Employers who had been searching for a way to best  implement the Department of Labor’s new overtime regulations (the “Final Rule”), which are set to go into effect on December 1, 2016, received an early holiday gift on Tuesday, and from one of President Obama’s appointed jurists, no less.  On November 22nd, Judge Amos Mazzant of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas granted a nationwide preliminary injunction against implementation of the…

In July 2015, the EEOC officially took the position that sexual orientation claims may be brought under the non-discrimination provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. However, in the recent case of Hively v. Ivy Tech Community College, the Seventh Circuit refused to accept the EEOC’s position and affirmed the dismissal of a sexual orientation discrimination claim holding that such claims are not cognizable under Title VII. Following the United…

Adding to the recent flurry of federal regulatory activity, on May 18, 2016, the United States Department of Labor‘s Wage and Hour Division issued a final rule on overtime that raises the salary threshold for exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Defining and delimiting the exemptions for executive, administrative, professional, outside sales and computer employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Department of Labor’s final rule updates overtime regulations, automatically extending overtime…

Employees in the United States are generally considered employed at-will in most jurisdictions, meaning that either the employee or the employer can terminate the relationship at any time, for any reason or no reason at all, without providing notice. The general rule gives way, however, in limited circumstances which trigger certain federal (and potentially state-specific) statutory notice requirements. The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act and the Older Worker Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA) are…

As widely reported in its recent EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. decision, the United States Supreme Court held that employers cannot lawfully refuse to hire an applicant if the decision was motivated by the employer’s unwillingness to provide the applicant with an accommodation the applicant needs for religious reasons. However, in so holding, the Court clarified the causation standard in Title VII discrimination cases such that the more lenient “motivating factor” jury instruction…