Employment

Jennifer Abruzzo, the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) General Counsel, is continuing her campaign against non-compete agreements. She just issued a memo announcing her office will seek more remedies for employees who are required to sign non-compete agreements. This follows previous statements in which she said non-compete agreements, which affect about 20% of US workers (30 million people), are unlawful. She has expanded her argument to include “stay-or- pay” provisions, stating they restrict workers’ job opportunities which (somehow) discourages unionizing. Non-Compete Agreements The NLRB is currently considering the legality of non-compete agreements under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) in a case involving an Indiana HVAC company. In a 2023 memo, Abruzzo explained why overbroad non-compete agreements are unlawful. She explained they hinder an employee’s ability to exercise their rights under Section 7 of the NLRA, which protects employees’ rights to take collective action including unionization. Abruzzo’s agenda has faced setbacks. In April 2024, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) largely noncompete agreements, with some exceptions, however the ban was subsequently

On September 18, 2024, a panel of three Third US Circuit Court of Appeals judges heard oral argument from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and Starbucks on the matter of consequential damages. At stake is the NLRB’s power to award damages for direct and foreseeable pecuniary harms that go beyond lost pay and benefits. The award of such things as credit card late payment costs and uninsured medical costs, fees for not timely paying other expenses, etc. are at issue. If such awards are within the NLRB’s authority, the damage awards in NLRB wrongful discharge cases could dramatically rise. Here is how we got to this point. In 2023, the NLRB ordered Starbucks to pay consequential damages in a case of the wrongful termination of two pro-union employees. Damages included “direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms incurred as a result of [the employees’ wrongful discharges.]” This case is one of many cases Starbucks faces alleging wrongful discharge of union supporters. If it losses, the monetary cost could be significant. By filing this appeal, Starbucks’s joins companies such as Amazon, SpaceX, and Trader Joe’s in challenging the NLRB’s constitutional authority to exert such enforcement powers. Traditionally, the Board would order reinstatement, backpay and lost benefits in a case of wrongful termination, however this was expanded in 2022. A Board decision in Thryv, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 22 (2021), held employees who are wrongfully terminated should also receive compensation for other pecuniary losses stemming from the termination. Examples include credit card cost, out of pocket medical expenses, mortgages related fees, etc. Such damages can quickly add up. In this latest Starbucks case, the Third Circuit considered Thryv  but also the US Supreme Court’s June ruling in Jarkesy v. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and its applicability to the NLRB. In Jarkesy, the Supreme Court found it was unconstitutional for the SEC to impose civil penalties in administrative cases. Such awards need to be awarded in a court. The Third Circuit must decide whether the expanded remedies sought by the NLRB would be considered “legal remedies” typically imposed by the courts as in Jarkesy or “equitable remedies” typically imposed by administrative agencies. Such administrative remedies are intended to benefit the worker rather than unfairly punish employers. The NLRB argued they have the authority to impose the remedies regardless of their status as legal or equitable. Not surprisingly, Starbucks argued allowing the NLRB to issue damages beyond backpay would violate their constitutional right to a jury trial and therefore was unconstitutional. The outcome is pending and regardless, it may well be appealed to the Supreme Court where the authority of various agencies is being curtailed. We will keep you informed. Brody and Associates regularly advises management on complying with the latest local, state and federal employment laws.  If we can be of assistance in this area, please contact us at info@brodyandassociates.com or 203.454.0560  

Passed in June 2024 and signed into law by New York Governor Kathy Hochul on September 5, the Retail Worker Safety Act is set to take effect March 4, 2025. The law mandates protections for retail employees including panic buttons, workplace violence prevention policies, and training. Who is covered? The law explains: Covered employers: any person, entity, business, corporation, partnership, limited liability company, or an association employing at least ten retail employees. Retail employees: employees working at a retail store for an employer. Retail Store: a store that sells consumer commodities at retail and which is not primarily engaged in the sale of food for consumption on the premises. The state, any political subdivision of the state, a public authority, or any other government agency is not covered by the law. Key Requirements The Act’s key requirements are the installation of panic buttons, implementation of workplace violence prevention policies, and training. The panic button requirement does not take effect until January 1, 2027, while the other requirements are effective March 2025. Panic Button Employers with more than 500 retail employees nationwide must provide employees with access to panic buttons across the workplace. Employers may opt for a physical button or mobile phone-based buttons. The requirements for each are slightly different. If the employer chooses to use a physical panic button it must contact the local 911 public safety answering point when pressed. Pressing the button must provide the answering point with the employee’s location and dispatch law enforcement. The button must be accessible or wearable. The mobile phone-based approach requires the button to be installed on employer provided equipment and is wearable. The mobile button may not track employee locations unless pressed.   Workplace Violence Prevention Policy Employers must adopt a written workplace violence prevention policy to be provided to employees upon hire and annually. The NY Department of Labor (NYDOL) will draft a model plan which will be evaluated every four years from 2027 onwards. Employers may adopt the NYDOL policy or create their own equivalent policy. The policy must: List factors or situations in the workplace which may increase the employees’ risk of workplace violence. Examples given include working late at night or early morning hours; exchanging money with the public; working alone or in small numbers; and uncontrolled access to the workplace. List methods of preventing workplace violence, including but not limited to establishing and implementing a reporting system. Provide information on federal and state laws regarding violence towards retail workers and remedies available for victims of workplace violence. Explicitly state that it is unlawful to retaliate against employees who report workplace violence or factors which place employees at risk of workplace violence. Workplace Violence Prevention Training Employers must provide training upon hire and annually. The NYDOL will provide interactive training which will also be evaluated every four years starting in 2027. Again, employers may opt to use the state provided training or provide their own equivalent. The training must: Include information on the Retail Worker Safety Act; Examples of steps employees can take to protect themselves; De-escalation strategies; Active Shooter drills; Emergency procedures; Instructions on how to use security alarms, panic buttons, and any other emergency devices; and A site-specific list of emergency exits and meeting places to be used in emergencies. Takeaways New York State retail employers should look at the state provided training and policies to adopt as their own or to ensure their own materials are compliant. For employers outside of New York it is important to keep your eyes peeled for creation of similar laws in your own state. Brody and Associates regularly advises management on complying with the latest local, state and federal employment laws.  If we can be of assistance in this area, please contact us at info@brodyandassociates.com or 203.454.0560      

