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 ...

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 April 23, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order entitled “Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy,” directing federal agencies to effectively end the use of “disparate impact” liability in enforcing anti-discrimination laws. This order marks a significant shift in how employers must assess their employment policies and practices, as well as how those policies and practices impact employees.

Over the course of the last year, employers have faced increased claims from employees testing what constitutes an actionable adverse action under the anti-discrimination provision of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”). Emboldened by the Supreme Court’s decision in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, 601 U.S. 346 (2024), employees have alleged that common employment practices from performance improvement plans (“PIPs”) to negative performance reviews left them “worse off,” and thus, constitute actionable adverse employment actions under Title VII. These claims have caused many employers to reconsider their past practices and policies. 

April marks Workplace Violence Awareness Month, a time dedicated to emphasizing the risks of workplace violence and necessary steps for prevention. This month serves as a crucial opportunity for employers to reassess their workplace violence policies, ensure compliance with evolving laws and regulations, and minimize liability.

On March 19, 2025, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Department of Justice issued guidance addressing unlawful discrimination related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”) in the workplace. Although DEI is not defined in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it has recently come under significant scrutiny. This guidance was released two days after the EEOC sent correspondence to certain large law firms requesting information regarding DEI-related employment practices.