Labor & Employment Developments Blog

Understanding the scope and requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) has been an ongoing challenge for employers. A recent court decision has added to this complexity by clarifying the interpretation of what it means to be a “qualified individual” under the ADA. In Tudor v. Whitehall Central School District, the Second Circuit noted that the ADA was intended to offer broad protections to individuals with disabilities, and thus, should be interpreted accordingly. The Court held that an employee may still be considered a “qualified individual” entitled to reasonable accommodation under the ADA even if she can perform the essential functions of her job without reasonable accommodation. Thus, an employer is expected to provide reasonable accommodations to enhance an employee’s job performance in general. Providing reasonable accommodations are not tied to a person’s otherwise inability to perform the essential job functions.

As we previously reported, in April 2024 the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued its final regulations implementing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA). Among other things, the rule stated that employers may be required to accommodate employees for abortion, treating it as a pregnancy-related condition.

Classifying a worker as an independent contractor rather than an employee can be one of the more complicated—and risky—decisions an employer can make, as misclassification can lead to serious legal and financial consequences. Once again, however, the proper standard for classifying a worker under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) is in flux.

In his first fifty days in office, President Trump has taken numerous actions to consolidate the power of the Executive Branch. Shortly after taking office, he dismissed heads of multiple Executive Branch agencies and asserted that agency leaders must align with his Administration’s objectives.  While President Trump’s authority to replace many Executive Branch officials is unquestioned, his authority to remove appointees to independent agencies is less clear.

Last week, President Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Labor, former Oregon Congresswoman Lori Chávez-DeRemer, appeared before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions for her confirmation hearing. Her nomination was something of a surprise as Chávez-DeRemer, the daughter of a lifelong Teamster, was known for taking more union-leaning stances during her short stint in Congress. For example, as a member of the House, Chávez-DeRemer was one of three Republicans to support the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act. The PRO Act sought to expand labor protections and weaken “right-to-work” laws, which allow employees to opt-out of participation in or paying dues to unions that represent workers at their place of employment.

Significant attention has been given to President Trump’s actions regarding Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs and policies, but the impact of those actions on private sector employees has not been clear. On his first two days in office, President Trump signed multiple executive orders addressing the use of DEI programs in government. One order, Executive Order 14151: Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing, directed executive agencies to terminate all DEI offices, positions, plans, initiatives, or similar programs. Another order, Executive Order 14173: Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity, directed all executive departments and agencies to terminate any discriminatory or unlawful preferences, mandates, policies, programs, activities, guidance, regulations, enforcement actions, consent orders, and requirements. President Trump took this action citing his administration’s position that such policies violate the text and spirit of longstanding federal civil rights laws.

On November 15, 2024, the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas overturned the Department of Labor’s (DOL) final rule which increased the salary threshold for workers to be exempt from overtime requirements.

This summer, eyes were focused on the Federal Trade Commission and its announced rule seeking to invalidate millions of non-compete agreements across the country. That rule was ultimately struck down in the Court, but federal efforts to invalidate non-compete agreements have continued. As previously covered by this blog, the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) took aim at non-compete agreements in May of 2023, announcing her opinion that such agreements could restrict employees’ Section 7 rights under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). At that time, the General Counsel directed NLRB field offices to submit cases involving non-compete agreements for further investigation. 

After a summer of speculation, businesses and individuals across the country were provided some clarity as the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) rule invalidating millions of non-compete agreements was struck down by a federal district court. The FTC’s rule—which largely invalidated non-compete agreements—was announced in April and set to take effect on September 4, 2024. Since that announcement, however, multiple lawsuits have been filed against the FTC, challenging its rulemaking authority to impose this sweeping new rule. In the months that followed, all eyes have been on the courts to see whether the rule would take effect as scheduled.

The Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) push to invalidate non-compete agreements for millions of workers gained steam today, courtesy of a ruling out of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. As noted by this blog, in April of 2024 the FTC announced a final Rule largely invalidating non-compete agreements across the country. In the aftermath of that announcement multiple lawsuits were filed against the FTC, seeking to enjoin enforcement of this Rule. 

Earlier this month, opponents of the FTC’s Rule were offered a glimmer of hope when the U.S. District Court for the Northern ...