Halloween isn’t just a time for ghosts and goblins; it’s also a perfect moment to explore those spine-chilling hiring stories that haunt every small business owner’s dreams. At FIREPOWER Teams, we’re all about turning fears into cheers by empowering actionable strategies and strengthening teams. Let’s face the horrors—a bad hire can lurk in the shadows, embodying the kind of nightmares that disrupt teamwork and stifle growth. But fear not! As you learn about these ghastly characters, remember that each horror story comes with a silver lining: a powerful lesson to enhance your hiring process and bolster your team dynamics. The Vampire – The Energy Drainer Traits: This hire sucks the positivity and energy out of your team, often leaving colleagues drained. Impact: Reduced team morale and productivity. Prevention: During interviews, ask behavioral questions that help you gauge a candidate’s influence on team dynamics. Consider including team members in the hiring process to assess chemistry. The Zombie – The Disengaged Traits: Goes through the motions but lacks initiative and passion. Impact: Minimal contribution to team goals and lack of contribution to goals. Prevention: Look for candidates who ask questions about company culture and show enthusiasm for the role because the job description accurately reflects the role’s responsibilities and opportunities for growth. The Mummy – Stuck in the Past Traits: Resistant to change and new ideas, insisting on doing things “how they’ve always been done.” Impact: Hinders adaptation and progress. Prevention: Look for candidates willing to learn new things. Ask them about situations where they had to adapt quickly or change their approach to succeed. Hiring Doesn’t Have To Be A Nightmare Each of these eerie archetypes teaches us that hiring is not just about filling a vacancy but about enriching our teams and aligning with our core values. Hiring should be strategic, and at FIREPOWER Teams, we understand that the right people are the lifeblood of any thriving business. Each new hire should contribute positively to the team’s dynamics and the company’s mission. Remember, hiring doesn’t have to be a nightmare. With the right tools and insights, you can spot red flags early and attract talent that fits the role and elevates your entire team. Let’s turn these horrors into opportunities. Happy Halloween, and here’s to making every hire a treat, not a trick! Maria Forbes and 

