On August 23, 2024, in Restaurant Law Center v. U.S. Department of Labor, No. 23-50562 (Aug. 23, 2024), the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit struck down a final rule promulgated by the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) that restricted when employers may claim a tip credit for tipped employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). The FLSA permits employers to take a tip credit when paying the wages of any tipped employee. In essence, the tip credit enables employers to pay tipped employees $2.13 per hour, as opposed to the current federal minimum wage of… Read more
Late Tuesday afternoon, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas issued a nationwide injunction prohibiting the FTC from enforcing its Non-Compete Rule (“FTC Rule”). The Court set aside the FTC’s Rule, finding that the FTC acted beyond its rulemaking authority and clarifying that the FTC Rule shall not be enforced or otherwise take effect on September 4, 2024. As we previously noted in an earlier Legal Alert (The FTC’s New Rule Bans Majority of Non-Compete Agreements – SGR Law), the FTC Rule would have required employers that have active non-compete agreements with their workers to notify… Read more
Federal administrative law is largely about policing delegations of power from Congress to Executive Branch agencies, and the administrative law concept of “deference” is about delegation of interpretative power over ambiguous law. That is, courts need to decide what it means when lawmakers leave ambiguity in a statute or regulation. To illustrate, imagine a simple rule like “no vehicles in the park.” See H.L.A. Hart, Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals, 71 Harv. L. Rev. 593, 607 (1958). A rule like this could appear in a statute passed by a legislature; it could also appear in an agency… Read more
We are pleased to inform you about a recent development in the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) law that could significantly impact businesses using biometric data. Last week, in the case of GT v. Samsung Electronics America Inc. [1] the Northern District of Illinois set a precedent that is favorable to defendants, providing a clearer framework for compliance and potential defenses under BIPA. Case Background: In this case, the plaintiffs alleged that Samsung Electronics America Inc. violated BIPA by collecting and storing biometric data on personal electronic devices (cell phones and tablets) without obtaining informed consent. The plaintiffs claimed… Read more
In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Supreme Court eliminated the Chevron doctrine, which for 40 years directed federal courts to “defer” to Executive Branch agencies in interpreting federal statutes. 144 S.Ct. 2244 (2024). During that 40-year period, federal agencies promulgated countless regulations touching a wide swath of public and private affairs. Indeed, the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) currently spans over 200,000 pages. Illustrating Chevron’s importance, in a 2015 survey of agency personnel, ninety percent of Executive Branch rule drafters self-reported that Chevron played a role in their drafting decisions. Christopher J. Walker, Inside Agency Statutory Interpretation, 67 Stan…. Read more
For years, California employers have struggled to deal with claims under the state’s Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”)(Labor Code §§ 2699, et seq.), known – without affection – in the early days as the “Sue Your Boss” law. The law authorizes private citizens to essentially step into the state’s shoes and sue for violations of the California Labor Code. On July 1, 2024, Governor Newsom signed legislation that significantly limits a private citizen’s ability to bring PAGA claims, expands the ability of the courts to manage PAGA claims, enhances the employer’s opportunity to remedy problems, and reduces the available PAGA… Read more
In an opinion announced on June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court overturned Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, which set forth the decades-old Chevron doctrine (also known as Chevron deference). The doctrine required a court to give deference to a government agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute even if such reviewing court read the statute differently. The Supreme Court, in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, has changed the way courts in the future will look at certain government agency decisions, specifically holding that the Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to exercise their independent judgment when deciding whether… Read more
In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. ____ (2024). the Supreme Court overturned Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. 467 U.S. 837 (1984). In so doing, the Court affirmed the fundamental principle that federal courts, not Executive Branch agencies, have final authority “to say what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803). Since the New Deal era, Congress has relied upon Executive Branch agencies—like the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency, or the Food and Drug Administration—to regulate American life and business. To accomplish this result, Congress passes so-called “organic”… Read more
In early 2024, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a final rule (“Final Rule”) amending the regulations in 42 C.F.R. part 2 (“Part 2”) which governs the confidentiality and privacy of substance use disorder (SUD) records. The amendments aim to bring Part 2 regulations more in line with the rules under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”), which governs the use and disclosure of protected health information. Background: As noted above, Part 2 protects the privacy rights of people seeking treatment for SUD. The law is designed to reassure patients that sharing information about… Read more
Recent amendments to the HIPAA Privacy Rule strengthening the rule’s protections for reproductive health care records require group health plan sponsors to update their HIPAA compliance materials by December 23, 2024. Limits on Use and Disclosure. Issued in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and subsequent state legislative activity, the intent of the new rule is to protect the privacy of a person seeking reproductive health care services, including contraception, abortion care, and assisted reproductive technology services. Specifically, the rule prohibits a group health plan from disclosing plan records related to lawfully… Read more
