join our network! affiliate login  
Custom Search
Daily and Weekly Editions • Articles • Alerts • Expert Advice • Learn More

ten most recent federal employment law articles Ten Most Recent Federal Articles

Fisher, the Sequel: Supreme Court Upholds Public University’s Affirmative Action Program

Ogletree Deakins • June 24, 2016
On June 23, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the race-conscious admission program that a public university used for undergraduate admissions was lawful under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In a 4–3 ruling, the Court held that the university’s program withstood strict scrutiny analysis. The three dissenting justices argued that the university failed to meet its burden to show that the admissions plan was narrowly tailored to serve compelling interests. Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, No. 14–981, Supreme Court of the United States (June 23, 2016).

U.S. Supreme Court Again Upholds Race-Conscious Admissions Program

Jackson Lewis P.C. • June 24, 2016
Today in the case of Fisher v. University of Texas, the U.S. Supreme Court today held, in a 4-3 decision, that the “race-conscious admissions program in use at the time of petitioner’s application is lawful under the Equal Protection Clause.” This is the second time the Court has considered the issue but the first time it has issued a decisive decision.

Supreme Court Gives Boost To Affirmative Action Programs

Fisher Phillips • June 24, 2016
Today the U.S. Supreme Court held by a four to three vote that the University of Texas’s use of racial preferences in undergraduate admissions did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, upholding the University’s affirmative action program. The issue of affirmative action in higher education has now been considered five times by the Supreme Court and has produced some of the Court’s most fractious decisions, today’s being no exception. Fisher v. University of Texas.

NLRB Associate General Counsel Warns Regions About ‘Potential Literacy Issues’

Jackson Lewis P.C. • June 24, 2016
The Associate General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board has notified the NLRB’s Regional Directors, Officers-in-Charge and Resident Officers that they “should be cognizant of potential literacy issues when considering remedies” and consider requiring employers who have been found in violation of the Act to read aloud the Board’s “Notice To Employees” to assembled employees to overcome written language barriers in appropriate cases. Memorandum OM 16-21 (June 21, 2016).

Minnesota District Court Denies Request to Enjoin DOL's Persuader Rule, But Signals Rule Could Be Overturned

Littler Mendelson, P.C. • June 24, 2016
In a decision that sheds light on the potential viability of the Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) Persuader Rule,1 a Minnesota district court on June 22, 2016, denied a request to enjoin the rule, which the DOL intends to begin enforcing on July 1, 2016.2 However, the court expressly stated its view that the Persuader Rule conflicts with the advice exception to the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (“LMRDA”). Therefore, the court found that the plaintiffs attacking the Persuader Rule had established a “strong likelihood of success on their claim” because of this conflict.

Federal District Court in Minnesota Finds Merit in Challenge to DOL Persuader Rule, But Denies Request to Enjoin Implementation

Franczek Radelet P.C • June 24, 2016
As we reported earlier, the new Department of Labor (DOL) “Persuader Rule” dramatically expands reporting obligations for consultants and attorneys who provide certain services to employers related to persuading employees on the subject of union organizing and collective bargaining. The new rule requires that both the employer and the consultant or attorney disclose agreements and payments made by the employer for “indirect” persuader services.

Department of Labor’s New Overtime Final Rule Carries Class Action Risk

Jackson Lewis P.C. • June 24, 2016
The U.S. Department of Labor’s new Final Rule as to the Fair Labor Standards Act’s “white collar” exemptions to overtime could open employers up to class action liability as previously exempt employees fail to meet new salary requirements.

SHRM 2016: Why Your Employees Just Aren’t That Into You

XpertHR • June 24, 2016
Does each of your employees know how their job contributes to the big picture? Are you truly interested in their input? Speaking at the Society for Human Resource Management’s (SHRM’s) 2016 Convention in Washington, DC, where employee engagement was a major theme, David Lee said the answers too often are no to both of these questions.

Supreme Court Tie Blocks Expansion of DACA and Creation of DAPA

Jackson Lewis P.C. • June 24, 2016
Disappointing many, the U.S. Supreme Court has tied 4-4 in a case appealing a nationwide injunction on the Obama Administration’s executive action expanding the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and creating the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) programs. United States v. Texas, No. 15-674 (June 23, 2016). The split leaves the district court injunction in place pending further action in the suit.

Immigration Showdown: Defeat for the Obama Administration’s Deferred Action Policies

Ogletree Deakins • June 24, 2016
On Thursday, June 23, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States reached a 4 – 4 tie on issues related to the validity of the Obama administration’s contested immigration programs, Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) and expanded Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). With this tie the injunction set by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas remains in force, preventing the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from implementing the Obama administration’s deferred action policies. Now, immigration policy related to undocumented immigrants will be front-and-center in the upcoming election as the fate of the DAPA and expanded DACA programs may depend on who becomes the next president of the United States. United States v. Texas, No. 15-674 (June 23, 2016)