This year has seen a surge in pay transparency laws aimed at curbing pay disparities and helping workers negotiate fairer wages. Such legislation requires employers to disclose salary ranges and benefits in their job postings. Colorado was the first to create a pay transparency law in May 2019. Prior to this year, a number of states have followed suit, including California, Connecticut, Maryland, Nevada, New York, Rhode Island, and Washington. Local measures are in effect in Jersey City, New Jersey; New York City, New York; Ithaca, New York; Westchester County, New York; Cincinnati, Ohio; and Toledo, Ohio. 2024 Legislation Almost Doubles the Number of Pay Transparency Laws Hawaii On January 1, 2024, Hawaiian legislation came into effect requiring employers with 50 or more employees to disclose hourly rates and/or salary ranges in job postings. Illinois Illinois’s pay transparency law requires employers with 15 or more employees to disclose the salary range of a position along with a description of benefits and other forms of compensation. Furthermore, this law requires employers to provide current employees with information on promotion opportunities within 14 calendar days after posting the position externally. The law is not effective until January 1, 2025. Maryland Effective October 1, 2024, Maryland’s Equal Pay for Equal Work – Wage Range Transparency legislation expands the law to mandate employers to disclose minimum and maximum hourly or salary ranges for a position. This requirement applies to internal and external job postings. The law applies to any job performed in part in Maryland, meaning the law applies to employers outside of the state if any aspect of the position is performed in the state. Minnesota The Minnesotan law requires a starting salary range and a description of benefits, including health and retirement benefits, and other compensation in postings for open positions. This applies to employers with 30 or more employees within Minnesota. The law takes effect on January 1, 2025. Vermont Signed into law this June, the Vermont pay transparency law will take effect on January 1, 2025. Employers with five or more employees must include minimum and maximum hourly/salary ranges, including whether tips or commissions will be paid, in job postings. This applies to roles performed in Vermont or remote positions performed for Vermont businesses. Washington, DC Washington, DC’s law has been in effect since March 25, 2024. Employers must post minimum to maximum salary ranges, including for promotions and transfers. Employers must believe in good faith that the ranges are what will be paid for the position. Additionally, employers must provide applicants with information on healthcare benefits and may not seek salary history information. The law applies to any job with at least one employee in Washington, DC. Key Takeaway for Employers While some states have yet to provide guidance on potential penalties, violating these laws may result in lawsuits and damages. Employers should review their current rates of pay, their hiring, promoting, and transferring practices, and update current job postings in anticipation of these laws taking effect. If your state has yet to pass such a law, keep a lookout as this trend continues to spread nationwide. Finally, when planning pay rates for one of these locations, look at local ads to see if you are competitive with the local market. Brody and Associates regularly advises management on complying with the latest local, state, and federal employment laws. If we can be of assistance in this area, please contact us at info@brodyandassociates.com or 203.454.0560.  

Under the National Labor Relations Act, employers have the right to require their workers to attend meetings on the company’s position on unions (called captive audience meetings). Employers have also used mandatory meetings to discuss issues involving politics and religion. Such practices are now under attack. In July 2024, both Hawaii and Illinois joined New York, Connecticut, Minnesota, Maine, and Oregon in enacting laws which prohibit employers from mandating attendance at employer sponsored meetings on political (including unions) or religious matters. Enforceability of these laws is unknown. Hawaii Hawaii’s Captive Audience Prohibition Act (Hawaii Revised Statutes § 377-6) took effect July 2, 2024. The law prevents employers from penalizing or threatening any adverse action against employees who decline to attend an employer sponsored meeting which communicates the employer’s opinion on political matters. The Act defines political matters as “anything related to an attempt to influence a future vote by persons in an audience.” Such meetings are allowed as long as employee attendance is entirely voluntary. Illinois On July 31, 2024, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker signed the Worker Freedom of Speech Act (SB 3649) into law, which is set to take effect January 1, 2025. The Illinois law prevents employers from disciplining employees who choose not to attend employer sponsored meetings relating to political or religious matters. Attendance must be entirely voluntary which also means that the meeting is not “incentivized by a positive change in any employment condition.”  The Illinois law provides a more detailed definition of political matter: “matters relating to elections for political office, political parties, proposals to change legislation, proposals to change regulations, proposals to change public policy, and the decision to join or support any political party or political, civic, community, fraternal, or labor organization.”  Religious matters are defined as “matters relating to religious belief, affiliation, and practice and the decision to join or support any religious organization or association.” Under the Act, employees may bring a civil action seeking: injunctive relief; reinstatement to the employee’s former position or an equivalent position; back pay; reestablishment of any employee benefits, including seniority, to which the employee would otherwise have been eligible if the violation had not occurred; any other relief as deemed necessary by the court to make the employee whole; and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs if the employee prevails. Furthermore, the Illinois Department of Labor may impose a civil penalty of $1,000 dollars per violation. Each employee subject to a violation constitutes another separate violation. This law was challenged nearly immediately by the Illinois Policy Institute, which filed a federal lawsuit early this month. They argue the law infringes on employer’s freedom of speech and claim the law is too broad. Are bans on captive audience meetings legally enforceable? Despite National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo’s efforts to the contrary, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) currently allows employers to hold mandatory meetings where management campaigns against unions. Historically, bans on such captive audience meetings have failed. Section 8(c) of the NLRA states “[t]he expressing of any views, argument or opinion… shall not constitute or be evidence of unfair labor practice… if such expression contains no threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit.” Furthermore, the NLRB ruled in Babcock v Wilcox Co., 77 NLRB 577 (1984) that employers under the NLRA may hold captive audience meetings. But note, none of this addresses banning non-union related mandatory meetings. In 2010, a similar law in Wisconsin was struck down in, Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce v. Doyle. The law was found preempted by federal law. More recently, in late July 2024, a federal judge permanently blocked part of Florida’s stop WOKE Act which attempted to prevent employers from holding mandatory meetings on viewpoints the state deemed offensive. Minnesota and Connecticut currently face ongoing challenges to their analogous version of the Illinois law. While precedent suggests these laws are not enforceable, this cannot be said concretely as there are many pending challenges. This leaves Employers in a difficult position; comply with state law to avoid any potential penalties, take the risk of penalties for violating the laws, or challenge the law in court.  Regardless of your choice, employers should follow the legal challenges these bans face, while keeping an eye on their own state’s regulations. As a final thought, Employers may consider holding non-mandatory meetings. While this avoids the real issue, it may be a good solution until this controversy is resolved, especially if attendance is not impacted. Seek legal counsel on how to do this. Brody and Associates regularly advises management on complying with the latest local, state and federal employment laws.  If we can be of assistance in this area, please contact us at info@brodyandassociates.com or 203.454.0560.

