Class action arbitration is such a departure from ordinary, bilateral arbitration of individual disputes that courts may compel class action arbitration only where the parties expressly declare their intention to be bound by such actions in their arbitration agreement, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in a 5-4 decision. Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, No. 17-988 (Apr. 24, 2019).

Whether LGTBQ employees are protected from employment discrimination by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act will be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court next term.

The Court has agreed to hear three cases to determine:

September 30, 2019, is the earliest the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) could collect pay data from employers in the EEO-1 report, the agency advised the federal district court in the District of Columbia on April 3, 2019. National Women’s Law Center et al. v. Office of Management and Budget et al., No. 17-2458.

The EEOC also stated its intention to adjust the collection deadline for 2018 pay data (Component 2) through that date. The deadline to submit race, ethnicity, and gender data (Component 1) remains May 31, 2019.

This is the final article in our four-part series titled “Rethinking Pay Equity,” designed to provide practical guidance to help employers understand and address the many new rules, regulations, and best practices around pay equity in preparation for Equal Pay Day 2019. This article focuses on the increasing pressures on employers to publicly address pay equity and the issues to be considered in deciding whether to go public about pay.

This is the third article in our four-part series titled “Rethinking Pay Equity,” designed to provide practical guidance to help employers understand and address the many new rules, regulations, and best practices around pay equity in preparation for Equal Pay Day 2019. This article focuses on some of the most common causes of pay differences and how successful the common explanations for the differences are likely to be in the new equal pay landscape.

This is the second article in our four-part series titled “Rethinking Pay Equity,” designed to provide practical guidance to help employers understand and address the many new rules, regulations, and best practices around pay equity in preparation for Equal Pay Day 2019. This article focuses on identifying “who” will be compared for purposes of pay equity under federal and state fair pay laws. The four-part series will culminate in a complimentary webinar on April 2, Equal Pay Day 2019, by the Co-Chairs of the Jackson Lewis Pay Equity Resource Group, Joy Chin and Stephanie Lewis.

This is the first article in our four-part series titled “Rethinking Pay Equity,” a special series of legal alerts aimed at providing practical guidance to help employers address the many new rules, regulations, and best practices around equal pay in preparation for Equal Pay Day 2019. The series will culminate with a unique, complimentary webinar on April 2, Equal Pay Day, by the Co-Chairs of the Jackson Lewis Pay Equity Resource Group.

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has issued a new proposed rule raising the annual minimum salary requirements for the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) “white collar” overtime exemptions (executive, administrative, and professional). Under the new proposed rule, the salary level for the white collar exemptions will increase to $35,308, or $679 per week.

The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has held that in deciding whether an individual is an independent contractor or an employee, it will return to focusing on the extent to which the arrangement between the ostensible employer and the alleged employee provided an “entrepreneurial opportunity” to the individual, overruling a 2014 Board decision. SuperShuttle DFW, Inc., 367 NLRB No. 75 (Jan. 25, 2019).

1. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) reinstated its pre-2014 standard for determining whether an individual is an independent contractor or an employee. SuperShuttle DFW, Inc., 367 NLRB No. 75 (Jan. 25, 2019). The NLRB determined that the employer’s shuttle van drivers were not employees, but independent contractors. Thus, they were not covered by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), and therefore, they were not eligible to unionize.