Podcasts about fair labor standards act

This week, we're covering the U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL's) decision to halt enforcement of the Biden-era independent contractor rule, the upcoming EEO-1 reporting season (starting on May 20), and New York State's new labor law amendment, reducing damages for first-time frequency-of-pay violations.­ DOL Halts Enforcement of Independent Contractor Rule The DOL will no longer enforce the Biden-era independent contractor rule, which sought to tighten the criteria under which a hired worker can be considered an independent contractor for purposes of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The agency will now revert to the less stringent "economic realities" test. EEO-1 Reporting Begins Soon The proposed 2024 EEO-1 Component 1 data collection season is scheduled to begin on May 20, with a deadline to file by June 24. As expected, Component 2 pay data collection will not be required this year or in the coming years. New York Amends Labor Law to Limit Damages in Frequency-of-Pay Lawsuits New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed into law a budget bill that includes an amendment to the New York Labor Law that dramatically limits the relief employees can seek for first-time violations of frequency-of-pay provisions.  Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw390 Subscribe to #WorkforceWednesday: https://www.ebglaw.com/subscribe/ Visit http://www.EmploymentLawThisWeek.com This podcast is presented by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights are reserved. This audio recording includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances, and these materials are not a substitute for the advice of competent counsel. The content reflects the personal views and opinions of the participants. No attorney-client relationship has been created by this audio recording. This audio recording may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.

Comment on the Show by Sending Mark a Text Message.This episode is part of my initiative to provide access to important court decisions  impacting employees in an easy to understand conversational format using AI.  The speakers in the episode are AI generated and frankly sound great to listen to.  Enjoy!The scales of workplace justice have just shifted. In a unanimous decision that has sent ripples through labor law circles, the Supreme Court has lowered the standard of proof employers need to demonstrate when classifying workers as exempt from overtime pay.At the heart of this groundbreaking case lies EMD Sales, a food distributor whose sales representatives spent long 60-hour weeks stocking shelves, managing inventory, and processing orders at grocery stores across the Washington DC area. These employees, paid only on commission, sued for overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). EMD claimed they were "outside salesmen" – exempt from overtime requirements – but did their day-to-day responsibilities actually constitute "making sales"? The answer depended heavily on whether they were working at chain stores with pre-established corporate agreements or at independent shops where they had more sales autonomy.The Supreme Court didn't rule on whether these particular workers deserved overtime. Instead, they focused on a crucial procedural question: what level of proof should employers need to show when claiming a worker is exempt? Previously, in the Fourth Circuit, employers needed to meet a high "clear and convincing evidence" standard. Now, the Court has established nationwide that only a "preponderance of evidence" – essentially just over 50% likelihood – is required. This seemingly technical change could significantly impact millions of workers' overtime eligibility and shift the power balance in workplace disputes across America.The next time you're wondering whether your job qualifies for overtime protection, remember this watershed case. Understanding your rights has never been more important as the legal landscape evolves. Subscribe to our podcast for more deep dives into the court decisions that directly impact your workplace rights and compensation. If you enjoyed this episode of the Employee Survival Guide please like us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. We would really appreciate if you could leave a review of this podcast on your favorite podcast player such as Apple Podcasts. Leaving a review will inform other listeners you found the content on this podcast is important in the area of employment law in the United States. For more information, please contact our employment attorneys at Carey & Associates, P.C. at 203-255-4150, www.capclaw.com.Disclaimer: For educational use only, not intended to be legal advice.

Scale AI is being investigated by the U.S. Department of Labor for compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In this episode of Hiring to Firing, hosts Tracey Diamond and Emily Schifter dive into the intriguing intersection of reality TV and employment law. Joined by Troutman Pepper Locke Labor and Employment Partner Richard Reibstein (author of the popular Independent Contractor Misclassification & Compliance blog), they explore the lawsuit alleging that contestants on the hit Netflix reality series Love Is Blind have been misclassified as independent contractors instead of employees — and the real-life implications for other production companies as well as companies in other industries. Tune in for an insightful discussion that ‎blends legal expertise with the drama of reality television.‎Troutman Pepper Locke's Labor + Employment Practice Group provides comprehensive thought leadership through various channels. We regularly issue advisories that offer timely insights into the evolving employment law landscape, and maintain the HiringToFiring.Law Blog, a resource spotlighting best practices for employers. Our Hiring to Firing Podcast, hosted by Tracey Diamond and Emily Schifter, delves into pressing labor and employment law topics, drawing unique parallels from pop culture, hit shows, and movies.

E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera concerns what standard of evidence the court should apply in cases of exceptions to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The District Court decided that E.M.D. was liable for some employee overtime because it did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that its sales representatives were outside salesmen. Therefore, they […]

In this case, the court considered this issue: Is the burden of proof that employers must satisfy to demonstrate the applicability of a Fair Labor Standards Act exemption a mere preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing evidence? The case was decided on January 15, 2025. The Supreme Court held that the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard applies when an employer seeks to show that an employee is exempt from the minimum-wage and overtime-pay provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored the unanimous opinion of the Court. The default standard of proof in American civil litigation is preponderance of the evidence, and courts only deviate from this standard in three specific circumstances: when a statute explicitly requires a heightened standard, when the Constitution requires it, or in certain rare cases where the government seeks unusual coercive action against an individual (like revoking citizenship). None of these exceptions applies to FLSA exemption cases. The FLSA itself is silent on the standard of proof, which typically means Congress intended the default preponderance standard to apply. The case does not implicate constitutional rights, and it does not involve unusual government coercion; instead, it is akin to Title VII employment discrimination cases where the Court has consistently applied the preponderance standard. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored a concurring opinion, in which Justice Clarence Thomas joined, clarifying that courts apply the default “preponderance” rule unless Congress alters it or the Constitution forbids it. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera concerns what standard of evidence the court should apply in cases of exceptions to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The District Court decided that E.M.D. was liable for some employee overtime because it did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that its sales representatives were outside salesmen. Therefore, they were not exempt from normal overtime rules. The Fourth Circut agreed, affirming the use of the clear-and-convincing evidence standard.On January 15th, 2025, the Supreme Court, in a 9-0 decision, reversed the Fourth Circut’s decision and remanded the case. In an opinion by Justice Kavanaugh, it held that the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard applies when an employer seeks to show that an employee is exempt from the minimum wage and overtime pay provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.Featuring:Michael J. O'Neill, Vice President of Legal Affairs, Landmark Legal Foundation

Join Chase Stoecker and Courtney Joiner, Members of McGlinchey's Labor and Employment Practice Group, as they discuss how a new administration could impact overtime laws and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. They explore changes to Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) salary thresholds, legal challenges to DEI programs, and strategies for employers to adapt to potential regulatory shifts.

Weekend Edition! Kyle Warren hosts America's Third Watch (Weekend Edition)--The Fastest Three Hours In Talk Radio! Join Kyle as he looks at day's (and the week's) top stories along with an interview with regular contributor Denise Simon of www.FoundersCode.com!  We also listen back to our interview from earlier in the week with special guest Jimme T. Smith from Concerned Veterans for America.  Find them at www.CV4A.org! We also welcome special guest Julie Ames to talk about a very important issue concerning how the Biden Administration is targeting the severely disabled by eliminating 14c of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.  Please check out this link to learn more! Defending the Least of Us! Be sure to tune in to hear Kyle every Monday - Friday from 2AM - 6AM ET and Saturdays 2AM - 5AM ET on AM 860 The Answer! Check out www.KyleWarrenShow.com for links to listen live!!!  Join us through the week as Kyle brings you the latest in breaking news and analysis along with our great regular contributors! And we take your telephone calls too at 949-822-7959! If you like what we do on the program, please consider sharing it to your social media! We depend on listeners like you and appreciate your support!  

Friday Edition! Kyle Warren hosts America's Third Watch--The Fastest Four Hours in Talk Radio! Join Kyle as he looks at the day's top stories including interviews with Patrick Highland, host of The Sports Zone on AM860 The Answer, Frank Salvato from www.UnderGroundUSA.com and Chris Markowski from www.WatchDogOnWallStreet.com! Denise Simon of www.FoundersCode.com is out this morning and will return on the weekend show! We also welcome special guest Julie Ames to talk about a very important issue concerning how the Biden Administration is targeting the severely disabled by eliminating 14c of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.  Please check out this link to learn more! Defending the Least of Us! Be sure to tune in to hear Kyle Monday - Friday from 2AM - 6AM ET and Saturdays 2AM - 5AM ET on AM 860 The Answer! Check out www.KyleWarrenShow.com for links to listen live!!!  Join us through the week as Kyle brings you the latest in breaking news and analysis along with our great regular contributors! And we take your telephone calls too at 949-822-7959! If you like what we do on the program, please consider sharing it to your social media! We depend on listeners like you and appreciate your support!  

