“Alabama is attempting to capitalize on the view that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause demands “colorblindness” and may have a receptive audience in the Court’s conservative wing.”

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Merrill v. Milligan, where plaintiffs argue Alabama’s new congressional maps “dilute” the preferences of Black voters. The Court’s ruling may further limit federal anti-discrimination voting protections as Alabama argues for “colorblindness” under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

The article examines whether employers can require workers to sign arbitration agreements with class action waivers, a question the Supreme Court was set to decide in 2017. The authors argue that such waivers conflict with eight decades of precedent under the National Labor Relations Act, which protects employees’ rights to engage in concerted legal action against their employers.

The Second Circuit will reconsider the question of Title VII protections against sexual orientation discrimination. While the Supreme Court will address this issue soon, the Second Circuit’s ruling may prove consequential for employment discrimination law and LGBT rights.

A 2017 article by Jordan Lorence condemns a Seventh Circuit ruling in favor of a transgender student challenging his school district’s discriminatory policies. Despite Lorence’s illogical arguments opposing the Title IX protections, transgender litigants continue to see successes under federal civil rights laws.

A 2017 article critiques H.R. 985, the “Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act of 2017,” which the authors argue would actually make it more difficult for employees to bring class action lawsuits despite its stated goals of ensuring fair recoveries and reducing abuses.

Warning! Employers are increasingly using “opt-out” provisions in arbitration agreements as a new tactic to prevent employees from participating in class actions. Opt-out clauses are a “trap” because few employees will discover or exercise the opt-out right within the limited time window, thereby losing their right to engage in collective legal action.

This law review article argues that courts should maintain a distinction between the certification standards for Rule 23 class actions (for state wage claims) and FLSA Section 216(b) collective actions (for federal wage claims), rather than conflating them as some recent decisions have done. Congress’s intent was to protect low-wage workers who face greater legal barriers.

This article provides guidance for plaintiffs’ employment attorneys on ethical rules governing the development of class and collective action cases, particularly focusing on California Rules of Professional Conduct. Common ethical questions include anything from confidentiality obligations to phone solicitations.

The California Supreme Court’s decision in Williams v. Chino Valley Independent Fire District, held that a losing FEHA plaintiff will be liable for the employer’s costs only upon a finding that the action was objectively without foundation. This article summarizes the Williams decision.

This paper argues that employers’ widespread use of criminal background checks in hiring decisions creates a disparate impact on minorities who are disproportionately represented in the criminal justice system and explains how Title VII’s disparate impact framework provides a legal mechanism to challenge overly broad criminal screening policies.

Employers are piggybacking on recent pro-arbitration decisions to try to prevent Fair Labor Standards Act collective actions. A thorough understanding of the rapidly developing case law will put you in a better position to fend off attempts to force employees into individual arbitration.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in two non-employment cases raise a specter over the future of employment class actions where the parties entered into an arbitration agreement subject to the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”).

This article reports on a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision holding that the Americans with Disabilities Act requires movie theaters to provide closed captioning and audio descriptions as “auxiliary aids and services” for patrons with hearing and vision impairments.

The tightened pleading standard set out by the U.S. Supreme Court in Ashcroft v. Iqbal is pitted against the ‘‘heavyweight of the courts’ dockets,’’ wage and hour collective actions, in this BNA Insights article. The authors outline the new pleading requirements and examine strategies attorneys for employers and employees have used to bring and defend against ‘‘Iqbal motions’’ in cases.

This article analyzes the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Ricci v. DeStefano, and its effect on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Ricci was a “reverse” discrimination case brought by a predominantly white group of plaintiffs who alleged that New Haven’s actions constituted intentional discrimination against them based on their race.

Under its settlement with DHKL, MLB.com rolls out accessibility features on league and team websites aimed at making information fully accessible to the visually impaired.

MLB.com has made their Web sites more accessible to visually impaired fans under a settlement with DHKL.

This 2009 paper addresses two important issues in wage and hour litigation that are unique to California: (1) the Private Attorney General Act, and (2) the Unfair Competition Law.

This article covers selected topics in employment discrimination law, the expansion of retaliation protections under various statutes, and a detailed analysis of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).

A 2008 year in review for employment discrimination cases and statues. This piece focuses primarily on decisions of the federal appellate courts in employment discrimination cases and related procedural issues or statutes.

A 2009 year in review for employment discrimination cases and statues. This piece focuses primarily on decisions of the federal appellate courts in employment discrimination cases and related procedural issues or statutes.

Effective on August 23, 2004, the Department of Labor’s “new” white collar exemption regulations changed long established rules governing whether executive, administrative, and professional employees were entitled to overtime compensation. This paper will highlight some of the significant developments impacting the analysis of the new white-collar exemptions.

This article discusses two California court decisions, Gentry v. Superior Court and Murphy v. Check ‘N Go of California, which preserved employees’ rights to bring class actions by establishing that class action waivers in employment arbitration agreements can be invalidated when class actions are the more effective means to vindicate unwaivable statutory rights like overtime pay.

A 2008 year in review for employment discrimination cases and statues. This piece focuses primarily on decisions of the federal appellate courts in employment discrimination cases and related procedural issues or statutes.

This paper addresses deference to the interpretations of the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) and the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (“DLSE”) in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Long Island Care at Home, Ltd. v. Coke (2007).

In 2007, David Borgen drafted a letter to the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement on Meal and Rest Periods on behalf of workers across the state. The DLSE should hasten to get back to its mission of protecting California’s workers.

This paper seeks to provide NELA members law with an introduction to the most common claims arising from the application of the FLSA to the restaurant/food service industry. Specifically, this paper will discuss tipped employees and the FLSA claims that are frequently associated with them, including tip pooling violations.

This 2007 paper addresses how both potential class counsel (plaintiffs) and defense counsel may seek to investigate class action wage/hour claims filed in state or federal court throughout California and New York.

This article addresses discoverability and privilege issues related to corporate submissions and records pursuant to the OFCCP’s final interpretive standards for systemic compensation discrimination under Executive Order 11246 (June 16, 2006).

The law continues to evolve as to (1) Meal and Rest Breaks, (2) Professional Exemption, and (3) Administrative Exemption. This paper will focus on current developments in federal and California wage/hour law.

A 2007 year in review for employment discrimination cases and statues. This piece focuses primarily on decisions of the federal appellate courts in employment discrimination cases and related procedural issues or statutes.

This 2006 paper addresses how both potential class counsel (plaintiffs) and defense counsel may seek to investigate class action wage/hour claims once a class complaint has been filed in state or federal court.

Class arbitration offers the benefits of the class action device with potential advantages, not present, in court litigation. This article outlines recent developments in the continuing evolution of class arbitration.

This 2006 paper focuses on recent developments in California wage and hour law including the following topics: (1) meal and rest period payments, (2) exemptions, (3) calculation of hours worked, (4) expense reimbursement, (5) enforcement and remedies, and (6) other litigation issues.

Why are women still lagging behind men when it comes to wages? The article discusses Getting Even, by former Massachusetts Lieutenant Governor Evelyn Murphy, a challenging book about the persistence of the wage gap between male and female workers in America’s economy.

This paper focuses on topics of interest to employment lawyers who practice in the wage and hour area. Specifically, the phenomena of joint employers and FLSA compliance issues.

This 1995 BusinessWeek article profiles the Oakland law firm Saperstein, Goldstein, Demchak & Baller (now Dardarian Ho Kan & Lee) which had collected over $600 million in damages and legal fees from employment discrimination class actions over the previous three years.