Articles by Our Attorneys

The employment law update is back for the new year! In this edition, President Trump’s Executive Order has an immediate impact in EEO litigation, the Supreme Court gives a win to employers in wage and hour law, and Amazon runs afoul of labor relations law.  Read all about it in the January 2025 update. 

Federal Judges Halt Republican Attorneys General’s Challenges to EEOC Guidance and definition of Gender Dysphoria as Disability following Trump Executive Order 

A Tennessee federal judge rejected a motion by a coalition of Republican state attorneys general to pause U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidance on workplace harassment. U.S. District Judge Charles E. Atchley Jr. ruled that a recent executive order from President Donald Trump may have rendered the legal challenge moot. 

The states’ lawsuit, filed in May, argued that the EEOC exceeded its authority by requiring employers to accede to workers’ preferred gender identities in pronoun use, bathroom access, and dress codes. However, Trump’s January 20 executive order rescinded the guidance, prompting the judge to deny the motion for a preliminary injunction without prejudice. 

Judge Atchley emphasized that the legal landscape had changed, necessitating new briefs to reflect the executive order’s implications. He allowed the states to refile their motion within 21 days if they wished to continue pursuing injunctive relief. 

While Trump’s administration moved to roll back LGBTQ protections, Democratic EEOC commissioners opposed the changes and vowed to uphold anti-discrimination mandates.  The case is State of Tennessee et al. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission et al., case number 3:24-cv-00224, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. 

In a similar series of events, a Texas federal judge granted a stay in a Republican-led lawsuit challenging a Biden-era U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS) rule that defines gender dysphoria as a disability. U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix paused the case after HHS requested more time to evaluate the impact of a new executive order restricting “gender ideology.” 

The lawsuit, led by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and 16 other Republican attorneys general, claims HHS exceeded its authority under the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The court ordered both parties to file a joint status report by Feb. 25. 

That case is State of Texas et al. v. Becerra et al., case number 5:24-cv-00225, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. 

Supreme Court Rejects Heightened Evidence Standard for FLSA Exemptions 

In a unanimous decision sure to please employers, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) do not require a heightened burden of proof. The case, EMD Sales Inc. et al. v. Carrera et al., centered on whether a “clear and convincing evidence” standard should apply when determining overtime exemption classifications. Instead, the Court reaffirmed that the lower “preponderance of the evidence” standard remains the default. 

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the Court, rejected arguments advocating for a stricter standard, emphasizing that other critical workplace laws, such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, also adhere to the preponderance standard. The ruling overturned a Fourth Circuit decision that had previously required EMD Sales Inc. to prove the outside sales exemption under the higher standard. 

The Court clarified that departures from the preponderance standard occur only in three instances: when a statute explicitly demands it, when the Constitution requires it, or when Supreme Court precedent mandates it in cases involving severe government action. The decision ensures that wage and hour disputes under the FLSA align with general civil litigation principles, impacting future classification disputes across industries. 

Amazon Violated Workers’ Rights with Restrictive Communication Rules, NLRB Judge Rules 

A National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) judge ruled that Amazon unlawfully restricted workers’ communications on its internal MyVoice platform. Judge Michael Rosas found that Amazon’s policies violated the National Labor Relations Act by discouraging employees from sharing workplace concerns or union-related messages. 

Amazon’s MyVoice rules included provisions that prevented employees from sharing personal details or passing information to unions, which Judge Rosas deemed overly broad and ambiguous. The judge noted that prohibiting employees from sharing their own medical information could stifle discussions about workplace safety. 

Additionally, Amazon was found to have illegally disciplined worker Anthony Mundorff at its Deltona, Florida, facility for writing “OSHA” and union-related phrases on a work cart. The judge ruled that these writings were protected speech under the NLRA and ordered Amazon to remove the disciplinary action from Mundorff’s record. 

As part of the ruling, Amazon must rescind the unlawful MyVoice rules and post notices nationwide informing employees of their rights. The decision reinforces workers’ rights to engage in protected workplace advocacy without fear of retaliation, setting a significant precedent for labor relations in the tech and e-commerce industry. 

Jeff Burke is an attorney at MacElree Harvey, Ltd., working in the firm’s Employment and Litigation practice groups. Jeff counsels businesses and individuals on employment practices and policies, executive compensation, employee hiring and separation issues, non-competition and other restrictive covenants, wage and hour disputes, and other employment-related matters. Jeff represents businesses and individuals in employment litigation such as employment contract disputes, workforce classification audits, and discrimination claims based upon age, sex, race, religion, disability, sexual harassment, and hostile work environment.  Jeff also practices in commercial litigation as well as counsels business on commercial contract matters. 