In this episode of the Friends for Life Podcast, we dive into the U.S. Department of Labor's groundbreaking proposal to phase out 14(c) certificates, a decades-old provision allowing employers to pay workers with disabilities less than minimum wage. This historic move marks a pivotal step toward ending subminimum wage employment and fostering greater economic equity and community inclusion for individuals with disabilities. We explore the legal and policy advancements that have dramatically expanded employment opportunities since the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act and discuss the significant decline in the use of 14(c) certificates over the years. With nearly half of the workers under this model earning $3.50 an hour or less, advocates argue that the time has come to prioritize fair wages and competitive employment. However, the proposed changes are not without controversy. We examine the challenges raised by those who believe sheltered workshops still play a critical role for individuals with severe disabilities requiring highly specialized support. Additionally, we discuss how disability advocacy groups like the Autistic Self Advocacy Network are urging Congress to pass legislation that would ensure a smooth transition to inclusive employment opportunities for all. Join us for an in-depth look at this crucial moment in disability rights history and the ongoing debate about how best to support individuals with disabilities in achieving meaningful, dignified work.

Join host Dan Schwartz and Sarah Westby, partners at Shipman & Goodwin, as they delve into the latest wage and hour regulations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). This episode explores the implications of a federal court ruling that struck down recent DOL salary threshold increases, what it means for employers, and how businesses can navigate compliance amidst evolving rules. Discover practical insights and strategies to manage workforce morale, stay aligned with state and federal laws, and anticipate future regulatory changes.

E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera concerns what standard the court should apply in cases of exceptions to the Fair Labor Standards Act. This act governs such limitations as hours worked, overtime pay, and working conditions across the United States. Several provisions within it exempt certain industries from some requirements, and this case deals with the burden of proof on a corporation to prove that an employee should be exempt from these rules.The plaintiffs in this case are two employees of a food distribution company, who sued for overtime benefits citing the Fair Labor Standards Act. The company argued that their positions were those of salesmen, who are normally exempted from overtime pay rules. The plaintiffs allege that making sales was a secondary part of their numerous responsibilities that were not overtime exempt. The district court agreed that E.M.D failed to prove a sales exemption, and the Fourth Circut Court of Appeals affirmed.Currently, the case is before the Supreme Court, with oral arguments on November 5th. Join Michael O'Neill, Vice President of Legal Affairs at Landmark Legal Foundation, and Cheryl Stanton, Chief Legal and Government Affairs Officer at BrightStar Care, as they review oral arguments and discuss this case and its implications.Featuring:Michael J. O'Neill, Vice President of Legal Affairs, Landmark Legal Foundation(Moderator) Cheryl M. Stanton, Chief Legal and Government Affairs Officer, BrightStar Care

A recent court ruling has halted the Department of Labor's proposed salary threshold increase for Fair Labor Standards Act exemptions. On November 15, 2024, a Texas federal judge invalidated the plan, which aimed to raise the minimum salary for exempt salaried workers from $35,568 to $58,656 starting January 1, 2025. As a result, the current minimum salary of $35,568 remains in effect. Employers who have already adjusted salaries in anticipation of the change are advised to maintain their current pay structures but should weigh potential legal and morale implications before making any reversals. Wendy Sellers, The HR Lady  

QUESTION PRESENTED:Whether the burden of proof that employers must satisfy to demonstrate the applicability of a Fair Labor Standards Act exemption is a mere preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing evidence. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

After processing the election and thinking through what it means for the future of the Supreme Court, Kate and Leah dig into a Voting Rights Act case newly added to SCOTUS's docket. They also tackle this week's cases on the False Claims Act, compensation for hospitals that treat low-income people, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and federal securities law. Follow us on Instagram, Twitter, Threads, and Bluesky

Last week, the US elected its 47th president. As I was sifting through the reactions of family, friends, and coworkers online, feelings of excitement and feelings of sadness were all over the place, and it was a lot to think about. But the thing I kept coming back to was the mission of I Hate It Here and the ways that elections affect us all! So today, we're taking a stroll down HR memory lane, digging into the laws that flipped the script on how we work. From the Fair Labor Standards Act to the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, we're exploring the major pieces of legislation that shaped HR as we know it. Now, Working Not Working is helping to keep that talent with NTRNL— the new platform that unlocks employee passions and ignites productivity. So you can see your people as they see themselves: as humans, not headcount. Visit seeyourpeople.com to learn more or book a demo. 00:01:00 - The Misson of I Hate It Here 00:01:50 - The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) 00:03:55 - The Civil Rights Act of 1964 00:06:00 - The Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) 00:08:05 - The Employee of Income Retirement Security Act (ERISA) 00:10:04 - The Americans With Disability Act 00:11:04 - The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) 00:13:17 - The Affordable Care Act 00:15:05 - The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act 00:17:40 - The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act And if you love I Hate It Here, sign up to Hebba's newsletter! It's for jaded, overworked, and emotionally burnt-out HR/People Operations professionals needing a little inspiration. https://workweek.com/discover-newsletters/i-hate-it-here-newsletter/   And if you love the podcast, be sure to check out https://www.youtube.com/@ihateit-here for even more exclusive insider content! Follow Hebba:  YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@ihateit-here/videos LinkedIn: https://linkedin.com/in/hebba-youssef Twitter: https://twitter.com/hebbamyoussef

A case in which the Court will decide whether the burden of proof that employers must satisfy to demonstrate the applicability of a Fair Labor Standards Act exemption is a mere preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing evidence.

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below.Wisconsin Bell v. U.S., (November 4) - Telecommunications; Whether reimbursement requests submitted to the Federal Communications Commission's E-rate program are “claims” under the False Claims Act.Advocate Christ Medical Center v. Becerra, (November 5) - Medicare; Whether the phrase “entitled ... to benefits,” used twice in the same sentence of the Medicare Act, means the same thing for Medicare part A and Supplemental Social Security benefits, such that it includes all who meet basic program eligibility criteria, whether or not benefits are actually received.E.M.D. Sales v. Carrera, (November 5) - Labor & Employment; Whether the burden of proof that employers must satisfy to demonstrate the applicability of a Fair Labor Standards Act exemption is a mere preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing evidence.Facebook v. Amalgamated Bank, (November 6) - Corporations; Whether risk disclosures are false or misleading when they do not disclose that a risk has materialized in the past, even if that past event presents no known risk of ongoing or future business harm.Velazquez v. Garland, (November 12) - International and National Security; Whether, when a noncitizen's voluntary-departure period ends on a weekend or public holiday, a motion to reopen filed the next business day is sufficient to avoid the penalties for failure to depart under 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(d)(1).Delligatti v. U.S., (November 12) - Criminal Law & Procedure; Issue(s): Whether a crime that requires proof of bodily injury or death, but can be committed by failing to take action, has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force.NVIDIA Corp. v. E. Ohman J:or Fonder AB, (November 13) - Securities; (1) Whether plaintiffs seeking to allege scienter under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act based on allegations about internal company documents must plead with particularity the contents of those documents; and (2) whether plaintiffs can satisfy the Act's falsity requirement by relying on an expert opinion to substitute for particularized allegations of fact.Featuring:Tyler S. Badgley, Senior Counsel, U.S. Chamber Litigation CenterKaren Harned, President, Harned Strategies LLCRobert S. Peck, President, Center for Constitutional LitigationCollin White, Of Counsel, Kellogg Hansen(Moderator) Sarah Child, Attorney, Jackson Lewis

Creative News This episode we educate through the testimony of Lisa Bennett, Lifelong Special Needs Educator and former Regional Manager of Creative Enterprises. The 14C of the Fair Labor Standards Act or sub-minimum wage certificate was created by the Deportment of Labor in 1938 and permits paying people with disabilities wages below minimum wage. The Department of […]

