Taking the Pulse, A Health Care and Life Sciences Video Podcast | Episode 210: Impacts of the Chevron Doctrine Ruling with Mark Moore and Michael Parente of Maynard Nexsen
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: The Demise of the Chevron Doctrine – Part II
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: The Demise of the Chevron Doctrine – Part I
In That Case: Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo
Regulatory Uncertainty: Benefits-Related Legal Challenges in a Post-Chevron World — Troutman Pepper Podcast
The End of Chevron Deference: Implications of the Supreme Court's Loper Bright Decision — The Consumer Finance Podcast
Down Goes Chevron: A 40-Year Precedent Overturned by the Supreme Court – Diagnosing Health Care
#WorkforceWednesday® - Chevron Deference Overturned - Employment Law This Week®
AGG Talks: Healthcare Insights Podcast - Episode 3: The Future of Agency Deference in Healthcare Regulation
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: Supreme Court Hears Two Cases in Which the Plaintiffs Seek to Overturn the Chevron Judicial Deference Framework: Who Will Win and What Does It Mean? Part II
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: Will Chevron Deference Survive in the U.S. Supreme Court? An Important Discussion to Hear in Advance of the January 17th Oral Argument
Podcast: Chevron Deference: Is It Time for Change? - Diagnosing Health Care
Are You a Foreign Agent? [More with McGlinchey, Ep. 21
Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 248: Listen and Learn -- Introduction to Homicide
VIDEO: Update on Third Party Workers’ Compensation Settlements in Pennsylvania
Jones Day Presents: Strategies for Dealing with the IRS: Alternative Dispute Resolution
Bill on Bankruptcy: Listening in the Dark at the NCBJ
'Gray Market' Lawyer: Congress Won't Change Copyright Laws
Ten days ahead of her self-imposed deadline, Judge Ada Brown of the Northern District of Texas issued a memorandum opinion and order granting the plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment, setting aside the Federal Trade...more
On June 28, 2024, in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, upending 40 years of judicial precedent holding that federal courts should defer to...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: The California Supreme Court held that PAGA does not apply to public entity employers....more
This month, the Supreme Court put an end to “Chevron deference,” the decades-long practice of judicial deference to federal agency interpretations of ambiguous statutory language. What does this mean for employers? Well,...more
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises et al. v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, Nos. 21-5166/22-1219, (June 28, 2024) overturning the Chevron doctrine left open the future...more
On June 28, the Supreme Court handed down Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which overturned the prior Supreme Court precedent, articulated in Chevron v. Natural Resource Defense Council, Inc. and known as “the Chevron...more
The Supreme Court’s June 28 decision to overrule the 40-year-old case of Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council should not be cause for alarm. ...more
Based upon a recent ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, federal regulatory agencies are no longer entitled to deference as to their interpretation of a statute that is ambiguous, and federal courts are now compelled to exercise...more
In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, the Supreme Court ended the Chevron Doctrine. While these cases did not directly involve the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), they...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: The New Jersey Supreme Court held that amendments to New Jersey’s Wage and Hour Law and Wage Payment Law that increase employer wage-hour liability are not retroactive....more
Is the exemption from coverage under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) for any “class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce” limited to workers whose employers are in the transportation industry? ...more
Executive Summary: On May 16, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Smith v. Spizzirri, holding that federal district courts have no discretion under Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“the FAA”) to dismiss a case once...more
On April 12, 2024, the United States Supreme Court ruled that an individual does not need to work directly in the transportation industry to be within the scope of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) exemption for...more
On April 12, 2024, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision that answers the question of whether the Federal Arbitration Act’s (FAA) exemption from arbitration for any “class of workers engaged in foreign or...more
On April 12, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed whether the Federal Arbitration Act’s (FAA) transportation exemption—meaning the FAA would not apply—only relates to workers within the transportation industry....more
Interpretation of the phrase “in use” as used in the Locomotive Inspection Act (LIA) continues to baffle courts across the country, including the Supreme Court of the United States. On April 28, 2022, the Supreme Court let...more
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) on April 4, 2022, handed down a decision with major implications for Massachusetts employers accused of wage-and-hour law violations or late payment of wages. In Reuter v. City...more
In Bourque v Insight Productions, 2022 ONSC 174, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (the “Court”) dismissed a proposed class proceeding for delay. The decision is noteworthy as it’s the first reported decision that...more
On June 23, 2021, in Charlton v. Ed Staub and Sons Petroleum, Inc. and Quicksilver Contracting Company, the Oregon Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s “aiding and abetting” discrimination and...more
On February 23, 2021, a unanimous Ninth Circuit panel held in the decision of Bernstein v. Virgin America Inc. (Case No. 19-15382) that employers are not subject to heightened penalties for subsequent violations under the...more
On December 31, 2020, the Oregon Supreme Court reversed the Oregon Court of Appeals’ decision in Mathis v. St. Helens Auto Center, Inc. and concluded that the “reasonable” attorney fee award permitted under ORS 652.200 cannot...more