-
Sep 30, 2024 | 
natlawreview.com | Kurt G. Larkin
On August 22, 2024, the Board ended its 50-year history of allowing consent orders in unfair labor practice cases. In Metro Health Inc. d/b/a Hospital Metropolitano Rio San Pedras, the Board held that: “in all pending and future unfair labor practice cases, the Board will not terminate the case by accepting or approving a consent order.”The Board’s decision marks a reversal of 50 years of precedent.
-
Sep 30, 2024 | 
lexology.com | Kurt G. Larkin |Tyler S. Laughinghouse
On August 22, 2024, the Board ended its 50-year history of allowing consent orders in unfair labor practice cases. In Metro Health Inc. d/b/a Hospital Metropolitano Rio San Pedras, the Board held that: “in all pending and future unfair labor practice cases, the Board will not terminate the case by accepting or approving a consent order.”The Board’s decision marks a reversal of 50 years of precedent.
-
Aug 2, 2024 | 
natlawreview.com | Kurt G. Larkin
The US Supreme Court’s recent decision in Loper Bright v. Raimondo has reset the regulatory landscape in the United States. The court’s decision overturned the longstanding Chevron deference doctrine (“Chevron deference”) that courts had relied upon for almost 40 years when evaluating whether to defer to federal agency rulemaking and case adjudications.
-
May 6, 2024 | 
natlawreview.com | Kurt G. Larkin
On April 23, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, a case which examines what test the federal courts should apply when considering whether to grant preliminary injunctions under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act. Here’s what employers need to know while waiting for the Court to issue their opinion.
-
May 6, 2024 | 
lexology.com | Kurt G. Larkin |Elizabeth King
On April 23, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, a case which examines what test the federal courts should apply when considering whether to grant preliminary injunctions under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act. Here’s what employers need to know while waiting for the Court to issue their opinion.
-
Mar 14, 2024 | 
natlawreview.com | Alan Arville |Amy F. Lerman |Kurt G. Larkin |Elizabeth King
The bill that passed in the U.S. House of Representatives potentially banning TikTok’s use in the U.S. is not a novel idea. The federal government has already banned TikTok’s use for federal employees, some states have banned its use for state employees, and the state of Montana has attempted to ban its use in the state, which was litigated by ByteDance and is presently on appeal.
-
Mar 14, 2024 | 
natlawreview.com | Alan Arville |Amy F. Lerman |Kurt G. Larkin |Elizabeth King
Yesterday, with broad bipartisan support, the U.S. House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly (352-65) to support the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, designed to begin the process of banning TikTok’s use in the United States. This is music to my ears. See a previous blog post on this subject. The Act would penalize app stores and web hosting services that host TikTok while it is owned by Chinese-based ByteDance.
-
Mar 14, 2024 | 
natlawreview.com | Alan Arville |Amy F. Lerman |Kurt G. Larkin |Elizabeth King
Finding the right CRM system for your law firm can be trickier than catching a leprechaun. There are many options to consider, each with its own unique features and functions. Plus, a failed CRM implementation can be extremely costly, in financial terms, and in lost time and credibility, and you don’t often get a second chance at CRM success. This is why it is so important to select the right CRM the first time around.
-
Mar 14, 2024 | 
natlawreview.com | Kurt G. Larkin
Update: On March 8, 2024, the Eastern District of Texas granted summary judgment in favor of the Chamber of Commerce and struck down the NLRB’s new final joint employer rule. The opinion conducts a thorough review of the history of the joint employer standard and ultimately concludes that the Final Rule is contrary to the common law.
-
Mar 14, 2024 | 
natlawreview.com | Kurt G. Larkin |Elizabeth King |Nathan Beaver |Nicholas Johnson
On March 7, 2024, the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) issued its judgment in the case of Endemol Shine (Case C‑604/22). In this case, the CJEU was called upon to assess whether oral disclosure of information could be considered as processing of personal data under the EU General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) and to clarify the relationship between personal data protection and public access to documents.