This Day in Legal History: Formal Immigration Quotas EndOn October 3, 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Immigration and Nationality Act into law, marking a significant shift in U.S. immigration policy. This legislation, also known as the Hart-Celler Act, abolished the national origins quota system that had been in place since 1924, which favored European immigrants and limited others. Johnson, during a ceremony at the Statue of Liberty, called the old system "un-American" and discriminatory. The new law established a more equitable process, allowing a set number of immigrants from each country with no preference based on nationality.The Act also prioritized family reunification and skilled labor, changing the face of American immigration by allowing greater numbers of immigrants from Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Though the total cap on immigration was still in place, the changes sparked a demographic transformation that led to the multicultural U.S. society seen today. This law was part of Johnson's broader Great Society program, aimed at promoting civil rights and social reforms. Despite fears at the time that it would open the floodgates for immigration, the Act is now regarded as a key milestone in modernizing U.S. immigration policy.On November 5, 2024, eight U.S. states will vote on constitutional amendments to ban noncitizens from voting, even though it is already illegal. These states include key swing states North Carolina and Wisconsin, as well as Republican strongholds like Idaho, Iowa, and South Carolina. Supporters of the measures argue they address concerns over illegal immigration and the integrity of U.S. elections. Critics, however, view this as part of a broader effort by Donald Trump and his allies to undermine confidence in the electoral process. They fear it could be used to challenge the results if Trump loses the presidential election.While some localities allow legal noncitizens to vote in municipal elections, noncitizen voting in federal elections remains illegal. Independent studies and election officials from both parties confirm that noncitizen voting is rare. Nonetheless, Trump's repeated claims of widespread illegal voting, especially from immigrants, have fueled distrust among his supporters, despite a lack of evidence. These ballot measures follow ongoing lawsuits and legislative attempts by Republicans to tighten voter registration rules.Eight US states to vote on amendments to ban noncitizen voters | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court will address several key employment law issues in its upcoming term. One significant case, Williams v. Washington, questions whether workers must exhaust state administrative remedies before filing federal civil rights claims in state court. Another case, Lackey v. Stinnie, will explore whether securing a preliminary injunction in civil rights litigation qualifies a plaintiff as a "prevailing party" entitled to attorney's fees.In Medical Marijuana Inc. v. Horn, the justices will consider if a truck driver can use the RICO Act to sue a CBD manufacturer whose mislabeled product allegedly caused him to fail a drug test and lose his job. This case hinges on whether job loss qualifies as an economic injury under RICO.Additionally, the Court will evaluate the burden employers must meet when proving workers are exempt from federal overtime requirements in EMD Sales Inc. v. Carrera U.S.. The case could affect how easily employees can claim overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act.Lastly, Stanley v. City of Sanford will clarify whether the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) protects former employees against discrimination in post-employment policies. This decision could impact how employers handle benefits for disabled ex-workers.Justices to Hear Cases on Drug Tests and Ex-Worker ADA RightsThe U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has appealed a court ruling that ordered Ripple Labs Inc. to pay a $125 million civil penalty for improperly selling its XRP token, far less than the $2 billion the SEC initially sought. The lawsuit, filed in 2020, accused Ripple of illegally raising funds by selling XRP without registering it as a security. The case is significant for the cryptocurrency industry, as it could shape the SEC's authority over digital assets.In a 2023 ruling, U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres determined that XRP sales to institutional investors were subject to securities laws, but those to retail investors were not, a decision seen as a win for Ripple and the broader crypto sector. While the SEC sought nearly $2 billion in penalties and disgorgements, Torres only imposed the smaller civil penalty. Ripple's CEO, Brad Garlinghouse, criticized the SEC's persistence in the case, claiming it harmed the agency's reputation and did not protect investors.The SEC, however, maintains that the decision contradicts long-standing Supreme Court precedent and securities law, prompting its appeal.SEC Appeals $125 Million Judgment in Ripple Labs XRP Lawsuit (1)Prosecutors have argued that Donald Trump should stand trial for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, emphasizing that his actions were those of a private citizen, not protected by presidential immunity. A newly unsealed court brief details Trump's pressure on former Vice President Mike Pence to intervene in the certification of Joe Biden's victory. The filing also recounts how Trump dismissed concerns for Pence's safety during the Capitol riot with a remark of "So what?" when informed that Pence was in danger.The filing reveals prosecutors' intention to use swing-state officials, iPhone data, and private conversations to demonstrate Trump's knowledge that his fraud claims were false. They contend Trump continued to pursue election interference despite being informed by close advisors, including Pence, that his claims were baseless. Additionally, the government will argue that Trump, as a candidate, pressed state officials to reject Biden's win, despite having no official role in the electoral process.Trump's defense has focused on his communications with Pence, suggesting these might be protected by presidential immunity. However, the prosecution asserts that Trump's conduct, including his pressure on Pence, was part of a private scheme, not covered by immunity guidelines.Trump Said ‘So What' When Told of Pence Peril on Jan. 6, US Says This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

The Fifth Circuit recently struck down the DOL's tip credit rule, finding that the agency had exceeded its authority under the Fair Labor Standards Act. However, that same court later upheld the DOL's authority to set a minimum salary threshold for overtime exemption. Epstein Becker Green attorney Paul DeCamp, who represented the restaurant plaintiffs in the tip credit case alongside Kathleen Barrett, offers his interpretation of these significant court decisions and what they mean for employers. Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw361 Subscribe to #WorkforceWednesday: https://www.ebglaw.com/subscribe/ Visit http://www.EmploymentLawThisWeek.com This podcast is presented by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights are reserved. This audio recording includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances, and these materials are not a substitute for the advice of competent counsel. The content reflects the personal views and opinions of the participants. No attorney-client relationship has been created by this audio recording. This audio recording may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.

With the new updates to the Fair Labor Standards Act's new salary threshold, what changes can employers make and still remain compliant? Karl Ulrich with Sebaly, Shillito and Dyer joins Pandy to discuss changing terms of employment and the option of restructuring to address the upcoming increases to the salary threshold.

It's all about rights. First, we'll talk to Trini Murguia from the US Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division about the many laws they enforce from child labor to […] The post What Do You Know About the Fair Labor Standards Act? and IBEW 124 Wins Paid Family Leave appeared first on KKFI.

This Day in Legal History: Chinese Exclusion TreatyOn August 13, 1894, the U.S. Senate ratified the Chinese Exclusion Treaty, marking a significant moment in American immigration history. This treaty was an extension of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which was the first significant law restricting immigration into the United States. Under the treaty, China agreed to the exclusion of its laborers from entering the U.S., further cementing the racial and economic discrimination that Chinese immigrants faced. The treaty represented a formal diplomatic agreement between the two nations, wherein China conceded to the exclusion of its citizens in exchange for certain protections for Chinese already residing in America.The Chinese Exclusion Treaty was part of a broader movement in the late 19th century to limit the influx of immigrants, particularly those from Asia, who were seen as economic threats and culturally incompatible by many Americans. The ratification of this treaty reinforced and prolonged the discriminatory practices against Chinese immigrants, contributing to the legal and social marginalization of Chinese communities in the U.S. It wasn't until 1943, during World War II, that these exclusionary policies began to be dismantled, reflecting the deep-seated impact of the treaty and the exclusion laws on American legal and social landscapes.In a recent legal development, a federal judge in California dismissed a consumer lawsuit accusing Google of unlawfully dominating mobile search markets. U.S. District Judge Rita Lin ruled that the plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence showing how Google's market dominance harmed consumers. The lawsuit, originally filed in 2022, alleged that Google conspired with Apple to make its search engine the default on iPhones, restricting competition.Although the case was dismissed, Judge Lin indicated that the plaintiffs might have another opportunity to amend their complaint. She referenced a separate ruling by U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta in Washington, D.C., which found Google had illegally monopolized the search engine market by paying billions to Apple and other companies for exclusive search engine agreements. This ruling could bolster the plaintiffs' chances if they can provide more concrete evidence of consumer harm in their amended complaint.Despite this setback for the consumers, their attorney, Joseph Alioto, expressed intentions to revise and refile the lawsuit by the court's September 9 deadline. Google has denied the allegations and plans to appeal the D.C. court's decision.Google wins dismissal of US consumer lawsuit over mobile search | ReutersJohnson & Johnson (J&J) and Avon Products Inc. are both embroiled in legal battles over the alleged harmful effects of talc in their products, leading to significant financial and legal repercussions. J&J recently made progress in its efforts to resolve thousands of lawsuits claiming that its talc-based baby powder caused cancer. Over 75% of the plaintiffs have reportedly supported J&J's $6.5 billion settlement plan, which aims to address these claims through a pre-packaged bankruptcy filing. This plan follows J&J's history of legal challenges, including a previous $5 billion payout over similar allegations. Despite this support, J&J still faces hurdles, as its attempts to secure bankruptcy protection have been twice denied in New Jersey courts.Similarly, Avon Products Inc., known for its iconic beauty brand, has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in Delaware due to the mounting costs of defending against talc-related lawsuits. The company is dealing with 386 individual cases and has already spent $225 million on legal fees and settlements. Avon's financial struggles have led to its bankruptcy filing, as it seeks a permanent solution to the increasing number of lawsuits. The company plans to sell its assets, with Brazil-based Natura & Co. offering to purchase Avon for $125 million and write off $530 million in debt.Both companies' legal strategies highlight the significant impact of talc-related lawsuits on their operations, with J&J seeking a settlement through bankruptcy court and Avon attempting to resolve its liabilities through a similar process.Avon Products Files for Bankruptcy to Wrangle Talc LawsuitsJ&J Gets Plaintiff Backing for $6.5 Billion Baby Powder AccordIn July 2024, OSHA proposed a new rule aimed at enhancing workplace safety by addressing heat-related hazards, which are the leading cause of weather-related deaths in the U.S. The rule, if enacted, would impact businesses with employees exposed to high temperatures, both indoors and outdoors. Key aspects of the rule include requiring employers to implement a Heat Illness and Injury Prevention Plan (HIIPP), which would mandate rest breaks, access to shade, drinking water, heat acclimatization procedures, and ongoing heat monitoring.One notable provision is the requirement for employers to provide a paid 15-minute rest break every two hours on days when the heat index reaches 90°F or higher. This has raised questions about how such breaks would interact with the Fair Labor Standards Act, particularly regarding overtime calculations. Additionally, following the recent Supreme Court decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which limits agency authority, there may be legal challenges to OSHA's ability to enforce such mandates.The proposed rule has yet to be published in the Federal Register, but once it is, the public will have the opportunity to provide feedback before it is finalized. OSHA has encouraged public participation to ensure the final rule effectively protects workers while being feasible for employers.OSHA Proposes Rule to Regulate Work Heat-Related HazardsIn my column this week, I discuss how applying the marketplace facilitator model, which has improved state sales tax compliance, could similarly enhance federal excise tax collection. Federal excise taxes, particularly on sporting equipment like fishing rods and archery gear, often go uncollected, especially when these items are sold online by foreign merchants. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently reported that this lack of compliance has resulted in significant revenue loss, funds that are crucial for wildlife conservation efforts.Currently, the responsibility to remit these taxes falls on the consumer, a system that is both confusing and inefficient. To address this, I advocate for legislation that would require online marketplaces like Amazon and eBay to collect and remit these taxes on behalf of consumers. This approach would simplify the process, ensuring more consistent revenue collection and leveling the playing field for domestic sellers who are currently at a disadvantage.Additionally, I propose that the IRS develop a centralized tax calculator accessible to these marketplaces. This tool would automate tax calculations at the point of sale, further reducing administrative burdens and ensuring accurate tax collection. An accompanying information campaign could also educate consumers on their tax obligations and the positive impact of these funds on conservation efforts.To implement these changes effectively, the IRS should consider launching a pilot program, similar to its Direct File initiative, to test the feasibility of this system. This streamlined approach not only promises increased compliance but also ensures that vital conservation projects receive the funding they need to thrive.Streamline Excise Tax on Sporting Equipment to Help Conservation This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Send us a Text Message.NOTE: Rudy is a Pool Guy, Dammit! Not a labor law attorney or expert... That said - In this conversation, Rudy Stankowitz discusses the topic of how to pay swimming pool technicians. He explores the different methods of payment, including per pool, hourly, and piecework pay. Rudy explains the intricacies of piecework compensation and the guidelines set by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). He emphasizes the importance of ensuring compliance with federal and state laws, calculating regular and overtime pay, and tracking hours worked. Rudy also highlights the advantages and challenges of implementing a piecework pay system and provides tips for setting fair rates and maintaining transparency with employees.keywordsswimming pool technicians, pay methods, per pool pay, hourly pay, piecework pay, Fair Labor Standards Act, FLSA, compliance, regular rate of pay, overtime pay, advantages, challenges, setting fair rates, transparencytakeawaysThere are different methods of paying swimming pool technicians, including per pool, hourly, and piecework pay.Piecework pay involves compensating employees based on the number of pools they service rather than the hours they work.Compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) is crucial when implementing piecework pay.Calculating the regular rate of pay and overtime pay is necessary to ensure fair compensation.Implementing a piecework pay system can increase productivity and job satisfaction, but challenges such as maintaining quality and variability in pay should be considered.Setting fair rates and maintaining transparency with employees are important for the success of a piecework pay system.titlesCalculating the Regular Rate of Pay and Overtime PayUnd AquaStar Pool ProductsThe Global Leader in Safety, Dependability, & Innovation in Pool Technology.POOL MAGAZINE Pool Magazine is leading up to the minute news source for Swimming Pool News and Pool Features. OuBLUERAY XLThe real mineral purifier! Reduce your pool maintenance costs & efforts by 50%Jack's MagicIf you know Jack's you'd have no stains!RaypakRaypak, leading the evolution of environmental efficiency and sustainability in pool heaters.the 'How to Get Rid of Algae' handbookThe most comprehensive guide on algae prevention and remediation you will ever own. Online Pool ClassesThe difference between you and your competition is what you know!CPO Certification ClassesAttend your CPO class with Rudy Stankowitz!Disclaimer: This post contains affiliate links. If you make a purchase, I may receive a commission at no extra cost to you.Support the Show.Thank you so much for listening! You can find us on social media: Facebook Instagram Tik Tok Email us: talkingpools@gmail.com

