A closer look at worker classification, retaliation risk, and the limits of federal protections On April 2, 2026, Judge Lewis J. Liman of the Southern District of New York issued an opinion in Lively v. Wayfarer Studios LLC et al., No. 24-CV-10049, dismissing ten of thirteen claims actress Blake Lively brought against director and co-star …
You Just Saved Us a Lawsuit: $22.5M Verdict Redefines Ohio Employer Accommodations
On March 18, 2026, an Ohio jury delivered what may be the most consequential employer-accommodation verdict in the state’s history, and it was not even brought as an accommodation case. In Larkin v. Total Quality Logistics, LLC, the jury ordered the defendant/employer to pay $22.5 million in compensatory damages after finding the company’s refusal to …
Death By a Single Claim: How One Harassment Claim Nukes Arbitration for the Whole Case
In Bruce v. Adams & Reese, LLP (6th Cir. February 25, 2026), the Sixth Circuit became the first federal court of appeals to rule on whether the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act (“EFAA”) applies to the entire case or only to individual harassment claims, and it held that it applies …
Sixth Circuit Raises Bar for Employer Liability for Customer Harassment of Employees
In Bivens v. ZEP, Inc., the Sixth Circuit held that an employer is not liable under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (Title VII), for harassment by a customer unless the employer intended the harassment to happen or was substantially certain it would. This holding represents a clear break from the EEOC and most other …
$27M Verdict Warns Employers: Vet and Train Employees or Pay the Price
A recent $27 million jury verdict should put every employer, especially those in the hospitality, retail, and entertainment industries, on high alert: failing to properly screen and train employees can result in significant liability. On July 26, 2024, a Franklin County, Ohio jury awarded $27 million to the estate of Gregory Coleman Jr., who was …
Continue reading “$27M Verdict Warns Employers: Vet and Train Employees or Pay the Price”
Are Employee Driver’s License Requirements in the Rearview Mirror? What Washington’s New Law Says
Heads up, employers—a new law went into effect in Washington State this week (effective as of July 27, 2025) limiting when an employer can require job applicants and employees to have a valid driver’s license. A recent update to the Washington Equal Pay and Opportunities Act now prohibits employers from requiring employees to have a …
Orbiting Opportunity: Why Relocating Employees to Florida is a Strategic Magnet for Retaining Mission-Critical Staff
With the Federal Trade Commission’s non-compete ban out of the picture, the Supreme Court barring most universal injunctions, and the National Labor Relations’ Board directive identifying non-compete agreements as violating the National Labor Relations Act rescinded, the enforceability of non-competes is even more of a state-by-state issue. Florida recently passed HB1219, the Contracts Honoring Opportunity, Investment, …
Washington State Expands Employee Access to Personnel Files
Washington State has long required employers to allow employees to inspect their own personnel files, but the relevant statutes previously did not define what qualifies as a “personnel file” nor provide clear timelines for providing it. Washington State recently amended these statutes, including making three key changes: (1) defining “personnel file,” (2) establishing timelines for …
Continue reading “Washington State Expands Employee Access to Personnel Files”
Who’s the Boss? Understanding Joint Employment Under the NLRA
Our story begins like this: Your business is notified of a National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) Unfair Labor Practice Charge (the “Charge”). You’re about to email your lawyer when—here’s the twist—you learn your company is one of two named in the Charge. You might be considered a joint employer. When can this happen, what does …
Continue reading “Who’s the Boss? Understanding Joint Employment Under the NLRA”
One Standard to Rule Them All: Supreme Court Strikes Down Higher Bar for Majority Plaintiffs
Introduction On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Service that fundamentally altered how reverse discrimination claims are assessed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”). The Court ruled that employees from majority groups, (e.g., white, heterosexual, male) are …