In the United States, as much as 75% of the workforce is paid biweekly or less often. For many workers, such a delay makes paying bills on a timely basis a challenge. In recent years, this point of pain has resulted in financial institutions providing paycheck advances before payday (“Earned Wage Access” or “EWA”). Earned Wage Access products are offered through two primary models: employer-partnered and direct-to-consumer. While employers sometimes make these fee-free, some Earned Wage Access products come with fees for expedited service, subscription fees, or requested “tips.” In response, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) proposed an interpretive rule explaining that many (but not all) Earned Wage Access products are consumer loans subject to the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”). The proposed rule explains how existing law applies to EWA, and replaces a 2020 advisory opinion that addressed a very specific paycheck advance product that is not common. The proposed rule makes clear that many paycheck advance products – whether provided through employer partnerships or marketed directly to consumers – trigger obligations under TILA. Specifically, the CFPB’s proposed rule makes clear that: Many EWA costs are finance charges: “Tips” and expedited delivery fees are finance charges under TILA. However, when EWA is truly free to the employee, there are no finance charges. Borrowers must receive key disclosures: Among other requirements, earned wage lenders must provide workers with appropriate disclosures about the finance charges. The proposed rule is unlikely to have an impact on employer obligations. However, companies that partner with earned wage lenders may want to inquire about the fees the lenders charge. Employers who partner with earned wage lenders especially should take interest in whether lenders charge consumers any fee, which would likely be considered a finance charge under the current interpretive rule. If so, the employer should ask the lender if they are providing the required notice. Even if the notice is not the employer’s obligation, knowing that it is being provided will avoid one more potential headache! The CFPB encourages the public to submit comments on the proposed rule to inform whether additional clarifications are needed. Comments will be accepted until August 30, 2024. Brody and Associates regularly advises management on complying with the latest local, state and federal employment laws.  If we can be of assistance in this area, please contact us at info@brodyandassociates.com or 203.454.0560  

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has overturned the NLRB and Sixth (and other) Circuit’s approach to evaluating preliminary injunctions under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”). This decision, stemming from the high-profile case of Starbucks v. McKinney, again declares the power of the courts over federal executive branch agencies. Background The case originated when Starbucks terminated seven employees allegedly for their pro-union stance. The National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) sought a preliminary injunction under Section 10(j) to force Starbucks to rehire those employees until the underlying charge of illegality was resolved. The federal District Court granted the injunction. On appeal, the Sixth Circuit upheld the injunction applying its unique two-part test used by the NLRB. This test requires demonstrating “reasonable cause to believe that unfair labor practices have occurred,” and that injunctive relief is “just and proper.” Circuit Split and the Winter Test The Sixth Circuit’s test has been a point of contention due to its deviation from the more widely adopted Winter test, which is used in other judicial circuits for assessing all preliminary injunctions. The Winter test, named after the 2008 Supreme Court case Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., uses a four-part analysis. It requires plaintiffs to clearly demonstrate: They are likely to succeed on the merits; They are likely to suffer irreparable harm without preliminary relief; The balance of equities tips in their favor; and An injunction is in the public interest. This discrepancy in the appropriate test led to a circuit split. The Supreme Court ended the split. Supreme Court’s Decision In its ruling, the Supreme Court rejected the Sixth Circuit’s approach, emphasizing the importance of a uniform standard across all jurisdictions. The Court favored the Winter test, arguing it is more in accord with the traditional, rigorous framework for preliminary injunctions. The Court reasoned that, A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary equitable remedy that is never awarded as of right . . . .  The default rule is that a plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must make a clear showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest. These commonplace considerations applicable to cases in which injunctions are sought in the federal courts reflect a practice with a background of several hundred years of history. (Citations and quotations removed.) Taking it further, the Court declared, “absent a clear command from Congress, courts must adhere to the traditional four-factor test.” After analyzing the text of 10(j), the Court concluded there was no Congressional intent to deviate. Implications of the Ruling The Supreme Court’s decision has significant implications for employers, employees, labor unions, and the NLRB. By endorsing the Winter test, the Court has (in some jurisdictions) raised the bar for obtaining preliminary injunctions under Section 10(j), potentially making it more challenging for the NLRB to secure temporary relief in cases of alleged unfair labor practices. Additionally, the Supreme Court’s ruling is a clear message: even if the NLRB endorses liberal labor law interpretations, the conservative judiciary remains in place as a check. This flexing of judicial muscle is a trend we have recently seen from the Court and expect it to continue for years to come. Brody and Associates regularly advises management on complying with the latest local, state and federal employment laws.  If we can be of assistance in this area, please contact us at info@brodyandassociates.com or 203.454.0560      

