Labor & Employment Developments Blog

A recent $24.75 million class action settlement in Lawson v. Grubhub, Inc., marks yet another milestone in the ongoing debate over gig-economy worker classification. This settlement serves as a reminder to companies of all sizes that how they classify workers can carry significant legal and financial consequences.

Case Overview

Grubhub recently settled a decade-long class action lawsuit in California, in which a former delivery driver accused it of misclassifying him as an independent contractor rather than an employee. After years of litigation, including multiple appeals ...

Social media has become an unavoidable part of society and an unavoidable issue in the workplace. While online posts may seem personal, a single tweet, post, or comment can quickly escalate into a workplace issue. With more than 70% of Americans active on at least one social media platform, employers should ensure their social media policies are carefully drafted to protect business interests while preserving employee rights.

Recently, a federal court in the Northern District of California issued an important ruling in the closely followed Mobley v. Workday putative class action lawsuit alleging that Workday, a cloud-based software vendor specializing in financial management and human capital management, violated federal discrimination laws. In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs claim Workday’s AI hiring platform screens out applicants over age 40 in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”).

Most employers understand their obligation to prevent discrimination and harassment at work, and the significant consequences that can come if such treatment is allowed to occur. But what if an employee alleges harassment not from a co-worker, but from a company’s customer or other non-employee? In a decision announced last week, the 6^th Circuit (covering Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee) announced a new framework for reviewing these claims, one which conflicts with official agency guidance and other courts across the country.

Bivens v. Zep, Inc. involved claims ...

From resume screening bots to AI tools that assess facial expressions in interviews, artificial intelligence is rapidly changing how employers make decisions about candidates and employees. Artificial intelligence (AI) and automated decision systems (ADS) are reshaping the entire employment lifecycle, from the moment a job posting goes live to the day of separation.

On July 4, 2025, President Donald Trump signed the “One Big Beautiful Bill” into law. Among its sweeping provisions are two significant changes for wage and hour compliance that employers should be aware of: the creation of federal income tax deductions for employee tips and certain overtime compensation. Both changes are poised to impact businesses and workers beginning in the 2025 tax year and lasting until 2028

On May 20, 2025, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) updated its Site-Specific Targeting (SST) inspection program. The SST inspection program is OSHA’s primary planned inspection initiative for non-construction workplaces with 20 or more employees. The updates are expected to increase on-site inspections in highly regulated sectors, such as warehousing, transportation, distribution, and healthcare. For non-construction workplaces, this update marks a significant shift in how OSHA prioritizes enforcement, relying more heavily on employer-reported injury and illness data or the lack thereof.

On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court lowered the bar for majority-group plaintiffs – ruling they are not required to meet a higher standard to bring reverse discrimination claims. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Servs. that members of majority groups alleging employment discrimination under Title VII need not meet a higher evidentiary standard. This decision invalidates the “background circumstances” rule previously applied by the Sixth Circuit, which required that majority-group plaintiffs demonstrate specific evidence suggesting their employer is an unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.

Understanding the scope and requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) has been an ongoing challenge for employers. A recent court decision has added to this complexity by clarifying the interpretation of what it means to be a “qualified individual” under the ADA. In Tudor v. Whitehall Central School District, the Second Circuit noted that the ADA was intended to offer broad protections to individuals with disabilities, and thus, should be interpreted accordingly. The Court held that an employee may still be considered a “qualified individual” entitled to reasonable accommodation under the ADA even if she can perform the essential functions of her job without reasonable accommodation. Thus, an employer is expected to provide reasonable accommodations to enhance an employee’s job performance in general. Providing reasonable accommodations are not tied to a person’s otherwise inability to perform the essential job functions.

As we previously reported, in April 2024 the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued its final regulations implementing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA). Among other things, the rule stated that employers may be required to accommodate employees for abortion, treating it as a pregnancy-related condition.