October’s employment law update covers three key cases. Seventeen states are challenging a
rule defining “gender dysphoria” as an ADA disability, citing excessive costs. The DOJ supports
UPMC employees claiming wage suppression through noncompete agreements. Lastly, Cargill
workers won class action certification in a suit for unpaid COVID-19 screening time, impacting
wage rules for hourly staff. See the updates below.

17 States Sue Biden Administration Over New Rule Defining Gender Dysphoria as a Disability under ADA

Seventeen Republican attorneys general, led by Texas, have filed a lawsuit against the Biden administration, challenging a new rule from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that defines “gender dysphoria” as a federally recognized disability under the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The group points to the fact that Congress expressly excluded “transvestism”, “transsexualism” and “gender identity orders” from these laws’ protections when they were enacted, and argues that HHS exceeded its authority by unilaterally reinterpreting these definitions.  The states further argue that HHS improperly attempts to distinguish “gender dysphoria” from gender identity disorders, despite similarities in symptoms and diagnostic criteria.

In their complaint, the states further assert that the rule imposes an unrealistic and costly mandate, requiring that individuals with disabilities be accommodated in the most integrated settings, which could strain resources. They claim that for smaller states, fulfilling this requirement is financially unsustainable, projecting costs of at least $560 million annually. The rule also bars programs receiving federal funding from making treatment decisions based on stereotypes. The coalition is seeking a court ruling to block the rule’s implementation.

The case is State of Texas et al. v. Becerra et al., case number 5:24-cv-00225, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

Dept. of Justice backs Employee Antitrust Class Action against UPMC

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has thrown its support behind a class action lawsuit by University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) employees, who allege that UPMC used noncompete agreements and blacklists to limit their wages and prevent them from leaving the organization. The DOJ filed a statement with the Pennsylvania federal court, urging Judge Susan Paradise Baxter to reject UPMC’s request to dismiss the case. According to the DOJ, UPMC’s dismissal motion sets an unfairly high threshold for the plaintiffs, which could prevent similar labor market cases from reaching discovery.

The DOJ argues that UPMC’s standards would hinder employees from pursuing antitrust claims under the Sherman Act. It says that labor markets should be evaluated similarly to product markets in antitrust law. UPMC contends that the plaintiffs lack direct evidence of monopsony power, but the DOJ countered that such a strict standard isn’t necessary. The lawsuit, initially filed in January, accuses UPMC of using a restrictive system to suppress wages and working conditions. UPMC, however, denies the allegations, stating that its wages and benefits are competitive and supportive of its large workforce across Pennsylvania and neighboring states.

The case is Victoria Ross v. University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, case number 1:24-cv-00016, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

Dept. of Justice backs Employee Antitrust Class Action against UPMC

A Pennsylvania federal judge has certified a class of hourly Cargill workers in a lawsuit claiming the company failed to pay them for time spent undergoing COVID-19 screenings. U.S. District Judge Robert D. Mariani ruled in favor of plaintiffs Jennifer Villa and Susan Davidson, who argued that Cargill’s policy of unpaid COVID-19 checks violated the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA). The plaintiffs allege they were uncompensated not only for the screening time but also for the time spent walking between the building entrance and time clocks.

Cargill argued that the class was overly broad, citing varied COVID-19 screening times and different plant locations, but Judge Mariani found the common issue of compensability under the PMWA sufficient to unite the workers’ claims. He noted that the core question in the lawsuit is whether Cargill’s policies uniformly affected all employees, making class treatment appropriate.

The class action, which includes over 3,000 workers across Cargill’s Pennsylvania facilities, covers employees paid hourly and who worked 40 or more hours during a given week since July 2019. This certification, according to attorney Peter Winebrake, ensures Cargill’s employees have a fair chance to pursue their claims for wage rights.

The case is Villa et al. v. Cargill Meat Solutions Corp., case number 3:22-cv-01321, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

Jeff Burke is an attorney at MacElree Harvey, Ltd., working in the firm’s Employment and Litigation practice groups. Jeff counsels businesses and individuals on employment practices and policies, executive compensation, employee hiring and separation issues, non-competition and other restrictive covenants, wage and hour disputes, and other employment-related matters. Jeff represents businesses and individuals in employment litigation such as employment contract disputes, workforce classification audits, and discrimination claims based upon age, sex, race, religion, disability, sexual harassment, and hostile work environment.  Jeff also practices in commercial litigation as well as counsels business on commercial contract matters.