Episodit
-
This week, we're analyzing how the upcoming Trump administration may affect National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) policies and enforcement priorities promoting union activity, recent court decisions on union protections, and high-profile strikes and evolving worker demands.
NLRB Limits Employer Statements on Union Impact
The Biden administration and the NLRB have been aggressive in pursuing policies and enforcement priorities that promote activity. Just last week, in a case involving Starbucks, the NLRB overturned a 40-year precedent to restrict employers’ ability to describe the consequences of unionization to employees. The incoming administration can make some immediate changes here, such as replacing the NLRB General Counsel, but replacing board members takes more time, and other factors beyond executive policy impact the organizing environment.
Courts Limit and Expand Protections
The courts have both limited and expanded protections for union organizing. For example, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit revived a pilot union lawsuit for retaliation against union activity based on recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent. On the other hand, several cases challenging the way NLRB members are appointed are working their way through the courts, setting up the possibility that President Trump could have a more immediate policy impact.
Boeing Strike Highlights New Union Demands
High-profile strikes and work stoppages could also impact future union activity, such as the recent Boeing strike. These labor actions could continue during the new administration as workers push for more benefits and protections.
Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw368
Subscribe to #WorkforceWednesday: https://www.ebglaw.com/subscribe/
Visit http://www.EmploymentLawThisWeek.com
This podcast is presented by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights are reserved. This audio recording includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances, and these materials are not a substitute for the advice of competent counsel. The content reflects the personal views and opinions of the participants. No attorney-client relationship has been created by this audio recording. This audio recording may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.
-
Both political parties have called this the most consequential election in recent history, which means that this morning in your workplace, some employees are celebrating, and others might be feeling hurt, disappointed, or maybe even fearful. What can employers do to help?
Epstein Becker Green attorneys Susan Gross Sholinsky and Michael S. Ferrell outline proactive strategies employers can adopt to prevent potential workplace incidents and describe protections surrounding political speech, as governed by laws like the National Labor Relations Act.
Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw367
Subscribe to #WorkforceWednesday: https://www.ebglaw.com/subscribe/
Visit http://www.EmploymentLawThisWeek.com
This podcast is presented by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights are reserved. This audio recording includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances, and these materials are not a substitute for the advice of competent counsel. The content reflects the personal views and opinions of the participants. No attorney-client relationship has been created by this audio recording. This audio recording may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.
-
Puuttuva jakso?
-
Prepare to be spellbound this Halloween as we cast a magical twist on the realm of trade secrets and restrictive covenants! Whether you're a Gryffindor at heart or more of a Slytherin, there's something for every magical mind seeking to safeguard their organization’s trade secrets.
In this episode of Spilling Secrets, Epstein Becker Green attorneys A. Millie Warner, Jill K. Bigler, and Aime Dempsey team up with Kristen O’Connor—Senior Assistant General Counsel, Employment at Marsh & McLennan Companies—to wave their legal wands over topics such as Professor Snape’s secret potion book, Hermione’s clever jinxes, and much more.
Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw366
Subscribe - https://www.ebglaw.com/subscribe/.
Visit http://www.EmploymentLawThisWeek.com.
This podcast is presented by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights are reserved. This audio recording includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances, and these materials are not a substitute for the advice of competent counsel. The content reflects the personal views and opinions of the participants. No attorney-client relationship has been created by this audio recording. This audio recording may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.
-
This week, we’re examining the final mental health parity rules, a National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) memo on restrictive covenant limitations, and New York State’s recently enacted workplace violence prevention law.
Final Mental Health Parity Rules Released
The U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and the Treasury recently issued final rules implementing new requirements and amending existing regulations under the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA). The new rules further MHPAEA’s goal of ensuring equal benefits for mental and physical treatment.
NLRB General Counsel Seeks to Expand Limits on Restrictive Covenants
NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo released a memo earlier this month focused on further limits to restrictive covenants. According to the memo, the NLRB will seek expanded make-whole remedies for workers who allegedly miss job opportunities due to noncompete agreements they were required to sign. Abruzzo also condemned so-called “stay-or-pay” agreements.
New York Enacts Workplace Violence Prevention Law
New York State recently enacted the Retail Worker Safety Act, requiring retail employers to adopt a workplace violence prevention policy, implement workplace violence training for employees, and more.
Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw365
Subscribe to #WorkforceWednesday: https://www.ebglaw.com/subscribe/
Visit http://www.EmploymentLawThisWeek.com
This podcast is presented by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights are reserved. This audio recording includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances, and these materials are not a substitute for the advice of competent counsel. The content reflects the personal views and opinions of the participants. No attorney-client relationship has been created by this audio recording. This audio recording may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.
-
The NLRB is facing significant legal challenges from employers after a series of controversial rulings. Could the NLRB’s structure be at risk?
