NLRB Decisions Have Employers Evaluating Future While Simultaneously Revisiting the Past
Similar to buyer beware, we now enter the time period of employer beware because these recent NLRB decisions will leave employers evaluating their future actions while simultaneously needing to revisit the terms and provisions of existing agreements.
June 22, 2023 at 01:29 PM
9 minute read
Each year employers have to brace themselves for the latest onslaught of laws and regulations —both new and amended—that pertain to ensuring compliance with protections for their employees. As an employer, navigating the nuances of the ever-changing legal landscape of employee protections is probably one of the most stressful aspects of running a business, just after the daunting task of generating enough revenue to survive—and thrive. One segment of the law that most employers just may not be paying enough attention to (until now that is) is compliance with the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). With just under 12% of all workers in the United States represented by a union, it is not uncommon for most employers to dissociate themselves from decisions by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). For those not familiar, the NLRA is designed to address the imbalance of power between employers and individual private sector employees by protecting their rights to organize into unions, engage in collective bargaining, and act collectively, such as striking. But the NLRA also prohibits several actions by employers, employees, or unions that are considered "unfair labor practices"—which, as you will read below, includes virtually all private sector employers regardless of whether they have unionized employees. In the first five months of 2023, the NLRB has issued two decisions that had widespread impact relating to employees in the form of regulating terms contained in severance agreements and the enforceability of noncompetition provisions. So similar to buyer beware, we now enter the time period of employer beware because these recent NLRB decisions will leave employers evaluating their future actions while simultaneously needing to revisit the terms and provisions of existing agreements.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllRisk Mitigation: Employee Engagement Results in Fewer Lawsuits (and Other Benefits)
5 minute readDispute Over Failure to Accommodate Disability Ends in $900K Settlement
3 minute readJudge Awards $200K in Attorney Fees Following $80K Employment Discrimination Award
4 minute readThe Moving Goalposts of Overtime Exemption: Texas Judge Invalidates 2024 Salary Threshold Rule
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 2Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 3Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 4Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
- 5Husch Blackwell, Foley Among Law Firms Opening Southeast Offices This Year
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250