Worker classification is complex and can be daunting for any business to navigate. In this episode of Paychex THRIVE, a Business Podcast, Gene Marks with Administrator Jessica Looman from the Wage and Hour Division of the U.S. Department of Labor the latest changes in regulations. Learn about the economic realities test, key definitions under the FLSA, and the new multifactor analysis approach designed to streamline and clarify these classifications. This episode is a must watch for business owners looking to comply with the latest standards and protect their employees and their business. Topics Include: 00:00:02: Announcement of break and return in September 00:00:37: Episode Preview 00:01:52: Introduction of Administrator Jessica Looman 00:02:40: Jessica Looman's role and the goal of USDOL 00:03:39: Fair Labor Standards Act and worker protections 00:06:21: New rule on worker classification 00:07:08: Economic realities test for worker classification 00:09:16: Factors for worker classification analysis 00:10:24: Explanation of profit or loss factor 00:12:57: Explanation of integral part of the business factor 00:15:46: Addressing federal, state, and local standards, 00:18:44: Impact of worker classification rules on freelancers and startups 00:20:02: Guidance on freelancers and independent contractors 00:23:32: Understanding business compliance requirements under the rule 00:26:07: Best practices and available resources 00:28:01: Misclassification consequences 00:30:02: Importance of proper worker classification 00:31:14: Wrap-up and thank you DISCLAIMER: The information presented in this podcast, and that is further provided by the presenter, should not be considered legal or accounting advice, and should not substitute for legal, accounting, or other professional advice in which the facts and circumstances may warrant. We encourage you to consult legal counsel as it pertains to your own unique situation(s) and/or with any specific legal questions you may have.

On this episode of Conduct Detrimental: THE Sports Law Podcast, Dan Lust (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@SportsLawLust)⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠and Mike Kravchenko (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Find him on YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠) are joined by Bobby Hartwick (@BobbyHartwick) to bring you the latest updates in sports law as we find ourselves with yet another a jam-packed week across the board. The trio dives into the NBA-TNT matching rights drama. Warner Bros., the parent company of TNT, recently exercised its matching rights on one of the deals proposed for the NBA's broadcasting rights. This move has sparked a debate about whether TNT can truly match the streaming services like Amazon Prime. Dan explains the potential legal and contractual hurdles, including the possibility of arbitration, and the implications for the NBA's broadcasting landscape. Next, they cover the new lawsuit filed by the Olympic and Paralympic Committee against PRIME, the energy drink owned by Logan Paul and KSI. The lawsuit claims PRIME infringed on the committee's trademarks by using phrases and symbols associated with the Olympics, such as "three-time Olympic gold medalist" and "repping Team USA." The trio discusses the legal intricacies of trademark enforcement and the potential repercussions for Prime. Odell Beckham Jr.'s recent legal battle with Nike also gets attention. Despite Beckham's celebratory social media post claiming victory, Nike's statement asserts that all of Beckham's claims were decided against him without any monetary award. This confusing narrative underscores the importance of clear legal communications and the broader implications for athlete endorsement deals. The conversation then shifts to a humorous yet important trademark dispute between Lamar Jackson and Troy Aikman over the word "eight." Jackson blocked Aikman's attempt to trademark "eight," claiming potential consumer confusion with his own trademarks like "Era 8" and "You 8 Yet." The group discusses the complexities of trademark law in sports and the likelihood of a coexistence agreement. Bobby shares his insights into the Johnson vs. NCAA case as Trey Johnson, a former Villanova football player, along with other student-athletes, filed a class action lawsuit against the NCAA and several universities, arguing they should be classified as employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that student-athletes could potentially qualify as employees, which could have major financial and compliance implications for colleges. The case was remanded to the district court to apply the new economic realities test, setting a precedent for evaluating student-athletes' employment status. Mike shares his excitement for Netflix's upcoming "Untold" documentary series, which includes episodes on the Michigan sign-stealing scandal and other intriguing sports stories. Bobby recommends watching the Giants' "Hard Knocks" series for its in-depth look at front office operations and player evaluations, wrapping up a packed episode of sports law updates and insights. Have a topic you want to write about? ANYONE and EVERYONE can publish for ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ConductDetrimental.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Let us know if you want to join the team. *** As always, this episode is sponsored by Themis Bar Review: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.themisbarsocial.com/conductdetrimental⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠  Host: Dan Lust (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@SportsLawLust⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠)  Featuring and Produced by: Mike Kravchenko (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Watch on YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠) Guest: Bobby Hartwick (⁠@BobbyHartwick⁠) Connect with us:⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠TikTok⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠Website⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠Email --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/condetrimental/support

