are interested in a field of study not listed here. Categories
All
|