Epstein Becker Green attorneys Stuart M. Gerson and Laura H. Schuman discuss how the NLRB’s broad interpretation of their enforcement authority under the National Labor Relations Act has invited legal challenges. Additionally, they examine how the U.S. Supreme Court’s Loper Bright decision is perceived to create a more favorable environment for contesting the NLRB’s authority.
Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw364
Subscribe to #WorkforceWednesday: https://www.ebglaw.com/subscribe/
Visit http://www.EmploymentLawThisWeek.com
This podcast is presented by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights are reserved. This audio recording includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances, and these materials are not a substitute for the advice of competent counsel. The content reflects the personal views and opinions of the participants. No attorney-client relationship has been created by this audio recording. This audio recording may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.
-
This week, we’re spotlighting the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) decision to withdraw from a federal labor pact; the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC’s) report on alleged underrepresentation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)-related jobs; and an appellate court’s affirmation of the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB’s) McLaren Macomb decision.
FTC Exits Federal Labor Pact
On September 27, 2024, the FTC announced its decision to withdraw from the antitrust merger agreement with three other federal agencies that it had signed in August.
EEOC Alleges Significant Underrepresentation in High-Tech Sector
The EEOC recently issued a report that purports to show substantial underrepresentation of Black, Hispanic, and female workers across 56 STEM-related jobs.
Sixth Circuit Enforces NLRB Ruling on Severance Agreements
In a per curiam ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has affirmed the NLRB’s controversial McLaren Macomb decision.
Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw363
Subscribe to #WorkforceWednesday: https://www.ebglaw.com/subscribe/
Visit http://www.EmploymentLawThisWeek.com
This podcast is presented by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights are reserved. This audio recording includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances, and these materials are not a substitute for the advice of competent counsel. The content reflects the personal views and opinions of the participants. No attorney-client relationship has been created by this audio recording. This audio recording may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.
-
The DOL recently clarified that its 2021 cybersecurity guidance applies to all ERISA-covered employee benefit plans, including health and welfare plans. This clarification raises important questions for employers regarding compliance and security.
Epstein Becker Green attorneys Brian G. Cesaratto and Samuel C. Nolan provide their analysis of the key cybersecurity considerations and best practices for risk mitigation that employers should consider in light of the updated guidance.
Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw362
Subscribe to #WorkforceWednesday: https://www.ebglaw.com/subscribe/
Visit http://www.EmploymentLawThisWeek.com
This podcast is presented by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights are reserved. This audio recording includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances, and these materials are not a substitute for the advice of competent counsel. The content reflects the personal views and opinions of the participants. No attorney-client relationship has been created by this audio recording. This audio recording may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.
-
The Fifth Circuit recently struck down the DOL’s tip credit rule, finding that the agency had exceeded its authority under the Fair Labor Standards Act. However, that same court later upheld the DOL’s authority to set a minimum salary threshold for overtime exemption.
Epstein Becker Green attorney Paul DeCamp, who represented the restaurant plaintiffs in the tip credit case alongside Kathleen Barrett, offers his interpretation of these significant court decisions and what they mean for employers.
Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw361
Subscribe to #WorkforceWednesday: https://www.ebglaw.com/subscribe/
Visit http://www.EmploymentLawThisWeek.com
This podcast is presented by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights are reserved. This audio recording includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances, and these materials are not a substitute for the advice of competent counsel. The content reflects the personal views and opinions of the participants. No attorney-client relationship has been created by this audio recording. This audio recording may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.
-
On August 20, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas invalidated the FTC’s non-compete ban, deeming it arbitrary and capricious and beyond the scope of the agency’s statutory authority.
In this episode of Spilling Secrets, Epstein Becker Green attorneys Peter A. Steinmeyer, Erik W. Weibust, and Paul DeCamp tell us more about the court’s decision to block the ban, what legal challenges remain, and the key considerations for employers moving forward.
Download Our Free Survey on Non-Compete Laws Across All 50 States: https://www.ebglaw.com/50state
Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw360
Subscribe - https://www.ebglaw.com/subscribe/.
Visit http://www.EmploymentLawThisWeek.com.
This podcast is presented by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights are reserved. This audio recording includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances, and these materials are not a substitute for the advice of competent counsel. The content reflects the personal views and opinions of the participants. No attorney-client relationship has been created by this audio recording. This audio recording may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.
-
This week, we’re highlighting a few state-level employment issues, including the legal challenges faced by Staples, Inc., regarding the Massachusetts lie detector ban; New Jersey’s implementation of a gender-neutral dress code for businesses; and the varying voting leave policies across states in preparation for the November election.
Staples Sued Over Massachusetts’s Lie Detector Notice
In Massachusetts, the Staples office supply chain has been sued for allegedly violating the state’s lie detector ban, which, among other things, requires employers to include information about the ban on job applications.