On this episode of Conduct Detrimental: THE Sports Law Podcast, Dan Lust (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@SportsLawLust)⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠and Mike Kravchenko (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Find him on YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠) are joined by Bobby Hartwick (@BobbyHartwick) to bring you the latest updates in sports law as we find ourselves with yet another a jam-packed week across the board. The trio dives into the NBA-TNT matching rights drama. Warner Bros., the parent company of TNT, recently exercised its matching rights on one of the deals proposed for the NBA's broadcasting rights. This move has sparked a debate about whether TNT can truly match the streaming services like Amazon Prime. Dan explains the potential legal and contractual hurdles, including the possibility of arbitration, and the implications for the NBA's broadcasting landscape. Next, they cover the new lawsuit filed by the Olympic and Paralympic Committee against PRIME, the energy drink owned by Logan Paul and KSI. The lawsuit claims PRIME infringed on the committee's trademarks by using phrases and symbols associated with the Olympics, such as "three-time Olympic gold medalist" and "repping Team USA." The trio discusses the legal intricacies of trademark enforcement and the potential repercussions for Prime. Odell Beckham Jr.'s recent legal battle with Nike also gets attention. Despite Beckham's celebratory social media post claiming victory, Nike's statement asserts that all of Beckham's claims were decided against him without any monetary award. This confusing narrative underscores the importance of clear legal communications and the broader implications for athlete endorsement deals. The conversation then shifts to a humorous yet important trademark dispute between Lamar Jackson and Troy Aikman over the word "eight." Jackson blocked Aikman's attempt to trademark "eight," claiming potential consumer confusion with his own trademarks like "Era 8" and "You 8 Yet." The group discusses the complexities of trademark law in sports and the likelihood of a coexistence agreement. Bobby shares his insights into the Johnson vs. NCAA case as Trey Johnson, a former Villanova football player, along with other student-athletes, filed a class action lawsuit against the NCAA and several universities, arguing they should be classified as employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that student-athletes could potentially qualify as employees, which could have major financial and compliance implications for colleges. The case was remanded to the district court to apply the new economic realities test, setting a precedent for evaluating student-athletes' employment status. Mike shares his excitement for Netflix's upcoming "Untold" documentary series, which includes episodes on the Michigan sign-stealing scandal and other intriguing sports stories. Bobby recommends watching the Giants' "Hard Knocks" series for its in-depth look at front office operations and player evaluations, wrapping up a packed episode of sports law updates and insights. Have a topic you want to write about? ANYONE and EVERYONE can publish for ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ConductDetrimental.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Let us know if you want to join the team. *** As always, this episode is sponsored by Themis Bar Review: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.themisbarsocial.com/conductdetrimental⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠  Host: Dan Lust (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@SportsLawLust⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠)  Featuring and Produced by: Mike Kravchenko (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Watch on YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠) Guest: Bobby Hartwick (⁠@BobbyHartwick⁠) Connect with us:⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠TikTok⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠Website⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠Email --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/condetrimental/support

The U.S. Supreme Court recently handed down one of the most significant decisions in decades. In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, a case involving a little-known National Marine Fisheries Service regulation, SCOTUS overturned the Chevron doctrine, and in so doing, removed the forty-year old legal foundation that many federal agencies relied upon when promulgating their regulations. In this first of several podcasts to examine the impact of Loper Bright in various industries and practice groups, Labor & Employment Practice Group member Logan C. Hibbs joins Briefly Legal to discuss the two-step test used to determine the amount of deference given to federal agencies when determining the validity of agency regulations under the now defunct Chevron doctrine, and the potential impacts the Court's ruling in Loper Bright could have on ongoing litigation involving workplace regulations including, the Department of Labor's (DOL) new Rule on wage requirements for exempt workers under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the National Labor Relations Board's joint-employer rule, and the DOL's new Rule on who is an independent contractor and who is an employee. About Logan C. HibbsAdditional Resources Chevron Overruled - What Does this Mean for Employers?Connect with Crowe & Dunlevy:Website | Facebook | Twitter | LinkedIn

On this episode, we tackle the recent Third Circuit decision in Johnson vs. NCAA, where the court held that the “frayed tradition of amateurism” does not prevent college athletes from being classified as employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The decision doesn't mean that college athletes ARE now employees, but it means that they could be. What does it all mean and where do we go from here? To help me break it all down, I am joined by Joshua Nadreau, Regional Managing partner and Chair of the Labor Relations Group at Fisher Phillips. Thank you for listening! For the latest in sports law news and analysis, you can follow Gabe Feldman on twitter @sportslawguy .

Spending bills in Congress would stop any speed limiter requirement, and also deal with truck parking, ELDs and independent contractors. Land Line Now also updates you on a partnership that includes Daimler Truck is working on a nationwide network of EV charging stations for heavy-duty zero-emission vehicles. And the Pennsylvania Turnpike is moving to open road tolling, following several other toll roads that have done so. 0:00 – Newscast.  10:14 – Partnership aims to plug in electric trucks. 25:09 – Another turnpike goes to open road tolling. 40:09 – Spending bill would ban speed limiter requirement.

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you'll hear the Court's opinion in Perez v Sturgis Public Schools.  In this case, the court considered this issue: Do the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (I-D-E-A) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) require a student to exhaust his administrative proceedings against the school district even when such proceedings would be futile? The case was decided on March 21, 2023. The Supreme Court declined to exempt a highly-compensated worker, paid on a daily basis with no guarantee of a weekly amount, from the Fair Labor Standards Act's overtime pay requirements. Justice Kagan delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Sotomayor, Barrett, and Jackson joined. Justice Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Kavanaugh filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Alito joined. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.  --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

Send us a Text Message.In today's episode, we're unraveling a case that blends social media, workplace rights, and a touch of constitutional debate. Chuck and John explore how Bevins & Son Inc. found themselves embroiled in a Department of Labor lawsuit over unpaid wages and social media retaliation. Discover how a Facebook post turned a wage dispute into a federal case, challenging the boundaries of employer speech and employee protections under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Tune in for a compelling tale of digital age pitfalls and essential lessons for HR professionals.In the HR News segment, the team touches on the following topics and more:Skills vs Experience in hiringMillennials are done asking for PTO and always being availableRacial discrimination in hiring brought to lightSupport the Show.The Ultimate Book of HR Checklists – Getting HR Right: Your Step-by-Step Reference for Avoiding Costly Mistakes. Go to HRChecklists.com (On sale - take $100 off ...only $79 ) Certified and approved for 3 SHRM Recertification Credits.Join the HR Team of One Community on Facebook or visit TeamAtHRstories.com and sign up for emails so you can be the first to know about new things we have coming up.You can also follow us on Instagram and TikTok at @HRstoriesPodcast Don't forget to rate our podcast, it really helps other people find it!Do you have a situation or topic you'd like the team to discuss? Are you interested in having Chuck or John talk to your team or Emcee your event? You can reach the Team at Email@TeamAtHRStories.com for suggestions and inquiries.The viewpoints expressed by the characters in the stories are not necessarily that of The Team at HR Stories. The stories are shared to present various, real-world scenarios and share how they were handled by policy and, at times, law. Chuck and John are not lawyers and always recommend working with an employment lawyer to address concerns.

Merriam-Webster's Word of the Day for May 31, 2024 is: foist • FOIST • verb Foist, which is almost always used with on or upon, is used when someone forces another person to accept something, usually something that is not good or is not wanted. Foist can also mean “to pass off as genuine or worthy.” // I don't want to foist anything on you, but if you like this old quilt you're welcome to have it. // Faulty parts have been foisted on unwitting car owners. See the entry > Examples: “Since the passage of the Fair Labor Standards Act during the New Deal era, employers have had to pay most of their workers for 40 hours of work even when business was slow. That was just the cost of doing business, a risk capitalists bore in exchange for the upside potential of profit. Now, however, employers foist that risk onto their lowest-paid workers: Part-time employees, not shareholders, have to pay the price when sale volumes fluctuate.” — Adelle Waldman, The New York Times, 19 Feb. 2024 Did you know? That the word foist is commonly used today to mean “to force another to accept by stealth or deceit” makes sense given its original—now obsolete—use in talking about a bit of literal sleight of hand. When it first rolled into English in the mid-1500s, foist was all about dice, dice, baby, referring to palming—that is, concealing in one's hand a phony die so as to secretly introduce it into a game at a convenient time. The action involved in this cheating tactic reflects the etymology of foist: the word is believed to have come from the obsolete Dutch verb vuisten, meaning “to take into one's hand.” Vuisten in turn comes from vuyst, the Middle Dutch word for “fist,” which itself is distantly related to the Old English ancestor of fist. By the late 16th century, foist was being used in English to mean “to insert surreptitiously,” and it quickly acquired the “force to accept” meaning that is most familiar today.

In this case, the court considered this issue: Is a supervisor who makes over $200,000 annually, calculated on a daily basis, entitled to overtime pay, despite a regulation that carves out an exception for highly paid executives? The case was decided on February 22, 2023. The Supreme Court declined to exempt a highly-compensated worker, paid on a daily basis with no guarantee of a weekly amount, from the Fair Labor Standards Act's overtime pay requirements. Justice Kagan delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Sotomayor, Barrett, and Jackson joined. Justice Gorsuch filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Kavanaugh filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Alito joined. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

This week on Paychex THRIVE, class is in session with Shefali Milczarek-Desai, a distinguished scholar and associate professor of law at the University of Arizona. She joins Gene to explore the complex subject of worker classifications as understanding its intricacies is more than a compliance exercise — it's an operational necessity. Shefali provides insights into recent changes in worker classification regulations, particularly focusing on new rules surrounding independent contractors, bringing attention to their impact on wages, benefits, and protections. This episode also explores the legal and financial implications of misclassification, along with strategies to avoid it. This is one class you don't want to skip.   Topics include: 00:00: Episode preview and welcome 01:22: Introduction of Professor Shefali Milczarek-Desai 05:24: Introduction of worker classification discussion and rule changes 06:57: Explanation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and its implementation 10:52: Navigating the six factors for determining worker classification at the federal and state levels 15:02: Defining independent contractors vs. employees 17:03: Reviewing the Economic Realities Test 20:27: Department of Labor and IRS role in worker classification 22:15: Advice for business owners on navigating worker classification rules 26:25: Consequences of misclassification 28:41: Wrap up and thank you   DISCLAIMER: The information presented in this podcast, and that is further provided by the presenter, should not be considered legal or accounting advice, and should not substitute for legal, accounting, or other professional advice in which the facts and circumstances may warrant. We encourage you to consult legal counsel as it pertains to your own unique situation(s) and/or with any specific legal questions you may have.

