On April 17, 2024, the Supreme Court decided that employees do not need to suffer “significant” harm to state a claim of discrimination under Title VII.
As we start the second quarter of 2024, there are a number of important developments in immigration compliance involving many of the applicable agencies.
Reversing the NLRB’s decision in Sterns Produce Company v. NLRB, the D.C. Circuit rejected the Board’s reasoning that a company had engaged in unlawful surveillance simply by directing a driver to uncover his onboard camera.
On April 12, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed whether the Federal Arbitration Act’s (FAA) transportation exemption—meaning the FAA would not apply—only relates to workers within the transportation industry.
The Phoenix ordinance creates the first heat protection scheme for workers in Arizona. Like most states, Arizona does not impose heat illness regulations statewide.
An investigator’s role in an investigation is to gather facts, but there are times when they need to recognize the signs of trauma, and understand how it affects complainants, respondents, witnesses, and the accuracy of investigative data.
In a matter of first impression for federal courts, the N.D. of Illinois found that a pension fund cannot use post-2014 contribution rate increases made pursuant to a rehabilitation plan to calculate an employer’s withdrawal liability payment amount.
This Littler Lightbulb highlights some of the more significant employment law developments at the U.S. Supreme Court and federal courts of appeal in the last month.
