In yesterday’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Starbucks v. McKinney, the Court held that federal courts must apply the traditional equitable four-factor test when evaluating National Labor Relations Board (“Board”) requests for preliminary injunctive relief. This pivotal ruling resolves a circuit split and, in many jurisdictions, raises the Board’s burden of proof when seeking preliminary injunctive relief. While four U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals already apply the traditional four-factor test, six others use a more lenient standard. Summarized below are our legal analysis of the ruling and recommendations for best practices going forward.

Lawrence & Bundy is pleased to announce that the firm has been ranked in Chambers USA 2024 for another consecutive year in the area of Labor & Employment. Thank you to the entire team for your exceptional work over the past year and for making this recognition possible. We would also like to thank our clients and Georgia market commentators for their recognition of our firm’s accomplishments. We are grateful for the trust and confidence you place in our team

EEOC regulations have expanded coverage beyond what employers might expect. Employers should become familiar with these requirements and take certain risk-reducing actions before the regulations take effect June 18.
 
After a year’s wait, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission published final regulations and interpretive guidance for the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (“PWFA”). These regulations expand coverage beyond what employers might expect. Employers should become familiar with these requirements and take certain risk-reducing actions before the regulations take effect on June 18, 2024.[1]

The United States Supreme Court issued its ruling on Thursday in Harrow v. Department of Defense. The decision directly applies to federal sector employers, but it has broader applications for all final decisions a federal agency makes that can be appealed to a federal court.

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that the 60-day deadline for a federal employee to petition the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to review a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board (“MSPB”) is not jurisdictional. In other words, the Federal Circuit Court had the authority to review the claim even though it was filed outside the 60-day deadline.

Last month, the Department of Education released its long-anticipated final regulations that broadly expand the protections of Title IX. Whether the regulations actually go into effect as scheduled on August 1, 2024, remains up in the air: over twenty states have filed lawsuits objecting to the Department’s regulations, with their focus on the Department’s expansion of sex discrimination to include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” (consistent with the United States Supreme Court’s 2020 Bostock v. Clayton County decision).

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.