The U.S. Department of Labor's Final Rule increases the minimum salary requirements for white-collar exemptions from minimum wage and overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

NCLA has filed a Complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, challenging the U.S. Department of Labor's vague new independent contractor rule. Promulgated earlier this year, the rule distorts the standard for determining if someone hired by a company can be classified as an independent contractor, instead of an employee subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act's (FLSA) wage and hour requirements. Representing the family-owned company Colt & Joe Trucking, NCLA asks the court to overturn this rule, which leaves small businesses like theirs completely unable to hire independent contractors without risking FLSA liability. Vec, Mark, and Jenin discuss the case in this latest episode. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

After a long wait and a great deal of speculation, on April 23, 2024, we received the highly anticipated final rule from the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) regarding the Fair Labor Standards Act's (FLSA) salary-level threshold for the “white-collar” exemptions to overtime requirements. The DOL's final rule expands overtime pay protections to over 4 million workers by changing the FLSA's exemptions to overtime eligibility. Listen in as we discuss what this means for employers, how they can comply and more. Subscribe to our podcast today to stay up to date on employment issues from law experts worldwide. Host: Tara Stingley (email) (Cline Williams Wright Johnson & Oldfather, LLP / Nebraska)Guest Speaker: Beth Liner (email) (Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC / Louisiana)Support the Show.Register on the ELA website here to receive email invitations to future programs.

This Day in Legal History:On May 6, 1882, a pivotal moment in U.S. immigration history occurred with the signing of the Chinese Exclusion Act by President Chester A. Arthur. This federal law marked the first and only time that the United States explicitly barred a specific ethnic or national group from immigrating to the country, specifically targeting Chinese laborers. The Act not only prevented Chinese workers from entering the U.S. but also prohibited them from becoming U.S. citizens, denying them the legal rights and protections afforded to citizens.The enactment of the Chinese Exclusion Act was driven by widespread anti-Chinese sentiment in the Western U.S., where economic competition, racial prejudice, and cultural misunderstandings had stoked public and political pressure against Chinese immigrants. Labor movements, particularly on the Pacific Coast, rallied against Chinese laborers, who were often scapegoated for low wages and economic hardships experienced by white workers.Senator Joseph Hawley of Connecticut stood as a vocal opponent of the Act, predicting its harsh judgment by future generations. His prophetic criticism highlighted the injustice embedded in the legislation, foreseeing its negative historical assessment. Indeed, the Act was seen in hindsight as a significant breach of American ideals regarding immigration and equality.The Chinese Exclusion Act laid the groundwork for subsequent restrictive immigration policies. It was not until December 17, 1943, amid World War II and shifting geopolitical alliances, that the Magnuson Act was passed by Congress at the behest of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. This Act repealed the Chinese Exclusion laws, albeit with limited Chinese immigration still imposed, and allowed Chinese residents in the U.S. to become naturalized citizens, signaling a slow transformation in American immigration policy towards inclusivity. Today, the Chinese Exclusion Act is often studied as a stark example of racially discriminatory legislation, reminding us of the ongoing journey toward broader civil rights and equality in America.The U.S. Labor Department has introduced a new rule to expand overtime protections, which is causing concern among employers about potential legal challenges similar to those experienced in 2016. Previously, an attempt to increase overtime eligibility was halted by federal courts just days before its implementation, causing confusion for businesses that had already adjusted pay and staffing. The current rule aims to increase the salary threshold for overtime eligibility among "white collar" workers under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Starting July 1, employees making less than $43,888 annually will be eligible for overtime, expanding to less than $58,656 by January 1, capturing an additional 4 million workers.Employers face the choice of either raising salaries to maintain exemption or restructuring staffing to manage overtime costs. The new rule represents a significant increase from the current threshold of $35,568, with a projected economic impact including a $1.5 billion annual income shift from employers to workers. This change not only increases wages through overtime but also by encouraging salary raises to keep certain employees exempt. Despite the risk of legal setbacks, businesses are advised to prepare for the changes, assessing their economic and cultural impacts and making necessary adjustments. This rule is also expected to positively affect the workforce by potentially increasing hiring and converting part-time jobs to full-time positions.The substantial changes in salary thresholds affect millions of workers, making it a crucial legal and economic issue.Employers Mull OT Rule Compliance Strategy Despite Legal Déjà VuIn Massachusetts, the practice of using six-person juries in civil cases, initially a necessity during the pandemic, is finding continued favor among litigants, lawyers, and judges due to its efficiency. The state's Supreme Judicial Court had mandated smaller juries as a temporary measure but reverted to the standard twelve-person juries in January. Despite this, the legal community is less insistent on the larger jury size, recognizing the speed and cost-effectiveness of smaller juries, especially given the ongoing backlog of cases caused by court closures during the pandemic.Judges and attorneys have observed that smaller juries expedite the trial process, from jury selection to trial proceedings, as they reduce logistical complications like scheduling conflicts among jurors. For example, Massachusetts Superior Court Judge Peter Krupp noted his positive experiences with juries of six to eight members, highlighting their efficiency in managing cases. Additionally, the flexibility in jury size is seen as a tool to help clear the dockets and maintain the flow of judicial processes.While there is some concern about the potential impact of smaller juries on trial outcomes, with opinions varying depending on whether a party has the burden of proof, the consensus is that smaller juries do not inherently disadvantage either side. They also minimize the risk of a hung jury by reducing the number of jurors who might disagree. Nonetheless, the importance of preserving critical jury selection processes, like peremptory challenges and thorough voir dire, is emphasized to ensure that smaller juries remain fair and unbiased.Overall, the shift towards smaller juries is seen as a practical adaptation that balances judicial efficiency with the need for fairness in the legal process, suggesting that this practice may continue to be utilized to manage the caseload effectively while addressing the constraints of the judicial system.Massachusetts Judges, Trial Bar Embrace Six-Person JuriesBerkshire Hathaway, the conglomerate headed by Warren Buffett, faces significant legal challenges regarding its utility business, particularly with wildfires in Oregon. Greg Abel, recognized as Buffett's likely successor, stated during Berkshire's annual shareholder meeting that all litigation against the utility, specifically targeting PacifiCorp, is baseless and will be contested. This statement follows a recent lawsuit where 1,000 victims claimed $30 billion in damages, alleging PacifiCorp's responsibility for the 2020 Oregon wildfires. This comes in addition to $825 million already paid or owed by PacifiCorp for other related wildfire claims.Abel acknowledged that managing wildfire risks has been a substantial challenge, marking the first time such issues have caused considerable financial strain on one of Berkshire's utilities. Despite methods available to utilities to mitigate wildfire risks—such as insulating wires, managing vegetation, and burying transmission lines—the practice of shutting off power during high-risk scenarios was not initially adopted by PacifiCorp. Abel noted that the cultural focus at Berkshire's utility companies had been on maintaining power supply, especially to critical services like hospitals and fire stations, even during the wildfires.Recently, legislative actions in Utah have allowed utilities to impose surcharges to fund wildfire prevention and limit liability on certain claims, which Abel referred to as the "gold standard." Moving forward, Berkshire is adjusting its policies to shut off power proactively during wildfires and is investing cautiously in its utility operations to enhance their safety and reliability without unnecessary expenditure. Abel emphasized the importance of disciplined investment in this area, reflecting Buffett's philosophy of avoiding further loss by not investing additional resources unwisely.Berkshire executive calls wildfire claims against its utility business unfounded | ReutersThe United Auto Workers (UAW) successfully ratified a new labor agreement with Daimler Truck, continuing its recent series of successful negotiations that began with the Detroit Three automakers last fall. This progress in labor negotiations underscores a significant period of union activity aimed at expanding UAW's influence within the auto industry, especially targeting non-union U.S. factories primarily owned by foreign automakers.A significant milestone was achieved when workers at Volkswagen's Chattanooga plant in Tennessee voted to join the UAW, an effort led by UAW President Shawn Fain to unionize American factories operated by overseas companies. This victory is part of a broader strategy to address worker conditions and wages across the industry, notably as the UAW sets its sights on upcoming union votes, such as the one at the Mercedes assembly plant in Alabama scheduled between May 13 and May 17.The timeline of UAW activities highlights aggressive organizing efforts and strategic negotiations over the past year, marked by notable wage increases across various companies and successful contract negotiations impacting around 150,000 U.S. workers. These efforts are part of a larger UAW campaign to enhance worker rights and compensation in the traditionally non-union sectors of the U.S. auto industry, signaling a potentially transformative period for labor relations in this sector.UAW workers ratify deal with Daimler as focus shifts to voting at Mercedes | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Liz and Andrew Torrez catch up with Trump's election lawyers. Where are they now, and why isn't it the hoosegow? Then a deep dive into the Biden administration's plan to reschedule marijuana. But first, Donald Trump has nothing but contempt for this court!   Links:   Trump Contempt Order https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/D.O.motion4contempt-FINAL.pdf    Eastman Disciplinary Order https://discipline.calbar.ca.gov/portal/DocumentViewer/Index/UTKQ_Y63MDG4l4uhXSVCPqiU-at38jxNGUYub4sJpbGYEMPf_DmMRzCZgpvdUiQob9K9TKikC0XkAwVvafs3DPj9GHLcAlR9sE7K6hP1jE41?caseNum=SBC-23-O-30029&docType=Order%20/%20Ruling&docName=Ruling%20on%20Motion%20-%20Denied&docTypeId=13&isVersionId=False&p=0    Michigan appellate order on sanctions https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca6.142572/gov.uscourts.ca6.142572.43.2.pdf   “Off the charts low” polling https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna148170   Fair Labor Standards Act https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/chapter-8   DOL Final Rule, 29 CFR Part 541 https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/WHD/flsa/ot-541-final-rule.pdf   FTC Act of 1914 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/chapter-2/subchapter-I   FTC Final Rule, 16 CFR Part 910 https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/noncompete-rule.pdf   Jimmy Johns noncompete https://www.huffpost.com/entry/jimmy-johns-non-compete_n_5978180   Amazon noncompete https://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3543196/AmazonContract.0.pdf   21 U.S.C. 812 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/812   Congressional Review Act https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/part-I/chapter-8 Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod Patreon: patreon.com/LawAndChaosPod  