On May 28, 2024, Governor Ned Lamont signed legislation expanding Connecticut’s 2011 Sick Leave Law. The new legislation is effective on January 1st, 2025. The law covers more employees, expands the reasons under which employees may use paid sick leave, and reduces the required hours to accrue paid sick leave. Who is covered by the new law? Currently under Connecticut law, employers with more than 50 employees in specific retail and service occupations must provide their employees with up to 40 hours of paid sick leave annually. The new law expands the type of eligible worker to almost every occupation (not just retail or service occupations). It also expands the number of employers who must comply by reducing the number of employees they must employ to be covered. It is important to note that seasonal employees and certain other temporary workers remain exempt. The threshold number of employees required for coverage is gradually being lowered. Starting January 1, 2025, employers with 25 employees must provide their employees with paid sick leave: this drops to 11 employees on January 1, 2026, and one employee on January 1, 2027. When can employees use paid sick leave? Governor Lamont declared the current law leaves “broad categories… unprotected….” In response, the legislation has extended the definition of a family member to include more than that person’s minor children. This expansion includes “spouse, sibling, child, grandparent, grandchild or parent of an employee or an individual related to the employee by blood or affinity whose close association the employee shows to be equivalent to those family relationships.” The legislation also addresses the impact COVID-19 had on employees, allowing paid sick leave to be taken in instances related to declarations of a public health emergency. How do employees accrue paid sick days? Eligible employees will now accrue one hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours worked, accruing up to 40 hours per year.  This is a ten-hour reduction from the previous one hour for every 40 hours worked. Employers may grant more time off or allow accrual at a faster rate.     Limits on Employers’ Control over the Use of Sick Time In Connecticut and across the nation, generic Paid Time Off policies have replaced the old-fashioned sick leave, personal leave, vacation, and many other forms of paid time off. As a result, sick leave mandates are allowed to be covered by PTO. Thus, when a company offers four weeks of PTO, they are really offering three weeks of PTO and one week of sick time.  The question we address here is if employers can put any limitations on how employees use their sick time. When Connecticut’s Sick Leave law was first effective in 1997, employers had the right to mandate that employees use their sick leave when they take other unpaid leaves. The employers’ motivation was to limit how much total time off employees were allowed. That all changed on January 1, 2022. In 2022, the law was amended to require employers leave at least two weeks of PTO to be used at the total discretion of the employee. This change was missed by most employers. To be sure you don’t run afoul of this law, employers should check their policies to ensure the mandated use of sick leave for all unpaid leaves is not their policy and not in their handbooks. Brody and Associates regularly advises management on complying with the latest local, state and federal employment laws.  If we can be of assistance in this area, please contact us at info@brodyandassociates.com or 203.454.0560          

For five decades, the southern United States has been an attractive location for automakers to open plants thanks to generous tax breaks and cheaper, non-union labor. However, after decades of failing to unionize automakers in the South, the United Auto Workers dealt a serious blow to that model by winning a landslide union victory at Volkswagen. In an effort to fight back, three southern states have gotten creative: they passed laws barring companies from receiving state grants, loans and tax incentives if the company voluntarily recognizes a union or voluntarily provides unions with employee information. The laws also allow the government to claw back incentive payments after they were made. While these laws are very similar, each law has unique nuances. If you are in an impacted state, you should seek local counsel. In 2023, Tennessee was the first state to pass such a law. This year, Georgia and Alabama followed suit. So why this push? In 2023, the American Legislative Exchange Council (“ALEC”), a nonprofit organization of conservative state legislators and private sector representatives who draft and share model legislation for distribution among state governments, adopted Tennessee’s law as model legislation. In fact, the primary sponsor of Tennessee’s bill was recognized as an ALEC Policy Champion in March 2023. ALEC’s push comes as voluntary recognition of unions gains popularity as an alternative to fighting unions. We recently saw this with the high-profile Ben & Jerry’s voluntary recognition. Will this Southern strategy work to push back against growing union successes? Time will tell. Brody and Associates regularly advises its clients on all labor management issues, including union-related matters, and provides union-free training.  If we can be of assistance in this area, please contact us at info@brodyandassociates.com or 203.454.0560.  

