Work This Way: A Labor & Employment Law Podcast - Episode 31: Trade Secrets and Protecting Confidential Information with Jennie Cluverius of Maynard Nexsen
#WorkforceWednesday®: Staples Sued Over MA’s Lie Detector Notice, NJ’s Gender-Neutral Dress Code, 2024 Voting Leave Policies - Employment Law This Week®
Employment Law Now VIII-150 - The FTC Noncompete Rule is Dead: What Now?
Employment Law Now VIII-149 - Part 2 of 2: The Final Interview With EEOC Commissioner Keith Sonderling
(Podcast) California Employment News: Court Ruling Halts FTC’s Non-Compete Ban – Implications for Employers
#WorkforceWednesday®: What the FTC Non-Compete Ban Block Means for Employers - Employment Law This Week®
What's the Tea in L&E? Are "Furries" Protected in the Workplace?
Employment Law Now VIII-148- Part 1 of 2: The Final Interview With EEOC Commissioner Keith Sonderling
Back to School: 3 Essential Employee Trainings
The Chartwell Chronicles: New Jersey Attorney Fees
Work This Way: A Labor & Employment Law Podcast - Episode 30: Plaintiff Legal Trends with Paul Porter of Cromer, Babb & Porter
PODCAST: Williams Mullen's Benefits Companion - Employment Law Edition: The Latest on Non-Competes and Independent Contractors
The Burr Broadcast: OSHA Clarifies Work-Relatedness of Employee Injuries While Traveling
Labor Law Insider - Collective Bargaining: Ins and Outs, Nuts and Bolts, Part II
The Chartwell Chronicles: Employment Law Updates
Employment Law Now VIII-146 - Latest Update on FTC Non-Compete Ban Plus 3 Summer Reminders for Employers
Urgent Action on Restrictive Covenants: Employers Must Prepare for FTC Rules
#WorkforceWednesday® - State Legal Trends: Crucial Changes for Employers - Employment Law This Week®
California Employment News: Understanding the FTC Non-Compete Ban Key Insights for Employers
California Employment News: Understanding the FTC Non-Compete Ban Key Insights for Employers (Podcast)
The Supreme Court issued several momentous decisions last term that will have a lasting impact on employer practices. The Justices continued to shape the workplace law landscape by ruling on an array of issues involving...more
Over the past several years, employers have seen a significant uptick in retaliation claims filed by employees and investigated by federal agencies. For example, in 2010, only approx. 30% of all charges filed with the EEOC...more
The U.S. Supreme Court recently held that proving an employer’s retaliatory intent is not required for whistleblowers seeking protection under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. In Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, 144 S. Ct. 445 (2024),...more
Polska jest bliska przyjęcia przepisów o ochronie sygnalistów, czyli implementacji dyrektywy (UE) 2019/1937 z dnia 23 października 2019 r. w sprawie ochrony osób zgłaszających naruszenia prawa Unii. Projekt ustawy o ochronie...more
Poland is close to adopting provisions concerning whistleblower protection, namely the implementation of Directive (EU) 2019/1937 of 23 October 2019 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law. The draft of...more
Optimize your compliance program with a “speak up” workplace culture - Building an organizational culture that encourages employee reporting is key to compliance program success. When employees are comfortable voicing...more
The Abu Dhabi Global Market free zone (ADGM) is seeking public consultation on its proposals for a whistleblowing framework, which will lead to the introduction of Whistleblower Protections Regulations (the Regulations) and...more
This week we are attending the ABA Occupational Safety and Health Law Meeting in San Juan, Puerto Rico. The meeting includes representatives from the U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA Review Commission, the MSHA Review...more
In Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC the United States Supreme Court resolved a circuit split, holding that whistleblowers asserting retaliation claims under Sarbanes-Oxley must prove protected activity was a contributing factor...more
Welcome to this edition of the FP Snapshot on workplace safety, where we take a quick snapshot look at a recent significant workplace law development that affects your safety and health programs. This edition is devoted to...more
In Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, 601 U. S. ____, 2024 WL 478566 (2024), the United States Supreme Court (Sotomayor, J.) held that whistleblowers do not need to prove their employer acted with “retaliatory intent” to be...more
On February 8, 2024, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion in Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, 601 U.S. ___(2024), a case involving a former UBS employee’s claim that he was terminated for making an internal report...more
On February 8, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) unanimously ruled in Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC that employers can violate whistleblower protection statutes without evidence establishing retaliatory...more
In a unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the whistleblower protections of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act in the case, Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC et al. (February 8, 2024). The Supreme Court’s decision reaffirms an...more
The Background: In August 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held in Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC., et al. ("Murray") that an employee suing his employer under the anti-retaliation provisions of...more
Last week in a unanimous opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded that an employee who sued his former employer for retaliatory termination did not need to prove a retaliatory intent behind the decision. Murray v. UBS...more
The US Supreme Court ruled in Murray v. UBS Securities LLC that whistleblowers under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) need not prove retaliatory intent. This ruling is consistent with current precedent for Energy Reorganization...more
Outlined in part one of our series—SCOTUS Clarifies Whistleblower Claims Standard under Sarbanes Oxley—the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a federal court of appeals decision, resolving a recent federal appeals court split...more
On Feb. 8, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC that plaintiffs bringing whistleblower retaliation claims under Section 1514A of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 do not need to prove...more
On February 8, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States clarified the standard for proving causation under the whistleblower protection provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (the “Act”), easing the burden of proof employees...more
On February 8, 2024, in its Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC1 opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that a whistleblower pursuing a claim for retaliation under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“SOX”) does not need to...more
On February 8, 2024, the United States Supreme Court released a unanimous opinion confirming that a whistleblower does not need to show their employer’s actions were made with “retaliatory intent” to be protected under the...more
On February 8, 2024, the United States Supreme Court, in Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, issued a decision that expands the ability of whistleblowers to seek anti-retaliation protections under federal whistleblower laws....more
The Supreme Court just rejected an employer’s argument that a whistleblower needs to show the employer acted with retaliatory intent to prove retaliation under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX), a federal law that protects...more
On February 8, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, No. 22-660, holding that whistleblowers do not need to establish retaliatory intent on the part of their employers in order to prove a claim...more