Miller Johnson Attorneys Rebecca Strauss and Sarah Willey discuss a change in the Fair Labor Standards Act that will gradually increase the minimum salary for exempt employees.

This Day in Legal History: Harlan Fiske Stone DiesOn April 22, 1946, the United States Supreme Court lost one of its distinguished jurists, Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone, who died unexpectedly at the age of 73 while still serving on the bench. Appointed as Chief Justice in 1941 by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Stone had originally been nominated to the Court as an Associate Justice in 1925 by President Calvin Coolidge. His tenure as Chief Justice was marked by a strong commitment to the principles of judicial restraint and a profound respect for the Constitution.Stone's legal philosophy was notably pragmatic and centered on a belief in judicial deference to the decisions of Congress and the executive, except in clear cases of constitutional violation. This approach was reflective of his broader views on the role of the judiciary in American democracy, emphasizing that courts should not interfere with policy decisions unless absolutely necessary. Under his leadership, the Court navigated through complex issues including war-time rights, separation of powers, and economic regulation.Chief Justice Stone is particularly remembered for his opinion in the landmark case of United States v. Darby in 1941, which upheld the Fair Labor Standards Act and marked a departure from the Court's earlier resistance to extensive federal regulation of the economy. This decision demonstrated his nuanced understanding of the balance between state and federal powers and his support for broader legislative authority in economic matters.During his time as Chief Justice, Stone also oversaw the filling of all seats on the Court, shaping its composition and, indirectly, its jurisprudence. He was instrumental in fostering a collegial atmosphere among the justices, despite the ideological differences that often characterized the Court's deliberations.Stone's sudden death, from a cerebral hemorrhage suffered during a public session of the Court, marked a dramatic close to a career deeply embedded in the fabric of American legal history. His death underscored his dedication to his role, having served until his very last moments. His legacy is reflected in the decisions and directions the Court took under his stewardship, especially in the affirmation of federal power and the protection of civil liberties.Harlan Fiske Stone's era as Chief Justice was a pivotal period in the Supreme Court's history, reflecting a transition in American jurisprudence from strict constitutional literalism to a more flexible, interpretative approach that considered the realities of a changing society. His leadership helped steer the Court through the turbulence of the Great Depression, World War II, and the beginning of the Cold War, leaving a lasting impact on the judicial landscape of America.The U.S. Supreme Court is revisiting the issue of homelessness for the first time in 40 years, taking up the case of Grants Pass v. Johnson. This case emerges from a small city in Oregon, known for its natural beauty, where local ordinances impose fines on individuals sleeping in public with bedding, a matter now being evaluated under the Eighth Amendment's clause against cruel and unusual punishment. Grants Pass, despite its growth and beauty, lacks permanent public shelters, leading homeless advocates to support the removal of such punitive measures due to the absence of housing alternatives.The city argues that such issues should remain under local and state jurisdiction, allowing for more creative, localized solutions. Meanwhile, opposing voices, including various scholars and homelessness advocates, argue that these laws unfairly penalize the involuntarily homeless and potentially shift focus from penalization to more constructive solutions like increasing housing availability. This case could set a significant legal precedent affecting how municipalities nationwide address homelessness.The Ninth Circuit Court previously struck down the Grants Pass ordinances, siding with those who argued that without sufficient shelter space, individuals have no choice but to sleep outside, thus making the city's fines for public sleeping inherently unjust. The Supreme Court's prior engagement with homelessness was decades ago, focusing more on protest rights than the broader implications of homelessness laws.With homelessness rates at a record high across the U.S., the outcome of this case could redefine the legal landscape surrounding how cities manage their homeless populations. It reflects a critical juncture where the judiciary may redefine the boundaries of local governance in dealing with social crises, especially when it comes to balancing punitive measures with human rights considerations.Supreme Court Tackles Homelessness for First Time in DecadesTop law firms are increasingly bypassing traditional on-campus recruiting events, opting to engage directly with potential recruits earlier in their academic careers. This shift, driven by the desire to secure top talent before competitors, involves firms offering positions to law students before they complete their first year, significantly ahead of the usual on-campus interviews (OCI) controlled by law schools and the National Association for Law Placement (NALP). As a result, firms like Morrison Foerster indicate that direct hires might comprise about half of their new class, as waiting for OCIs might cause them to miss out on desirable candidates.This trend has led to a snowball effect with other major firms like Weil Gotshal & Manges and Jones Day opening their applications for summer programs well before traditional timelines, sometimes as early as mid-April. This causes them to make hiring decisions based on a smaller academic record, compressing the timeline for law students to decide their career paths. Moreover, the pandemic has facilitated a shift towards virtual interviews, further speeding up the recruitment process and allowing more firm partners to participate without the logistical challenges of travel.However, this compressed timeline poses challenges both for students, who have less time to understand their legal careers fully, and for firms, which must ensure they are still hiring candidates who will succeed in the long term. To adapt, some firms, like Morrison Foerster, are considering incorporating new assessments or writing exercises into their interview processes.Law schools are also adjusting to this new landscape by moving their OCI sessions earlier, as seen at Howard University and other top schools like Yale and Stanford. This aligns more closely with the timing of firm applications, putting additional pressure on students to make quick decisions, often with incomplete information from their first year of studies.The changes in recruiting practices reflect a broader move towards a more aggressive, market-driven approach to hiring, emphasizing efficiency and early engagement with potential hires. This evolution in the legal recruitment field underscores the competitive nature of hiring for prestigious law firms and the significant impact these early decisions can have on the careers of young lawyers.Big Law Skips Ahead of On-Campus Recruiting in Race for TalentThe criminal trial of former U.S. President Donald Trump has commenced in New York, marking the first-ever trial of a former president. Trump faces 34 counts of falsifying business records, related to a $130,000 payment made to porn star Stormy Daniels by his former lawyer, Michael Cohen. This payment, intended to ensure Daniels' silence about an alleged sexual encounter with Trump, is accused of misleading voters during the critical final stages of the 2016 presidential campaign. Trump has denied the allegations, pleading not guilty to all charges.Prosecutors are presenting this case as part of a larger "catch and kill" strategy, where Trump, along with Cohen and David Pecker, former CEO of American Media, aimed to suppress damaging stories prior to the 2016 election. This strategy reportedly included payments to Daniels and former Playboy model Karen McDougal, both intended to prevent stories about Trump's extramarital affairs from surfacing. American Media, under Pecker's leadership, admitted to these practices as part of a non-prosecution agreement.The trial will feature testimony from Pecker and at least 20 other witnesses, with proceedings expected to last six to eight weeks. Cohen, a central figure in the case, may face credibility challenges due to his own legal history. Trump's defense argues that the payments were personal matters and not campaign-related expenditures.The legal battle unfolds as Trump remains a significant figure in American politics, actively campaigning for a return to the presidency in a tight race against Joe Biden. Despite the charges, Trump's political support among Republicans has surged. The trial's outcome could influence the broader political landscape, especially as Trump also faces other criminal charges related to different aspects of his political and post-presidential activities.Trump hush-money trial kicks off with opening statements in New York | ReutersTikTok has voiced concerns about a bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives that could lead to a ban of the app if its Chinese owner, ByteDance, does not divest its stake within a specified timeframe. The bill, which saw a significant majority approval in the House, is now headed to the Senate and has the support of President Joe Biden. U.S. officials, including members from both major political parties and the Biden administration, argue that TikTok poses a national security risk due to potential data sharing with the Chinese government.TikTok, however, has refuted claims that it has shared or would share U.S. user data and insists that the bill infringes on the free speech rights of its 170 million American users. The company has likened the move to censorship, echoing its response to a previous state-level ban in Montana. Additionally, the American Civil Liberties Union and other free speech advocates have criticized the bill, suggesting it does not effectively counter the broader issues of data privacy and foreign disinformation efforts.Senator Mark Warner expressed concerns on national television about TikTok being used as a propaganda tool by the Chinese government, while others argue for the necessity of more robust data privacy legislation rather than a ban. Representative Ro Khanna mentioned that a ban might not hold up under legal scrutiny due to constitutional free speech protections. Amidst these debates, the bill aims to accelerate the divestiture process by setting a firmer deadline for ByteDance, underlining the ongoing geopolitical tensions surrounding technology and data security between the U.S. and China.TikTok says US House bill that could ban app would 'trample' free speech | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