In March 2022, Florida enacted the politically charged Individual Freedom Act, informally known as the STOP WOKE (Wrongs to Our Kids and Employees) Act. Less than two years later, the U.S. Court of Appeals of the Eleventh Circuit blocked the enforcement of the Act on the grounds it violates employers’ right to free speech. This decision directly impacts employers in the Eleventh Circuit and will have a ripple effect on employers nationally.   How did the Individual Freedom Act (Stop WOKE Act) affect employers? The Act attempted to prevent employers from mandating training or meetings for employees which “promote” a “certain set of beliefs” the state “found offensive” and discriminatory. There are eight prohibited beliefs each relating to race, color, sex, and national origin. According to the Act, employers must not teach the following: Members of one race, color, sex, or national origin are morally superior to members of another race, color, sex, or national origin. An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously. An individual’s moral character or status as either privileged or oppressed is determined by his or her race, color, sex, or national origin. Members of one race, color, sex, or national origin cannot and should not attempt to treat others without respect due to race, color, sex, or national origin. An individual, based on his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, bears responsibility for, or should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment because of, actions committed in the past by other members of the same race, color, sex, or national origin. An individual, based on his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment to achieve diversity, equity, or inclusion. An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, bears personal responsibility for and must feel guilt, anguish, or other forms of psychological distress because of actions, in which the individual played no part, and were committed in the past by other members of the same race, color, sex, or national origin. Such virtues as merit, excellence, hard work, fairness, neutrality, objectivity, and racial colorblindness are racist or sexist, or were created by members of a particular race, color, sex, or national origin to oppress members of another race, color, sex, or national origin. Employers still had the ability to mandate employees attend sessions that either refute these concepts or present them in an “objective manner without endorsement.” This dictates how an employer deals with its employees and is particularly limiting in how employers address discrimination training. Employers who failed to adhere to the law were liable for “serious financial penalties—back pay, compensatory damages, and up to $100,000 in punitive damages, plus attorney’s fees—on top of injunctive relief.”   The Ruling – Honeyfund.com Inc. v. Governor [2024] In March 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals of the Eleventh Circuit served an injunction preventing enforcement of the Act. Despite the state insisting the Act banned conduct rather than speech, the court ruled the Act unlawfully violated the First Amendment’s right of free speech by barring speech based on its content and penalizing certain viewpoints. While certain categories of speech such as “obscenity, fighting words, incitement, and the like” are traditionally unprotected, the court pointed out that “new categories of unprotected speech may not be added to the list by a legislature that concludes certain speech is too harmful to be tolerated.” Florida is keen to appeal against the decision.   What does this mean for employers? Regardless of one’s opinions on the matter, this can be viewed positively from an employer’s standpoint. Employers in the private sector can control speech in the workplace, and this ruling confirms their autonomy will continue. Whether or not the rest of the country will follow suit remains to be seen. This case, in tandem with the US Supreme Court’s ruling to ban race based affirmative action, signals today’s intense political climate is likely to continue to impact how employer diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives are approached. Employers should continue to review their DEI initiatives, ensuring they are in line with the latest precedents. Brody and Associates regularly advises management on complying with the latest local, state and federal employment laws.  If we can be of assistance in this area, please contact us at info@brodyandassociates.com or 203.454.0560      

Popular

What's Trending

Jennifer Abruzzo, the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) General Counsel, is continuing her campaign against non-compete agreements. She just issued a memo announcing her office will seek more remedies for employees who are required to sign non-compete agreements. This follows previous statements in which she said non-compete agreements, which affect about 20% of US workers (30 million people), are unlawful. She has expanded her argument to include “stay-or- pay” provisions, stating they restrict workers’ job opportunities which (somehow) discourages unionizing. Non-Compete Agreements The NLRB is currently considering the legality of non-compete agreements under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) in a case involving an Indiana HVAC company. In a 2023 memo, Abruzzo explained why overbroad non-compete agreements are unlawful. She explained they hinder an employee’s ability to exercise their rights under Section 7 of the NLRA, which protects employees’ rights to take collective action including unionization. Abruzzo’s agenda has faced setbacks. In April 2024, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) largely noncompete agreements, with some exceptions, however the ban was subsequently

As small business owners and leaders, we’re no strangers to the daily grind of comparison and competition. It’s easy to look at the success of others and wonder if we measure up. But this Thanksgiving, we’re taking a page out of Heather Holleman’s novel1, “Seated with Christ: Living Freely in a Culture of Comparison,” and the transformative words of Ephesians 2:6: “God raised us up with Christ and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus.” In the hustle to prove our worth and carve out a place in the market, realizing that your seat at the table is already secured is revolutionary. This isn’t about your turnover, your team size, or the number of followers on social media. It’s about recognizing the value you bring to the table just by being you, backed by the firepower of your determination, creativity, and the unique vision only you possess for your business. The Overlooked Seats Comparison is the thief of joy in business, and it’s also the thief of innovation and growth. The environment of inauthentic seats fuels comparison, the moment you and your team stop eyeing the lane beside you is the moment you turbocharge your path forward. Your business isn’t like anyone else’s—for a reason. The individual strengths and talents within your team are your biggest asset, waiting to be unleashed. Recognize and harness the power of these unique capabilities to drive people-powered change. A Secure Seat on The Team Your team—the one you’ve built, trained, and grown—holds untapped potential. Just as we are seated with Christ in a place of honor and security, so too should our team members feel valued and vital to our mission. This Thanksgiving, let’s take a moment to express genuine gratitude for the diverse skill set each member brings to the table. When people feel valued, they’re more engaged, productive, and innovative. And that’s how a small business not only survives but thrives. The Power of People-Powered Change FIREPOWER Teams is founded on the belief that the power of a small business lies in its people. “Fuel your people power” isn’t just a motto; it’s a mission statement and a call to action. Reflect on how you can empower each team member to contribute their best this holiday season, fully aware that their seat at the table is as non-negotiable as yours. Thanksgiving is a time of gratitude, reflection, and community. As business owners, it’s a prime opportunity to reassess what we’re thankful for and how we express that gratitude through our actions and leadership. Let’s enter this season with a renewed commitment to value ourselves, our team, and all our unique contributions. Let’s reject the ceaseless comparison and instead focus on fostering an environment where everyone feels seated at the table—secure, valued, and ready to make a difference. The entrepreneurship journey is rarely easy, but with a team that genuinely feels like their efforts matter, there’s untold strength to be garnered. Your business, team, and vision have a secured seat at the table. Let’s give thanks for that incredible opportunity and the journey ahead. Conclusion Remember, the most sustainable growth comes from within. Thanksgiving is a time to rekindle our appreciation for the value we each bring to the table, reminding us that when we work together, there’s nothing we can’t achieve.

