XPX Chapters
Exit Planning Exchange XPX Tri-State Chapters!
The Tri-State Chapters include exit planning associations in New York, Hartford CT, Fairfield County CT, New Jersey and Long Island. Each Chapter below is an active community that also benefits from shared activities, membership and sponsorship opportunities.
Leader Directory
Call Me When... A business owner is contemplating a transaction (Financing, Sale or Acquisition), even years in advance of a transaction so we can help the owner maximize shareholder value.
Call Me When... You need a professional to discuss your business ownership exit planning options.
Call Me When... Seeking strategic or tactical CFO support (part-time, interim or consulting) or M&A and exit planning transaction advisory
Call Me When... Shareholders of a family-owned or closely held business are at or approaching a transition point relative to transferring ownership, management and/or control of the business.
Call Me When... Value creation is at the forefront. Value is driven by a company’s investments in talent. Our practice drives value via Talent Strategy, Executive & Team Coaching, Talent Acquisition, Exit/Succession Planning, and M&A Advisory.
Call Me When... Buy or sell-side due diligence is needed. You need a part-time or interim CFO.The CFO needs to improve accounting operationsThe company needs a new accounting system.
The Latest News – XPX Tri-State
Latest – XPX Tri-State
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
Last March, a federal judge ruled The Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA) was discriminating on the basis of race by only offering grants to minority-owned businesses. This ruling is one in a string of recent court decisions that have declared race-based preference systems illegal. As the crusade to gut affirmative action continues, challenges to employers’ DEI initiatives continue to rise. Activist groups, investors, state attorney generals, and employees are all attacking such programs on multiple fronts. As an employer, you must tread carefully. Background In Nuziard v. Minority Business Development Agency, the MBDA was sued by three white business owners (“Plaintiffs”) who sought grants. The Plaintiffs were deemed ineligible for the grants because they were not “socially or economically disadvantaged individual[s].” While this phrase seems race-neutral, the term “socially or economically disadvantaged individual” was defined to mean “an individual who has been subjected to racial or ethnic prejudice or cultural bias.” Certain racial groups were automatically included in the MBDA’s definition, including: (i) Blacks or African Americans; (ii) Hispanics or Latinos; (iii) American Indians or Alaska Natives; (iv) Asians; and (v) Native Hawaiians or other Pacific Islanders. Unlisted racial groups were presumptively ineligible. The judge focused on the presumption that the Plaintiffs were not disadvantaged merely because of their race. This presumption, the judge ruled, was race discrimination and, therefore, illegal. The judge barred the MBDA from continuing its racial classification system. The Ripple On its face, Nuziard has no legal impact on employers. But some players are pushing for affirmative action to be struck down everywhere — including in the workplace. The principal lawyer representing the Plaintiffs, Dan Lennington, said, “We hope this is a precedent to eliminate all [affirmative action] . . .. Automatically labeling a group of people as disadvantaged is ridiculous.” And it seems Mr. Lennington may be on to something. Recently, Jonathan Bresser, a white, male, law student at DePaul University College of Law, filed a complaint against the Chicago Bears. Bresser applied to be the Chicago Bears’ “Legal Diversity Fellow”. Bresser was rejected from the program, which was only open to “people of color and/or female law students.” Bresser’s lawsuit is just an example of the many legal challenges by conservative groups to stop corporate diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives following last year’s US Supreme Court decision curtailing the use of race as a factor in college admissions. Discrimination is Still Discrimination (but you may need to prove it) While affirmative action is on rocky footing, the law is clear about one thing: discrimination laws prohibit discriminating against “majority” identities, such as white males. In fact, reverse discrimination claims are on the rise. But that’s about all that is clear. Courts across the country are conflicted on how discrimination laws apply to “reverse discrimination” claims. In reverse discrimination claims, some courts apply heightened evidentiary burdens for plaintiffs from majority groups. In 1981, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit became the first court to adopt the “background circumstances” rule. This rule requires plaintiffs from majority groups to show background circumstances that substantiate that the defendant is “that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.” In total, five Circuits have adopted the “background circumstances” rule. Two other circuits expressly rejected it. The remaining five never addressed the background circumstances rule and treat discrimination claims from majority groups the same as claims from plaintiffs in other groups. Weathering the Chaos As new cases on affirmative action and reverse discrimination muddy the waters, the risk of maintaining DEI programs has increased. Companies should internally assess their risk tolerance, assess their DEI programs, and develop a responsive strategy. Not all DEI programs are made equal. Your DEI program could be protecting your company or exposing it to substantial risk. You should work with skilled counsel to evaluate your situation.
In Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, the Supreme Court tackled a very important question: under Title VII (the federal civil rights law), when is a job transfer discrimination? The Background Title VII makes it unlawful for an employer “to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000e-2(a)(1) (emphasis added). Under Title VII, certain job transfers fall within the “otherwise to discriminate” catch-all. But not all job transfers are illegal. Most circuit courts have read in the requirement that a job transfer be “significant.” This standard yielded some surprising results: An engineering technician is transferred to a new job site— a 14-by-22-foot wind tunnel. The court rules the transfer does not have a “significant detrimental effect.” Boone v. Goldin, 178 F.3d 253 (4th Cir. 1999). A shipping worker is transferred to a night shift position; a court decides the assignment does not “constitute a significant change in employment.” Daniels v. UPS, 701 F.3d 620 (10th Cir. 2012). A school principal is forced into a non-school-based administrative role supervising fewer employees; a court again finds the change in job duties was not “significant.” Cole v. Wake County Board of Education, 834 F. App’x 820 (4th Cir. 2021). The Ruling In Muldrow, Muldrow alleged she was transferred to a lesser position because she is a woman. Both parties agree that the transfer implicated “terms” and “conditions” of Muldrow’s employment, changing the what, where, and when of her police work. The lower courts ruled the job transfer was not discrimination because the changes were not “significant.” The Supreme Court rejected the lower court’s analysis—asserting that “significant” is not statutorily derived and, therefore, is an improper inquiry. Moreover, “neither [the Statute] nor any other [law] say anything about how much worse [the transfer must be]. There is nothing in the provision to distinguish, as the courts below did, between transfers causing significant disadvantages and transfers causing not-so-significant ones.” What did the Supreme Court offer in the place of “significant?” The Court explained, “[t]o make out a Title VII discrimination claim, a transferee must show some harm respecting an identifiable term or condition of employment.” With the stroke of a keyboard, the past 60 years of common law was vacated, and Muldrow’s case remanded. What This Means Underlying this case is the concept that illegal discrimination must involve not only discrimination, but discrimination that causes harm. Lower courts will now duke it out over what is “some harm.” However, the result is clear: it is no longer safe to assume job transfers rarely cause any “harm.” If you are considering transferring an employee who may claim discrimination, you should evaluate the “harm” caused by the transfer. 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 March 8, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas struck down the new joint employer rule created by the National Labor Relations Board (the “NLRB” or “Board”). As we
Contact & Connect
Chapter Events
Tri-State Gold Sponsors
Tri-State Silver Sponsors
Tri-State Bronze Sponsors