The Honorable Mark Takano of the U.S. House of Representatives Congressman Mark Takano recently introduced a bill called the Thirty-Two-Hour Workweek Act, which would amend the definition of the workweek in the federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. If passed into law, it would require overtime pay for anyone who works more than 32 hours in one week, down from the current 40. Congressman Takano explains why we might have AI, the COVID-19 pandemic and JPMorgan Chase chairman and CEO Jamie Dimon to thank for the U.S. being closer than ever to a four-day workweek. The Democrat from California also shares how a 32-hour workweek might work in practice and how it could lead to the creation of more jobs, higher pay, and unexpected economic activity. Finally, he outlines what's needed for everything to become a reality. https://bit.ly/blindpodcast

The 32-hour workweek. Last Wednesday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) introduced a bill to federally mandate a 32-hour workweek. Sanders's bill is the Senate companion to a bill introduced by Rep. Mark Takano (D-CA) in the House, the Thirty-Two Hour Workweek Act, which would amend the Fair Labor Standards Act to reduce the standard workweek from 40 hours to 32, lowering the maximum hours threshold for overtime pay for non-exempt employees. Those exempt would include computer professionals, farmworkers, sales employees, and many other occupations. The proposal follows the United Auto Workers (UAW) strikes in the fall, where one of the labor demands was for a 32-hour workweek. You can read today's podcast⁠ ⁠⁠here⁠⁠⁠, our “Under the Radar” story ⁠here⁠ and today's “Have a nice day” story ⁠here⁠. You can watch our latest YouTube video, The Zionist Case for a Ceasefire, here. On Sunday, we released Episode 1 of our first ever limited podcast series: The Undecideds. We're following five voters — all Tangle readers — who are undecided about who they are going to vote for in the 2024 election. In Episode 1, we introduce you to those voters. Today's clickables: A couple of notes (0:54), Quick hits (2:01), Today's story (4:12), Right's take (7:20), Left's take (9:39), Isaac's take (13:20), Listener question (18:44), Under the Radar (21:29), Numbers (22:26), Have a nice day (23:41) You can subscribe to Tangle by clicking here or drop something in our tip jar by clicking here.  Last week, we released more tickets to our New York City event on April 17th, and they got gobbled up quickly. Our general admission tickets are now sold out; but we still have some VIP seats left for purchase. Get them here.  Tangle is looking for a part-time intern to work as an assistant to our YouTube and podcast producer. This is a part-time, paid position that would be ideal for a college student or recent college graduate looking to get real-world deadline experience in the industry. Applicants should have: Proficiency in Adobe Premiere — After Effects a plus. Minimum of one year of video editing (Adobe Premiere) Minimum of one year of audio editing and mixing (Any DAW) Good organizational and communication skills Understanding of composition and aesthetic choices Self-sufficiency in solving technical problems Proficiency in color grading and vertical video formatting (preferred, not required) To apply, email your resume and a few paragraphs about why you are applying to jon@readtangle.com and isaac@readtangle.com with the subject line "Editor opening" The job listing is posted here. Preference will be given to candidates in the greater Philadelphia area.  What do you think of the 32-hour workweek? Let us know! Our podcast is written by Isaac Saul and edited and engineered by Jon Lall. Music for the podcast was produced by Diet 75.  Our newsletter is edited by Managing Editor Ari Weitzman, Will Kaback, Bailey Saul, Sean Brady, and produced in conjunction with Tangle's social media manager Magdalena Bokowa, who also created our logo. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/tanglenews/message

NEW Federal Law goes into effect March 11, 2024. This amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act could change the industry for good.  Join us in the trenches to adapt quickly and thrive: https://www.rsra.org/join or call/text 303-222-7133 DISCLAIMER: I am not an attorney. I am not a CPA. What I've shared in this video is what I've discovered in my early research and some assumptions could be wrong. It is your responsibility to understand the law. Consult with your Attorney. =============Join the Roofing & Solar Reform Alliance to OutSell, OutGrow, and OutCompete the Rest as We STOMP The Scum Out!     -  Sales Training & Ongoing Support     -  Endorsement & Differentiation     -  Mentorship & CollaborationBecome one of us: https://www.rsra.org/joinText ‘DEMO' 303-222-7133 or call.FREE Training Center: https://theroofstrategist.com/free-training-centerGet My Book: https://a.co/d/7tsW3LxCONTACTCall/Text: 303-222-7133Email: help@roofstrategist.comFOLLOW ADAM BENSMANhttps://www.facebook.com/adam.bensman/https://www.facebook.com/RoofStrategist/https://www.instagram.com/roofstrategist/https://www.tiktok.com/@roofstrategisthttps://www.linkedin.com/in/roofstrategist/#roofstrategist #roofsales #d2d  #solar #solarsales #roofing #roofer #canvassing #hail #wind #hurricane #sales #roofclaim #rsra #roofingandsolarreformalliance #reformers

On January 18, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce. These cases will determine whether Chevron v. NRDC, a 1984 case in which the Court held that courts should defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes, should be overturned.This program will discuss the potential effect of the decision on new rulemaking, specifically in labor law. The discussion will cover how deference has been applied in the past and how Loper and Relentless may impact recent rulemaking. The program will focus on a series of recent rulemaking, including the Section 541 Exemption Revision of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the NLRB's modified Independent Contractor Standard, the NLRB Joint Employer rule, and the FTC proposal to ban Non Compete Clauses.Please join us as an expert panel addresses recent rulemaking and more in pursuit of understanding the potential fallout after Loper and Relentless.To learn more about Loper's potential impact on Labor Law, check out Alex MacDonald's article on the subject here. Featuring:Alexander Thomas MacDonald, Shareholder LittlerHon. Tammy Dee McCutchen, Former Administrator, Wage and Hour Division, U.S. Department of Labor

During Lydon Johnson's 4 years in office, his administration shepherded through: The Civil Rights Act, The Voting Rights Act, The Economic Opportunity Act, Upward Bound, The Job Corps, Head Start, Community Action Agencies, The Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Medicare and Medicaid, The National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities, The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, PBS, and NPR, The Urban Mass Transportation Act, Cigarette Labelling and Advertising Act, The Motor Vehicle Safety Act, The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, The Child Safety Act of 1966, The Water Quality Act, The Housing and Urban Development Act, The Fair Labor Standards Act, and many many other programs designed to eliminate poverty in America.  By eliminating poverty, he didn't only mean financial poverty, yet this isn't to say that LBJ ignored the economics at all. You might recall from our first episode Johnson saying, "This administration here and now declares unconditional war on poverty in America.” But we still see poverty in America today, so does that mean the war on poverty failed?  In this episode, we'll look at the legacies of the Great Society, the War on Poverty, and LBJ's Presidency.  And we'll ask, what did the policies that came out of his administration mean for the American Safety Net and why aren‘t more people aware of LBJ's social policy legacy?  Special thanks to our guests for this episode, Erine Gray, Guian McKee, Martha Baily, Julian Zelizer, Mark Updegrove, H.W. Brands, and Robert Caro. Thank you as well to The Miller Center at the University of Virginia, The American Presidency Project at The University of California Santa Barbara, The Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum, and The LBJ Presidential Library and Museum in Austin Texas for their consultation and use of archived materials.  Michael Zapruder arranged and composed the music for this show, and played guitar, with Jeff Olsen on drums, Mike St. Clair on bass, and Sam Lipman on keyboards. Executive Producer, Rebecca McInroy.  Advising Editor, Jim Tuttle Intern, Frances Cutter      

The first child labor law in America went on the books almost 200 years ago, and federal labor protections were enshrined in the Fair Labor Standards Act nearly 100 years later in 1938. So almost a century after the passage of the FLSA, why are we seeing reports of children working in factories, slaughterhouses, and even at McDonald's? Meanwhile, state legislators are introducing bills across the country that further weaken child labor protections. Historian Beth English and Vox senior policy reporter Rachel Cohen explain. References: The Republican push to weaken child labor laws, explained | Vox Alone and Exploited, Migrant Children Work Brutal Jobs Across the U.S. | The New York Times 10-year-olds among hundreds of children found working at McDonald's restaurants | NBC News  Credits: Jonquilyn Hill, host Sofi LaLonde, producer Brandon McFarland, engineer A.M. Hall, editorial director of talk podcasts Want to support The Weeds? Please consider making a donation to Vox: bit.ly/givepodcasts Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices