An important federal appeals court has clarified a key principle of antitrust law in a way that potentially makes it more difficult for an employer to win a motion to dismiss, and thereby avoid expensive discovery, with respect to company agreements that contain commonly used hiring restrictions.
President Biden is imminently expected to sign into law the “Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act” (the “Act”), which will have significant, immediate ramifications for employers who have entered into arbitration agreements with their employees.
As someone who has tried more than his share of cases, I have come to the conclusion that retaliation claims are often more difficult to defend than plain discrimination claims.
In a notable decision on June 3, 2021, the Supreme Court resolved a circuit split about the reach of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 (“CFAA”), a statute that allows for potential civil and criminal penalties against those who have “exceed[ed] authorized access” in obtaining and/or using information from company computer systems.
My colleagues and I have written much recently regarding governmental antitrust authorities’ review of no-poach conduct (for example, see here). But let us not forget the additional scrutiny such agreements can face in commercial litigation.
As many readers of this blog know, the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) allows employees to sue for overtime and minimum wage violations on behalf of themselves and those “similarly situated” in a “collective action.”