The U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) published a final rule (the “Final Rule”) in January this year, which took effect March 11, 2024 and changed how the DOL analyzes whether a worker is properly classified as an employee or independent contractor under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).
Continue Reading Navigating the “New” Normal: Understanding the DOL’s Independent Contractor Rule

Washington, D.C. is the latest in a growing list of jurisdictions to require employers to have “pay transparency” in job postings. Starting in June of 2024, Washington, D.C. will require all employers with at least one employee in the District to post the minimum and maximum projected salary in all job listings or advertisements. The salary projections must be the lowest and highest salary or hourly pay the employer “in good faith believes” it would pay for the role.
Continue Reading D.C. to Require Pay Transparency, Prohibit Inquiry into Wage History

The U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) recently published a final rule on the definition of “independent contractor” under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) on January 9, 2024. This rule introduces a six-factor “economic realities” test, replacing the 2021 rule and aiming to bring clarity to the classification of workers as independent contractors or employees.
Continue Reading DOL’s New Six-Factor “Economic Realities” Test: Navigating Changes in Independent Contractor Classification

On December 6, 2023, the US Supreme Court heard arguments for Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, which may have significant implications for discrimination cases under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Specifically, the Supreme Court in this case could clarify whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act requires a clear showing of significant disadvantage or tangible harm to have an actionable claim.
Continue Reading The Potential Impacts of Muldrow v. City of St. Louis On The Limits of Workplace Discrimination Allegations

The Texas Supreme Court has issued an opinion holding that “third-party testing entities hired by an employer do not owe a common-law negligence duty to their clients’ employees.” Houston Area Safety Council, Inc. v. Mendez, 671 S.W.3d 580, 590 (Tex. 2023) (“Mendez”). In a positive development for employers that drug test their employees, the Mendez opinion also supports prior Texas Supreme Court precedent that employers who conduct in-house drug testing do not owe a duty to employees. Mission Petroleum Carriers, Inc. v. Solomon, 106 S.W.3d 705 (Tex. 2003) (“Solomon”). In other words, it logically follows that if an employer does not owe a duty to employees for results of drug tests administered in-house, a third-party tester hired by that employer does not owe a legal duty to employees for drug tests.
Continue Reading Third-Party Drug-Testers—Not Just Employers—Owe no Duty to Employees

A recent opinion out of the Texas 14th Court of Appeals has raised the bar for employers trying to enforce arbitration agreements electronically signed by employees. See Houston ANUSA, LLC d/b/a AutoNation USA Houston v. Shattenkirk, No. 14-20-00446-CV, 2023 WL 5437714 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 24, 2023, no pet. h.).
Continue Reading Employee E-Signatures in Arbitration Agreements Under Scrutiny

On June 14, 2023, Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed HB 2127, the Texas Regulatory Consistency Act (“TRCA”), into law. Once the TRCA goes into effect on September 1, 2023, it will preclude all municipalities and counties in Texas from adopting or enforcing ordinances regulating conduct with respect to certain subject matters, including labor.
Continue Reading Texas Legislation Provides Employers Regulatory Uniformity

In Hamilton v. Dallas County, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 223831, 2020 WL 7047055, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Dec. 1, 2020), a federal district court judge dismissed a lawsuit by female Dallas County detention officers alleging that a gender-based decision related to weekend work schedules violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. At the root of that case was the fact that, although male and female officers received the same number of days off during a workweek, only male officers were permitted to take both weekend days off. The female officers complained about the scheduling policy, but the County maintained the policy, citing safety concerns.
Continue Reading The Fifth Circuit Mulls “Ultimate Employment Decision” Rule Under Title VII