On June 23, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down New York’s requirement that individuals demonstrate an individualized need for protection to obtain a permit allowing them to carry a firearm for self-defense outside their home or business. In response, on July 1, 2022, Gov. Kathy Hochul signed new legislation – the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) – which modifies the requirements for obtaining a conceal and carry permit and prohibits the possession of firearms in areas deemed “sensitive” or “restricted.” Under the CCIA, places of employment and business constitute restricted areas in which the possession of firearms is only permitted with express permission from the property owner or lessee.

Read More >> Additional Developments to New York’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act

On July 1, 2022, Gov. Kathy Hochul signed new legislation in response to a U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down a law whereby applicants for permits to “conceal and carry” firearms had to show “good cause” as to why they should be issued such a permit. The new legislation—the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA)—modifies the requirements for obtaining a concealed carry permit and prohibits the possession of firearms in areas deemed “sensitive” or “restricted.” Restricted areas were defined as private property where the owner or lessee has not given explicit permission for individuals to possess firearms on the property, by posting signage or other means. Thus, under the law, firearms would be prohibited in places of employment except where explicit permission had been given.

Read More >> Decision Issued Restraining Enforcement of Significant Aspects of New Gun Legislation

On June 24, 2022, in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org., 2022 WL 2276808 (June 24, 2022), the U.S. Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade 410 U.S. 113 (1973) and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey 505 U.S. 833 (1992) and held that (i) the U.S. Constitution does not confer a right to abortion and (ii) the authority to regulate abortion is held by the states. The statute at issue in Dobbs was Mississippi’s Gestational Age Act, which banned abortion after 15 weeks except in a medical emergency or in the case of severe fetal abnormality. Employers across the nation must now determine how to evaluate and respond to the far-reaching implications of this decision.

Read More >> The Demise of Roe v. Wade: Employment and Benefits Considerations

On June 23, 2022, in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, the U.S. Supreme Court held that New York’s requirements for obtaining permits for the concealed carry of a firearm were unconstitutional in a decision authored by Justice Clarence Thomas. Since 1911, New York has prohibited individuals from possessing a firearm without a license. 

Read More >> New York Passes Gun Legislation in Response to Supreme Court Decision Overturning Licensing Restrictions for Concealed Carry Permits

The wait is over. On Jan.13, 2022, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision to stay the Occupational Health and Safety Administration’s (OSHA) vaccination or test emergency temporary standard (ETS), effectively blocking the enforcement of the ETS for the foreseeable future.

Read More >> Supreme Court Blocks Enforcement of OSHA’s Vax-or-Test Rule; What Now?

It seems that change is the only constant when it comes to OSHA’s Vax or Test Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS). Here is the current status:

The Supreme Court’s Decision is Pending

On Friday, Jan. 7, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding the ETS at a special session of the Court.¹ Challengers to the ETS requested that the Court issue a stay to stop the ETS before Jan. 10, stating that the mandate was overly broad and was a question that should be left to Congress or to be decided at the state-specific level. Though one cannot predict how the Court will rule, based on their line of questioning, a majority of the justices appeared to be skeptical of the ETS with Justice Alito quoting the late Justice Scalia when he described OSHA’s interpretation as “squeezing an elephant into a mousehole.” At the hearing, Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh focused on the Major Questions Doctrine.² The justices also focused on whether OSHA had the authority to mandate a vaccine that impacts not only the workplace, but also employees’ lives outside the workplace, and is, to quote Chief Justice Roberts, an “out-in-the-world issue.” Additionally, the justices floated the idea of issuing a brief administrative stay until they could make a decision. Solicitor General Prelogar, appearing for OSHA, obviously disagreed and said that the Jan. 10 deadline did not pose a major burden on businesses, except for imposing mask requirements. The Court has announced that it will be issuing “one or more opinions” on Jan. 13. It is unclear if one of these opinions will be with respect to the ETS. We are awaiting the Court’s decision and will keep you informed.

Read More >> Status Update on OSHA’s Vax or Test Mandate: Supreme Court’s Decision is Pending; First Compliance Date is Here; OSHA Clarifies Additional Questions on the Mandate

It seems that new details about the status of OSHA’s Vax or Test Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) are emerging daily! On Dec. 22, 2021, the United States Supreme Court announced that it will expedite hearing arguments regarding the ETS at a special session of the Court on Jan. 7, 2022.¹  This announcement comes on the heels of a rapid succession of litigation and court orders. In early November 2021, the Fifth Circuit had temporarily stayed implementation of the ETS, which was later lifted by the Sixth Circuit on Dec. 17. Almost immediately, plaintiffs challenging the ETS filed several requests with the Court asking the justices to order an emergency stay of the rule. Please review Bond’s Dec. 20, 2021 blog post for additional details.

Read More >> Supreme Court to Expedite Hearing on OSHA’s Vax or Test Mandate; Prepare for OSHA’s January 10 Deadline Now

On July 8, 2020, the Supreme Court analyzed the ministerial exception for employees who allege employment discrimination claims for the first time in nearly a decade when it issued its decision in Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru. The decision, which was issued in two combined cases on appeal before the Court, confirms the general principle under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that religious institutions must retain the right to select, supervise, and, if necessary, remove an employee who qualifies as a "minister" without interference by secular authorities. The Court construed the definition of “minister” broadly in holding that the ministerial exception applied to two teachers at religious schools who had filed employment discrimination claims pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) respectively.

Read More >> Supreme Court Applies "Ministerial Exception" to Teachers at Religious Schools

On June 15, 2020, the Supreme Court held in a monumental decision that an employer who discriminates against an employee or applicant based on that individual’s gender identity or sexual orientation violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Read More >> Landmark Supreme Court Decision Protects LGBTQIA+ Employees Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act

On June 3, 2019, the United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled in the case of Fort Bend County, Texas v. Davis that the requirement under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act ("Title VII") to file an administrative charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") is a non-jurisdictional claim-processing rule. In other words, the Court held that a plaintiff's failure to file an EEOC charge does not automatically preclude a federal court from exercising jurisdiction over the complaint; instead, an employer must "promptly" raise the defense that the plaintiff failed to satisfy the procedural requirement of filing an EEOC charge. An employer's failure to raise such a defense promptly could result in forfeiture of the defense, and a federal court may exercise jurisdiction over the complaint despite the plaintiff's failure to file an EEOC charge.

Read More >> U.S. Supreme Court Rules That Title VII's Requirement to File an EEOC Charge Before Commencing a Federal Court Lawsuit is Not a Jurisdictional Rule

As the end of the Supreme Court term in June approaches, Court-watchers watch their Twitter and news feeds on Mondays and Thursdays with bated breath.  And this past Monday, the news did not disappoint.  In a close 5-4 decision in Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, the Court ruled that the Federal Arbitration Act unequivocally provides parties the ability to enter into arbitration agreements requiring individual arbitration proceedings, such that employees waive their ability to bring or join a class action.  Likewise, the Court rejected the employees’ argument that Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act prohibits employees from waiving such class action rights.

Read More >> An Epic Decision for Employers on Employment Class Action Waivers

On April 2, the U.S. Supreme Court held, in Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, that service advisors at automobile dealerships are exempt from the overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  The Court was divided 5-4 on this issue, with Justice Thomas writing the opinion on behalf of the majority and Justice Ginsburg writing the opinion on behalf of the 4 dissenting Justices.  The Court reversed a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision, which found that service advisors were non-exempt employees who were eligible for overtime pay.

Read More >> U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Narrow Construction of FLSA Exemptions - April 2018