“The purpose of middlemen in the marketplace is to provide time and place utility.” I remember the light bulb going on in Economics 101 when my professor said that.  Suddenly, I understood the concept of added value. Someone had to get the product to the customer. “After all,” the professor continued, “The footwear manufacturer in Massachusetts can’t sell a pair of shoes directly to someone in California. They can’t manufacture and handle thousands of customers. It would be a nightmare, and completely unprofitable.” The fact that Massachusetts was still known for shoe manufacturing gives you some idea of how long ago this took place. So long ago, in fact, that Zappos wasn’t even a word yet. The independent shoe retailer gave way to the department stores. In turn their shoe business was decimated by the specialty chain retailers. In fact, most shoe departments in Macy’s and others are actually chain operations within the store. Shoe sales moved into sporting goods stores and discounters. While the industry shifted multiple times, they all still provided time and place utility. Then came the Internet. Now the manufacturer can sell directly to consumers. In fact, they can eliminate several layers of middlemen, along with the mark-ups. Lately my area has been swamped with billboards saying “Mattress Dealers are Greedy. TN.com.” TN.com turns out to be My friends at Digital Pro has survived (and thrives) by their differentiation and service. The large, bright showroom is full of computers where they can show customers the effect of adjusting color balance or editing. They can print your lifetime memories on almost anything, from a key chain to a large metal panel. They can still give you prints made with permanent liquid ink, not the water soluble powder used by most printers. In addition, they can do all of this online because they’ve invested in the technology necessary to keep up with the “convenience-based” competitors. As the cost of digital printers fell, professional photographers invested in their own machines. Digital Pro Lab has replaced their business with consumers who want to discuss their special moments, choose how to preserve them, and hold the results in their hands before they pay. In an industry where the number of time and place based outlets has fallen by over 90% in the last decade, Digital Pro Lab has beaten the big boys with product differentiation and service. When the time comes for planning an exit, they will have options.       This article was originally published by John F. Dini, CBEC, CExP, CEPA on

On September 18, 2024, a panel of three Third US Circuit Court of Appeals judges heard oral argument from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and Starbucks on the matter of consequential damages. At stake is the NLRB’s power to award damages for direct and foreseeable pecuniary harms that go beyond lost pay and benefits. The award of such things as credit card late payment costs and uninsured medical costs, fees for not timely paying other expenses, etc. are at issue. If such awards are within the NLRB’s authority, the damage awards in NLRB wrongful discharge cases could dramatically rise. Here is how we got to this point. In 2023, the NLRB ordered Starbucks to pay consequential damages in a case of the wrongful termination of two pro-union employees. Damages included “direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms incurred as a result of [the employees’ wrongful discharges.]” This case is one of many cases Starbucks faces alleging wrongful discharge of union supporters. If it losses, the monetary cost could be significant. By filing this appeal, Starbucks’s joins companies such as Amazon, SpaceX, and Trader Joe’s in challenging the NLRB’s constitutional authority to exert such enforcement powers. Traditionally, the Board would order reinstatement, backpay and lost benefits in a case of wrongful termination, however this was expanded in 2022. A Board decision in Thryv, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 22 (2021), held employees who are wrongfully terminated should also receive compensation for other pecuniary losses stemming from the termination. Examples include credit card cost, out of pocket medical expenses, mortgages related fees, etc. Such damages can quickly add up. In this latest Starbucks case, the Third Circuit considered Thryv  but also the US Supreme Court’s June ruling in Jarkesy v. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and its applicability to the NLRB. In Jarkesy, the Supreme Court found it was unconstitutional for the SEC to impose civil penalties in administrative cases. Such awards need to be awarded in a court. The Third Circuit must decide whether the expanded remedies sought by the NLRB would be considered “legal remedies” typically imposed by the courts as in Jarkesy or “equitable remedies” typically imposed by administrative agencies. Such administrative remedies are intended to benefit the worker rather than unfairly punish employers. The NLRB argued they have the authority to impose the remedies regardless of their status as legal or equitable. Not surprisingly, Starbucks argued allowing the NLRB to issue damages beyond backpay would violate their constitutional right to a jury trial and therefore was unconstitutional. The outcome is pending and regardless, it may well be appealed to the Supreme Court where the authority of various agencies is being curtailed. We will keep you informed. Brody and Associates regularly advises management on complying with the latest local, state and federal employment laws.  If we can be of assistance in this area, please contact us at info@brodyandassociates.com or 203.454.0560  