New Jersey’s Gender-Neutral Dress Code
Businesses in New Jersey are now required to adopt a gender-neutral dress code for both patrons and employees. The state attorney general announced this new mandate after a restaurant was found to have violated New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination when it required a nonbinary customer to follow the men’s dress code.
Employers Must Prepare Voting Leave Policies Ahead of 2024 Election
With the U.S. presidential election little more than 50 days away, employees are beginning to make voting plans. Now is the time for employers to check relevant laws in their state and review their policies.
Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw359
Subscribe to #WorkforceWednesday: https://www.ebglaw.com/subscribe/
Visit http://www.EmploymentLawThisWeek.com
This podcast is presented by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights are reserved. This audio recording includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances, and these materials are not a substitute for the advice of competent counsel. The content reflects the personal views and opinions of the participants. No attorney-client relationship has been created by this audio recording. This audio recording may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.
-
On August 20, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas blocked the FTC’s ban on non-compete agreements nationwide. What does this mean for employers?
Epstein Becker Green attorney Peter A. Steinmeyer tells us what employers should be doing now and outlines the implications of this decision on existing and future non-compete agreements.
Download Our Free Survey on Non-Compete Laws Across All 50 StatesAs non-compete laws rapidly evolve, it’s crucial for businesses and human resources professionals to stay informed. Our survey summarizes key points about non-compete laws for each state and the District of Columbia.
Download Here
Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw358
Subscribe to #WorkforceWednesday: https://www.ebglaw.com/subscribe/
Visit http://www.EmploymentLawThisWeek.com
This podcast is presented by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights are reserved. This audio recording includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances, and these materials are not a substitute for the advice of competent counsel. The content reflects the personal views and opinions of the participants. No attorney-client relationship has been created by this audio recording. This audio recording may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.
-
The DOJ’s new Corporate Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program introduces significant changes for employers, particularly those in private health care and financial institutions. So, what details do employers need to be aware of?
Epstein Becker Green attorney Gregory Keating describes how employers can protect their businesses and stay ahead of potential legal challenges.
Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw357
Subscribe to #WorkforceWednesday: https://www.ebglaw.com/subscribe/
Visit http://www.EmploymentLawThisWeek.com
This podcast is presented by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights are reserved. This audio recording includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances, and these materials are not a substitute for the advice of competent counsel. The content reflects the personal views and opinions of the participants. No attorney-client relationship has been created by this audio recording. This audio recording may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.
-
This week, we’re looking at recent state-level changes and legal trends that have varying degrees of impact on employers.
Massachusetts Pay Equity Law
Massachusetts is the most recent state to enact a pay equity law. The law establishes new pay range disclosure requirements for employers that employ 25 or more employees in Massachusetts.
Illinois Amends BIPA
Illinois’ new law limits penalties under the Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) and clarifies consent procedures. Employers can now be held liable only for a single violation per person rather than for each alleged use of biometric data.
Michigan Supreme Court Reinstates Wage and Leave Laws
In Michigan, employers will have to reckon with a new decision from the state’s Supreme Court that reinstated two laws that were created through a public initiative. One law provides for annual increases to the minimum wage and a gradual elimination of a wage differential for tipped workers, while the other expands paid sick leave obligations.
Federal Courts Strike Down Controversial Florida Laws
In Florida, a federal district court judge permanently blocked the state’s Stop WOKE Act, which restricted workplace diversity, equity, and inclusion training. And a different federal judge in Florida overturned the state’s ban on transgender health care.
Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw356
Subscribe to #WorkforceWednesday: https://www.ebglaw.com/subscribe/
Visit http://www.EmploymentLawThisWeek.com
This podcast is presented by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights are reserved. This audio recording includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances, and these materials are not a substitute for the advice of competent counsel. The content reflects the personal views and opinions of the participants. No attorney-client relationship has been created by this audio recording. This audio recording may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.
-
On July 23, 2024, a federal judge in Pennsylvania denied a motion to enjoin the FTC’s non-compete ban. This ruling is in direct opposition to one by a district court in Texas that enjoined the ban in early July.
In this episode of Spilling Secrets, Epstein Becker Green attorneys Peter A. Steinmeyer, A. Millie Warner, and Paul DeCamp look into their crystal ball and make their own predictions for how the FTC’s non-compete ban may or may not survive in the courts.
Spilling Secrets is a special monthly podcast series about the future of non-compete and trade secrets law.
Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw355
Subscribe - https://www.ebglaw.com/subscribe/.
Visit http://www.EmploymentLawThisWeek.com.
This podcast is presented by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights are reserved. This audio recording includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances, and these materials are not a substitute for the advice of competent counsel. The content reflects the personal views and opinions of the participants. No attorney-client relationship has been created by this audio recording. This audio recording may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.
-
Last week, a Texas district judge challenged the constitutionality of the NLRB’s structure. Judge Albright of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas issued a preliminary injunction in favor of SpaceX, suggesting that the president’s inability to dismiss NLRB administrative law judges and board members could be unconstitutional. Epstein Becker Green attorneys Steve Swirsky and Erin Schaefer provide their analysis of this ruling, its implications for employers, and the potential for similar challenges to arise across other jurisdictions.
Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw354
Subscribe - https://www.ebglaw.com/subscribe/.
Visit http://www.EmploymentLawThisWeek.com.
This podcast is presented by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights are reserved. This audio recording includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances, and these materials are not a substitute for the advice of competent counsel. The content reflects the personal views and opinions of the participants. No attorney-client relationship has been created by this audio recording. This audio recording may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.
-
The FTC’s ban on non-competes will go into effect on September 4, 2024, but legal challenges remain. So, how can employers prepare?
In this episode of Spilling Secrets, Epstein Becker Green attorneys Peter A. Steinmeyer, Erik W. Weibust, and Paul DeCamp tell us more about how the U.S. Supreme Court’s overruling of the Chevron doctrine might affect the FTC’s ability to regulate non-competes. They also discuss a Texas court’s preliminary injunction against the FTC’s non-compete ban* and how various legal challenges have led to a somewhat anticlimactic atmosphere in the employment landscape related to the ban.
*On Tuesday, July 23, after this episode was recorded, a federal judge in Pennsylvania reached the opposite conclusion and declined to temporarily halt the FTC’s non-compete ban.
Spilling Secrets is a special monthly podcast series about the future of non-compete and trade secrets law.
Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw353
Subscribe - https://www.ebglaw.com/subscribe/.
Visit http://www.EmploymentLawThisWeek.com.
This podcast is presented by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights are reserved. This audio recording includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances, and these materials are not a substitute for the advice of competent counsel. The content reflects the personal views and opinions of the participants. No attorney-client relationship has been created by this audio recording. This audio recording may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.
-
This week, we’re delving into the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent overturning of the Chevron doctrine and how this landmark decision is opening the floodgates for challenges against federal agencies.
Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw352
Subscribe to #WorkforceWednesday: https://www.ebglaw.com/subscribe/
Visit http://www.EmploymentLawThisWeek.com
This podcast is presented by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights are reserved. This audio recording includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances, and these materials are not a substitute for the advice of competent counsel. The content reflects the personal views and opinions of the participants. No attorney-client relationship has been created by this audio recording. This audio recording may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.
-
This week, we’re examining California Governor Gavin Newsom’s new deal that was brokered to amend the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA).
Last week, Governor Newsom announced that California’s business and labor groups had come to an agreement to reform PAGA. Two legislative bills encompassing the agreed-upon PAGA reforms (AB 2288 and SB 92) were signed into law by Governor Newsom on July 1, 2024. Epstein Becker Green attorney Kevin Sullivan tells us more about the PAGA reforms, their potential impact on California employers, and who the likely winners and losers are.
Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw351
Subscribe to #WorkforceWednesday: https://www.ebglaw.com/subscribe/
Visit http://www.EmploymentLawThisWeek.com
This podcast is presented by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights are reserved. This audio recording includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances, and these materials are not a substitute for the advice of competent counsel. The content reflects the personal views and opinions of the participants. No attorney-client relationship has been created by this audio recording. This audio recording may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.
-
There’s a common misperception that ESI just means emails, but it’s much more than that. ESI encompasses anything in digital or electronic form. The departure of an employee is at the root of most trade secret and restrictive covenant litigation. Therefore, when an employee departs, the timely preservation of ESI must be a standard operating procedure.
In this episode of Spilling Secrets, Epstein Becker Green attorneys A. Millie Warner and Elizabeth S. Torkelsen and special guest James Vaughn, Managing Director of iDiscovery Solutions, discuss the complicated field of digital forensics and how employers can effectively manage ESI.
Spilling Secrets is a special monthly podcast series about the future of non-compete and trade secrets law.
Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw350
Subscribe - https://www.ebglaw.com/subscribe/.
Visit http://www.EmploymentLawThisWeek.com.
This podcast is presented by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights are reserved. This audio recording includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances, and these materials are not a substitute for the advice of competent counsel. The content reflects the personal views and opinions of the participants. No attorney-client relationship has been created by this audio recording. This audio recording may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.
-
This week, we’re recapping recent U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decisions and their impact on employers across the country.
Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw349
Subscribe to #WorkforceWednesday®: https://www.ebglaw.com/subscribe/
Visit http://www.EmploymentLawThisWeek.com
This podcast is presented by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights are reserved. This audio recording includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances, and these materials are not a substitute for the advice of competent counsel. The content reflects the personal views and opinions of the participants. No attorney-client relationship has been created by this audio recording. This audio recording may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.
- Näytä enemmän