Passed in June 2024 and signed into law by New York Governor Kathy Hochul on September 5, the Retail Worker Safety Act is set to take effect March 4, 2025. The law mandates protections for retail employees including panic buttons, workplace violence prevention policies, and training. Who is covered? The law explains: Covered employers: any person, entity, business, corporation, partnership, limited liability company, or an association employing at least ten retail employees. Retail employees: employees working at a retail store for an employer. Retail Store: a store that sells consumer commodities at retail and which is not primarily engaged in the sale of food for consumption on the premises. The state, any political subdivision of the state, a public authority, or any other government agency is not covered by the law. Key Requirements The Act’s key requirements are the installation of panic buttons, implementation of workplace violence prevention policies, and training. The panic button requirement does not take effect until January 1, 2027, while the other requirements are effective March 2025. Panic Button Employers with more than 500 retail employees nationwide must provide employees with access to panic buttons across the workplace. Employers may opt for a physical button or mobile phone-based buttons. The requirements for each are slightly different. If the employer chooses to use a physical panic button it must contact the local 911 public safety answering point when pressed. Pressing the button must provide the answering point with the employee’s location and dispatch law enforcement. The button must be accessible or wearable. The mobile phone-based approach requires the button to be installed on employer provided equipment and is wearable. The mobile button may not track employee locations unless pressed.   Workplace Violence Prevention Policy Employers must adopt a written workplace violence prevention policy to be provided to employees upon hire and annually. The NY Department of Labor (NYDOL) will draft a model plan which will be evaluated every four years from 2027 onwards. Employers may adopt the NYDOL policy or create their own equivalent policy. The policy must: List factors or situations in the workplace which may increase the employees’ risk of workplace violence. Examples given include working late at night or early morning hours; exchanging money with the public; working alone or in small numbers; and uncontrolled access to the workplace. List methods of preventing workplace violence, including but not limited to establishing and implementing a reporting system. Provide information on federal and state laws regarding violence towards retail workers and remedies available for victims of workplace violence. Explicitly state that it is unlawful to retaliate against employees who report workplace violence or factors which place employees at risk of workplace violence. Workplace Violence Prevention Training Employers must provide training upon hire and annually. The NYDOL will provide interactive training which will also be evaluated every four years starting in 2027. Again, employers may opt to use the state provided training or provide their own equivalent. The training must: Include information on the Retail Worker Safety Act; Examples of steps employees can take to protect themselves; De-escalation strategies; Active Shooter drills; Emergency procedures; Instructions on how to use security alarms, panic buttons, and any other emergency devices; and A site-specific list of emergency exits and meeting places to be used in emergencies. Takeaways New York State retail employers should look at the state provided training and policies to adopt as their own or to ensure their own materials are compliant. For employers outside of New York it is important to keep your eyes peeled for creation of similar laws in your own state. Brody and Associates regularly advises management on complying with the latest local, state and federal employment laws.  If we can be of assistance in this area, please contact us at info@brodyandassociates.com or 203.454.0560      

Many consultants/advisors/coaches are serving business owners who resist the notion there might be significant, unrecognized issues in their company, or who believe they needn’t be concerned about issues they don’t know about.  Call it the Ostrich-Head-In-The-Sand Syndrome. As a consequence, consultants feel powerless to get their clients to take action in their own best interest.  From an exit planning perspective, being fully prepared for a future exit is one of those critical issues business owners may be inclined to ignore until it is too late. On Thursday, December 5th, join EvaluSys CEO Tom Bixby and XPX Charlotte founder in a discussion with Larry Gard, Ph.D., XPX Chicago member, executive coach, former longtime clinical psychologist who will help attendees get inside the head of business owners to: Feel confident in your ability to reach clients who resist identifying and confronting issues in their business. Generate client curiosity in your approach and interest in your recommendations. Have a significant impact on your clients’ success in ways they hadn’t anticipated. This program is scheduled for 45 minutes, to include significant opportunity for Q&A with Dr. Gard.  Don’t miss this important program helping you grow your power to create value for your advisory clients!

Previous
Next

Explore the Knowledge Exchange

Search